• 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.
 
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.

Security lol. Just beef up the commissionaire sections.
 
I mean there are more & more seniors looking for part time gigs, and Wal-Mart isn't for everyone...

25% of the population will be 65+ by 2028 in Canada. We will need them in any capacity to keep this insane gov spending going.
 
For the most part seniors will either be retired or working time-filling jobs that don't pay enough to make them appreciable contributors to income tax revenues, and their retirement savings (those that have them) won't be going as far as before inflation took a bite. Some of them will be voting for whoever promises to increase payments to contemporary beneficiaries of CPP, OAS, and GIS. Whoever makes any kind of promises - no matter how wild - to improve access to health care might also get their votes.

What I expect to happen is that taxes will increase substantially on the upper quarter or third of filers by income. The amount won't be noticed by the super-rich, but below that small fraction there is going to be a large tranch of taxpayers whose disposable income starts to shrink - maybe starting at $70K income, if you're wondering whether that is likely to include yourself. Roughly half of Canadians receive more in transfers than they pay in income tax, so don't look to them.
 
0l

Launch the Geriatric Response Force!!!!

I'm REDy ;)

bruce willis GIF
 
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.
And, based on the first para above and the transformation report by Leslie on where the new Afghan money for personnel ended up, it seems clear that the generals and admirals and EXs are more than happy to spend money in Ottawa and the greater defence administrative system bloat rather than on defence capabilities.

Personally, as a Canadian, I'm willing to spend 2% of the GDP on defence, but not until DND/CAF sorts out its personnel imbalance, its bloated administrative system and the moribund procurement system.

🍻
 
And, based on the first para above and the transformation report by Leslie on where the new Afghan money for personnel ended up, it seems clear that the generals and admirals and EXs are more than happy to spend money in Ottawa and the greater defence administrative system bloat rather than on defence capabilities.

Personally, as a Canadian, I'm willing to spend 2% of the GDP on defence, but not until DND/CAF sorts out its personnel imbalance, its bloated administrative system and the moribund procurement system.

🍻

Agreed.

You could hand DND/CAF 4% of GDP tomorrow and it would have zero positive effect on how we do business.

We still have 6 "Divisional" HQs fully staffed, yet could probably field a Brigade's worth of personnel, Reg and Reserve, and roughly a Combat Team's worth of assets to support within each Division (completely glossing over the fact that 3 of those 6 Divisional HQs lack a CMBG in them.)

Unless we are pulled into Article 5, or we are outright attacked; no government of any political stripe will give the order to mobilize enough personnel to field a full Division. It's a money pit to maintain these structures "just in case."
 
We need all those HQs. One of the Lessons Learned of the war in Ukraine is that the enemy artillery we don't have much to fight back with is probably going to wipe HQs off the map on a regular basis.
 
Personally, as a Canadian, I'm willing to spend 2% of the GDP on defence, but not until DND/CAF sorts out its personnel imbalance, its bloated administrative system and the moribund procurement system.

🍻

And I'm guessing that the politicians are thinking the same. No need to throw good money after bad until the CAF can get its internal act together...

... which will probably be never ;)
 
Agreed.

You could hand DND/CAF 4% of GDP tomorrow and it would have zero positive effect on how we do business.
This close to the end of FY they may as well hand it directly to CORCAN and skip the middle-man. Just drop off some crappy furniture that’s identical to what’s here now.
 
Last edited:
Agreed.

You could hand DND/CAF 4% of GDP tomorrow and it would have zero positive effect on how we do business.

We still have 6 "Divisional" HQs fully staffed, yet could probably field a Brigade's worth of personnel, Reg and Reserve, and roughly a Combat Team's worth of assets to support within each Division (completely glossing over the fact that 3 of those 6 Divisional HQs lack a CMBG in them.)

Unless we are pulled into Article 5, or we are outright attacked; no government of any political stripe will give the order to mobilize enough personnel to field a full Division. It's a money pit to maintain these structures "just in case."

The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year.

I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use.

Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy. My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.
 
The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year.

I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use.

Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy. My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.

You stop it! If it's not Army it's not doing anything.
 
The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year.

I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use.

Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy. My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.
Sorry how old are your planes?
Or the rest of the RCAF assets?
 
You’ve been at your current work location for a while now; would you shut it down and give the money to the RCN for ships and sailors? 🙂

It's much the opposite where I am. In Halifax the Army is the bastard child.

It's been eye opening for some when I express that the CBG is not the priority here. There grey floaty things are.

But what has been refreshing is working with a bunch of people who want to be here. Stay tuned, I've been approached and am contemplating a major change.
 
The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year.

I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use.

Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy. My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.

I only can speak to my own experience and observations. The most I have been exposed to how the RCAF operates were in and out of 8 Wing to head to theatre.

My point was mainly that while we need more $, we tend to take that money and piss it away in acts of delusions of grandeur thar making what we have more functional.

I would love to see more money as well. I need to get folks firing more than 49 rounds a year to stay proficient on their personal weapons. I need more money to perform the crucial O&M tasks that have been kicked down the road for decades.

The Army is garrison bound, yes; but there has been a lot of "ridden hard, put away wet." In the past 10 years that has come to roost in 2022. Especially personnel wise.

I find exercises in "who has it worst" only serve to deflect from those truly at fault, and continue the infighting between the L1s.
 
Back
Top