• 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.
 
I recently heard a GO/FO Log O, in person, tell me its time we start letting things fail... I was shocked...
Morgan Freeman Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 
We agree it’s equally as valuable then as now. We disagree on its value.
Which is completely fine, I don't expect anyone to agree completely on anything. That type of constructive tension is what the CAF needs more of.

We hire based on intakes, I’m surprised yo don’t know that. Our intakes are limited by our training establishment. Not saying there’s not efficiency to be found there but your characterization of it is way off. Similarly I disagree with worst of the worst to the recruiting group, maybe their head quarters by the actual coal face? Not true.
Yes we hire based off intakes but the time it takes from application to trained soldier/sailor/airmen from entry to OFP is WAY TOO LONG. We aren't building rocket scientists here.

Training establishments aren't going to grow in size and it's a fools errand to think it will. What we can control is the velocity of throughput for our school houses.

I think there is a lot of fat that could be shaved off QSTPs in many different programs.

I will use Air Assault School as an example:

It's 12 days long. Days are 18 hour days each and time usage is maximized. They squeeze a lot of information in to a very small window of time with Ex Checks built in throughout. They put 150+ candidates through the course with 8 instructors. If the CAF ran a similar course, it would be 6+ weeks long, 8 to 4 coffee course with weekends off. It would be capped at 30 students and would have have 8 instructors, a couple of storesman, a Course Warrant Officer and a Platoon Comd because the CAF always needs an Officer.

CAF IT across the board is boutique in nature goes with the most expensive option. Now I will admit that the product at the other end is very proficient technically speaking but how much value are we getting for what we are spending?

I've been to many different training establishments around the globe and seen how our partners do things and ours is not the only RIGHT way.

There will always be a need to have School Houses simply to teach advanced skillsets and courses.
When NEP puts people to ships we shall see, I don’t know how effective it’ll be. I am completely and totally opposed to making operational units the trainers. It reduces readiness, it make progression in collective training impossible, and dilutes cohesive teams. I need people going into the combat arms that can already need their operational function point.
Disagree. The Army could learn from the Navy in this regard. The Navy has been doing it for years...

FDU & NTOG are rather small units that manage to generate very capable teams continuously for operations while also running school houses and serving as centres of excellence for their respective skillsets.

Neat, I don’t see that working for us.



See above



You can add space for trainees, we can’t. I won’t be adding a trainee spot in the or at for an operational platoon.
Who said anything about integrating them in to rifle companies? Separate entity contained within the Battalion it self.

Company X is going to the range today... Recruit Bloggins and their Section in training will also be accompanying them to do some shooting.

IPSWQ is running... Training Section will also be doing the shoot.

The Reserves have been training people this way for decades. There will be a need at times to consolidate for CT but this could also be managed at the Brigade Level. It would help tremendously if we didn't have a bunch of paper units at half strength in all our formations.

There are a lot of ways to skin this cat. This would also cut down on superfluous cost moves and relocations around the Country.
Agreed, but I see our requirements for someone arriving at work far more inline with the RCMP and CN Rail.
CN actually has their own School. All training is conducted there and their model is more in line with the CAF.

CN Campus
+1 844-872-4626

CN Campus - Google Search

It's World Class:

cn.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


We have a similar setup in Calgary but mostly only run advanced courses there and do things slightly differently. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.

Air movements and LRP are ridiculously busy and don't get the recognition they deserve.

For the Navy in waist lines maybe... But We defiantly aren't floating in people, mean while our government issued to do list keeps growing.

I don't think we need a regular force Army, beyond some SOF, so I'm probably too biased to comment on them.

*Side note, NEPs don't go direct to ships. But the ones I am at sea with right now seem to be loving it; and every one of them wants to sign on after the year, until we started hitting these heavy seas today. Now a few of them are taking naps lol.

Yes, the Air Force runs the best program IMO. The Navy needs to divest Ships and HQ Bloat and put the people it does have to better use.

We need a standing Army simply to maintain certain functions and a general purpose combat capability.

Special Operations Forces should be expanded.
 
