• 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.
 
Shows it's all about him. Disrespectful/despicable.

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Why was Trudeau's seat empty at NATO summit?



The complete video.


Accepting the impoliteness of showing up on his own time (I loved the Norwegian Admiral's stare), I have to say that I couldn't find anything to fault in the words Trudeau spoke.

My problem with him is with him. I never know if the words he speaks are his words, or if he believes his words or if he will honour his words. Or his team will honour the words that he mouths.
 
The whole concept of globalization of trade is that buying your products where they are most efficiently (and cost effectively) produced leaves you with more money to spend on other things.
But you lose the local multiplier effect within the Canadian economy that would be gained by spending the money internally where it ends up in the hands of Canadian workers and a Canadian company.

The important thing is to develop the industry in such a way that rather than having bursts of production and then done (like our current vehicle fleets are), the business becomes a permanent one that turns out a continuous stream of products (even if in smaller annual amounts) so that all the peripheral industries and services also become permanent.

🍻
 
You are correct wrt goods but services are supplied with human capital and hiring 100 taxpayers to make ammunition for inventory, or another thousand to train to react to emergencies also contributes to the defence effort but the money basically comes from the public service and welfare budgets.

That money can be pumped up with little or no effect on the domestic economy. Using those resources leaves foreign exchange in the kitty to buy equipment overseas or to buy licences that would allow more Canadians to be put to work domestically.

Estonia can spend 4% of GDP on defense and have 90% of the funds spent on the domestic economy with 100% of the benefit being domestic.

The 10% (0.4% of GDP) that they spend externally can all be spent on foreign equipment.

And any equipment that they produce domestically, guns, bullets or batteries, can all be sold internationally to offset the costs of the foreign exchange loss.

People focus on the capital sales but as I learned working for a capital equipment supplier the profits all came from the consumables and after sales parts. Services, such as design and training were also profitable.

If I were in power I wouldnt be building tanks or howitzers in Canada. I would be manufacturing bullets and small calibre missiles and rockets. Radios and Optics. Small arms and UAVs and UUVs.

I would also be building fuel cells and selling fuels, Coal, Diesel, LNG and even Hydrogen from whatever source we can get it economically.

100%

No OEM has every lost money on service parts.
 
If I were in power I wouldnt be building tanks or howitzers in Canada. I would be manufacturing bullets and small calibre missiles and rockets. Radios and Optics. Small arms and UAVs and UUVs.
I agree. It's hard to create a continuing production line for such things as tanks and howitzers but things like trucks, which we need in the thousands could become a continuing industry if produced in smaller lots of several hundred per year.

OTOH, we have an existing production facility for armoured vehicles in London. Conceivably a part of that line could be used to turn out say a squadron's worth of tanks under licence per year without disrupting its other lines. That could keep the line running for a decade on initial production and longer on upgrades.

🍻
 
I could be wrong, but think we include some other departments (like the Coast Guard), because of how our general org chart breaks down compared to other countries, and other things like the procurement side of things the cost for the other departments is rolled into it as well, as there is a weird billing arrangement to 'cover' the SWE (even though regardless of what lower line items say people will still get paycheques from the GoC).

I think if you looked at some things from a functional viewpoint, we have a few agencies outside DND doing similar things to what the US does under the DoD umbrella.

They are definitely reaching though, and trying to tie the Canadarm to defence spending is a bit of a stretch.

It is pretty embarassing though when the PR lines are you are sailing on a modernized warship with all the bells and whistles, and then you pull into a port and go around seeing if anyone has an electric switch to keep your 30 year old black water collection system running so the toilets work (and then Command staff not letting you buy the part off Amazon for next day delivery). Nothing quite like being in Jacksonville getting port-o-potties on the jetty for the weekend (and then waiting for CTG staff to go ashore before sending someone with some goodies to visit the USN ships to get a part on the down low and modifying it).
FFS. I’d ask if you’re joking but we know you’re not.
 
