• 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.
 
To be clear, if you were an ASW aircraft project manager, I would trust you to get it done right. And under budget…
Been there, tried that (at a lower level). The current system of making sure we don't waste pennies prevents that type of thinking...
 
Harold Macmillan was once asked what the most troubling problem of his Prime Ministership was. ‘Events, my dear boy, events,’ was his reply.

The determination of PP as a leader will be his ability to divert from dogma and policy to react to events. Trudeau has failed miserably in this regard.

On the Defence file... it will take a rather significant event to see any Canadian government divert funding from election promises to CAF funding.

It all depends on what each leader defines as "significant"
History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes.
 

Shooting blanks: Why so many Canadian defence policies fail to launch

Defence policies tend to warn of a world in chaos — this time, the warning was particularly stark - Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Apr 13, 2024

With absolutely no exceptions, every defence policy presented by the Canadian government over the past five decades has presented a vision of the world beyond our borders going to hell in a handbasket.

The wars may be different, the adversaries might change, threats might have evolved — but the language almost always stays the same.

And almost without exception, none of those defence policies ever lived up to their hype, or to the expectations and political spin that accompanied them.

The ink wasn't even dry on some defence policies before they were being dismissed by people in government as unaffordable or overtaken by world events. Others died a quiet, curious death of benign neglect.

But the differences between the security and defence snapshot presented on Monday and those that came before it could not be more stark.

There's a shooting war in Europe — allies are openly talking about being in a "prewar" period. Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic is at, or exceeding, Cold War levels. Canada's own top military commander is calling for the defence industry to be put on a "war footing." And many of the nuclear treaties that underpinned security during the standoff with the former Soviet Union have been dropped in the shredder.

When you look back at the past five decades, if ever there was a time to convince Canadians that the world is a nasty place and is likely to get worse, it's now.

Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of the defence staff, acknowledged the world and Canada are "in a fundamentally different situation now" than they were when previous policy reviews were released.

For that reason, he's arguing for a sense of urgency.

"What keeps me up at night — with the state of the world and what we need to do — is something I've been calling harmful bureaucracy," Eyre said in an interview late Friday with CBC News.

"Because that will inhibit our ability to implement this policy. It will slow us down. It'll be the molasses that does not allow us to proceed apace."

The new policy does contain the expected warnings about how Russia's war in Ukraine represents a threat to the stability of the post-Second World War international order. China was called out for having an eye on the Canadian Arctic, but in language that's more attuned to the tightrope Canada has tried to walk following the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The strategy promises to manage the relationship with Beijing through "frank, open and respectful dialogue."

The policy document also refers to how technology is reshaping conflict in both stark and subtle ways.

But the policy is also a political document, and its unstated intention may have been to prop up the Liberal government in the face of anxious allies and an increasingly uneasy electorate.

It also presents climate change as an important driver of future security threats through threats like natural disasters and forced migration.

Steve Saideman, a political scientist who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, said he believes the emphasis on climate change and the Arctic is meant to sell the defence strategy to a skeptical public and a Parliament that may be reluctant to appropriate billions of dollars.

It also has the side benefit of undercutting a Conservative opposition which, in a previous iteration, made Arctic security an article of faith.

Such a focus does somewhat placate allies who recognize Canada's limited ambitions and even more limited capabilities, and want the country to pick something it can do and do it well.

To see how limited those ambitions are, all you have to do is look back at some of the commitments in previous defence policies.

The 'decade of darkness'

Even as western nations began cashing their so-called "peace dividends" at the end of the Cold War, a previous Liberal government's 1994 defence white paper (one of the few without a snappy title) issued a blunt warning:

"The world is neither more peaceful nor more stable than in the past. Canada's defence policy must reflect the world as it is rather than the world as we would like it to be."

The irony is that, in spite of the document's ominous tone, the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien went on to cut more than $2 billion from the defence budget between 1994 and 1998 (taking it from $12 billion annually to $10 billion). The era was infamously dubbed "the decade of darkness" by a former chief of the defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier.

Still, that defence policy committed to keeping two warships, one battle group of soldiers, an additional infantry battalion group, a squadron of fighter aircraft, a flight of tactical transport aircraft and a headquarters contingent ready to deploy on multinational operations, either United Nations or NATO.

That would have been a commitment three decades ago of 4,000 military members.

Today, Canada is struggling to bulk up to a brigade of 2,200 soldiers as part of the NATO mission in Latvia. It periodically deploys frigates and minesweepers but has taken a step back from fighter jets.

All of that speaks to the need to replace decades-old jets and warships, including submarines.

The new policy talks about exploring options to acquire replacements for the second-hand Victoria-class submarines. Despite already having a proposal from the navy for eight to 12 conventional boats, the matter requires further study, Eyre said.

At the media availability that announced the policy, both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Defence Minister Bill Blair made the submarine program sound like a certainty. They also suggested the government would consider acquiring a nuclear-powered boat — a nod to Canada's exclusion from the AUKUS security arrangement involving the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

A previous defence policy — Challenge and Commitment, released by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney — proposed the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines to patrol under the ice of Canada's Arctic.
In words that wouldn't be out of place in the latest defence policy, the 1987 policy review "confirmed that [Canada is] not able to meet [military] commitments fully and effectively. After decades of neglect, there is indeed a significant commitment-capability."

