• 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.
 
Sometimes the more and more everyone talks about current state and potential future state, the less I’m inclined to remain in Canada when I retire. I’d rather enjoy my remaining time on the planet living in a place more inline with my overall beliefs.

If you haven't made plans to get your assets out of Canada, then you aren't being responsible to your family.
 
September 6, 2023 – Defence Stories

Many of you will have heard by now about efforts underway by the Government of Canada to bring the growth of government spending back to a pre-pandemic path. This was announced in Budget 2023 [Chapter 6: Effective Government and a Fair Tax System | Budget 2023], and is an important – and necessary – initiative, to ensure that Canadians’ tax dollars are being used efficiently.

As one of the largest federal departments, National Defence has an important role to play in effective and efficient government operations. Early efforts are now underway across the Defence Team to address our part in this initiative by developing spending reduction options. Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) is leading this exercise in consultation with Level 1 organizations.

Reductions related to operating expenditures will be phased in over three years and are not expected to result in job losses outside of normal attrition, or reallocation, ensuring that our people’s work is focused on high-priority initiatives. Similarly, reductions identified related to professional services and travel will have no impact on employment levels. The extent of impact is yet to be confirmed.

This exercise is distinct from the Defence Policy Update process announced in Budget 2022 [Chapter 5: Canada’s Leadership in the World | Budget 2022], which is still underway.

Expenditure reviews are an essential part of responsible management, and we all have a role to play in finding ways to deliver the best results for Canadians. This will entail hard decisions. However, this is not about doing more with less or arbitrary cost-cutting. It is about ensuring the defence budget is directed toward top defence and government priorities; and in an increasingly dangerous world, ensuring this will not negatively impact the ability of the CAF to perform its functions — keeping Canadians safe and contributing to international security.

For this, we are counting on your support as we move forward this fall with priorities for review.

We are committed to communicating clearly and regularly on the progress and scope of this important work.

Bill Matthews Deputy Minister

General Wayne Eyre Chief of the Defence Staff
 
September 6, 2023 – Defence Stories

Many of you will have heard by now about efforts underway by the Government of Canada to bring the growth of government spending back to a pre-pandemic path. This was announced in Budget 2023 [Chapter 6: Effective Government and a Fair Tax System | Budget 2023], and is an important – and necessary – initiative, to ensure that Canadians’ tax dollars are being used efficiently.

As one of the largest federal departments, National Defence has an important role to play in effective and efficient government operations. Early efforts are now underway across the Defence Team to address our part in this initiative by developing spending reduction options. Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) is leading this exercise in consultation with Level 1 organizations.

Reductions related to operating expenditures will be phased in over three years and are not expected to result in job losses outside of normal attrition, or reallocation, ensuring that our people’s work is focused on high-priority initiatives. Similarly, reductions identified related to professional services and travel will have no impact on employment levels. The extent of impact is yet to be confirmed.

This exercise is distinct from the Defence Policy Update process announced in Budget 2022 [Chapter 5: Canada’s Leadership in the World | Budget 2022], which is still underway.

Expenditure reviews are an essential part of responsible management, and we all have a role to play in finding ways to deliver the best results for Canadians. This will entail hard decisions. However, this is not about doing more with less or arbitrary cost-cutting. It is about ensuring the defence budget is directed toward top defence and government priorities; and in an increasingly dangerous world, ensuring this will not negatively impact the ability of the CAF to perform its functions — keeping Canadians safe and contributing to international security.

For this, we are counting on your support as we move forward this fall with priorities for review.

We are committed to communicating clearly and regularly on the progress and scope of this important work.

Bill Matthews Deputy Minister

General Wayne Eyre Chief of the Defence Staff
Unsurprisingly the mods on reddit didn't let this one see the light of day
 
Expenditure reviews are an essential part of responsible management, and we all have a role to play in finding ways to deliver the best results for Canadians. This will entail hard decisions. However, this is not about doing more with less or arbitrary cost-cutting. It is about ensuring the defence budget is directed toward top defence and government priorities; and in an increasingly dangerous world, ensuring this will not negatively impact the ability of the CAF to perform its functions — keeping Canadians safe and contributing to international security.
When they say things like that, we all know that it means the opposite.

"Don't "retreat" into release, but step up and do your part for the CAF(with less)"
 
September 6, 2023 – Defence Stories

Many of you will have heard by now about efforts underway by the Government of Canada to bring the growth of government spending back to a pre-pandemic path. This was announced in Budget 2023 [Chapter 6: Effective Government and a Fair Tax System | Budget 2023], and is an important – and necessary – initiative, to ensure that Canadians’ tax dollars are being used efficiently.

