• 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.
 
Part of the political issue I see as well is NDHQ needs start saying "No" the politicians keep committing us to things like a full brigade it Latvia, etc tell us to make it happen while trying to rebuild, reconstitute etc. We are getting pulled in every direction, not to mention domestic ops, and No one seems to be willing to say "sorry sir we can't actually meet these commitments" to the MND or cabinet.
When someone gives you $31 Billion a year, and you spend half of it on salaries, you better have a darn good excuse for saying no.

🍻
 
Working on packages is one thing, rotating good positions of crews every 2 or 3 months is another.

It's also one thing for engineers and another for Ops folks.

We pushed back very hard and beat most of it away, we were lucky.
Yeah, fair point, I think that's insane. Even with the people taking deployed leave you can get it covered by a small group so that one person will cover off 4 or 5 leave blocks for their peers so the actual rotation of crew is pretty minimal, aside from the one off positions, where it's a Command call if they can get it.
 
When someone gives you $31 Billion a year, and you spend half of it on salaries, you better have a darn good excuse for saying no.

🍻
That doesn't really translate into working equipment though when budgets for parts, training, in service projects etc get cut, and capitol projects get slowed down by the government (while also needing more people to do the project work because of the ludicrous bureaucracy).

Because the ops tempo is so high whatever is left is just spread thin so that instead of having some sustainable capability and some capability gaps, we've burned the candles at both ends for long enough to break everything or let it rust out.

At the moment for this year I don't have funding to support basic ongoing maintenance for life saving equipment that is required to make sure it stays working, so trying to figure out what is the lowest priority fire fighting equipment that will get cut. Not even really talking about anything fancy, just basic COTs equipment that meets commercial marine rules.
 
That doesn't really translate into working equipment though when budgets for parts, training, in service projects etc get cut, and capitol projects get slowed down by the government (while also needing more people to do the project work because of the ludicrous bureaucracy).

Because the ops tempo is so high whatever is left is just spread thin so that instead of having some sustainable capability and some capability gaps, we've burned the candles at both ends for long enough to break everything or let it rust out.

At the moment for this year I don't have funding to support basic ongoing maintenance for life saving equipment that is required to make sure it stays working, so trying to figure out what is the lowest priority fire fighting equipment that will get cut. Not even really talking about anything fancy, just basic COTs equipment that meets commercial marine rules.

Excuse Me Reaction GIF by Laff


Dumb aircrew question here:

If aircraft don’t have the working Aircraft Life Saving Equipment onboard, it’s grounded. Why is that principle not the same for ships, aside from COs not wanting to “look bad”?

I put “look bad” in quotes because to me, having a fire or something onboard and not having enough equipment to fight it is slightly more embarrassing than not sailing because of it.
 
That doesn't really translate into working equipment though when budgets for parts, training, in service projects etc get cut, and capitol projects get slowed down by the government (while also needing more people to do the project work because of the ludicrous bureaucracy).

Because the ops tempo is so high whatever is left is just spread thin so that instead of having some sustainable capability and some capability gaps, we've burned the candles at both ends for long enough to break everything or let it rust out.

At the moment for this year I don't have funding to support basic ongoing maintenance for life saving equipment that is required to make sure it stays working, so trying to figure out what is the lowest priority fire fighting equipment that will get cut. Not even really talking about anything fancy, just basic COTs equipment that meets commercial marine rules.
I think that kind of proves the point that @FJAG was trying to make. If you can't afford to properly equip all the salaries you're paying then perhaps you have to reduce the amount you're spending on salaries (by either reducing the number of PY's where possible or as he'd suggest changing some of those salaries from full-time to cheaper part-time salaries) in order to free up the money required to properly equip (and maintain) the force.
 
I think that kind of proves the point that @FJAG was trying to make. If you can't afford to properly equip all the salaries you're paying then perhaps you have to reduce the amount you're spending on salaries (by either reducing the number of PY's where possible or as he'd suggest changing some of those salaries from full-time to cheaper part-time salaries) in order to free up the money required to properly equip (and maintain) the force.

Even if you can't swap person dollars for kit dollars why are you spending money on people you can't employ because they don't have kit?

And I know that people will argue that they are short of people but if you are also short of working hulls then tie up half the fleet.

Sometimes you just have to say "you can't get there from here."
 
Excuse Me Reaction GIF by Laff


Dumb aircrew question here:

If aircraft don’t have the working Aircraft Life Saving Equipment onboard, it’s grounded. Why is that principle not the same for ships, aside from COs not wanting to “look bad”?

I put “look bad” in quotes because to me, having a fire or something onboard and not having enough equipment to fight it is slightly more embarrassing than not sailing because of it.
We 'accept the risk', and ships frequently deploy on HR operations with defects that don't meet basic SOLAS requirements (let alone have combat survivability capabilities).

It's a bone of contention as we used to delay sailings sometimes to actually repair things; that's a lot more rare, even though the ships are in worse condition. We have theoretical certification but it's a rubber stamp exercise, and even when we've recommended some safety areas not get certified it gets it anyway.

@GR66, not really, they are different pots of money, and it's not like people aren't busy, it's just that everyone is running around plugging holes and doing work arounds and mitigations vice actually just fixing things and doing their job. So it's a high LOE for a lot lower effective return in actual operational capacity. It's like the old line that it costs a lot to be poor because you replace your cheap shoes a lot more.
 
Even if you can't swap person dollars for kit dollars why are you spending money on people you can't employ because they don't have kit?

And I know that people will argue that they are short of people but if you are also short of working hulls then tie up half the fleet.

Sometimes you just have to say "you can't get there from here."

Because we have uniformed senior leadership that won't say no to the Government and their commitments.

