• 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.
 
Not sure if this is proper spot for this, so Mods can move it if warranted. And my apologies if its been posted somewhere else. Since we are talking about rearming the CF with modern weapon systems including ATGM I happened to find this article stating that JTF-2 had purchased an unknown number of Israeli Spike missile systems. So if we are looking at purchasing new anti-tank weapons, go with the Spike system, as I've mentioned before, it comes in more variants then the US Javelin, and apparently its already in Canadian service. so we already have soldiers trained in its use.

Machine translation below:

For Special Forces: The Canadian Army has purchased Rafael Spike missiles

The Canadian military has confirmed to Israel Defense that in 2016 the Ministry of Defense purchased a version of the missile system. His reference comes after the publication of photos of Canadian soldiers who fought in Iraq, along with Raphael's missile system

Ami Rohex Dumba | 21/11/2019

The Special Forces of the Canadian Army purchased Spike missiles from the Raphael Company in 2016, as confirmed by Captain Jamie Donovan, of the Canadian Defense Forces Defense Forces. "In 2016, the Canadian Ministry of National Defense purchased a version of the SPIKE missile system to command special operational forces in Canada," the spokesman said in a statement.

The purchase item was first published on the Peresh website based on photos that were leaked to the network. In the same photos, Canadian soldiers were seen during the fighting in Mosul, Iraq in 2016, equipped with spike missiles. The photo was taken from an article by the Kurdish Rudaw channel, in which a pair of Canadian soldiers are seen on the armor of the Kurdish forces, admiring a Spike LR launcher from the new model ("Unified Launcher"). The Canadian soldiers wore ordinary uniforms with a badge that clearly looked like the Canadian flag. Following the publication, we contacted the Canadian Army, which confirmed the correctness of the purchase.

Meanwhile, Rafael announced earlier this week that it had recently signed a major contract to supply spike missiles to the German army. The transaction was made through Rafael's subsidiary in Europe - Eurospike . The company explained that this is a multi-year framework agreement for the supply of missiles and launchers from the Spike family.

As part of the framework agreement, the first shipment will include 1,500 spike missiles, alongside hundreds of ICLU launchers . "The multi-year agreement will allow the German Ministry of Defense to continue to purchase Spike missiles in the coming years.

Original Link (In Hebrew)
 

I expect a budget increase for Defence. Between Anand, Joly and Freyland, the messaging is pretty clear.
It needs to be coupled with an increase in overall members of the CAF. No reason why we can’t be sitting at say, 90-95k full time and another 50-60km in the reserves.
 
I've said this for a long time. I would rather have a Defence Force that is smaller, but better equipped and more agile than what we currently have.

We've also got a whole lot of staff power tied up managing hollow units and formations.
Smaller than 68,000 people spread across the Army, Navy and Air Force?
 
Is it just the Canadian Military Culture or is it the Canadian National Culture?

The Military Culture will always be a subset of the National Culture.

Is the National Culture sufficiently militaristic to support a military with its own independent culture?

For me that is an open question
The problem is that our Canadian Military Culture and our Canadian National Culture parted ways around 1968 (possibly even sooner). We were an relic of a bygone Era. We had no need for defense, because we were a nation of statesmen. We were an "honest broker, middle power." Our Military Culture, therefore, developed in an echo chamber, and as an orphan from our National Identity.

Given our 15 years working closely with the Americans as the lead element in ISAF, we developed a lot of bad habits, in the sense that we look up and have grandiose ideas of what a proper "Combat Team" looks like and what the BLUF (I loathe the term) of an operation should be.

We will never have a military funded, equipped, or manned to the same scale as the US, but yet we still chase that dream with our military structures and thinking.
 
Not sure if this is proper spot for this, so Mods can move it if warranted. And my apologies if its been posted somewhere else. Since we are talking about rearming the CF with modern weapon systems including ATGM I happened to find this article stating that JTF-2 had purchased an unknown number of Israeli Spike missile systems. So if we are looking at purchasing new anti-tank weapons, go with the Spike system, as I've mentioned before, it comes in more variants then the US Javelin, and apparently its already in Canadian service. so we already have soldiers trained in its use.

Machine translation below:



Original Link (In Hebrew)
Spike is trash compared to Javelin. There are several non open source Javelin options that can’t be discussed here that would be good compliments to CAF needs.
 
I'm of the view that Canadian National Culture in 2022 is fundamentally at odds with Military Culture writ large.

War is a team sport, individuals don't matter. Look at the meat grinder that is Ukraine atm. Rockets, Bombs, Missiles and Shells don't give a damn about "accommodations".

We are sacrificing group cohesion to cater to the individual. It's an interesting experiment 😉

And yet the British Army came from an Individualistic Culture. As did the American one.

It is an interesting question and, in my view, it is all about understanding both the capabilities of the National Culture and the needs of the Military Culture. I believe there is a Canadian balance to be found but I don't know what it is.
 
