Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[McG]

So the promise is 2% in 2 years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-spending-two-percent-defence-spending-target-1.7440870

 

[Fabius]

That’s the headline but it’s not borne out in the actual article or MND’s comments.

Saying it’s achievable if the government finds the money, while not changing the official timetable is not a promise, it’s a maybe. Might be good messaging, under promising and over delivering sort of thing but that’s it.

Deeds not words.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So the promise is 2% in 2 years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-spending-two-percent-defence-spending-target-1.7440870

 

[foresterab]

When I think of the current state and effectiveness I'm often reminded of the lead time needed to stand up and equip forces.

Even under WW2 standards destroyers often took 2 years to build from order time to initial launch. So for the RCN it needs to be large enough to not only be mission capable but also able to maintain the mission in the face of ship losses until such time as new construction can take place. Are we building for the minimum mission fleet or is it time to add more hulls to the build cue for spares?

For the RCAF there is both the training time for pilots and support staff and the time to roll new air frames off the assembly plant. Considering we're looking still at a couple of years out for F-35's in operational service it again speaks to the need to have enough airframes to absorb losses/expand operations on relatively short notice.

When it comes to the Army I'm more mixed...some things like a new assault rifle should not be a multi-year delay for new production to make for new recruits. Training for privates should not take years. Armoured vehicles...especially tanks and specialty artillery...different story.

So if Canada is going to invest I'd rather we focus on items that the following:
1) Not theater specific fleets. i.e. I favour the M1 Abrams as its' used both in Asia and Europe over the Leopard tank. Sure have a depot for fly over manning in Latvia but don't make that the only fleet.
2) Needs to not just be a speed bump force in being but a force multiplier. Hello long range artillery, hospitals (good for both military and civilian support), Air Defence (battlefield or rear area as needed), Special Forces.
3) demonstrated capacity to fill not only the CAF needs for items but start supplying other countries. Compete with the US on being a potential supplier - at a reduced scale - war materials like artillery shells, trucks, artic equipment
4) Provide enough mass of force/presence to truly sit at the big kids table. The CAF is not in that place today but does the story change if the Latvia force can be doubled by crash deployment of trained soldiers from Canada hitting a second set of equipment (aka REFORGER?).

Regardless of what is done there also has be the ability to use it. So while the RCN may like expeditionary missions tied to US fleets (no idea...navy guys seem to only tell stories of port visits to me) the missions like CARRIBBE in counter narcotics also serve a huge joint security value. The role of RCN vessels assisting with Hurricane Dorian? in 2006 shows the ability to respond to the unexpected and is a different mission than scraping the fleet for manpower to man a ship with large advance notice.

For the RCAF I think of the maritime patrol work and NORAD interception flights which jointly ensure both our national security and show we can be trusted. The purchase of the C-17's so Canada didn't have to wait for US or Ukraine airlift to go some place (although I wish we had more C-17s).

For the Army...JTF2 seems to be doing okay. The regular force units are sliding in part to gear wearing out and the lack of full manpower creating more and more ad-hoc units to form the mass is tough (my perception). Some great motivated men and women but the lack of gear to fulfill the mission let alone train makes it tough to show their as capable as we want them to be.

A discussion at work today was around the role of drones and airspace defense. Drones on wildfires are a huge issue and have lead to many instances of all aircraft being grounded due to helicopter safety. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/super-scooper-drone-collision-la-fire-canada-hnk-intl/index.html is the last one I know of. But when I think of the fires near communities in recent years it's been an increasing problem...and also a great training opportunitiy for air defense batteries in the CAF to try to neutralize them. The CAF reporting that while aiding a civilian agency shut down illegal drone operations at least shows it's being considered/practiced for battlefield tactics vs our current capacity of ???? (I'm not even sure we have capacity).

All I know is that some fast changes need to occur that are both long term effective (bases are a good start) and can provide short term political wins.

 

[RangerRay]

So are the Yanks going to increase their defence budget to 5% of GDP? I’ve heard the demand that other NATO countries should increase to 5%, but not a commitment from our southern neighbours.

 

[KevinB]

So are the Yanks going to increase their defence budget to 5% of GDP? I’ve heard the demand that other NATO countries should increase to 5%, but not a commitment from our southern neighbours.

