Canada spends a considerable amount on the bigger-picture defence issues. As you're well aware, in 2017, NATO changed the rules wherein a whole host of issues ancillary to the business of fighting and winning the nation's wars were counted as defence spending: veterans' pensions, some of the support agencies, and the list goes on.
What we have to do is question the output of the Canadian investment in defence. Output is a variety of many factors. It includes well-trained, fit, capable men and women who are willing to go overseas and do dangerous things on our behalf. They have to have the right equipment, the right facilities, the right training, infrastructure and the money to buy ammo.
By the way, how's that ammo contract going? I'm sorry. I'm asking you a question. That's unfair.
We are not getting the bang for our buck. Why is that? If you have a nation that spends more on professional services and consultants than it does on the army, navy and air force combined, if you have a nation that has increased its public servants by over 40% since 2015 at a now staggering cost, and if you have essentially a defence procurement system that is arguably among the very worst in the world for the purchase of big stuff like combat equipment, aircraft, ships and submarines.... By the way, the evidence is irrefutable. There is no evidence of the current government actually buying a large, complex modern weapons system in the last decade.