• 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.
 
One sentence in that article strikes me as interesting - the overall budget will be higher. So will it be at least $900M higher per year?
 
Man I can’t handle cuts anymore. Every day I try and stay motivated and it’s just not working anymore.

I’ve stopped GAF about my secondary duties months ago, it’s wonderful. Takes 5minutes and a few emails out of my day, then I move on. Need to be realistic with how much you can accomplish in one work day.

The only people who will remember you staying and going home late is your family.
 
DND's budget cut is a given, here's the CBC increase of $100m https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbc-funding-st-onge-1.7129784
Media should not be state funded, period.

(Sorry, I mean taxpayer funded - because it sounds so much better...)


We have all kinds of problems that we could fix in a fairly straightforward manner.

Giving the CBC $100M MORE of taxpayer dollars just so they can lie to me about pretty much everything & rarely let the same public that funds them to even comment on the stories they choose to follow...when they already have an annual budget of over a billion dollars?

"It's okay Freeland, save your strength...I'll go punch myself in the stomach today."
 
Media should not be state funded, period.

(Sorry, I mean taxpayer funded - because it sounds so much better...)


We have all kinds of problems that we could fix in a fairly straightforward manner.

Giving the CBC $100M MORE of taxpayer dollars just so they can lie to me about pretty much everything & rarely let the same public that funds them to even comment on the stories they choose to follow...when they already have an annual budget of over a billion dollars?

"It's okay Freeland, save your strength...I'll go punch myself in the stomach today."
There are taxpayer funded media outlets around the world that are, in my mind, worth it. BBC, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), DW in Germany, even the NPR in the US.

The problem with the CBC (TV) is that since we’re so close to the US, historically we were split between watching Canadian or (more often than not) American networks before the rise of cable and later the Internet. The Brits, Aussies, etc didn’t have easy access to US shows so it gave their homegrown media more space to flourish. Also, they don’t have ads.

The Aus Broadcasting Corporation still has, in my mind, a genius idea. They have a radio channel called Triple J (JJJ) which is a national no-commercials channel that is music-oriented towards folks 18-35. The frequencies are fairly close together so regardless of where you are in Australia, JJJ will be roughly around the same place. They also had huge concerts featuring Australian talent and really great shows where they brought in international stars…all taxpayer funded. This is what CBC Radio 3 should have been.
 
There are taxpayer funded media outlets around the world that are, in my mind, worth it. BBC, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), DW in Germany, even the NPR in the US.

The problem with the CBC (TV) is that since we’re so close to the US, historically we were split between watching Canadian or (more often than not) American networks before the rise of cable and later the Internet. The Brits, Aussies, etc didn’t have easy access to US shows so it gave their homegrown media more space to flourish. Also, they don’t have ads.

The Aus Broadcasting Corporation still has, in my mind, a genius idea. They have a radio channel called Triple J (JJJ) which is a national no-commercials channel that is music-oriented towards folks 18-35. The frequencies are fairly close together so regardless of where you are in Australia, JJJ will be roughly around the same place. They also had huge concerts featuring Australian talent and really great shows where they brought in international stars…all taxpayer funded. This is what CBC Radio 3 should have been.
Here is a good primer from HUB Dialogues on a potential reason why our Cultural Industry seems to suck so bad.

 
Some much needed heating and cooling upgrades coming to base Edmonton. Eco friendly or not, some of those older buildings like 222 needed a HVAC over haul 20 years ago

 
Base housing upgrades/expansion would be a no-brainer for the government I'd think. Would count toward our 2% GDP commitment. Spending would be 100% Canadian industry. Would aid in retention. Would relieve housing pressure on neighbouring communities. Wins for everybody.
 
It seems that the LPC are spending more on the CAF after all ;)


Cost of Liberal government's defence plan has jumped by $50B, PBO says​

Projected cost of new equipment over 20-year period has risen to nearly $215 billion, assessment shows​


The cost of the Liberal government's nearly seven-year-old marquee defence plan has jumped by over $50 billion — mostly due to anticipated work on modernizing continental defence and delays in projects that should be underway — the federal budget watchdog said Wednesday.

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer released an update to its projections for the impact of Strong, Secure and Engaged, the 2017 defence policy document.

The new assessment shows the projected cost of purchasing new equipment under the plan over a 20-year period has increased to $214.8 billion, up from the PBO's previous assessment of $164 billion.

