Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:16] Speaker B: Of course, anyone who's a fan of Harry Potter would know the term the dark arts. Now, when it comes to money in the budget in Canada and national defense, that is the real dark arts. What we spend as a country, what we spend it on, how it's allocated and what actually is spent is one of the great mysteries in the history of this country, especially when it comes to politics. Paul is always thrilled to be joining you, to have you join me to talk about this because you're our numbers guy. If anyone can help break down some of these numbers, you're the man.
[00:00:47] Speaker C: Yeah. You know, and I've, I've been studying it for the last few days, Jim. It's very confusing. It's hard to follow in the, the playbook since 2023 has gone from cut, cut, cut now to spend, spend, spend. So you know what, on the show, I took a look at all of government expenses and what we spend as a government from a federal perspective. And we spend roughly $500 billion a year.
[00:01:15] Speaker A: Right.
[00:01:15] Speaker C: So on our spending for our government. So that all the gum and orange is direct indirect transfers to other levels of government.
So 2024, fiscal 24, we spent 34.5 billion on defense.
[00:01:32] Speaker B: That's correct, yeah.
[00:01:34] Speaker C: And we spent. That's roughly 6.7% of the majority of government's spending.
[00:01:43] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:01:44] Speaker C: So, you know, you got departments. So I took a look at it, and this was very interesting because, you know, there's a mandate now to find money within government. You know, they said we got to find some money and we got to put that money into programs such as Defense.
So, you know, if you look at where. And I took a look at the 10 departments of government that account for 73% of federal spending in 2000 fiscal 2024. So Finance Canada made up about 26%, Employment and Social Development Canada, 18%, Indigenous Services and Crown Indigenous Relations made up 12%.
National events made up 6.7%, which I was shocked how small that was.
Global Affairs, 3%, CRA 3%, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, 2%, 2.8%, Public Safety, 2.7. Health Canada, 2.67 and Innovation, Science and Industry, 2%.
So that makes up 73%. So you know what? Here we are trying to figure out how to increase this budget, but we're only spending 6.71% of our national budget. So then I, you know, I said, okay, I want to break this down because where does that $34 billion go? Well, right now, 16.2 billion billion of it goes to personnel of course. Yeah. People. Of course. But, you know, we're. We're a very small, you know, relatively small military.
[00:03:25] Speaker B: We are, yes.
[00:03:26] Speaker C: You know, and then we have a lot of outside consultants. We have 2.6 billion in professional and special services.
We only have, which I was shocked. We only spend 5 billion in 2024 on acquisition of machinery and equipment.
[00:03:46] Speaker B: Well, in the first. Very simple reason, because nothing gets done quickly. So if you are the Minister of National Defense, Paul, and it's September and you need something by October, that's almost an impossibility in the current structure. The way the government, no matter who's in power, for someone in need to buy something and have it in place a month later, it takes years for it actually to get to the base or the unit or the ship that they needed.
[00:04:14] Speaker C: Well, this is interesting because then we spend 2 billion on repair and maintenance of our. $2 billion to repair the equipment we have in our defense.
[00:04:24] Speaker B: Because it's so old, they've waited. They've waited so long to replace stuff that a big chunk of the budget is used to service it, just to keep it viable.
[00:04:32] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:04:33] Speaker C: 1.26 billion on utilities, materials and supplies.
1.1 billion in transfer payments, which. I don't really know what that is.
1 billion in other subsidies and payments.
1 billion in transportation and communication.
700 million in acquisition of lands, building and works.
700 million in rentals.
[00:05:01] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:05:02] Speaker C: So again, because we have an old fleet, I assume we're.
[00:05:06] Speaker B: It's that. And it's also for people for a living. You don't forget that if you're sent overseas to London, England for six months, they have to rent you a place to live while you're on assignment.
[00:05:16] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. And then, you know, we pick up in the military about $65 million of debt charges.
So we get allocated, though.
[00:05:30] Speaker B: Yeah, of course, that's our. That's the. The national defense's share of.
[00:05:34] Speaker C: Of our interest.
[00:05:35] Speaker B: And here's. As a numbers person, here's where it gets tricky.
The Carney Liberal government will table a budget this fall.
