This indeed appears to be the most hopeful period for Canada’s military since the White Paper put out under Mulroney, but that was generally seen as impossible to sell or do. I now hope we have the vision, staff and doctrine to see this through.
I was at the Naval Officer Selection Board in Halifax when the Nuclear submarines were cancelled. We had several engineers who pulled there applications that same day.
The change of mindset at NDHQ Carling is amazing to see. CRCN is pushing hard to get infrastructure, people, and platforms in the happer while the getting is good.
As usual, the logistics will be the key to everything:
1. Retention rates are low, mostly because there aren’t enough qualified instructors to man the training depots like St. Jean.
2. There isn’t enough housing for the Reg Forces to absorb the current recruits in terms of barracks or PMQs, even with units sent overseas.
3. As addressed earlier, NDHQs ability to spend the budgets they already have is impaired, either from bureaucratic mis-management, or NDHQ sending too many PCNs on the project. (Proposed Change Notice for those not in the trades: usually there are twice as many PCNs as specifications for anything you are scheduled to do quickly)
4. Getting all the kittens pulling in the same direction: Leadership. We probably still have the best led soldiers, sailors and airmen in the world because we have had to make do with minimal equipment and firepower, and good high caliber leadership has made up the difference. Unfortunately, good leaders often aren’t good politicians. The Chiefs of the Defense Staff have not been able to bring the politicians around to see the nation’s Defense needs, but in all fairness, the politicians have been willfully blind/short sighted/stupid, and there is only so much you can do with them other than utter curses under your breath and make voodoo dolls of them.
5. The last point is that we will need to build a defense industry almost from scratch. The US finished hollowing out our manufacturing capacity back in 2008, and precious little has been done to rebuild it. This will be the biggest logistic challenge, not unlike what Canada faced in 1939. We will need to not re-tool, but to build the tools first.
5% may only be a downpayment on a much larger bill. Let’s hope Carney’s up for his part of the challenge.
As I see it, the criteria for defence spending must include a much greater proportion of the budget to be spent within Canada and not just complacently handed over to US companies. If we spend $40b now and $20b goes to US suppliers, we're not doing ourselves any favours. If we increase spending to $140b and $120b is within Canada we can make a huge impact internally.
A significant amount should be spent on the members themselves, in salaries and kit. Skilled trades and specialist occupations (medical, pilot etcetera) should be paid comparably to the private sector. Accommodations for families should be of a high enough standard to warrant pride in how we treat members. The kit members are issued, upon which their lives may depend, should be of the highest standard (and preferably Canadian). So many members have to supplement their kit with personal items that it's quite embarrassing.
That "defence spending" will actually cover a wider spectrum is not diluting the services, merely acknowledging that for instance CCG and port security are defence elements.
All the blather about Carney kow towing to the orange blob is I hope nonsense. I see it as him understanding that unnecessarily poking the bear is unwise. At most, we've another three years to put up with it, one if the midterms happen appropriately and maybe 20 minutes if most peoples prayers are answered.
We can much improve our military, our manufacturing, our resilience, our pride and our allies with an appropriately directed increase in defence spending.
We could probably get to 5% if you count investment in development of defense materiel (tanks, jets, batteries, whatever) for the 1.5% over spending of 3.5%. This might be a good path for Canada to take, esp if done in partnership with other NATO partners. And, depending on future events, it might become necessary to expand the size of the armed forces - in which case some kind of planning for 5% would seem to be desirable.
That’s exactly the plan for the 1.5%. As I mentioned, the PM has said the criterion are even broader than simply spending on defence materiel. It could include something like port expansions, transport links, etc. - anything that adds to Canada’s strategic position.
3% is adequate and 5% is too high, which aligns with countries like Spain, it jeopardizes social welfare. Smaller economies and those further from Russia (e.g., Spain, Italy) face steeper hurdles than Eastern European nations already near or above 3%. The U.S., despite its high absolute spending, would also struggle to hit 5% without significant domestic trade-offs. Efficiency in spending—focusing on equipment, modernization, and joint capabilities—could mitigate the need for such a high threshold.
