• 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.
 
Let's move on from the CFAT @everyone please. Other threads cover it much better. I would like to hear all of your thoughts on the increased defence spending topic!
 
I agree totally with those points, however, we need an alternative metric.

If 2% GDP isn't the metric wanted, what is the plan? What capabilities do they want added? What are the timelines?

SSE isn't worth the paper it's written on, so that can't possibly be a guide or point of reference
Arguably SSE allows the CAF to field a very robust force.
I’d argue it’s tunnel vision inside the CAF that is the biggest issue, or no one wanting to sacrifice their careers on that hill
 
Arguably SSE allows the CAF to field a very robust force.
I’d argue it’s tunnel vision inside the CAF that is the biggest issue, or no one wanting to sacrifice their careers on that hill
I think that's part of it. Another part that gets overlooked is that it is, in typical Canadian government fashion, open ended enough to promise everything and nothing in no concrete timelines.

Yes, it does give promises of gradual increases and new capital investment into capabilities... but it doesn't mesh with any concrete "effects" they want out of the CAF.

"Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?

"Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?

We, as in the CAF, need to explain better and more realistixally what we need to fulfill those roles. We also need to provide an adequate costing of these effects, and stop throwing money into "project development." The solutions we need exist out there. We are not that unique of a military. We should be able to look across our allies and find SOMETHING that works, relatively affordible, and can be complete from "need>fielded" in 5-10 years.
 
"Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?

"Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?

At home - NORAD - RCAF (working with the USAF)
Abroad - NATO - RCN (high seas and convoys and working with the USN and the RN)

Do we want a NORAD Army or a NATO Army? The Army itself, in my opinion, sees itself more as a NATO Army. And has done since the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.
 
At home - NORAD - RCAF (working with the USAF)
Abroad - NATO - RCN (high seas and convoys and working with the USN and the RN)

Do we want a NORAD Army or a NATO Army? The Army itself, in my opinion, sees itself more as a NATO Army. And has done since the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.
Realistically the conventional land-based military threats to Canada are minimal. Our Army must be focused on being expeditionary (I'd include the far North of Canada in that), but there are a lot of options of how we could choose to be expeditionary. The traditional, mechanized NATO vs Russia Cold War type role is only one possible option.
 
Aptitude testing is limited in assessing retention, practical learning, and emotional intelligence.

Aptitude testing measures potential. You're measuring it against things it's not meant to measure. If the suite of tests administered is incomplete, it doesn't mean there's a problem with aptitude testing. A bit like blaming the hammer if you try to fasten two boards together without a nail.
 
You do know that carriers provide their own air defence and strike capability ?

Yes, but one CVBG is fuck-all. An enemy coming to make a serious attempt on us is going to look like the combined US fleets present during the various Pacific operations in 1944-45. One CVBG will be rolled over.

the Brits started an ex to prove to the world that the RAF and the Army could reinforce Singapore by Air

We don't need to reinforce Canada by air. We're already here. Use examples that make sense, starting with the fact we own the ground.
 
My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.

Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330), but using the military as a source of public works funding would be an easy win / win.
 
Yes, but one CVBG is fuck-all. An enemy coming to make a serious attempt on us is going to look like the combined US fleets present during the various Pacific operations in 1944-45. One CVBG will be rolled over.

I agree but I think this is beside Aliens Invade when developing possible COA's over the next 20 years. No one is going to challenge US security by way of Canada.
You do know that carriers provide their own air defence and strike capability ?
And historically relying on land based aircover has at best been farcical and it's worst suicidal .
For home security, if you really want to protect Canada then invest in submarines and land based aircraft not carriers. Submarines and aircraft like the MPA's are far better in a defensive posture then a carrier.

Carriers are for power projection away from home shores. I've advocated for a small helicopter carrier or escort carrier in the past. Helicopter carriers using both small UAVs and rotary wing to do AEW, Surface picture compilation, and our own 24/7 ASW presence.

Let the US and UK do the supercarrier thing. We could watch their backs while they go to work.
 
My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.

Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that's are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330, for example), but using the military as a source if public works funding would be an easy win / win.
US Army Corps of Engineers style. I like this idea quite a bit. Just go around improving airfields, ports, other infrastructure etc...
 
My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.

Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that's are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330, for example), but using the military as a source if public works funding would be an easy win / win.
I get your point...get something useful done that isn't really purely military but ultimately ends up having some strategic value for the CF, but it sure is a stupid way to go about getting things done. If something is needed and useful then it should be funded through the proper channels. Not doing some accounting acrobatics to use up someone else's slice of the budget.
 
I think that's part of it. Another part that gets overlooked is that it is, in typical Canadian government fashion, open ended enough to promise everything and nothing in no concrete timelines.

Yes, it does give promises of gradual increases and new capital investment into capabilities... but it doesn't mesh with any concrete "effects" they want out of the CAF.

"Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?

"Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?

We, as in the CAF, need to explain better and more realistixally what we need to fulfill those roles. We also need to provide an adequate costing of these effects, and stop throwing money into "project development." The solutions we need exist out there. We are not that unique of a military. We should be able to look across our allies and find SOMETHING that works, relatively affordible, and can be complete from "need>fielded" in 5-10 years.
Canada needs a new white paper - a non partisan one that will be followed by governments for 20+ years.

