• 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 Canada’s north, communication and transportation infrastructure are dual use. There are a lot of community airfields that are not accessible even to C17, which could be an impediment if we needed to surge a capability like ROWPU or radars.
I'm currently starting to work with the RCMP and northern FN doing suicide intervention training. Our first try at it was stymied by a water main break - and the repairman had left already. They are in a pickle and how does it get fixed now?
 
I'm currently starting to work with the RCMP and northern FN doing suicide intervention training. Our first try at it was stymied by a water main break - and the repairman had left already. They are in a pickle and how does it get fixed now?
OS, the priority is Net-Zero by 2050, so I’m thinking it should be resolved some time after 2050… 😞
 
Too bad that we are bad at arctic infrastructure:
Why am I not surprised.

It's the end of March and this facility is now completely inaccessible to us, has been for a number of months now due to the weather and it won't be accessible for a number of months into the future. So, with this being the case, why is this article just coming out now?
When they wrapped up work on the facility back in, say early-mid October of 2021 wouldn't they know right then and there that the facility was not finished? They would have have a very good understanding of what needed to be completed and the timelines to complete the work because, I'm assuming, they had a project plan, with milestones, delivery dates, dependencies, risks, etc - it would have been known.

What a load of crap. Cover up - and another push of funding not being spent in one fiscal year and pushed into another.
 
Its not a cover up. I took the train to work with one of the DND projects engineers regularly. We used to chat about once a week. His frustration with getting work done in the Arctic was palpable because of all the engineering challenges. That was before COVID.

However, the lack of political will makes it much harder.

Also comparing to Russia is a terribly stupid comparison. No first nations discussions needed, no environmental assessment required, no care about waste management, being able to drive to their bases is nice as their arctic isn't an archipelago etc...
 
Its not a cover up. I took the train to work with one of the DND projects engineers regularly. We used to chat about once a week. His frustration with getting work done in the Arctic was palpable because of all the engineering challenges. That was before COVID.

However, the lack of political will makes it much harder.

Also comparing to Russia is a terribly stupid comparison. No first nations discussions needed, no environmental assessment required, no care about waste management, being able to drive to their bases is nice as their arctic isn't an archipelago etc...
Why is the story coming out now at the end of March and not the end of say October, when the latest work would have wrapped up?

Was it the author of the article who sat on the story for the last 5 months? Or was it a gov't department who sat on it for the last 5 months before actually coming clean and informing their bosses that, whoops, we didn't complete the project plan and wrap up the project by our project end date of summer 2021 and we need net new funding that was not budgeted for this fiscal year?

Either way it should have been obvious to all who worked on it that the work was not completed by 2021 and that more funding and money would be required for yet another building season. It would not take 5 months for this to be known.
 
Its not a cover up. I took the train to work with one of the DND projects engineers regularly. We used to chat about once a week. His frustration with getting work done in the Arctic was palpable because of all the engineering challenges. That was before COVID.

However, the lack of political will makes it much harder.
Commitment challenge.

It isn’t an engineering challenge, it’s been done before and there is a lot of information out there on how design requirements differ, as such it is just a different environment that most are not used to working with. I suspect most of the project staff where not exceptionally familiar with the the design requirements of buildings etc that far north, then toss in COVID and room temperature government support and you have a mess as it’s massively under resourced.
 
Commitment challenge.

It isn’t an engineering challenge, it’s been done before and there is a lot of information out there on how design requirements differ, as such it is just a different environment that most are not used to working with. I suspect most of the project staff where not exceptionally familiar with the the design requirements of buildings etc that far north, then toss in COVID and room temperature government support and you have a mess as it’s massively under resourced.

I'm pretty sure this was a Harper project as well. Have to wonder if that had an effect ?

You know like a certain fighter plane replacement thing-a-ma-jig.
 
I'm pretty sure this was a Harper project as well. Have to wonder if that had an effect ?

You know like a certain fighter plane replacement thing-a-ma-jig.
It was a Harperism, but I suspect he had already lost interest by the time JT took over.
 
I'm pretty sure this was a Harper project as well. Have to wonder if that had an effect ?

You know like a certain fighter plane replacement thing-a-ma-jig.
Is that why we'll keep Pearson breaking ice until its 60yrs old before Dief touches water?
 
