• 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.
 
Suppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?
I'm cynical enough to think that 15 was chosen so that we could decrease the actual number at some point, but we absolutely do not have anywhere near the infrastructure or resources to be able to crew or maintain 15 of those at the operation pace the RCN is beating the hell out of the CPFs with. The amount of stuff on that ship is mind boggling, so the additional LOE for all the interference items will be big, and the crew is smaller than ever.

We are getting a really capable, but much more complex ship that will need to rely more on fully working equipment and a higher baseline sailor competence compared to what we have now, so even with a lot of industry partnering/ISSCs the navy will need to majorly shift how they do things to actually have an effective capability. That will mean not trying to do a 6 week work period in 4 weeks, not trying to do 5 work periods concurrently with resources for 2, and not relying on ship's staff to manage it all internally. The support tail should significantly increase compared to what we currently have, but don't see that happening (or even enough footprint in the dockyards to expand to do that).
 
Would we not want more ssk's? Less crew and long term less maintenance cost I thought?
We might. I have no idea.
Somebody would have to do the sums with better info than that available in the public domain to folks like me.
My thought was prompted by the notion that things are spinning pretty fast these days and 2008 (15 years ago) is starting to look pretty antique. A 2008 solution in 2040 doesn't feel like it will be the optimal plan.
The Aussies have already decided to cut bait on some of their surface requirements (and their land force requirements for that matter) to do "the other thing".
Is our 2008 plan still a valid Course of Action?
 
Would we not want more ssk's? Less crew and long term less maintenance cost I thought?
Sub maintenance is like taking surface ship maintenance, adding a zero or two to the cost, and then exponentially increasing the time to do the work. It's like going from doing a home reno in a full room to trying and do the same work in a tight crawl space, with a much stricter QC and document requirement for the crawl space stuff. The oversight process is like air worthiness on steroids, and I say that with familiarity with both.

No room for error or skipping maintenance, which is fair given the outcomes, but we couldn't afford to do even a skeleton of that on surface ships.

Bit of a mental shift as a surface ship guy, but it's refreshing to not have to argue for basic safety systems to actually be fully operational, as it's just assumed. There are a few pieces of kit used on the subs and the CPFs, and weirdly their reliability is really high when they have a 95% PM completion rate, instead of high teens. Does cost a lot of time and money though, which we can only afford because we have a small number of subs.
 
At some point, the quantity of usable units (of whatever) has to have a minimum below which it is pointless having anything. Either the minimum is zero, or it isn't. If it isn't, then that amount is a hard floor. If we are struggling to meet commitments and maintain credibility, we're most likely below the hard floor and have to stop reducing.

If I am struggling to meet commitments then I need to reduce my commitments. I may even have to sell off and move and start again.
 
If I am struggling to meet commitments then I need to reduce my commitments. I may even have to sell off and move and start again.
Except, as a rich country that depends on international trade we can't skip out on commitments.

If we can't be bothered to do our part to ensure the "rules based international order" is defended, why should we be allowed to profit from it so greatly?

This is the messaging that politicians have failed to pass on to Canadians, because they don't want to be responsible. They prefer to have more play money for their re-election vote buying, rather than telling Canadian voters hard truths.
 
Except, as a rich country that depends on international trade we can't skip out on commitments.

If we can't be bothered to do our part to ensure the "rules based international order" is defended, why should we be allowed to profit from it so greatly?

This is the messaging that the GoC has failed to pass on to Canadians, and because they don't want to be responsible. They prefer to have more play money for their re-election vote buying, rather than telling Canadian voters hard truths.

Skipping out on commitments is one thing. Rolling them up in conformity with contractual agreements is another.
The end result in terms of relations with the market may be the same in both cases but in one case you have just become irrelevant. In the other case you have become irrelevant and have made enemies.
 
But it could just mean scaling down to what we can actually support, so for the Navy example I think we could chop down to 8 frigates now, which is still probably more than we can actually crew and do the maintenance/repairs on, but 12 is a pipe dream.
Yet here we are planning on 15 x CSCs to replace 12 x CPF, up to 12 x SSKs to replace 4 x Victorias, 2 x JSS coming, an eventual 6 x AOPS and 12 x MCDV's (and their eventual replacements).

