• 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.
 
Again, that only works if there is a concurrent % to spend on actual capability.

We can double/triple salaries to reach 3%, but that means zilch to NATO.
yep.

Gov: Here's a billion dollars, come back in 6 months with new tanks.
DND: here's your billion dollars back.

It's not just about money, it's about political capacity to justify the structural repositioning of an ice cream cake economy to industrial scale arms production at a sustainable pace.
Canada is simply never going to do that again even if it means losing Europe and especially Ukraine, Poland or Asia (Taiwan or Korea) to monsters.
 
What happens if multiple "crews" are used for each hull - assuming that the extra bodies could be recruited, but bear with me.

So some navies have been using two crews on subs, and the Norwegians have been using 3 watches on a 2 watch ship.

Suppose you were using a small crew philosophy for your ships, optionally crewed so that the ship could sail with little to no supervision but standard practice was sailing with a small crew.

On shore you have one or two, maybe three additional small crews. The crews rotate into and out of the ship on and ongoing basis. When the crews come ashore they report to the office and take up the task of filling all the deficiencies that they found and reported while onboard.

The game plan is to ensure that when you get back on board the deficiencies are fixed.

In addition you have a surplus of trained crew familiar with that ship and available to be deployed. The extra crew can be flown out as needed or could join the ship as trained supernumeraries if the tactical situation required it.

You could even put reservists into the rotational mix.
lol, we don't have multiple crews per hull, we have multiple hulls per crew. That's even with ships in DWPs that run 2-3 years, and others being tied up.

Having people do shore postings has all kinds of benefits other than a break as well; people that understand how things work ashore know how to get actual support at sea a lot better. You can't work the system if you don't understand it, and you can't understand it really if you only ever see it as a black box you occasionally send demands to.

Having people on the ships in logistics and engineering side that have worked in the shore support organizations is a massive advantage to actually getting shit done. Having XOs and COs that worked on the operational HQ side is a massive advantage for feeding that beast. See the impact of people cycling pack to HOD and CHOD positions now without seeing much support side now because they don't tell people what is broken and what they need and it constantly comes up at the 11th hour when it's way too late to do anything about it. The ships where people have worked ashore or the NCR get much better support because they actually understand who the stakeholders are to actually talk to IOT get support. Ideally you have a mix of all of it.
 
I’m curious if the CAF has any data tracking those in the field forces for each service with restrictive family situations? Additionally while there may not be anything wrong with single parents, service couples with school age kids etc. they all do reduce the maximum number of deployable personnel.

That may not matter if all we strive for is a BG, a six pack of fighters, a pair of LRP, and a frigate on a rotating basis, but it certainly would if we tried to deploy all our forces in the case of a large scale war.
If the data exists, it's probably deep in the archives of the Army G1 cell...

On the other hand, "virtual" soldiering is becoming more of a thing. Those 19 year olds that have become 39 year olds with buggered backs might have a lot more opportunities to contribute more directly to supporting new 19 year olds without having to exert themselves to the same extent.

A 39 year old Company Drone Operator might be a thing.
It would have been nice to have other opportunities in the infantry (or other arms) than rifle company and recce platoon. That began to materialise once I was gone, but it's also why I went to a combat support corps. However, a drone operator needs to be in close proximity to fighting sub-units to be effective. We aren't talking about theatre level ISR here, but rather tactical & micro UAS in support of troops in contact, whether than be an infantry platoon on the attack, engineers recce-ing enemy obstacles, artillery target acquisition or extending the range of an armoured recce cavalry screen. All of these people need to be capable of operation in the field for prolonged periods, defending themselves and being a positive force multiplier for the assault forces, rather than a burden that requires troops re-allocated to force protection. That is common across all combat support corps, besides combat arms tradesmen who are not in assault roles.

What I would like to see is more positions for combat support corps in manoeuvre units. That's another story entirely.


As we have been over many, many times, Canada doesn't care.
 
Given our manpower issues, we likely have a lot of budget not used for wages etc due to all those missing bodies. To me the short term solution would be to increase the authorized training days for the PRes, including weekends you get about 42 days. Double that to 84, yes not every soldier will make it but it would allow more training time. This creates a short term gain for the CAF and more proficient soldier's.
 
Given our manpower issues, we likely have a lot of budget not used for wages etc due to all those missing bodies. To me the short term solution would be to increase the authorized training days for the PRes, including weekends you get about 42 days. Double that to 84, yes not every soldier will make it but it would allow more training time. This creates a short term gain for the CAF and more proficient soldier's.
The money « saved » from unpaid salaries is already reallocated to other uses.
 
