• 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.
 
I hear that a lot. But is that a CAF thing or an Army thing?

The system seems to work fine to sustain a Naval Force continuously operating out of two ports, an Air Force, also on continuous operations, the majority of the purple trades (those not attached to the army), the Special Forces and a permanently staffed NDHQ.

So the Army (and its Reserves and its training system) are the odd men people out.

Some nasty and inconsiderate souls could ask the question does National Defence require an Army? o_O

There, FTFY ;)
 
I am pretty sure that Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives have received the same message as have Trudeau's Liberals: defence doesn't matter.
Interesting point.

While the CPC's Policy Declaration states that:

171. ... A Conservative Government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended two (2) percent of 67 our GDP on National Defence

It also lists 23 policy categories of which "National Defence and Security" is number 22. That basically tells me how far down the line and out of sight and out of mind Defence is even for the CPC.

If that isn't bad enough, there are only eight policy statements under that topic. There were seven before the last National Convention when this one was added:

172. National Standard of Training for PTSD Service Dog Trainers The Conservative Party will create a National Standard of Training for PTSD Service Dog Trainers for Veterans. This standard must be developed to include a standard for PTSD Service Dogs and a standard for training the recipient veteran.

I don't want to be overly critical because there are some good, and long standing policy statements in there, but the point is that there hasn't been much recent debate or promulgation of any serious defence or security issues or initiatives. Just the occasional regurgitation of the usual motherhood things which didn't get fixed under Harper either.

🍻
 
I think you are missing the effects on the RCN and RCAF.
SOF doesn’t have those issues as at user end the postings aren’t occurring. Staff rotates but the deployable forces are fairly isolated.
Having seen many years worth of trying to align some RCAF elements (predominately Tac Avn) to the Army’s MRS, only to have such plans dashed by the Army’s own inability to steward itself to the schedule of the MRS, it’s not just some in the Army that get frustrated with how it attempts to manage its rotation of readiness/deployable forces.
 
In non-military terms you give people a shot at small scale projects and see how they handle them with coaching. If they are good, or even just show promise, you give them another one. Some of them you turn into full time project managers. Some get further promotion. Others get relegated to Special Projects For Life.
That works in principle, but seconding Capt Bloggins from 4XX Sqn to ADM Mat or PMO for 3-6 months when 4XX Sqn is hurting for pilots and Capt Bloggins needs to fly at least once every 30 days to stay current is not really going to work out long term.

Also, that's where I said "small scale staff work at the tactical level" doesn't translate to being a part of project staff. Having done both, you can get a small inkling of whether Capt Bloggins would be good at verbal/written communication, but I maintain that it's hard to gauge whether they would be a good staff officer without having an extended time in a project staff.

Then, there's the chance that people will want to "game" the system. It'd probably happen anyway, but folks who do show promise but don't want to leave the operational world would just tank the small project. I suppose there could be financial/career incentives (like promotion) to entice them to staff jobs, but then those folks need to be senior enough to be promotable, or somehow get the funding piece. And, the twist with being promotable is if there is a great staff officer but only a so-so [insert trade] officer, then they're theoretically not going to get promoted...


maybe true but after 8 years of lies anything would be an improvement
Be careful what you wish for.
 
Then, there's the chance that people will want to "game" the system. It'd probably happen anyway, but folks who do show promise but don't want to leave the operational world would just tank the small project. I suppose there could be financial/career incentives (like promotion) to entice them to staff jobs, but then those folks need to be senior enough to be promotable, or somehow get the funding piece. And, the twist with being promotable is if there is a great staff officer but only a so-so [insert trade] officer, then they're theoretically not going to get promoted...
You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.

If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.

It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.
 
You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.

If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.

It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.
And a failure to develop and maintain streams that allow suitably motivated members to advance along alternate career streams that in part, support procurement-related activities that fall far from the minds of many at the line units, but that is just as much an important function for the CAF as pure operations.
 
