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

The Defence Budget [superthread]

PuckChaser said:
We're taxing the new legal weed. Sounds like a great place to find $5B to bring us up to a respectable budget.

Have Bombardier pay back all their loans, 5% penalty on Irving and Seaspan for every month ships are delivered late, cut 25% of the civilian contracts in the Ottawa area (estimated to cost DND 3 billion a year for all those contracts) might get us close to $5B. Then actually increase our budget as the committee recommends. I'm curious what the Senate included though to come up with the 0.88%
 
Should we get back on topic of Defence Budgets?

17884480_1322183564515435_681748067452271742_n.jpg
 
As many speculated, the fix was in. Trump may thump sunshine and butterflies about defence spending, the start of which was softwood lumber tariff today and hopefully supply management soon.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-new-liberal-defence-plan-likely-to-short-change-military

John Ivison: New Liberal defence plan looks likely to leave military short-changed 24 Apr 17

Justin Trudeau will head to Sicily next month for a NATO meeting with Donald Trump and other allies. The defence department hopes to release its major policy review before then, but perhaps it would be just as well if the Prime Minister goes empty-handed.

The Americans want Canada to live up to its commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but new figures suggest this year the country will hit a post-war spending low of just 0.88 per cent. Last month’s federal budget said the defence policy review will put the Armed Forces on a “sustainable footing,” but there was no money in that budget — in fact, $933 million earmarked for capital spending was pulled out of the defence budget over a six-year period.

This is a bad omen for the prospects of a major cash infusion. In previous reviews, DND got the money first and then published a policy outlining how it would be used.

Multiple sources say that the military submitted its plan to the federal cabinet only to have it sent back to the department for some pruning.

One particular thorny issue is ballistic missile defence, the cost of which is almost impossible to gauge since the Americans won’t talk hard numbers until Canada agrees to sign on. Nobody in defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s office would talk about cabinet discussions but sources expect the review will fudge on the subject by simply asking the military to examine the issue more closely.

David Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he doesn’t believe the defence policy review is likely to assuage American concerns that Canada is a free-rider when it comes to defence.

“I’m not hearing they are dealing with a ton of money,” he said.

Before the federal budget, Perry wrote a paper suggesting the budget would establish the fiscal framework for the defence policy review. Ahead of similar exercises in 2005 and 2008, spending increases were included in the budget.

“If the outcome of the Defence Policy Review is an expansionist defence policy, and the minister of National Defence has indicated it will be, its short-term success depends on getting the needed funding put into the fiscal framework in the 2017 budget,” he wrote.

That didn’t happen — in fact, the government withdrew $8.48 billion from the fiscal framework over the next 20 years, to help pay for other priorities.

Trudeau — and his predecessor Stephen Harper — have long argued that share of GDP devoted to defence is not a good measure of Canada’s commitment to NATO.

“While the argument has merit, it would likely carry more weight if the share of our GDP devoted to defence were not in decline,” said Perry.

At $18.7 billion, defence spending is also at a new low in terms of share of total program expenditures at 6.11 per cent.

The same Senate defence committee report that found Canada is approaching a post-war low point in spending concluded that the Canadian military is “chronically underfunded,” pointing out that the Forces need more than $2 billion in new money, just to maintain current operations.

Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid


“As the world becomes a more complex place, especially with rogue regimes and non-state actors seeking and acquiring biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, and mobile missile launch capability, Canada should not rely on others to protect our national interests and defend our sovereignty,” the report said, as it recommended Canada sign up for BMD and double defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP over the next 11 years.

There are no signs that the defence policy review will reflect similar thinking.

Canada has committed to some 600 soldiers for a still-undefined peacekeeping mission in Africa; 450 troops are already in Latvia; a further 830 personnel are contributing to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Canadian Forces are fully capable of doing what has already been announced. But it would be a career-limiting move for a general to suggest otherwise.

Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid, and closing the funding gap does not appear to be a priority for the Prime Minister.

Yet his most important foreign policy task is to have a close working relationship with the President of the United States.

If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.


See also:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadian-military-could-be-on-verge-of-new-decade-of-darkness-rick-hillier

Defence cuts have left Canadian military in ‘fragile’ shape: Rick Hillier 13 Apr 17
 
Rifleman62 said:
If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
But to many of our Prime Minister's cheerleaders, being unpopular with Trump just adds to the PM's rock-star status.

They're not remotely thinking of knock-on effects, like trade quotas and tariffs, softwood lumber, pipelines....  Simply that our guy stood up to the evil ogre -- bonus points for it being on the subject of ewww... military spending.