Which is completely fine, I don't expect anyone to agree completely on anything. That type of constructive tension is what the CAF needs more of.

Cheers

Yes we hire based off intakes but the time it takes from application to trained soldier/sailor/airmen from entry to OFP is WAY TOO LONG. We aren't building rocket scientists here.

Training establishments aren't going to grow in size and it's a fools errand to think it will. What we can control is the velocity of throughput for our school houses.

I think there is a lot of fat that could be shaved off QSTPs in many different programs.

Why can’t training establishments grow, or at least be fully manned.

I will use Air Assault School as an example:

It's 12 days long. Days are 18 hour days each and time usage is maximized. They squeeze a lot of information in to a very small window of time with Ex Checks built in throughout. They put 150+ candidates through the course with 8 instructors. If the CAF ran a similar course, it would be 6+ weeks long, 8 to 4 coffee course with weekends off. It would be capped at 30 students and would have have 8 instructors, a couple of storesman, a Course Warrant Officer and a Platoon Comd because the CAF always needs an Officer.

It also teaches you two things - rappelling and sling loads. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

US Army course can have those ratios because they employ a series of specialist sections to teach tasks - ie the weapons classes are taught by the weapons instructors and it’s a whole different crew. I’d be curious if when that was all added up what the is try to studen ratio actually looked like.

Not saying we can’t cut time out of courses but I think the student instructor ratio is the wrong tree to bark up.


CAF IT across the board is boutique in nature goes with the most expensive option. Now I will admit that the product at the other end is very proficient technically speaking but how much value are we getting for what we are spending?

I've been to many different training establishments around the globe and seen how our partners do things and ours is not the only RIGHT way.

Agreed, it’s also not the worst way.

There will always be a need to have School Houses simply to teach advanced skillsets and courses.

Disagree. The Army could learn from the Navy in this regard. The Navy has been doing it for years...

NEP aren’t going straight to ships so apparently they haven’t been.

FDU & NTOG are rather small units that manage to generate very capable teams continuously for operations while also running school houses and serving as centres of excellence for their respective skillsets.


Who said anything about integrating them in to rifle companies? Separate entity contained within the Battalion it self.

Well you did when you related it to being on ships - ie part of the operational “crew”
Company X is going to the range today... Recruit Bloggins and their Section in training will also be accompanying them to do some shooting.

IPSWQ is running... Training Section will also be doing the shoot.

The Reserves have been training people this way for decades. There will be a need at times to consolidate for CT but this could also be managed at the Brigade Level. It would help tremendously if we didn't have a bunch of paper units at half strength in all our formations.

I frankly fail to see the difference. In one model soldiers are training at a training center through a specific program, and when they’re ready they join line units. In the other they stay in a training company until they’ve hit a series of bench marks and move to a line company. Six of one half a dozen of the other. One however will be more stream lined.

The reserves does not train people this way. They hold people
In training platoon sure, but it’s a localized PAT platoon until they can go on course. They don’t have peopel
Drop in here and there and tick off POs.


There are a lot of ways to skin this cat. This would also cut down on superfluous cost moves and relocations around the Country.

This is agree on, less Mega more one station training.

CN actually has their own School. All training is conducted there and their model is more in line with the CAF.

CN Campus
+1 844-872-4626

CN Campus - Google Search

It's World Class:

cn.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


We have a similar setup in Calgary but mostly only run advanced courses there and do things slightly differently. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.



Yes, the Air Force runs the best program IMO. The Navy needs to divest Ships and HQ Bloat and put the people it does have to better use.

We need a standing Army simply to maintain certain functions and a general purpose combat capability.

Special Operations Forces should be expanded.
 
@markppcli the Navy also integrates trainees in to all depts on Ships. Now they have to have a few baseline courses:

Firefighting, Sea Survival, etc but trainees get given a package when they arrive on Ship. They are employed to their skillsets but work on their package to reach OFP during their first tour.

The Army and Navy train people far differently. I like portions of both methods.

I've personally sailed with a bunch of trainees on board. Was this Ship on Ops? No, but we had just got back from a deployment and what better way to teach the new people than have them with a Ship's Coy that just finished a deployment.

