PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[Northern Light]

I would go a little further than that - reading the geopolitical tea leaves is always a chancy thing, but I would not count on a particularly friendly US in the calculations. It doesn't mean that you have to pull a Second World War kind of military buildup, but I think the experiences for the last little while points to a fundamentally different world than one we have been used to for the better part of the 20th/early 21st c. There is also unconventional (ie. information) warfare to consider as well - and we are ridiculously vulnerable to that - and worse, these attacks by stealth can change the very nature of our polity without firing a shot.

You can't bankrupt a country like ours by adding a few B to defense spending a year.

AoD

I don't disagree w/spending more on the military, to a point, though again, I favour raising taxes and balancing the budget....

However, I'm leery of arguments of vague threats and instability.

I want a clear understanding of what threat it is that we are going to ask the military to combat, first...

Then we can have a realistic conversation about what is feasible and practical in that regard.

As an example, US, life-cycle budget for 3 new military, polar ice breakers is 10B USD or 15B CAD.

We actually have more arctic water to patrol that the Americans, so the above would seem a modest starting point for our own plans.

There is new 'few billion'; to provide renewal of existing kit, enhance polar/arctic capability, finally replace our aging combat aircraft is already a large increase from today's expenses.

If we imagine we would like more...scope-creep, comes with cost-creep.

I'm open to the conversation, but imagine runaway costs for questionable gains if we are not dutifully circumspect and realistic.

To put this in perspective, if we increased spending to match Italy, which expends 1.5% of GDP on its military to our 1.3%, that would be an annualized increase of 2.5B or so.

But its worth pointing out, this is already the penciled in number in 2027 according the Federal spending estimates.

Presumably w/the full cost procurement kicking in, but I can't be sure.

So to enhance capabilities, we're not looking that that number, we're now looking at maybe 5B more per year.

That's not chump change.

And that number won't actually go all that far; so if we are to contemplate it seriously, we must come to clarity on what we are aiming to achieve and what cost is reasonable to get us there.

 

[pman]

Presumably, we’re aiming to spend the smallest amount consistent with:
1. Pretending that Canada has a capable military that is a material contributor to our security; and
2. Not provoking the Americans to completely lose patience with our free-riding.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Presumably, we’re aiming to spend the smallest amount consistent with:
1. Pretending that Canada has a capable military that is a material contributor to our security; and
2. Not provoking the Americans to completely lose patience with our free-riding.

Somehow I don’t think Americans really care about our “free riding” so far as their priorities are concerned - what they do care about is whatever we do doesn’t affect their freedom of action. I mean you try asserting Arctic sovereignty vis-a-vis right of passage and see how they’d react.

AoD

 

[lenaitch]

I don't disagree w/spending more on the military, to a point, though again, I favour raising taxes and balancing the budget....

However, I'm leery of arguments of vague threats and instability.

I want a clear understanding of what threat it is that we are going to ask the military to combat, first...

Then we can have a realistic conversation about what is feasible and practical in that regard.

As an example, US, life-cycle budget for 3 new military, polar ice breakers is 10B USD or 15B CAD.

We actually have more arctic water to patrol that the Americans, so the above would seem a modest starting point for our own plans.

There is new 'few billion'; to provide renewal of existing kit, enhance polar/arctic capability, finally replace our aging combat aircraft is already a large increase from today's expenses.

If we imagine we would like more...scope-creep, comes with cost-creep.

I'm open to the conversation, but imagine runaway costs for questionable gains if we are not dutifully circumspect and realistic.

To put this in perspective, if we increased spending to match Italy, which expends 1.5% of GDP on its military to our 1.3%, that would be an annualized increase of 2.5B or so.

But its worth pointing out, this is already the penciled in number in 2027 according the Federal spending estimates.

Presumably w/the full cost procurement kicking in, but I can't be sure.

So to enhance capabilities, we're not looking that that number, we're now looking at maybe 5B more per year.

That's not chump change.

And that number won't actually go all that far; so if we are to contemplate it seriously, we must come to clarity on what we are aiming to achieve and what cost is reasonable to get us there.

I'm certainly no expert in matters military, security or international politics and I agree that a clear understanding of the 'threat' is helpful, but one problem is that can change over time, and often much faster than capability can adjust. I'm also not sure if it is as much scope creep as it is capability creep. Whether or not we have military icebreakers or civilian ones is lost on me and I would leave others to argue. I've never been quite clear on the military point of the emerging Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships. I get (sort of) ice capable but being very lightly armed and otherwise offensively and defensively equipped seems rather limited. If they wanted 'constabulary' duties, send the Mounties. Many argue that modern air-independent submarines would be much more capable at asserting/defending our arctic territory, albeit at a higher price tag. Similarly, with our expeditionary needs (military and humanitarian), a couple of joint support ship (Mistral-class et al, not simply a renamed oiler) would enhance our ability to deliver equipment, aid, etc.
The cost escalation in this area is huge. At the height of the Cold War, we had in the order of 400 fast jet aircraft. Now we're agonizing over ~100.
Another area that will need attention ($$) is territorial surveillance. Our current radar net is aging quickly. Whatever the platform, it's a shared area but we're going to have to proportionally stand up to the plate.

 

[pman]

Somehow I don’t think Americans really care about our “free riding” so far as their priorities are concerned - what they do care about is whatever we do doesn’t affect their freedom of action. I mean you try asserting Arctic sovereignty vis-a-vis right of passage and see how they’d react.

AoD

I don’t know, complaining about their NATO allies’ general failure to spend 2% of GDP on defence seems to have been a bipartisan constant for a long time. Though perhaps Trump is complaining more assertively.

