• 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.
 
From a Government mouthpiece in a Government paper.

Is there hope?

It is an axiom of Canadian politics that a thing is not known until the Liberals know it. Free trade was terra incognita before the Liberals discovered it, a creature of Tory myth that Brian Mulroney somehow convinced the public to support in 1988. As late as 1993 the Liberals were still campaigning against it.

But then they won power, after which it was suddenly transformed into conventional wisdom – one of those things everybody knows, and what is more has always known. By a similarly mysterious process the GST, balanced budgets and price stability, ideas once so barbaric no civilized person could repeat them, became familiar parts of the Liberal lexicon.

Something of the same seems now to be happening in the realm of foreign policy. For some time now it has been apparent that the great hope of post-Cold War diplomacy, that the world could be made not only more prosperous through trade but also more democratic and more peaceful, had failed.


Trade had, to be sure, delivered the expected economic benefits: The evidence on globalization’s contribution to rising incomes, not only in the developing world but the developed, is overwhelming. But in its civilizing mission it had, if anything, made matters worse.

Not only had Russia and China failed to grow more democratic, they had slid backward into dictatorship. Not only had they declined to embrace the norms and obligations of great power citizenry, they had weaponized the West’s openness to trade with them, using the gains from trade to fund their military buildups and, as we have lately seen, holding hostage those nations who were so unwary as to depend on trade with them.

All this, as I say, has long been apparent – apparent, that is, to everyone but the Liberals. While other countries were raising the alarm about China’s growing threat, for example, the early years of the Trudeau government were given over to ingratiating itself with what many in the government saw as the rising world power.

Not until this year – after Hong Kong, after the two Michaels – could the government even bring itself to formally bar Huawei from our telecoms systems. To this day, present and former Liberal potentates talk glowingly of the business opportunities to be had in China – an expansionist power that, along with Russia, “consider themselves to be at war with the West,” as the chief of the defence staff reminded us the other day.

A similar mix of cynicism and naiveté had animated our relations with Russia, until recent events made the illusion of ameliorability impossible to sustain any longer – though even then, someone at Global Affairs thought it proper to send a representative to that Russian Embassy party.

Hence the news value in last week’s speech in Washington by the Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland – a speech that has given rise to excited proclamations of a “Freeland Doctrine.” Certainly it was news to hear a senior Liberal declare that the age of peace through prosperity is over; that China and Russia are not our partners but our implacable adversaries; that national security, with the threat of nuclear war in the air, trumps the gains from trade, or – dare I say it – even the environment. That it was news, however, was not because the ideas are new – only because a Liberal said it.

The “three pillars” on which Ms. Freeland proposed to build a new international order – closer trade and investment ties among the democracies, openness to trade with other countries who share our values, and a determination to stand together against the encroachments of the autocracies – were likewise not particularly new.

The catchphrase “friend-shoring,” or the diversion of trade and investment, particularly in sensitive sectors, from autocratic to democratic countries, was coined by the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, as Ms. Freeland acknowledged.

Still, it was all sensible enough – a trade bloc among the democracies, an economic NATO – or would have been, had Ms. Freeland resisted the temptation to load it up with extraneous considerations.

There was first the pretense that friend-shoring, rather than a stopgap, a second-best in a security climate that no longer permits global free trade, was somehow also an economic panacea. “Friend-shoring,” she declared, “is an historic opportunity for our workers and our communities … to attract new investment, create more good-paying jobs, and thrive in a changed global economy.”

Well, no. If it were economically preferable to trade with countries other than China, we would not need a foreign policy requiring it. China’s cheap labour, as the minister acknowledges elsewhere in the speech, “brought down the cost of consumer goods and commodities for us all.” Avoiding trade with China and other dictatorships might be good for our security, it might be truer to our principles, but it is not going to make us all richer. In fact it is going to make us a little poorer. It’s a trade-off, not a win-win.

Second, it is not necessarily the case, as Ms. Freeland claimed, that friend-shoring will help “preserve the planet.” The decisions that must be taken, the policies that must be implemented, the sacrifices that must be made – for a cleaner environment also, inescapably, implies some loss of material income – are broadly the same, whether we trade with the world or just our friends.

