• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.

By Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 7, 2022

Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal Russian bid to claim Ukraine as its own, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is showing up at the Latvian battle group led by Canadian soldiers, waving the Maple Leaf and a vague hint at more money for the military.

Canada has been waving the NATO flag for nearly seven years in Latvia as a bulwark against Russia’s further incursions in Eastern Europe.

Canada stepped up to lead one of NATO’s four battle groups in 2015 — part of the defensive alliance’s display of strength and solidarity with weaker member states after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Trudeau arrived in the Latvian capital late Monday after meetings in the U.K. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Earlier Monday, faced with a seemingly unstoppable war in Ukraine, Trudeau said he will look at increasing Canada’s defence spending. Given world events, he said there are “certainly reflections to have.”

And Canada tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever-growing sanctions list.

The latest round of sanctions includes names Trudeau said were identified by jailed Russian opposition leader and Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny.

However, on a day when Trudeau cited the new sanctions, and Johnson touted new measures meant to expose Russian property owners in his country, Rutte admitted sanctions are not working.

Yet they all called for more concerted international efforts over the long haul, including more economic measures and more humanitarian aid, with Johnson and Rutte divided over how quickly countries need to get off Russian oil and gas.

The 10 latest names on Canada’s target list do not include Roman Abramovich — a Russian billionaire Navalny has been flagging to Canada since at least 2017. Canada appears to have sanctioned about 20 of the 35 names on Navalny’s list.

The Conservative opposition says the Liberal government is not yet exerting maximum pressure on Putin, and should do more to bolster Canadian Forces, including by finally approving the purchase of fighter jets.

Foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said in an interview that Ottawa must still sanction “additional oligarchs close to President Putin who have significant assets in Canada.”

Abramovich owns more than a quarter of the public shares in steelmaking giant Evraz, which has operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and has supplied most of the steel for the government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Evraz’s board of directors also includes two more Russians the U.S. government identified as “oligarchs” in 2019 — Aleksandr Abramov and Aleksandr Frolov — and its Canadian operations have received significant support from the federal government.

That includes at least $27 million in emergency wage subsidies during the pandemic, as well as $7 million through a fund meant to help heavy-polluters reduce emissions that cause climate change, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

In addition to upping defence spending, the Conservatives want NORAD’s early warning system upgraded, naval shipbuilding ramped up and Arctic security bolstered.

In London, Johnson sat down with Trudeau and Rutte at the Northolt airbase. Their morning meetings had a rushed feel, with Johnson starting to usher press out before Trudeau spoke. His office said later that the British PM couldn’t squeeze the full meeting in at 10 Downing Street because Johnson’s “diary” was so busy that day. The three leaders held an afternoon news conference at 10 Downing.

But before that Trudeau met with the Queen, saying she was “insightful” and they had a “useful, for me anyway, conversation about global affairs.”

Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday in Latvia.

The prime minister will also meet with three Baltic leaders, the prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in the Latvian capital of Riga.

The Liberals announced they would increase the 500 Canadian Forces in Latvia by another 460 troops. The Canadians are leading a multinational battle group, one of four that are part of NATO’s deployments in the region.

Another 3,400 Canadians could be deployed to the region in the months to come, on standby for NATO orders.

But Canada’s shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine were slow to come in the view of the Conservatives, and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

And suddenly Western allies are eyeing each other’s defence commitments.

At the Downing Street news conference, Rutte noted the Netherlands will increase its defence budget to close to two per cent of GDP. Germany has led the G7, and doubled its defence budget in the face of Putin’s invasion and threats. Johnson said the U.K. defence spending is about 2.4 per cent and declined to comment on Canada’s defence spending which is 1.4 per cent of GDP.

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

“What we can’t do, post the invasion of Ukraine is assume that we go back to a kind of status quo ante, a kind of new normalization in the way that we did after the … seizure of Crimea and the Donbas area,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to recognize that things have changed and that we need a new focus on security and I think that that is kind of increasingly understood by everybody.”