[00:05:43] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:05:44] Speaker B: Depending on what financial expert you speak to in Canada, it could be anywhere from 60 billion to over 80 billion deficit. Now, at the same time, we're trying to say spend more national defense to keep Donald Trump at arm's length to increase our. Do our share for NATO. At the same time, the government's hinting at austerity and cuts across the board. And all levels of government are being told to cut, cut, cut, because the budget deficit is way beyond anything or Anything everyone ever envisioned.
[00:06:17] Speaker C: Well, we're going to. We're going to. The interesting part of this is we're going to be getting the 2025 annual report, which I assume we blew through our budgeted number.
I think we pretty much all know that.
[00:06:32] Speaker B: Well, I don't think even the most pro liberal, pro Mark Carney person could dispute that.
[00:06:37] Speaker C: No. So we basically blew through that number. And because we had the election, we had all the issues with tariffs and Trump and everything else. So we blew through that and then, quite frankly, we got to table that budget, which he said he's held off to see, you know, what's going on.
[00:06:53] Speaker B: We can't hold off any longer.
[00:06:55] Speaker C: No. So we have kind of the two of them coming at the same time. So around Halloween, we'll probably get the annual report and then closely after, we'll get the budget.
[00:07:03] Speaker A: Right.
[00:07:03] Speaker C: So, so now, you know, he's got to increase this number. He said he's going to increase this number. That's the commitment he met at NATO. But so then I said, okay, great, where are we at? So I went, broke down the numbers and I said, okay, I want to understand the program some more. So I started off in fiscal 2023. 23. And then I went to fiscal 24 and to today and I said, okay. So it was really interesting because I go to 23 and I pull up a defense spending statement on the budget, which is really interesting. And I start reading it through and I'm thinking, okay, so these are all spending reductions.
So in fiscal 23, we turned, you know, we were going the exact opposite direction. So the initiatives were cut travel, reduce operating expenses by $354 million, which you just told me you wanted to take the group with operating expenses.
[00:08:04] Speaker B: Well, a lot of that is also, don't forget, in the military, to properly train, you have to use live ammunition, missiles, torpedoes, bombs, artillery shells to train the troops and the sailors and the airmen in case of war. And that costs money. Those missiles, they're very expensive. They cost millions of dollars. And the thought was reduce it to the absolute minimum and spend the absolute minimum on live ammunition and, and everything else to reduce cost.
[00:08:34] Speaker A: Right.
[00:08:34] Speaker C: No, no, I get you. And then there's these interesting. So savings measures 4 and 5 were to cut projects. So this was interesting. This is money that hasn't been spent that sits in a kitty. So a lot of reserves are set up in the military to use for future projects. So they were just cutting the reserves out. So they were, they were basically saying, okay, we're going to decrease that and lapse funding. So basically anything, you know, that had been forecasted, so there was a huge movement and that was roughly when I looked at it, that accounted for half a billion dollars of just lapsed projects that never got off the ground. So stuff that they thought about, they put some money aside and then they said not going to do it.
And then they created a flexible fund which really was never allocated, from what I can tell. Any money which was just, hey, there's a, there's a slush fund sitting somewhere in government if you need it for flexible programs, capital, any new projects that come up, well, we'll allocate some money to it. So it's a kind of a maybe, a hot maybe. And then my favorite of this was if pressed on specific NATO contribution. So this is one. So if I go to a meeting and they press me. Yes, right.
You know, we will contribute to peace and security in Europe, will make contributions to continue to make NATO missions.
We are supporting our allies by investing in modern capabilities. So that's kind of a general statement. And then they talk about the 88 F35 fighter jets.
[00:10:21] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:10:21] Speaker C: This is one that you keep telling me about, which isn't 88 anymore.
[00:10:25] Speaker B: Well, that's possibly not going to be 88 because of Donald Trump. Now before Donald Trump, it probably was a, a lock that it would be 88. But now the pressure is on the government.
Why are we buying equipment from America when they want to turn us to the 51st state, when we could go to European countries and buy similar capable jets that wouldn't have ties to Donald Trump in America?
[00:10:46] Speaker A: Right.
