• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.

By Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 7, 2022

Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal Russian bid to claim Ukraine as its own, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is showing up at the Latvian battle group led by Canadian soldiers, waving the Maple Leaf and a vague hint at more money for the military.

Canada has been waving the NATO flag for nearly seven years in Latvia as a bulwark against Russia’s further incursions in Eastern Europe.

Canada stepped up to lead one of NATO’s four battle groups in 2015 — part of the defensive alliance’s display of strength and solidarity with weaker member states after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Trudeau arrived in the Latvian capital late Monday after meetings in the U.K. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Earlier Monday, faced with a seemingly unstoppable war in Ukraine, Trudeau said he will look at increasing Canada’s defence spending. Given world events, he said there are “certainly reflections to have.”

And Canada tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever-growing sanctions list.

The latest round of sanctions includes names Trudeau said were identified by jailed Russian opposition leader and Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny.

However, on a day when Trudeau cited the new sanctions, and Johnson touted new measures meant to expose Russian property owners in his country, Rutte admitted sanctions are not working.

Yet they all called for more concerted international efforts over the long haul, including more economic measures and more humanitarian aid, with Johnson and Rutte divided over how quickly countries need to get off Russian oil and gas.

The 10 latest names on Canada’s target list do not include Roman Abramovich — a Russian billionaire Navalny has been flagging to Canada since at least 2017. Canada appears to have sanctioned about 20 of the 35 names on Navalny’s list.

The Conservative opposition says the Liberal government is not yet exerting maximum pressure on Putin, and should do more to bolster Canadian Forces, including by finally approving the purchase of fighter jets.

Foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said in an interview that Ottawa must still sanction “additional oligarchs close to President Putin who have significant assets in Canada.”

Abramovich owns more than a quarter of the public shares in steelmaking giant Evraz, which has operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and has supplied most of the steel for the government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Evraz’s board of directors also includes two more Russians the U.S. government identified as “oligarchs” in 2019 — Aleksandr Abramov and Aleksandr Frolov — and its Canadian operations have received significant support from the federal government.

That includes at least $27 million in emergency wage subsidies during the pandemic, as well as $7 million through a fund meant to help heavy-polluters reduce emissions that cause climate change, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

In addition to upping defence spending, the Conservatives want NORAD’s early warning system upgraded, naval shipbuilding ramped up and Arctic security bolstered.

In London, Johnson sat down with Trudeau and Rutte at the Northolt airbase. Their morning meetings had a rushed feel, with Johnson starting to usher press out before Trudeau spoke. His office said later that the British PM couldn’t squeeze the full meeting in at 10 Downing Street because Johnson’s “diary” was so busy that day. The three leaders held an afternoon news conference at 10 Downing.

But before that Trudeau met with the Queen, saying she was “insightful” and they had a “useful, for me anyway, conversation about global affairs.”

Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday in Latvia.

The prime minister will also meet with three Baltic leaders, the prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in the Latvian capital of Riga.

The Liberals announced they would increase the 500 Canadian Forces in Latvia by another 460 troops. The Canadians are leading a multinational battle group, one of four that are part of NATO’s deployments in the region.

Another 3,400 Canadians could be deployed to the region in the months to come, on standby for NATO orders.

But Canada’s shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine were slow to come in the view of the Conservatives, and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

And suddenly Western allies are eyeing each other’s defence commitments.

At the Downing Street news conference, Rutte noted the Netherlands will increase its defence budget to close to two per cent of GDP. Germany has led the G7, and doubled its defence budget in the face of Putin’s invasion and threats. Johnson said the U.K. defence spending is about 2.4 per cent and declined to comment on Canada’s defence spending which is 1.4 per cent of GDP.

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

“What we can’t do, post the invasion of Ukraine is assume that we go back to a kind of status quo ante, a kind of new normalization in the way that we did after the … seizure of Crimea and the Donbas area,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to recognize that things have changed and that we need a new focus on security and I think that that is kind of increasingly understood by everybody.”

Trudeau stood by his British and Dutch counterparts and pledged Canada would do more.

He defended his government’s record, saying Ottawa is gradually increasing spending over the next decade by 70 per cent. Then Trudeau admitted more might be necessary.

“We also recognize that context is changing rapidly around the world and we need to make sure that women and men have certainty and our forces have all the equipment necessary to be able to stand strongly as we always have. As members of NATO. We will continue to look at what more we can do.”

The three leaders — Johnson, a conservative and Trudeau and Rutte, progressive liberals — in a joint statement said they “will continue to impose severe costs on Russia.”

Arriving for the news conference from Windsor Castle, Trudeau had to detour to enter Downing Street as loud so-called Freedom Convoy protesters bellowed from outside the gate. They carried signs marked “Tuck Frudeau” and “Free Tamara” (Lich).

Protester Jeff Wyatt who said he has no Canadian ties told the Star he came to stand up for Lich and others who were leading a “peaceful protest” worldwide against government “lies” about COVID-19 and what he called Trudeau’s “tyranny.”

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.
 
Tell us more! Did he make it ok? What happened?
He made it just fine and went on to a full career ending up as Comd of 2 CFFTS in Moose Jaw, retired as a colonel and went to the Transportation Safety Board after retirement where he did the investigation into the SwissAir Flt 111 off Peggy's Cove investigation. Still has his hand in a bunch of things and works as a consultant.

🍻
 
Written by:
Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history.


I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.

Interesting premise: He wasn't that bad. He may have been the worst at the time but we've had 40 years of worse candidates.
 
Written by:
Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history.


I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.

I think the Argus had lots of life left in them but they weren’t that modern at the end, and they were becoming severely expensive to fly (fuel cost).
 
I thought my last few years (years ago) were somewhat sad for the forces but I see now they are worse today. Only a new govt. with new leader and ministers can reverse the negatives and produce a robust CAF. I see previously mention of immigrants. Govt has always wanted more immigrants, the more people the more stuff you sell. It's not about our quality of life but how much the rich can become richer with more people to sell to. The average Canadian citizen is mined as a resource. I can complain as well as the next person but for real change we need change in leadership.
 
If "the more people the more stuff you sell" were true, the nations with the world's largest populations would be outstripping us.

What does generally work, though, is: the freer the people are to apply their ingenuity to their own benefit, the more prosperity. That's why allowing high-aptitude immigrants into Canada produces results.
 
I thought my last few years (years ago) were somewhat sad for the forces but I see now they are worse today. Only a new govt. with new leader and ministers can reverse the negatives and produce a robust CAF. I see previously mention of immigrants. Govt has always wanted more immigrants, the more people the more stuff you sell. It's not about our quality of life but how much the rich can become richer with more people to sell to. The average Canadian citizen is mined as a resource. I can complain as well as the next person but for real change we need change in leadership.
I've been through two cycles between LPC-Conservative back to LPC, and there was no real difference for the CAF.

For Afg the Harper govt used existing policies to push forward some procurements, which makes perfect sense, but the rest of them were the same old.

I think the colour of the election signs matters a lot less than the populace, and no one wants GoC to cut other projects to spend more on the CAF (nor do we have the capacity to sustainably spend 2% of GDP).
 
I've been through two cycles between LPC-Conservative back to LPC, and there was no real difference for the CAF.

For Afg the Harper govt used existing policies to push forward some procurements, which makes perfect sense, but the rest of them were the same old.

I think the colour of the election signs matters a lot less than the populace, and no one wants GoC to cut other projects to spend more on the CAF (nor do we have the capacity to sustainably spend 2% of GDP).
I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.

There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, I think, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).

Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which I believe is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.
 
I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.

There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, I think, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).

Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which I believe is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.
The Party really missed the mark by rejecting both O'Toole and then Charest. There was potential for some serious, constructive work to be done., not just whatever is politically attractive.

Now, whether the PMO wants to admit it or not, it seems to me all the left has to do to maintain its stranglehold on power is to rotate Prime ministers.
 
@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.
 
A couple of points:

First: don't blame Justin Trudeau. He's just doing what most Canadians have wanted done for the past half century.

Political parties, Conservative, Liberal and NDP and all the others poll assiduously, and they ask good questions, too, because they really do want to know what Canadians think. Why do you think that Pierre Poilievre doesn't talk a lot about doubling the defence budget and getting serious abut global peace and security? The answer is because CPC pollsters have heard, loud and clear, from Canadians, that it is NOT an issue. Support for increased national defence is on about the same level as support for more symphony orchestras and ballet companies and increased MPs' pensions.​
It doesn't matter why Canadians think that way; the simple fact is that they do ... and they have done since before 1970.​
In the last 1940s Louis St Laurent gave a speech at the University of Toronto in which he laid out a plan for Canada to adopt a leadership role - politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily - in the world. It secured broad general public support for a number of reasons -​
1. We had just come out of a huge and costly war and most people understood that it could have been prevented by bold action;​
2. Canada was looking forward to a fairly bright economic future; and​
3. Although this was slightly after Kennan's 'long telegram,' St Laurent, himself, and many Canadian opinion makers - including the media - were now worried about Soviet aims and aggression.​
The Canadian Political Landscape was different in the late 1940s. Canadians had come out of the Great Depression and the Second World War is remarkably good form. The country was confident. Even though the Liberal Party was old and tired, St Laurent, who became prime minister in 1948, was popular with both the general public and the media and he seemed fresh and very, very able. That's all changed.​
It began to change in the mid 1960s. The welfare state was growing, world-wide. St Laurent had been a very cautious fiscal conservative and Canada was actually lagging behind many Western nations, including the USA and especially Scandinavia, in implementing a welfare state. Canadians wanted to spend less on defence and more own themselves.​
If you want to blame some it should be Pierre Trudeau, not his son, because he understood what Canadians wanted and he offered it to them, lock, stock and barrel.​

Second: don't blame the media. It, also, is just giving Canadians what they want.

The media is a consumer driven service. The media - print, TV, radio and the Internet - "sell" eyes and ears to advertisers. If the media doesn't give Canadians what they want to see, hear and read then they will look/listen elsewhere and advertisers will follow.​
Canadians are uninterested in defence, despite the War in Ukraine and despite the Rise of China and so on for a whole bunch of reasons that others have mentioned but, mainly, because they have been led to believe that they live under the American security umbrella, even though many experts have explained that isn't true.​

If you want to blame someone, it needs to be someone like your spouse or your parents or your siblings or your neighbours. They all expect to have an efficient and effective military force but they don't want to spend any more than they do now - and preferably less - to get it.
 
@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.
You need to identify a lot of the small projects where the funds are then set not to expire each year and the buy size stays the same for that contract, regardless of inflation. So if we identify that 2023 we are buying 75 Manpad systems and the procurement office finally gets started on it in March 2024, the funds are not expiring, so they don't have to jump through more hoops and they can focus on the details of the contract and the army knows it's getting 75 AD systems, so it can start planning for it. Let's say the same for a RWS for the Kingstons, you order enough for each ship, spares and training aids. That number does not change, you hope to get them for 2024, but maybe they also get to it March 2025.
Eventually they can work through the pile on the smaller contracts, build experience and then those PW/DND staff support the bigger projects. Bringing in a decent baseline of knowledge.
 
@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.
Understand and agree with your analysis - but I have to say that argument continues to perpetuate the 'paralysis by analysis' situation that we seem to be in.
The substantial numbers of PR's that came forward showing genuine interest in joining the CAF when the restrictions were lifted shocked a lot of people but it certainly looked like nothing was done to prepare for possible large (by Canadian standards, lol) numbers of new recruits coming forward to be selected prior to the restrictions being lifted. Did the CAF do ANYTHING proactively to prepare for this prior to the restrictions being lifted?
Again with the ringing of hands, 'what do we do with all these new recruits', and throwing up of road blocks in terms of the 'burden' of providing background checks on all these people before allowing them in. Having a wife who is a PR (for the last 20yrs), I'm fully aware of all the paperwork and background checks that are done when it comes time to renew the PR card every 5yrs - what sort of extra security screening is necessary for the CAF? I mean, is the RCMP/CSIS/GoC not doing background checks and security checks on these PR's when they submit the required paperwork for a renewed PR card?? If not, why does it currently take 80 days for a renewed PR card to be processed??
 
Understand and agree with your analysis - but I have to say that argument continues to perpetuate the 'paralysis by analysis' situation that we seem to be in.
The substantial numbers of PR's that came forward showing genuine interest in joining the CAF when the restrictions were lifted shocked a lot of people but it certainly looked like nothing was done to prepare for possible large (by Canadian standards, lol) numbers of new recruits coming forward to be selected prior to the restrictions being lifted. Did the CAF do ANYTHING proactively to prepare for this prior to the restrictions being lifted?
Again with the ringing of hands, 'what do we do with all these new recruits', and throwing up of road blocks in terms of the 'burden' of providing background checks on all these people before allowing them in. Having a wife who is a PR (for the last 20yrs), I'm fully aware of all the paperwork and background checks that are done when it comes time to renew the PR card every 5yrs - what sort of extra security screening is necessary for the CAF? I mean, is the RCMP/CSIS/GoC not doing background checks and security checks on these PR's when they submit the required paperwork for a renewed PR card?? If not, why does it currently take 80 days for a renewed PR card to be processed??

Glass Half Full: Those PAT Platoons probably needed to be bulked up ;)
 
Spending is a nonstarter to me unless the first plan is to set up a training pipeline that can produce trained people. We need to produce people before new sets of kit- produce people that can do the basics well. Ground pounders, sailors (and things to sail), and “aviators” that are proficient in the basics.

Proper footwear and New cold weather tents- and all the shit that actually lets people be the places that fighting can happen and in a state to fight.

Back to basics. Then with a system that can produce people- say what can 80 thousand Canadians reliably contribute to NATO well? If it’s cyber psychos and drone “pilots” we can start specializing that way. But first comes walking hard, sailing into harms way, and screaming towards the horizon.
 
@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.
Honestly a lot of programs on the Army side could be done with very limited project staff -- IF the CAF was to buy systems that are in use with NATO allies.
 
In 1939 we started with practically nothing. Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong. By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.
 
I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.

There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, I think, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).

Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which I believe is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.

FTFY.

I don't know Pierre or Justin's mind. I do know that nothing happens without power. :)
 
In 1939 we started with practically nothing. Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong. By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.
Everything equipment and troops oriented this day and age takes a lot more efforts and time.

Kirkhill likes to remind us what Rummy mentioned about going to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.
 
Back
Top