The problem is that our Canadian Military Culture and our Canadian National Culture parted ways around 1968 (possibly even sooner). We were an relic of a bygone Era. We had no need for defense, because we were a nation of statesmen. We were an "honest broker, middle power." Our Military Culture, therefore, developed in an echo chamber, and as an orphan from our National Identity.

Given our 15 years working closely with the Americans as the lead element in ISAF, we developed a lot of bad habits, in the sense that we look up and have grandiose ideas of what a proper "Combat Team" looks like and what the BLUF (I loathe the term) of an operation should be.

We will never have a military funded, equipped, or manned to the same scale as the US, but yet we still chase that dream with our military structures and thinking.

One of the reasons I remained a company commander for so long (too long?) was because it was inspiring to connect with so many young, keen Canadians on a regular basis.

Talk to just about any teenager, in just about any rifle company or its equivalent, and you'll find yourself talking to a great example of Canadian military culture.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that our Canadian Military Culture and our Canadian National Culture parted ways around 1968 (possibly even sooner). We were an relic of a bygone Era. We had no need for defense, because we were a nation of statesmen. We were an "honest broker, middle power." Our Military Culture, therefore, developed in an echo chamber, and as an orphan from our National Identity.

Given our 15 years working closely with the Americans as the lead element in ISAF, we developed a lot of bad habits, in the sense that we look up and have grandiose ideas of what a proper "Combat Team" looks like and what the BLUF (I loathe the term) of an operation should be.

We will never have a military funded, equipped, or manned to the same scale as the US, but yet we still chase that dream with our military structures and thinking.
Our Military Culture also drew from a class of people that is in diminishing supply:

White men from rural areas and small town Canada. Men that had they not joined the Armed Forces, would have found a place working in mining, oil + gas, forestry, farming and fishing.

Many often served for a time then went off to work in those industries.

We are now trying to attract from an increasingly larger pool of other groups that don't want to serve in the Military. Many of them left places to a) get away from persecution and the military/security forces carrying them out or b) to actively avoid military service.

Interesting conundrum we now find ourselves in.
 
IMHO picking non American systems it dumb.
You live above the largest military industry on the planet, use it.
Kev, I agree in part but, to be blunt we are already invested in some gear, like the Leos, and most of the gear you are willing to lease at short notice is not your top of the line stuff and is due for replacement or upgrading.

Your new gee-whiz kit is going to refurb your own forces for the foreseeable future. Just as the Germans are going to be directing their activities to their forces.

We can get lots of gear to fight the last battle. Can we get the stuff to fight the next one?

We are literally back to 1939 with everyone rearming at the same time. Canada needs to look at licence manufacture of kit nationally. Not because of Regional Benefits. But simply because available plant will be operating at max capacity. If we want it it is likely we will have to build it.

Now can you send us a few M109s to make FJAG happy?
 
Spike is trash compared to Javelin. There are several non open source Javelin options that can’t be discussed here that would be good compliments to CAF needs.
Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated..
 
As for personnel:

-Change Universality of Service so non-deployable jobs can only be filled by non-deployable pers. It has baffled me that we either boot people with 10 plus years of corporate knowledge for not being able to possibly deploy at some time. It also baffles me that we take someone employable in a bde and send th to instruct for 4 years because "breadth of knowledge."

-Severely amend the grounds for medical release; if you're able to be retained in a non-operational role, keep that person in a uniform. If you are able to be retained and you choose not to... no golden ticket.

Non deployable personnel? Hard non deployable positions should be "relief" for operational pers to get a pause. If you're not deployable, well, in a defence context, that's a position that needs to be contracted out or civilianized - unless its necessary for ship to shore. Permanently filling them with non-deployable people means you're burning out the deployable people.

The 71,500 Reg + 30,000 Res are hard caps - we must manage our military (including BTL, ATL, SPHL) within those limits. Retaining "Can't do military tasks" personnel cuts into those numbers. Having a one of one position filled by someone being retained whose limitations include "Can only work two, sometimes three three hour days a week" does not serve the institution well.

Keeping Bob because he's been in for ten years but can't be employed in his military role is green welfare. (Or Navy blue welfare, or sky blue welfare). That's not the role of the CAF. Maybe there's a need for Bob's experience within defence as a civilian or a contractor - why keep him filling one of our limited positions when he can't do the job?

More broadly speaking, every time the CAF says "Hell yeah, we can accommodate people with conditions X, Y and Z" the CAF erodes universality of service, and risks being ordered to radically amend entry standards - if we can accommodate non-deployable people, why can't we enrol non-deployable people from day one?
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons I remained a company commander for so long (too long?) was because it was inspiring to connect with so many young, keen Canadians on a regular basis.

Talk to just about any teenager, in just about any rifle company or it's equivalent, and you'll find yourself talking to a great example of Canadian military culture.
I will agree that we have quality members joining our ranks. I would also argue that people who have an investment in military matters are invested whole hog.

The problem is that those who aren't, are the ones who cut the cheques for procurement and campaign for votes; most of said votes come from people who give zero fucks about military matters. Like we saw in Afghanistan, we were a military at war, not a nation.