Well given we have borne the costs of others laziness for 50+ years, and our Military dwarfs the rest of NATO, I tend to doubt it.

5% is more due to nearly every other NATO Military has let their capabilities go, and shrank their militaries.

5% isn’t a number that many economies could sustain for a prolonged period, but enough at around 5 years Chine and Russia would be reeling their necks in tight.

 

[Fabius]

So are the Yanks going to increase their defence budget to 5% of GDP? I’ve heard the demand that other NATO countries should increase to 5%, but not a commitment from our southern neighbours.

The US also has a proven track record of increasing defence spending to that level.

They sustained over 4.5% from 2008- 2012, hitting a high of 4.90% in 2009. They also maintained around 6% though the entire 1980s.

I have no doubt that if they assessed that they needed to they would spend 5% without question.

 

[OldSolduer]

Well given we have borne the costs of others laziness for 50+ years, and our Military dwarfs the rest of NATO, I tend to doubt it.

5% is more due to nearly every other NATO Military has let their capabilities go, and shrank their militaries.

5% isn’t a number that many economies could sustain for a prolonged period, but enough at around 5 years Chine and Russia would be reeling their necks in tight.

Peace dividend ......what a crock that was.

 

[DBNSG]

Peace dividend ......what a crock that was.

A dividend spent over and over and over, so much so, that it feels like the Government has been trying to turn the Military into
just another Public service department. With Boots.

 

[MilEME09]

Even if we got the money, without serious reform to TB, procurement and DND, we can't spend it effectively or on time. We need 5 year procurement not 10+ years.

 

[Good2Golf]

Even if we got the money, without serious reform to TB, procurement and DND, we can't spend it effectively or on time. We need 5 year procurement not 10+ years.

There’s no ‘reform’ needed. TB is five cabinet ministers acting on the PM’s order. ‘Do it!’ = things like C-17, C-130, CH-147D/F, CH-178, Leopard 2, etc. in less than a year.

 

[McG]

Even if we got the money, without serious reform to TB, procurement and DND, we can't spend it effectively or on time. We need 5 year procurement not 10+ years.

DND & CAF can spend more money. Yes, too many procurements slip late, but they also buy quantities too small because they are budget constrained. We experience stock-outs and park vehicles for lack of parts in many cases because supply managers are trying to do more smaller procurements to fit inside annual funding. We have a 10 year plan to get half way to the ammo stocks required on the first day of a war because that is what fits the budget.
We should double ADM(Mat)’s sustainment budget starting with the new FY in April. Just accept that a lot of that budget will slip for the first few years as the organization grows into it. But at least the purchases will be in the quantities the institution needs. There would be immediate benefits to readiness.
Also note that equipment is supposed to be 20% of the defence budget (also an agreed NATO metric) or 0.4% of GDP. Canada is spending below half of what it should be spending on equipment, but equipment spending alone will not get Canada to its commitment.

 

[KevinB]

DND & CAF can spend more money. Yes, too many procurements slip late, but they also buy quantities too small because they are budget constrained. We experience stock-outs and park vehicles for lack of parts in many cases because supply managers are trying to do more smaller procurements to fit inside annual funding. We have a 10 year plan to get half way to the ammo stocks required on the first day of a war because that is what fits the budget.
We should double ADM(Mat)’s sustainment budget starting with the new FY in April. Just accept that a lot of that budget will slip for the first few years as the organization grows into it. But at least the purchases will be in the quantities the institution needs. There would be immediate benefits to readiness.
Also note that equipment is supposed to be 20% of the defence budget (also an agreed NATO metric) or 0.4% of GDP. Canada is spending below half of what it should be spending on equipment, but equipment spending alone will not get Canada to its commitment.

Part of that is also the way the CAF costs things.

Capital Equipment is supposed to be 20%
That means just the equipment. NOT THE CREWS OR MAINTENANCE ETC FOR THR LIFESPAN OF THE ITEM.

O&M would be covering the maintenance and operational usage costs. O&M should be separate as operational use can drive costs significantly as opppsed to the item being used by a peacetime reserve unit (for example).

