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.

 

[FJAG]

Honestly, I have no idea how bad it is at the coal-face these days but you have to remember that I'm a guy that lived through Trudeau the First's army when we were worse than decimated. The arty lost half of its numbers, we lost an entire brigade and our equipment, for the most part, was manufactured in the early 1950s. Like the Eveready Bunny we just kept going, and going, and going with Centurion tanks, M113s, Ferret scout cars and L5 pack howitzers. The navy had old rusting Tribals (the Bony had just been laid up) and the air force flew Starfighters and Voodoos and Huey's.

We've had cycles of feast and famine. Over and over again. Throughout that half century I noted two overriding issues. First, our administration grew ever more complex requiring an ever expanding bureaucracy to manage it. More and more people and money kept being swallowed into Ottawa while units became smaller and less capable. Second, politicians of all stripes were amateurs respecting the military and industry. They needed input from the military professionals but were not getting enough of it. The 1960s were an era where McNamara was espousing "system analysis" for the US forces and it was jumped on by our bureaucrats - the result was longer decision cycles, more committees, more cross departmental collaboration, all of which empowered the bureaucracy but downplayed the hard military experience. Vietnam was a massive failure that made the US military re-examine itself and chart a new course. We never had a Vietnam and never self-corrected. Trudeau was influenced by outside pressure to modernize the Canadian military in the late 1970s - Ta Da - Leopards, F-18s and Halifax class resulted. Then came Chretien.

By the year 2000 Canada was in major trouble. Bosnia was becoming a major drain on the army's ability to maintain people in the field. All the "lacking boots on the ground" mantras came out of this era. That was mixed with the armoured personnel carrier rationalization that was going on which resulted in the LAV (for a fun read see Craig Stone's 2001 article "An Examination of the Armoured Personnel Carrier Replacement Project" for an examination on how sausages are made). Then came 9/11 and we ended up with the wonderful world of Leo IIs, M777s, C-17s and new Chinooks.

The problem is that there is a disconnect between the political class and our senior leadership that seems to only come together when a crisis occurs and the military leadership can run to the politicians with a claim that their pants are on fire and they need an immediate bailout. For well over 50 years, the military leadership and the government have not been able to sit down and plan out a rational strategy for a long range future. There are numerous short range plans (and I consider Advancing With Purpose to be one of those). There have been numerous acquisitions along the way. Some arising out of immediate crises (like the M777) and others out of long term ones (rust out of our logistics fleets and ships). Some like JUSTAS/RPAS have dragged on for years (experimentally since 2000 as a policy since 2006, as a restarted policy in 2017, as a flying aircraft - some day soon)

Despite the fact that there are good meaning, intelligent and capable people within the military, the connection between the professional military and the professional politicians is weak. There have been few champions within the MND position to make things happen in a logical and strategic fashion. Everything is transactional. If one were a cynic, like me, Trudeau II's choice as his first MND was designed specifically to ensure that no connection existed. We have for decades now not had a national mobilization plan for either the military or industry. We agree to a 2% of GDP funding formula but have no plan to get there. Even the party most bullish on defence had no problems cutting funding when the economy took a tank in 2008.

I guess all of that is to say that where the serving folks are now is nothing new. We've been there for over a half a century, and even since we became a country. It's Canada's way of life. Unless there is a major crisis, strategic thinking takes a back seat.

If there is one difference, however, it's that the military has never before been funded as heavily as it is now. $31 billion isn't chum change. It shows the willingness of how much the government will commit. My biggest beef is that the military, like the civil service, has become addicted to the drug of how much of its loot it is prepared to shovel into a full-time bureaucracy. And believe me, a bureaucracy is always able to prove that it needs more. It's the direct link between the organization and the government and its priorities will be paramount even if actual defence outputs will suffer. That bureaucracy is both civilian and military. It keeps expanding and full-time personnel costs will forever rise. Unfortunately our collective leadership has only one answer to low defence outputs and that's more money. No government will accept that. It's like a heroin addict saying I can solve the problem if you just give me more heroin.

