• 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.
 
That was a weird move. Nijemengen hardly seemed like it required a lot of horse power. And it was canceled well before things started getting hot in Ukraine.
Force reconstitution was already being done due to COVID. But keep cancelling anything that has nothing to do with rebuilding and training. I would turn the whole machine into a training establishment until we get to where we need to be.
Easier said than done. We're still seeing 10K or something members releasing per year. Members on MELs seem to be at an all time high. Still having leadership and accountability issues. We'll need a system where we can easily punt undesirables instead of letting them cling on for years.
Yes. Efficiency needs to go hand in hand with any changes. Like you I’m doubtful but we’ll see. I’d simplify the recruiting process and risk manage certain things.
A big enough dose to smash through funding for new warships, planes, helicopters? PY positions and facilities? It's taken us over 15 years (and counting) to get a new pistol. What you're suggesting is a complete 540 degree turn.
Yep. But out of the box thinking and some improvising would be in order.
I see promises of new funding that's light on actual details with lengthily timelines to give the LPC room to put the money towards other projects when Ukraine dies down.

The LPC is taking advantage of the situation touring Europe getting tons of nice photos instead of putting in overtime hours at work figuring shit out.
Quite likely. But we’ll see what comes out of this when budget time comes.

I am fully prepared to be disappointed. But I still have room to be pleasantly surprised.
 
Simple , three reasons for this. One the American are literally next door the Germans you may have noticed are across an Ocean.
Two , the Americans have fairly large stocks of the vehicle and can spare a small number.
The Germans do not and are from all appearances are about to start a rather panicked rebuild of their own.
Three, we really have to rebuild our political capital with the Americans .
I'd add to this that in most situations where we are likely to deploy tanks we are almost certainly going to be deploying along side American forces also using the Abrams. Not so certain that we'll be deploying alongside other nations using the Leopard. If the Ukraine conflict has shown us anything it's that logistics are absolutely a key enabler for military effectiveness and being fully interoperable with American forces would be a force multiplier for both our forces.

I'd go so far as suggesting that for any new military equipment purchases we should first look at what the US is using and justify why the same equipment isn't suitable for the Canadian military before we start shopping elsewhere. That would ensure maximum interoperability with our closest ally and simplify our logistics in case of war. It could also possibly encourage investment by US military contractors in the Canadian economy either for direct production or production of components within the supply chain if they see the potential for ongoing orders coming from Canada. It should also hopefully simplify our procurement system as it would only have to deal with those items where there is a demonstrated Canadian-specific need that isn't met by current US systems.

As far as our tanks go specifically I'd propose gifting our Leopards to Poland which is currently upgrading some of their Soviet-era vehicles with Leopards already which would give them the opportunity to then gift an equivalent number of their now surplus T-72s to Ukraine. We could then reach out the the US to replace our 82 x Leopards with enough Abrams to equip a Canadian ABCT (plus spares).
 
We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment. And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill.

Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats. Do our politicians have that will power ?
 
I'd add to this that in most situations where we are likely to deploy tanks we are almost certainly going to be deploying along side American forces also using the Abrams. Not so certain that we'll be deploying alongside other nations using the Leopard. If the Ukraine conflict has shown us anything it's that logistics are absolutely a key enabler for military effectiveness and being fully interoperable with American forces would be a force multiplier for both our forces.

I'd go so far as suggesting that for any new military equipment purchases we should first look at what the US is using and justify why the same equipment isn't suitable for the Canadian military before we start shopping elsewhere. That would ensure maximum interoperability with our closest ally and simplify our logistics in case of war. It could also possibly encourage investment by US military contractors in the Canadian economy either for direct production or production of components within the supply chain if they see the potential for ongoing orders coming from Canada. It should also hopefully simplify our procurement system as it would only have to deal with those items where there is a demonstrated Canadian-specific need that isn't met by current US systems.

As far as our tanks go specifically I'd propose gifting our Leopards to Poland which is currently upgrading some of their Soviet-era vehicles with Leopards already which would give them the opportunity to then gift an equivalent number of their now surplus T-72s to Ukraine. We could then reach out the the US to replace our 82 x Leopards with enough Abrams to equip a Canadian ABCT (plus spares).
I believe we have moved in this direction a little bit where the last few procurements state that the equipment needs to be in operation by at least two allied nations. Don't quote me on that lol.
We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment. And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill.

Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats. Do our politicians have that will power ?