@FJAG LET ME DREAM GOD DAMNIT
There's nothing wrong with the majority of your dream. It's this part that evoked the laughter.
pretty fast last year. Any chance we could do the same with our LAVs?
I think it would be very doable to have those systems on a Canadian LAV which is pretty much a Stryker in the first place. My guess we could use a TLAV for some of that as well. My guess is that the LAV will most likely be the GBAD vehicle chassis of choice.

It was the issue of whether there is any chance we could do it "fast" that was the kicker.

We've done things quickly through Unforecasted Operational Requirements during Afghanistan but there is currently no need for that and more importantly, a UOR does not create an in-service system, just a temporary system for a specific operational requirement. GBAD right now is targeted for inservice (as it should be) that means slow and deliberate. As far as I understand we have just been given approval for the definition stage. That means that there is a long road ahead before this gets done.

🍻
 
Why am I not surprised.

It's the end of March and this facility is now completely inaccessible to us, has been for a number of months now due to the weather and it won't be accessible for a number of months into the future. So, with this being the case, why is this article just coming out now?
When they wrapped up work on the facility back in, say early-mid October of 2021 wouldn't they know right then and there that the facility was not finished? They would have have a very good understanding of what needed to be completed and the timelines to complete the work because, I'm assuming, they had a project plan, with milestones, delivery dates, dependencies, risks, etc - it would have been known.

What a load of crap. Cover up - and another push of funding not being spent in one fiscal year and pushed into another.

I'm still wondering why the base isn't planned to be built in Iqaluit, but I'm no sailor so....
 
I'm still wondering why the base isn't planned to be built in Iqaluit, but I'm no sailor so....
If I were to guess, I'd say because there's already a naval (civilian) infrastructure project in Iqaluit, and it's also close enough to Nuuk and Newfoundland that building the facility there wouldn't provide much added value.

Whereas Nanisivik is right in the middle of the Canadian Arctic.
 
There's nothing wrong with the majority of your dream. It's this part that evoked the laughter.

I think it would be very doable to have those systems on a Canadian LAV which is pretty much a Stryker in the first place. My guess we could use a TLAV for some of that as well. My guess is that the LAV will most likely be the GBAD vehicle chassis of choice.

It was the issue of whether there is any chance we could do it "fast" that was the kicker.

We've done things quickly through Unforecasted Operational Requirements during Afghanistan but there is currently no need for that and more importantly, a UOR does not create an in-service system, just a temporary system for a specific operational requirement. GBAD right now is targeted for inservice (as it should be) that means slow and deliberate. As far as I understand we have just been given approval for the definition stage. That means that there is a long road ahead before this gets done.

🍻
I don't know much about GBAD but I used to work with one of the few surviving AD Artillery Sgt's years back. Those folks deploy far out from the formation in interlocking layers of coverage. But that was in the days of ADAT's and I assume GBAD for the Stykers is a different animal. The ADATs had a 10km range. The Stinger is around 4-5km in range.

A SHORAD LAV would likely be using the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons platform and would provide tactical AD for the army, but something else is needed I think for the longer range punch.

I'll go with what I know and that's the Sky Sabre. It's replacing the Sky Rapier in the UK inventory. It uses the Giraffe AMB radar (a large amount of commonality to the SG-AMB on the frigates and JSS) and the CAMM which is selected as the CIAD missile for the CSC. 25km range with 100km range radar.

I don't think we need LRAD as a military, the Short and Medium RAD would go a long way to being able to do local protection of our own units.
 
Whereas Nanisivik is right in the middle of the Canadian Arctic.
So are Resolute and Arctic Bay, and an infrastructure project in either of these locations could have dual-use benefits for the local communities.
I know Nanisivik and Arctic Bay look real close on a map, but they are substantially isolated from eachother through most of the year.
 
So are Resolute and Arctic Bay, and an infrastructure project in either of these locations could have dual-use benefits for the local communities.
I know Nanisivik and Arctic Bay look real close on a map, but they are substantially isolated from eachother through most of the year.
Nanisivik is CCG and RCN only AFAIK. There is an airfield nearby but it's public. Artic Bay is a short drive away from Nanisivik.
 
How hard is it to look down South as say.
TTHAD
MEADS
MSHORAD
STINGER

I mean I could have written a capability requirement and SOW for GBAD in about 2hrs from scratch.
Tsk tsk... that's not how the CAF does things. See pistol project for example and timelines.
 
Back
Top