@KevinB on the plus side, both the USN and USCG are great to work with, and provide a huge amount of support when we ask. Usually go over looking for a simple part or help machining/fabricating something, come back with a box of other stuff and/or techs to help fix things, and then host them for beers afterwards to say thanks. It's a bit of a form of lower deck/juniour officer diplomacy I guess but do get the feeling that there is some pity and headshaking involved and 'you guys are nuts, lol' kind of reactions.
A bottle of Bailey’s in Sub Base Pearl once got me 4 start pack hoses made from scratch with fittings and pressure tested in less than an hour.
 

Trudeau lectures CAF troops in Latvia about climate change, disinformation

Extract:


The Centre of Excellence for Climate Security in Montreal = add to the -2%
Maybe he'll ask the members for the receipts for their personal purchases to add them into the mix as well.
 
If I were in power I wouldnt be building tanks or howitzers in Canada. I would be manufacturing bullets and small calibre missiles and rockets. Radios and Optics. Small arms and UAVs and UUVs.

I would also be building fuel cells and selling fuels, Coal, Diesel, LNG and even Hydrogen from whatever source we can get it economically.
Agree 100%. I'd focus on the consumables and quickly replaceable items needed to fight a war. We don't purchase enough of the major capital items like tanks, howitzers and aircraft to maintain a stable production industry (licensed production at existing facilities like GDLS excepted).

Ships are another exception because each one is a multi-year contract in itself and any government with half a brain (sorry Canada) would keep a steady flow of orders going to maintain the industry full time.

The question about that 2-4% of GDP is how much is spent on the internal economy and how much is spent externally.

Buying 10 BCAD of kit from the States is a lot different than building 10 BCAD of kit at home. 10 BCAD spent at home is workfare.
However your original reference to $10 BCAD of kit (over 1/3 of our total annual defence budget) suggested you were talking about capital items not consumables.
 
It is pretty embarassing though when the PR lines are you are sailing on a modernized warship with all the bells and whistles, and then you pull into a port and go around seeing if anyone has an electric switch to keep your 30 year old black water collection system running so the toilets work (and then Command staff not letting you buy the part off Amazon for next day delivery). Nothing quite like being in Jacksonville getting port-o-potties on the jetty for the weekend (and then waiting for CTG staff to go ashore before sending someone with some goodies to visit the USN ships to get a part on the down low and modifying it).

Asking the neighbors for parts is not new and its been a common non taught function by Naval Storesman since I've been in.

That's how I got a nice tour of the USS Saipan sometime around 2001. And a good view of their on board Supply System. And I've been doing it right up to my last FRE trip when the PO1 Stoker and I went over to the Yank ship in search for some POL product for the GTs.

There are lots of reasons we don't buy from Amazon. But for non tech parts it doesn't make sense. Or how about the folks in Ottawa just keep the CFSS stocked up ? If they would do that we shouldn't need Amazon.
 
Asking the neighbors for parts is not new and its been a common non taught function by Naval Storesman since I've been in.

That's how I got a nice tour of the USS Saipan sometime around 2001. And a good view of their on board Supply System. And I've been doing it right up to my last FRE trip when the PO1 Stoker and I went over to the Yank ship in search for some POL product for the GTs.

There are lots of reasons we don't buy from Amazon. But for non tech parts it doesn't make sense. Or how about the folks in Ottawa just keep the CFSS stocked up ? If they would do that we shouldn't need Amazon.
Or just stop. Let the parts fail for the current systems is exposed as insufficient. Our “make it work” attitude is great on operations when lives are on the line but does us. I favours otherwise.
 
I agree. It's hard to create a continuing production line for such things as tanks and howitzers but things like trucks, which we need in the thousands could become a continuing industry if produced in smaller lots of several hundred per year.
Re-open Canadian Arsenals as a Crown Corp.
Build 20 tanks a year under license from someone, and 20 Arty systems the same way.
Have the lines setup to be able to do surge production in extremis.