And a failure to develop and maintain streams that allow suitably motivated members to advance along alternate career streams that in part, support procurement-related activities that fall far from the minds of many at the line units, but that is just as much an important function for the CAF as pure operations.
I’m one of those “alternate career streams” folks.

I know I asked for it, but my promotion prospects were definitely not helped because my career was (and continues to be) not the normal progression.
 
You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.

If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.

It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.
How many real purely operational positions does the CAF have, full time? CANSOFCOM has some, SAR has some, I am sure I have missed some others. But mostly, it is hurry up and wait. Recruiting was not a problem during the Afghanistan era. Thereafter, people voted with their feet.
 
That works in principle, but seconding Capt Bloggins from 4XX Sqn to ADM Mat or PMO for 3-6 months when 4XX Sqn is hurting for pilots and Capt Bloggins needs to fly at least once every 30 days to stay current is not really going to work out long term.

Somewhere along the line Capt Bloggins is going to have to commit. Although I understand that a lot of pilots have commitment issues. ;)

Also, that's where I said "small scale staff work at the tactical level" doesn't translate to being a part of project staff. Having done both, you can get a small inkling of whether Capt Bloggins would be good at verbal/written communication, but I maintain that it's hard to gauge whether they would be a good staff officer without having an extended time in a project staff.

Verbal/Written communication doesn't really start to define the problem. Generating consensus in a team is a lot different than having that team click their heels and say Yes Ma'am! to die Fuehrerin. That ability to interact with others may show up in different fashions - like how does a lieutenant take advice from NCOs, can they sustain friendly relations with the junior ranks, does he or she take on board what they are being told, do they give credit where it is due -

And how is that culture seen in the command and control culture of an operational unit?

Then, there's the chance that people will want to "game" the system. It'd probably happen anyway, but folks who do show promise but don't want to leave the operational world would just tank the small project. I suppose there could be financial/career incentives (like promotion) to entice them to staff jobs, but then those folks need to be senior enough to be promotable, or somehow get the funding piece. And, the twist with being promotable is if there is a great staff officer but only a so-so [insert trade] officer, then they're theoretically not going to get promoted...

I saw that and had to read that two or three times. My immediate reaction was WOW!!!

I'm glad that @Furniture and @Good2Golf articulated the responses they did.
 
Somewhere along the line Capt Bloggins is going to have to commit. Although I understand that a lot of pilots have commitment issues. ;)



Verbal/Written communication doesn't really start to define the problem. Generating consensus in a team is a lot different than having that team click their heels and say Yes Ma'am! to die Fuehrerin. That ability to interact with others may show up in different fashions - like how does a lieutenant take advice from NCOs, can they sustain friendly relations with the junior ranks, does he or she take on board what they are being told, do they give credit where it is due -

And how is that culture seen in the command and control culture of an operational unit?



I saw that and had to read that two or three times. My immediate reaction was WOW!!!

I'm glad that @Furniture and @Good2Golf articulated the responses they did.
I met a Cpl (played hockey and ball with in PLAP in the 80's) that turned down five promotions, because it would take him away from the thing he wanted to do, which was fix planes. I worked with a LCol, in Ottawa, who turned down a promotion to Col three times because it would have meant a job where he would have to be an asshole.
 
I’m one of those “alternate career streams” folks.

I know I asked for it, but my promotion prospects were definitely not helped because my career was (and continues to be) not the normal progression.
I hear you. Hopefully the CAF/RCAF isn’t stupid enough not to capitalize on its investment, which also means keeping you engaged and productive and acknowledged within the organization. Your departure/transfer/etc. would be a loss. That being said, I’ve seen it and lived it similarly, and while I was able to walk both lines of line ops and tech, it did have a de facto cap (not being one of the Cool NORAD kids) that was a catalyst for moving on to something more rewarding and fulfilling. Good luck with your path, @dimsum!
 
