• 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.
 
I think this just reaffirmed to NATO and the U.S. that we are not only a bad faith partner, but a no faith partner. In true Canadian fashion, we lined our own pockets at the expense of our friends and allies.

Honestly, I would love to see us booted from NATO and NORAD just to prove a point. How quickly would we need to spend money to cover those shortfalls? Hell of a lot more than 20-25 Billion a year.
I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny. We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.
 
I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny. We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.
There is that pesky 4000 or so mile border to think about.
 
I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny. We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.
Would you do that? I would close the border and let us alone for a while, I would let us be afraid a bit.
 
I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny. We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.
Are you kidding? We'd be 1938 Czechoslovakia if it kept the Russians and Chinese from pursuing a larger conflict.

We have seen what happens to folks outside of the NATO umbrella when we have "guarantees" versus "treaty agreements"
 
It really is time for them to insist up or out for us.
What does that have to do with the budget increase?

I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).

If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability. 🤷‍♂️

I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.
 
What does that have to do with the budget increase?

I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).

If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability. 🤷‍♂️

I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.

You're right of course level of funding is only part of the problem.

The real issue is Canada needs to decide what it wants to be on the world stage.
 
What does that have to do with the budget increase?

I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).

If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability. 🤷‍♂️

I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.
I agree with you. However if the money is not named for a specific program, it’s lost. SoI would have like to see x amount for CAF reconstitution, x amount for NORAD or at least name generically what’s for. Out of all the option MDN named on Global, I’m sure she’s short.
 
Nothing like a serious increase in budget--graph from p. 153 PDF here:

1649377820261.png


See also p. 132, 134 PDF. Note this at latter--money for North, NORAD not new:

In Budget 2021, the government committed $252.2 million over five years
to sustain existing continental and Arctic defence capabilities, and to lay
the groundwork for NORAD’s future.

No there there.

Mark
Ottawa
 
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.
 
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.

Trying to imagine...

"We held a competition, and this is what we picked."

"Offsets?"

"No."
 
So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?
I wonder if that isn't on some minds. I remember, a few years ago, discussing with a then modestly senior civil servant what the old Department of Munitions and Supply looked like and how it established private and semi-private sector agencies got actually execute programmes.
 
So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?
Hopefully enough to get our procurement sorted out quickly
 
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.
"You'll get more money once you can staff a proper procurement."

"But we don't have the people or resources to do defence procurement like every other department. We need to have exemptions for defence procurement"

"Yes, but rules are rules..."

VhiCI1JTcNACWBirzqXRW2GD5zo=.gif
 
Back
Top