• 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.
 

Anyone who thinks relief is on the way isn't following the trends.

The decline in GFCF in a steadily worsening, dare one say caustic business environment, brings to bear the argument between modest taxation levels on business and modest social support, to increased taxation on business while transferring that tax revenue to extensive/over-modest social spending (which does not directly support the nation’s productivity).

The alarming deterioration in our productivity performance closely tracks the extraordinary relative decline of business investment in Canada.

Until government appreciates that policies that restrict (strangle?) business investment is an analogue of strangling the goose that used to lay golden eggs. The goose isn’t dead *yet, but the golden eggs are getting smaller…and smaller…and smaller…
 
Last edited:
You get what you pay for, which is why our underinvestment in some areas is killing us...

Investment and Productivity​

Why is M&E investment important to labour productivity?​

Key Messages​

  • Historical data for the peer countries reveal a strong positive relationship between investment in machinery and equipment (M&E) and labour productivity.
  • Canada’s investment in M&E as a share of GDP is among the lowest of its peers.
  • The gap in investment in information and communications technology between Canada and the U.S. accounts for a large proportion of the labour productivity gap between the two countries.
Canada’s investment in M&E as a share of GDP remains among the lowest of its peers. In fact, Canada’s average M&E investment as a share of GDP in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was the second lowest—only France had a poorer investment record.4 In the 2000s, Canada ranked 11th among the 16 countries—a modest improvement that reflects lower investment shares in other countries rather than an increased investment share in Canada.5

 
That I would agree with. More 3 - 5 year hitches. Offer things like the GI bill.
110%.

A lot of my comments got OBE due to others posts.

Bases: there needs to be consolidation, as well as divestment of archaic buildings. Yes I hate the idea of giving up land, but there is also zero reason to keep some land that is just costing a fortune in maintenance (and becoming a heritage site as opposed to a working space).

I’m of the opinion that every base needs an airhead and rail head, and the coastal bases need ports, or at least piers for loading equipment.

I’m not sure that the Regular Force Army needs more than 15k personnel.
1 Light/Airborne Bde (~2,700 PY)
1 Armoured Bde (~3,200 PY)
2 Sustainment Bde’s (~1,800 each)
The remaining 2,800 would go towards HQ/Staff and Training positions.

If the PRes was reformed into a viable entity, there could be some additional restructuring. But one could make 2 main Army bases complete with airfields, training areas etc. (leaving Pet to CANSOF)

The advantage of having training areas on your bases is that the Reg Force can conduct training and still be ‘at home’ reducing travel time, vehicle usage for that travel, and a lot of away from family issues can be mitigated.



I’d shift TacHel between 3 bases Petawawa (for CANSOF), Latvia, and the Light base.

SAR, I don’t see any way to rationalize that fleet, ideally some of it could be done by Reservists in some outlying communities (again that would need a larger support from the RCAF than current).

Fixed Wing, I’m not sure why Winnipeg is no longer the main location for it, as it’s fairly central, and would reduce moves.
Yes you’d need the fighter folks to due to TD to Cold Lake and still require a crew there to keep it running. But the majority of fighter training is going to be in the US for the next while anyway, once the F-35 comes on board.

MH, well they are going to be on each coast to support the Navy.

I don’t really understand the Navy well enough to make solid comments about them, but it does seem to have a lot of redundancies on the HQ side for its size.

I had understood the theory of CJOC was to remove a lot of the sub HQ’s, but that doesn’t seem to have been done in a lot of cases.

The entire point of the CAF is to give the GoC a viable military force to defend Canada, and project force as needed. Right now I don’t think the CAF gives good value for the money - as there are a lot of paper empires, and a ton of good money being thrown after bad.

It is hard to recruit people for a military that is rusting out, and cannot conduct missions. So there needs to be recapitalization for equipment as part of the process to fix recruiting and retention, as well as giving an ‘out’ for people who join and decide it’s really not their goal in life, but also incentivizing people leaving the Regular Force to join the Reserves, where they can use education benefits and health care for a period to be a reservist and go back to school, and also be able to rejoin the Regular Forces after if they desire.
 
Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....

Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'​

Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.

The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.

 
Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....

Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'​

Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.

The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.

“Slightly less than net-positive increases”
 
Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....

Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'​

Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.

The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.

Deletions from the accounts receivable?
 
110%.

A lot of my comments got OBE due to others posts.

Bases: there needs to be consolidation, as well as divestment of archaic buildings. Yes I hate the idea of giving up land, but there is also zero reason to keep some land that is just costing a fortune in maintenance (and becoming a heritage site as opposed to a working space).

