• 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.
 
Sure, take away all the shore billets so everyone is operational all the time.
Essentially, yeah.

I mentioned before, this all goes sideways when they want someone to work after hours and all the civvies tell them to pound sand.
Or pay them, or get those operational folks to backfill if needed. I do not subscribe to the belief that Cpl Bloggins FSA needs to be posted to CF School X because it might possibly need someone to work extra innings.

Need that report for the Comd tomorrow, do it yourself.
Yes.... and? Sounds like Staff Officer 101 to me.

Emergency advance for deployment, too bad.
Agreed. Perhaps if our Claims system was not archaic and cumbersome, pers wouldn't be wary of not having an advance. Members could.. you know.... receive their reimbursement after the crisis in a timely manner instead of the latter

24 hours to deploy and need kit issued on the weekend, too bad.
So plan for it? Ensure members have kit prior to loading them in a HRU postion?

I will happily slide my job into a civilian position, collect my pension and civilian pay while not having to deal with all the military stuff but do realize at the end of the day we need these positions to rotate people through.
We very clearly don't because we very clearly need more personnel to fill operational gaps than the "I fucked up my planning" gaps.

I very swiftly will blame our "DND/CAF Defence Team" bullshit mentality in poisoning the well for CAF members believing a garrison/NCR/shore billet is something to aspire to. Perhaps peoe wouldn't burn out so fast in the Bns, Wings, and Fleets if they had sufficient personnel to do a proper managed readiness cycle. Instead, we use Garrison Support as a means to "give Bloggins a rest."

The only reason he needs a rest is because there aren't enough folks on the operational side to ensure Bloggins isn't getting double or triple tapped.
 
Essentially, yeah.


Or pay them, or get those operational folks to backfill if needed. I do not subscribe to the belief that Cpl Bloggins FSA needs to be posted to CF School X because it might possibly need someone to work extra innings. Appropriately funding civilians is part of the solution. Can't have a critical support role 1 deep and the employee goes on sick leave. Same with OT, fund it and they will do it.


Yes.... and? Sounds like Staff Officer 101 to me.


Agreed. Perhaps if our Claims system was not archaic and cumbersome, pers wouldn't be wary of not having an advance. Members could.. you know.... receive their reimbursement after the crisis in a timely manner instead of the latter


So plan for it? Ensure members have kit prior to loading them in a HRU postion?


We very clearly don't because we very clearly need more personnel to fill operational gaps than the "I fucked up my planning" gaps.

I very swiftly will blame our "DND/CAF Defence Team" bullshit mentality in poisoning the well for CAF members believing a garrison/NCR/shore billet is something to aspire to. Perhaps peoe wouldn't burn out so fast in the Bns, Wings, and Fleets if they had sufficient personnel to do a proper managed readiness cycle. Instead, we use Garrison Support as a means to "give Bloggins a rest." Exactly

The only reason he needs a rest is because there aren't enough folks on the operational side to ensure Bloggins isn't getting double or triple tapped. And imagine if you could take routine admin and secondary duty crap off the table for the CAF.
 
The one hang up in see in my world would be PCF driver courses. I can't see the Regs being too keen on using their kit to teach a reserve tpr TAPV or LAV but I suppose they could either a) send them home early or b) give them the qual anyways and now they're investing a cadre of trained troops who will eventually be able to be called in for augmentation.
Skill fade happens regardless reg or reserve. I've had reg force techs posted in from 1 RCHA, after 4 years at a reserve unit doing small arms, get posted back I bet they aren't proficient any more on m777. That's okay but a reserve tech getting the course and using it maybe once a year isn't. Training to the same level means we can shorten the delta on work up training.
 
Added benefit of providing employment for military spouses. I'm sure plenty of them would be happy to take a CR-04/05 position in a Garrison OR, especially in limited job markets like Pet, Shilo or Wainwright. They'd be cheaper too.
 
Skill fade happens regardless reg or reserve. I've had reg force techs posted in from 1 RCHA, after 4 years at a reserve unit doing small arms, get posted back I bet they aren't proficient any more on m777. That's okay but a reserve tech getting the course and using it maybe once a year isn't. Training to the same level means we can shorten the delta on work up training.
I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Essentially, yeah.


Or pay them, or get those operational folks to backfill if needed. I do not subscribe to the belief that Cpl Bloggins FSA needs to be posted to CF School X because it might possibly need someone to work extra innings.


Yes.... and? Sounds like Staff Officer 101 to me.


Agreed. Perhaps if our Claims system was not archaic and cumbersome, pers wouldn't be wary of not having an advance. Members could.. you know.... receive their reimbursement after the crisis in a timely manner instead of the latter


So plan for it? Ensure members have kit prior to loading them in a HRU postion?