The only thing we were pissed about was the Navy cut our post-deployment leave short to Force Generate. That was wrong but that speaks to how stupid this organization is at times.

My brother had had NEP pers onboard his Ship. They were given a condensed BMQ and sent aboard.
 
My brother had had NEP pers onboard his Ship. They were given a condensed BMQ and sent aboard.
My GF's boy is NEP and is just ending week 4 at CFLRS. i think they reach half way next week so its a 9 week BMQ. Then off to Halifax (his choice) to do NETP and maybe NBP training if there isn't a ship immediately available.
 
The former CDS seems to think differently:


Personnel expenses are your biggest capital line item (roughly 60%) and are what you have the most control over.

If you want the fancy new gear, the money needs to come from somewhere. Many personnel are not gainfully employed at the moment.

CAF needs way less tail, way more tooth.

View attachment 83612
I mentioned in another thread but the numbers are off for the ADF - they have 219 Reg F GOFOs and something like 250 Reserve GOFOs for 55000 total pers.

Not sure about the USMC.
 

He totally is... I was just shocked to hear it from a GO/FO...

FDU & NTOG are rather small units that manage to generate very capable teams continuously for operations while also running school houses and serving as centres of excellence for their respective skillsets.

Lets not get crazy now. FDU perhaps; but I could debate this as well, but NTOG ? Why do we even still have them ?

 Yes, the Air Force runs the best program IMO. The Navy needs to divest Ships and HQ Bloat and put the people it does have to better use.

We need a standing Army simply to maintain certain functions and a general purpose combat capability.

Special Operations Forces should be expanded.

A small standing army of technicians and mechanics to keep things going and the lights on, but Just them and some SOF is all we really need. We really have no use for expeditionary land forces, and what we have would be better used for arctic and other territorial defence taskings.

We would be much better off putting our eggs in the Air and Sea forces baskets. Leave the expeditionary work to the RCN and RCAF. Pushing and guarding shipping lanes.

I've debated this many times here, you wont move me on it.

My GF's boy is NEP and is just ending week 4 at CFLRS. i think they reach half way next week so its a 9 week BMQ. Then off to Halifax (his choice) to do NETP and maybe NBP training if there isn't a ship immediately available.

Correct NEP folks do the same basic training as everyone else. They do Basic, then NETP and then they have a package to get signed off that takes them through all the different trades and units, shore and sea, in the RCN.
 
administrative jobs we can outsource to civi's to free up PYs for other duties. I agree we do not have enough people in the right places.
Yeah because outsourcing them has always worked for us. How's that ERC going so we can advance this enrolment? Still waiting, it's only been 4 months, usually takes 6. I remember when that came up while in Ottawa. Nice young officers floated the idea to cut the clerks and hire civilians instead. Kinda of went astray when we asked when so we could transition over and not have to work evenings and weekends when they decided they absolutely needed the report they had dragged their heals on done.
 
Yeah because outsourcing them has always worked for us. How's that ERC going so we can advance this enrolment? Still waiting, it's only been 4 months, usually takes 6. I remember when that came up while in Ottawa. Nice young officers floated the idea to cut the clerks and hire civilians instead. Kinda of went astray when we asked when so we could transition over and not have to work evenings and weekends when they decided they absolutely needed the report they had dragged their heals on done.
So then ask your self is it not working because of outsourcing it self, or a lack of accountability?
 
This is agree on, less Mega more one station training.
Would a training platoon/company/regimental or brigade training depot/whatever delivering DP1 colocated with the units offer any useful cooperative training opportunities?
 
We would be much better off putting our eggs in the Air and Sea forces baskets. Leave the expeditionary work to the RCN and RCAF. Pushing and guarding shipping lanes.
Nelson called, he wants his 18th century "ships rule the world" era back.

We could triple the RCN and still be essentially useless and tied to the USN. We are not and will not ever be a force projection Navy nor will we guard anything other than our own coasts or token single ship deployments glued in as a curious little brother to NATO or USN fleets.
 