I’m of the opinion that every base needs an airhead and rail head, and the coastal bases need ports, or at least piers for loading equipment.

I’m not sure that the Regular Force Army needs more than 15k personnel.
1 Light/Airborne Bde (~2,700 PY)
1 Armoured Bde (~3,200 PY)
2 Sustainment Bde’s (~1,800 each)
The remaining 2,800 would go towards HQ/Staff and Training positions.

If the PRes was reformed into a viable entity, there could be some additional restructuring. But one could make 2 main Army bases complete with airfields, training areas etc. (leaving Pet to CANSOF)

The advantage of having training areas on your bases is that the Reg Force can conduct training and still be ‘at home’ reducing travel time, vehicle usage for that travel, and a lot of away from family issues can be mitigated.



I’d shift TacHel between 3 bases Petawawa (for CANSOF), Latvia, and the Light base.

SAR, I don’t see any way to rationalize that fleet, ideally some of it could be done by Reservists in some outlying communities (again that would need a larger support from the RCAF than current).

Fixed Wing, I’m not sure why Winnipeg is no longer the main location for it, as it’s fairly central, and would reduce moves.
Yes you’d need the fighter folks to due to TD to Cold Lake and still require a crew there to keep it running. But the majority of fighter training is going to be in the US for the next while anyway, once the F-35 comes on board.

MH, well they are going to be on each coast to support the Navy.

I don’t really understand the Navy well enough to make solid comments about them, but it does seem to have a lot of redundancies on the HQ side for its size.

I had understood the theory of CJOC was to remove a lot of the sub HQ’s, but that doesn’t seem to have been done in a lot of cases.

The entire point of the CAF is to give the GoC a viable military force to defend Canada, and project force as needed. Right now I don’t think the CAF gives good value for the money - as there are a lot of paper empires, and a ton of good money being thrown after bad.

It is hard to recruit people for a military that is rusting out, and cannot conduct missions. So there needs to be recapitalization for equipment as part of the process to fix recruiting and retention, as well as giving an ‘out’ for people who join and decide it’s really not their goal in life, but also incentivizing people leaving the Regular Force to join the Reserves, where they can use education benefits and health care for a period to be a reservist and go back to school, and also be able to rejoin the Regular Forces after if they desire.
@KevinB we are in violent agreement. The symmetrical 3xCMBG Army is an OWN GOAL.
 
What the heck. It's been a long drive today so I'll just jump into this one.
110%.

A lot of my comments got OBE due to others posts.

Bases: there needs to be consolidation, as well as divestment of archaic buildings. Yes I hate the idea of giving up land, but there is also zero reason to keep some land that is just costing a fortune in maintenance (and becoming a heritage site as opposed to a working space).
Yeah, I agree to a point. We're a big country like you'all and we need to be where the people are. There are only a few major bases - Edmonton/Wainwright; Shilo; Petawawa; Meaford; Quebec/Valcartier; Gagetown/Aldershot. Consolidation for the RegF does not serve the regionally-based ResF well. Those bases need to be retained if nothing else for their training areas and as concentration areas.

OTOH, I can see a need to rationalize ResF armouries. This is in particular as I think we need a new model of full-time service that caters to a one station career for soldiers where their wives can have a full career as well. The reality of modern life is the two-income family. The more we can cater to that type of career model the easier it will be to achieve stable full-time manning. To me that means urban units of blended full-time /part-time ResF personnel. Those are full battalions where a third of the battalions strength needs full-time work areas that also provides facilities to part-timers during the RegF's off-time. I'm not talking hot bunking. Many existing armouries won't cater to that. Some will. Rationalization is needed.