    :not-again:
 
Journeyman said:
But to many of our Prime Minister's cheerleaders, being unpopular with Trump just adds to the PM's rock-star status.

They're not remotely thinking of knock-on effects, like trade quotas and tariffs, softwood lumber, pipelines....  Simply that our guy stood up to the evil ogre -- bonus points for it being on the subject of ewww... military spending.

    :not-again:

Thumbs up.
 
Journeyman said:
But to many of our Prime Minister's cheerleaders, being unpopular with Trump just adds to the PM's rock-star status.

They're not remotely thinking of knock-on effects, like trade quotas and tariffs, softwood lumber, pipelines....  Simply that our guy stood up to the evil ogre -- bonus points for it being on the subject of ewww... military spending.

    :not-again:

They are thinking about soft wood lumber and pipelines...they just don't care. People who drill for oil and cut trees for a living, tend not to vote Liberal in large numbers. And, keeping oil in the ground and trees standing in a forest (until they fall down or burn down, catestrophically) thrills the Laurentian elite.

Mark my words...
 
Another, obliquely related thought.

If I were a machevallian premier of Alberta or Saskatchewan (or both), I might make a big deal about supporting US softwood lumber tariffs, unless and until BC and Quebec start to see the light on pipelines.

Just sayin....
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-24/trump-said-to-plan-20-tariff-on-canadian-softwood-lumber-j1wq4tyg

Opportunity to test your theory SKT.

24% Tariff.

By the way -

Democrats Make Final Stand In Montana Special Election
PHILLIP STUCKY
3:10 PM 04/24/2017

Democrats face an uphill battle in their effort to turn the Montana special election into a referendum on President Donald Trump after their party failed to win in either the Kansas or Georgia special elections.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/democrats-make-final-stand-in-montana-special-election/

Anybody remember this guy?  Democrat Senator Max Baucus from Montana.  The face of the American Softwood Lobby.

220px-Portrait_of_Ambassador_Max_Baucus.jpg


Trump keeps looking for easy twofers.  Boost Trump and Republicans in Montana and Wisconsin.  Pressure Canada to get its act together on Trade and Defence.

As Trump has made clear by now, and explicit to the Chinese and Germans, trade and deficits and defence are linked.  You don't get security for free.

 
The PM is going to whip out Cdn milk cows on Pres Trump re supply mgt.
 
Maybe this might get the PM's attention.

From the article above on the tariffs.

In the latest chapter of a trade dispute that has been simmering for decades, the U.S. Department of Commerce in a preliminary determination Monday said it has calculated that Canada subsidizes Canfor Corp. by 20.26 percent; West Fraser Mills Ltd. by 24.12 percent; Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd. by 19.5 percent; Resolute FP Canada Ltd. by 12.82 percent and J.D. Irving Ltd. by 3.02 percent. It set a preliminary subsidy rate of 19.88 percent for all other producers in Canada.

And yes.  It is the same Irving.

https://www.jdirving.com/


 
The Canadian government claims no subsidy (haven't we won every previous case on this?).  We'll have to wait a little longer before drawing too many conclusions based on US claims.
 
Chris Pook said:
Maybe this might get the PM's attention ...
This info is not exactly new, and hasn't led to a resolution by either Team Red or Team Blue since the early-mid 1980's.
jmt18325 said:
... (haven't we won every previous case on this?) ...
Yes.
 
I have a bad feeling that our smug young PM just put a big bullseye on all of us.

:facepalm:
 
Chris Pook said:
Maybe this might get the PM's attention.

From the article above on the tariffs.

And yes.  It is the same Irving.

https://www.jdirving.com/

Note that Irving got dinged far less than anyone else.  My guess, it's because they have operations in both the Canada .... and the US.

2013%20Map%20of%20Operations.jpg


Note the mills in Maine and NY.  As well as the extensive woodlot holdings in Maine.
 
... but, we are now getting well off the topic of defence funding.
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I have a bad feeling that our smug young PM just put a big bullseye on all of us.

:facepalm:

Trudeau has been nicer to Trump than pretty much anyone else.  I don't think that's the issue.
 
Maybe we should do this the Ukrainian way and start fund raising. "With your sponsoring of a canadian soldier, youll recieve this photo of the soldier who you are supplying with rations and ammo"

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 
On Wednesday May 3rd, there will be a news conference with the CDA where the MND will be making a long speech about defense policy. This could be our defense policy review release.
 
MilEME09 said:
On Wednesday May 3rd, there will be a news conference with the CDA where the MND will be making a long speech about defense policy. This could be our defense policy review release.

I thought I read somewhere that he'd only be speaking for 10 minutes (that somewhere can't be linked to...)?
 
Back
Top