I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Points
- 1,140
Do things right vs do the right thing. There is a time and a place to do the right thing even if it means not doing things right. That’s the difference between a leader and a manager.
- Reaction score
- 4,817
- Points
- 1,160
The Globe and Mail editorializes about Pierre Poilievre's dilemma:
Canada has about a half-decade to rebuild its military to face emerging challenges from Russia and China, including advanced intercontinental missiles, the country’s top soldier told reporters last week.
“I say we have about five years to get us close enough to be ready to counter those long-range type of threats,” General Jennie Carignan said as she formally assumedthe role of Chief of the Defence Staff.
Her predecessor, Gen. Wayne Eyre, had a similar analysis, warning that the “peak threat to the world” is likely to emerge by the end of this decade.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the Liberals would boost Canada’s spending on defence to 2 per cent of gross domestic product by 2032, with details to come in 2028, to meet the current minimum agreed upon by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (Pressure from the United States on NATO allies to spend more is growing, and will grow even more intense if Donald Trump retakes the White House.)
As this space has previously argued, the Liberals’ strategy is mostly vapourware. But filling the defence gap may not be up to the Liberals. If current polling trends hold, the Conservatives will be in office during those critical five years. So what are the Conservatives proposing?
For the moment, the Tories are heavy on a critique of the failures of the Trudeau Liberals but light on details of what they might do differently. And, for the moment, that’s fair – after all, the job of the Official Opposition is to oppose.
But as next year’s election draws closer, the party will need to spell out its defence policy. It’s clear what that policy should be: a concrete commitment to hit the 2-per-cent mark by the end of its scheduled term in office in 2029. Such a plan would need to come with a strategy both on how to spend additional billions of dollars, and how those expenditures would be funded.
In that context, there are mildly – but only mildly – encouraging signs from the opposition benches.
The Conservatives said earlier this month that they would “make real and credible efforts to work towards meeting our NATO spending commitments” after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement of the 2032 goal.
If that statement was meant to be a contrast to the Liberals’ detail-light promise, it failed. Instead, the Conservatives indulged in the same non-committal word salad as their opponents. (Supporters of the Liberals might like to think that Mr. Trudeau’s 2032 pledge is more substantial. It is not.)
A day later, however, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was more substantive when pressed by reporters on his plan for NATO.
First, Mr. Poilievre said he does not want to make a promise that he cannot keep. It is both a simple yet sadly necessary statement, given Mr. Trudeau’s propensity for ethereal plans. Federal finances are “a dumpster fire,” he said, adding that he wants to ensure he has “done all the math” before committing to a plan. The math will be complicated by Mr. Poilievre’s pledge to eliminate the federal budget deficit.
Underneath the obvious rhetoric, there is a worthwhile point: a future government needs to ensure it has the fiscal capacity to fund the considerable expense of rebuilding Canada’s military. Mr. Poilievre offered up a limited menu of possibilities: cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues.
All of that will come nowhere near to funding the $20-billion (and rising) in additional annual defence spending required. There are, however, possibilities that would be in keeping with Conservative priorities: Reducing the swollen civil service could save billions of dollars a year; and eliminating inefficient subsidies to business could save tens of billions of dollars, as this space has previously said.
Mr. Poilievre, however, has flagged that he will act to speed up procurement, by emphasizing speed of acquisition and value for money over domestic sourcing. Too often, the emphasis on domestic suppliers has devolved into little more than regional pork-barrelling.
The Conservatives have an opportunity to outflank the Liberals on defence, and to demonstrate that they take security concerns more seriously than their rivals. But criticism is not enough. To fully exploit that opportunity, Mr. Poilievre will need to spell out his battle plan to Canadians.
The Good Grey Globe is right:
1. Getting Canada's fiscal house in order is an absolutely essential precondition to making Canada's defences shipshape, again. It will also be a painful one and I suspect that a majority of Canadians are going to howl with rage. If M Poilievre acts on the budget the way I and some other conservatives hope then he may well be a one term PM; and
2. That's because getting both a balanced budget and $20 Billion+ more for the military requires. more than just "cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues." It requires serious rethinks to both the income (tax) and expenditure envelopes and everything except the carbon tax - every 'entitlement" in other words - needs to be on the table.
