[afransen]

One ping only.

Anyways, re: new expenditures - I wonder if they can actually fit all of it in the fiscal.

AoD

Canada is in much better shape than the US fiscally.

 

[Northern Light]

Canada is in much better shape than the US fiscally.

True.

Though what a comparison.......

I'd rather compare our finances to Germany's.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Canada is in much better shape than the US fiscally.

Very true. For starters, Canada’s total government debt-to-GDP (federal + provincial + local) is 115% of GDP vs. 135% in the US.

 

[afransen]

Very true. For starters, Canada’s total government debt-to-GDP (federal + provincial + local) is 115% of GDP vs. 135% in the US.

The US debt is growing much more rapidly. It's also worth noting that Canada's government assets are substantial, reducing net indebtedness. CPP alone is ~30% of GDP, while the Social Security Trust fund is only about 10% of GDP and essentially hold US treasury debt. Pension liabilities are going to be a much smaller drag on Canadian GDP than the US, where there will be a lot of tears as pension entitlements are cut or taxes are dramatically increased to pay benefits.

US deficit to GDP is well over 6%. That's pretty astonishing.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Our Coast Guard is a civilian, unionized maritime maintenance and navigation service. The government simply can't wave their hand and say 'you're part of the Navy now'.

The Canadian Coastguard is not a maritime defence force. What’s next, should the CAF absorb DFO?

 

[evandyk]

Solid reference, but I'm sure there are quite a few members here who aren't up to date on a 35 year old Cold War thriller

It's actually 41 years old

 

[Towered]

It's actually 41 years old

?? Hunt For Red October came out in 1990...

 

[evandyk]

You didn't read the book first?

 

[kEiThZ]

I would have loved to see a few new subs. Something to patrol the arctic with a caterpillar drive, something with which you could park a couple hundred warheads off Washington and New York and no one would know anything about it till it was all over.

Those are long term. A lot of this is literally to stop the ship from sinking. And I don't even mean that metaphorically.

Something I wondered about is if Canada can spend the money to upgrade the passenger rail corridor through Kingston and have the investment go towards the NATO target since CFB Kingston is located there?

Part of the reason we're in the soup we're in, is because of attempts like this, to twist every defence dollar to domestic purposes, well beyond all reason. And now we're at the point that behaviour like this would destroy what little credibility we have left.

NATO has strict definitions for what counts as defence spending. And they are working on definitions for what counts as critical defence infrastructure. Spending outside those definitions will not count as fulfillment on the NATO target regardless of messaging in Canada. So the question is, how much do you (and our government) care about what our allies think of spending shell games like this?

 

[kEiThZ]

Our Coast Guard is a civilian, unionized maritime maintenance and navigation service. The government simply can't wave their hand and say 'you're part of the Navy now'.

Nobody said they will be part of the RCN. They will be placed under DND as a separate agency. Just like CSEC now.

The US debt is growing much more rapidly. It's also worth noting that Canada's government assets are substantial, reducing net indebtedness. CPP alone is ~30% of GDP, while the Social Security Trust fund is only about 10% of GDP and essentially hold US treasury debt. Pension liabilities are going to be a much smaller drag on Canadian GDP than the US, where there will be a lot of tears as pension entitlements are cut or taxes are dramatically increased to pay benefits.

US deficit to GDP is well over 6%. That's pretty astonishing.

Yeah. But they have the world's reserve currency. That buys them way more runway than us.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Nobody said they will be part of the RCN. They will be placed under DND as a separate agency. Just like CSEC now.

Do we get to put guns on our Coast Guard cutters like the USCG? The latter is funded by the Pentagon.

Heck, the USCG sometimes arms their vessels with Harpoon antiship missiles!

Though I'm not sure where we'd put the fixed autocannon armament on CCG vessels like the below.

Interestingly, in the UK the British Coast Guard does not operate any ships whatsoever. That role goes to the Royal Navy, with HMCG instead focusing on SAR aircraft and small boats, like the below.

 

[lenaitch]

Nobody said they will be part of the RCN. They will be placed under DND as a separate agency. Just like CSEC now.

But if he wants to satisfy the NATO funding rules, it's hard to envision how they could even be some kind of 'RCN-lite' without a major institutional shift. From the NATO document:

"They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force."

If he wants to call it 'defence spending', fine, he can lump transit into that basket for all it matters, but playing fast and loose with the NATO funding guidelines might not go unnoticed by the other club members

 

[Northern Light]

We'll throw G7 news in here.

First is the PM's public schedule for today: (note all times are Eastern, local AB time -2 hours)

The above from the Globe and Mail.

****

Also of note, to hit our NATO target this year, 2B more for arming Ukraine.

 

[kEiThZ]

But if he wants to satisfy the NATO funding rules, it's hard to envision how they could even be some kind of 'RCN-lite' without a major institutional shift.

I agree there will be a shift. Doesn't mean that the CCG has to be subordinated to the RCN.

As for the accounting, who knows the intent here. Maybe the LPC wants to play shell games. I'm going to give them the benefit of doubt until shown otherwise. But also, the rest of NATO does some of this too. Despite the rules. And they are all kinda willing to look away on some things. That said, the CCG is big, but not that big. Even if there's fudgy accounting with the CCG, they'll still need massive investments to catch up to the 2% standard.

What a change though. Wasn't that long ago, it was insinuated, by a longstanding member, that I was a warmongering wanna be American for advocating that we meet 2%, because it's important to our national credibility.

 

[lenaitch]

I agree there will be a shift. Doesn't mean that the CCG has to be subordinated to the RCN.

As for the accounting, who knows the intent here. Maybe the LPC wants to play shell games. I'm going to give them the benefit of doubt until shown otherwise. But also, the rest of NATO does some of this too. Despite the rules. And they are all kinda willing to look away on some things. That said, the CCG is big, but not that big. Even if there's fudgy accounting with the CCG, they'll still need massive investments to catch up to the 2% standard.

What a change though. Wasn't that long ago, it was insinuated, by a longstanding member, that I was a warmongering wanna be American for advocating that we meet 2%, because it's important to our national credibility.

Perhaps. Some countries include their federal law enforcement in their NATO contribution but I don't know the legal details.

Part of the problem is some people think it would be as simple as bolting a machine gun or launcher on an icebreaker or buoy tender and calling it 'defence'. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Edit: grammar