And that trickles down throughout the CAF to the tactical level.
 
We also have a Tactical level that will not tell the truth to the Strategic Level. And the tools to see system wide readiness are poor.
We do tell truth at the tactical level. The problem is that there is apathy after a while of being told your tactical problem is not in keeping with the strategic vision of those on high that are, in turn, affecting the tactical level.

I can look up and out as much as the next leader, but when I have no kit, half my pers, and double the work load... I am putting out fires more than I am giving a shit about where we're going as the CAF or how it fits in with "strategic visioning."

Strategic visioning doesn't make us fit to fight tonight.
 
Last edited:
I reckon the problem solves itself when sea-cocks won't close.
 
it is interesting to see the comments here on people in the chain needing to stand up. It is important to note that this at times starts at the lower levels and feeds upwards so the high levels are actually aware of the issues.

A good example. Those in the reserves long enough will remember the good old OOPS, I mean IRPPS system in the early 90s. I once had a meeting with the LF Comd and told him straight up what I thought of the system and the issues involved. He mentioned that the day before he had been to the Compt shop and the Cpl there told him everything was great. I showed him my file of system errors affecting mbrs pay that I filed with Ottawa everyday along with the list of local payments I arranged and he was shocked. The big issue was that right down to the lowest level he was told the system was working great when it wasn't thus when he had meetings with higher he was not raising any concerns. The same people that told him everything was great would also complain that nothing was getting done to fix it. I asked what did they expect the Comd to push for fixing when they told him there was nothing to be fixed. Of course in true military style I was the bad guy because I didn't play along and pretend for the Comd everything was good.

I have continued to see this same thing play out over the years where people continue to blow smoke up the senior officers butts and then complain about them not taking the action they believe should be done. If you are aware of the fault and don't mention it when presented with the opportunity then you have become part of the fault. Sure there is the chance nothing will change but at least you did your part.
 
Who'd imagine that would be the result of a promotion system that revolves around making yourself look as good as possible to the people above you... 😉
being more about who you know rather then how good you are at your job is how many units are a mess.
 
it is interesting to see the comments here on people in the chain needing to stand up. It is important to note that this at times starts at the lower levels and feeds upwards so the high levels are actually aware of the issues.

A good example. Those in the reserves long enough will remember the good old OOPS, I mean IRPPS system in the early 90s. I once had a meeting with the LF Comd and told him straight up what I thought of the system and the issues involved. He mentioned that the day before he had been to the Compt shop and the Cpl there told him everything was great. I showed him my file of system errors affecting mbrs pay that I filed with Ottawa everyday along with the list of local payments I arranged and he was shocked. The big issue was that right down to the lowest level he was told the system was working great when it wasn't thus when he had meetings with higher he was not raising any concerns. The same people that told him everything was great would also complain that nothing was getting done to fix it. I asked what did they expect the Comd to push for fixing when they told him there was nothing to be fixed. Of course in true military style I was the bad guy because I didn't play along and pretend for the Comd everything was good.

I have continued to see this same thing play out over the years where people continue to blow smoke up the senior officers butts and then complain about them not taking the action they believe should be done. If you are aware of the fault and don't mention it when presented with the opportunity then you have become part of the fault. Sure there is the chance nothing will change but at least you did your part.

Courage takes all sorts of forms, doesn't it?
 
I think that kind of proves the point that @FJAG was trying to make. If you can't afford to properly equip all the salaries you're paying then perhaps you have to reduce the amount you're spending on salaries (by either reducing the number of PY's where possible or as he'd suggest changing some of those salaries from full-time to cheaper part-time salaries) in order to free up the money required to properly equip (and maintain) the force.
Why is it that the civil service can increase by 20% with nary a word said in opposition. Each of those positions require specific equipment to do the mandated task: be it computer, desk, automobile or whatever. So each new employee is equipped with the tools required. What is so different with the military? There are specific designated tasks requiring a known number of PYs and each task requires specific equipment that costs X dollars. That is simple logic. So if the government wants to reduce costs, it must look at reducing task assignment or it must justify doing more with less. It shouldn't be up to the generals to suggest that you don't need specific equipment
 
Even if you can't swap person dollars for kit dollars why are you spending money on people you can't employ because they don't have kit?

And I know that people will argue that they are short of people but if you are also short of working hulls then tie up half the fleet.

Sometimes you just have to say "you can't get there from here."
Cut pers numbers, and you'll still end up at salary being about 50% of the budget. It will happen because over time the only thing the GoC can't really cut from the CAF is pay.

We have already tried the race to the bottom approach to national defence. Digging through the bottom won't fix anything.
 
Why is it that the civil service can increase by 20% with nary a word said in opposition. Each of those positions require specific equipment to do the mandated task: be it computer, desk, automobile or whatever. So each new employee is equipped with the tools required. What is so different with the military? There are specific designated tasks requiring a known number of PYs and each task requires specific equipment that costs X dollars. That is simple logic. So if the government wants to reduce costs, it must look at reducing task assignment or it must justify doing more with less. It shouldn't be up to the generals to suggest that you don't need specific equipment

If all of those people had been tasked to DND support, CSE, Transport Canada, Canadian Space Agency and a multitude of other civil-military capabilities, even Mounties, Border Security, Environment Patrols, SAR, Emergency Response people then I would not be complaining. It would leave the uniformed CAF personnel focused on there primary task as defined by one of your previous CDS.

"We are not the Public Service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people,"

If I were Poilievre, and were dealt the hand that he has I wouldn't be firing Trudeau's new hires. I would be reassigning them. Billets in Resolute, Cambridge Bay, Whitehorse and Iqaluit sound good for starters.
 
Back
Top