Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[McG]

“Government cost-cutting blows $150M hole in army's equipment maintenance budget”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-army-equipment-maintenance-1.7293634

 

[ytz]

Arbitrary or "random criteria" or not, we agreed to a rule of the club. Either pony up or leave.

At least he didn't use the 'punching above or weight' line.

We have a long history of signing up for things and not meeting them. This isn't the first commitment we've made that we've not lived up to. And we won't meet any of them as long as our politics determines which commitments are optional.

Politically, there's no difference (to the average voter) between NATO's 2% target, Paris climate targets, Millennium Development Goals. It's something some politician signed up to that is aspirational, to make somebody feel good. Each of those things has some special interest group arguing why that is the most important thing to be done and the rest should be ignored. In this case, CAF members and veterans are the special interest group. And there will be no allyship on moving this goal (like the rest of them) until we understand that all goals are important, which means the culture around these commitments have to change.

Governments should not be signing commitments they can't keep just to use as gotchyas when they are in opposition. The LPC did this on climate change and foreign aid. The CPC did this on defence spending. We should be demanding that any commitment made should come with a plan presented to Parliament to meet that commitment. Our tolerance of can kicking and virtue signalling from simply signing commitments is why we are here.

 

[QV]

As one of the primary functions of the Federal Government is national security and defence, there should be a law that requires the federal government maintains a set % of GDP for defence funding to maintain it's defence capability.

 

[ytz]

The CPC really can't fix defence or foreign policy because the country is addicted social programs, and taking them away or lessening them will be political suicide, because Canadians are aloof, fat and dumb.

Calling voters "aloof, fat and dumb" is not going to win support for more defence spending. Just saying.

Also, a part of the problem here is that nobody wants to entertain tax increases to pay for all the things we want. So that makes it automatically a zero sum game between social programs and defence spending. That is a contest the CAF will lose every single time. If we want more defence spending, we have to explain the threat and convince voters to pay for it, both through some higher taxes and giving up some other benefits.

 

[KevinB]

As one of the primary functions of the Federal Government is national security and defence, there should be a law that requires the federal government maintains a set % of GDP for defence funding to maintain it's defence capability.

Not just a % of GDP for Budget though. One needs to allocate that money efficiently and effectively.

 

[ytz]

As one of the primary functions of the Federal Government is national security and defence, there should be a law that requires the federal government maintains a set % of GDP for defence funding to maintain it's defence capability.

Unless it's in the Constitution, no such law will ever survive a change of government. Very easy for the next government to simply pass a bill overturning that requirement. There's no easy way around any of this. Gotta actually change public opinion.

 

[KevinB]

Calling voters "aloof, fat and dumb" is not going to win support for more defence spending. Just saying.

Also, a part of the problem here is that nobody wants to entertain tax increases to pay for all the things we want. So that makes it automatically a zero sum game between social programs and defence spending. That is a contest the CAF will lose every single time. If we want more defence spending, we have to explain the threat and convince voters to pay for it, both through some higher taxes and giving up some other benefits.

I’d argue that Canadians don’t want to know how violent and vicious the world is though.

There have been many instances since the fall of the Berlin Wall that has shown the ‘Peace Dividend’ wasn’t and yet Canada has enjoyed simply sticking its head deeper into the sand.

All Political parties, the CAF and the population are to blame for that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Calling voters "aloof, fat and dumb" is not going to win support for more defence spending. Just saying.

Its the truth. I'm also not running for government.

Also, a part of the problem here is that nobody wants to entertain tax increases to pay for all the things we want. So that makes it automatically a zero sum game between social programs and defence spending. That is a contest the CAF will lose every single time. If we want more defence spending, we have to explain the threat and convince voters to pay for it, both through some higher taxes and giving up some other benefits.

It is a choice now, because we have reached a level where more taxation is not acceptable. Our wants and needs are all FUBAR'd at this point.

Or we let the threat explain it to Canadians.

 

[ytz]

I’d argue that Canadians don’t want to know how violent and vicious the world is though.

There have been many instances since the fall of the Berlin Wall that has shown the ‘Peace Dividend’ wasn’t and yet Canada has enjoyed simply sticking its head deeper into the sand.

All Political parties, the CAF and the population are to blame for that.

Partly right. But also, military spending, even by the pro-military spending side, is kinda always pitched as optional. Think about it. We always talk about spending more to get respect in the world. Or gain US influence. Etc. Well, if I am waiting for three hours at Emerg, getting respect in the world isn't going to be my priority. And if you want it to be, you better convince me that is more important than the hours I have to wait to get treated.

The other part, like I pointed out earlier, is that nobody is truly sincere about the commitments they sign. The CPC talks a big game about defence spending. Reality was very different. The LPC under Chretien and Martin talked about cutting emissions. Didn't actually put in any real policy to get there. Ironically, today's LPC (whatever your opinion on their politics) is the first government in living memory to actually try to live up to some of these commitments and look at the shit they are getting for it. It doesn't actually pay (politically) in Canada to meet any international obligation. Your own supporters will not reward you. And the other side will hate you for it. This is the reality of our political culture.

