• 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.
 
Fixed the spelling of neighbor, and for our Armored Divs and added some of the other forces ;)

Thank you! And as for the source of the colors of your flag, you're welcome ;)

Union Jack Uk GIF
 
I've worked with the Danish Home Guard, and the Norwegian equivalent, on various NATO exercises.

There is no way that they are anything like our reservists, who are trained to the same standards - ish as the Reg F to facilitate augmentation etc.

They are good at what they are intended to do: fight a defensive battle - within about 1 km of their homes - for key points like bridges etc. as a delaying tactic to enable mobilization to successfully take place before the Russians roll through.

We can see some of this playing out in the Ukraine right now, I believe, with their Home Guard equivalent.

A nation without the same threats of invasion and occupation by an overwhelmingly powerful and aggressive neighbour, that happens to have armoured divisions a mere couple of hour's drive from their capital, has no need for such a force.

And thereby hangs our tale....

If there is no need for a Territorial Defence Force then there is no NEED for a professional force to support them.
The professional force becomes merely a nice to have tool of foreign policy.
Tanks fall into the "should have" category.

On the other hand ICBMs, SLBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, ALCMs, SLCMs, GLCMs, UAVs and LAMs (Extra-Large to Nano-Small, VTOL or launched from runways or ships or subs or fixed or portable launchers, soft launch or JATO or RATO....) are all real threats. Even mortars, which were used in the City of London, let alone in Israel and Ukraine, are real threats.
There is a NEED for an Air Defence Force.
The threat is ubiquitous.
The principle targets at risk are infrastructure, the cities and military bases.
Elint, Satellites, ships, subs, UAVs, LRPAs, Interceptors, GBAD (fixed, relocatable and manoeuverable) all fall into the "must have" category.

The ground threat in Canada is the individual and the small team. Their primary weapons will be man portable systems and whatever they can transport in a car, a van, a truck or a sea-can.

That requires a lot of local eyes, the means of reporting and the means of reacting quickly.
I will agree that three to five bases separated by thousands of miles, and nationally centralized EOD assets, even with long range VTOL aircraft, does not, to me, sound like a recipe for an effective response.

Which is why EOD and Tactical squads are proliferating across Canada in police departments.
Police departments who are also actively engaging volunteers to assist them with eyes on the streets and radios.
Police departments and Fire departments that handle emergencies and are always looking for extra manpower to assist.

 
  • Like
Reactions: QV
Ontario is proposing a system of certification for VFFs, which departments are concerned will crater their staff. In our area, fire services are having difficulty in attracting volunteers.

No volunteer firefighters in the GTA.
King City to the north, Milton to the west and Bowmanville to the east may, or may not, have vollies.

There are Medical Venturers and Fire Venturers, but they are Scouting organizations.

Regarding vollies outside the GTA,

 
And thereby hangs our tale....

If there is no need for a Territorial Defence Force then there is no NEED for a professional force to support them.
The professional force becomes merely a nice to have tool of foreign policy.
Tanks fall into the "should have" category.


On the other hand ICBMs, SLBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, ALCMs, SLCMs, GLCMs, UAVs and LAMs (Extra-Large to Nano-Small, VTOL or launched from runways or ships or subs or fixed or portable launchers, soft launch or JATO or RATO....) are all real threats. Even mortars, which were used in the City of London, let alone in Israel and Ukraine, are real threats.
There is a NEED for an Air Defence Force.
The threat is ubiquitous.
The principle targets at risk are infrastructure, the cities and military bases.
Elint, Satellites, ships, subs, UAVs, LRPAs, Interceptors, GBAD (fixed, relocatable and manoeuverable) all fall into the "must have" category.
Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril
 
Last edited:
Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Exactly

It is an expectation or demand by others. It is a trade off. It is not in the same league as foreign tanks in our streets.

There is a difference between defending the Nation and defending the Nation's Interests.

Defending the homeland is different than defending a Canadian mine in Argentina.


.... And I know lots of people agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV
Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril
I completely agree with that.
 
Even if I stipulate that an Expeditionary Army is a necessity we still then run straight into the questions of the nature of that army.

And that is the other problem the Army has.

As an Expeditionary Force, that the government can choose to commit, or not commit, that the government can choose the scale of the commitment, the time of the commitment, the speed of the commitment, the duration of the commitment, the location of the commitment, the season of the commitment, the allies for the commitment, the enemy of the commitment, ... and none of it has any critical impact on the National Defence program, then the Army is left floundering. Especially when it tries to be everything to everyone so it can say "Yes Sir! No Sir! Three bags full Sir!" for fear of losing an opportunity to be useful.

There is no reason why our Army couldn't be a Marine Army or a Heliportable Army or a Light Army or a Heavy Army or even a Medium Army. Or for that matter even the Army we have. It can be whatever it and the government want it to be because its composition, its employment are matters of choice. Not necessity.
 
Agreed, in Alberta we need to provide 30 days written notice including date we leave and date we will return. Army changes course dates on you less than 30 days out? Well good luck to you cause bow your employer can just say no, and not keep your job.

Alberta,

An eligible employee can take:
up to 20 days each calendar year for annual training
Employers are not required to pay wages or benefits during leave, unless stated in an employment contract or collective agreement.