Trudeau stood by his British and Dutch counterparts and pledged Canada would do more.

He defended his government’s record, saying Ottawa is gradually increasing spending over the next decade by 70 per cent. Then Trudeau admitted more might be necessary.

“We also recognize that context is changing rapidly around the world and we need to make sure that women and men have certainty and our forces have all the equipment necessary to be able to stand strongly as we always have. As members of NATO. We will continue to look at what more we can do.”

The three leaders — Johnson, a conservative and Trudeau and Rutte, progressive liberals — in a joint statement said they “will continue to impose severe costs on Russia.”

Arriving for the news conference from Windsor Castle, Trudeau had to detour to enter Downing Street as loud so-called Freedom Convoy protesters bellowed from outside the gate. They carried signs marked “Tuck Frudeau” and “Free Tamara” (Lich).

Protester Jeff Wyatt who said he has no Canadian ties told the Star he came to stand up for Lich and others who were leading a “peaceful protest” worldwide against government “lies” about COVID-19 and what he called Trudeau’s “tyranny.”

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.
 
A snapshot comparison with selected NATO partners.

The numbers are as provided in this NATO document https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf and I've focused on the members whose defense spending for 2021 (estimated) exceeds $10 billion.

The columns are: defense expenditures in millions (all amounts USD); real GDP in billions and the percentage of def expenditure; the per capita GDP and per capita def expenditure; number of military pers; the last four columns are the percentage of def expenditure for "equipment", "personnel", "infrastructure", and "other" as defined in the linked document - "other" is primarily defined as "O&M".

CountryDef Exped
(millions)
GDP (billions)
/ % def exp
Per capita
GDP / def exp
Pers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %
Canada26,5231,697 / 1.3944,100 / 63271.117.6647.53.3231.52
France58,7292,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751208.027.842.533.0226.65
Germany64,7853,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644189.118.5541.753.6936.06
Italy29,7631,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428174.228.960.541.678.89
Netherlands14,378828 / 1.4547,100 / 68540.826.247.263.2623.28
Poland13,369575 / 2.1015,000 / 314121.226.147.924.9721.01
Spain14,8751,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267123.922.7560.120.7316.41
Turkey13,0571,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199445.429.0552.471.9516.53
United Kingdom72,7653,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023156.224.2632.691.4241.64
United States811,14020,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,1861351.529.3537.471.5831.59

One item that caught my attention is the percentage allocated to "personnel" and the difference between the UK and USA numbers compared to the others.

Same table reorganized

CountryDef ExpedGDP (billions)Per capitaPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %
(millions)/ % def expGDP / def exp
United States
811,140​
20,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,186
1351.5​
29.35​
37.47​
1.58​
31.59​
United Kingdom
72,765​
3,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023
156.2​
24.26​
32.69​
1.42​
41.64​
Germany
64,785​
3,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644
189.1​
18.55​
41.75​
3.69​
36.06​
France
58,729​
2,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751
208​
27.8​
42.53​
3.02​
26.65​
Italy
29,763​
1,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428
174.2​
28.9​
60.54​
1.67​
8.89​
Canada
26,523​
1,697 / 1.3944,100 / 632
71.1​
17.66​
47.5​
3.32​
31.52​
Spain
14,875​
1,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267
123.9​
22.75​
60.12​
0.73​
16.41​
Netherlands
14,378​
828 / 1.4547,100 / 685
40.8​
26.2​
47.26​
3.26​
23.28​
Poland
13,369​
575 / 2.1015,000 / 314
121.2​
26.1​
47.92​
4.97​
21.01​
Turkey
13,057​
1,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199
445.4​
29.05​
52.47​
1.95​
16.53​

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves," - an appropriate thought as we approach the Ides of March.

I am a big fan of, and major proponent of, increasing our Defence Expenditure to 2% of GDP. I think it would be lovely if we achieved 3.52% of GDP like the US. I would even take the 0.7% of GDP that we are supposed to set aside for foreign aid make it available for humanitarian operations conducted by the Department of National Defence.