I’m of the opinion that every base needs an airhead and rail head, and the coastal bases need ports, or at least piers for loading equipment.
Reasonably near.
I’m not sure that the Regular Force Army needs more than 15k personnel.
I'll go twenty
1 Light/Airborne Bde (~2,700 PY)
Agreed - I'd add ~1,000 reservists for depth and sustainment.
1 Armoured Bde (~3,200 PY)
Agreed as to PYs but I'd spread them over three bdes with ~7,000 Class A ResF.
2 Sustainment Bde’s (~1,800 each)
Again agreed as to PYs but again rounded out with ~4,000 Class A ResF.
The remaining 2,800 would go towards HQ/Staff and Training positions.
Okay. But here's where I add in the additional ~5,000 PYs. A combat support brigade (~500 PY/~1,500 PT); 2 x mech bdes (~1,000 PY/2,000PT each); at least 1 x arty bde (~500 PY/~2,000PT); an engr bde (~1,000 PY/~2,000PT); and base support structures (~1,000PY)
If the PRes was reformed into a viable entity, there could be some additional restructuring. But one could make 2 main Army bases complete with airfields, training areas etc. (leaving Pet to CANSOF)
The ResF MUST be reformed into viable entities - otherwise we might as well pack in the whole thing, align ourselves with Iceland and reallocate the defence budget to touchy-feely crap..
The advantage of having training areas on your bases is that the Reg Force can conduct training and still be ‘at home’ reducing travel time, vehicle usage for that travel, and a lot of away from family issues can be mitigated.
I don't agree with this. We train in bursts. No one given unit spends more than several months each year on full-scale ranges. Much of the training can be done on simulators, low-level small arms ranges and small dry manoeuvre areas. Administrative moves to and from an urban base to a large-scale training areas is training in its own right that should be practiced often. IMHO we overvalue the need to have training areas collocated with unit lines. It's become a dissatisfier with modern families.
I’d shift TacHel between 3 bases Petawawa (for CANSOF), Latvia, and the Light base.
Agree with Petawawa and the Lt Bde (albeit I think they are one and the same) With respect to Latvia I wouldn't. It's just a bde and bde's do not hold aviation - we need to take stock of what aviation resources MND-N will develop into having. Currently they don't have much. Personally I'd have other NATO countries contribute and save all of our aviation for the SOF and Lt bde.
SAR, I don’t see any way to rationalize that fleet, ideally some of it could be done by Reservists in some outlying communities (again that would need a larger support from the RCAF than current).

Fixed Wing, I’m not sure why Winnipeg is no longer the main location for it, as it’s fairly central, and would reduce moves.
Facilities. Incidentally, I would take 3 Div HQ - rename it 1 Div and move it to Winnipeg to 1) have it collocated with the RCAF to facilitate air movement planning. Since I would move CMTC to Latvia, preposition an armoured brigade there and have all major exercises there we would need a much better planning/coordination working with the RCAF; 2) 1 Divs bdes are spread from Alberta to Ontario. Winnipeg is two hours from its eastern and western units.
Yes you’d need the fighter folks to due to TD to Cold Lake and still require a crew there to keep it running. But the majority of fighter training is going to be in the US for the next while anyway, once the F-35 comes on board.

MH, well they are going to be on each coast to support the Navy.

I don’t really understand the Navy well enough to make solid comments about them, but it does seem to have a lot of redundancies on the HQ side for its size.
No comment as yet.
I had understood the theory of CJOC was to remove a lot of the sub HQ’s, but that doesn’t seem to have been done in a lot of cases.
I'm thinking of ash canning CJOC. Give 1 Div the responsibility for all things Europe and 2 Div for all things North America. I think that if we haven't learned our lesson about trying to fix shithole countries after Afghanistan then we can form a small staff in 2 Div and give them responsibility for that as well. Sure - make it a joint cell. I need to run that around a bunch more - I think centralizing everything in one HQ leads to staff bloat and lethargy.
The entire point of the CAF is to give the GoC a viable military force to defend Canada, and project force as needed. Right now I don’t think the CAF gives good value for the money - as there are a lot of paper empires, and a ton of good money being thrown after bad.
Agreed.
It is hard to recruit people for a military that is rusting out, and cannot conduct missions. So there needs to be recapitalization for equipment as part of the process to fix recruiting and retention, as well as giving an ‘out’ for people who join and decide it’s really not their goal in life, but also incentivizing people leaving the Regular Force to join the Reserves, where they can use education benefits and health care for a period to be a reservist and go back to school, and also be able to rejoin the Regular Forces after if they desire.
All of the above and more.

🍻
 
Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....

Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'​

Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.

The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.

Now what am I supposed to yell when I fire reserve rounds?
 
Yeah, I agree to a point. We're a big country like you'all and we need to be where the people are. There are only a few major bases - Edmonton/Wainwright; Shilo; Petawawa; Meaford; Quebec/Valcartier; Gagetown/Aldershot.
And all those bases and people could drop into one Base down here... I just don't see those bases as major.
Consolidation for the RegF does not serve the regionally-based ResF well. Those bases need to be retained if nothing else for their training areas and as concentration areas.
Fair point, but I haven't seen anything that proves there is a will to make the PRes work in the Army.
OTOH, I can see a need to rationalize ResF armouries. This is in particular as I think we need a new model of full-time service that caters to a one station career for soldiers where their wives can have a full career as well. The reality of modern life is the two-income family. The more we can cater to that type of career model the easier it will be to achieve stable full-time manning. To me that means urban units of blended full-time /part-time ResF personnel. Those are full battalions where a third of the battalions strength needs full-time work areas that also provides facilities to part-timers during the RegF's off-time. I'm not talking hot bunking. Many existing armouries won't cater to that. Some will. Rationalization is needed.