----------
Pierre Poilievre needs to do more than play offence on defence policy
THE EDITORIAL BOARDCanada has about a half-decade to rebuild its military to face emerging challenges from Russia and China, including advanced intercontinental missiles, the country’s top soldier told reporters last week.
“I say we have about five years to get us close enough to be ready to counter those long-range type of threats,” General Jennie Carignan said as she formally assumedthe role of Chief of the Defence Staff.
Her predecessor, Gen. Wayne Eyre, had a similar analysis, warning that the “peak threat to the world” is likely to emerge by the end of this decade.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the Liberals would boost Canada’s spending on defence to 2 per cent of gross domestic product by 2032, with details to come in 2028, to meet the current minimum agreed upon by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (Pressure from the United States on NATO allies to spend more is growing, and will grow even more intense if Donald Trump retakes the White House.)
As this space has previously argued, the Liberals’ strategy is mostly vapourware. But filling the defence gap may not be up to the Liberals. If current polling trends hold, the Conservatives will be in office during those critical five years. So what are the Conservatives proposing?
For the moment, the Tories are heavy on a critique of the failures of the Trudeau Liberals but light on details of what they might do differently. And, for the moment, that’s fair – after all, the job of the Official Opposition is to oppose.
But as next year’s election draws closer, the party will need to spell out its defence policy. It’s clear what that policy should be: a concrete commitment to hit the 2-per-cent mark by the end of its scheduled term in office in 2029. Such a plan would need to come with a strategy both on how to spend additional billions of dollars, and how those expenditures would be funded.
In that context, there are mildly – but only mildly – encouraging signs from the opposition benches.
The Conservatives said earlier this month that they would “make real and credible efforts to work towards meeting our NATO spending commitments” after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement of the 2032 goal.
If that statement was meant to be a contrast to the Liberals’ detail-light promise, it failed. Instead, the Conservatives indulged in the same non-committal word salad as their opponents. (Supporters of the Liberals might like to think that Mr. Trudeau’s 2032 pledge is more substantial. It is not.)
A day later, however, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was more substantive when pressed by reporters on his plan for NATO.
First, Mr. Poilievre said he does not want to make a promise that he cannot keep. It is both a simple yet sadly necessary statement, given Mr. Trudeau’s propensity for ethereal plans. Federal finances are “a dumpster fire,” he said, adding that he wants to ensure he has “done all the math” before committing to a plan. The math will be complicated by Mr. Poilievre’s pledge to eliminate the federal budget deficit.
Underneath the obvious rhetoric, there is a worthwhile point: a future government needs to ensure it has the fiscal capacity to fund the considerable expense of rebuilding Canada’s military. Mr. Poilievre offered up a limited menu of possibilities: cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues.
All of that will come nowhere near to funding the $20-billion (and rising) in additional annual defence spending required. There are, however, possibilities that would be in keeping with Conservative priorities: Reducing the swollen civil service could save billions of dollars a year; and eliminating inefficient subsidies to business could save tens of billions of dollars, as this space has previously said.
Mr. Poilievre, however, has flagged that he will act to speed up procurement, by emphasizing speed of acquisition and value for money over domestic sourcing. Too often, the emphasis on domestic suppliers has devolved into little more than regional pork-barrelling.
The Conservatives have an opportunity to outflank the Liberals on defence, and to demonstrate that they take security concerns more seriously than their rivals. But criticism is not enough. To fully exploit that opportunity, Mr. Poilievre will need to spell out his battle plan to Canadians.
----------
The Good Grey Globe is right:
1. Getting Canada's fiscal house in order is an absolutely essential precondition to making Canada's defences shipshape, again. It will also be a painful one and I suspect that a majority of Canadians are going to howl with rage. If M Poilievre acts on the budget the way I and some other conservatives hope then he may well be a one term PM; and
2. That's because getting both a balanced budget and $20 Billion+ more for the military requires. more than just "cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues." It requires serious rethinks to both the income (tax) and expenditure envelopes and everything except the carbon tax - every 'entitlement" in other words - needs to be on the table.
- Reaction score
- 1,460
- Points
- 1,140
Its not really different at all from 1984 when Mulroney was faced with a similar task thanks to the fiscal handcuffs Trudeau the Elder had put on the country.
