• 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.
 
You'd think they would of atleast be given sprc pay though
My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.

To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".

Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.
 
I wonder how many are coming in with skills the CAF desperately needs? Like air crews, pilots, marine engineers, etc...feel like we would want to fast track those individuals. Maybe even offer expedited citizenship for those that serve?

Pilots are aircrew; CAF/RCAF aircrew trades are pilot, ACSO, SAR Tech, Flight Engineer and AES Op.
 
AMOR is imperfect but important. Org design across the enterprise is important too - since we do little lateral entry, rank pyramid is important to have healthy promotion ratios - to select out.

The classic example was Int Op wanting more MCpl than Cpl, more Sgt than MCpl. WO at least was smaller than Sgt - but greater than Cpl.

That's been mostly fixed, but stupidity like "A Cpl can't brief a Col" needs to be stomped out - hard - whenever it recurs.

My trade is suffering now because the pyramid was forced.

I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.
 
My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.

To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".

Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.

I've been saying recently; the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.

When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self". For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.

Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.

They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.
 
I've been saying recently; the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.

When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self". For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.

Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.

They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.
100%

The CAF/GoC has shown it's colours, and I'm done giving more than I get back.
 
I've met a few in my "new" branch...

I've had a couple of people try to take on my briefings. I gave them as polite of a "f**k-off" as I could muster, and proceeded to conduct the brief myself. I may not be great, but I at least understand what I'm talking about better than most people in the room.
Well, there was the one time you told me there was no risk of a thunderstorm, with a CB clearly visible 10 NM off the port bow.

I forgive you ;)
 
The top as in the CDS? MND? PM?
In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…
 
In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…

That’s because he admires them so much…

 
I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.

Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:

in WW2, the yanks had a 1:6000 GOFO:soldier ratio, in 2017 the US military had about 1:1400 ratio, while the ADF is currently running a 1:180 ratio. The US army is about half a million personnel, they have recently had their GOFO number reduced to 220, which is only 15 more than what we have in the ADF, which numbers less than 60000 full time. We are currently employing nearly 10 times the number of flag officers vs the US army. Clearly, the rank bloat at the higher levels goes beyond needing experts in key areas.
 
In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…
I fully agree. The PM was the one that said he admired China. I took that as a warning but it seems that the chattering class went gaga over it.
 
Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:
Just because someone else is worse doesn’t make the CAF situation with GOFO’s reasonable.
 
Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:

They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.

They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF. Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces. Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.
 
Last edited:
They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.

They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF. Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces. Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.
Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....:cdn:CSAF:salute:
 
Sure, there are definitely some cases where we can look at the civvy world and say "close enough for government work".

The problem is, we don't offer anything competitive enough to draw most of the civvy collage people we want... To the average 20-30 year old, a pension after 25 years isn't much incentive when compared against more take-home money now, and no silly military BS.
Maybe one of the mistakes is that we have a service model where want everyone to stick around for 25 years. Maybe its good enough if the bulk stays for 3 or 4 years full-time and another 5 years part-time.

Make the incentive that we provide one group with adventure while they are youth (I'm thinking the usual infantry and so on) and the others a paid for education in a civilian trade and some experience with a full period of summer employment to make some cash. Target high school students by paying tuitions for colleges and universities but pay them a salary only when they attend their military skills conversion courses in the summer. Enforce "obligatory service" provisions for several years of pay-back and then incentivise re-enlistment for further terms of obligatory service.

If turnover is a fact of life, then learn to live with turnover. Not everyone needs to stay the full course. We only need the vast number of middle and senior managers that we do because we have built a constipated system that needs them. Even as it is, in an infantry battalion (from an establishment a few years out of date) we have 594 all ranks of which 519 are of the rank of sergeant and below. That feeds 36 NCMs of the rank of WO and above. That means that you only need to keep 7% of the base to generate the NCM leadership needed within a given battalion. Let's double that to 15% to keep a reasonable ERE base. The trouble is that we've created an artificially high ERE base within our numerous headquarters above brigade level that takes leadership away from the battalions and converts them into middle management for marginally useful administrative functions. To compound things we have created a system where it is nigh on impossible to bring skilled retirees back to the colours in time of need.

We need to massively prune the tree, reduce that ERE need and then ensure that line units--the real defence outputs--are properly filled by young and still interested and motivated troops. And yes - that applies to the officer corps as well. We have to stop looking at the careerist as our role model and develop a system of how to still make use of those that leave the CF for a civilian career.

🍻
 
Back
Top