The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Altair]

Like subpar equipment with squeaky brakes and military trucks that can't leave a hard surfaced road.

Both parties do it, and the NDP would don't if they had the chance. If they didn't disband the military all together I mean.

Maybe if canadians cared one way or another things would be different but they don't so it isn't.

 

[PuckChaser]

Both parties do it, and the NDP would don't if they had the chance. If they didn't disband the military all together I mean.

Maybe if canadians cared one way or another things would be different but they don't so it isn't.

That's the big issue, we don't have all party (or at least the 2 that matter) consensus on a properly funded and supported CAF. One party gets in power saying they'll do better, raids the budget to fund other priorities, opposition says they'll be different, gets elected and does the exact same thing, starting the cycle again. Until we have an Australian model, we'll continue to be political pawns, and used for media releases with no real support.

 

[Altair]

That's the big issue, we don't have all party (or at least the 2 that matter) consensus on a properly funded and supported CAF. One party gets in power saying they'll do better, raids the budget to fund other priorities, opposition says they'll be different, gets elected and does the exact same thing, starting the cycle again. Until we have an Australian model, we'll continue to be political pawns, and used for media releases with no real support.

Want to start a political party?

Actually, bad idea, political parties started by ex military men(or women) tend to drag their respective country into the abyss

 

[PuckChaser]

Want to start a political party?

Actually, bad idea, political parties started by ex military men(or women) tend to drag their respective country into the abyss

I don't think we need to. I think with Stephen Harper and his fetish for completely balanced budgets gone, and if Telford/Butts disappear with their eco-activist agenda, both parties could be convinced to take that path. It would take a gentlemens/ladies agreement (if one could exist with politicians) that deficits as a direct result of military spending are off-limits for political hay.

PSPC rules for capital procurement (over $1B CAD) would need to be completely overhauled, removing provisions requiring 100% economic benefit to Canada. Timelines set for major equipment replacement tied to capabilities, not specific vehicles: Light trucks/ships/fighters replaced every X years. This would allow some sort of Canadian military manufacturing capacity, as US companies could place subsidiaries in Canada knowing that every X years they can could on a competition on a standard basis, and focus their R&D to win those contracts by showing both Canadian content, and adherence to SOR (not the "pick one" ideals that gives us crappy kit now). There'd also have to be steady funding to slowly purchase that equipment over its life expectancy, 1-2 fighters a year for example, until 5-7 years prior to IOC on that timeline, so any catastrophic equipment failures are replaced from stock, not reducing capabilities.

Its a pipe dream, but wholly possible, and wouldn't take a huge chunk out of the entitlement budget for things like income splitting or child benefits. I don't think the Liberals and Tories are far apart on the issue, but grandstanding and partisan bickering gets in the way of an actual consensus.

 

[Altair]

I don't think we need to. I think with Stephen Harper and his fetish for completely balanced budgets gone, and if Telford/Butts disappear with their eco-activist agenda, both parties could be convinced to take that path. It would take a gentlemens/ladies agreement (if one could exist with politicians) that deficits as a direct result of military spending are off-limits for political hay.

PSPC rules for capital procurement (over $1B CAD) would need to be completely overhauled, removing provisions requiring 100% economic benefit to Canada. Timelines set for major equipment replacement tied to capabilities, not specific vehicles: Light trucks/ships/fighters replaced every X years. This would allow some sort of Canadian military manufacturing capacity, as US companies could place subsidiaries in Canada knowing that every X years they can could on a competition on a standard basis, and focus their R&D to win those contracts by showing both Canadian content, and adherence to SOR (not the "pick one" ideals that gives us crappy kit now). There'd also have to be steady funding to slowly purchase that equipment over its life expectancy, 1-2 fighters a year for example, until 5-7 years prior to IOC on that timeline, so any catastrophic equipment failures are replaced from stock, not reducing capabilities.

Its a pipe dream, but wholly possible, and wouldn't take a huge chunk out of the entitlement budget for things like income splitting or child benefits. I don't think the Liberals and Tories are far apart on the issue, but grandstanding and partisan bickering gets in the way of an actual consensus.

even when the conservatives were at their most rah rah military we have never come close to 2 percent of gdp spent on military.

It would take a whole new party with a pro military stance to try to raise the FST 2 points and direct that money to the military. The CPC and LPC will never do it, and the NDP would prefer we didn't even have guns.

 

[MilEME09]

even when the conservatives were at their most rah rah military we have never come close to 2 percent of gdp spent on military.

It would take a whole new party with a pro military stance to try to raise the FST 2 points and direct that money to the military. The CPC and LPC will never do it, and the NDP would prefer we didn't even have guns.

Well the only other parties to have MP's in the past decade in the house are the greens, and the Strength in Democracy party (just before the election two MP's came together to form it, both lost their seats in the election). Though the Libertarian Party of Canada saw a lot of growth in terms of votes in the 2015 election with 37,407 votes, compared to around 6000 in 2011.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have heard Canada compared unfavourably to the UK on the issue of defence. 