[00:10:46] Speaker C: Okay, so and then 16 Poseidon patrol aircraft. Yes. Nine multi role tankers and transport aircraft and 11 MQ9B remotely pilot piloted aircraft.
[00:11:01] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:11:02] Speaker C: So that was on their plan. So they just, they had that in here. And of course, as we're learning, a lot of these actually happen over 2010. These are all over long time frames. Right.
[00:11:14] Speaker B: We never, yes.
[00:11:14] Speaker C: We never get anything built. It seems like in an annual basis we get everything over the tanker.
[00:11:20] Speaker B: I will give the government credit. They've actually through new builds and they took a slightly used version of an Airbus jet, the same style for the tanker, and have converted it. So now they have what would be our version of Canada 1, as opposed to Air Force 1 for the Prime Minister and dignitaries and media to fly around the world. And the rest are called multi role tankers. They're modern Airbus jets that could. They have a boom and drogue. The boom is the Big stick that goes into an airplane in the drogue is the basket.
[00:11:55] Speaker C: Oh.
[00:11:56] Speaker B: So they have two different ways to refuel aircraft and they have longer range and more fuel capabilities. So they are the ultimate support weapon where they could refuel tankers, humanitarian aid ships, bombers, fighters and whatnot. So they're getting that on board. They are in the process of building the Poseidon sub hunting planes to replace stuff that will be almost 50 years old by the time they're at the end of their service. And unfortunately, drones are the future of warfare. So they're finally getting into the act and buying proper drones for the military.
[00:12:27] Speaker C: Well, so that, you know, they in. They're acquiring. I guess they acquired them already.
Anti aircraft, anti drone systems, as well as anti tank weapons to reinforce our troops in Latvia.
[00:12:40] Speaker B: Correct. So that was bought and sent. Right. To our NATO brigade in Latvia.
[00:12:44] Speaker C: Okay.
[00:12:45] Speaker B: So that's part of our commitment to.
[00:12:48] Speaker C: NATO and we, we own it. I guess. So when. Yes, when that's over, it'll, that's, that's. It'll come back somewhere. To Canada.
[00:12:54] Speaker B: Yes. It's Canadian national defense property.
[00:12:57] Speaker A: Yep.
[00:12:57] Speaker C: Okay.
[00:12:58] Speaker B: But they're. They need it most right now because they're in the most dire threat. If anything turns sour with Putin and Russia and they decide to go to the Baltic states, they're going to need every bit of kit they have.
[00:13:08] Speaker A: Right.
[00:13:08] Speaker C: And we have. He was just over there. And we have how many troops? And it's a lot.
[00:13:13] Speaker B: What's close to 2002.
[00:13:14] Speaker C: 2000. So we have 2000 sort of Manning that drone and that capability, which is probably, from what I can tell from you're in my conversations, the most high tech hardware software we have.
[00:13:28] Speaker B: Yes. The most cutting edge stuff has been bought and sent to Latvia for the troops there because unfortunately, with 2,000 troops, our contingent could potentially be overwhelmed in short order without that kind of equipment to fight a modern war.
[00:13:44] Speaker C: Right, okay. Yeah, No, I get it. So that was kind of where we were in 23 when Joe Biden was.
[00:13:51] Speaker B: President and everyone thought that Kamala Harris would replace him.
[00:13:54] Speaker A: Right.
[00:13:55] Speaker C: So we weren't as worried. I guess so then we weren't as worried about the world and security and the Arctic and no submarines and nuclear submarines.
[00:14:03] Speaker B: There was no talk at 51st day.
[00:14:05] Speaker A: Right.
[00:14:06] Speaker B: There was no worry about really our sovereignty. We're just, just going through life in Canada like everything's fine and we can cut here and here and no one's going to complain because no one really pays attention to it.
[00:14:17] Speaker C: No, no. Yeah. No. Until, you know, we were, we've talked about this many times until the Trump sort of statements, you know, him sitting there with the big pen in the Oval Office, you know, and doing those press conferences where he talks, starts to talk about us and our military and our fentanyl problems and all the challenges. We have no one, even honestly. And you know, and I was, I, I would, I'm guilty, guilty as charged on that one. I, I've, until I dug into budgets, I really hadn't spent any time really even looking at defense spending in Canada because I really didn't think it existed.
