The Conservative Party has released Part II of their Arctic Security Strategy, something they promised a few weeks ago but many seemed to have forgotten.
I agree the idea of tying defence spending to a free trade deal doesn't inspire confidence. However, maybe 2030 is realistically the earliest any government can hit the 2% of GDP target. When you consider the complexity of fixing the procurement process (or even just circumventing it) so that more money can be spent, the amount of time to get to the contract signing stage of new projects, build infrastructure, recruit more people, and overhaul the training system to increase throughput, 2030 even starts to look ambitious. Sure, increasing salaries and benefits for everyone is an easy win, but that's only a partial solution.
I used to have this mentality, but talking around more ive been convinced we could reach it by 2027/28 if we really pushed. We have several major projects in the pipeline that should be coming to ahead by this time. While there are restrictions and blocks in the system, we also have billion of dollars in maintenance backlog, necessary infrastructure work. The navy alone could probably tune in billions in that timeframe if we gave the funding, same to the Air Force and NORAD modernization.
We fo have procurement issues, but that doesnt mean we dont have tools to spend if needed, especially when we get to the backend of things, amd of course someone around here can probably give their backlog lol. I know ive seen some of it.
Oh, I know we CAN....the question is WILL we? I have confidence in the skill and dedication of the average Canadian, but very little in the current crop of political leaders. And without political leadership, none of this will happen. I'm not convinced any of them have the interest or commitment to defence issues (or any expensive multi-year project, take your pick) beyond producing talking points for an election campaign.
I have a feeling that they’re trying to tie the FTA with defence spending by linking it to certain streams of revenue that’s generated that can be allocated towards defence spending.
For instance what if they link revenue generated from Energy that’s exported to defence spending as an extra revenue stream to generate more funding.
This is a concept ive seen thrown around. Honestly I dont know what their intent is for it, but there are certainly several streams tied to this, that somehow they have a concept to allocate that revenue to them.
At least, im told the system exists in concept. We kinda have to take words there.
I agree the idea of tying defence spending to a free trade deal doesn't inspire confidence. However, maybe 2030 is realistically the earliest any government can hit the 2% of GDP target. When you consider the complexity of fixing the procurement process (or even just circumventing it) so that more money can be spent, the amount of time to get to the contract signing stage of new projects, build infrastructure, recruit more people, and overhaul the training system to increase throughput, 2030 even starts to look ambitious. Sure, increasing salaries and benefits for everyone is an easy win, but that's only a partial solution.
I used to have this mentality, but talking around more ive been convinced we could reach it by 2027/28 if we really pushed. We have several major projects in the pipeline that should be coming to ahead by this time. While there are restrictions and blocks in the system, we also have billion of dollars in maintenance backlog, necessary infrastructure work. The navy alone could probably tune in billions in that timeframe if we gave the funding, same to the Air Force and NORAD modernization.
We fo have procurement issues, but that doesnt mean we dont have tools to spend if needed, especially when we get to the backend of things, amd of course someone around here can probably give their backlog lol. I know ive seen some of it.
We can absolutely spend it.
Oh, I know we CAN....the question is WILL we? I have confidence in the skill and dedication of the average Canadian, but very little in the current crop of political leaders. And without political leadership, none of this will happen. I'm not convinced any of them have the interest or commitment to defence issues (or any expensive multi-year project, take your pick) beyond producing talking points for an election campaign.
I have a feeling that they’re trying to tie the FTA with defence spending by linking it to certain streams of revenue that’s generated that can be allocated towards defence spending.
For instance what if they link revenue generated from Energy that’s exported to defence spending as an extra revenue stream to generate more funding.
This is a concept ive seen thrown around. Honestly I dont know what their intent is for it, but there are certainly several streams tied to this, that somehow they have a concept to allocate that revenue to them.
At least, im told the system exists in concept. We kinda have to take words there.