 

[Northern Light]

Presumably, we’re aiming to spend the smallest amount consistent with:
1. Pretending that Canada has a capable military that is a material contributor to our security; and
2. Not provoking the Americans to completely lose patience with our free-riding.

This comment is completely and utterly preposterous and without any intellectual foundation.

I don’t know, complaining about their NATO allies’ general failure to spend 2% of GDP on defence seems to have been a bipartisan constant for a long time. Though perhaps Trump is complaining more assertively.

There is absolutely no magic in 2% except fueling arms sales for the military-industrial complex.

Canada spends a highly respectable 1.3%, a top 20 spender on military world wide, is the #21 ranked military in the power index cited above, and that compares with our population at 38th.

We are not now, nor will be the rivals of the Americans, the Chinese or the Russians; at least in terms of conventional forces.

We rival a host of other middle powers, which is about what we should be doing.

A modest, strategic increase in investment to deal with replacing badly aged combat aircraft, and stepping up arctic capability is reasonable. A suggestion for much more is grossly irresponsible.

2% of GDP would result in an increase of 12.5B a year!

No sane person would justify that in the current circumstances.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm certainly no expert in matters military, security or international politics and I agree that a clear understanding of the 'threat' is helpful, but one problem is that can change over time, and often much faster than capability can adjust. I'm also not sure if it is as much scope creep as it is capability creep. Whether or not we have military icebreakers or civilian ones is lost on me and I would leave others to argue. I've never been quite clear on the military point of the emerging Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships. I get (sort of) ice capable but being very lightly armed and otherwise offensively and defensively equipped seems rather limited. If they wanted 'constabulary' duties, send the Mounties. Many argue that modern air-independent submarines would be much more capable at asserting/defending our arctic territory, albeit at a higher price tag. Similarly, with our expeditionary needs (military and humanitarian), a couple of joint support ship (Mistral-class et al, not simply a renamed oiler) would enhance our ability to deliver equipment, aid, etc.
The cost escalation in this area is huge. At the height of the Cold War, we had in the order of 400 fast jet aircraft. Now we're agonizing over ~100.
Another area that will need attention ($$) is territorial surveillance. Our current radar net is aging quickly. Whatever the platform, it's a shared area but we're going to have to proportionally stand up to the plate.

Overall I wouldn't disagree.

Though, I don't see us sending RCMP to board foreign vessels; that will require icebreakers, and one might wish to have some material firepower at one's disposal. Subs are not as practical for the boarding application. Good for surveillance. But as noted I'd like to see us aim at drone subs, infinitely more practical.

 

[BurlOak]

He'll spend money on tax cuts and some defence procurement (luckily for him the fighter replacement contest has already started). I'm wondering what gets cut to pay for all that. Trudeau didn't increase infrastructure spending by all that much. And the Liberals bug ticket spending items were transfers to families. I'm curious how Scheer chops those.

I imagine we will have some used F-18's to sell.

 

[lenaitch]

The whole thing with the '2%' issue is the lack of consistency of how it is calculated. Some countries count coast guard (which may well be an armed service), border protection, etc. while other do not. Having said that I'm not sure how ours is calculated.

Overall I wouldn't disagree.

Though, I don't see us sending RCMP to board foreign vessels; that will require icebreakers, and one might wish to have some material firepower at one's disposal. Subs are not as practical for the boarding application. Good for surveillance. But as noted I'd like to see us aim at drone subs, infinitely more practical.

I really don't see law enforcement matters and border/territorial waters control as military issues, although the military can be partners in terms of transport, logistics, etc. It generally has no domestic enforcement authority. The issue of 'drones' (either armed or purely surveillance) is something I continually forget about regarding capability.

 

[lenaitch]

I imagine we will have some used F-18's to sell.

Generally, by the time we are finished with military kit it is well and truly done. Cannibalized for parts maybe.

 

[Hopkins123]

Add PEI to the list of Provinces embracing Conservatives and turning their backs on Trudeau's sunny ways!

 

[Videodrome]

You are aware that the PC party there embraces the "progressive" part of the name, right? They aren't right wing populists like Scheer or Ford. Also, they won a minority and there is still a special election to be held. The LG hasn't formally picked someone to form a government. I think we all remember when the BC Liberals won the most seats, but the NDP formed a government with backing from the Greens.

But yeah, keep up the uninformed partisanship and don't let facts get in the way....

ALSO.....the province has this tradition of only letting a party win three times, before changing to the other one.

 

[Northern Light]

Add PEI to the list of Provinces embracing Conservatives and turning their backs on Trudeau's sunny ways!

Just to be clear, the Conservatives in PEI, won 36.5% of the vote, which means parties to their left, the Greens, Liberals and NDP collectively won 63% of the vote and change.

That is hardly a rejection of progressive values, never mind allowing @Videodrome 's point that the PCs in PEI are hardly your type of Conservative.

Kindly hush.

 

[Videodrome]

I mean, even if the LG tells the PC's they can form a government, they will have to work with either the Greens or Liberals to pass legislation. Hypothetically, if that doesn't happen, the Greens could be invited to form a government with support from the Liberals!

That is hardly a rejection of progressive values, never mind allowing @Videodrome 's point that the PCs in PEI are hardly your time of Conservative.

In the story I read, the reporter couldn't find anyone with bigoted or anti-immigrant views. They seem like nice people.

 

[BurlOak]

What is the replacement cost of a building like this?

Ottawa spending $277M to renovate federal building in midtown Toronto