So what's the answer? To me, we need to have a frank discussion with ourselves, as a military, and cut the bullshit about us "punching above our weight." After we strip bare the bloated HQ structure we built trying to be something we're not, go to Parliament and lay it all out for them. "If you want to be a middle power, this is what it will take and what it will cost."

Until we tell them what is needed, we will continue to see someone else's vision of "Canadian Military Culture" as a result of differing political opinions. It will be a revolving door of priorities and promises every 4 years. Mich like it had been for the last 60 years.
 
I don't understand the obsession with American kit for "compatibility". We will end up Canadianizing it to the point it is no longer compatible, then be left with an expensive orphan fleet.

Another consideration we need to look at, is the USA willing to sell us the top version, or just a stripped down export version of their kit? Is a stripped down Javelin more useful to us than NLAW? Also, the US defence budget is significantly larger than ours, can we actually afford to buy American kit in quantities high enough to be used/useful?

As an example, a Javelin costs $78K USD per missile, the NLAW is $33K USD. Can we can get more weapons, and more training out of the same number of dollars with the "good enough" NLAW?*

If I was Emperor of Canada I'd be shopping for the "good enough" kit we can buy in large numbers, rather than chasing the top of the line super expensive kit we can only afford in numbers too small to be useful.

*I realize they are different categories of missile, but since we lack either category of missile currently, it makes more sense to me to invest in the category we can more easily afford to buy and train with.
 
Non deployable personnel? Hard non deployable positions should be "relief" for operational pers to get a pause. If you're not deployable, well, in a defence context, that's a position that needs to be contracted out or civilianized - unless its necessary for ship to shore. Permanently filling them with non-deployable people means you're burning out the deployable people.

The 71,500 Reg + 30,000 Res are hard caps - we must manage our military (including BTL, ATL, SPHL) within those limits. Retaining "Can't do military tasks" personnel cuts into those numbers. Having a one of one position filled by someone being retained whose limitation include "Can only work two, sometimes three three hour days a week" does not serve the institution well.


And readiness has become more of a headliner maker recently, for obvious reasons. Before COVID we were aprraently 80% deployable. Now? Who knows....

Military readiness 'one of the things that keeps me awake at night,' says Canada's top soldier​

'The world is getting more dangerous every day and we need to be ready for it,' said Gen. Wayne Eyre​


Defence Minister Anita Anand has said the country has the capacity to send those 3,400 military members, even with a diminished force of about 65,000 regular members and 30,000 reservists. But the government has faced questions about whether it can sustain that level of deployment.

Eyre said the military options that he brings forward to the defence minister are based on "what we can realistically generate and put together to have a credible contribution to the alliance."

"But this speaks to why we need to accelerate many of the things that I talked about: getting more people in, getting the projects that we have on the books through the various gateways and into the hands of our people," he said. "There's no single silver bullet for readiness."

Before the pandemic hit, the defence department estimated that roughly 80 per cent of the military could meet its operational obligations if called upon. New figures on the military's state of readiness have not been published.

 
Spike is trash compared to Javelin. There are several non open source Javelin options that can’t be discussed here that would be good compliments to CAF needs.
What about the British NLAW? Seems highly effective in Ukraine and is much cheaper to produce.
 
I don't understand the obsession with American kit for "compatibility". We will end up Canadianizing it to the point it is no longer compatible, then be left with an expensive orphan fleet.
Easy answer that's totally within our control - stop Canadianizing stuff. Go whole hog for an integrated North American defence industry.

Another consideration we need to look at, is the USA willing to sell us the top version, or just a stripped down export version of their kit? Is a stripped down Javelin more useful to us than NLAW? Also, the US defence budget is significantly larger than ours, can we actually afford to buy American kit in quantities high enough to be used/useful?
Why worry about what might or might not happen. If we integrate more why wouldn't they sell us top of the line stuff? If we buy production run stuff without customization we share in scale of production savings.

As an example, a Javelin costs $78K USD per missile, the NLAW is $33K USD. Can we can get more weapons, and more training out of the same number of dollars with the "good enough" NLAW?*
They are different systems with different characteristics especially range. Why not buy both for example the NLAW for the section and the Javelin for a platoon's weapon's section/ battalion ATGM platoon.

If I was Emperor of Canada I'd be shopping for the "good enough" kit we can buy in large numbers, rather than chasing the top of the line super expensive kit we can only afford in numbers too small to be useful.
Of course. But what may be good enough for one role might be inadequate for another.

*I realize they are different categories of missile, but since we lack either category of missile currently, it makes more sense to me to invest in the category we can more easily afford to buy and train with.
Personally I tend to look at arms purchases from an effects standpoint and work backwards to the price. Find what you need and then determine if you can afford it and, if not adjust the plan accordingly by either more funding or reassessing the effects desired and how to accomplish them. That may require major organizational changed. It's a complex balancing act.

🍻
 
Back
Top