OTOH, we have an existing production facility for armoured vehicles in London. Conceivably a part of that line could be used to turn out say a squadron's worth of tanks under licence per year without disrupting its other lines. That could keep the line running for a decade on initial production and longer on upgrades.

🍻
The GDLS plant in Windsor couldn’t build Abrams without a major overhaul.
Better to partner with GDLS in a Crown Corp IMHO for a tank line.
 
Agree 100%. I'd focus on the consumables and quickly replaceable items needed to fight a war. We don't purchase enough of the major capital items like tanks, howitzers and aircraft to maintain a stable production industry (licensed production at existing facilities like GDLS excepted).

Ships are another exception because each one is a multi-year contract in itself and any government with half a brain (sorry Canada) would keep a steady flow of orders going to maintain the industry full time.


However your original reference to $10 BCAD of kit (over 1/3 of our total annual defence budget) suggested you were talking about capital items not consumables.

Good Morning.

The number I chose was plucked, not considered. Insofar as I was thinking of anything in particular I was thinking about buying F35s or C130s or C17s or P8s or Sky Guardians. Or submarines. Or Spy radars. 10 BCAD doesn't go very far with those projects. And it all goes to the US (or perhaps Korea?).

But as you encourage me to think about it I would start off exploiting those defence companies that we already have and encouraging them to expand their efforts. Soucy tracks. Safran landing systems. Elcan Optics. L3 Harris comms and computers. Ballard fuel cells. Colt small arms. GDLS LAVs. GM trucks. Roshel Senators. GDOTS Canada ammunition. Rheinmetall AD systems. Magellan rockets. Even Bombardier Recreational Products. Heck, boots, helmets, combats, IMPs, snow cammies..... All of that could be built for Canadian service by Canadians. And put into inventory. And sold.

For example I would be looking to Magellan to lead on a Canadian licenced missile factory such as the Aussies have built so that our ships have full silos and lots more in reserve. So that our aircraft have enough missiles to be all bombed up at the same time. So that we could supply NASAMs systems for every major community and defence target in Canada. And so that we could sell them.

All of this to build inventory. Inventory is the Just in Case insurance that even a peaceful country needs. And one form of inventory is an inventory of trained bodies. People that have been taught skills that can be put into storage for a while but can be reactivated should circumstances demand. Training people in military or emergency skills is no different than sending kids to college or funding highschool courses. Forget soldiering for a bit, just bring back Industrial Arts at school so kids learn to use tools. Teach first aid. Teach Voice procedures. Teach Navigation and Map-Reading. Teach Driver's Ed, Cross Country driving and boating. On school time. Extend the school year. Add a year to High School and reinstitute Grade 13.

The extra time in school comes from the productive life of the taxpayer but also reduces domestic unemployment. And it better equips the population with the skills to handle the unexpected.

Ukraine has got itself a Rheinmetall Plant to produce Fuchs and Leopards. That means that they save themselves that cost of buying them from Germany. If Germany will sell them to them. They can build them themselves.

And Rheinmetall gains because it won't be as constrained by German politicians. I imagine Ukraine will be only too happy to help Rheinmetall sell tanks and APCs on the global market if it means foreign exchange.

We can increase the defence budget as a portion of the GDP without having to offshore it. We can find bodies by giving kids 6 weeks worth of non-military military training in school time with an elective in their curriculum. We can subtract some CRA and CFIA agents and add some workers at government arsenals and at factories working on government contracts.
 
Re-open Canadian Arsenals as a Crown Corp.
Build 20 tanks a year under license from someone, and 20 Arty systems the same way.
Have the lines setup to be able to do surge production in extremis.
That's my thought. I'm a bit influenced by my uncle's experience when he came over from Germany in the sixties with a mechanics ticket. He immediately had a job as a welder with Crane carriers Canada which had a small facility in Scarborough that turned out ... well crane carrier chassis for mobile cranes. They did about a dozen or so a year. He left there for a job with de Havilland in Downsview turning out Caribous. Good steady employment.