What's needed is an initiative that looks at a complete rebuilding of the defence structure from the ground up. One that reduces the bureaucratic load on both the department and on the defence industry. One that looks at ongoing day-to-day defence output needs and one that looks to the strategic defence outputs needed for a troubled future. That needs a proactive foreign affairs department which has also been moribund for decades.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Honestly, I have no idea how bad it is at the coal-face these days but you have to remember that I'm a guy that lived through Trudeau the First's army when we were worse than decimated. The arty lost half of its numbers, we lost an entire brigade and our equipment, for the most part, was manufactured in the early 1950s. Like the Eveready Bunny we just kept going, and going, and going with Centurion tanks, M113s, Ferret scout cars and L5 pack howitzers. The navy had old rusting Tribals (the Bony had just been laid up) and the air force flew Starfighters and Voodoos and Huey's.

We've had cycles of feast and famine. Over and over again. Throughout that half century I noted two overriding issues. First, our administration grew ever more complex requiring an ever expanding bureaucracy to manage it. More and more people and money kept being swallowed into Ottawa while units became smaller and less capable. Second, politicians of all stripes were amateurs respecting the military and industry. They needed input from the military professionals but were not getting enough of it. The 1960s were an era where McNamara was espousing "system analysis" for the US forces and it was jumped on by our bureaucrats - the result was longer decision cycles, more committees, more cross departmental collaboration, all of which empowered the bureaucracy but downplayed the hard military experience. Vietnam was a massive failure that made the US military re-examine itself and chart a new course. We never had a Vietnam and never self-corrected. Trudeau was influenced by outside pressure to modernize the Canadian military in the late 1970s - Ta Da - Leopards, F-18s and Halifax class resulted. Then came Chretien.

By the year 2000 Canada was in major trouble. Bosnia was becoming a major drain on the army's ability to maintain people in the field. All the "lacking boots on the ground" mantras came out of this era. That was mixed with the armoured personnel carrier rationalization that was going on which resulted in the LAV (for a fun read see Craig Stone's 2001 article "An Examination of the Armoured Personnel Carrier Replacement Project" for an examination on how sausages are made). Then came 9/11 and we ended up with the wonderful world of Leo IIs, M777s, C-17s and new Chinooks.

The problem is that there is a disconnect between the political class and our senior leadership that seems to only come together when a crisis occurs and the military leadership can run to the politicians with a claim that their pants are on fire and they need an immediate bailout. For well over 50 years, the military leadership and the government have not been able to sit down and plan out a rational strategy for a long range future. There are numerous short range plans (and I consider Advancing With Purpose to be one of those). There have been numerous acquisitions along the way. Some arising out of immediate crises (like the M777) and others out of long term ones (rust out of our logistics fleets and ships). Some like JUSTAS/RPAS have dragged on for years (experimentally since 2000 as a policy since 2006, as a restarted policy in 2017, as a flying aircraft - some day soon)

Despite the fact that there are good meaning, intelligent and capable people within the military, the connection between the professional military and the professional politicians is weak. There have been few champions within the MND position to make things happen in a logical and strategic fashion. Everything is transactional. If one were a cynic, like me, Trudeau II's choice as his first MND was designed specifically to ensure that no connection existed. We have for decades now not had a national mobilization plan for either the military or industry. We agree to a 2% of GDP funding formula but have no plan to get there. Even the party most bullish on defence had no problems cutting funding when the economy took a tank in 2008.

I guess all of that is to say that where the serving folks are now is nothing new. We've been there for over a half a century, and even since we became a country. It's Canada's way of life. Unless there is a major crisis, strategic thinking takes a back seat.

If there is one difference, however, it's that the military has never before been funded as heavily as it is now. $31 billion isn't chum change. It shows the willingness of how much the government will commit. My biggest beef is that the military, like the civil service, has become addicted to the drug of how much of its loot it is prepared to shovel into a full-time bureaucracy. And believe me, a bureaucracy is always able to prove that it needs more. It's the direct link between the organization and the government and its priorities will be paramount even if actual defence outputs will suffer. That bureaucracy is both civilian and military. It keeps expanding and full-time personnel costs will forever rise. Unfortunately our collective leadership has only one answer to low defence outputs and that's more money. No government will accept that. It's like a heroin addict saying I can solve the problem if you just give me more heroin.