We only got 14 days each calandar year for annual training, but with wages and benefits.

Problem is training courses aren't two weeks, hell mine were 3 months

Easier to train during summer vacation, than asking an employer for time off.
 
Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril

You're not wrong. The issue lays in the employment of said Army. Do we need to be expeditionary ? Is our small contribution worth much, would it's sacrifice be of value or would our efforts better concentrated else where ?

The people of Canada through the GoC need to answer these questions on what they want us to do.
 
Last edited:
Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril


We are looking at the same problem the US (and others) have faced.

The US Army has been looking for a job since the interior of the US was pacified. Until WWI it was a small force. It was again after WWI and up to WWII. Its cause wasn't helped after WWII when it lost control of its United States Army Air Force. Its primary purpose was as a garrison force for Europe. Most of the internal work in the US since all the Federal Territories became States has been handled by the Police and the National Guard with the FBI being the lead Federal Agency.

Foreign policy is the remit of the State Department, with the CIA being its intelligence agency and the US Navy and the US Marines supplying its own Navy, Air Force and Army.

Our Army, as an instrument of foreign policy, in my view, has a lot in common with the USMC in that it is required to serve the nation's foreign interests. It should embrace that. But it also means getting buy in from the Navy. Not because I anticipate forcing beacheads. But because we need to be able to relocate an expeditionary army and also need relocatable bases from which to operate. And a bit of air support would go a long way as well.

Leave National Defence, per se, to NORAD and the RCAF, the RCN, the RCMP, the Coast Guard and Border Services as well as the Rangers. There is also a role for the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery there in Air Defence.

The Reserves then get a choice.
Which path do they want to follow?
Support of National Defence?
Or Support of the Expeditionary Force?
Or can they walk and chew gum?

Edit Again (keep forgetting stuff - forgot the Navy)
 
The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well. Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.
 
Is the Whitehouse guarded by the US Marines, rather than the US Army, because it is the first port of call for foreigners? The President as the first ambassador for These United States? A State Department enclave, isolated from the rest of the States. Kind of like a glorified Ellis Island.
 
The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well. Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.

I see the RCN as an institutional Logistics FP organization. I also think it should be the preferred taxi for the Army.

I don't think you'd find resistance to this. We just need to the people and the ships.
 
The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well. Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.
I see the RCN as an institutional Logistics FP organization. I also think it should be the preferred taxi for the Army.

I don't think you'd find resistance to this. We just need to the people and the ships.

Bending isn't the word I would use -- expansion is.
The Navy needs more assets - as having a bunch of RORO transports doesn't do anyone any good if they are unguarded.
 
Bending isn't the word I would use -- expansion is.
The Navy needs more assets - as having a bunch of RORO transports doesn't do anyone any good if they are unguarded.

If only we could afford, per capita, the Danish Navy

The Navy would end up with

15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable) - vs 12x CPF
10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable) - vs 0x
20x Thetis Class Frigates - vs 0x
15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels - vs 14x AOPV/MCDV
 
And consider this: this government is planning to buy 88 new fighters for the RCAF (most likely the F-35A, which the Germans have now also decided to acquire, note the role they are for), with the endlessly postponed decision supposed to be announced this year. Knock on wood. That will be just over one-third the modern fighter forces the four Nordic countries combined will be deploying well before our air force can deploy its new planes. That is being done with a total population just under three quarters of Canada’s and with a very much smaller area to cover compared to this country:


In the future Denmark and Norway will have a total of 79 F-35s. The Nordic fighter aircraft force will be at 243 if a coalition is expanded to include 64 F-35s from Finland and 100 Gripen from Sweden.

‘Twould be nice to see the Canadian media point out those numbers–if they are even aware of them. Of course different countries procure different amounts and types of kit for their various services. Still the numbers are striking.

Mark
Ottawa
 
The people of Canada through the GoC need to answer these questions on what they want us to do.
Not sure that is ever going to happen, Canadians haven’t substantively cared since 1945, and I don’t think they will, because aside from some higher gas and food prices, their happy with their comfortable lives in secure Fortress (North) America.

The CAF has been traditionally weak on the whole regarding assessing and pitching that formula to Government of what it believes best represents what politicians believe it is that Canadians are willing to begrudgingly accept as a necessary evil to contribute to, that doesn’t materially impact their aforementioned cushy comfortable lives.
 
‘Twould be nice to see the Canadian media point out those numbers–if they are even aware of them. Of course different countries procure different amounts and types of kit for their various services. Still the numbers are striking.

Mark
Ottawa

I'm not sure the MSM in Canada supports the F35. They championed pretty hard against it under Harper.

I also dont think you will find much media support for showing Canadians that we need to rebuild the CAF.
 
I'm not sure the MSM in Canada supports the F35. They championed pretty hard against it under Harper.

I also dont think you will find much media support for showing Canadians that we need to rebuild the CAF.
I think that is mostly because they don't know what absolute dire straights the CAF is in.
I think when a CFP snaps in half - and a CF18 drops out of the sky there will be huge complaints of why things where not fixed before that.
 
Back
Top