• 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.
 
In all honesty, I'm less concerned with age (outside the Cbt arms), and more concerned with flexibility/availability.

I think the CAF needs to do more to provide supports to those with families, but the CAF also needs to be better at telling those with very restrictive family situations that they are no longer suited for service in the CAF.

That's fair, although I do think there is a place for those who have restrictive family situations, namely in staff roles that most do not seek after, but still need to be done. Ottawa is full of them, and whilst Ottawa needs to be pared down, they will still need to be done.

That being said, I am in the Army. The business of Army is either conducting close manoeuvre warfare for those in front line units, or directly supporting it, and therefore the focus must inherently be on the combat arms. There is no other game in town for the Army, and this needs to be stated very clearly by the chain of command to re-orient everyone on what the role of a ground force is.
 
The thing is, 19 year old unattached you could go wherever the CAF needed, whenever the CAF needed. 39 year old you is more mature, but you now have other responsibilities that mean the CAF can't just tell you that you're going Wainwright Monday for the next three weeks to teach a course, or that you're headed to Latvia in two weeks for six months because someone over there got hurt.

Part of the burnout happening in the CAF right now is the unattached people are getting handed the crap jobs/postings because a fair portion of the people with families can't/won't do it. It essentially makes unattached people second class members.
Oh absolutely ! I'm not saying the CAF needs only mature 30+ men (and women) in their ranks, but you do need a certain balance with mature people in the lot.

The major difference that I would like to quote you on is ''REG vs PRES''. I chose PRES exactly for these specific reasons; part-time, non mandatory mutation and non-mandatory deployments.

When I was REG, we had people with obligations and kids, but when CoC told you that you were leaving for a month-long training to Wainwright, family or not, it was ''suck it up, buttercup'' regardless if you had obligations or not. The CAF was your priority, and not your family.

And this is also why I left the Forces after 4 years, because I couldn't imagine myself struggling between a full-time dedicated job in the Forces and having a family.

And being pure honest, I think that being in the Reserve is the best option for a lot of people; you can apply for Class B and Class C jobs, you can give the time you want, you can enjoy serving your country even with having a family and obligations back at home and sharing a full-time civilan job, ect. A lot of people are unaware of this, and spreading the information might actually interest a lot of people that never though of joining the CAF part time.
 
Oh absolutely ! I'm not saying the CAF needs only mature 30+ men (and woman) in their ranks, but you do need a certain balance with mature people in the lot.

The major difference that I would like to quote you on is ''REG vs PRES''. I chose PRES exactly for these specific reasons; part-time, non mandatory mutation and non-mandatory deployments.

When I was REG, we had people with obligations and kids, but when CoC told you that you were leaving for a month-long training to Wainwright, family or not, it was ''suck it up, buttercup'' regardless if you had obligations or not. The CAF was your priority, and not your family.

And this is also why I left the Forces after 4 years, because I couldn't imagine myself struggling between a full-time dedicated job in the Forces and having a family.

And being pure honest, I think that being in the Reserve is the best option for a lot of people; you can apply for Class B and Class C jobs, you can give the time you want, you can enjoy serving your country even with having a family and obligations back at home and sharing a full-time civilan job, ect. A lot of people are unaware of this, and spreading the information might actually interest a lot of people that never though of joining the CAF part time.

And, IMO, the best Reservist is a recently released Reg.
 
To be honest, I served in the REG force when I was 19 years old for roughly 4 years as Armored.

Today, at 39, i'm joining back the PRes as a MSE Op and I can say this from a personel perspective;

At 39, I am more mature, more experienced and more aware of a lot of things that I wasn't aware of at 19 years old.

At 19 years old, I was going out with my buddies in clubs and bars, drinking and getting wasted only to get back to base at 0100H. Next morning, we did PT at 0700H without a problem. Our priorities back then was having nice cars, going into clubs and getting laid.

At 39, having served 4 years with a tours in A-Stan, a family, a house, and all the responsabilites that comes with life, mentality has changed A LOT. I'm more aware that I need to stay fit, to eat well, to sleep well, to get my shit together, in order to live a good life and to be healthy.

I would, without any doubts, recruit myself at 39 rather that the 19 year-old me.

I understand that you need young people in order for themselves to gain experience and go through all the harsh training the CAF offers, but more experienced guys like me is a must as well.
@Aper, so this was you back in the day, then? 😉

IMG_9388.jpeg
 
I’m curious if the CAF has any data tracking those in the field forces for each service with restrictive family situations? Additionally while there may not be anything wrong with single parents, service couples with school age kids etc. they all do reduce the maximum number of deployable personnel.

That may not matter if all we strive for is a BG, a six pack of fighters, a pair of LRP, and a frigate on a rotating basis, but it certainly would if we tried to deploy all our forces in the case of a large scale war.
 
Basically to me we need the shore billets to rotate people through for a proper break from the drills, duty watches, sea/field time, etc. There does need to be a complete revamp training of the leadership as too often the lack of proper planning does have a negative impact that shouldn't happen. I do believe that there may be room for some positions to be changed to civilian vice military which may actually force people to plan better as they can no longer fall back on ordering their staff to work overtime to make up for their short comings. I also believe though that we have to be careful with changing the positions as it doesn't always work to the best. I had one posn that came with 4 hats. A year after I left it the posn was removed, 3 hats distributed to civilian positions along with other stuff for them to do. For 10 years I was still contacted by other countries (mainly USA) asking me if I could help them as they couldn't get help anywhere else. Hat 4 required military as it was for a standing honour guard. On the other hand, don't know how all the reserves feel but when I was posted to one back in 2012 or 2013 I was highly disappointed to find out that the civilian positions had been cut from the units as part of the new establishment. I was told not to worry as they had added 2 more Class B positions. I immediately asked if we could switch them back as I would rather have the civilian positions that were cut. We need a balance between the 2 that will benefit everyone.

