• 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.
 
Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...

Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.

I think that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even the leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to restrain the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, Saint Pierre said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper Foreign Policy for Canadians.

Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all knew, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.

I do not believe that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.

/rant

View attachment 74296
Good for you for still being able to erupt at your age, Pops! :p
 
Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...

Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.

I think that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even the leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to restrain the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, Saint Pierre said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper Foreign Policy for Canadians.

Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all knew, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.

I do not believe that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.

/rant

View attachment 74296


I presume you saw this -

The Canadian government works on two world stages.

In one, a decisive Canada identifies the developing dangers of the globe and acts boldly to deal with them. Unfortunately, that exists only in the imaginary world of Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s foreign-policy speeches. In the other one, the real world, Canada vacillates aimlessly on tough choices without much of a foreign policy.

The speech itself was fascinating. The Deputy Prime Minister argued that the era of hoping that democracy and global rules would inexorably spread around the world is over. Now, democratic countries must recognize that their powerful authoritarian nations aren’t about to change, and those democracies will have to take steps to blunt the power and economic leverage of authoritarian rivals.

The implications are vast. This wasn’t just about sanctioning Russia for invading Ukraine. It was about taking steps to reduce economic dependence, not only on Russian energy but Chinese supply chains. Follow the logic, and it means dividing into two trading blocs.

But there’s no sign that bears any relation to Canada’s actual foreign policy. It is not clear that Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly agrees, or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

In Ottawa, officials have been labouring on a new Indo-Pacific strategy, but the first hiccup was that the drafters couldn’t decide if they should have the audacity to mention China by name. The current draft is said to be too tough on China for Ms. Joly’s liking. At any rate, the Foreign Affairs Minister has indicated she is out to re-establish warmer ties with China. The European Union’s policy declared China a “strategic rival,” but Canada hasn’t said anything like it.

Yet Ms. Freeland is telling the world we have to wake up to the fact that we can’t always have “win-win” relationships with authoritarian states,



Campbell Clark doesn't seem to be holding his breath.

Musing.....


I wonder if the Westminster theatrics have got the good idea fairies fluttering in Ottawa?

It is kind of a piece with the LNG conundrum and Carbon Capture - good enough for Joe, good enough for Justin.
 
Future Probable

We get to sell more Hydrocarbons to Europe when we jack our Defence Spending to 2.5% and our International Aid to 0.7%.

Kickbacks make the world go round.

Stranger things and all that ... we got Leopard tanks after Pierre Trudeau had a "walk in there garden" with Germany's chancellor; so who knows?
 
There is no way these lightweights suddenly get a dose of realpolitik strong enough to burst the echo chamber bubble.

As Mr Campbell said, we are an unserious people in an unserious country who elect unserious governments.

And our long-suffering Allies and otherwise well-meaning friends are getting to the point that they will call us on it.

And we, as Canadians, don't get to point fingers at the politicians. We did this. We are the vacuous. We are the unserious. We need only look in the mirror.

I suspect, however, that we will fiddle with our social media, watch Netflix, make well-intentioned and unrealistic if not unhinged pronouncements of our virtue, and make bigger car payments as we fail to even realise that it is all burning....
 
I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League.

Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:

1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​
2. The fiscally irresponsible Romans - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​
3. The Eastern European rest.​

None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.
Add the Belgians to #2 and the Dutch to #1.
In #3 there’s a split; Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia and the Baltics, with the Romanians lumped in with that group and then all the others - Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bulgaria in the other and the Hungary dangling in the wind.
 
I presume you saw this -









Campbell Clark doesn't seem to be holding his breath.

Musing.....


I wonder if the Westminster theatrics have got the good idea fairies fluttering in Ottawa?

It is kind of a piece with the LNG conundrum and Carbon Capture - good enough for Joe, good enough for Justin.
The one thing that Freeland sort of gets is the seriousness of VVP and his lot.
She’s lived in Ukraine during its birth and the dying days of the old SU, she’s seen this stuff first hand. She grew up listening to the ‘Evil Empire’ speeches from her Grandfather (plus or minus any lingering love of Nazi Germany that he may still have had). But somehow this has not translated into anything meaningful in terms of pushing for a renewed CAF. The years of living the good life in a utopian bubble here in Canada have damped, stifled everything else. She needs to spend 2-3 months back in Ukraine among her relatives to reawaken this knowledge that has been buried away.
 