A collective 3% GDP spending level ($1.42 trillion) is likely sufficient to deter and, if necessary, defeat North Korea, China, and Russia in a defensive context, given NATO’s current financial and military superiority. The 5% target ($2.36 trillion) offers additional capacity for global power projection or multi-theater conflicts but is not strictly necessary for the stated adversaries, especially considering economic constraints and strategic mismatches.
Therefore 3% or 3.5% GDP spending is adequate for NATO’s defensive needs against these adversaries, while the 5% target is excessive for the defined purpose.
I thought it was pretty obvious where the 3.5%/1.5% split came from - the USA already spends about 3.5%, so all D.C. hacks have to do is declare anything under the sun security related and nothing has to change. Whole scam is about making NATO buy more American stuff, and utterly inane policy since every other country now has a strong incentive to invest in its own industrial base, not buy from Raytheon, Boeing, or Lockheed.
Gotta hand it to Trump - he's scoring more own goals than Xi and Putin have any right to hope for.
Yes, the US itself has been responsible for the very dependence it now supposedly resents. In many, many ways america built NATO as a get-rich strategy by imposing its own military complex on members.
When PM Carney said the felon made the world a safer place, the sarcasm wasn’t lost on many. My criticism of the felon does not apply to all Americans, I’m an American fortunate enough to live in the great country Canada. The ones who voted for the felon will also feel the effects of the felons curse, I’ve zero empathy for one of them.
Maybe this next comment comes from ignorance. But we can borrow personnel from other militaries to train our own if that's lacking. Suffield is a positive.
Canada is seen to train people in other countries. Maybe we could have cross training with other militaries especially with all the new equipment we're supposed to procure.
I understand we have engineers in South Korea looking at their subs. That being the case, excellent.
Finally, one of the things Defence has had to contend with is political wishy-washiness, budgets being frozen and priorities realigned. Direction kept changing. That became the norm. If the government can support Defence for a decade and keep leadership that doesn't screw with its members, then the next decade could be quite inspiring. Russia, China, and an increasingly desperate US are waiting and we need readiness, aye, readiness.
The actions of the felon in the USA has united the world in a way that I’ve never seen in my 61 years. That’s one thing the felon is good at, getting people to band together to keep safe from him.
This all sounds too good to be true. I think the ability of our understaffed armed forces to absorb a huge influx of purchasing power will be an immense challenge.
Canada relied on the US because they TOLD US TO. During the Diefenbaker days, the US convinced Canada not to develop the AVRO Arrow or pursue our aeronautics division.
The USA said to Canada “don’t worry, we’ll take care of you, just buy what you need from USA in exchange”. This remained a permanent situation; the USA profited massively off our purchasing of their military hardware and in exchange, the subsidized our defence.
This is NOT Canadian government being cheap, it was the agreement made.
Over the years, Harper gutted the military spending and was only spending approx 1.5%, and Trudeau only increased it minutely. COVID hitting and the recovery afterwards limited any further increases.
Enter Trump. He does not care about defence. EVERYTHING is about money and profits. He demanded increased GOP%, NOT because we didn’t spend our share but because he wanted higher purchases of US hardware. This was about PROFITS, not defence. The USA is the number one seller of Military hardware.
In his second term, Trump demanded 5%, thinking more American profits, but now, due to his own ignorance and bullying, all nations are purchasing elsewhere.
As a result, he is saying he won’t honour Article 5. This isn’t about countries spending their share, it’s about them NOT spending it in the USA.
The media was calling Europe's behavior as a "charm offensive". The sane, rational European (including Canada) governments and spokespersons have Trump's number, and they are using his pathological narcissism to manipulate him.
This is helpful. I remain befuddled by the discussion on percents of GDP. I am interested in what we need, based on a current policy framework to defend citizens, our sovereignty and our interests. It is certainly greater than what we do now and it certainly means the size and capacity of all aspects of our armed forces needs to be significantly upgraded. Cherry picking hardware to meet a target is not helpful. What does success look like - high performing effective and efficient?
This indeed appears to be the most hopeful period for Canada’s military since the White Paper put out under Mulroney, but that was generally seen as impossible to sell or do. I now hope we have the vision, staff and doctrine to see this through.
