PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[lenaitch]

A new submarine program is the biggest one, as long as we build in Canada.

Does anyone honestly think that will happen? Our conventional (surface) shipbuilding industry is tapped out for the next couple of decades. Trying to create the expertise, infrastructure and supply lines - from scratch - needed for submarines, particularly nuclear, is folly. For those who would argue a potential export market, unless we had some kind of magic up our sleeves, there are enough friendly countries out there already in the game, and we don't have a stellar history in that regard.

 

[lenaitch]

The last week of so is starting to sound like the twelve days of Christmas with the PM being quite the candyman.

 

[lenaitch]

These are already budgeted for. Meeting the target requires going beyond these.

And in some cases these deals can be expanded if we want to increase defence spending a bit. For example, I think there's a case to be made with increasing the P-8 purchase to 20 frames and putting a squadron in the Newfoundland. Likewise, probably a case to buy more drones and stand up a squadron in Yellowknife, in addition to the units being stood up on the coasts. We can also build on the P-8 purchase and get a squadron of Wedgetails so we finally have our own AEW capability.

Even with the ship program, I would think we could probably plan a few more frigates and maybe an extra JSS.

Given that we would have to spend something like $15B per year to meet 2%, the above is probably a way to add $1B per year and at least look like we're trying.

There is little sense in increasing the fleet of anything under they tackle the recruiting and retention issues. Between lack of crews and delayed maintenance/critical upgrades, we can't operate what we have. A you have mentioned before, improving quality of life issues will go a long way, but it is 'unsexy'.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Does anyone honestly think that will happen? Our conventional (surface) shipbuilding industry is tapped out for the next couple of decades. Trying to create the expertise, infrastructure and supply lines - from scratch - needed for submarines, particularly nuclear, is folly. For those who would argue a potential export market, unless we had some kind of magic up our sleeves, there are enough friendly countries out there already in the game, and we don't have a stellar history in that regard.

We’re not going to build submarines. Unlike surface warship construction, we have no experience in such. If we must demand a submarine order include some Canadian industry inputs we can buy them in kits from South Korea or the Baltic and assemble them here, like how Indonesia assembled their first Type 209 made in Germany.

 

[kEiThZ]

There is little sense in increasing the fleet of anything under they tackle the recruiting and retention issues. Between lack of crews and delayed maintenance/critical upgrades, we can't operate what we have. A you have mentioned before, improving quality of life issues will go a long way, but it is 'unsexy'.

Actually there is sense in it. Old kit requires insane man hours to maintain. The navy's frigates, for example, have gone from 100k man-hours to prepare for deployment to 1M man hours. So as kit gets modernized, it actually means we need fewer bodies. Or rather, since we already lack bodies, it means we can actually do our job with the numbers we have. The same situation is true for the fighters, army's vehicles, etc.

But also, newer kit vastly improves motivation for both recruiting and retention. When Air Canada offers newer aircraft to fly and fix, the air force is less of a sell.

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anyone honestly think that will happen? Our conventional (surface) shipbuilding industry is tapped out for the next couple of decades. Trying to create the expertise, infrastructure and supply lines - from scratch - needed for submarines, particularly nuclear, is folly. For those who would argue a potential export market, unless we had some kind of magic up our sleeves, there are enough friendly countries out there already in the game, and we don't have a stellar history in that regard.

Not saying it will happen. But I think if we're smart there's a strong argument for this. Why are we spending hundreds of billions on shipbuilding when we could buy cheaper overseas? It's because we greatly value retaining the jobs, the money and the industrial capacity in Canada. The same could be said for submarines, if we ever go past a token fleet.

And there's pathways here if we really want to do it, where Canada is somewhat uniquely positioned. Notably our relationship with France. If we deepen relationships with the French, guess who build nuclear submarines using LEU? Guess who feels spurned by Australia cutting them loose for AUKUS? Guess who really values our historical linguistic and cultural ties? We might be able to cut a deal to get co-development of CANDU SMR for a sub. Probably requires a larger strategic partnership with France on other defence and economic areas. But broadly this is where I'm thinking we should be using defence dollars to really develop competencies that also benefit the economy. The same might hold true even if we buy diesel subs from Korea or Japan. If we're buying more than 5-6 subs, it's worth considering developing the infrastructure and industrial base at home.

Broadly, we will have to stop thinking about defence spending as entirety a consumption of funds and start thinking of it as maintaining an industrial base. This is exactly how most other advanced economies (including all those countries all our progressives want to emulate) think. Sweden is a great example here. Especially when you consider the quality of what they produce for their size. It's another country I would love to Canada partner with more.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But broadly this is where I'm thinking we should be using defence dollars to really develop competencies that also benefit the economy.

That has merit, but I think a big challenge is that when the Liberals lose in 2025, the Cons may well toss out much of what’s otherwise committed to, putting us back to square one.

 

[lenaitch]

Actually there is sense in it. Old kit requires insane man hours to maintain. The navy's frigates, for example, have gone from 100k man-hours to prepare for deployment to 1M man hours. So as kit gets modernized, it actually means we need fewer bodies. Or rather, since we already lack bodies, it means we can actually do our job with the numbers we have. The same situation is true for the fighters, army's vehicles, etc.

But also, newer kit vastly improves motivation for both recruiting and retention. When Air Canada offers newer aircraft to fly and fix, the air force is less of a sell.

For sure, but how many years are we off having a CSC in the water, let alone fully operational? Even the AOPS, which is getting near the end of their build-out, are still operationally deficient in several areas. The RCAF is a little closer horizon. Improving things like living conditions, family healthcare, can have immediate positive impacts on both recruiting and retention.

