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.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.

NLAW seems to fit better around the Carl G niche. M72 is not much good against modern tanks, but it is really cheap and can really mess up bunkers/defensive positions and, I suppose, older AFVs.

Javelin is a medium to long range (depending on version, if you believe wikipedia) anti-armour system that can destroy just about any armoured vehicle in the world.

 

[dimsum]

Easy answer that's totally within our control - stop Canadianizing stuff. Go whole hog for an integrated North American defence industry.

For some stuff, yes. However, there is also a need for CAN eyes only stuff.

Also, we may be certifying stuff to different levels. Cold weather standards for us are different than the Americans, for example.

 

[FJAG]

So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.

I'm dead set against "replacing" things unless there is an equivalent system (cost, weight, ease of use) that delivers a better effect. Then by all means do so.

These things are almost more in the class of ammunition than pure weapons systems and I see no reason why one can't have 1) an AT weapon that a single soldier can carry (eg M72/AT-4); 2) an more effective longer ranged weapon within the section or platoon (eg NLAW / Javelin); 3) an even more effective longer ranged weapon at the battalion level (eg Javelin/others?) and finally 4) an even more improved much longer ranged weapon system at the GS level (such as armed drones)

I think one wants to build an envelope of weapons which fit within (or define) the roles of the various tactical elements. I won't presume how those should be organized and armed but the end effect should be a layered defence that has the appropriate weapon at the appropriate level and whose costs and ease of use are commensurate with where it is deployed. Like everyone, I'd love to see Javelin everywhere but is that either practical or cost effective considering all the other things we need?

 

[Furniture]

Easy answer that's totally within our control - stop Canadianizing stuff. Go whole hog for an integrated North American defence industry.


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.


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.


Of course. But what may be good enough for one role might be inadequate for another.


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.

I realize there are solutions to the problems presented, my point is more that we have a long enough track record of doing exactly what I said, and I don't see that changing suddenly. Canada is still part of Fortress America, so we don't "need" an expensive military in the eyes of the public, particularly when things are going well. Nobody was clamoring for more defence spending in the last couple of elections, and by the time the next one rolls around I suspect $10/day daycare will still be more enticing to voters than Javelins, F-35s, self propelled artillery, or even CAF housing/pay/benefits.

It would be great if Canada would actually take defence seriously, and send an appropriate amount of thought, effort, and cash on it. History has shown we won't, so my idea is to make the best use of the money while the going is good, and buy system we can afford to maintain even when times get lean.

We lack any modern infantry AT weapons. We could spend money on the top of the line Javelin, buy a bunch today, and in five years when the budget is being cut again we would have a system to expensive to actually use/train with, or we could buy less expensive SR weapons like NLAW, and even with reduced budgets the cost per missile might help keep it affordable enough to be use/train with.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I think the CAF would be far better served if we stopped wishing/asking for the Bentleys of military kit, and accepted we can only realistically afford Hondas. Sure a Bentley is better in every measurable way, but if can't afford to dive it because of gas costs and maintenance, the Honda is actually a better match for our needs.

 

[FJAG]

For some stuff, yes. However, there is also a need for CAN eyes only stuff.

I'm not sure of how critical that is when it comes to hardware components. If we're talking communications and data link controls I would assume that there are ways to do that at the code or chip level. Quite frankly I think we have too many discrete silos that mitigate against easy interoperability with our allies despite our constant search for common standards.

I know that you are on a project where this may matter, at least in our eyes, but I'm not so sure that it really does all that much at the weapon system level.

Also, we may be certifying stuff to different levels. Cold weather standards for us are different than the Americans, for example.

I know that we ended up with the Sperwer instead of the Shadow 200 (which is what we really wanted) because AAI Corp would not certify the cold weather requirement that DLR 8 had put into the tender. The fact that the UOR was specifically for Afghanistan where, even around Kabul, the climate was milder (and eventually in Kandahar much milder).

Most of the heavy Army equipment required is for use in the temperate conditions of the European (or if you are pessimistic southern Canadian environment). It doesn't need Arctic standards. Americans generally factor Alaskan conditions into design specs at the low end.

Our problem, IMHO, is that all too frequently we impose limiting standards on ourselves that 1) aren't realistic and 2) take viable contenders out of the game.