Even if we fix our training and retention issues (and how's that going so far?), are there enough Canadians interested enough in going to sea (and under the sea) to fill all those positions?

There seems to be a major disconnect between the capabilities we need and the people we have to do the jobs. And based on the fact that the exact same recruiting and retention issues are being faced by virtually every other Western nation I have serious doubts that anything the CAF does on the personnel front is likely to substantially change the situation. The problem is cultural and demographic. Things like housing allowances, posting policies and operational tempo might shift the situation somewhat to the positive or negative but I don't think they will really change the overall trend.

That fact runs us directly into this reality:
At some point, the quantity of usable units (of whatever) has to have a minimum below which it is pointless having anything. Either the minimum is zero, or it isn't. If it isn't, then that amount is a hard floor. If we are struggling to meet commitments and maintain credibility, we're most likely below the hard floor and have to stop reducing.
I think at some point we have to come to the realization that a way has to be found to realistically match manning to capabilities and that is likely going to require much more radical changes to the way we think about how we meet our minimum capability requirements. Continuing down the same path is the sure route to failure.
 
The 12 SSK's is a pipe dream to me. Hard to take some of those numbers seriously when they are thrown out like taha. There are too many competing needs. As for the 15 CSC's, it wouldnt surprise me if they end up being 12. Its going to be close to 10 yrs before we see the first one so lots of time for things to change. The last batch will coul be the start of new ship/class and slow rolled out in a continuous build cycle as intended
 
The 12 SSK's is a pipe dream to me. Hard to take some of those numbers seriously when they are thrown out like taha. There are too many competing needs. As for the 15 CSC's, it wouldnt surprise me if they end up being 12. Its going to be close to 10 yrs before we see the first one so lots of time for things to change. The last batch will coul be the start of new ship/class and slow rolled out in a continuous build cycle as intended
The fact we won't see the last one till the 2040 is embarrassing , the halifax's will be held with duct tape by then
 
The fact we won't see the last one till the 2040 is embarrassing , the halifax's will be held with duct tape by then
I question that, as it really depends on how quick Irving can get up to speed. BAE slow rolled the 26 out in the UK and Irving should be able to benefit from their and Australias work plus coming off a hot run of AOPS. But even if it was a 6 yr build on the first and delivering a new one every year after

CSC 1 2024-2030
.....
CSC 12 2041

seems unlikely to progress that well both at the start and year over year
 
With Billy Blair at the helm you can count on him not reading his briefing papers. Therefore nothing will happen except more studies and papers which he won't read.

Lather, rinse, repeat until that pension kicks in....
 
The 12 SSK's is a pipe dream to me. Hard to take some of those numbers seriously when they are thrown out like taha. There are too many competing needs. As for the 15 CSC's, it wouldnt surprise me if they end up being 12. Its going to be close to 10 yrs before we see the first one so lots of time for things to change. The last batch will coul be the start of new ship/class and slow rolled out in a continuous build cycle as intended
what it sort of implies to me is a continuous build cycle. We won't ever hit 12 or 15 but there is the potential for a continuous supply rather than build and bust
 
Trudeau's not embarrassed.
No he is not, and that's the sad part....my grandkids are totally.....Fuc*** because of this country's total fail, to actually give a fuc* about the future including Defense, the US at some point will take Canada's resources, so China doesn't get it! Economy is in the toilet with all the Liberal projects, housing / inflation shitshow, this Current government does not give a shit whatsoever!! How many damn NATO countries have to say we are a freeloader!! We have the resources to unfuck this, but won't happen because Greta Says so!! My 2 cents!
 
No he is not, and that's the sad part....my grandkids are totally.....Fuc*** because of this country's total fail, to actually give a fuc* about the future including Defense, the US at some point will take Canada's resources, so China doesn't get it! Economy is in the toilet with all the Liberal projects, housing / inflation shitshow, this Current government does not give a shit whatsoever!! How many damn NATO countries have to say we are a freeloader!! We have the resources to unfuck this, but won't happen because Greta Says so!! My 2 cents!
Couldn't have said it better.
 
Back
Top