• 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.
 
Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.

My sense is that the first validated operational requirements is a HUGE problem. I think that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My sense, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.
 
Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.

My sense is that the first validated operational requirements is a HUGE problem. I think that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My sense, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.
I don't know if this is a strictly Canadian issue - it seems the USA has very little difficulty in trusting Generals and Admirals - but politicians seem to not trust our senior uniformed people that actually know what is required.

Plus we all know the Liberal NDP coalition really don't like the CAF.
 
RUMINT: DND (the MND's office) gave Freeland a fairly hefty proposal ~ several (something in excess of 60) Billion dollars ~ mostly for North American/Arctic defence ~ that was late coming in but that wasn't the problem. Very, very senior officials in Finance and TB and the PMO all agree that DND and Procurement and Supply cannot manage anything more than $6.1 Billion, and they are not sure they can even manage that.

The consensus amongst the bureaucratic grownups is that DND, especially, is totally ph_cked in so far as being able to actually put some muscle on to the bare bones of a "plan" is concerned. Procurement and Supply is said to be a) over-burdened, already; b) hide-bound; and c) technologically challenged.

Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.
So, we are asking that self liking ice-cream to reform itself?
 
So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?
So, I’m taking control of a 20 million dollar civilian project managed asset. It’s an absolute operational nightmare and has been working the year I’ve sat on the board. I’m not sure you’ll find them any better.

As long as it’s bloat and just making jobs for Canadians I don’t see solutions. The shift needs to be towards being operationally successful.

I’m certain the money isn’t the issue. It’s the attitude of bureaucrats and politicians directing what the operation should “present” like.

Instead of being lean and deadly and ready to harvest souls- we have to look like some other soft function and a good career opportunity first and foremost!
 
Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.

My sense is that the first validated operational requirements is a HUGE problem. I think that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My sense, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.
It could be God himself as the CDS that PMO would not trust him.
 
I don't know if this is a strictly Canadian issue - it seems the USA has very little difficulty in trusting Generals and Admirals - but politicians seem to not trust our senior uniformed people that actually know what is required.

Plus we all know the Liberal NDP coalition really don't like the CAF.
Some (many?) senior civil servants do not believe that most admirals and generals actually understand or are well equipped to decide how the armed forces should be equipped for the next war. That's a basic trust issue ~ that this that we you they are, usually, busy fighting the last war rather than planning for the next one.

Some of them go father and take the view that, except for some bits of technical advice of specific issues, military officers ought not to be involved in deciding how the military is organized, armed, staffed or equipped. There is some (actually quite a lot of) constitutional validity in that view.

My sense is that the first view is more common but the latter is held by a handful of really, really important people.
 
Some (many?) senior civil servants do not believe that most admirals and generals actually understand or are well equipped to decide how the armed forces should be equipped for the next war. That's a basic trust issue ~ that this that we you they are, usually, busy fighting the last war rather than planning for the next one.

Some of them go father and take the view that, except for some bits of technical advice of specific issues, military officers ought not to be involved in deciding how the military is organized, armed, staffed or equipped. There is some (actually quite a lot of) constitutional validity in that view.

My sense is that the first view is more common but the latter is held by a handful of really, really important people.
Well, let all those senior public servant put an FFO on and do the job. If those influential people doesn’t trust us, why bother than? Let just close the shop! It will always be the same thing.
 
I don't, please describe their 'dislike', and how it differs from the other parties.
Well, the are the only party that actually internally debated whether the military should be abolished. It failed, but is seems the existing party platform only sees its existence for domestic operations and peacekeeping, and ensuring that it buys Canadian-made stuff.
 
Well, let all those senior public servant put an FFO on and do the job. If those influential people doesn’t trust us, why bother than? Let just close the shop! It will always be the same thing.
Now you're reading my mind!

I put my name in the Supp Res, told them they can call me when they get serious again 😉
 
Well, let all those senior public servant put an FFO on and do the job. If those influential people doesn’t trust us, why bother than? Let just close the shop! It will always be the same thing.

Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.

When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.
 
Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.

When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.
Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.

Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT. They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.

🤣🤣🤣
 
Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.

When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.
It is a figure of speech. Procurement is one thing on which I don’t know a lot expect that our system is so broken that we can’t buy nothing more than what, PPNS by ourself?

That’s not the point. The point is if all those influential people believe that we want kit just for fun and do not even bother to look out side our there office in other grownups/adult/serious countries to compare our demand well maybe they need to live the dream and do the job with what we don’t have (has in on paper we have javelin) for a reality check.

I know it won’t happen. I just dream that those people need to listen to us, which I not sure they really care much. Don’t get me wrong, I know that there is superb civi servant, just not at the level we need.
 
Some (many?) senior civil servants do not believe that most admirals and generals actually understand or are well equipped to decide how the armed forces should be equipped for the next war. That's a basic trust issue ~ that this that we you they are, usually, busy fighting the last war rather than planning for the next one.

Some of them go father and take the view that, except for some bits of technical advice of specific issues, military officers ought not to be involved in deciding how the military is organized, armed, staffed or equipped. There is some (actually quite a lot of) constitutional validity in that view.

My sense is that the first view is more common but the latter is held by a handful of really, really important people.
Maybe the civil servants think that because they read the "Force 2025" proposals?
 
Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.

Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT. They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.

🤣🤣🤣

I'm way past chuckles. I can't even get depressed. I am just numb.
 
Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.

Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT. They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.

🤣🤣🤣
Where is that face palm emoji 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 
Back
Top