What's needed is an initiative that looks at a complete rebuilding of the defence structure from the ground up. One that reduces the bureaucratic load on both the department and on the defence industry. One that looks at ongoing day-to-day defence output needs and one that looks to the strategic defence outputs needed for a troubled future. That needs a proactive foreign affairs department which has also been moribund for decades.

I'm not sure we've ever been in a position where our numbers are so low for people, and of them even less, by a large factor, are really employable on a military mission.

With the exception of prior to WW2 I'm not sure our Navy has ever been in such bad shape. We are going to deploy 2 east coast CPFs this year and this is pretty much all we can muster materially and personnel wise. You should see the trouble I'm having just finding 2 cooks, which I still don't have, so my galley won't collapse during our deployment.

Even back in the end days of the Caddys and steamers we could muster more than this.

The RCN is in a crisis of material and people. And I have to imagine soon our material will start deciding for us what we can actually put to sea. It's time we start looking at what we can get now, what's on offer.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

My main gripe is that, while we have always been here, in the current geopolitical climate; we can't and shouldn't wait for the first salvo to get our ducks in a row; that's not purely equipment or pers, but also processes, training, recruting, and partnering with industry.

We need to do better and that is a WoG/WoC mission if we are going to be ready when the ball drops. The issue I see is that we as a country have been lulled to sleep by political indifference.

I don't think there has been a political leader in the past 50 years that was frank with our populace about how truly dangerous the world is for Canada; and that has led to the isolationist, insular, and self-serving attitudes amonst the electorate to be front and centre, while foreign policy, defence, and international cooperation get pushed to the sidelines.

Until we have folks truly awakened to the fine mess we find ourselves in, I expect a lot more Ant/Grasshopper dithering to occur as the world burns around us.

 

[FJAG]

My main gripe is that, while we have always been here, in the current geopolitical climate; we can't and shouldn't wait for the first salvo to get our ducks in a row; that's not purely equipment or pers, but also processes, training, recruting, and partnering with industry.

I agree that we shouldn't. It's just my inexpert opinion that we do.

IMHO, we're already at war if you take into effect the cyber attacks which we continuously fend off and when you see the Russian and Chinese and Iranian pressures to extend their domains and economies.

With the exceptions of 1812 and 1866 and possibly 1885, we've always had an option to commit to major conflicts. In all those cases the creating the implements of war and the forces to use them were relatively simple. The vast machine plants that we had could relatively quickly be converted to arms production allowing large hosts to be built fast. Further, the war was far away and relatively contained waiting for us to get there.

IMHO, the biggest failing of our senior military leadership - not the politicians - the military leadership is that we don't even have the strategic plans needed to build a large army as rapidly as possible. They seem to have troubles just building managed readiness programs for the small force of full-timers that we have. We seem to have a penchant for destroying the seed corn skill for everything from viable ATGMs to air defence, took almost twenty years to get a MALE UAV capability off the ground and still can't seem to get it into our heads that we need asymmetric brigades (I promise not to raise the reserve issue this time).

There are so many things that could be done to prepare that don't cost vast sums of money but we're perpetually trapped in dealing with today's problems rather than tomorrow's. And just to make it clear ... today's problems are the very ones our military leadership ignored yesterday.

We suck at this.

 

[MilEME09]

I'm not sure we've ever been in a position where our numbers are so low for people, and of them even less, by a large factor, are really employable on a military mission.

With the exception of prior to WW2 I'm not sure our Navy has ever been in such bad shape. We are going to deploy 2 east coast CPFs this year and this is pretty much all we can muster materially and personnel wise. You should see the trouble I'm having just finding 2 cooks, which I still don't have, so my galley won't collapse during our deployment.

Even back in the end days of the Caddys and steamers we could muster more than this.

The RCN is in a crisis of material and people. And I have to imagine soon our material will start deciding for us what we can actually put to sea. It's time we start looking at what we can get now, what's on offer.

Does the RCN talk to other branches for purple trades? I know a few ARes QL5 qualified cooks who would happily take a job on ship if it meant a deployment and being usefully employed in trade off a base.

 

[Furniture]

Does the RCN talk to other branches for purple trades? I know a few ARes QL5 qualified cooks who would happily take a job on ship if it meant a deployment and being usefully employed in trade off a base.