We very clearly don't because we very clearly need more personnel to fill operational gaps than the "I fucked up my planning" gaps.

I very swiftly will blame our "DND/CAF Defence Team" bullshit mentality in poisoning the well for CAF members believing a garrison/NCR/shore billet is something to aspire to. Perhaps peoe wouldn't burn out so fast in the Bns, Wings, and Fleets if they had sufficient personnel to do a proper managed readiness cycle. Instead, we use Garrison Support as a means to "give Bloggins a rest."

The only reason he needs a rest is because there aren't enough folks on the operational side to ensure Bloggins isn't getting double or triple tapped.
On top of this, we could also go back to the notion that the CAF isn't a career for everyone, and that's perfectly fine. If your family can't support you moving/deploying/sailing as much as we need, you can find employment elsewhere. We'll send you on your way with training, experience, and a smile and a handshake.
 
Stick every single CA tank in Latvia.

Run the Armoured school out of there.
Doesnt survive first contact with the massive L101 TD cuts.

Take PRes Augmentees for 1-3 year class C’s for that as well.
So....basically CT them to the RegF for a VIE of 3 years where they are restricted posted to Latvia? Other than single folks I don't see many biting on that at all.
 
On top of this, we could also go back to the notion that the CAF isn't a career for everyone, and that's perfectly fine. If your family can't support you moving/deploying/sailing as much as we need, you can find employment elsewhere. We'll send you on your way with training, experience, and a smile and a handshake.
Within reason, ofcourse.

Fucking the troops about just because you can has been a huge contributing factor to the mess we find ourselves in.

I have absolutely no issues deploying or supporting operations. My family has the support structure it needs here to support me doing that. Posting me geographically every 2 years because "operational reasons/breadth of experience..."
... get the heck outta here with that.

Keep folks operational yes, but .ake sure we enable that success by not actively putting a stick in the wheels for them readiness wise.
 
Doesnt survive first contact with the massive L101 TD cuts.


So....basically CT them to the RegF for a VIE of 3 years where they are restricted posted to Latvia? Other than single folks I don't see many biting on that at all.
I said 1–3. So some for 1 and some single folks who maybe want the money or adventure (or to pay off a divorce).
 
Within reason, ofcourse.

Fucking the troops about just because you can has been a huge contributing factor to the mess we find ourselves in.

I have absolutely no issues deploying or supporting operations. My family has the support structure it needs here to support me doing that. Posting me geographically every 2 years because "operational reasons/breadth of experience..."
... get the heck outta here with that.

Keep folks operational yes, but .ake sure we enable that success by not actively putting a stick in the wheels for them readiness wise.
That works for some jobs, but not all. Some trades have small dets spread out across the country, and not moving some means others are forced to pick up the slack/bad postings.

There needs to be reason, but right now we seem to leaning a bit too much into the "but my family", and not enough into "it's your job".
 
That works for some jobs, but not all. Some trades have small dets spread out across the country, and not moving some means others are forced to pick up the slack/bad postings.

There needs to be reason, but right now we seem to leaning a bit too much into the "but my family", and not enough into "it's your job".
Oh I agree with you. Balance and all that.

I am part of a Corps that has historically posted 2 folks that swapped places, passing one another on the highway to go on IR, strictly because "well... reasons." Its actually now part of the training for CMs to not do what the RCCS did.

We can definitely have a priority for the needs of the service, without being wasteful/careless with HR and associated cost moves to power flex or punish on our members.
 
I recall a case with the AESOp CM where one person was posted to a school job “because he was in an operational unit too long”, while the person who wanted to school job was forced to go to the operational unit. Net result: two unhappy people and an immediate release in a stressed trade and tens of thousands of money spent on moves for no gain to the CAF.
 
I recall a case with the AESOp CM where one person was posted to a school job “because he was in an operational unit too long”, while the person who wanted to school job was forced to go to the operational unit. Net result: two unhappy people and an immediate release in a stressed trade and tens of thousands of money spent on moves for no gain to the CAF.
This was the SOP for Sigs folks who were "out of the field" too long... or "in Bde too long".... or "at the school too long".... or "in the NCR too long...."

Millions upon millions of dollars spent in IR, Cost Moves, Release postings, and any other number of reasons because someone with no HR skills or training had an opinion on what was "best" for the trade and the member.
 
I recall a case with the AESOp CM where one person was posted to a school job “because he was in an operational unit too long”, while the person who wanted to school job was forced to go to the operational unit. Net result: two unhappy people and an immediate release in a stressed trade and tens of thousands of money spent on moves for no gain to the CAF.

CAF still doesn’t get it. The stick in bike spokes meme would apply in this situation.
 