I'll go twenty

Agreed - I'd add ~1,000 reservists for depth and sustainment.

Agreed as to PYs but I'd spread them over three bdes with ~7,000 Class A ResF.

Again agreed as to PYs but again rounded out with ~4,000 Class A ResF.

Okay. But here's where I add in the additional ~5,000 PYs. A combat support brigade (~500 PY/~1,500 PT); 2 x mech bdes (~1,000 PY/2,000PT each); at least 1 x arty bde (~500 PY/~2,000PT); an engr bde (~1,000 PY/~2,000PT); and base support structures (~1,000PY)
I’d agree IF the PRes can be reformed/reformatted — right now I don’t see the CA having that desire. Hence my hedging towards the Reg units.

The ResF MUST be reformed into viable entities - otherwise we might as well pack in the whole thing, align ourselves with Iceland and reallocate the defence budget to touchy-feely crap..
Agreed.
I don't agree with this. We train in bursts. No one given unit spends more than several months each year on full-scale ranges. Much of the training can be done on simulators, low-level small arms ranges and small dry manoeuvre areas.
I’d suggest that PCF’s have at least a 2 week ‘field phase’ for no other reason than ranges.
So with 2 PCF’s a year you have saved a month of time away. Plus there is a lot to be said for the ability to do "9-5" field work, it was on the the things I appreciate in Petawawa. It is also something I appreciate down here, where pretty much every base is also a training area - but there are also some significantly big training areas where units will deploy to for validations.


Administrative moves to and from an urban base to a large-scale training areas is training in its own right that should be practiced often. IMHO we overvalue the need to have training areas collocated with unit lines. It's become a dissatisfier with modern families.
I don't disagree, but I don't see value in small unit sized moves -- I'd rather conduct Bde sized moves to training areas in the US for larger formation training.

Agree with Petawawa and the Lt Bde (albeit I think they are one and the same)
I don't see CANSOF having room for a Lt Bde as well in Pet without an expansion of the training area.

With respect to Latvia I wouldn't. It's just a bde and bde's do not hold aviation - we need to take stock of what aviation resources MND-N will develop into having. Currently they don't have much. Personally I'd have other NATO countries contribute and save all of our aviation for the SOF and Lt bde.
I'm seeing TacHel to provide MedEvac for Latvia as well as potential resupply.
Facilities. Incidentally, I would take 3 Div HQ - rename it 1 Div and move it to Winnipeg to 1) have it collocated with the RCAF to facilitate air movement planning. Since I would move CMTC to Latvia, preposition an armoured brigade there and have all major exercises there we would need a much better planning/coordination working with the RCAF; 2) 1 Divs bdes are spread from Alberta to Ontario. Winnipeg is two hours from its eastern and western units.
Agreed
I'm thinking of ash canning CJOC. Give 1 Div the responsibility for all things Europe and 2 Div for all things North America.
There needs to be a Joint HQ - and not spelled JARMY (the J is silent), I'd rather have the Div HQ's be actual deployable entities (or at least 1 Div) so that leaves the need for Joint HQ for NA, as well as potential Pacific Forces.
I think that if we haven't learned our lesson about trying to fix shithole countries after Afghanistan then we can form a small staff in 2 Div and give them responsibility for that as well. Sure - make it a joint cell. I need to run that around a bunch more - I think centralizing everything in one HQ leads to staff bloat and lethargy.
I think you need to be surgical with staffing and command for it - but I see being able to kill off a lot of other HQ's if one retains CJOC.
 
I’m of the opinion as well that we need a joint command to actually synchronize our overall environments. Right now CJOC is not that but it could be.
I would argue though that we need two joint commands. I would suggest that Canada needs to get on board with combining NORTHCOM into NORAD and taking NORAD from an aerospace defensive construct into a joint combined multi domain defensive construct.

CJOC runs international stuff and a revamped NORAD runs continental stuff.
 
Necessary Staff functions exist and they have to be done by someone. Unnecessary staff functions need to be constantly evaluated and culled without remorse.

That said, you could send every staff officer in CJOC out to pasture and still not see those extra PYs filter down to the Infantry Coy, Flying Sqn, or Ship's Company overnight.
 
“I would suggest that Canada needs to get on board with combining NORTHCOM into NORAD and taking NORAD from an aerospace defensive construct into a joint combined multi domain defensive construct”

That’s a lot of GBA++ job security right there.
 
Back
Top