• 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.
 
And only 1/3 max of Euro Parliament's MEPs were in the chamber--but Murray Brewster CBC reported only "packed public galleries (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-nato-trudeau-stoltenberg-1.6394609)"--probably packed by our three missions in Brussels


Mark
Ottawa
I read that as well. Unless they've change the sitting format in the cheap seats at Strasbourg since I last sat in there in the mid-90s (and that's possible given the enlargement of the EU since I had much to do with it), it could have been the entire Liberal entourage and press corps and it be considered full.
 
OR, a massive tax grab is about to be announced - cough cough - 1% flat tax on the sale of your personal residence...

More likely (and effectively- given the state of the housing market) a stiff buyers flat tax on any single family dwelling not being purchased to be the buyer's personal residence
 
Costs are inevitably passed on to end consumers (buyers, renters).
True, but the intent would be similar to a foreign buyers tax and create lower priced principal residences, not higher priced rentals. Would it work / how would it need to be designed? Don't know. But we already have precedent for all of
-buyer pay time of sale taxes (Land Transfer)
-buyer segmentation taxes (foreign)
-differentiation between principal residence and non (capital gains exemption)

There's a lot of space for a tax to generate and income and influence the housing market before getting to a sellers tax on principal residence.

But going way OT here
 
Costs are inevitably passed on to end consumers (buyers, renters).
Not when demand is elastic, such as when said demand is propped up by speculation.

Now is that the case right now? I have no idea. Are there other factors that could make me wrong? Yes. My point is just that no, as a rule, costs are not inevitably passed on to consumers. Although, generally, at least in part, and in some sectors, it may be in very large part so.
 
C8 should

The C8 should have been the standard small arm for all positions, less hard Cbt Arms position, where the long barrel might be useful in the 250-400m range.

I had an aviation colleague tell me with a straight face that he thought the C7 was a necessity for all aircrew, since we would “need to reach out to 600m if we ever went down.” I told him we would part ways ASAP if we ever went down, and that I’d rather stick with the SE.. part of SERE, than drawing fire and having to do the ..RE part of SERE. He thought a lot of himself as a shooter, but I don’t recall a strong correlation between PWT3 score and his self-assessment.

The only time I found a 9mm useful was in dealing with Soviet-trained locals who mentally aligned them to ‘guy with the pistol is to be listened to, while guys with rifles should stand to the side and kill about while they talked with ‘pistol guy’ .’

Or should that just be everybody gets a C8.

MG/DMR tms get 7.62.
 
Or should that just be everybody gets a C8.

MG/DMR tms get 7.62.
Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.
 
A glimmer of hope? From Warren Kinsella







I caught about 2 minutes of JTs speech to the EU before my gag reflex kicked in. I figured I would read about it in the funny pages. But from the tone and content - middle class, democracy, climate change - I figure he is pitching himself for some international position.

I hope it happens soon.
I’ve said before. I am convinced he won’t be running again.
 
Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.
Theoretical range.
The C8SFW 16” barrel is more than enough for any practical 5.56mm range.
Heck I shot a guy @400m with a 10.3” Mk18 - yes I brought the wrong gun, but the C8CQB in 11.5” barrel length is fine for 300m and in.
Mostly it’s troops not hitting targets - not the weapon…
 
Theoretical range.
Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.
 
Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.
I shot a 16” gun at CFSAC with a 1-4 S&B Short Dot and had no issues outshooting C7’s at 500m.
Other than one R22eR MWO getting angry I shot a match in sandals, and didn’t find my ‘dress of the day’ comments humorous, I won a couple of matches, which I don’t think he appreciated.
 

Interesting results.
I'm actually surprised there's an even split towards more taxes for defence spending. This is more support than I expected.

As well as greater support for increased defence spending (45%) than social spending (39%).
 

Interesting results.
Because a tax increase would only be need for Defence increases, not the bazillions of dollars for universal pharmacies and dental care… 🙄

Another crap survey set up to bias the answer from the outset…Canadians deserve everything they’re not going to get…
 
Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.
I thought the tankers already used C8's?

Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.
Individually, but what's the section range. The range where a section can hit a target (or is that not a thing anymore). I'm fairly confident that the C7 one is longer by a significant amount. Isn't that a useful metric considering you don't attack a position by yourself?

edit: of course I prefer a C8 myself, range really isn't an issue onboard ship!
 
I thought the tankers already used C8's?
They do, I just wouldn’t want to be part of any implied support to forcing C7 on all orgs who should have the C8 pulled and given the C7 back again (to wit Armour, which I agree should retain the C8).
 
Back
Top