A little more than three years later, the Cold War was over and Mulroney's government was in deficit-cutting mode. The nuclear submarine proposal was the first thing to go.

Promise now, pay later

The fact that much of the funding in the new defence policy is backloaded to future years continues, in some respects, a tradition of previous Canadian governments.

In 1994, the federal Liberals promised to begin the process of replacing the navy's supply ships (a project still underway today). The Conservatives of 2008 said the Armed Forces would reach its assigned strength in 2028.
If there is a constant feature of five decades of these defence policies, it's their ad hoc, political nature.

"In a Canadian context, this is like a potentially generationally significant commitment of funding towards the military, if it can actually get out the door and spent," said Dave Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, who noted the last Liberal defence policy had a number of pretty promising initiatives.
"But those didn't seem to have a huge impact so far. So I think [there are] a lot of good ideas here [but] the real crux will be what can actually be implemented and done with them."

 
We did the 'three monkeys' thing before WWII. To be fair, a lot of countries did but, even after it started, we still did our best to simultaneously look the other way and appear intensely interested at the same time.

How many houses have fire extinguishers? How many would have smoke detectors if they weren't mandated. We're a funny bunch.
 
We did the 'three monkeys' thing before WWII. To be fair, a lot of countries did but, even after it started, we still did our best to simultaneously look the other way and appear intensely interested at the same time.

How many houses have fire extinguishers? How many would have smoke detectors if they weren't mandated. We're a funny bunch.
Good point.

Probably an unpopular opinion but even in the (slightly glorified) days of WWI and WWII, we were still 2nd/3rd fiddle to the Brits and later the Americans. Our entire Naval narrative in WWII was “the little train that could” and a huge part of the RCAF is the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. If you read some of the memoirs, etc of WWII Corvette crews, they were rushed in and somehow did the job, almost in spite of circumstances.

We had a huge Navy and Air Force, but having X hulls or Y aircraft doesn’t mean X “combat capable ships” or Y “combat capable aircraft”. Not to mention what the maintenance rates would be…
 
Last edited:
Good point.

Probably an unpopular opinion but even in the (slightly glorified) days of WWI and WWII, we were still 2nd/3rd fiddle to the Brits and later the Americans.
But now, we wouldn’t be second fiddle. We’d be hard pressed to be a groupie in the nosebleeds.
 
But now, we wouldn’t be second fiddle. We’d be hard pressed to be a groupie in the nosebleeds.
There's a theory that was floating around that if we'd been able to manage an Army Group we might have gotten a seat on the Security Council.
I don't buy it myself.
 
But now, we wouldn’t be second fiddle. We’d be hard pressed to be a groupie in the nosebleeds.
We know the state of our equipment (stated and unstated) better than most, but I would hazard a guess that we don’t know the same on our allies and so on - and we rely on their news.

I would really want to have an actual breakdown of the NATO countries including their supposed serviceability rates and personnel issues. I have harped on this before but part of the reason why we think we’re worse off than [insert allied country] is because we don’t have inside info on how good/bad their forces are in comparison, and some of their media don’t talk about it.

They, in turn, don’t know anything beyond what our media shows - if they read it at all.
 
We did the 'three monkeys' thing before WWII. To be fair, a lot of countries did but, even after it started, we still did our best to simultaneously look the other way and appear intensely interested at the same time.

How many houses have fire extinguishers? How many would have smoke detectors if they weren't mandated. We're a funny bunch.
And Mackenzie King did not want to deploy troops. His thought was that the BCATP would suffice......That worked out so well.
 
I seem to recall reading that first we weren't even going to deploy ground troops. Then it was a Brigade and then a Division .
The Government of the day was apparently blindsided by the depth of public support for the war. In some cases they actually seemed baffled by it .
 
I seem to recall reading that first we weren't even going to deploy ground troops. Then it was a Brigade and then a Division .
The Government of the day was apparently blindsided by the depth of public support for the war. In some cases they actually seemed baffled by it .
Much like this government is baffled by a lot of things.
 
There's a theory that was floating around that if we'd been able to manage an Army Group we might have gotten a seat on the Security Council.
I don't buy it myself.
Might have been close to being possible as only about 50% of Canadian military personnel deployed vs 75% in our allied countries. If we had deployed the same numbers as the Americans and Australians we likely could have seen 7/8 divisions and an additional armored brigade. By the end of the war you might have maybe 2 armies but the Canadian push into the Cinderella Campaign would lead to high casualties that would likely lead to a removal of a division to beef up the numbers.
 
Might have been close to being possible as only about 50% of Canadian military personnel deployed vs 75% in our allied countries. If we had deployed the same numbers as the Americans and Australians we likely could have seen 7/8 divisions and an additional armored brigade. By the end of the war you might have maybe 2 armies but the Canadian push into the Cinderella Campaign would lead to high casualties that would likely lead to a removal of a division to beef up the numbers.
Or the removal of a Liberal Party government. Conscription if necessary, not necessarily conscription.
 
The companies, other govts, etc all have a say as well.

We don’t buy enough of anything to get ahead in line, unlike say the US.
Forget getting in line, in some cases they don't even want to spend money on putting in a bid because we are such a dodgy customer.

On the parts side OEMs just refuse to even put in bids for small orders because the profits don't cover the bid paperwork (which is fun now that our NICP has been cut and now down to just HPRs.... no one is going to bid on a 1000 dollar RFP for 2 parts).
 
Back
Top