It may be that there are political opportunities, amid all the other changes friend-shoring will require, to advance a green agenda – I seem to recall Ms. Freeland saying much the same about the pandemic – but that is a different story. For that matter, nothing about friend-shoring requires us to engage in a subsidy war with our allies and partners – it’s supposed to be about free trade, remember? – though Ms. Freeland seems determined to pursue one.

In any case, it’s hard to square the “friend-shoring must be green” dogma with the most remarked-upon bit of Sudden Liberal Awareness in the speech, the commitment to “fast-track” energy and mining projects “our allies need to heat their homes.” Quite what this means we can only speculate: Could it really be that this government is now prepared to put the demands of a global security crisis before the delights of environmental purity? Was it only two months ago that the German Chancellor, on a visit in search of Canadian liquefied natural gas, was turned away empty-handed?

But like much else in the speech it seemed to imply the Liberals were prepared once again to give their blessing to common knowledge, and for that I suppose we should be grateful.
 
If you have a decently organized & robust enough defence industry, its a great way to spur that economy up again too.

“We get to bomb baddies AND unemployment goes down!? Sounds like a good deal!”
It’s more popular to give people a bit of cash and pretend like it’s not just from the income tax they paid last week. Case in point: Ontario will give you $200 to ignore this education problem so that they don’t have to deal with the teachers union.
 
I doubt the age of "peace through prosperity" is over. Governments need to stop leeching prosperity, so that it can work its magic.

I also doubt that it's mere coincidence that as prosperity takes a kick from "events" (eg. pandemic and pandemic mitigation), peace also takes a kick.
 

The Big Cod exposing the ugly truth.

Ah yes, the sexual misconduct and right wing extremist boogyman. That is part of the problem, but those things exist in every large company, you just don’t hear about it.

Lack of housing on bases, pay, old garbage equipment and lack of purpose and direction are the biggest problems.
 
Ah yes, the sexual misconduct and right wing extremist boogyman. That is part of the problem, but those things exist in every large company, you just don’t hear about it.

Lack of housing on bases, pay, old garbage equipment and lack of purpose and direction are the biggest problems.
A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.
 
A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.
I am just glad I retired end of May. :whistle:
 
Ah yes, the sexual misconduct and right wing extremist boogyman. That is part of the problem, but those things exist in every large company, you just don’t hear about it.

Lack of housing on bases, pay, old garbage equipment and lack of purpose and direction are the biggest problems.

There you have it ... but that lack of purpose is NOT the CF's fault; nor is it the Government of Canada's fault. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his team have asked Canadians, over and over again, what they want ... and they never, ever say - not more than about 10% of them, anyw3ay - that they went more more money or effort or anything else spent on defence.

The people of Canada - your friends and neighbours, maybe even your family members - think that the CF is a waste, a useless bunch of layabouts who are constantly demanding new "toys for the boys" but rarely do anything useful.

I am pretty sure that Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives have received the same message as have Trudeau's Liberals: defence doesn't matter.

Until Canadians change their minds there will be no change. What will make them change their minds?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-10-23 at 17.06.58.png
    Screen Shot 2022-10-23 at 17.06.58.png
    3.7 MB · Views: 0
A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.
I find as much as we preach the "4 kinds of officers" thing as a deterrent, we forget that is it's also very much a real aspect of employing people to their strengths.

Some people are great as Platoon/Troop Commanders, but would suck hard as a Staff officer at the Unit or Command level; that's OK

Some people are amazing, intellectual Staff Officers that have the charisma of a wet sock; that's OK.

Some people have the project management skills to see an idea sprout wings and take off, but would buckle at the weight of sub-unit or unit command; That's OK

Even with "succession planning" to identify our star streamers; we need to see where a person's strengths are, where their own desires are, and employ them in a useful and rewarding environment.

"Breadth of experience" needs to become a sentence that is verboten for 80 percent of the CAF: you cannot post people into character, nor can you post them into intellect or organizational skills.

A quote from the kids movie "Kung Fu Panda" actually fits well for what I see our major downfall is:

"You can choose where you plant that seed, but no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach. But if you nurture it, it will grow and bear fruit, even if it's not the kind you wanted."

If we as the CAF stopped trying to believe we can have an "all singing, all dancing" member/officer by posting them every 3 years somewhere our of their depth, maybe more folks would want to stay on instead of picking a civilian workplace that let's them stay in the lane they want to.
 