How many real purely operational positions does the CAF have, full time? CANSOFCOM has some, SAR has some, I am sure I have missed some others. But mostly, it is hurry up and wait. Recruiting was not a problem during the Afghanistan era. Thereafter, people voted with their feet.
I was referring more to units which can be operational, vs. static HQ/staff jobs.

Eg. People wanting to sail, rather than be posted to NDHQ.

Both jobs are necessary for the CAF, but not everybody wants to do both, and not everybody will do well at both. The current "system" forces people to do both though, regardless of their wishes or suitability.
 
I met a Cpl (played hockey and ball with in PLAP in the 80's) that turned down five promotions, because it would take him away from the thing he wanted to do, which was fix planes.

The $100,000 Mechanic - because that's the kind of money that a top of the line tradesman can command outside the service.

On the other hand a 5B PI 4 at 84,000, a secure job with benefits and a full pension after 20 years isn't too shabby either. Especially when, after retirement, you can add a civvy mechanic's income on top.

Corporal
Pay levelTrade groupBasic payPI 1PI 2PI 3PI 4
5AStandard53205398547855545626
5ASpecialist 159596063616662676376
5ASpecialist 263116436656266886811
5BStandard55425621569257735853
5BSpecialist 161856294639865016608
5BSpecialist 265396670679069207052
 
I was referring more to units which can be operational, vs. static HQ/staff jobs.

Eg. People wanting to sail, rather than be posted to NDHQ.

Both jobs are necessary for the CAF, but not everybody wants to do both, and not everybody will do well at both. The current "system" forces people to do both though, regardless of their wishes or suitability.

Part of the reason for the variation of postings is to provide a well rounded understanding of the CAF and its operations.

If someone just wants to sail, they can do that right now at least in my trade. Simply opt out of PERs at the S1 level.
 
Part of the reason for the variation of postings is to provide a well rounded understanding of the CAF and its operations.

If someone just wants to sail, they can do that right now at least in my trade. Simply opt out of PERs at the S1 level.
Thats not really a solution though, you could still easily be posted as a S1 to Gagetown or Cold Lake.

How well rounded is someone who has done two years or less at each job? They have breadth of experience, but no depth.

There isn't an easy solution to make everyone happy, but the current "system" (which in my occupation is whatever the Occ Advisors at the time think is best) isn't working.
 
The $100,000 Mechanic - because that's the kind of money that a top of the line tradesman can command outside the service.

On the other hand a 5B PI 4 at 84,000, a secure job with benefits and a full pension after 20 years isn't too shabby either. Especially when, after retirement, you can add a civvy mechanic's income on top.

Corporal
Pay levelTrade groupBasic payPI 1PI 2PI 3PI 4
5AStandard53205398547855545626
5ASpecialist 159596063616662676376
5ASpecialist 263116436656266886811
5BStandard55425621569257735853
5BSpecialist 161856294639865016608
5BSpecialist 265396670679069207052
5B is a MCpl, and spec 2 is not what most spec trades make.

A Spec 1 5A Cpl makes $76.5K, still good money, but nowhere near $100K.
 
Thats not really a solution though, you could still easily be posted as a S1 to Gagetown or Cold Lake.

How well rounded is someone who has done two years or less at each job? They have breadth of experience, but no depth.

There isn't an easy solution to make everyone happy, but the current "system" (which in my occupation is whatever the Occ Advisors at the time think is best) isn't working.

I can only speak from what I have observed in my trade. But if you want to sail, stay an S1. We almost always only geo post for promotion.

We should hault the stupid tri-service requirements for CSS folks. That would alleviate a lot of this garbage.
 
You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.

If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.

It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.
Who would want to go work in CAF projects when history has shown 90% of them end up getting canned or used as toilet paper in NDHQ?

In another life, I was asked if I was interested in going Tech Staff. The answer was a big fat NO. I ultimately OT'ed to squeeze a little more juice out of the operational World.
 
Back
Top