 

[FJAG]

...Canada is still part of Fortress America, so we don't "need" an expensive military in the eyes of the public, particularly when things are going well. Nobody was clamoring for more defence spending in the last couple of elections, and by the time the next one rolls around I suspect $10/day daycare will still be more enticing to voters than Javelins, F-35s, self propelled artillery, or even CAF housing/pay/benefits.

Then why spend $26 billion on what we are getting now? Just go the Iceland route and take that money, form a beefed up coast guard and gendarmerie, jump out of NATO, enter a bilateral agreement with just the US and give the rest to the $10 child care?

There are dozens of reasons why not. The job of a politician is to do the right thing and not the popular thing.

It would be great if Canada would actually take defence seriously, and send an appropriate amount of thought, effort, and cash on it. History has shown we won't, so my idea is to make the best use of the money while the going is good, and buy system we can afford to maintain even when times get lean.

There are times we do. The 1960s was one. The 1980s was another. We go in fits and starts.

We lack any modern infantry AT weapons. We could spend money on the top of the line Javelin, buy a bunch today, and in five years when the budget is being cut again we would have a system to expensive to actually use/train with, or we could buy less expensive SR weapons like NLAW, and even with reduced budgets the cost per missile might help keep it affordable enough to be use/train with.

I'll stay with my layered approach. One thing is that weapon training is not expensive. These things are simpler to operate and much of the training can be done on simulators. Going back to the Javelin AD system of the 1990s - they were in large measure operated by reservists who did most of their training on simulators and might have only fired one missile during their service. The large cost associated with them is a question of how many launcher units do you want to buy (if it uses a launcher unit) and how many do you want in your war stocks and what is their shelf life/refurbishment cycle?

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I think the CAF would be far better served if we stopped wishing/asking for the Bentleys of military kit, and accepted we can only realistically afford Hondas. Sure a Bentley is better in every measurable way, but if can't afford to dive it because of gas costs and maintenance, the Honda is actually a better match for our needs.

Here we agree. That's why I like layers. There's a point though. If the Bentley keeps you alive and in control then it's worth every penny. If the Honda gets you killed and loses you the war then it wasn't worth a plugged nickel.

 

[MilEME09]

I'm not sure of how critical that is when it comes to hardware components. If we're talking communications and data link controls I would assume that there are ways to do that at the code or chip level. Quite frankly I think we have too many discrete silos that mitigate against easy interoperability with our allies despite our constant search for common standards.

I know that you are on a project where this may matter, at least in our eyes, but I'm not so sure that it really does all that much at the weapon system level.


I know that we ended up with the Sperwer instead of the Shadow 200 (which is what we really wanted) because AAI Corp would not certify the cold weather requirement that DLR 8 had put into the tender. The fact that the UOR was specifically for Afghanistan where, even around Kabul, the climate was milder (and eventually in Kandahar much milder).

Most of the heavy Army equipment required is for use in the temperate conditions of the European (or if you are pessimistic southern Canadian environment). It doesn't need Arctic standards. Americans generally factor Alaskan conditions into design specs at the low end.

Our problem, IMHO, is that all too frequently we impose limiting standards on ourselves that 1) aren't realistic and 2) take viable contenders out of the game.

You mean like the new MSVS SMP having DEF? Which if you don't have the vehicle will not work. One would think of having a by pass, while I'm all for environmentally friendly, in a military vehicle that shouldn't be a factor

 

[FJAG]

You mean like the new MSVS SMP having DEF? Which if you don't have the vehicle will not work. One would think of having a by pass, while I'm all for environmentally friendly, in a military vehicle that shouldn't be a factor

I'm not sure what DEF is but I presume something that meets some Canadian environmental standard.

But the answer is: exactly. Military equipment by definition causes environmental harm in numerous ways. They are also an almost insignificant percentage of the volume of polluters and are an essential commodity. There should be built into our environmental regulations opt out clauses for SMPs.

 

[suffolkowner]

You mean like the new MSVS SMP having DEF? Which if you don't have the vehicle will not work. One would think of having a by pass, while I'm all for environmentally friendly, in a military vehicle that shouldn't be a factor

do US vehicles have DEF?