[00:14:53] Speaker B: Today, let's be brutally honest. No matter who the leader is, no matter what party, their affiliation, since 1969, when Pierre Trudeau was Prime minister until modern times, all prime ministers have talked a good game. Now they've some have varying success, degrees of success than others about doing their part for the military. But it's never been a top priority. No, we're peacekeepers. We've had a few bouts of combat, whether it's in the former Yugoslavia, whether it's in the Gulf War, whether it's Afghanistan. But for the most part, there's no battles in Canadian soil. And the first thing that gets cut in a budget is the Canadian military. And when they say they're going to buy 12 ships and 30 aircraft and 100 tanks, they'll just cut that number because originally they'll have told someone that they're going to buy this. And that's the shell game they play to tell NATO how they keep their contingent. And then we looked at the budget. We decided we're going to buy 6 instead of 12 or 30 instead of 100 because we don't have the money. And people just shrug their shoulders because we have so many other priorities budget wise in this country.
Social services, infrastructure, health care, servicing the debt, the economy that the military is always taking a back seat. The commanders, the generals, the leaders of the military have begged the government, all levels of government for the last 50 years for certain pieces of equipment. And they're always told, yeah, yeah, yeah, we'll get to it. And they almost never get it. Almost never get it.
[00:16:22] Speaker A: Right.
[00:16:23] Speaker C: No, no, I, I get you. And so then, you know, we take a look at it in the US budget we've talked about this is closer to 1 trillion. I think it's 9, 70 billion or something.
It's a crazy number, right? So then he steps up to the table and he says, oh, hold on, now we're spending all this money, right? We're protecting you. So now you know, you have to step up to the table. So all of a sudden, you know, ignored for the most part.
And we say, okay, yep, we're, we'll be at the table. So now then I, you know, that's when I get kind of, you can see this probably percolating, you know, through 24. 24. You can see the conversation kind especially.
[00:17:04] Speaker B: When Trump got elected.
[00:17:05] Speaker C: Yeah, when Trump got elected. But it is kind of bubbling because then, you know, strong and free.
[00:17:10] Speaker A: Right.
[00:17:10] Speaker C: And renewed vision. So now we have a new. All of a sudden pop up this document, a renewed vision and we start talking about a bunch of stuff. So we, but we start increasing now. So we kind of switch and we go to a different.
So we're going to support our people, strengthen our foundations, build an innovative industrial base, defend Canada, defend North America and defend global interests. So we decided to spend. Now this is interesting. So then we say, okay, we're going to spend 295 million over 20 years.
[00:17:43] Speaker B: A billion.
[00:17:45] Speaker C: No, this is 295 million over 20 years to build new housing. Oh, new housing for existing members. And I got an.
[00:17:53] Speaker B: I grew up in the military housing, believe me, they were, it was not good place to grow up in. So they do housing for the families. Because that's what I grew up in.
[00:18:00] Speaker A: Poll.
[00:18:01] Speaker C: But I'm wondering. So here's the interesting thing when I'm reading it, because I do do a little bit of development on my own, right. So I'm wondering why, why it took 20 years.
[00:18:11] Speaker A: What?
[00:18:11] Speaker C: Who put the forecast in for 20 years? I don't know. That just seems a little ridiculous to me.
[00:18:16] Speaker A: Right.
[00:18:17] Speaker C: Half a, half a billion dollars over 20 years to accelerate development of an electronic health record platform to intrude, to improve the continuity of care.
So we're going to spend.
So we're going to. Hold on, Jim, because this is an interesting one to me. We're going to, we're going to spend 295 million on places for them to live, but we're going to spend half a billion on a electronic health record platform.
[00:18:46] Speaker B: Paul, the key thing there for both of them is the 20 year timeline.
[00:18:50] Speaker C: Yeah.
[00:18:50] Speaker B: What is the odds that anyone elected now is still in power? No prime minister has been in power for 20 years in the history of Canada. So you could make all the promises you want today, tomorrow, the next day and say in 20 years. There is no one that it's obligated when they take power after you to do that.
