• 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.
 
Imagine if Canada actually took the time to recover the $15B it says it couldn’t be bothered to have CRA recover? 🤔
Need to conduct a cost benefit analysis. Is it worth to hire more CRA staff, especially audit specialists, and lawyers to take non-compliant cases to court? Or it is better to over haul and simplify the tax system, introduce new AI systems to review the tax returns and so forth in order to perhaps catch a % of the $15B? Either way, it will require a more intensive effort backed by the strong arm of the law and bureaucracy to enforce the rules, which will get pushed back by the common people and get publicized by CBC News with CRA, again, being mean and unfair to hard working tax payers.
 
Need to conduct a cost benefit analysis. Is it worth to hire more CRA staff, especially audit specialists, and lawyers to take non-compliant cases to court? Or it is better to over haul and simplify the tax system, introduce new AI systems to review the tax returns and so forth in order to perhaps catch a % of the $15B? Either way, it will require a more intensive effort backed by the strong arm of the law and bureaucracy to enforce the rules, which will get pushed back by the common people and get publicized by CBC News with CRA, again, being mean and unfair to hard working tax payers.
15 Billion is 15 billion. That is funding for small departments for year or two. What arrogance to say "oh we are just going to let them get away with stealing"
 
How much effort is it worth to prove a point? I'm not saying not to try to recover the costs, but you need to look at everything - what can you actually do to justify the extra costs (the outcome must be worth more than the expenditure), or it can become just be a pyrrhic victory.
 
How much effort is it worth to prove a point? I'm not saying not to try to recover the costs, but you need to look at everything - what can you actually do to justify the extra costs (the outcome must be worth more than the expenditure), or it can become just be a pyrrhic victory.

Especially when it cost nothing to print and distribute the money in the first place.
 
How much effort is it worth to prove a point? I'm not saying not to try to recover the costs, but you need to look at everything - what can you actually do to justify the extra costs (the outcome must be worth more than the expenditure), or it can become just be a pyrrhic victory.
If you have already identified the number — one suspects it shouldn’t be that hard to recover.
 
Need to conduct a cost benefit analysis. Is it worth to hire more CRA staff, especially audit specialists, and lawyers to take non-compliant cases to court? Or it is better to over haul and simplify the tax system, introduce new AI systems to review the tax returns and so forth in order to perhaps catch a % of the $15B? Either way, it will require a more intensive effort backed by the strong arm of the law and bureaucracy to enforce the rules, which will get pushed back by the common people and get publicized by CBC News with CRA, again, being mean and unfair to hard working tax payers.

Publish the names of the delinquents. Let everyone know they are a cancer.
 
Need to conduct a cost benefit analysis. Is it worth to hire more CRA staff, especially audit specialists, and lawyers to take non-compliant cases to court? Or it is better to over haul and simplify the tax system, introduce new AI systems to review the tax returns and so forth in order to perhaps catch a % of the $15B? Either way, it will require a more intensive effort backed by the strong arm of the law and bureaucracy to enforce the rules, which will get pushed back by the common people and get publicized by CBC News with CRA, again, being mean and unfair to hard working tax payers.

How much effort is it worth to prove a point? I'm not saying not to try to recover the costs, but you need to look at everything - what can you actually do to justify the extra costs (the outcome must be worth more than the expenditure), or it can become just be a pyrrhic victory.

To prove a point? How about to in part pay for all the public servants ($60B/yr)


CRA was the greatest benefactor of GoC’s surge of new PS hires since 2015…8,000 alone in 2020-2022. How many more would you think CRA should receive to recover what their records indicate? By using AI, are you advocating that we may actually be able to reduce the public service? 🤔

Canada had 257,000 public servants in 2015. Today it has 100,000 more….yet we don’t have enough public servants to recover known disbursements?

 
To prove a point? How about to in part pay for all the public servants ($60B/yr)


CRA was the greatest benefactor of GoC’s surge of new PS hires since 2015…8,000 alone in 2020-2022. How many more would you think CRA should receive to recover what their records indicate? By using AI, are you advocating that we may actually be able to reduce the public service? 🤔

Canada had 257,000 public servants in 2015. Today it has 100,000 more….yet we don’t have enough public servants to recover known disbursements?


You know very well that I cannot explain the rational for the hiring of more PS for the fed gov't nor confirm if they are productive and providing good value for their salary and knowledge.

$15B is indeed a large sum of money and I do agree that the gov't should make the effort to collect it. I believe that tax laws needs to be updated and simplified in order to make life easier for the average Cdn and for industry. I do think that that the gov't should use AI in order to reduce the number of PS and their associated overhead costs.

I don't think many of us here knows the workings of the CRA and the numbers of PS working their, but I do hope that the numbers are justifiable to process all the tax returns from private citizens and industry. I do know that auditing large companies can be manpower and intensive and it requires specialized knowledge - my wife's aunt work for Revenue Quebec and she part of a large team that processes the tax return for one of the largest industries in Quebec. The same goes for wealthy individuals who use every tax loop holes and layers to protect their assets.

That is my point. I don't have an answer to how much more people, specialized knowledge and expertise will be required to recover $15B in revenue, but how much more PS or specialized contractors and lawyers will be required? 1,000 - 10,0000? Are you willing to pay for more PS? How many more years of litigation in court is worthwhile? Will we have to hire more lawyers, judges and supporting personnel? More infrastructure for courts? More infrastructure for CRA pers? Overhead costs? What is the break even point? You need to study this more closely before you attack this problem.
 
Is it worth to hire more CRA staff, especially audit specialists, and lawyers to take non-compliant cases to court?

That is my point. I don't have an answer to how much more people, specialized knowledge and expertise will be required to recover $15B in revenue, but how much more PS or specialized contractors and lawyers will be required? 1,000 - 10,0000? Are you willing to pay for more PS? How many more years of litigation in court is worthwhile? Will we have to hire more lawyers, judges and supporting personnel? More infrastructure for courts? More infrastructure for CRA pers? Overhead costs? What is the break even point? You need to study this more closely before you attack this problem.

It is you who are dramatizing the effort and complexity of what is needed to recover the overage in CERB/etc. payments.

Court cases? Maybe you haven’t been in the end of a CRA reassessment that arbitrarily invokes a tax debit to your account, and you contest it to recover whatever CRA chose to reassess from you. A good friend who works at CRA’s junior exec level privately tells me that it is a choice to not lose votes recover overpayments. Unlike Phoenix pay issues, the software solution to recover/debit accounts quite ably exists in CRA’s system…no AI needed. No additional hoards of more CRA workers working from home over insecure lines dealing with personal information, etc…
 
To prove a point? How about to in part pay for all the public servants ($60B/yr)


CRA was the greatest benefactor of GoC’s surge of new PS hires since 2015…8,000 alone in 2020-2022. How many more would you think CRA should receive to recover what their records indicate? By using AI, are you advocating that we may actually be able to reduce the public service? 🤔

Canada had 257,000 public servants in 2015. Today it has 100,000 more….yet we don’t have enough public servants to recover known disbursements?

It's how the government justifies their 'new jobs created this quarter' figures that they crow about in the House.
 
Back
Top