If we as the CAF stopped trying to believe we can have an "all singing, all dancing" member/officer by posting them every 3 years somewhere our of their depth, maybe more folks would want to stay on instead of picking a civilian workplace that let's them stay in the lane they want to.
I agree in principle that people are better suited to some things, but in many cases people don't really know how suited they are (or aren't) until you put them in those positions, sometimes with some stress to see how they do.

Example: How would anyone know whether they are a good project officer if they never get put into a project? Having a bit of staff work at the tactical level doesn't really translate well.

This is a personal one because I didn't think I'd like project/staff work, but I found out I really did.
 
I agree in principle that people are better suited to some things, but in many cases people don't really know how suited they are (or aren't) until you put them in those positions, sometimes with some stress to see how they do.

Example: How would anyone know whether they are a good project officer if they never get put into a project? Having a bit of staff work at the tactical level doesn't really translate well.

This is a personal one because I didn't think I'd like project/staff work, but I found out I really did.
I can agree with that as well, and I believe that comes from true mentorship and career management as opposed to the current position management we currently have.
 
A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.

I hear that a lot. But is that a CAF thing or an Army thing?

The system seems to work fine to sustain a Naval Force continuously operating out of two ports, an Air Force, also on continuous operations, the majority of the purple trades (those not attached to the army), the Special Forces and a permanently staffed NDHQ.

So the Army (and its Reserves and its training system) are the odd men out.

Some nasty and inconsiderate souls could ask the question does National Defence require an Army? o_O
 
I hear that a lot. But is that a CAF thing or an Army thing?

The system seems to work fine to sustain a Naval Force continuously operating out of two ports, an Air Force, also on continuous operations, the majority of the purple trades (those not attached to the army), the Special Forces and a permanently staffed NDHQ.

So the Army (and its Reserves and its training system) are the odd men out.

Some nasty and inconsiderate souls could ask the question does National Defence require an Army? o_O
I think you are missing the effects on the RCN and RCAF.
SOF doesn’t have those issues as at user end the postings aren’t occurring. Staff rotates but the deployable forces are fairly isolated.
 
I find as much as we preach the "4 kinds of officers" thing as a deterrent, we forget that is it's also very much a real aspect of employing people to their strengths.

Some people are great as Platoon/Troop Commanders, but would suck hard as a Staff officer at the Unit or Command level; that's OK

Some people are amazing, intellectual Staff Officers that have the charisma of a wet sock; that's OK.

Some people have the project management skills to see an idea sprout wings and take off, but would buckle at the weight of sub-unit or unit command; That's OK

Even with "succession planning" to identify our star streamers; we need to see where a person's strengths are, where their own desires are, and employ them in a useful and rewarding environment.

"Breadth of experience" needs to become a sentence that is verboten for 80 percent of the CAF: you cannot post people into character, nor can you post them into intellect or organizational skills.

A quote from the kids movie "Kung Fu Panda" actually fits well for what I see our major downfall is:

"You can choose where you plant that seed, but no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach. But if you nurture it, it will grow and bear fruit, even if it's not the kind you wanted."

If we as the CAF stopped trying to believe we can have an "all singing, all dancing" member/officer by posting them every 3 years somewhere our of their depth, maybe more folks would want to stay on instead of picking a civilian workplace that let's them stay in the lane they want to.

The key to everything is recognizing, in your lingo, that there are, and always will be, four types of officers (and troops), and then exploiting them for what they CAN do. That means not putting everyone through the same career programme. No company, successful or otherwise, would consider trying to make all its mechanics payroll clerks for a season.
 
I agree in principle that people are better suited to some things, but in many cases people don't really know how suited they are (or aren't) until you put them in those positions, sometimes with some stress to see how they do.

Example: How would anyone know whether they are a good project officer if they never get put into a project? Having a bit of staff work at the tactical level doesn't really translate well.

This is a personal one because I didn't think I'd like project/staff work, but I found out I really did.

In non-military terms you give people a shot at small scale projects and see how they handle them with coaching. If they are good, or even just show promise, you give them another one. Some of them you turn into full time project managers. Some get further promotion. Others get relegated to Special Projects For Life.

And some fitters never leave the shop floor.
 
Back
Top