John Ivison at the G&M isn’t impressed with the Liberals on defence spending.


OPINION

Trudeau’s Liberals are full of promises on everything except Canada’s highest priority: defence​

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/john-ibbitson/
JOHN IBBITSON
PUBLISHED 6 HOURS AGOUPDATED 2 HOURS AGO
The federal government has become strangely surreal. Each day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces new initiatives that are some combination of (a) unnecessary, (b) outside federal jurisdiction and (c) unlikely to be realized before the next federal election.
Meanwhile, the government remains silent on the most pressing issue, and one for which it is 100 per cent responsible: shoring up Canada’s defences in a world growing more dangerous by the day.
Several recent announcements have been about housing. The Liberals are making large sums available to accelerate housing construction, provided provinces and municipalities meet federal requirements to loosen zoning restrictions, accelerate approvals and increase density.


This is an egregious intrusion by Ottawa into an area of provincial jurisdiction, and Ontario and Quebec governments swiftly rejected the proposal. But at least there is some hope for a negotiated agreements. Other announcements have been equally intrusive, but have much less hope of ever becoming real.
As part of a renters’ bill of rights, the Liberals want to make it easier for renters to have their rent payments count toward their credit score. This could involve a great deal of red tape for landlords, and could hurt more than help renters who miss a payment.
How likely is it that such a complex new agreement would be in place before the next election, which polls suggest the Liberals are likely to lose, or that it would survive in a Conservative government under Pierre Poilievre?
Then there was Monday’s announcement of a new national program to provide meals for schoolchildren in need. Negotiating a new federal-provincial-territorial school food program agreement – or, more likely, 13 separate and asymmetrical agreements – by the target date of the 2024-25 school year seems ... ambitious.

Little of what is being announced is likely to see the light of day, or to long remain in it.
Something that should have seen the light of day long ago is the long-promised but still-not-delivered defence review. Not only is defence an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, it should be the single highest priority of any national government. Instead, Canada’s military is an embarrassment.
All NATO members have committed to spending at least 2 per per cent of GDP on defence, with 20 per cent of that money going to equipment. But while other NATO members have ramped up defence spending in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Liberals continue to dither and delay. As a result, according to the latest NATO calculations, Canada is the only NATO member that falls below both 2 per cent of GDP in spending and also below 20 per cent in spending on equipment. We have the worst-funded military in the alliance.
This is frightening. It leaves this country vulnerable to incursions by Russia and China in our Arctic territories.


It angers the United States, which expects Canada to contribute its share to the modernization of NORAD’s air and space defence.
It causes European nations to question Canada’s commitment to protecting the security of Europe in the face of an increasingly hostile and aggressive Russia.
And it makes Canada’s efforts to be taken seriously in the Indo-Pacific region a joke.
“Canada is back,” Mr. Trudeau told the world in 2015. The exact opposite is true. Because of the Liberal government’s unwillingness to spend on defence, Canada today has a lower standing in the eyes of both allies and adversaries than at any time since the outbreak of the Second World War.


Finding the money needed for defence won’t be easy. Bringing Canada’s military up to NATO standards would cost about $20-billion annually, paid for through tax increases or cuts to federal transfers for health, education and social services.
Everyone wants meals for schoolchildren who need them. But defence should be the highest priority. In any case, other NATO countries are able to properly fund their military while sustaining social programs. So can we.
Mr. Trudeau needs to release the defence review. The April 16 budget should commit major funds for defence, and show where the money is to come from. Mr. Poilievre should lay out his own plan for meeting Canada’s defence commitments.
A federal renters’ bill of rights is surreal. It’s time for this Liberal government to get real, and focus on defence.
 
On top of this, we could also go back to the notion that the CAF isn't a career for everyone, and that's perfectly fine. If your family can't support you moving/deploying/sailing as much as we need, you can find employment elsewhere. We'll send you on your way with training, experience, and a smile and a handshake.

The recruiting strategy would have to change. You know, hire young mobile folks with no baggage.
 
John Ivison at the G&M isn’t impressed with the Liberals on defence spending.


Even worse when you think that article was written by John Ibbitson, not John Ivison.
 
John Ivison at the G&M isn’t impressed with the Liberals on defence spending.

Almost every major newspaper in the country, regardless of their political slant, has reported on the alarming lack of commitment to NATO by our government. Considering how Canada was one of the founders of NATO in the first place, it’s a sad comment on our times. Frankly, I’m disgusted with all the political parties for not having the cajones to push for a significantly stronger defence capability, but especially with Justin’s LPC which seems to almost welcome foreign meddling in our affairs until the meddling becomes public knowledge.
 
Back
Top