But I also agree with those that argue that Cabinet, Treasury Board, Public Services and Procurement Canada, DND and the Canadian Armed Forces wouldn't have a clue how to spend that. Not just on what to spend but the mechanisms necessary to get the money where it needs to be in a timely fashion.

The logistics of money?

The first problem we face is defining the amount of money sent to people, fellow Canadians, that are being hired to wield the tools of defence, and how much is being spent on the tools themselves.

CountryActive militaryReserve militaryParamilitaryTotal% of Popn% of Popn
(total)(active)
Turkey
355,200​
378,700​
156,800​
890,700​
1.08​
0.43​
United States
1,395,350​
843,450​
0​
2,238,800​
0.67​
0.42​
France
203,250​
41,050​
100,500​
344,800​
0.51​
0.3​
Poland
114,050​
0​
75,400​
189,450​
0.5​
0.3​
Italy
161,550​
17,900​
176,350​
355,800​
0.57​
0.26​
Spain
122,850​
14,900​
75,800​
213,550​
0.45​
0.26​
United Kingdom
153,200​
75,450​
0​
228,650​
0.35​
0.23​
Germany
183,400​
30,050​
0​
213,450​
0.27​
0.23​
Netherlands
33,600​
6,000​
6,500​
46,100​
0.27​
0.19​
Canada
66,500​
34,400​
4,500​
105,400​
0.28​
0.18​

Before we look at how much we pay ourselves to defend ourselves we should probably take a look at how many of us we hire to do the fighting for us.

We employ 0.18% of our total population of 38,000,000 to defend us. To fight for us.
We hire 66,500 of us to do the fighting for the other 37,933,500 of us.
66,500 of us to operate the tools necessary to keep threats away from us.


Personnel
CountryActive military% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditure
per active mbr
%(millions)USD
Turkey
355,200​
52.476,85119,288
United States
1,395,350​
37.47303,934217,819
France
203,250​
42.5324,977122,890
Poland
114,050​
47.926,40656,172
Italy
161,550​
60.5418,019111,535
Spain
122,850​
60.128,94372,795
United Kingdom
153,200​
32.6923,787155,267
Germany
183,400​
41.727,015147,303
Netherlands
33,600​
47.266,795202,233
Canada
66,500​
47.512,598189,450


Canada is not stingy when it comes to covering its personnel. It looks pretty good compared the $19,288 per year that Turkey spends on each service person. It compares very favourably to Britain, France, Germany and Italy. The only countries that spend more on their people than Canada are the Netherlands and the US.

We spend a lot on our people.

We don't spend a lot on the tools they need.

CountryActive militaryEquipment
% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditure
per active mbr
(millions)USD
United States1,395,35029.35$ 238,070$ 170,616
United Kingdom153,20024.26$ 17,653$ 115,227
Netherlands33,60026.20$ 3,767$ 112,114
France203,25027.80$ 16,327$ 80,328
Canada66,50017.66$ 4,684$ 70,436
Germany183,40018.55$ 12,018$ 65,527
Italy161,55028.90$ 8,602$ 53,244
Poland114,05026.10$ 3,489$ 30,595
Spain122,85022.75$ 3,384$ 27,546
Turkey355,20029.05$ 3,793$ 10,679

Poland, Spain and Turkey have special economic circumstances that put them in a different category to Canada.

Canada is a G7 country. An position it shares with France, Germany and Italy, as well as the UK and the US.
We can afford to do better. We should do better.

The Netherlands, a strong EU member and not notably a warmonger, is in the same league as the US and the UK spending $112,000 annually to supply the necessary tools for its defence. This compares to the $115,000 the UK spends.

The US spends significantly more, at $170,000 but for the purposes of this exercise I suggest we treat it as an outlier. Just as Poland, Spain and Turkey should be treated at the other end of the spectrum.

Our peers are France, Germany and Italy. We fair fairly well in that division.