Yes just lacking the political will. The Liberals are actually the party in a good position to do so as I don't see push back from the Conservatives like you would unfortunately if the roles were reversed ie AW101 and F-35
 
For me I will believe it when its more than promised spending years down the road.

We need huge capital real investments and we need them now. Soul sourced major purchases of weapons systems need to happen. And we need drastic increased recruitment.

Honestly we are so far behind the 8 ball for people I am not sure how the system could deal with a massive influx of people without ending up with thousands on pat platoons for years again.

More than capital investments I'd like to see the magazines reloaded so that training could be upgraded. And start filling the system with single shot "disposable" systems.

Money for new gaskets, seals and bearings would also be good.
 
We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment. And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill.

Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats. Do our politicians have that will power ?
All about the money! Not just how much but who and how they are given authority to spend.
 
The Liberals are actually the party in a good position to do so as I don't see push back from the Conservatives like you would unfortunately if the roles were reversed ie AW101 and F-35
In this specific case, I don't think any party in its right political mind would push back - maybe the Bloc.

Canada has the world's 2nd largest Ukrainian population - those are a lot of votes that they would stand to lose.
 
[/QUOTE]
The Abrams is a better tank in my opinion right now it also has a better and clearer upgrade future. Yes its a bit thirsty and super heavy so would likely be worse than useless in Ukraine right now. But the APU probably helps a little with that. Not sure on the need for 350 of them though
If I were King it would be in the range of almost 850 -1200 .And that is a very realistic number if you really think about it and are being serious about the current threat..
At first glance it looks utterly insane until you start taking into account , training ,maintenance, upgrades and war reserve stocks. Then you have losses through accidents .
The reserves get a troop per each regiment at first then you grow that to a squadron .
I'm presuming of course that the threat is real and we are serious.
 
The Abrams is a better tank in my opinion right now it also has a better and clearer upgrade future. Yes its a bit thirsty and super heavy so would likely be worse than useless in Ukraine right now. But the APU probably helps a little with that. Not sure on the need for 350 of them though

On the other hand the Leo has the advantage of being built and supported in the most likely theater of operations. And there are a fair number of existing chassis to refurbish locally.

Keep the 80 or so we have in Canada and get the Germans to refurb another 120 or so for us and keep them in their warehouses.
 
The big problem with a lot of the up front spending is that there isn't the training/support infrastructure for anything. We need a lot more worker bees on the LCMM side, and having 9 different fleets with unique equipment makes it a lot harder to support everything, so any big one off buys of shiny kit adds work to an already overworked bunch of people. And with a bunch of existing training gaps on equipment we already have, it's already a problem.

Getting contractor support for individual items isn't bad, but most of it is integrated somewhere with other kit, and that's not something that's easy to contract for, and has a long ramp up time. And someone still has to manage that contract, so HR will continue to be a problem, and we've already tapped most experience contractors who can't find people either.

I just don't see us having the peopel to actually grow anything; I think we'd be better off shrinking a bit and focusing on properly supporting equipment we have, instead of trying to get even bigger when we are stuggling to support what we currently have.
 
We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment. And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill.

Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats. Do our politicians have that will power ?
If the libs and cons can sit down as adults and produce a workable bi-party agreement winning seats won't matter. Each will maintain their status quo and contest the others as they do now. Plus, if the libs order stuff now, it will all be forgotten by the next election: even if the election were next month. Forget getting buyin from the NDP.
 
The big problem with a lot of the up front spending is that there isn't the training/support infrastructure for anything. We need a lot more worker bees on the LCMM side, and having 9 different fleets with unique equipment makes it a lot harder to support everything, so any big one off buys of shiny kit adds work to an already overworked bunch of people. And with a bunch of existing training gaps on equipment we already have, it's already a problem.

Getting contractor support for individual items isn't bad, but most of it is integrated somewhere with other kit, and that's not something that's easy to contract for, and has a long ramp up time. And someone still has to manage that contract, so HR will continue to be a problem, and we've already tapped most experience contractors who can't find people either.

I just don't see us having the peopel to actually grow anything; I think we'd be better off shrinking a bit and focusing on properly supporting equipment we have, instead of trying to get even bigger when we are stuggling to support what we currently have.
I've said this for a long time. I would rather have a Defence Force that is smaller, but better equipped and more agile than what we currently have.

We've also got a whole lot of staff power tied up managing hollow units and formations.
 
I can dream:

-a one time x Billion dollar investment in capital projects to bring us up to peer with a NATO contributing nation at %2 GDP. Let's use Denmark or Poland.
-capital projects must be a pre-existing, off the shelf capability. Zero requirement for Made in Canada .
-all capital projects under this program must be delivered NLT 3 years after contract being signed.