Indeed.
The Mulroney paper was before my time, but I still remember Reserve units anticipating a full complement of Leopard 1s. It was a bit bonkers.
I was at the Naval Officer Selection Board in Halifax when the Nuclear submarines were cancelled. We had several engineers who pulled there applications that same day.
The change of mindset at NDHQ Carling is amazing to see. CRCN is pushing hard to get infrastructure, people, and platforms in the happer while the getting is good.
As usual, the logistics will be the key to everything:
1. Retention rates are low, mostly because there aren’t enough qualified instructors to man the training depots like St. Jean.
2. There isn’t enough housing for the Reg Forces to absorb the current recruits in terms of barracks or PMQs, even with units sent overseas.
3. As addressed earlier, NDHQs ability to spend the budgets they already have is impaired, either from bureaucratic mis-management, or NDHQ sending too many PCNs on the project. (Proposed Change Notice for those not in the trades: usually there are twice as many PCNs as specifications for anything you are scheduled to do quickly)
4. Getting all the kittens pulling in the same direction: Leadership. We probably still have the best led soldiers, sailors and airmen in the world because we have had to make do with minimal equipment and firepower, and good high caliber leadership has made up the difference. Unfortunately, good leaders often aren’t good politicians. The Chiefs of the Defense Staff have not been able to bring the politicians around to see the nation’s Defense needs, but in all fairness, the politicians have been willfully blind/short sighted/stupid, and there is only so much you can do with them other than utter curses under your breath and make voodoo dolls of them.
5. The last point is that we will need to build a defense industry almost from scratch. The US finished hollowing out our manufacturing capacity back in 2008, and precious little has been done to rebuild it. This will be the biggest logistic challenge, not unlike what Canada faced in 1939. We will need to not re-tool, but to build the tools first.
5% may only be a downpayment on a much larger bill. Let’s hope Carney’s up for his part of the challenge.
As I see it, the criteria for defence spending must include a much greater proportion of the budget to be spent within Canada and not just complacently handed over to US companies. If we spend $40b now and $20b goes to US suppliers, we're not doing ourselves any favours. If we increase spending to $140b and $120b is within Canada we can make a huge impact internally.
A significant amount should be spent on the members themselves, in salaries and kit. Skilled trades and specialist occupations (medical, pilot etcetera) should be paid comparably to the private sector. Accommodations for families should be of a high enough standard to warrant pride in how we treat members. The kit members are issued, upon which their lives may depend, should be of the highest standard (and preferably Canadian). So many members have to supplement their kit with personal items that it's quite embarrassing.
That "defence spending" will actually cover a wider spectrum is not diluting the services, merely acknowledging that for instance CCG and port security are defence elements.
All the blather about Carney kow towing to the orange blob is I hope nonsense. I see it as him understanding that unnecessarily poking the bear is unwise. At most, we've another three years to put up with it, one if the midterms happen appropriately and maybe 20 minutes if most peoples prayers are answered.
We can much improve our military, our manufacturing, our resilience, our pride and our allies with an appropriately directed increase in defence spending.
Excellent post 🎯
Thank you for this. As usual an excellent analysis.
We could probably get to 5% if you count investment in development of defense materiel (tanks, jets, batteries, whatever) for the 1.5% over spending of 3.5%. This might be a good path for Canada to take, esp if done in partnership with other NATO partners. And, depending on future events, it might become necessary to expand the size of the armed forces - in which case some kind of planning for 5% would seem to be desirable.
That’s exactly the plan for the 1.5%. As I mentioned, the PM has said the criterion are even broader than simply spending on defence materiel. It could include something like port expansions, transport links, etc. - anything that adds to Canada’s strategic position.
3% is adequate and 5% is too high, which aligns with countries like Spain, it jeopardizes social welfare. Smaller economies and those further from Russia (e.g., Spain, Italy) face steeper hurdles than Eastern European nations already near or above 3%. The U.S., despite its high absolute spending, would also struggle to hit 5% without significant domestic trade-offs. Efficiency in spending—focusing on equipment, modernization, and joint capabilities—could mitigate the need for such a high threshold.