When the federal government initially laid out its plan, it did not include the projected cost of modernizing NORAD. In 2023, then-Defence Minister Anita Anand announced that Canada would invest over $38 billion in improving aerospace and maritime defence alongside the United States.

Those figures are now folded into the PBO's estimate, along with $12 billion attributed to the rising cost of new equipment — brought on in part by delays in acquiring new fighter jets, frigates and drones.

Easy to say we will spend this amount over 20 years when you know that there isn't anyway to be held to it. My fav part is "delays in projects that should be underway".
I didn't mention any particular network, but it is noted that the post just above mine was from the CBC.

Assuming they don't gut it, can we assume that if the government changes, the CBC will become a puppet voice for the new government in power? That's what they are constantly being accused of.
No, they are accused of being a voice for the liberals. Even when they are not in power CBC still curves things in their favour as they know the conservatives are not CBC friendly.
 
One sentence in that article strikes me as interesting - the overall budget will be higher. So will it be at least $900M higher per year?
I think it's a lot of 3 card monty, with future spending and hand waving money under DND budgets.

Sure, capitol spending on future kit is great, but does absolutely nothing to sustain existing equipment. Buying stuff for Ukraine is also great, but similarly does nothing to keep our stuff going.

The delays in those capitol projects means the existing kit is past their end of life and costs to maintain it are exponential.

We asked for a budget increase on the in-service side to account for trying to fix old, broken unicorn kit. The same budget as this year would have had shortfalls for the in service butcher bill that has built up over a decade of neglect, so the cut is a knee capping with a bit of 'toxic positivity leadership' thrown in to salt the wound.

So glad to be getting posted away from the RCN for a few years, I am just exhausted by trying to do even more with even less for 15 years and seeing ships deploy to HR missions below fishing boat standards and not having basic combatant capabilties like working CBRN or DC. Lot of dice rolling by the Navy, and I don't accept that level of risk they are taking is responsible for a peace time navy, especially as it means they are totally unprepared to surge to anything real as we are already at capacity to do basic shit.
 

It’s interesting though that the increased support for defence spending noticeably faltered when those polled in one one poll were asked if defence should trump other priorities.

It remains highly probable that Canadians will still prioritize domestic policies outside of the constitutional federal governments responsibilities if given any chance to do so.
 
Mile wide, but an inch deep.

Social programs and handouts are what canadians want.
That has been the overall sentiment for decades. It was like that in Afghanistan.

And yeah, if I wasn’t someone connected to Defence, I would prioritize domestic social programs, etc as well. It’s the same argument (from the other side) as the folks who say not to give any money to foreign aid.
 

It’s interesting though that the increased support for defence spending noticeably faltered when those polled in one one poll were asked if defence should trump other priorities.

It remains highly probable that Canadians will still prioritize domestic policies outside of the constitutional federal governments responsibilities if given any chance to do so.

Mile wide, but an inch deep.

Social programs and handouts are what canadians want.

It is interesting to see how polls can be influenced by the pollster: which questions are asked, the order they are asked and the backstory supplied. Then, of course, there is the interpretation of the results. A game that anyone can play.

My take is that it is encouraging that the profile of the defence issue is on the rise. That is encouraging. It is also encouraging that even in the counter poll (Pollara) the importance of defence is rising and it is rising among women as well as men. Women have always been a lagging indicator going back at least to the days of Homer and his lyre. So if they are becoming more tolerant of defence spending that is encouraging to this militaristic old fart.

The other bit that I see as being open to spinning is TRUMP.

If you say that Trump is demanding more defence spending then a good chunk of the population, male and female, will immediately shout you down.

If you say that Jens Stoltenberg, on behalf of NATO and the embattled people of Ukraine is requesting more defence spending then that same population will be queueing up demanding to know where they can sign the petition.

If you say that our international trade is tied to being a good international partner and contributing to the common weal of nations you will get a thumbs up.

If you say that our international trade is tied to being a good American partner and contributing to the defence of the US of A you will get a thumbs down.

Over all, from a CAF perspective, I think there is more good news than bad in the latest trends. This tide is a rising tide and it will lift all boats.

One of the bigger indicators is the amount of headline inches and screen time that is being devoted to the discussion by all media, on both sides of the border and on both sides of the Atlantic. And the amount of the coverage is distinctly counter to the current government's policies.

Here I am including the intersectional issues of Covid, Hamas, Protesters, Foreign Interference, Labs and Wuhan, and foreign governments conducting operations on Canadian soil.

Enuff.
 
Back
Top