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Also, sole-source MOTS should be the rule, not the exception in most cases.

Other nations have done a pretty robust OT&E, we aren't as distinct or special as Ottawa thinks we are. Place an order, get kit to troops, wash, rinse, and repeat.

 

[YZT580]

There’s no ‘reform’ needed. TB is five cabinet ministers acting on the PM’s order. ‘Do it!’ = things like C-17, C-130, CH-147D/F, CH-178, Leopard 2, etc. in less than a year.

Think that one through before suggesting it. Do you really want Boissonnault, Guilbeault and the like deciding on your equipment for the next 20 years. I would have thought you had learnt your lesson when we bought helicopters.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Also, sole-source MOTS should be the rule, not the exception in most cases.

Other nations have done a pretty robust OT&E, we aren't as distinct or special as Ottawa thinks we are. Place an order, get kit to troops, wash, rinse, and repeat.

Thank you! This 100000000000 times.

 

[FJAG]

Part of that is also the way the CAF costs things.

Capital Equipment is supposed to be 20%
That means just the equipment. NOT THE CREWS OR MAINTENANCE ETC FOR THR LIFESPAN OF THE ITEM.

O&M would be covering the maintenance and operational usage costs. O&M should be separate as operational use can drive costs significantly as opppsed to the item being used by a peacetime reserve unit (for example).

I actually don't see anything wrong with the basic costing per se. One should have a good understanding of what the life cycle, peacetime costs of a given system are for downstream budgeting.

It does lack transparency though in that there isn't a breakdown of those costs reported publicly so that one can easily see the cost's various components through the project's life cycle. I sometimes wonder how deep those breakdowns go outside the project management office and the various bean counters involved, especially as to tracking the actual costs to the predicted ones. The one capital project which I did for JAG as PD certainly had all those breakdowns within our project office albeit there was little interest amongst the "client" once the project funds and associated PYs were allocated. I think it would be fairly easy for DND to accurately report the % spent on actual equipment acquisition in a given year, if it wanted to. I can only presume (perhaps over optimistically) that those statistics are available internally.

I think one of the problems is that subsequent annual O&M budgets are allocated from the centre without necessarily protecting the amounts previously allocated for the various given systems. The amounts allocated are more fluid from year to year (and perhaps serendipitous) leaving the L1s to allocate and reallocate their O&M budgets against ever changing competing priorities. Again going back to a gunner perspective, the costs associated with operating both M109s and ADATS towards the end were considered too expensive which ought not to have been an issue if the systems' life cycle O&M costs had been properly predicted and built into continuing O&M allocations from the centre. Competing views of the equipment's continued value in a restructured CAF/CA with different mission sets also play a role.

 

[dapaterson]

The more you demand transparency and public reporting the more you demand bureaucratic staff to do that work. There needs to be a balance.

 

[McG]

Part of that is also the way the CAF costs things.

Capital Equipment is supposed to be 20%
That means just the equipment. NOT THE CREWS OR MAINTENANCE ETC FOR THR LIFESPAN OF THE ITEM.

O&M would be covering the maintenance and operational usage costs. O&M should be separate as operational use can drive costs significantly as opppsed to the item being used by a peacetime reserve unit (for example).

We don’t account for operators or maintenance personnel under equipment. O&M is user level expense, and most (if not all) would be operating expenses and not equipment.

NP is systems, sub-systems, sub-assemblies, and nationally procured spare & replacement parts. NP is equipment.

Where we may differ from other NATO nations is of the inclusion of project staff for major projects. But those costs are included in our projects as a result of media & opposition party railing against DND “hiding” the true costs of acquiring equipment.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I actually don't see anything wrong with the basic costing per se. One should have a good understanding of what the life cycle, peacetime costs of a given system are for downstream budgeting.

Understanding to influence the purchase decision and inform downstream operating budgets is one (critically important) thing. Incorporating into purchase cost is one malignantly dishonest other. The cost of operators, consumables, maintainers, and parts is NOT the cost of a plane/ship/tank. Its the cost of having a functioning airforce/navy/army. The only reason to reframe it as the former is an insidious attempt to subconciously shape the discussion to include the "none of the above" alternative.