What exactly would be an example of non-deployable support work ? Because I think, like others, you are getting units confused with individuals.
One example I could see is some HRA/FSA types.

We have a shortage. You could ease that by making all or most of the clerk positions in CFRCs and Dets into CR PSE positions. That would be a lot of clerks freed up. Less cost to post in various dets and so on.
 
One example I could see is some HRA/FSA types.

We have a shortage. You could ease that by making all or most of the clerk positions in CFRCs and Dets into CR PSE positions. That would be a lot of clerks freed up. Less cost to post in various dets and so on.

Again, yes the CFRCs aren't deployable. That doesn't mean the individual HRA/FSAs posted to them aren't.

I am also not supportive, at all, of letting the PS into our recruiting centers, in any capacity. If they are already there, they should be removed.
 
Again, yes the CFRCs aren't deployable. That doesn't mean the individual HRA/FSAs posted to them aren't.
You are missing my point. Yes the individuals are but we put undo pressure on the CAF by manning positions that don’t need CAF requirements. Not advocating getting rid of anyone but those positions would be better served elsewhere.
I am also not supportive, at all, of letting the PS into our recruiting centers, in any capacity. If they are already there, they should be removed.
Why? Those positions are pretty much administrative and mostly background. Front end recruiters and MCCs should definitely be uniformed pers. Clerks processing recruiting paperwork and files? That can easily be done by civilians.
 
Again, yes the CFRCs aren't deployable. That doesn't mean the individual HRA/FSAs posted to them aren't.
Those individuals are deployable, yes, but the CAF doesn't Force Generate from a CFRC, or a School, or from a BIS or Clothing Stores.

The RCN and its Fleets are their own beast in this regard, but the CA and RCAF often don't use this methodology. The Lead Mounting Organization draws internally first, sends it back up to the L1, eventually it has to be farmed out to other L1s to see if it can be filled, and dependingnon priority, its filled from someone operational or the position is No Filled.

I would love to be able to scour the CAF and build a composite TO&E to support my operation. As it stands, there are many L1s and subordinate formations that would get their face in a knot and tell me to stay the hell out of their kitchens. The loudest of which are CMP, CFIOG, and other non-deployabe formations that would rather see Bloggins ride as desk in Ottawa than free them us to fill an operational role.
 
I don’t think it necessarily needs to be done in the actual BN, but at least at the same base.
We've done this dance befor. 3 RCR ran its own basic inf crses early 70's, RCR BS in Pet mid 80's morphed into meaford in a bit of a power struggle, etc.
 
Those individuals are deployable, yes, but the CAF doesn't Force Generate from a CFRC*, or a School, or from a BIS or Clothing Stores.

Yes they do. I have deployed with people from all of those organizations. I deployed on my first Afghan deployment from CFB Halifax Clothing Stores.

*For CFRCs I don't know if I have deployed with someone from one of those, but I don't see why they couldn't.

The RCN and its Fleets are their own beast in this regard, but the CA and RCAF often don't use this methodology. The Lead Mounting Organization draws internally first, sends it back up to the L1, eventually it has to be farmed out to other L1s to see if it can be filled, and dependingnon priority, its filled from someone operational or the position is No Filled.

And this part of the problem, we have to be careful and allow the different commands some autonomy on how they do this, as they have different needs. Blanket solutions don't work.

I would love to be able to scour the CAF and build a composite TO&E to support my operation. As it stands, there are many L1s and subordinate formations that would get their face in a knot and tell me to stay the hell out of their kitchens. The loudest of which are CMP, CFIOG, and other non-deployabe formations that would rather see Bloggins ride as desk in Ottawa than free them us to fill an operational role.

Im the first person look at Ottawa with bombastic side eye, but we have to careful here too. There are desk jobs being done there that need to be done, and probably contribute more to operational success than many people actually on operations. You lamented about staff work in another thread, yes we are bad at staff work. Making it worse wont help.
 
You are missing my point. Yes the individuals are but we put undo pressure on the CAF by manning positions that don’t need CAF requirements. Not advocating getting rid of anyone but those positions would be better served elsewhere.

Why? Those positions are pretty much administrative and mostly background. Front end recruiters and MCCs should definitely be uniformed pers. Clerks processing recruiting paperwork and files? That can easily be done by civilians.

The answer this is not not further civilianization. The answer is recruiting and retention.
 
Back
Top