Quick look at the Oshkosh manual shows no DEF or particulate filters

 

[Kirkhill]

Pool of Canadians

38,000,000	Total Canadians	100%​
31,981,916	Canadians 15 and Over	84%​
30,879,381	Canadians 18 and Over	81%​

Existing evidence of social cohesion (% of Total)

23,940,000	Religious Canadians	63%​
9,500,000	Observant Canadians	25%​
4,000,000	Union Members	11%​

Inclination to work for the common good

13,300,000	Volunteers	35%​
2,070,000,000​	hours per year
1,035,000	Full Time Equivalents
1,330,000	Core Volunteers	4%​
548,550	Full Time Equivalents
16	hours per week
1,995,000	Engaged Volunteers	5%​
248,400	Full Time Equivalents
5	hours per week
9,975,000	Occasional Volunteers	26%​
238,050	Full Time Equivalents
1	hour per week

Volunteer activities

1,596,000	Sports	12%​
1,596,000	Social Service Non-Profits	12%​
1,330,000	Education and Research	10%​
1,197,000	Religion	9%​
798,000	Health	6%​

In 2005 when the population was only 80% of what it is now

Population aged 15 and over
	Total Team Sport Players
	thousands
Total population	26,106​
Total participants	7,314​
Ice hockey	1,298​
Soccer	708​
Basketball	626​
Baseball	520​
Volleyball	513​
Curling	294​
Softball	265​
Football	244​
Ball hockey	128 E
Rugby	116 E
In-line hockey	68 E
Total Team Sport Participants	4,468​

Population aged 15 and over
	Total Individual Sport Players
	thousands
Total population	26,106​
Total participants	7,314​
Golf	1,487​
Swimming	764​
Skiing (downhill/alpine)	490​
Cycling	459​
Tennis	403​
Snowboarding	270​
Badminton	268​
Skiing (cross-country/nordic)	197​
Bowling (10 pin)	177​
Mountain-boarding	167​
Squash	152 E
Bowling (5 pin)	123 E
Canoeing/kayaking	93 E
Martial arts	88 E
Snowshoeing	73 E
Gymnastics	72 E
Karate	72 E
Equestrian	69 E
In-line skating	67 E
Total Individual Sport Participants	4,682​

76,000 Guides with 21,000 volunteers
53,000 Scouts with 17,000 volunteers
54,000 Cadets with 7,800 CIC
5,000 Junior Rangers

How many are into extreme sports?

How many kids and adults are playing on-line adventure games and first person shooter and multi-player video games?

How many airsoft and paintball players are there? Aren't those team players?

How many people spend their time staring at screens looking to interact with the rest of the world?

Archaeology has been exploiting the crowd for a long while now with people spending their free time interpreting air and satellite images looking for lumps, bums, shine, shape and shadow in order to locate ancient landforms and constructions.

And with all of that potential we struggle to maintain a volunteer force of 23,000.

Perhaps the fault is within ourselves?

We're not offering the right opportunities.

 

[Kirkhill]

What about the British NLAW? Seems highly effective in Ukraine and is much cheaper to produce.

Useful kit it seems but it is an 800m weapon vs a 4000m weapon.

One is a Section weapon while the other is a Coy/Bn weapons although it is simple enough that it can be pushed down to the Section to convert the entire Battalion into an Anti-Tank Battalion.

Much like the Machine Gun of the Machine Gun Platoons and Companies of yore were pushed down to the Section and the entire Battalion is now a Machine Gun Battalion.

 

[Kirkhill]

So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.

Closer.

M72 still has its place. It is better than a hand grenade in my opinion.

However it can be supplemented by the NLAW and the AT4 (The Carl Gustav without the The Carl Gustav).

And, yes, the Javelin instead of the TOW.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I'd add to this that in most situations where we are likely to deploy tanks we are almost certainly going to be deploying along side American forces also using the Abrams. Not so certain that we'll be deploying alongside other nations using the Leopard. If the Ukraine conflict has shown us anything it's that logistics are absolutely a key enabler for military effectiveness and being fully interoperable with American forces would be a force multiplier for both our forces.

I'd go so far as suggesting that for any new military equipment purchases we should first look at what the US is using and justify why the same equipment isn't suitable for the Canadian military before we start shopping elsewhere. That would ensure maximum interoperability with our closest ally and simplify our logistics in case of war. It could also possibly encourage investment by US military contractors in the Canadian economy either for direct production or production of components within the supply chain if they see the potential for ongoing orders coming from Canada. It should also hopefully simplify our procurement system as it would only have to deal with those items where there is a demonstrated Canadian-specific need that isn't met by current US systems.