But, and this is where opinion matters, I think we should be emulating the Netherlands lead and aspiring to a similar budget.

Raising our $70,436 expenditure to a Netherlands equivalent expenditure of $112,000 would raise the capital budget from $4,684,000,000 to $7,448,000,000. That 60% increase in the capital budget, or $2,764,000,000, would only represent a 10% increase in the total defence budget raising it to $29,287,000,000. That would also be a rise from 1.39% of GDP to 1.7%. Not 2% but getting closer.



Summary to date - keep the size of the force the same and make it more effective by spending the same amount per soldier as the Netherlands on the tools they need to conduct an effective defence.

Raise the Capital Budget by 60% adding $2,764,000,000 annually.

This will still leave us short of the NATO 2% target but 1.7% is better than 1.4%. Half Way there.

More to Follow.
 
Same table reorganized

CountryDef ExpedGDP (billions)Per capitaPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %
(millions)/ % def expGDP / def exp
United States
811,140​
20,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,186
1351.5​
29.35​
37.47​
1.58​
31.59​
United Kingdom
72,765​
3,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023
156.2​
24.26​
32.69​
1.42​
41.64​
Germany
64,785​
3,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644
189.1​
18.55​
41.75​
3.69​
36.06​
France
58,729​
2,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751
208​
27.8​
42.53​
3.02​
26.65​
Italy
29,763​
1,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428
174.2​
28.9​
60.54​
1.67​
8.89​
Canada
26,523​
1,697 / 1.3944,100 / 632
71.1​
17.66​
47.5​
3.32​
31.52​
Spain
14,875​
1,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267
123.9​
22.75​
60.12​
0.73​
16.41​
Netherlands
14,378​
828 / 1.4547,100 / 685
40.8​
26.2​
47.26​
3.26​
23.28​
Poland
13,369​
575 / 2.1015,000 / 314
121.2​
26.1​
47.92​
4.97​
21.01​
Turkey
13,057​
1,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199
445.4​
29.05​
52.47​
1.95​
16.53​

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves," - an appropriate thought as we approach the Ides of March.

I am a big fan of, and major proponent of, increasing our Defence Expenditure to 2% of GDP. I think it would be lovely if we achieved 3.52% of GDP like the US. I would even take the 0.7% of GDP that we are supposed to set aside for foreign aid make it available for humanitarian operations conducted by the Department of National Defence.

But I also agree with those that argue that Cabinet, Treasury Board, Public Services and Procurement Canada, DND and the Canadian Armed Forces wouldn't have a clue how to spend that. Not just on what to spend but the mechanisms necessary to get the money where it needs to be in a timely fashion.

The logistics of money?

The first problem we face is defining the amount of money sent to people, fellow Canadians, that are being hired to wield the tools of defence, and how much is being spent on the tools themselves.

CountryActive militaryReserve militaryParamilitaryTotal% of Popn% of Popn
(total)(active)
Turkey
355,200​
378,700​
156,800​
890,700​
1.08​
0.43​
United States
1,395,350​
843,450​
0​
2,238,800​
0.67​
0.42​
France
203,250​
41,050​
100,500​
344,800​
0.51​
0.3​
Poland
114,050​
0​
75,400​
189,450​
0.5​
0.3​
Italy
161,550​
17,900​
176,350​
355,800​
0.57​
0.26​
Spain
122,850​
14,900​
75,800​
213,550​
0.45​
0.26​
United Kingdom
153,200​
75,450​
0​
228,650​
0.35​
0.23​
Germany
183,400​
30,050​
0​
213,450​
0.27​
0.23​
Netherlands
33,600​
6,000​
6,500​
46,100​
0.27​
0.19​
Canada
66,500​
34,400​
4,500​
105,400​
0.28​
0.18​

Before we look at how much we pay ourselves to defend ourselves we should probably take a look at how many of us we hire to do the fighting for us.

We employ 0.18% of our total population of 38,000,000 to defend us. To fight for us.
We hire 66,500 of us to do the fighting for the other 37,933,500 of us.
66,500 of us to operate the tools necessary to keep threats away from us.