[00:19:09] Speaker C: But here's one for you. You know, if I want more People to join the military and I build more housing because, you know, you know, and I'm not. I'll get on my soapbox for a minute, then I'll get off. I'm sorry, but no, you know, affordable housing is driving me a little crazy right now.
I know everyone wants to talk about affordable. Affordable housing is the new buzzword. Right, of course. So buzzword every time. And you know, squirrel. Affordable housing.
[00:19:34] Speaker A: Right.
[00:19:35] Speaker C: So we always want to say affordable housing. But you know, here's the nice part I think for this crew and for the military. Let's build some nice houses. And when I mean nice, good, livable, properly insulated. They can have families or kids can have their kids can have good schools, they can have good parks, they can have, you know, arenas. Let's build some really nice things for these people to live in because they are making a commitment for the country.
[00:19:59] Speaker B: Absolutely.
[00:20:00] Speaker C: They're making a huge commitment.
[00:20:02] Speaker A: Right.
[00:20:02] Speaker C: So if we want more of them to do it, let's do that. You know, and again, we can track their healthcare record platform as long as we want.
I'd rather give them a nice place to live. That's a punch.
[00:20:13] Speaker B: I think most members of the military would agree with you.
[00:20:16] Speaker C: Yeah. Okay, good. Childcare. $100 million over five years for child care.
You know, I'm all for that. Yeah, you can't argue with that. They're young people, they need to come in now. It's interesting as we look through this. So now we're going to strengthen our foundation.
[00:20:34] Speaker A: Right.
[00:20:34] Speaker C: So we're going to spend 10.2 billion over 20 years in current new infrastructure to support the required tempo training and operations and day to day military activities. So which I think is great, to tell you the truth.
And then these investments will range from asset maintenance and repair of other improvements to military facilities such as piers and runways.
[00:20:58] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:20:59] Speaker C: So this is a great project. This is. But again, 20 years I think is a ridiculous time frame.
[00:21:05] Speaker B: It's a great outdoor because you give yourself an out. Everything you put down on that paper is a 20 year timeline.
[00:21:12] Speaker C: I'm with you. But you know what we're going to talk about in a minute. But the need is now.
[00:21:18] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:21:19] Speaker C: We're not, you know, if, if that is a real conversation, which I believe it is between the US and Canada, then you know, we need to get hopping and move a little faster and you know, someone needs to take a pen and sort of cross out some of these timelines and get to a more reasonable timeline then 1.2 billion over 20 years. To increase the number of civilian specialists, to improve the purchase of new equipment and train new soldiers. So these are outside contractors?
[00:21:52] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:21:53] Speaker B: And that is a common thing in all militaries.
[00:21:55] Speaker C: Yeah, that makes sense to me. You know, it needs to be overseen, but it does make sense. So then building an innovative defense industrial base.
So we're going to maintain military equipment. So this is 9 billion over 20 years to sustain military to equipment. So basically kind of sustain what we have.
[00:22:16] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:22:16] Speaker C: So we're going to spend 9 billion over 20 years to sustain.
[00:22:19] Speaker B: And any of the new stuff that does come on stream, come on board needs to be maintained as well.
[00:22:25] Speaker C: Constantly. Right, I got it. So that makes sense. You know, I wish that it wasn't so old and I wish we would have had it, let it get. But we are where we are. We can't go back.
[00:22:33] Speaker B: You know, we can't.
[00:22:34] Speaker C: We, you know, we kind of messed that up and now we're paying the price.
[00:22:37] Speaker A: Right.
[00:22:38] Speaker C: 9.5 billion over 20 years to accelerate the establishment of new artillery ammunition production capacity in Canada and invest in strategic supply of ammunition. So this is, well, this is because.
[00:22:51] Speaker B: Canada and all the other countries that sent all their ammunition to Ukraine need to replace it. Now it's two things. It's replacing what you sent to Ukraine and it's not relying on America that if you do need ammunition, that they're making it right here in Canada.
[00:23:05] Speaker C: So this is to make it at home.
[00:23:06] Speaker B: Make it at home with the Canadian factories.
[00:23:08] Speaker C: I love it. 9.5 billion. I love that. Right, so it makes sense.
