Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ytz]

Is the overhead justified?
What is the serviceability rate like?
What is the call out rate like?

I support an armed force. But if we are going to start rejigging finance and social contracts then I want everything on the table.

And this right here is Exhibit A of the talk we're going to see when we have to make cuts across several programs to pay for higher defence spending.

Even the most pro-military people change their tune when their benefits are on the line.

 

[ytz]

Or we can solve our problems by finding more money from the sale of our resources to willing buyers.

1) Resources sales don't generate revenue for the federal government beyond normal activity.

2) Royalties go to provincial governments.

3) Expanding resource sales to very significant levels will take a lot longer than Trump's second term.

4) Some expansion may require subsidies which really doesn't make it a moneymaker in the short term.

There's no magical way around this. Prepare for the cuts in the next budget.

 

[PrairieFella]

My favourite comparison is Sweden. How the heck does that company produces so many globally recognized brands for a country of less than 11M? From ABBA to Volvo and IKEA to Saab?

Being one of the first to industrialize globally helps.

 

[ytz]

We have people that are in uniform that haven’t fired a live round in years if not decades. Not sure how expert they will be if I give them a new C8.

I'm a space guy. If you need me to fire a rifle at bad guys, we have bigger problems.....

Not that I don't appreciate range days. And I often volunteer to organize them. Just saying.

 

[Cloud Cover]

As General Leslie says here, Canada lies when it commits to 2% and in fact lies about what has even been committed. We are not going to 2%, the governments will tell the lie of committing and then lie by saying that they either would or wouldn’t spend 2%. And also- as noted in the link - the floor is apparently now potentially moving to 3%.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855026842802999676

 

[ytz]

@Quirky - yes, your points are also correct. However, if the maintenance org is anything like the aircrew operational org, some of those policies are rooted in good (sometimes legally required) intentions.

I think back to the FAR and the MALA, basically confirming that crews are good to go on mission. When the current (?) version came out in 2018 or so, we aircrew thought it was stupid because why do we need to have a form saying we’re good to fly? But upon further reflection (and I’m happy to be proven wrong by @SeaKingTacco and others still on the line sqns) it might have to do with documentation and records, which the CAF is notoriously bad at keeping. So if something goes wrong, the FAR and MALA can help document what happened and why.

@MJP - That pretty much hits exactly what I was getting at. There are people who think they know better than “nameless Ottawa staff officer” about what needs to be done, but won’t go to Ottawa.

To both - I have a personal example of people who I know blaming “someone in Ottawa” for a change, when I had a significant impact in said change. I tell them, and their eyes go wide a bit before I explain why it came down that way. But had they not spoken to me, they would continue blaming “Ottawa” for something they didn’t have all of the context.

Staff officer is also the bad guy because line guy sometimes ask to do dumb shit. I hated being the fun killer, but I was told by the general and ADM to kill your fun because they didn't want to answer to a Parliamentary inquiry when your fun went wrong.

An example. Got a request to approve a certain kind of pyrotechnic. Tough guy operator, "We used these all the time in theatre at low altitude. Why can't I do that here?" Me: "Cause the General isn't willing to take the same risk burning down the CLAWR. He didn't care as much if you burned an African village."

 

[Kirkhill]

Being one of the first to industrialize globally helps.

Also being neutral during WW2, selling bearings to both sides and maintaining a corporatist society. No recovery necessary.

One board of directors with rotating chairs and the King sits on all boards. German union model. German mindset --- The Danes say "It is not allowed" is the Swedish version of "Ordnung muss sein."

 

[ytz]

As General Leslie says here, Canada lies when it commits to 2% and in fact lies about what has even been committed. We are not going to 2%, the governments will tell the lie of committing and then lie by saying that they either would or wouldn’t spend 2%. And also- as noted in the link - the floor is apparently now potentially moving to 3%.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855026842802999676

To be really fair, a lot of NATO lies like us. And the NATO definitions have been changed to even facilitate some of this. And honestly I don't think the Americans even care, as long as the US Defence Industry gets their cut and dependence on the US is reduced a bit.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We have people that are in uniform that haven’t fired a live round in years if not decades. Not sure how expert they will be if I give them a new C8.

We are likely bleeding experts because we have poor value.

I’m sure you have noticed we need the people and we haven’t been doing that great on that front.

Serious question. Is the CAF in its current state value for the money we spend on it?

Before we even think about value for money and the CAF the PS needs to be first in line for 'adjustment'.

Now there is a bloated, wasteful black hole that is morbidly obese.

 

[Remius]

Before we even think about value for money and the CAF the PS needs to be first in line for 'adjustment'.

Now there is a bloated, wasteful black hole that is morbidly obese.

Well if we want to increase defence spending cuts will have to come from somewhere. But adjustments can easily be done concurrently.

Although if Canada decides that other problems in the world shouldn’t be our problems then we probably don’t need to increase CAF spending. Just reallocate things to create a giant home guard with eyes to the North.

 

[Kirkhill]

In 2023, the real GDP of Canada was around 1.89 trillion Canadian dollars at 2017 constant prices.Jul 31, 2024

1,890,000,000,000 CAD GDP
2%
37,800,000,000 CAD Defence
20%
7,560,000,000 CAD Hardware

Fastest route back to favour. Start buying hardware. NATO standard gear. Preferably American. Or at least the same stuff the Yanks are buying. Buy whatever is available in this calendar year. Next year start filling in the blanks and correcting the errors.

Restock the regs. Donate it to the Ukrainians. Put it in storage. In Canada or Europe or Japan. Let the reserves play with it. Whatever.

You won't have a well trained force. But you will have the stuff with which the force can operate. Then you can start working on your crewing and training issues. You will also figure out what is possible with part timers and what demands reg force attention.

Start with the 25 year plan and use that as a buying guide. If stuff for 2040 is available today and the stuff for today isn't available until next year then buy that 2040 kit now.

We need everything anyway.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My favourite comparison is Sweden. How the heck does that company produces so many globally recognized brands for a country of less than 11M? From ABBA to Volvo and IKEA to Saab?

Another great example!

 

[RangerRay]

Yep.

The problem with isolationism is that someone will come in to fill the void. When the UK pulled back at least the US stepped in. I have no doubt that China will step in further than it already is.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favour of diversifying trade, just not with a totalitarian regime with a shitty human rights record.

 

[Remius]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favour of diversifying trade, just not with a totalitarian regime with a shitty human rights record.

And that is where values and interests conflict. In an ever shrinking western values world we may not have a choice.

 

[Good2Golf]

PS. For those trying to read this chart. A third of those "operating expenses" is the defence budget already.

Nope.

Check you’re numbers.

DND is 1/4 (28/120B).

Federal Public Serbice salaries…1/2…60/120B.


Feel free to check the numbers in the Government’s official website: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-b...re-plan-main-estimates/2024-25-estimates.html

 

[Kirkhill]

The UK Labour Party is in full "Curry Favour" mode.

Trump comeback to trigger defence spending boost by Starmer

Move will be seen as an olive branch to incoming US president

www.telegraph.co.uk

Sir Keir Starmer is set to reveal plans to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP within weeks of Donald Trump taking office, The Telegraph understands.

The long-awaited timetable for increasing UK military spending is expected to be announced in the spring as Labour looks to build a relationship with the incoming US president.

The move would be seen as an olive branch to Mr Trump, who for years has railed against European allies for riding on the coat-tails of US defence spending and called for more contributions.

John Healey, the Defence Secretary, used an interview with The Telegraph to declare the Government “will always do what’s necessary to defend the country”, saying a “path” to 2.5 per cent GDP spending was on its way.

Government insiders, Labour grandees and defence industry sources have all told The Telegraph they expect the timetable for hitting 2.5 per cent to be unveiled in spring 2025, just weeks after Mr Trump enters the White House in January.

It would follow the completion of the strategic defence review and potentially come alongside the announcements for the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) budgets for 2027 and 2028.

While the exact date for when Britain would hit 2.5 per cent has not been decided, Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, called for Sir Keir to hit the target by 2028 and then go even further to reach 3 per cent by 2030.

No 10 – along with leaders across the world – is scrambling to map out the implications of Mr Trump’s return to the White House in January after victory in the US presidential election this week.

Downing Street has ordered officials to provide advice on the impact of a Trump presidency on the UK economy, the Ukraine war and the conflict in the Middle East.

The entire Cabinet gathered in the Foreign Office on Friday for a long-planned “away day” on political issues. Past Labour criticism of Mr Trump could complicate attempts to forge strong personal ties.

Mr Healey told The Telegraph: “This is a Government that will always do what’s necessary to defend the country, and will always do what’s necessary for defence and the Armed Forces. And we’re also a Government that will set a path to 2.5 per cent of GDP.”

Mr Wallace said: “Three per cent by 2030 is the only way we will maintain our leadership and deliver a modern Armed Forces. The 2.5 per cent level should be a staging post on that trajectory and should be delivered by 2028.”

A government spokesman said: “This Government is clear-eyed about the threats we face, with the world becoming more volatile and technology changing the nature of warfare.”

 

[ytz]

Nope.

Check you’re numbers.

DND is 1/4 (28/120B).

Federal Public Serbice salaries…1/2…60/120B.


Feel free to check the numbers in the Government’s official website: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-b...re-plan-main-estimates/2024-25-estimates.html

Thank you for the correction.

My point here was largely that most of the government budget is transfers that are spoken for. Yes there's fat in the ops budget. But not as much as possible imagine. This means cuts or tax increases to pay for the larger defence budget. And that comes on top of a $40B deficit. I want to dispel the idea that we can simply cut and repurpose $60-70B in ops spending with no impact at all on other transfers or tax increases.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile the new Labour Minister of Defence is having his own "Come to Jesus" moment.

Defence Secretary: ‘The Russian conflict led my son to join the Army. Now this is personal to me’

John Healey on facing an ‘era of insecurity’ and why Trump’s presidency won’t impact Labour’s strategy on the Armed Forces

www.telegraph.co.uk

... Born in 1960 in Wakefield, Healey studied social and political science at Christ’s College, Cambridge and before entering politics worked at charities campaigning for disabled people.

In Tony Blair’s government he held a series of junior ministerial roles but never in foreign policy or defence. Before Sir Keir Starmer gave him the shadow defence brief in 2020, he was shadow housing secretary.

Not much of a military background.

But... His son joined up.

Healey’s son Alex, in his late twenties, is now an infantryman in the Army reserves, the Defence Secretary reveals.

“Not something I’ve talked about before. But in fact, it was Ukraine. So when Putin went in, in February 2022, the next day we were having lunch together and he said to me, ‘Dad, if I were Ukrainian, I’d join up today.’ And it was very soon after that he came to me and to his mum and said, ‘I want to join up. I want to be a reservist.’ That’s what he’s done.”

Healey, whose wife, Jackie, works as his office manager, says Alex is driven by a desire to defend his country.

“It’s a bit old-fashioned, but he’ll talk about King and Country. It’s a recognition that there is something fundamentally important about our country and what we stand for that he wants to help defend.

“I don’t think you can talk to anyone in uniform, reservist or full-time, who would not say that at the heart of their motivation and commitment is service.”

Healey continues: “He does his day job, and then the reserve makes demands that his day job and his day-to-day life simply doesn’t. Physical demands, time, of course, emotional, but in a way also it’s a higher commitment.

“I can understand better the feeling of the families of those who… I hope it doesn’t happen, but if necessary, I will have as Defence Secretary to commit to conflicts where they may be at risk.”

Labour politicians are not generally associated with patriotism. As the lad's Mum said, it's a bit old fashioned as far as they are concerned.

I think he may be teaching Mum and Dad a bit as well.

....

Meanwhile, Dad had a visit to Kyiv where he learnt this:

In May, before Rishi Sunak called the general election, Healey visited Kyiv, on a trip that informed his views on the imperatives of defence: technological and industrial capacity, and the armed forces’ reliance on those not in uniform. The trip included a visit to a weapons factory.

“Two things [were] particularly striking there: many of those working had been forced to flee from the east of Ukraine, and so their contribution to supporting their families that were still on the front line was to try and make the equipment that would protect them, that would allow them to fight the Russians back.

“And the second thing was that they were saying, essentially, the life cycle of technology on the front line is about two months now. Within two months of Ukrainians creating manufacturing, putting new drones in the hands of their frontline forces, the Russians will find a way of countering them. So the pace of innovation, of manufacture, as well as the sort of whole commitment of society behind it is absolutely essential.”

 

[Kirkhill]

1) Resources sales don't generate revenue for the federal government beyond normal activity.

2) Royalties go to provincial governments.

3) Expanding resource sales to very significant levels will take a lot longer than Trump's second term.

4) Some expansion may require subsidies which really doesn't make it a moneymaker in the short term.

There's no magical way around this. Prepare for the cuts in the next budget.

$53 billion to Ottawa: The Alberta oil and gas sector’s contribution to federal government finances, 2007 to 2019 - Canadian Energy Centre

Oil and gas sector provided more than $4 billion annually to Alberta’s total contribution to federal finances over 13-year period.

www.canadianenergycentre.ca

and

https://www.capp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/The-Economic-Impact-of-Canadian-Oil-and-Gas.pdf

The impact of the oil and gas extraction sector on Alberta’s net fiscal contribution to federal finances is determined by the direct and indirect taxes that the sector pays to the federal government annually. They include:

1. Federal personal income taxes, or direct taxes from persons, paid by employees who work directly within Alberta’s oil and gas extraction sector;

2. Federal corporate taxes, or direct taxes from corporations, paid by corporations and business enterprises in Alberta’s oil and gas extraction sector;

3. Federal taxes on production and taxes on products (i.e., GST, excise taxes, duties, import taxes, air transportation tax, gasoline and motive fuel taxes, etc.), or indirect taxes paid by the oil and gas extraction sector in Alberta.

• In total, the sector contributed a minimum of nearly $53 billion of Alberta’s $561 billion total revenue contribution to federal finances (an average of nearly $4.1 billion per year) or 9 per cent of Alberta’s gross revenue contribution over the period;
• The $53 billion was 19 per cent of Alberta’s total net fiscal contribution over the period;
• The $53 billion figure is understated as it does not include indirect federal taxes on production and taxes on products (i.e., GST, excise taxes, duties, import taxes, air transportation tax, gasoline and motive fuel taxes, etc.) that the oil and gas extraction sector in Alberta paid over the period.

...

Sell more. Make more. Spend more.

 

[ytz]

$53 billion to Ottawa: The Alberta oil and gas sector’s contribution to federal government finances, 2007 to 2019 - Canadian Energy Centre

Oil and gas sector provided more than $4 billion annually to Alberta’s total contribution to federal finances over 13-year period.

www.canadianenergycentre.ca

...

Sell more. Make more. Spend more.

Exactly what I said:

1) Resources sales don't generate revenue for the federal government beyond normal activity.

Take a guess how much resource activity you'll need to close a $60-70B budget gap (between the current deficit and added defence spending demands).