Call it the CAF Great Reset or something.

As for personnel:

-Change Universality of Service so non-deployable jobs can only be filled by non-deployable pers. It has baffled me that we either boot people with 10 plus years of corporate knowledge for not being able to possibly deploy at some time. It also baffles me that we take someone employable in a bde and send th to instruct for 4 years because "breadth of knowledge."

-Severely amend the grounds for medical release; if you're able to be retained in a non-operational role, keep that person in a uniform. If you are able to be retained and you choose not to... no golden ticket.

-Cull the Senior Officer corps and limit staff positions within HQs: 10th Mtn Division doesn't have a J35-2-3-5-6... a CMBG shouldn't either.

-accept that you're going to have high turnover. Millennial and Gen Z are big believers in the Gig Economy. Offer a solid 5 - 10 years of gainful employment and benefits; including training and schooling incentives.

-develop a proper Canadian Military Culture. There I said it. We have a lot of British military traditions, but have seen a lot of spill over of "Americanisms" that have affected our organizational structure. The U.S. Army has the numbers to have multiple layers of command. We don't have the luxury. Make our numbers count.
 
Force reconstitution was already being done due to COVID. But keep cancelling anything that has nothing to do with rebuilding and training. I would turn the whole machine into a training establishment until we get to where we need to be.

Yes. Efficiency needs to go hand in hand with any changes. Like you I’m doubtful but we’ll see. I’d simplify the recruiting process and risk manage certain things.

Yep. But out of the box thinking and some improvising would be in order.

Quite likely. But we’ll see what comes out of this when budget time comes.

I am fully prepared to be disappointed. But I still have room to be pleasantly surprised.

If they were serious I might be thinking about this:

Year 1

Refurbish existing gear. Sustain.
Restock magazines. Sustain.
Purchase additional small arms and disposable weapons and pyro. Sustain.

Year 2

Launch Recruitment and Training Focus for 1 year to bring up numbers. Sustain.
Artillery focus on Portable and Light Systems (to include ATGMs, SAMs and LAMs). Sustain.
Air focus on UAVs. Sustain.

Year 3
GBAD Focus. Sustain
Armour and Artillery Focus. Sustain.

Year 4
Air Focus. Sustain.
Navy Focus. Sustain.

And when I say Focus I mean Initial Operating Capacity for new systems.
Planning and Purchasing needs to start immediately.
And be sustained.
 
Honestly we are so far behind the 8 ball for people I am not sure how the system could deal with a massive influx of people without ending up with thousands on pat platoons for years again.
Speaking with PCCs and CMs, the focus for a while has been manning operations, with training coming almost dead last.

It seems to me we've got it upside down.
In this specific case, I don't think any party in its right political mind would push back - maybe the Bloc.

Canada has the world's 2nd largest Ukrainian population - those are a lot of votes that they would stand to lose.
Even the Bloc is a centrist party, I'd expect more opposition from NDP/Greens
 
-develop a proper Canadian Military Culture. There I said it. We have a lot of British military traditions, but have seen a lot of spill over of "Americanisms" that have affected our organizational structure. The U.S. Army has the numbers to have multiple layers of command. We don't have the luxury. Make our numbers count.

The more that people my age retire out of the CAF, the more the culture shift will happen, IMHO.

The younger troops are already there, they just used to look at dusty old anglophiles like me and roll their eyes, I hope ;)
 
The more that people my age retire out of the CAF, the more the culture shift will happen, IMHO.

The younger troops are already there, they just used to look at dusty old anglophiles like me and roll their eyes, I hope ;)

Is it just the Canadian Military Culture or is it the Canadian National Culture?

The Military Culture will always be a subset of the National Culture.

Is the National Culture sufficiently militaristic to support a military with its own independent culture?

For me that is an open question.
 
Is it just the Canadian Military Culture or is it the Canadian National Culture?

The Military Culture will always be a subset of the National Culture.

Is the National Culture sufficiently militaristic to support a military with its own independent culture?

For me that is an open question.
I'm of the view that Canadian National Culture in 2022 is fundamentally at odds with Military Culture writ large.

War is a team sport, individuals don't matter. Look at the meat grinder that is Ukraine atm. Rockets, Bombs, Missiles and Shells don't give a damn about "accommodations".

We are sacrificing group cohesion to cater to the individual. It's an interesting experiment 😉
 
Back
Top