SSE allows for the CAF to acquire pretty much anything they want.
Full Spectrum from low to high intensity.

I don’t blame the Cdn Gov for the fact that the Army doesn’t have a variable ATGM
I blame the Cdn Gov for the 1 million LAV Army - but no one in the Army ever stood up and said - that’s really stupid.
The RCAF wanted the Blackhawk years ago and MM boned them with the Griffon - yet no one resigned in disgust

Governments generally always Pork Barrel if allowed too, and rarely does anyone kick up a stink that the item doesn’t meet the specifications.
Look at the LSVW standard got dropped repeatedly until it passed / no one resigned or leaked anything to the press.

While the GOFOs do have a duty to the Civilian leadership, they also have a duty to the CAF and the Canadian public at large not to let the government foist POS on them.
 
Iqaluit does not need, for its own use, an airfield that supports an A330. The CAF, buying A330 MRTTs and transports, would benefit from Iqaluit having an A330 airfield.

Multiply that by thousands of locations across Canada, give DND a billion in vote 10 to support construction and ongoing operations, and voila.
 
Canada needs a new white paper - a non partisan one that will be followed by governments for 20+ years.

SSE allows for the CAF to acquire pretty much anything they want.
Full Spectrum from low to high intensity.

I don’t blame the Cdn Gov for the fact that the Army doesn’t have a variable ATGM
I blame the Cdn Gov for the 1 million LAV Army - but no one in the Army ever stood up and said - that’s really stupid.
The RCAF wanted the Blackhawk years ago and MM boned them with the Griffon - yet no one resigned in disgust

Governments generally always Pork Barrel is allowed too, and rarely does anyone kick up a stink that the item doesn’t meet the specifications.
Look at the LSVW standard got dropped repeatedly until it passed / no one resigned or leaked anything to the press.

While the GOFOs do have a duty to the Civilian leadership, they also have a duty to the CAF and the Canadian public at large not to let the government foist POS on them.

Even more importantly, the CAF needs the right kind of strategic leadership as opposed to a bunch of 'Yes Men and Women'.

Where everything has the same level of importance, and there are no clear goals that everyone is working towards, you're not being strategic.

You're setting the organization up for failure.
 
US Army Corps of Engineers style. I like this idea quite a bit. Just go around improving airfields, ports, other infrastructure etc...
For what purpose if you have no military to go there. There are plenty of departments in the government for roads and airstrips. It has been said here before, first the major parties have to sit down behind closed doors with no press and no press releases and come to an agreement: defense is too important to permit politics. Now the same group agree on an image of our armed forces and the personnel and equipment required and then just do it whatever it may be. Don't invite any generals or experts. Highest rank a colonel or an active commander. Clean up the hiring process 'cause it doesn't work and get rid of at least two stages in the procurement process. That is my 2 cents
 
I agree but I think this is beside Aliens Invade when developing possible COA's over the next 20 years. No one is going to challenge US security by way of Canada.

For home security, if you really want to protect Canada then invest in submarines and land based aircraft not carriers. Submarines and aircraft like the MPA's are far better in a defensive posture then a carrier.

Carriers are for power projection away from home shores. I've advocated for a small helicopter carrier or escort carrier in the past. Helicopter carriers using both small UAVs and rotary wing to do AEW, Surface picture compilation, and our own 24/7 ASW presence.

Let the US and UK do the supercarrier thing. We could watch their backs while they go to work.
Crazy idea but what about say an assault ship online with the Australian loyal wingman unmanned fighter, and create a floating drone carrier?
 
Crazy idea but what about say an assault ship online with the Australian loyal wingman unmanned fighter, and create a floating drone carrier?
I think that I love crazy ideas. But if you build a drone carrier you are just really building a carrier and filling it with drones are you not? Why limit the flexibility of a small flattop.

Frankly though I think we need to flesh out our capabilities along the lines of the Australians with the notable exception of amphibious forces. They aren't necessary in our context like it is for them with all those island chokepoints etc... they need to secure in event of a war with a northern power.
 
I think that I love crazy ideas. But if you build a drone carrier you are just really building a carrier and filling it with drones are you not? Why limit the flexibility of a small flattop.

Frankly though I think we need to flesh out our capabilities along the lines of the Australians with the notable exception of amphibious forces. They aren't necessary in our context like it is for them with all those island chokepoints etc... they need to secure in event of a war with a northern power.
I was thinking of ways around our man power issues, so Essentially yes, but smaller in size, more endurance potentially.
 
Iqaluit does not need, for its own use, an airfield that supports an A330. The CAF, buying A330 MRTTs and transports, would benefit from Iqaluit having an A330 airfield.

The CAF would benefit from a lot of things. Rank them and start at the top of the list instead of willy-nilly throwing money around. Why bother reforming procurement if we're just going to find another rathole to pour money down?
 
Providing infra funds to communities where the CAF benefits lets the communities deal with contracting and maintenance, and avoids ADM IE / DCC and other sinkholes of inefficiency.
 
Back
Top