 

[ytz]

Or we let the threat explain it to Canadians.

What's the actual threat to Canadians though?

We have threats to our global interests. Sure. But the direct physical threat to Canadians at home is minimal. Not just because the US is next door. But because of geography. So really, we need to do a better job explaining to Canadians that the world going to pot is going to impact things like economic prosperity at home. But I rarely ever hear any senior leadership make that argument coherently. And I've heard only a literal handful of my CAF colleagues even understand this idea in my whole career. Just a whole lot of wistful thinking about how we wish we had big American booms.

 

[ytz]

Not just a % of GDP for Budget though. One needs to allocate that money efficiently and effectively.

Very much this. Kinda hard to even build public support for more defence spending, when the output right now is underwhelming. In no small part because the institution refuses to make hard choices about priorities.

 

[dapaterson]

Very much this. Kinda hard to even build public support for more defence spending, when the output right now is underwhelming. In no small part because the institution refuses to make hard choices about priorities.

The institution is not permitted to make some hard choices. Are the Skyhawks, Snowbirds and Ceremonial Guard necessary? Could the CAF turn them off if they wanted to?

(To be fair, in other areas the CAF situates the estimates to avoid such choices).

 

[FJAG]

One major factor in tying defence spending to a % of the GDP is that the GDP itself is not a fixed quantity but fluctuates over the years. In the post 9/11 years there was a strong growth in the GDP. Then we had the 2008 financial crisis; a recovery; a dip; and lately strong growth. See Macrotrends for a snapshot of that. Then there is inflation.

Marotrends also shows the Canadian military budget over the years. If the GDP rises then the defence budget has to increase just to keep pace with the %.

As at 2022 we were spending a ton more money on defence then we did at 2001 - $8.38 billion to $26.9 billion - yet the GDP% remained roughly stagnant at 1.13% to $1.24%.

What's the actual threat to Canadians though?

We have threats to our global interests. Sure. But the direct physical threat to Canadians at home is minimal. Not just because the US is next door. But because of geography. So really, we need to do a better job explaining to Canadians that the world going to pot is going to impact things like economic prosperity at home. But I rarely ever hear any senior leadership make that argument coherently. And I've heard only a literal handful of my CAF colleagues even understand this idea in my whole career. Just a whole lot of us wistful thinking about how we wish we had big American booms.

What were our threats for the Boer War, 1914, and 1939? Arguably there was zero direct threat yet Canada jumped in with both feet while the US demurred or delayed.

The big difference, IMHO, is that governments at the time looked beyond their noses and had a more realistic view of Canada's place in the world and fostered a vast media campaign to get the people on board.

 

[Loachman]

No direct threat?

A lot of people will moan and sob and probably even howl should the US impose trade sanctions upon us, or just start buying elsewhere, and start costing jobs.

The US does not have to buy thousands of LAVs/Strykers from GD in London (or send them back for major upgrades), for one.

 

[ytz]

The institution is not permitted to make some hard choices. Are the Skyhawks, Snowbirds and Ceremonial Guard necessary? Could the CAF turn them off if they wanted to?

(To be fair, in other areas the CAF situates the estimates to avoid such choices).

The ceremonial stuff has a cost. But it's much lower than say maintaining force structures that only work on paper, refusing to restructure the reserves, etc.

What were our threats for the Boer War, 1914, and 1939? Arguably there was zero direct threat yet Canada jumped in with both feet while the US demurred or delayed.

The big difference, IMHO, is that governments at the time looked beyond their noses and had a more realistic view of Canada's place in the world and fostered a vast media campaign to get the people on board.

I don't think politicians of that era were any wiser than today. We went to war because we were part of the British Empire and a chunk of the citizenry having British roots felt that the empire's interests were their own. Our French Canadian citizens, at the time, certainly didn't agree. We aren't really emotionally tied as much to empire anymore. Even the American empire.

No direct threat?

A lot of people will moan and sob and probably even howl should the US impose trade sanctions upon us, or just start buying elsewhere, and start costing jobs.

The US does not have to buy thousands of LAVs/Strykers from GD in London (or send them back for major upgrades), for one.

Not getting favourable terms, is not the same as getting trade sanctions imposed. The US isn't going to suddenly start treating Canada like Iran just because we aren't spending 2% on defence. And hyperbole from pro-military advocates is going to cost us credibility. Yes, the US and the EU are increasingly tying trade to security interests. This needs to be explained to Canadians. But the hyperbole isn't helping. Nor does it help if the examples of threatened exports are some tiny portion of our trade with the US. I don't even think a majority of voters in London itself care about Stryker exports to the US.

 

[McG]

One major factor in tying defence spending to a % of the GDP is that the GDP itself is not a fixed quantity but fluctuates over the years.