I kind of view trucks that way. If you need two thousand and they have an expected life of 15 years hard service then build them at a rate of say 200 per year continuously. In ten years you'll have built 2,000, can retire the first 200 to reserve service and replace them with a new 200. Every year you do the same. It keeps your fleet fresh, you build up a reserve and will always have parts and a heavy workshop facility available for overhauls etc. Not to mention that there is a strong automotive infrastructure available in SW Ontario to build on.

The GDLS plant in Windsor couldn’t build Abrams without a major overhaul.
Better to partner with GDLS in a Crown Corp IMHO for a tank line.

I wouldn't go that far. GDLS London is just down the road from me and GDLS Lima just a short hop down the I-75. Between them they have both the knowledge and the machinery to turn out tracked vehicles and the assembly of various weapon systems. Again, our own need is fairly modest and if you use a limited, but continuous, production line which puts much of the assembly of components into the London plant then you build up a skilled work force which provides long-term benefits. As you suggest, if the rate of production is 20 per year and our need is 200 (three regiments plus spares) then you could build the force over 10 years and keep it refreshed indefinitely and build a reserve. If you're building a decent chassis it could be modified to take something like a K9 or M109 turret and do SPs as well.

It's dreamland, I know but its feasible as long as you properly define the end-state army you want to build and maintain and put your mind to building an industry that's capable of producing it indefinitely and has the greatest local production component as well.

🍻
 
Day 507 of the Ukraine War

72 Weeks and 6 Generations from February 24th 2022
UK Minister Heappey used the ongoing war in Ukraine as an example, describing how certain electronic warfare assets could typically have a “burn time” of about 10 to 12 weeks.

“You’ll put a UAS into service for the Ukrainians. It’ll take about six weeks for the Russians to figure out why it can fly through their EW screen, and another six weeks for the Russians to figure out how to reprogram their EW or to put something new into their EW platforms to defeat it. And then you go again with that loop in contact between sorties of being able to reprogram, take intelligence, science, innovation and military cunning and to maintain your read constantly.”

New "generations" of capabilities every 12 weeks. How does that square with multi-decade procurement plans.

In this article Heappey is explicitly addressing how to fit Quantum Computing into old aircraft in particular and keeping up with technology in general.


Edit - and in the EW/UAS vein

 
Agreed. Our mantra of "make it work" is probably why we're where we are now.
You aren't wrong but on the other hand when my boss says get it fixed, I get it fixed. Everyone has a boss and the level where someone can actually apply the brakes is so far above the average workers level they may as well not exist. Conversely, the higher you go up the chain the more distance there is between them and what happens on a day to day basis. Even good leaders with the best of intentions struggle to get things through the bureaucracy (military and civlian) that only seem to exist to ruin good ideas.
 
You aren't wrong but on the other hand when my boss says get it fixed, I get it fixed. Everyone has a boss and the level where someone can actually apply the brakes is so far above the average workers level they may as well not exist. Conversely, the higher you go up the chain the more distance there is between them and what happens on a day to day basis. Even good leaders with the best of intentions struggle to get things through the bureaucracy (military and civlian) that only seem to exist to ruin good ideas.

“If you are going to sin, sin against God, not the bureaucracy. God will forgive you but the bureaucracy won't.”

― Hyman G. Rickover
 
The bureaucracy is there to serve but it seems that the bureaucracy seems to think its the "boss".
I know that this was the case with Hillier. He wanted to transform the military, so they nodded their heads and waited for him to leave to undo most of his work. This has been shown in report after report, the goal of the organization doesn't matter, goals are changed to suit the bureaucracy. If we need 10 000 new recruits but the bureaucracy can only do 9000, they don't transform the department to increase production, they just set the target under 9000 so it doesn't disrupt them too much.
 
Back
Top