[00:23:12] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:23:13] Speaker C: It does make sense. You know, and, but you know, that was something. In 23, we were going the opposite direction. In 24, we're now going. So I get it. So. But you know, these sound like. Funny thing is when I look at it sounds like large numbers. But the problem is when you kind of amortize it over 20 years, you know, listen, 9.5 billion over 20 years. 9.5 billion sounds like a lot. But when we add it all up again, we're well short of any significant funding commitment.
[00:23:43] Speaker A: Right.
[00:23:43] Speaker C: So we're not even, you know, we might get to the 2% if we add in the Coast Guard. We were talking about that earlier, which they have.
[00:23:50] Speaker A: Right.
[00:23:50] Speaker C: And then if we give more money to NATO, because right now we have kind of a catch all. We kind of have a catch all, you know, which I'm going to get to in a minute. But.
And then quite frankly, defending Canada. So 1.4 billion over 20 years.
So for maritime sensors to Conduct ocean surveillance.
[00:24:10] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:24:10] Speaker C: Which.
[00:24:11] Speaker B: That's how they find submarines.
[00:24:12] Speaker A: Right.
[00:24:13] Speaker C: I'm wondering why 20 years, that makes not, not really a lot of sense to me. I'll be truthful. That one seems kind of wacky. And satellite ground stations, 222 million.
Again, I'm learning included in this is also tactical helicopters, which is 8.4 billion over.
But, you know, you kind of schooled me the other day on the other podcast on how long submarines take.
[00:24:37] Speaker A: Right.
[00:24:37] Speaker C: So I was like, you know, and I was, I was fighting with you at the beginning, and then I think I just gave in out of frustration at the end. I'm like, Jim, you know, I, you know, building anything over 10 years, to me seems bizarre.
[00:24:48] Speaker B: It is. I mean, a lot of the, the question is, the Air Force and the military commanders, they have been begging for new tactical helicopters, of course, 20 years, and they keep being told, no, you'll make do with what you have, it's fine. And now, because Trump's in there screaming about the 51st state and you have to do your part, they're throwing all these numbers out there to quote, unquote, meet your 2%. But they still don't have, they don't even have a short list of potential new tactical helicopters that I know of. They don't even have any contract sign. So until they do that, they still have to make them and deliver them to the armed forces.
[00:25:27] Speaker C: Oh, wow. And then so again, northern operational support hubs. Makes sense.
[00:25:33] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:25:33] Speaker C: So that's the long overdue. And that's 218 million over 20 years. So not a lot, you know, it's a lot, but a small amount compared 2.8 billion for Canada's intelligence and cyber operations.
[00:25:47] Speaker B: That's crucial right now.
[00:25:49] Speaker A: Right?
[00:25:49] Speaker B: Crucial.
[00:25:49] Speaker C: Again, I don't know why that would take 20 years to.
[00:25:52] Speaker B: They need it like right now.
[00:25:53] Speaker C: Yeah, I don't know why that's a 20. There's some things, a lot of things on this list in 24 that were kind of surprising. And then again, here's our renew and expand our submarine fleet, but no number. And then all terrain vehicles are here. And then we get to then defend North America. So then there's a bunch of stuff in Defend North America, which is airborne early warning aircraft, which is 307 million over 20 years.
Long range land missiles. 2.7 billion over 20 years.
[00:26:31] Speaker A: Right.
[00:26:33] Speaker C: And then kind of a bunch of soft commitment items that come along with that.
And then I guess the last one that I'm just going to get to in a minute, Here we get to. Which is.
Okay. Defend Canada's global interest. So this is naval vessels. So this is 9.9 billion over 20 years, which. This is frigates.
[00:26:59] Speaker B: Yes. And the river class frigate destroyers which are being built in Irving shipyard in Halifax.
[00:27:06] Speaker A: Right.
[00:27:06] Speaker C: And that's 9.9 billion.
Okay.
Satellite communications, 5.5 billion over 20 years for concert. So we, I don't know if we're paying or just giving someone that money or if we're doing that. It's a bit, it's a, I think.
[00:27:22] Speaker B: It'S a bit of everything.
[00:27:23] Speaker C: Okay. So that's our contribution to defending global interests.
And then modern artillery capabilities. So. And then there's tanks, armored vehicles and surveillance drones again. So which just general kind of catch all numbers, which they don't really give us numbers, they just kind of say that we're going to do it because.