% GDP is a measure of relative capacity. Just as many other statistics are normalized against population size, the % GDP allows a comparison of effort across nations of differing capacities. If a nation’s GDP takes a drop one year, then this recognizes the nation has less overall capacity and may not be able to spend what it had spent the year before.

at 2022 we were spending a ton more money on defence then we did at 2001 - $8.38 billion to $26.9 billion - yet the GDP% remained roughly stagnant at 1.13% to $1.24%.

And when you account for defence inflation (which exceeds consumer inflation), I would not be surprised if many NATO nations could be spending more of of GDP but having less buying power over that same time period. But from a level of effort comparison between member nations, that doesn’t matter.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Partly right. But also, military spending, even by the pro-military spending side, is kinda always pitched as optional. Think about it. We always talk about spending more to get respect in the world. Or gain US influence. Etc. Well, if I am waiting for three hours at Emerg, getting respect in the world isn't going to be my priority. And if you want it to be, you better convince me that is more important than the hours I have to wait to get treated.

The other part, like I pointed out earlier, is that nobody is truly sincere about the commitments they sign. The CPC talks a big game about defence spending. Reality was very different. The LPC under Chretien and Martin talked about cutting emissions. Didn't actually put in any real policy to get there. Ironically, today's LPC (whatever your opinion on their politics) is the first government in living memory to actually try to live up to some of these commitments and look at the shit they are getting for it. It doesn't actually pay (politically) in Canada to meet any international obligation. Your own supporters will not reward you. And the other side will hate you for it. This is the reality of our political culture.

The only reason the LPC is trying to "live up to international commitments" is because they had a proverbial gun put to their heads by our allies. The only defense purchase I will give them full credit for is the new transport aircraft.

 

[FJAG]

% GDP is a measure of relative capacity. Just as many other statistics are normalized against population size, the % GDP allows a comparison of effort across nations of differing capacities. If a nation’s GDP takes a drop one year, then this recognizes the nation has less overall capacity and may not be able to spend what it had spent the year before.

And when you account for defence inflation (which exceeds consumer inflation), I would not be surprised if many NATO nations could be spending more of of GDP but having less buying power over that same time period. But from a level of effort comparison between member nations, that doesn’t matter.

Since it came out, I've been an advocate for 2% as a measure of how much we are outward looking, showing foresight and not merely focusing on reelection of the current government.

That said I'm also an advocate of the fact that we are not getting enough defence outputs for the money we are already spending on defence. Much of this is sunk into personnel costs and what I see as exorbitant recurring, annual, administrative overhead. We underspend on equipment as a result of the constant struggle to defend fiefdoms and PY shares. The CAF's solution is always to seek more funding and less turned to how to economize. If the CAF draws a red line in the sand on PYs, then budget adjustments will always fall on equipment and O&M. The recent round of cost cuttings all land on equipment and maintenance, not on trimming the bureaucracy. To me, much of the Class B system is an abuse of the real purpose of a reserve force. It pumps even more full-timers into the system. But for our current personnel shortfall, the system would already be on the verge of unsustainability.

Everything that you mention is true and needs to be factored in. It's difficult, however, to go with the swings in economy when personnel levels are almost set in stone and a drop in buying power hits the very equipment the force needs to be viable and credible. I'm not sure how much give there is in the RCN and RCAF. I think there are opportunities there too but IMHO they're living pretty close to the bone. The full-time army and NDHQ/CAF hqs in Ottawa, OTOH, strike me as over resourced with personnel and need to be heavily restructured in order to allow a more significant cash flow into equipment and maintenance.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What's the actual threat to Canadians though?

War is coming.

It might not mean amphibious landings by Chinese Marines on to the Vic Island shore line.

But it will probably mean large scale cyber, economic warfare; and infrastructure attacks. I would argue the socio economic war is already afoot. This is the direct impact to Canadians.

Canada will again have to pick where it stands in the world.

 

[dimsum]

The only reason the LPC is trying to "live up to international commitments" is because they had a proverbial gun put to their heads by our allies. The only defense purchase I will give them full credit for is the new transport aircraft.

I give them credit for MQ-9B and P-8. Those programs were languishing until Anand’s term as MND.

War is coming.

It might not mean amphibious landings by Chinese Marines on to the Vic Island shore line.

But it will probably mean large scale cyber, economic warfare; and infrastructure attacks. I would argue the socio economic war is already afoot. This is the direct impact to Canadians.

Canada will again have to pick where it stands in the world.

I agree, but how does a govt pitch that to a populace that doesn’t see it? Worse, even if they do pitch it, they would be called hawks or “following US imperialism”?

The govt can’t say “well we know better and this is how we’ll do it” because that has been exactly what the LPC has been lambasted for. It can’t very well show the public how they know, because security reasons. And if the opposition parties somehow stop opposing in this once instance, they (the opposition parties) will be “in the pocket of the govt”.