As one of the largest federal departments, National Defence has an important role to play in effective and efficient government operations. Early efforts are now underway across the Defence Team to address our part in this initiative by developing spending reduction options. Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) is leading this exercise in consultation with Level 1 organizations.

Reductions related to operating expenditures will be phased in over three years and are not expected to result in job losses outside of normal attrition, or reallocation, ensuring that our people’s work is focused on high-priority initiatives. Similarly, reductions identified related to professional services and travel will have no impact on employment levels. The extent of impact is yet to be confirmed.

This exercise is distinct from the Defence Policy Update process announced in Budget 2022 [Chapter 5: Canada’s Leadership in the World | Budget 2022], which is still underway.

Expenditure reviews are an essential part of responsible management, and we all have a role to play in finding ways to deliver the best results for Canadians. This will entail hard decisions. However, this is not about doing more with less or arbitrary cost-cutting. It is about ensuring the defence budget is directed toward top defence and government priorities; and in an increasingly dangerous world, ensuring this will not negatively impact the ability of the CAF to perform its functions — keeping Canadians safe and contributing to international security.

For this, we are counting on your support as we move forward this fall with priorities for review.

We are committed to communicating clearly and regularly on the progress and scope of this important work.

Bill Matthews Deputy Minister

General Wayne Eyre Chief of the Defence Staff

The subject title to the email; “DM/CDS Message: Reductions to Defence spending”

What an absolute clown show this govt is…
 
Well I just saw something interesting a few minutes back.
I live in south-east Burlington (ON) about 3/4 of a mile (yes, I still use miles, feet, inches, Fahrenheit) from L. Ontario. While out walking my dog over my lunch hour, at 12:08pm a Chinook flew over my head on its way towards Hamilton. The only place that I could think would make sense it was flying to was the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum attached to Hamilton International Airport. Of course it could be flying elsewhere. In 14yrs I've lived in Burlington I believe that this is the first time I've seen a Chinook fly overhead here.
 
"Don't "retreat" into release, but step up and do your part for the CAF(with less)"
Fundamental difference right there between the CAF and US military (based on my experience observations). Using the word "retreat" was just ignorant in the least but exemplifies the barely hidden sentiment that when you leave or retire from the CAF before CRA, you're just a quitter.

When you leave the US Marine Corps after 3 years: "HUAAA once a Marine always a Marine! Here is your GI Bill!"
 
Fundamental difference right there between the CAF and US military (based on my experience). Using the word "retreat" was just ignorant in the least but exemplifies the barely hidden sentiment that when you leave or retire from the CAF before CRA, you're just a quitter.

When you leave the US Marine Corps after 3 years: "HUAAA once a Marine always a Marine! Here is your GI Bill!"
The CAF definitely has a culture problem in that regard.

I have friends/co-workers that have been told that after 20 years of service they weren't proving their "loyalty" to the CAF because they signed a CE rather than an IPS. 20 years of service is pretty loyal...
 
The CAF definitely has a culture problem in that regard.

I have friends/co-workers that have been told that after 20 years of service they weren't proving their "loyalty" to the CAF because they signed a CE rather than an IPS. 20 years of service is pretty loyal...

I would say we in the CAF are the main issue with this. The second the member has their final release appointment, we view them as VAC's problem for the most part. A lot of times, when someone wants to move on, it's seen as a slight against the whole than something we should laud the individual for. I remember an old SSM's words clearly on this:

"No one stays in the CAF forever, we all go back to being Mr./Mrs. Bloggins eventually."

But this is also a massively shitty take to have when it comes to members releasing. There shouldnt be a severing of fraternal or tribal links are by the institution and it left to the various individual members, branch or regimental associations, or other service organizations (RCL, ANAF, ANAVETS,) to pick up the pieces.

I honestly would love to see units reach out to those who part ways and invite them to unit functions as well, rather than have our little echo chamber of folks who are still on the company payroll.
 
Ordering your own Army and CAF certificates of service, and having no communication about your release from your higher CoC after putting in your release after 30+ years of service enter the conversation.
…it’s not like they made you process your own release. Sheesh, cut them some slack…

😝
 
Fundamental difference right there between the CAF and US military (based on my experience observations). Using the word "retreat" was just ignorant in the least but exemplifies the barely hidden sentiment that when you leave or retire from the CAF before CRA, you're just a quitter.