 

[kEiThZ]

That has merit, but I think a big challenge is that when the Liberals lose in 2025, the Cons may well toss out much of what’s otherwise committed to, putting us back to square one. Historically, IIRC the Liberals have done more on defence than the Cons.

Historically the Liberals cared about the deficit. Just saying. I think we have to remember that the Trudeau Liberals are not the Chretien or Martin Liberals. This version of the LPC doesn't see value in defence spending beyond what they think will get our allies off our backs. I think AUKUS was actually the first time they realized that the long Canadian tradition of basically talking more than doing is starting to have repercussions. So now they are trying to figure out what else will work.

They have increased spending marginally more than the Harper years. But the problem is that Harper basically didn't really compensate for all the wear and tear on kit in Afghanistan and basically passed on a recapitalization debt that the Liberals have struggled to pay up. So even that little bit more that this government spends is not nearly enough. Think of it like infrastructure deficits. Why are we spending record amounts on transit construction now? It's because we did nothing for about two decades before 2010. Right now the CAF faces a similar predicament.

But in our struggles there is opportunity. New spending gives a chance to bolsterv industry and create new partnerships. For example, the government wants to push AI with recent funding. Why not commit to fielding more autonomous systems for the CAF too? This basically becomes even more AI funding, just through another avenue.

 

[lenaitch]

Not saying it will happen. But I think if we're smart there's a strong argument for this. Why are we spending hundreds of billions on shipbuilding when we could buy cheaper overseas? It's because we greatly value retaining the jobs, the money and the industrial capacity in Canada. The same could be said for submarines, if we ever go past a token fleet.

And there's pathways here if we really want to do it, where Canada is somewhat uniquely positioned. Notably our relationship with France. If we deepen relationships with the French, guess who build nuclear submarines using LEU? Guess who feels spurned by Australia cutting them loose for AUKUS? Guess who really values our historical linguistic and cultural ties? We might be able to cut a deal to get co-development of CANDU SMR for a sub. Probably requires a larger strategic partnership with France on other defence and economic areas. But broadly this is where I'm thinking we should be using defence dollars to really develop competencies that also benefit the economy. The same might hold true even if we buy diesel subs from Korea or Japan. If we're buying more than 5-6 subs, it's worth considering developing the infrastructure and industrial base at home.

Broadly, we will have to stop thinking about defence spending as entirety a consumption of funds and start thinking of it as maintaining an industrial base. This is exactly how most other advanced economies (including all those countries all our progressives want to emulate) think. Sweden is a great example here. Especially when you consider the quality of what they produce for their size. It's another country I would love to Canada partner with more.

I get what you are saying, but I have a hard time envisioning a government, any government, willing to sell spending quite literally billions offshore.

 

[kEiThZ]

I get what you are saying, but I have a hard time envisioning a government, any government, willing to sell spending quite literally billions offshore.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm literally saying the opposite. I'm saying we should try to avoid sending money offshore, even if it costs us more. For example, let's say the choice is between $12B for a fleet of diesel submarines built overseas and a $200B nuclear submarine that includes the design of a new CANDU SMR as its powerplant all built in Canada (with say technical assistance from the French), I would pick the latter. NATO commitments only say we need to spend more. They don't say what we should spend on. We don't have pressing threats like most of Europe. So we should be using our spending on something close to an industrial slush fund.

Nuclear submarines are the most extreme example. But, for example, our space sector can produce satellites that compete with the Americans. Telesat wants to build a constellation that rivals Space X. We can't subsidize them commercially. But we can give them a very generous contract to provide the CAF bandwidth worldwide. Global Satcom (not from Musk) could be one of our contributions to NATO. There's other examples like this.

Do I expect the Liberals to be this smart? No. Probably not the CPC either. But this is ideally how you spend more on defence without it just being a fund to enrich American and European defence companies.

 

[kEiThZ]

End of the day, it does also strike me as convenient politics. The Liberals can promise all kinds of defence spending that they probably won't have to deliver, but can use as a campaign promise to battle the Conservatives. More shipbuilding money would win votes in Halifax and Levis and Vancouver. More money for armoured vehicles might win some votes in London. Etc. They can promise all kinds of things. If the lose the Conservatives are stuck with those obligations. If they win, they simply reneg on those promises. That's a long Canadian tradition.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Historically the Liberals cared about the deficit. Just saying. I think we have to remember that the Trudeau Liberals are not the Chretien or Martin Liberals.

It will be interesting to see what the LPC becomes once Trudeau has been defeated. Do they return to the era of perennial losers of the likes of Martin, Ignatieff and Dion while the Cons ride this disarray to repeat a Harper-like decade's rule?

Is there anyone from Quebec, and it must be a Quebecer (sorry Freeland, Anand, LeBlanc, Carney, Nenshi, etc.), who can take over the LPC after its coming defeat? The Quebecers are pretty thin on PM material, here's all 34 Quebec MPs.

Maybe Champagne? If he's not given the lead he might bounce.

Quebec Liberals want Champagne for the provincial leadership—and he's not ruling it out

Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s name generates the ‘most interest and enthusiasm’ amongst Quebec Liberals for the provincial party’s top job, says a top Quebec Liberal Party source.

www.hilltimes.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Pretty much what I predicted:

The Liberals can promise all kinds of defence spending that they probably won't have to deliver,

Lots of "over the next 20 years". They aren't even really trying to corner the CPC with this one.

 

[Northern Light]

Defense policy news release backgrounder here:

Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence - Canada.ca

Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Defence Minister Bill Blair released Our North, Strong and Free – a defence policy update that responds to the significant global shifts we have witnessed since Canada’s comprehensive defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, was announced in 2017.

www.canada.ca

Offered below w/o comment as this isn't an area of high expertise for me, as such I will leave the insight to others.

Deets: