• 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.
 
YVR has acres of languishing terrain they're looking to monetize in some way. The CAF should make them an offer and move back in to the South Terminal area.


As part of the Financial Sustainability lens of our 2022-2024 Strategic Plan, we outlined how we will aim to drive value from land assets to diversify our revenues and grow our core airport business while supporting regional economic development. To strengthen the non-passenger related business to a higher proportion than in the past, we will put our land assets into productive use, expanding our focus in cargo and logistics, and activating digital opportunities.

In February 2022, the Minister of Transport formally approved the proposed amendment to YVR’s 2037 Land Use Plan. We’re exploring new and innovative ways to strengthen our role as a diverse global hub while aligning YVR to the future growth and needs of British Columbia. This includes unlocking development opportunities on Sea Island that will benefit our community and the economy that supports it.

No. Just. No.
 
Nobody says that any posting has to be permanent. Seasonal campaigns. Two weeks on - Two weeks off. The civilian world uses a variety of solutions to those types of problems. -- Different thread -- overlap.
Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…
 
Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…

In which case there may be an opportunity for some creativity in devising new posting instructions.

Maybe the Cold Lake guys can join the Fort McMurray flights from Montreal and St John's.
 
In which case there may be an opportunity for some creativity in devising new posting instructions.

Maybe the Cold Lake guys can join the Fort McMurray flights from Montreal and St John's.
Possibly, but then we need double the people to keep up the maintenance.
 
There are lots of places in which we could establish a well-founded drone facility and remain close to civilization. Centrallia for example in southwestern Ontario. North Bay, although a little remote does offer good hunting, fishing and a reasonably large community so there is no need to maroon people in places like Goose.
 
Where's Waldo? - Go to the link for legible text - You still won't find Waldo.


1672430232448.png

1672430261416.png




NATO-insight-chart-2.png
 
The Estonian Defence page is quite informative.

2% GDP supports a sustainable and balanced development of national defence​


As of 2012 there has been an agreement between the political parties of the government to support and maintain the defence budget at a 2% GDP expenditure. Military expenditures represent approximately 4.5% of the total state budget. This is one of the smallest items in the budget. This guarantees the defence expenditure to be maintained at 2% of the gross domestic product supporting a sustainable and balanced development of national defence.
 
In 1960, the year I enrolled in the Army, as a private soldier, Canada spent 4.2% of GDP on defence - that was about $1.7 Billion and it had bought us 18 new, modern destroyers and several smaller ships, the Army had four full or nearly full strength (85%) brigade groups and we flew 130 CF-101 Voodoo jets in Canada and 8 squadrons of CF-104 Starfighters in Europe. There were 120,000 men and women in the regular force.

By the time I was promoted to LCol and took command of my own Regiment (1978) our defence budget was 1.85% of GDP, almost $4 Billion in 1978 dollars. We had about 100,000 men and women in the regular force but "rust out" was a real issue.

I retired in 1997, our defence b budget was 1.25& of GDP but almost $8 Billion. We had about 90,000 regular force members but they had new, modern frigates (only 12 of them) and 135+ new, modern CF-18s. The Army had given a good account of itself in UNPROFOR and IFOR in the Balkans but some senior officers argued it was too small even as a mobilization base for a serious war.

Defence spending in dollar terms is meaningless ... inflation drives numbers up and up and up, but each larger number "buys" fewer mean and women and less and less capable equipment for them to use.

Defence spending as a % of GDP is a fair indicator of national will. Our "national will" had declined sharply after 1952 (when defence spent almost 7% of GDP) because there was less need. The threat, by 1960, was still real but it was contained. Our will remained well above average, for NATO (2.75% to 3%), until 1968 when it took another precipitous fall, down to below 2% by 1973. It stayed above 1.5% until 1982 and it rose only because of threatened trade actions by Germany. It stayed above or near 2% during the Mulroney years but fell again after 1993.

Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, I think, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.

Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.

The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.
 
In 1960, the year I enrolled in the Army, as a private soldier, Canada spent 4.2% of GDP on defence - that was about $1.7 Billion and it had bought us 18 new, modern destroyers and several smaller ships, the Army had four full or nearly full strength (85%) brigade groups and we flew 130 CF-101 Voodoo jets in Canada and 8 squadrons of CF-104 Starfighters in Europe. There were 120,000 men and women in the regular force.

By the time I was promoted to LCol and took command of my own Regiment (1978) our defence budget was 1.85% of GDP, almost $4 Billion in 1978 dollars. We had about 100,000 men and women in the regular force but "rust out" was a real issue.

I retired in 1997, our defence b budget was 1.25& of GDP but almost $8 Billion. We had about 90,000 regular force members but they had new, modern frigates (only 12 of them) and 135+ new, modern CF-18s. The Army had given a good account of itself in UNPROFOR and IFOR in the Balkans but some senior officers argued it was too small even as a mobilization base for a serious war.

Defence spending in dollar terms is meaningless ... inflation drives numbers up and up and up, but each larger number "buys" fewer mean and women and less and less capable equipment for them to use.

Defence spending as a % of GDP is a fair indicator of national will. Our "national will" had declined sharply after 1952 (when defence spent almost 7% of GDP) because there was less need. The threat, by 1960, was still real but it was contained. Our will remained well above average, for NATO (2.75% to 3%), until 1968 when it took another precipitous fall, down to below 2% by 1973. It stayed above 1.5% until 1982 and it rose only because of threatened trade actions by Germany. It stayed above or near 2% during the Mulroney years but fell again after 1993.

Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, I think, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.

Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.

The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.

That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.

Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.
 
That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.

Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.

Canadians are a lot like Germans when it comes to their armed forces:

-a major player in past conflicts with a history of herculean feats, in spite of political incompetence

-Post WWII, developed a massive reliance on American efforts for defense, rusted out their own capabilities and put that money elsewhere (social supports, environmentalism, healthcare), while sticking noses up at America not having the same for their own citizens.

-Post Cold War, believed that token deployments with the UN /NATO would keep their seat at the big kid's table.

-struggled to fully sustain large scale rotations in Afg, while the domestic population was apathetic or hostile to the mission.

Now in 2022, no one wants to pay to rearm, but citizens of both countries want the same clout they once had.

What is the French expression again? You can't have the butter and still keep the money for the butter?
 
That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.

Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.
Mark my words the chickens will come home to roost. When or where I can't say BUT it will be a huge scandal with many empty headed people asking "what went wrong? "
 
You're absolutely right and the people of Canada are to blame.
Yes and no. The vast majority of Canadians, in fact people in general, are followers. They are also selfish in that they want the things that OW promises them and don't think any further than their own best interests. They are extremely naïve but at the same time afraid to think for themselves in spite of the evidence in front of them. They have also become used to their entitlements as Jean so eloquently said. The guilt lies with the people who are lying to them and in the people who knowingly are profiting from those lies.

In the 30's American businessmen fought to preserve their market in Japan, selling shipload upon shipload of steel plating that was used to build the Japanese airforce and navy. We all know how that turned out, don't we?
 
There are lots of places in which we could establish a well-founded drone facility and remain close to civilization. Centrallia for example in southwestern Ontario. North Bay, although a little remote does offer good hunting, fishing and a reasonably large community so there is no need to maroon people in places like Goose.
But they've already announced the place(s), and none of them are Goose.
 
It's impractical to try to determine what the degree of financial commitment to something is without converting for inflation and adjusting for population and prosperity growth. For example, adjusted for inflation, our per capita GDP is about 60% greater than 50 years ago (using figures from 1971 to 2021, which seem to differ a bit between sources, and a simple online inflation adjustment calculator). Our per-person productivity is greater, and we have more people, than at any past time. We can afford "more", but the question is how "more" is composed.
 
Or reduce ops to properly reflect manning levels.
Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?
 
Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?

Two weeks off means just that. Off. No appointments, no “come in to sign X nonsense”, off. Everything is done while you are on your two week rotation.
 
Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?

To save money buy equipment that doesn't require people.

Or at least requires fewer people.

Maybe you only need a 6 man security section and a regional maintenance team with a circuit to support.
 
Back
Top