The one thing that Freeland sort of gets is the seriousness of VVP and his lot.
She’s lived in Ukraine during its birth and the dying days of the old SU, she’s seen this stuff first hand. She grew up listening to the ‘Evil Empire’ speeches from her Grandfather (plus or minus any lingering love of Nazi Germany that he may still have had). But somehow this has not translated into anything meaningful in terms of pushing for a renewed CAF. The years of living the good life in a utopian bubble here in Canada have damped, stifled everything else. She needs to spend 2-3 months back in Ukraine among her relatives to reawaken this knowledge that has been buried away.
I'm not sure it is a her problem (or solely a her problem) - but more of a Trudeau, Joy - rest of the LPC (and most of Canada) problem.
On can shout fire to their hearts content in an empty room, and have no one notice -- as they are all at the mall...
 
Every time the Reg F opens up options for CT, lots of well trained reservists migrate over there. The problem is that the CT door opens and closes with a mysterious irregularity that confounds the best of planning minds.

Why not triple the size of the A Res and have a continuous supply of troops moving in to the RegF, via CT, after they've finished their degrees at college and completed most of their trades training?

Then, after they do their Reg F service (in their early/mid-40s) they can CT back to their ARes units and serve until they hit CRA.
I would dearly like to hear from some one with pers/first hand knowledge of the actual nos by trade/rank today. PM and minister seem to be pulling pax out of thair bums. Any takers?
 
I'm not sure it is a her problem (or solely a her problem) - but more of a Trudeau, Joy - rest of the LPC (and most of Canada) problem.
On can shout fire to their hearts content in an empty room, and have no one notice -- as they are all at the mall...

Similar problem for Anand and all the bright sparks that were reassigned to national security positions at the beginning of this government. It isn't lack of talent, or corporate knowledge or advice that prevents Trudeau and Joly acting on the Defence and Energy fronts. It is conviction. And that is worse.
 
I would dearly like to hear from some one with pers/first hand knowledge of the actual nos by trade/rank today. PM and minister seem to be pulling pax out of thair bums. Any takers?
Nothing that's open source.

But on DWAN the data vis tool can be instructive about actual current numbers.
 
There is indeed a place for the professional - the person that is paid explicitly for the task they are asked to undertake - as opposed to the amateur - the person that does the same thing for the love of the thing.

So you'll not sell me on the merits of the professional attitude.

It's one thing to be proud of your trade and your accomplishments. Its another entirely to think that others can't perform equally as well without the paper.
The Canadian Rugby Union Team would challenge your last assertion.
 
There used to be a difference between Union and League - other than just the number of players on the field.
 
Point of clarity, then Men's Canadian Rugby Union side. I would completely fold the international men's side, it's GD disgrace.

The women's side is world class.
Yah, my point was really to illustrate the gulf between professional vs amateur sides. The Men's Team current predicament is a result of the prevailing attitudes that "our amateurs will give them a good run for their money"
 
Yah, my point was really to illustrate the gulf between professional vs amateur sides. The Men's Team current predicament is a result of the prevailing attitudes that "our amateurs will give them a good run for their money"

Oh I understood you. I just wanted to make sure we didn't lump the ladies in with your flailing men's side.

I played rugby for over 25 years. Where we were when I started to where we are now is a disgrace. But its actually a good example of your point.
 
Oh I understood you. I just wanted to make sure we didn't lump the ladies in with your flailing men's side.

I played rugby for over 25 years. Where we were when I started to where we are now is a disgrace. But its actually a good example of your point.
Oh yah, I played for 20 years. I remember Canada running Italy close in 2003 and acquitting themselves well. They also beat Scotland and Italy in the lead up to that tournament and tied Ireland.

It was after that tournament though that the gulf between amateur and the now fully professional sides grew. It's only gotten larger since then and if you don't have a professional competition, you're players aren't going to cut it at Test level.

It's why Canada is now not only getting smashed by the traditionally weaker test nations but also getting crushed by the likes of Romania, Georgia, Spain, Uruguay, Chile, Portugal, etc.
 
I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League.

Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:

1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​
2. The fiscally irresponsible Romans - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​
3. The Eastern European rest.​

None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.

Thinking about this....

One might be excused from thinking somebody is actively engaged in upsetting apple carts.

The US apple cart is going through its regularly scheduled upset - Jacksonians seem to be trending upwards
The UK apple cart is experiencing some uncharacteristic turbulence - Hanseatic Brexiteers and Roman Remainers are engaged in a grudge match
The French apple cart is experiencing its usual instability - Yet another government threatening strike (Ho Hum)
The Italian apple cart has been upset by its new nationalist PM - who seems to be actually quite steady
The German apple cart is being upset - the Pro Russian factions in the government, security services, business and economic departments are threatened with a repeat of the 1945 deNazification policies

And the EU in Brussels - is trying to pretend that it is still in control of the situation

My money is on Poland and the Easterners - once they get Hungary sorted.

Is this another "spontaneous" eruption - like 1848 or 1968? Or is it something other?
 
Back
Top