• 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.
 
Well kill the farmer's myth and figure out how to get hundreds of thousands of Canadians to offer free labour to manage crises.
They won't, so we need to be prepared to pay for it, and given the overall labour shortages in Canada, we need to pay handsomely.

You'll not get the job done with just the professionals.

No better than trying to chop down an oak with a spear.

I am a fan of professionals. Equally I am a fan of volunteers and enthusiastic amateurs. Just take a look at those charts above. It isn't the equipment or the infrastructure that is killing us. Its the salaries and the training.
I'd love to see a massive increase in the number of reservists, but just like the full time forces, we need to pay them well, and offer other bonuses to get people to show up. Canadian's aren't into "God, Queen, and Country" these days, and even back in the WWII they weren't... The money was good if you signed up to fight, and were from a poor area.

Even operations only account for some 3000 or so professionals annually. And even that number includes augmentations from the part-time auxiliaries of the Reserve.
We send that many away, and struggle to do it now. How do you propose we fix that by cutting down on the number of full time people we have? For every person deployed we need someone on career training, someone on deployment training, someone on rest/leave, someone teaching the career courses, someone teaching the deployment training, someone doing planning for training, someone planning the missions, someone feeding the planners and trainers, someone paying the planners, trainers, and feeders, etc... Some of those jobs can be civilian, but you also need places for people to work as a break from training, and deploying.

7 frigates won't command the Atlantic. How much of the North German Plain, or the Ukrainian Steppes, will a single understrength Mech Brigade command? Canadians are likely to die in both places. And now we're debating how much respect those dead Canadians will buy when negotiating the next trade and climate deal.
That is always part of the calculation... It's not pretty, but if you aren't "in" the game, you don't get as much say at the end of the game when the spoils are being divided.

@Halifax Tar

If Canadians aren't willing to have Canadian troops die on the ground in Latvia, they aren't willing to have Canadians die at sea, or in the air over the Atlantic either. Divesting the ability to fight on the ground, just so we can "take pressure" off the USN is never going to be enough to make our NATO allies happy, and Canada won't spend the money to achieve it.

Also, your East Coast is showing... The Pacific theater is just as vital to our national interests if China gets squirrely. NATO isn't our only concern, we are a Pacific Ocean bordering country, with interests in Asia.

I think you are seriously underestimating how much it matters to be in the fight alongside your allies. If the best we can do is some planes, and ships, why would anyone send their army here to help us if we need it?
 
I think one of the points made is that we dont really know what we want as a nation or as an alliance. Maybe NATO has said it doesn't want nations to specialize or maybe it hasn't even asked itself that. For decades we concentrated on anti-submarine warfare to the exclusion of a lot of other capabilities. I'm assuming we just didn't do that of our own accord
 
You mean like SP 155mm, ATACM, MLRS, ADATS, a handful of towed 155mm, 120mm mortars, 81mm mortars, even less than a hand full of towed 105mm, etc.?
I was thinking the aspirational Army - you know - the one I've been yammering about for several years.

If we want to increase our forces, we need to actually train troops quickly. That means we need to stop trying to do everything at once, fill the schools with instructors from the units and push people through over the next two years.
I really have a hard time with that part of the F2025 concept but then I do not know the details of the problem or the plan to fix it. And you know what they say about details and devils ...

I served during a surge phase when we ramped the arty up across the board to create the AD batteries. We didn't ramp up the school. We sent the soldiers to the regiments and used regimental resources to run course after course after course. ... and we were short-handed in the regiments at the time but we could see the benefit of what we were doing right before our eyes. I can't imagine a battalion that can't round up a dozen folks to train two platoons at a time. (or better yet haul them out of cubicles in Ottawa) Technical schools might be another matter.

There's a lot of stuff that desperately needs a reset.

🍻
 
They won't, so we need to be prepared to pay for it, and given the overall labour shortages in Canada, we need to pay handsomely.

I think you underestimate your fellow Canadians. I don't think we lack willing candidates. Maybe we're just not using the right bait?

Volunteering​

The below infographics display 2010 survey data. The latest data on giving and volunteering (2013) is now available from Statistics Canada.

The 2010 stats show that 47% (or over 13 million) volunteer. In total 2 billion hours were volunteered, the equivalent of 1.1 million full time jobs. On average, volunteers contributed 156 hours each (roughly 21 working days).


Demographics

Age: Not surprisingly youngest age group (ages 15-24) represents the highest percentage of volunteers (at 58%). It is interesting to see that folks between 35 and 44 are a close second at 54%. Similar to what we see in financial giving, those who occupy the 65 + category donate the largest number of hours.

Region: Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island show the highest volunteer rates. Nova Scotia and British Columbia reported the largest average annual hours volunteered.