A collective 3% GDP spending level ($1.42 trillion) is likely sufficient to deter and, if necessary, defeat North Korea, China, and Russia in a defensive context, given NATO’s current financial and military superiority. The 5% target ($2.36 trillion) offers additional capacity for global power projection or multi-theater conflicts but is not strictly necessary for the stated adversaries, especially considering economic constraints and strategic mismatches.
Therefore 3% or 3.5% GDP spending is adequate for NATO’s defensive needs against these adversaries, while the 5% target is excessive for the defined purpose.
Thank you for this, we'll thought and reasoned response to what so far has been a "the sky is falling" response by most.
I thought it was pretty obvious where the 3.5%/1.5% split came from - the USA already spends about 3.5%, so all D.C. hacks have to do is declare anything under the sun security related and nothing has to change. Whole scam is about making NATO buy more American stuff, and utterly inane policy since every other country now has a strong incentive to invest in its own industrial base, not buy from Raytheon, Boeing, or Lockheed.
Gotta hand it to Trump - he's scoring more own goals than Xi and Putin have any right to hope for.
Yes, the US itself has been responsible for the very dependence it now supposedly resents. In many, many ways america built NATO as a get-rich strategy by imposing its own military complex on members.
When PM Carney said the felon made the world a safer place, the sarcasm wasn’t lost on many. My criticism of the felon does not apply to all Americans, I’m an American fortunate enough to live in the great country Canada. The ones who voted for the felon will also feel the effects of the felons curse, I’ve zero empathy for one of them.
Firstly thank you for the detail.
Maybe this next comment comes from ignorance. But we can borrow personnel from other militaries to train our own if that's lacking. Suffield is a positive.
Canada is seen to train people in other countries. Maybe we could have cross training with other militaries especially with all the new equipment we're supposed to procure.
I understand we have engineers in South Korea looking at their subs. That being the case, excellent.
Finally, one of the things Defence has had to contend with is political wishy-washiness, budgets being frozen and priorities realigned. Direction kept changing. That became the norm. If the government can support Defence for a decade and keep leadership that doesn't screw with its members, then the next decade could be quite inspiring. Russia, China, and an increasingly desperate US are waiting and we need readiness, aye, readiness.
The actions of the felon in the USA has united the world in a way that I’ve never seen in my 61 years. That’s one thing the felon is good at, getting people to band together to keep safe from him.
Ironic, eh?
This all sounds too good to be true. I think the ability of our understaffed armed forces to absorb a huge influx of purchasing power will be an immense challenge.
It must be stated;
Canada relied on the US because they TOLD US TO. During the Diefenbaker days, the US convinced Canada not to develop the AVRO Arrow or pursue our aeronautics division.
The USA said to Canada “don’t worry, we’ll take care of you, just buy what you need from USA in exchange”. This remained a permanent situation; the USA profited massively off our purchasing of their military hardware and in exchange, the subsidized our defence.
This is NOT Canadian government being cheap, it was the agreement made.
Over the years, Harper gutted the military spending and was only spending approx 1.5%, and Trudeau only increased it minutely. COVID hitting and the recovery afterwards limited any further increases.
Enter Trump. He does not care about defence. EVERYTHING is about money and profits. He demanded increased GOP%, NOT because we didn’t spend our share but because he wanted higher purchases of US hardware. This was about PROFITS, not defence. The USA is the number one seller of Military hardware.
In his second term, Trump demanded 5%, thinking more American profits, but now, due to his own ignorance and bullying, all nations are purchasing elsewhere.
As a result, he is saying he won’t honour Article 5. This isn’t about countries spending their share, it’s about them NOT spending it in the USA.
The media was calling Europe's behavior as a "charm offensive". The sane, rational European (including Canada) governments and spokespersons have Trump's number, and they are using his pathological narcissism to manipulate him.
This is helpful. I remain befuddled by the discussion on percents of GDP. I am interested in what we need, based on a current policy framework to defend citizens, our sovereignty and our interests. It is certainly greater than what we do now and it certainly means the size and capacity of all aspects of our armed forces needs to be significantly upgraded. Cherry picking hardware to meet a target is not helpful. What does success look like - high performing effective and efficient?