Immediate component transfer of the excess ones, as it would be completely unfair to just toss them out - Public Service to Canadian Armed Forces.
- Reaction score
- 15,690
- Points
- 1,280
Nothing gives me more confidence than a bunch of people with weapons who don’t want to be there.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,609
- Points
- 1,210
What is Maple Resolve Alex?
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,843
- Points
- 1,010
I don't know about you folks, but the public servants I see daily would not be fit for service. Mostly middle aged sedentary people with no interest in what service in the CAF would entail. As far as cutting the PS, there is significant bloat in a lot of bullshit directorates (mainly NCR). Frontline services from what I can tell are pretty thin.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,609
- Points
- 1,210
The Mulroney government put a lot of effort into its Defence White Paper, and I still have my copy buried in a box somewhere in one of three locations.
There's a foreword from Perrin Beatty - the absolute best Defence Minister in my time - in it, in which he mentions discussions with a number of Junior Officers during his visits to Lahr.
These discussions took place in the Black Forest Officers' Mess (I still have my faded and tattered membership card in my wallet 3.5 decades after my departure) during two Friday night Happy Hours, so our responses to his questions were quite, um, "frank and honest". He asked excellent questions, was visibly attentive during our responses, and asked carefully-considered supplemental questions in return. He was bright, interested, and keen. We were all impressed.
And seeing ourselves thus mentioned was a unique feeling.
We were somewhat optimistic, but nobody believed in the slightest that we would get any of the twelve nuclear submarines promised therein, or more than a fraction of the five hundred (if I remember correctly) tanks, etcetera. It still felt like somebody cared, though, which was nice.
4 CMBG put a massive effort into this as well, with several dog-and-pony shows for MPs, which saw all types of vehicles and their crews all bombed up to war levels using live ammunition, and the visiting MPs were given the chance to experience loading M109s etcetera using practice ammunition, ride around in jam-packed M113s and Leopards, and get short but non-tactical flights in our Kiowas. BGen Lalonde, Comd 4 CMBG, wanted them all to understand our roles and conditions as thoroughly as possible.
It didn't last too long, sadly. All of the promised equipment programmes were cancelled on the same day, less the Canadian Forces Light Helicopter (CFLH) programme - the stagnating Kiowa replacement programme. It survived for one more day, as it had been overlooked in the initial bloodbath.
Training budgets were slashed as well.
Instead of all of that, we got the rainbow uniforms of the DEU programme - no money for ammunition, fuel, and parts, but loads for useless bling.
Likewise, the Harper government lost interest towards the end of our Afghan effort, with a return to obsolete rank insignia, coloured hats, and renaming of environmental commands after deceased former Services as an expensive and confusing consolation/distraction.
Both made lots of promises to firearms owners as well, strung us along for votes, and reneged on everything.
Treatment by both parties has been almost indistinguishable, less the bitter taste of betrayal from one.
And I see, in another thread, that the uniform madness continues, despite more pressing needs. Sam Browne belts? Really? Pith helmets and swagger sticks for all, Hurrah!!!
Never, ever get your hopes up more than a fraction of zero.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,389
- Points
- 1,260
What are these weapon things?
- Reaction score
- 4,817
- Points
- 1,160
Sadly, too much of Mr Beatty's White paper was written by a cabal of retired military folks who gathered at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto. Their hearts were in the right place but they, very intentionally, sad to say, did NOT consult experts in Ottawa on issues like cost and engineering capabilities. They (I knew one of them quite well) didn't trust us or our professional judgement.
- Reaction score
- 4,817
- Points
- 1,160
I remain convinced that the highlighted bit was because then MND Peter Mackay had a case of 'Stockholm Syndrome.' He became a willing participant in the admirals' and generals' efforts to ignore Prime Minister Harper's quite clear orders to make some specific cuts to the defence programme. Harper's response was to shove DND and the CF out into the cold because the brass were incapable of understanding his very reasonable quest to get the national finances back in order after the financial crisis of 2008/09 and the Great Recession.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 913
- Points
- 810
I believe that I have heard relatively reliable discussions , the main thrust of which is that DND and the CAF were a main driver in the Harper government losing interest in defence due to the institution’s bureaucratic intransigence and refusal to change. Basically Harper gave up on them.
Interesting if true.
Similar threads
- Article