When you leave the US Marine Corps after 3 years: "HUAAA once a Marine always a Marine! Here is your GI Bill!"
The CAF looks at everyone as a 25-year career. The US military looks at most enlistees as a one-posting commitment - they are trying to put through as many people as they can, expecting most to leave.

Hence the “up or out” which means folks aren’t incentivized to specialize and be SMEs. If you are a superstar AVN Tech and want to keep turning wrenches your entire career - guess what, you can’t do that in the US military. You have to be promoted within a few cycles or you get punted with zero benefits.
 
The CAF looks at everyone as a 25-year career. The US military looks at most enlistees as a one-posting commitment - they are trying to put through as many people as they can, expecting most to leave.

Hence the “up or out” which means folks aren’t incentivized to specialize and be SMEs. If you are a superstar AVN Tech and want to keep turning wrenches your entire career - guess what, you can’t do that in the US military. You have to be promoted within a few cycles or you get punted with zero benefits.
I've always thought that a blend of both systems is the way to go. Plan on short career cycles for most (and set up the recruiting and training systems accordingly) but have a role for the long haul specialists even if they aren't the up or out types. There is a place for master captains and career corporals. This is one reason I like the US warrant officer system - it's not the same idea but one that looks at technical expertise and leadership without the need for a uni education nor the carrying of a baton in a knapsack.

🍻
 
The CAF looks at everyone as a 25-year career. The US military looks at most enlistees as a one-posting commitment - they are trying to put through as many people as they can, expecting most to leave.

Hence the “up or out” which means folks aren’t incentivized to specialize and be SMEs. If you are a superstar AVN Tech and want to keep turning wrenches your entire career - guess what, you can’t do that in the US military. You have to be promoted within a few cycles or you get punted with zero benefits.
There have been several attempts to redirect the stream down here.
One can hide in certain places (for instance you aren’t getting Up or Out’s in SOCOM) but the Big Services have institutional issues when they try to look at revamping.

The Big Army training system has looked at making some WO positions (again no push for OoO) for what have historically SNCO billets, but that also involves then changing courses to let SME’s take longer with students. Which course length changes then require the whole readiness system to change.

It’s the butterfly effect and I don’t see any willingness at the highest levels to deal with it.
 
There have been several attempts to redirect the stream down here.
One can hide in certain places (for instance you aren’t getting Up or Out’s in SOCOM) but the Big Services have institutional issues when they try to look at revamping.

The Big Army training system has looked at making some WO positions (again no push for OoO) for what have historically SNCO billets, but that also involves then changing courses to let SME’s take longer with students. Which course length changes then require the whole readiness system to change.

It’s the butterfly effect and I don’t see any willingness at the highest levels to deal with it.
In your opinion is the CAF or US system better as a whole?
 
In your opinion is the CAF or US system better as a whole?
Trick Question ;)
Honestly I think the Canadian training system was better in terms of training an individual for their task in the 80-Y2K years. I haven’t had any interaction with the Canadian system since 2004, but at least on the Infantry side, the robust depth of experience had started to erode due to ORBAT and some course changes.
At the NCO level the knowledge level was very deep due to Cbt Spt Platoon courses, and the fact that even on the lighter experience with a MCPL Section Commander and a Cpl 2I/c they had likely been in trade for 8+years and had several different experiences across a BN. I really don’t know how true that is anymore.

I do know that in talking to several folks I used to serve with that the Airborne and Light skills have been severely hurt in Canada, but that has been a direct result from the structural changes that the CA has endorsed itself to.

While a great deal of effort has been made down here to make a better training system at the end of the day the system down here survives solely due to numbers and support.

A lot of line serials start outside the rifle squad in OJT positions. A Sniper Det for instance is one area where the US Army doesn’t have a deep pool of experience.
Even Instructor Cadre at Sniper School don’t have the same depth of experience at a typical CA Sniper Det has. But the Army (etc) down here does have equipment, which often makes up for the experience deficit.

I’d really like to have a hybrid system taking the best aspects of both, that has a high intake, and high equipment support, but has longer courses, a slower promotion system and a better SME creation and retention process.

The USMC is closer to this, but outside of SOCOM it really doesn’t exist down here.
 
I do know that in talking to several folks I used to serve with that the Airborne and Light skills have been severely hurt in Canada, but that has been a direct result from the structural changes that the CA has endorsed itself to.
Don’t worry Kev, I’m sure the next Light Force Working Group will get it all sorted and CCA will embrace and implement the LFWG’s recommendations.
 
Back
Top