I heard today that PRes positions on deploying ships have been scaled back to save money... But, if nobody else can go, I'm sure a few army guys would love to be the newest converts. We have nicer hats...

 

[FJAG]

Does the RCN talk to other branches for purple trades? I know a few ARes QL5 qualified cooks who would happily take a job on ship if it meant a deployment and being usefully employed in trade off a base.

My guess is that there's a bit more to being a member of a ship's company than just the cooking skill set. Not sure how they would handle that.

I've always that that the purple trade concept was a bit of a fiction.

 

[MilEME09]

I heard today that PRes positions on deploying ships have been scaled back to save money... But, if nobody else can go, I'm sure a few army guys would love to be the newest converts. We have nicer hats...

Is it really saving money when you end up stealing someone from some where else and end up back filling to the reserves any way?

 

[Furniture]

Is it really saving money when you end up stealing someone from some where else and end up back filling to the reserves any way?

No, but it is saving money when you just make the ship sail short pers, and don't backfill anything.

Also, never underestimate the power of "that's a different pool of money" in decision making. Many people will peserve their rice bowl, even if it leads to greater losses for others.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Does the RCN talk to other branches for purple trades? I know a few ARes QL5 qualified cooks who would happily take a job on ship if it meant a deployment and being usefully employed in trade off a base.

This is something I have been trying to push within the RCN and it never seems to grab traction. The Army is fantastic at looking pan CAF to flesh out its organizations using the augmentee method, and the RCN should be embracing this as well. Sadly we don't, yet.

My guess is that there's a bit more to being a member of a ship's company than just the cooking skill set. Not sure how they would handle that.

I've always that that the purple trade concept was a bit of a fiction.

There is, but we sail with non NETP people all the time as the back log for that course and qualification dictates.

 

[QV]

If all of those people had been tasked to DND support, CSE, Transport Canada, Canadian Space Agency and a multitude of other civil-military capabilities, even Mounties, Border Security, Environment Patrols, SAR, Emergency Response people then I would not be complaining. It would leave the uniformed CAF personnel focused on there primary task as defined by one of your previous CDS.

"We are not the Public Service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people,"

If I were Poilievre, and were dealt the hand that he has I wouldn't be firing Trudeau's new hires. I would be reassigning them. Billets in Resolute, Cambridge Bay, Whitehorse and Iqaluit sound good for starters.

Good point. There are plenty of positions occupied by CAF personnel that would be more appropriately filled with a public servant. Re-allocation of CAF PYs to the kinds of positions only CAF should fill.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Good point. There are plenty of positions occupied by CAF personnel that would be more appropriately filled with a public servant. Re-allocation of CAF PYs to the kinds of positions only CAF should fill.

These days, there is no shortage of positions. Just shortage of people. No need to reallocate positions…

 

[daftandbarmy]

My guess is that there's a bit more to being a member of a ship's company than just the cooking skill set. Not sure how they would handle that.

I've always that that the purple trade concept was a bit of a fiction.

Indeed...

 

[QV]

These days, there is no shortage of positions. Just shortage of people. No need to reallocate positions…

There are still many CAF doing functions that could be a PS. Move those CAF to operational positions.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Good point. There are plenty of positions occupied by CAF personnel that would be more appropriately filled with a public servant. Re-allocation of CAF PYs to the kinds of positions only CAF should fill.

When you have 49% of the RCCS employed in positions outside the CA, that's a problem. ADM(IM) Could be staffed by Civilians.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There are still many CAF doing functions that could be a PS. Move those CAF to operational positions.

Such as ?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Such as ?

HR, Garrison IT support, RP Ops, non-Operational Logistics Support,

 

[Kirkhill]

This is something I have been trying to push within the RCN and it never seems to grab traction. The Army is fantastic at looking pan CAF to flesh out its organizations using the augmentee method, and the RCN should be embracing this as well. Sadly we don't, yet.

There is, but we sail with non NETP people all the time as the back log for that course and qualification dictates.

Is the Air Det NETP?

 

[Rifleman62]

My grandson deployed on HMCS as an Army PRes after completing NETP. It was a trade specific job. After deployment he CT'd to Army.
Funny, none of his records, nor his pay are in his file which hindered his CT.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What makes people believe that if a position moves from mil to civ, the funding for it won't move also?