[00:27:43] Speaker B: And then that's what the national defense and the government has been doing for decades. They give you generalities, they give you 20 year timelines. So no one really knows what exactly are we going to buy and how long it's going to take it. The one thing they did do is they increased the payroll. So a private now in the Canadian military after boot camp and they join their unit makes $52,000.
That's not bad. Yeah, for me.
[00:28:07] Speaker C: For a start.
[00:28:08] Speaker B: For a start.
I mean you could do a lot worse.
[00:28:11] Speaker C: Oh yeah.
[00:28:11] Speaker B: Three hots in a cotton, $52,000 a year and maybe learn a trade in the military and. But the combination of increased payroll and servicing, all the old equipment gets added into the 2% of their GDP for national defense.
[00:28:25] Speaker C: Right.
[00:28:26] Speaker B: So.
But as far as buying equipment, a lot of the stuff that you've mentioned is stuff that commanders have been begging the government to buy them for decades. And now in the interim, while they've waited, warfare as we know it has completely changed because of what's happened in Ukraine. So now the equipment that they needed 10 years ago is almost obsolescent obsolete because they need to buy new kinds of equipment to fight a new kind of warfare. So they have to figure that out what they're going to buy now.
[00:28:54] Speaker C: But that's, you know, kind of, you know, and I was kept saying, you know, the, the timelines because as I was reading through it, that's what's jumping to my mind right away.
[00:29:04] Speaker A: Right.
[00:29:04] Speaker C: Technology, AI, everything happening. Like the timelines are so long, it's hard to believe that a lot of this is, you know, this is again we talked about, you know, the streetcar, you know, the Eglinton lrt.
[00:29:19] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:29:20] Speaker C: Yeah.
[00:29:20] Speaker B: You know, by the time, years and counting.
[00:29:22] Speaker C: Yeah. By the time it got built, the actual cars were basically past their warranty dates and needed repair again and they couldn't find parts. So, you know, are we into that?
And then, you know, the question that jumped to my mind right away is if this is a critical priority. So coming up, you know, as everyone gets seated in a few days, if this is a, is a priority item, how do we, or what do we do legislatively to expedite it into process? So you know, we can sit around debate it. You know, we can, you know, we can go to Christmas, everyone can go off and you know, get ready and have their Christmas parties and then start again, you know, back in February, get a couple of months and then again we're off for summer break. You know, the legislative process is grinding because it doesn't go that long. There's a lot of breaks in it.
[00:30:16] Speaker B: It's hard to get any quicker.
[00:30:17] Speaker C: It's getting slower. It didn't get, you know, technology did not speed up that crew.
[00:30:22] Speaker A: Right.
[00:30:23] Speaker C: So you know, my thinking is if it is a priority and we are concerned about that discussion, what legislatively can we do? So take us through a little bit like what are the rights and powers that could be put in place that they could do to move this ball forward.
If it is now, if it isn't, quite frankly, and we get to the, you know, the, the everyone gets seated and it doesn't, then I think we need, we need to come out and just say to people, listen, this isn't a priority.
[00:30:53] Speaker B: So in Afghanistan, for example, we had of course our contribute contribution to the war against terrorism. And when the troops were there and the military was there and the commanders and generals were there, they realized they were missing critical pieces of equipment and kit to fight because they were. It would cost unnecessary lives without it. So the Prime Minister has the right to invoke national security exception and urgent operational requirements or an issue of advanced contract award notice that's in a time sensitive matter. So there is things in place, there are rules in place for the Prime Minister to invoke certain different rules within the government to say, hey, we need this right now. We're going to buy it, what they call OTS off the shelf.
[00:31:40] Speaker A: Right.
[00:31:40] Speaker B: We're going to paint it in Canadian colors and send it to our troops and our sailors and our airmen right now so our pilots have it and everything. Now that is only been used really recently in a couple times in the Gulf War and Then in the war in Afghanistan. And because we're not technically at war, we're just helping out people in Ukraine. I agree with you, Paul. It's going to be difficult to. When you're looking at a 70, 80 billion dollar deficit, budget, budget, deficit. When you table a budget and you're telling every department in the country to cut, cut, cut that you're not going to cut the military in some way. So when they say we're telling NATO, we're telling Donald Trump, we're going to build 12 of this and 15 of that, they may actually have to reduce that number. And I think a lot of people in Ottawa, the national defense and the headquarters are kind of excited, expecting that, looking at these deficit numbers.