Personnel
CountryActive military% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditure
per active mbr
%(millions)USD
Turkey
355,200​
52.476,85119,288
United States
1,395,350​
37.47303,934217,819
France
203,250​
42.5324,977122,890
Poland
114,050​
47.926,40656,172
Italy
161,550​
60.5418,019111,535
Spain
122,850​
60.128,94372,795
United Kingdom
153,200​
32.6923,787155,267
Germany
183,400​
41.727,015147,303
Netherlands
33,600​
47.266,795202,233
Canada
66,500​
47.512,598189,450


Canada is not stingy when it comes to covering its personnel. It looks pretty good compared the $19,288 per year that Turkey spends on each service person. It compares very favourably to Britain, France, Germany and Italy. The only countries that spend more on their people than Canada are the Netherlands and the US.

We spend a lot on our people.

We don't spend a lot on the tools they need.

CountryActive militaryEquipment
% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditure
per active mbr
(millions)USD
United States1,395,35029.35$ 238,070$ 170,616
United Kingdom153,20024.26$ 17,653$ 115,227
Netherlands33,60026.20$ 3,767$ 112,114
France203,25027.80$ 16,327$ 80,328
Canada66,50017.66$ 4,684$ 70,436
Germany183,40018.55$ 12,018$ 65,527
Italy161,55028.90$ 8,602$ 53,244
Poland114,05026.10$ 3,489$ 30,595
Spain122,85022.75$ 3,384$ 27,546
Turkey355,20029.05$ 3,793$ 10,679

Poland, Spain and Turkey have special economic circumstances that put them in a different category to Canada.

Canada is a G7 country. An position it shares with France, Germany and Italy, as well as the UK and the US.
We can afford to do better. We should do better.

The Netherlands, a strong EU member and not notably a warmonger, is in the same league as the US and the UK spending $112,000 annually to supply the necessary tools for its defence. This compares to the $115,000 the UK spends.

The US spends significantly more, at $170,000 but for the purposes of this exercise I suggest we treat it as an outlier. Just as Poland, Spain and Turkey should be treated at the other end of the spectrum.

Our peers are France, Germany and Italy. We fair fairly well in that division.

But, and this is where opinion matters, I think we should be emulating the Netherlands lead and aspiring to a similar budget.

Raising our $70,436 expenditure to a Netherlands equivalent expenditure of $112,000 would raise the capital budget from $4,684,000,000 to $7,448,000,000. That 60% increase in the capital budget, or $2,764,000,000, would only represent a 10% increase in the total defence budget raising it to $29,287,000,000. That would also be a rise from 1.39% of GDP to 1.7%. Not 2% but getting closer.



Summary to date - keep the size of the force the same and make it more effective by spending the same amount per soldier as the Netherlands on the tools they need to conduct an effective defence.

Raise the Capital Budget by 60% adding $2,764,000,000 annually.

This will still leave us short of the NATO 2% target but 1.7% is better than 1.4%. Half Way there.

More to Follow.

Sometimes I wish your posts were videos lol ;)

Good post!
 
Same table reorganized

CountryDef ExpedGDP (billions)Per capitaPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %
(millions)/ % def expGDP / def exp
United States
811,140​
20,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,186
1351.5​
29.35​
37.47​
1.58​
31.59​
United Kingdom
72,765​
3,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023
156.2​
24.26​
32.69​
1.42​
41.64​
Germany
64,785​
3,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644
189.1​
18.55​
41.75​
3.69​
36.06​
France
58,729​
2,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751
208​
27.8​
42.53​
3.02​
26.65​
Italy
29,763​
1,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428
174.2​
28.9​
60.54​
1.67​
8.89​
Canada
26,523​
1,697 / 1.3944,100 / 632
71.1​
17.66​
47.5​
3.32​
31.52​
Spain
14,875​
1,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267
123.9​
22.75​
60.12​
0.73​
16.41​
Netherlands
14,378​
828 / 1.4547,100 / 685
40.8​
26.2​
47.26​
3.26​
23.28​
Poland
13,369​
575 / 2.1015,000 / 314
121.2​
26.1​
47.92​
4.97​
21.01​
Turkey
13,057​
1,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199
445.4​
29.05​
52.47​
1.95​
16.53​

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves," - an appropriate thought as we approach the Ides of March.

I am a big fan of, and major proponent of, increasing our Defence Expenditure to 2% of GDP. I think it would be lovely if we achieved 3.52% of GDP like the US. I would even take the 0.7% of GDP that we are supposed to set aside for foreign aid make it available for humanitarian operations conducted by the Department of National Defence.

But I also agree with those that argue that Cabinet, Treasury Board, Public Services and Procurement Canada, DND and the Canadian Armed Forces wouldn't have a clue how to spend that. Not just on what to spend but the mechanisms necessary to get the money where it needs to be in a timely fashion.

The logistics of money?

The first problem we face is defining the amount of money sent to people, fellow Canadians, that are being hired to wield the tools of defence, and how much is being spent on the tools themselves.

CountryActive militaryReserve militaryParamilitaryTotal% of Popn% of Popn
(total)(active)
Turkey
355,200​
378,700​
156,800​
890,700​
1.08​
0.43​
United States
1,395,350​
843,450​
0​
2,238,800​
0.67​
0.42​
France
203,250​
41,050​
100,500​
344,800​
0.51​
0.3​
Poland
114,050​
0​
75,400​
189,450​
0.5​
0.3​
Italy
161,550​
17,900​
176,350​
355,800​
0.57​
0.26​
Spain
122,850​
14,900​
75,800​
213,550​
0.45​
0.26​
United Kingdom
153,200​
75,450​
0​
228,650​
0.35​
0.23​
Germany
183,400​
30,050​
0​
213,450​
0.27​
0.23​
Netherlands
33,600​
6,000​
6,500​
46,100​
0.27​
0.19​
Canada
66,500​
34,400​
4,500​
105,400​
0.28​
0.18​

Before we look at how much we pay ourselves to defend ourselves we should probably take a look at how many of us we hire to do the fighting for us.

We employ 0.18% of our total population of 38,000,000 to defend us. To fight for us.
We hire 66,500 of us to do the fighting for the other 37,933,500 of us.
66,500 of us to operate the tools necessary to keep threats away from us.


Personnel
CountryActive military% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditure
per active mbr
%(millions)USD
Turkey
355,200​
52.476,85119,288
United States
1,395,350​
37.47303,934217,819
France
203,250​
42.5324,977122,890
Poland
114,050​
47.926,40656,172
Italy
161,550​
60.5418,019111,535
Spain
122,850​
60.128,94372,795
United Kingdom
153,200​
32.6923,787155,267
Germany
183,400​
41.727,015147,303
Netherlands
33,600​
47.266,795202,233
Canada
66,500​
47.512,598189,450


Canada is not stingy when it comes to covering its personnel. It looks pretty good compared the $19,288 per year that Turkey spends on each service person. It compares very favourably to Britain, France, Germany and Italy. The only countries that spend more on their people than Canada are the Netherlands and the US.

We spend a lot on our people.

We don't spend a lot on the tools they need.

CountryActive militaryEquipment
% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditure
per active mbr
(millions)USD
United States1,395,35029.35$ 238,070$ 170,616
United Kingdom153,20024.26$ 17,653$ 115,227
Netherlands33,60026.20$ 3,767$ 112,114
France203,25027.80$ 16,327$ 80,328
Canada66,50017.66$ 4,684$ 70,436
Germany183,40018.55$ 12,018$ 65,527
Italy161,55028.90$ 8,602$ 53,244
Poland114,05026.10$ 3,489$ 30,595
Spain122,85022.75$ 3,384$ 27,546
Turkey355,20029.05$ 3,793$ 10,679

Poland, Spain and Turkey have special economic circumstances that put them in a different category to Canada.

Canada is a G7 country. An position it shares with France, Germany and Italy, as well as the UK and the US.
We can afford to do better. We should do better.

The Netherlands, a strong EU member and not notably a warmonger, is in the same league as the US and the UK spending $112,000 annually to supply the necessary tools for its defence. This compares to the $115,000 the UK spends.

The US spends significantly more, at $170,000 but for the purposes of this exercise I suggest we treat it as an outlier. Just as Poland, Spain and Turkey should be treated at the other end of the spectrum.

Our peers are France, Germany and Italy. We fair fairly well in that division.

But, and this is where opinion matters, I think we should be emulating the Netherlands lead and aspiring to a similar budget.

Raising our $70,436 expenditure to a Netherlands equivalent expenditure of $112,000 would raise the capital budget from $4,684,000,000 to $7,448,000,000. That 60% increase in the capital budget, or $2,764,000,000, would only represent a 10% increase in the total defence budget raising it to $29,287,000,000. That would also be a rise from 1.39% of GDP to 1.7%. Not 2% but getting closer.



Summary to date - keep the size of the force the same and make it more effective by spending the same amount per soldier as the Netherlands on the tools they need to conduct an effective defence.

Raise the Capital Budget by 60% adding $2,764,000,000 annually.

This will still leave us short of the NATO 2% target but 1.7% is better than 1.4%. Half Way there.

More to Follow.
I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability. Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most modern in the world, but still..
 
Quick check has Italian average military pay at 51k and ours at 67k.
 
One has.to understand that Italy's military have to operate on a daily basis in the real world. The Canadian Forces have to operate in Ottawa's.world....where ever that may be.
Although I've begun to wonder if the current crisis has actually started to sink in. I mean the the Russians have actually used the "N" word and the other two bio and chemical.
Furthermore both Sweden and Finland are actually publicly open to joining.NATO. Think about the previous sentence.
 
Last edited:
The Minister did the rounds of the Sunday Talk shows. Was very vague when asked about the relevance of SSE as it retains tot the current international security climate. I'm hoping that this means that there is going to be a refreshment of this policy in the near future, but only after a Foreign Policy document is produced. DND/CAF is shooting blind if we don't know what our International policy arcs of fire are.
 
The Minister did the rounds of the Sunday Talk shows. Was very vague when asked about the relevance of SSE as it retains tot the current international security climate. I'm hoping that this means that there is going to be a refreshment of this policy in the near future, but only after a Foreign Policy document is produced. DND/CAF is shooting blind if we don't know what our International policy arcs of fire are.
I’d be fine with a stronger NORAD and focus on the Arctic. That would cover a lot of bases. Biggest threats to the Arctic is Russia and China.

So that would be a good start.
 
Conscripts don't get paid much.

Hmmmm .....
Italy abolished conscription in 2000 and didn't have a draft after 2003. It's been a volunteer force since before we rolled into Kandahar in broken Iltis'.

Italians, unlike most Canadians, remember how unruly the neighbours can get.
 
I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability. Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most modern in the world, but still..
Do they include their SAR capability in those numbers?
 
I’d be fine with a stronger NORAD and focus on the Arctic. That would cover a lot of bases. Biggest threats to the Arctic is Russia and China.

So that would be a good start.

-Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time Army? Keep SOF?
-Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
-Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.

Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?
 
-Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time Army? Keep SOF?
-Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
-Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.

Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?
I’m in agreement with the army. I’d reduce the full time and increase the reserves or even double it. Make it mostly combat arms and some CSS. But that would require massive changes to reserve TOS.

Keep SOF. keep specialists and CSS. And a full time cadre of trainers/instructors for the combat arms element

Increase the airforce and Navy significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV
I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability. Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most modern in the world, but still..

How much of our costs are energy and transportation costs of being in a large, cold, sparsely populated country? I know it’s often a factor in other organizations in this country. If we weren’t paying so much in heating buildings and moving people and stuff around, would we have a more skookum military?
 
Back
Top