Apparently UK voters are no more likely to bother themselves about defence than Canadian voters

For Tories it is number 5 on the list.

For Labour it is number 7.

 

[Altair]

I have heard Canada compared unfavourably to the UK on the issue of defence. 

Apparently UK voters are no more likely to bother themselves about defence than Canadian voters

For Tories it is number 5 on the list.

For Labour it is number 7.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3222945

Defense doesn't even show up on cansdians list of priorities. Unless one is generous and lumps in defense with foreign policy in which case it's dead last at 2 percent of issues Canadians give a rats ass about.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair dues, Altair.

Short form, though, is even in a Defence (& Security) "friendly" place like the UK it is low on the voter's agenda.

Though thinking further from that.....

Does that mean that politicians should disregard the voter and focus on the international necessities.

I don't think about sewers much.

I rely on the city to have people to think about them and maintain them.

 

[Altair]

Fair dues, Altair.

Short form, though, is even in a Defence (& Security) "friendly" place like the UK it is low on the voter's agenda.

Though thinking further from that.....

Does that mean that politicians should disregard the voter and focus on the international necessities.

I don't think about sewers much.

I rely on the city to have people to think about them and maintain them.

if I had my way I would raise the GST 2 points, call it national defense tax, direct it to the military  and see just how deep supports runs in this country for our armed forces

 

[CBH99]

I hate to say it - I honestly, truly do - BUT.....I think if you raised the GST by 1%, not 2%, and directed that towards national defense/national security, you'd still have an unwinnable battle.

People want all kinds of things.  Just don't want THEIR tax dollars paying for it.  (National childcare, national defense, etc etc)

 

[Altair]

I hate to say it - I honestly, truly do - BUT.....I think if you raised the GST by 1%, not 2%, and directed that towards national defense/national security, you'd still have an unwinnable battle.

People want all kinds of things.  Just don't want THEIR tax dollars paying for it.  (National childcare, national defense, etc etc)

Call it something unassailable.  Veterans and serving members support tax.

 

[larry Strong]

Boeing looking to sweeten the offer.......

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-canada-idUSKCN0Z9222


Cheers
Larry

 

[Kirkhill]

Call it something unassailable.  Veterans and serving members support tax.

The Veterans Renewal Tax - To Guarantee a Steady Supply of Veterans?

 

[PuckChaser]

if I had my way I would raise the GST 2 points, call it national defense tax, direct it to the military  and see just how deep supports runs in this country for our armed forces

If my math is right (I'm a SigOp, not a MathOp), that would give us another $13B based on 2015 Revenues from GST. I don't think that's sustainable, as a 40% increase to the GST would cause some economic turmoil, lowering some of that revenue. 1% increase would give us enough money to properly fund capital projects.

All that procurement money does nothing though, if we keep having to buy overpriced Canadian crap that is noncompetitive to foreign goods in the military sector.

 

[Altair]

If my math is right (I'm a SigOp, not a MathOp), that would give us another $13B based on 2015 Revenues from GST. I don't think that's sustainable, as a 40% increase to the GST would cause some economic turmoil, lowering some of that revenue. 1% increase would give us enough money to properly fund capital projects.

All that procurement money does nothing though, if we keep having to buy overpriced Canadian crap that is noncompetitive to foreign goods in the military sector.

when one considers that 2 percent of our GDP should be spent on defense and we are currently just under 1 percent a 2 percent raise in GST is not unjustified.

That extra 13 billion, give or take isn't even enough to get us all the way to 2 percent

 

[Sailorwest]

Truth is that almost none of the pending increases in taxes (carbon, GST, etc) is going to be earmarked for defence. Way too many issues that the liberal voting base are concerned about to dedicate a lot of spending on the military. Never been a priority in Canada and it never will.

 

[Altair]

Truth is that almost none of the pending increases in taxes (carbon, GST, etc) is going to be earmarked for defence. Way too many issues that the liberal voting base are concerned about to dedicate a lot of spending on the military. Never been a priority in Canada and it never will.

Yup. The forces are screwed one way or another. One party is too preoccupied trying to lower taxes that it can't spend the 2 percent promised and the other,even while running deficits want to spend on social programs instead of defense.

So we limp along...

 

[Inspir]

I think the problem is more less that the general public doesn't take defence seriously as they have this misconstrued belief that we are wrapped in a security blanket from our allies. I think it would take NATO to say "so long Canada you are not doing your part" for people to be like "oh shit we're on our own now".

 

[Altair]

I think the problem is more less that the general public doesn't take defence seriously as they have this misconstrued belief that we are wrapped in a security blanket from our allies. I think it would take NATO to say "so long Canada you are not doing your part" for people to be like "oh crap we're on our own now".

There is only one person who can make that happen...sadly.