[00:32:32] Speaker C: Yeah, it's un. Well, again, but then, then it isn't a priority.
Yeah. And I'm not trying. I listen, I'm the first one to say deficit's got to be dealt with.
[00:32:41] Speaker A: Right.
[00:32:41] Speaker C: You know, you know that and I harp on it all the time. But we have to sit down and we have to prioritize what we're going to put our monies and just like you would your normal budget around your household, right?
[00:32:52] Speaker B: Yeah, Absolutely.
[00:32:53] Speaker C: You'd like everything, right. You'd like a Maserati, you'd like to buy a new house. I'm a Volkswagen guy, but I get vacation. I get that.
[00:33:01] Speaker A: Right.
[00:33:01] Speaker C: But every year, you and your wife, you sit down, you budget out what you're doing for the year, you can't.
[00:33:06] Speaker B: Do that this year because it's not in the budget.
[00:33:07] Speaker C: Exactly.
And that's the priority building that you do. It's the same thing with a country, a business, a person. It translates across everyone.
And so now I think more than ever, given that the light has been shone on it so bright, for us to just glaze over it again, I think would be a disservice. I really do. And I think, honestly, I think one of the things we have to be careful about is I think the US will shine some light on it.
[00:33:39] Speaker B: Oh, they're doing it right now.
[00:33:41] Speaker C: I think our former neighbor partner will shine light on it and say, hey, hey, by the way, you said you were going to do this, you're not going to do it now. And you're making long term commitments to it. You're not making short term, you're not pushing money into it. You haven't put in your budget plan.
[00:34:01] Speaker B: Paul, we're talking about America. Look at Holland, Germany, France, Poland, some of those European countries, Italy. The amount of money Italy has spent on their armed forces in the last five years is staggering. So you have all these European NATO countries who have stepped up. The America is always stepping up and Canada is going to have to find a way to using some bright people way above my pay grade to take the money they have yet still increase the amount of modern equipment the military needs and build a strong military. So yes, they meet their requirement without blowing the budget. There always is a way. You know this from. Oh yeah, your years. There has to be a way.
[00:34:40] Speaker C: Well, it's again, it's when we, you know, we're making a list to prioritize projects in the country right now.
[00:34:47] Speaker A: Right.
[00:34:47] Speaker C: And to me it's a priority building. So if the military or defense is going to be a priority, then those priority projects, defense projects have to be up there on that list. Right. So you know, that's that pick list, you know, where they're, whether we just, you know, rumors are flying out this morning about pipelines being left on the list, off the list. You know, military we're talking about today and defense. Where does that sit on the list? And that'll show. It's interesting for the first time, and I think probably the first time in my lifetime, the number of Canadians that will be fully focused on this list and what this budget is and where the priorities are will be huge.
[00:35:27] Speaker B: It's never been more intensely viewed.
[00:35:29] Speaker C: Never, Never. I don't think a Canadian budget, this budget will be viewed more than any other budget in the history of our country.
[00:35:36] Speaker B: And so you brought it far, you brought up the pipeline, something we've talked about, about the need for elbows up, build Canada strong, build a pipeline, ship natural gas and oil to Europe so they don't have to buy it from Russia. And right away there are multiple sources telling Radio Canada that that's off the table.
[00:35:54] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:35:55] Speaker B: So when I hear a story like that, Paul, there's no way for me to logically think that all the wish list of the armed forces will be on the table in this budget. There will be cuts and the armed forces will be no different. You can't cut the, the CRA and the civil service and this and that department and not cut one. So you listed all the different departments. You can't have one that's untouched and cut the rest. I just can't see how that happens.
[00:36:23] Speaker C: Well, I guess we're going to find out.
[00:36:24] Speaker B: We will find out. It's a never ending debate in this country. He's Paul, I'm Jim. And he's got all the answers. That's why I like to talk.