Another aspect here maybe points of view. To me every "non-operational" position I have filled was in support of operational members.

What happens if multiple "crews" are used for each hull - assuming that the extra bodies could be recruited, but bear with me.

So some navies have been using two crews on subs, and the Norwegians have been using 3 watches on a 2 watch ship.

Suppose you were using a small crew philosophy for your ships, optionally crewed so that the ship could sail with little to no supervision but standard practice was sailing with a small crew.

On shore you have one or two, maybe three additional small crews. The crews rotate into and out of the ship on and ongoing basis. When the crews come ashore they report to the office and take up the task of filling all the deficiencies that they found and reported while onboard.

The game plan is to ensure that when you get back on board the deficiencies are fixed.

In addition you have a surplus of trained crew familiar with that ship and available to be deployed. The extra crew can be flown out as needed or could join the ship as trained supernumeraries if the tactical situation required it.

You could even put reservists into the rotational mix.
 
And honestly - war, particularly high intensity, ground based warfare, is a young man's game. When led by well trained officers & experienced NCOs & WOs, young men are far more able to sustain the tempo & rigours of warfare than those of us in our mid-thirties and beyond. That isn't to say that we don't have something to contribute; maturity, perspective & experience is an absolute requirement for a real Army. However, the core demographic, particularly of soldiers & JNCOs in combat trades, should be young men.

I am absolutely not capable of doing the same kind of business in my current age as I was when I exited battle school in my mid-20s. I might be able to find creative ways to stretch it, but we are in a dangerous scenario when those approaching or at middle age are the typical soldier in the ranks. Therefore, we should be maximising recruitment of the young & aggressive, temper them with experienced superiors and as mentioned here many times, not assume or even desire everyone to serve 25 years. An initial engagement of three to five years is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable for a vigorous Army, whilst also planning & accommodating those who wish to stay beyond and form a partial or full career.

On the other hand, "virtual" soldiering is becoming more of a thing. Those 19 year olds that have become 39 year olds with buggered backs might have a lot more opportunities to contribute more directly to supporting new 19 year olds without having to exert themselves to the same extent.

A 39 year old Company Drone Operator might be a thing.
 
On the other hand, "virtual" soldiering is becoming more of a thing. Those 19 year olds that have become 39 year olds with buggered backs might have a lot more opportunities to contribute more directly to supporting new 19 year olds without having to exert themselves to the same extent.

A 39 year old Company Drone Operator might be a thing.
We don't even need to go that modern.

A 51 year old Met Tech, HRA, Sig, etc., is still a valuable asset, as long as they can actually go and do what the CAF needs them to do, when the CAF needs them to go.
 
We don't even need to go that modern.

A 51 year old Met Tech, HRA, Sig, etc., is still a valuable asset, as long as they can actually go and do what the CAF needs them to do, when the CAF needs them to go.

Especially if there are more of these types of things in the system.

1712268099805.png

More motors and less muscles.
 
Interestingly it’s likely that the 18-25 and 50-65 year olds likely have greater mobility with fewer family responsibilities on average than the 25-50 year olds.
Purely due to the lack of children and spouses in the first group and the fact that for the second, their children are grown.

Another factor in recruiting older people with families into the regular force is that the CAF entry point is still at the bottom with pay scales that are more in line with expenses incurred by a single person vs a family.

A single income family with 3 kids and the 25-50 year old breadwinner is making Pte or 2Lt pay is not ideal .
 
Interestingly it’s likely that the 18-25 and 50-65 year olds likely have greater mobility with fewer family responsibilities on average than the 25-50 year olds.
Purely due to the lack of children and spouses in the first group and the fact that for the second, their children are grown.

Another factor in recruiting older people with families into the regular force is that the CAF entry point is still at the bottom with pay scales that are more in line with expenses incurred by a single person vs a family.

A single income family with 3 kids and the 25-50 year old breadwinner is making Pte or 2Lt pay is not ideal .

On the other hand a 25 year old reservist with 2 to 5 years reg service would be no bad thing. Especially if it came with a stipend and perqs in exchange for a 2 week paid refresher every 3 years or so.
 
Makes sense, we’re up to what… north of $25 Billion in new federal spending ( all in areas of provincial constitutional jurisdiction) in under 2 weeks.
Chances of the Defence Policy refresh happening or being released and any new DND funding is highly unlikely in my opinion.
 
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).
I don't think you appreciate the depth and stupidity of the travel cuts, and how arbitrary it is. We don't actually have enough to pay for FSR support trips. We aren't doing training that requires TD (even if it's sending a SME out to run a course for 20 people). We aren't doing NATO working group trips (which only partially works remotely because every country has different IT rules and NATO is a shit show for having things like shared documents at the unclass level). Even core trade training is touch and go.

Travel was already pretty low because it's such a miserable ass pain of admin, now it's basically down to really bare minimum. I'm sure it will result in things getting missed that will cost us millions (or tens of millions) on the various billion dollar projects on the go, have direct operational impacts and all sorts of other stupidity.

The only LCMM travel we're doing at all this year is something we're mandated by federal law to check annually in person; the rest is cut. Things like in person acceptance of contract deliverables for infrastructure etc all not funded, and even normal maintenance won't get funded because they involve some FSR travel.
 
Back
Top