Why we volunteer

Canadians state that the primary reason they volunteer is to contribute to their communities. The next two major reasons are to use skills and experience and because they have been personally affected by the cause. The breakdown is as follows:

  • to make a contribution to community (93%);
  • to use skills and experience (78%);
  • personally affected by the organization's cause (59%);
  • to explore one's own strengths (48%);
  • because their friends volunteer (48%);
  • to network with others (46%);
  • to improve job opportunities (22%); and
  • to fulfill religious obligations or beliefs (21%).


NFPA estimates there were approximately 152,650 local firefighters in the Canada during the period 2014 to 2016. Of the total number of firefighters 26,000 (17%) were career firefighters and 126,650 (83%) were volunteer firefighters.

Volunteer firefighters freely volunteer their efforts as a way of serving and giving back to their community. They often do not receive monetary compensation from the fire department. If they are paid, it is typically in the form of small stipends or annual bonuses.


The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary (CCGA; French: Garde côtière auxiliaire canadienne, GCAC) is a Canada-wide volunteer marine association dedicated to marine search and rescue (SAR) and the promotion of boating safety, through association with the Canadian Coast Guard under the auspices of Canada's National Search and Rescue Program.

Members of the CCGA are usually recreational boaters and commercial fishermen who use their vessels to assist the Canadian Coast Guard with search and rescue (SAR) as well as boating safety education. CCGA members who assist in SAR operations have their vessel insurance covered by CCG, as well as any fuel and operating costs associated with a particular tasking.

The CCGA enables the CCG to provide maritime SAR coverage in many isolated areas of Canada's coastlines without having to maintain an active base and/or vessels in those areas. The auxiliary is dedicated to providing a permanent day and night search and rescue service to cover marine requirements in Canada and prevent the loss of life and injury.

  • Save lives at risk
  • Reduce the number and severity of SAR incidents
  • Promote marine safety
  • Support the Canadian Coast Guard
  • Provide a humanitarian service
  • Maintain the highest professional standards
  • Promote dedication and pride of membership

 
If we want to increase our forces, we need to actually train troops quickly. That means we need to stop trying to do everything at once, fill the schools with instructors from the units and push people through over the next two years.

Or, when re-equipping, take a good hard look at what the minimum training requirements really are and focus on weapons, comms, nav and movement. All the rest of the stuff can be used as filler later. And train at the armouries. Not the schools.
 
I was thinking the aspirational Army - you know - the one I've been yammering about for several years.


I really have a hard time with that part of the F2025 concept but then I do not know the details of the problem or the plan to fix it. And you know what they say about details and devils ...

I served during a surge phase when we ramped the arty up across the board to create the AD batteries. We didn't ramp up the school. We sent the soldiers to the regiments and used regimental resources to run course after course after course. ... and we were short-handed in the regiments at the time but we could see the benefit of what we were doing right before our eyes. I can't imagine a battalion that can't round up a dozen folks to train two platoons at a time. (or better yet haul them out of cubicles in Ottawa) Technical schools might be another matter.

There's a lot of stuff that desperately needs a reset.

🍻
Maybe part of the problem is that we treat every recruit like they are lifers that are going to retire with 25 years of service. Perhaps with some of the combat trades...those ones that we need to grow rapidly in case of a major shooting war...we should focus on more recruits, trained more quickly and serving for shorter terms of service. Let the bulk of them release after 2-3 years and provide a much larger pool of semi-trained civilians (and potential CT Reservists) and invest more time in those individuals that decide to continue their CF careers.
 
I think you underestimate your fellow Canadians. I don't think we lack willing candidates. Maybe we're just not using the right bait?
Its not a unique problem to the CAF's as there is a huge disconnect between employers and employees. But the CAF is ridiculous especially when you have people waiting years to get in. Who does that?(I mean a couple of my buddies did but wow)
 
@Halifax Tar

If Canadians aren't willing to have Canadian troops die on the ground in Latvia, they aren't willing to have Canadians die at sea, or in the air over the Atlantic either. Divesting the ability to fight on the ground, just so we can "take pressure" off the USN is never going to be enough to make our NATO allies happy, and Canada won't spend the money to achieve it.

I think if Canadians witnessed our BG in Latvia become the equivalent of sacrificial lamb I think they would be appalled. Again if were going to do this Army thing we should do it right. Right now I only hope our BG in Latvia doesn't have to die at the alter for a better post war bargaining position, because if that's the whole goal then there is a better way to do this and we could probably have a bigger impact, all be it behind the curtain and not on the stage.

Also, your East Coast is showing... The Pacific theater is just as vital to our national interests if China gets squirrely. NATO isn't our only concern, we are a Pacific Ocean bordering country, with interests in Asia.

Not at all, this whole conversation has been NATO centric; or at least that's been my perception. For the Pacific and Artic we need subs. Probably nukes. Bottle up China on their land and make leaving their shores certain death while closing off their sea trade routes, sink their merchant fleet everywhere.