Would a training platoon/company/regimental or brigade training depot/whatever delivering DP1 colocated with the units offer any useful cooperative training opportunities?
Probably not, that’s essentially what we do now with DP being out at various schools. We take a recruit and fly them to Montreal, then fly them to a training g centre to wait for a course to start, then after a month or two they start their course to be posted to a unit. I think we achieve greater efficiency and streamlining by doing precisely the opposite and moving our training to a centralized one stop shop model. That way we fly the recruit to training, and then to their unit with less waiting on Pat and fewer dollars on travel while maintain critical mass to keep courses going and not adding work load to operational units.
 
Nelson called, he wants his 18th century "ships rule the world" era back.

We could triple the RCN and still be essentially useless and tied to the USN. We are not and will not ever be a force projection Navy nor will we guard anything other than our own coasts or token single ship deployments glued in as a curious little brother to NATO or USN fleets.
You also seem to forget that NATO fleets consist of member countries contributing a ship or two. If the RCN had 20-30 CSCs in Halifax, we could dispatch more than a couple of ships to NATO TGs. This would enable other NATO allies to concentrate more on land forces in Europe, where any NATO conflict would actually occur.

I don't share @Halifax Tar's extreme view of "cutting the CA", but a smaller standing army with a much larger RCN and RCAF would actually benefit our allies more regularly.
 
Nelson called, he wants his 18th century "ships rule the world" era back.
However, even in this day and age, warships still do have an impact. You can’t keep aircraft on station over an area for too long without a replacement, but you can park a naval task group outside a hotspot for a while, obviously with resupply at some point.

The distance outside said hotspots can be pretty far too, since many warships can laugh Tomahawk or equivalent cruise missiles.

Then there are the carriers.
 
The former CDS seems to think differently:
Two points - 1) that was 2014 when the defence budget was $17B (1% GDP) - it's gone to $27B (1.3% GDP). That's a big differences; and 2) he said "full-time soldiers." I tend to agree - cut the full-time bureaucracy that is DND, reduce the RegF to a solid quick reaction force and a solid cadre and improve the part-time force. You'll save bunches of money.

But no. A thousand excuses will be voiced about why a part-time force won't work.

🍻
 
That’s because we have one guy doing ID cards nationally. We need more people doing that not less. I agree we have assume dysfunctions, but we are running into problems because we are lacking enough people in those support functions.
They can turn out passports faster than that. ID cards aren't magical. Take a photo at the recruiting centre - after that the process can be fully automated. The CAF is a process-bound institution. Many of them can be streamlined. Some can be completely thrown out. Fire half the lawyers as a starter and see how much simpler life becomes.

🍻
 
Last edited:
administrative jobs we can outsource to civi's to free up PYs for other duties. I agree we do not have enough people in the right places.
PYs are based on money. Outsource the function and the salary money goes to the contractor. The PY isn't freed up; it's eliminated.

🍻
 
They can turn out passports faster than that. ID cards aren't magical. Take a photo at the recruiting centre - after that the process can be fully automated. The CAF is a process-bound institution. Many of them can be streamlined. Some can be completely thrown out. Fire half the lawyers as a starter and see how much simpler life becomes.

🍻
Never really been sure why there isn't a card printer at each ID section. I'm sure they're expensive, but what's the value of getting rid of the hassle for the member, the process of mailing cards back and forth, and the NDI 10 craft project?
 
Nelson called, he wants his 18th century "ships rule the world" era back.

We could triple the RCN and still be essentially useless and tied to the USN. We are not and will not ever be a force projection Navy nor will we guard anything other than our own coasts or token single ship deployments glued in as a curious little brother to NATO or USN fleets.

They do. The worlds economy runs on ships at sea. Our (NATOs) ability fight any conflict will depend on ruling the North Atlantic, just like WW2. Any fight in Asia with China will be a Naval and Air war and any ground forces will depend on secure sea lanes to fight.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but Canada could provide more by being a bigger player at sea than anything we could do on land.

I also really like getting Army guys all wound up.
 
Back
Top