Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CANADA / NATO and 2% of GDP Budget

Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by Novascotiaboy, Nov 9, 2016.

Share This Page

  1. BigM60

    BigM60 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ipswich
    Was the speech given to the Conference of Defence Associations Institute event? There is a Globe and Mail article about the speech but if the minister was sending a message, it looks lost. More, less, same funding? What are the essential 18 key procurement programs? Stronger military with less? I still don't quite understand how you can defer capital expenditure but can't find funding for these 18 essential programs? The "Review" should be an interesting read.
     
  2. BigM60

    BigM60 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ipswich
    “And So It Begins”: CDA Institute Commentary on MND Speech “Towards a new Defence Policy for Canada” | CDA Institute

    This is the CDA's analysis on the minister's speech. Six different accounting firms were used to review the departments costing methodologies in the defence review. I like things properly costed but you would have to ask why you would need six?

    I can't see any good coming from this review. Overall, Canada is now trying to do too much, with aging capital equipment and with insufficient funding. It would need to lose or lower some capability to "square the circle". The Liberal government may give defence a post review sugar hit of some extra funding but I suspect something will have to go to free up the large amount of funding that would be needed to get even one or two "pet" Defence Review replacement recommendations up and running. Looking through the list of Canada's defence sacred cows (rightly or wrongly) that can't go to slaughter (SAR, NORAD, Super Hornets,domestic ship builds, bureaucracy, bases) - I am tipping the army may be the biggest loser.
     
  3. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Not sure how much real money would be saved with army cuts other than salary and training costs. Their capital projects are less costly and modernization projects are already completed or underway. I think it will be the RCN that takes the major hit although the RCAF may also take a hit on their fast jet program. It will be influenced by NATO to a certain extent. If the $hit were to hit the fan in Europe I would think aviation and army assets might be more desirable than a RCN for NATO.
     
  4. BigM60

    BigM60 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ipswich
    Sorry, I forgot to add NATO into the list of many things that have to be maintained.
    I note your defence minister has nominated an air defence/anti munition system for deployed forces with an approximate cost of 500 million, army engineering plus Griffon and Cormorant updates, as priorities. All important projects but unless there is more funding, then something else has to go or be reduced. The subs are probably on the chopping block and I suspect one less Berlin will come down the slipway. I nominated the army only because it would probably be the easiest to do politically. I don't see the Super Hornet project going, that's a capability gap..ha, ha.
     
  5. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    The SH interim purchase will likely proceed assuming Boeing doesn't get greedy. The possibility may exist that this interim purchase becomes the "only" purchase if the RCN CSC proceeds with 10-15 ships. Something has to give if the funding isn't increased.
     
  6. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,364
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    NSW
    I have to agree, submarines will likely not get replaced, and the current Victoria's will likely be paid off to free funds for other projects.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
  7. BigM60

    BigM60 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ipswich
    Sorry, I don't see the Super Hornet project going "away" is what I should have said.

    Too much political capital invested in that decision to reverse out of it without looking like gooses. Boeing must be over joyed, it is hard to see how they wouldn't be in the box seat for a future follow-on order from Canada regardless of how open and fair any future competition was.
     
  8. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
  9. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,364
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    NSW
  10. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Here's the paragraph. I am leaving Canada for a week or so but will try to provide a link as to what 'this latest senate report" actually says.

    " The procurement process, the senators argued, has too many federal departments involved. Current government plans to change the procurement process for large ticket items is unlikely to lead to improvements, they added".(from the Ottawa Citizen)
     
  11. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,364
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    NSW
    Cheers thanks for that, a little bit puzzling how getting some of the cooks out of the kitchen won't lead to a better system.
     
  12. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Location:
    In the rum store
    I had no probs with the link. I would agree that reducing the number of departments involved must increase efficiency of the system. As an outsider I cannot understand why the Department of Public Works and Procurement is so actively involved in defence acquisitions. Treasury, Foreign or External Affairs, Internal Affairs, Customs having input I can understand. If there are a set of rules and / or guidelines established, then all the Department of Public Works and Procurement should do is audit defence procurement and offer any guidance if such is requested.
     
  13. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    Many years ago we in NZ had an equally complicated system , involving a department called The Government Stores Board which got it's self involved in all government purchases including spare parts. Dealing with them (I had to during my time at D.Eng.) was at total pain as they had a controlling input but no tech expertise.
     
  14. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Yep remember those muppets well. Had to have a contract for everything. Bureaucracy upon bureaucracy.
     
  15. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
  16. BigM60

    BigM60 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ipswich
    All very interesting, why the delay? It's done, it's for Canadians, let them see it.
    The Canadian media analysis on what may be in the review suggests an increase in expenditure but numbers could be "spun" by:
    Quickly re-installing into the next 2 -3 budgets the 8 billion of capital expenditure deferred to the future. Looks like you are adding 8 billion but every year you defer all or part of that amount by delaying purchasing decisions.
    Pledge to increase to 2% of GDP with a funding plan over 10 years but start the plan just before the next election. You can make big announcements and deflect any criticism that you are weak on defence.
    Put most of the additional major planned capital expenditure in the final years of the plan. Makes it a future government's problem.
    When you get to those final years, the economy has changed and everything was just best intentions and you are off the hook because voters have forgotten what you or your party said 7 years ago.
    If it was a good review, why release it after the NATO summit? Am I too cynical?
     
  17. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    The report has been written hopefully with at least a bit of input taken from the public consultations last year. The senate report that is out is very direct in some of the actions that the upper house would like to see done with and for the Armed Forces.

    It takes resolve and political bipartisism to present a viable plan for the future without political party spin. This is what I would hope we can have but I am pretty sure the Liberals will stumble and present a report full of double speak and like others have said push out the funding to a point that makes it impossible to recapitalize the military in a timely manner.

    I'm a realist. Never been an optimist.
     
  18. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Needless to say I am pretty cynical of junior and his minions. This preview for the Americans is likely nothing other than a test to see how low they can set the defence bar. Hopefully their American counterparts set them straight.
     
  19. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Last edited: May 16, 2017
  20. J_Can

    J_Can Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    I totally agree after this review has been deferred constantly I have developed a cynical feeling that the government has spread out this report before to allies and got shouted down for it. Either because of not enough budget or contribution to collective/ continental defence, that is just me though. I do not except much from this current government in the defence portfolio personal. Yet even if they deliver only on what the defence minister talked about in his is speech to the defence industry I would be very relieved. Not happy mind you but air defence, new trucks, mlu for the helo fleets, the replacement frigates, and a fast air fleet would make my eyes water. In Canada we have not seen such a recapitalisation like that since the 1980's maybe even the golden era of defence spending in the late 1950's.