I think you are seriously underestimating how much it matters to be in the fight alongside your allies. If the best we can do is some planes, and ships, why would anyone send their army here to help us if we need it?

I think you're missing that fighting alongside your allies is more than boots on the ground. Keeping the NA Supply route open during a war in Europe will be difference between a victory or loss. Europe knows this. They have not the raw material, man power or manufacturing to sustain a prolonged conflict. And their industry will be leveled fast.

Who can send their Army here to help us ? Who could invade us ? And if we have to defend against an invasion, that doesn't come from the USA, the front line will be in the air and at sea. And if the invasion does come from the USA, ala Fallout universe, we wont be able to stop that anyhow.
 
Well, stand up the North Atlantic convoy protection force again.

Luckily the RCN culture has survived over 70 years of 'neglect' due to focusing on less important tasks so it shouldn't take us long to get back in the saddle ;)


Putin's threat to UK: 'I could sink your ships without a world war'​

VLADIMIR PUTIN warned the UK that Russia could sink its ships without sparking a global conflict in a furious rant last year.​


Putin's forces continue to bombard major cities in Ukraine as the invasion nears three weeks.

The war has heightened tensions between Russia and the UK, but Moscow and London have been at loggerheads for years.

This was seen in June 2021 when Putin warned the UK that his forces could sink British ships.

Putin said Russia could have sunk a British warship that it accused of illegally entering its territorial waters without starting World War 3 and accused Washington of a role in the "provocation".

At the time, Moscow had already expressed anger in the direction of the UK after British ships operated near Crimea.

Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, but Britain and most of the world still recognise the Black Sea peninsula as part of Ukraine, not Russia.

Putin, speaking during his annual question and answer session with voters, signalled his anger over the operations.

When asked if the world had stood on the precipice of World War 3 during the standoff, Putin said: "Of course not.

"Even if we had sunk the ship, it is hard to imagine that the world would have been on the verge of World War 3 because those doing it know that they could not emerge as victors from such a war."

Putin accused the US and UK of planning the episode together, saying a US spy plane had taken off from Greece earlier on the same day to watch how Russia would respond to the British warship.




 
Well, stand up the North Atlantic convoy protection force again.

Luckily the RCN culture has survived over 70 years of 'neglect' due to focusing on less important tasks so it shouldn't take us long to get back in the saddle ;)


Putin's threat to UK: 'I could sink your ships without a world war'​

VLADIMIR PUTIN warned the UK that Russia could sink its ships without sparking a global conflict in a furious rant last year.​


Putin's forces continue to bombard major cities in Ukraine as the invasion nears three weeks.

The war has heightened tensions between Russia and the UK, but Moscow and London have been at loggerheads for years.

This was seen in June 2021 when Putin warned the UK that his forces could sink British ships.

Putin said Russia could have sunk a British warship that it accused of illegally entering its territorial waters without starting World War 3 and accused Washington of a role in the "provocation".

At the time, Moscow had already expressed anger in the direction of the UK after British ships operated near Crimea.

Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, but Britain and most of the world still recognise the Black Sea peninsula as part of Ukraine, not Russia.

Putin, speaking during his annual question and answer session with voters, signalled his anger over the operations.

When asked if the world had stood on the precipice of World War 3 during the standoff, Putin said: "Of course not.

"Even if we had sunk the ship, it is hard to imagine that the world would have been on the verge of World War 3 because those doing it know that they could not emerge as victors from such a war."

Putin accused the US and UK of planning the episode together, saying a US spy plane had taken off from Greece earlier on the same day to watch how Russia would respond to the British warship.





The poor RN is only a shadow of its cold war self.
 
Boosting defence spending is achieved if anything that qualifies as defence spending is boosted, or the parameters are redefined to include stuff not already included. Don't get hopes up.

As in: the last thing we need is more infrastructure so what we will get is infrastructure?
 
Think we might be better going light/medium anti-tank and anti-air in the Baltics.

Only slightly tongue in cheek. Sacrifice everything for a bunch of Barracuda subs, B-21's, and F-35's plus whatever multipliers needed for them like 330-MRTT, P-8's
 
Caught an odd comment from MND Anand in an article at Global.

“We know from our defence policy that we will be increasing defence spending by 70 per cent over the nine-year period beginning in 2017,” she said.

Have we been increasing defence spending since 2017? The wording seems odd.
 
I suspect that increasing capital expenditures as JSS/CSC/Next Gen Fighter projects enter implementation could account for that growth (plus regular inflationary increases).

It's always all about the reference points to pick.
 
Canada (Canadian dollars)
2014 20,076
2015 23,900
2016 23,474
2017 30,761
2018 29,025
2019 29,949
2020 31,644
2021 33,674

from the nato document
 
Back
Top