As far as our tanks go specifically I'd propose gifting our Leopards to Poland which is currently upgrading some of their Soviet-era vehicles with Leopards already which would give them the opportunity to then gift an equivalent number of their now surplus T-72s to Ukraine. We could then reach out the the US to replace our 82 x Leopards with enough Abrams to equip a Canadian ABCT (plus spares).

Not necessarily so. From both an historical perspective (I exempt Afghanistan as we didn't deploy a "mechanized formation") and our current NATO land commitment, we don't actually "integrate" with the American army sustainment system all that much. And that should be one of the factors considered in selecting major equipment - who'll provide repair, recovery, replacement (and will it be compatible) in the echelon above that which we deploy. We have much greater need of interoperability with the US in air and naval operations.

What do I foresee in the short-term (up to ten years) as to our "army" commitment? It will likely be a greater reinforcement of our current NATO deployment (eFP Latvia). While it's currently a bit of a dog's breakfast with odds and sods from several countries, the tanks in that battlegroup are Leopards (Poland and Spain), so we may not be working alongside Abrams. It makes sense (but who says that military thinking should make sense) to build on existing operational structures rather that change horses in mid-stride. Regardless of how the situation in Ukraine evolves, my suggestion would be to initially increase the Canadian presence on the ground to a full battle group with an adequate tranche of supporting arms and services. Hopefully the other NATO contributors would also increase their participation with the goal to round out a brigade group. Eventually, we should provide the majority of combat power (on the ground and dedicated/legitimate for quick fly-over to marry with equipment), and then it would make sense for Canada to command such a NATO brigade (or to be one of primary nations to rotate command). The next step would be to organize an integrated operational HQ with the Latvians.

 

[KevinB]

For some stuff, yes. However, there is also a need for CAN eyes only stuff.

Also, we may be certifying stuff to different levels. Cold weather standards for us are different than the Americans, for example.

Most US Cold Weather standards are stricter than Canadian at least for Army kit. No idea about Air or Navy standards.

We also read everyone’s mail anyway.

 

[Furniture]

Then why spend $26 billion on what we are getting now? Just go the Iceland route and take that money, form a beefed up coast guard and gendarmerie, jump out of NATO, enter a bilateral agreement with just the US and give the rest to the $10 child care?

I suspect if Canadian politicians figured they could get away with it, they would. The US and other partners likely remind them that the cost of not having a token military is worse than continuing to play Weekend At Bernie's with the CAF...

There are dozens of reasons why not. The job of a politician is to do the right thing and not the popular thing.

We know that, but do the politicians? I haven't seen much evidence of it in the last 20 years I have been paying attention to politics.

There are times we do. The 1960s was one. The 1980s was another. We go in fits and starts.

If we have to go back 40-60 years to find proof that Canada can occasionally be serious about defence, I think my point stands. Remember in the 60s and 80s there were still many voters with memories of WWI/WWII, we have spent the last 30 years living in peace and prosperity. Even now the average Canadian has seen zero impact from the war in Ukraine, other than images on their TV and phone.

I'll stay with my layered approach. One thing is that weapon training is not expensive. These things are simpler to operate and much of the training can be done on simulators. Going back to the Javelin AD system of the 1990s - they were in large measure operated by reservists who did most of their training on simulators and might have only fired one missile during their service. The large cost associated with them is a question of how many launcher units do you want to buy (if it uses a launcher unit) and how many do you want in your war stocks and what is their shelf life/refurbishment cycle?

It's a fair point about training, but we should maybe shoot them more than once in a career as well.

I guess my idea with AT weapons like NLAW/Spike SR, etc., is that we are better off having some capability now, that we can maintain, than we are going whole hog buying a couple of top end LR systems that we don't have enough of to actually deploy with, or train with.

Here we agree. That's why I like layers. There's a point though. If the Bentley keeps you alive and in control then it's worth every penny. If the Honda gets you killed and loses you the war then it wasn't worth a plugged nickel.

That's why I said Honda, not Lada

My point is we should be looking at the best affordable systems, rather than chasing after the top end stuff we can't/won't buy enough of. We are going to lose kit and people in a war. We need the Honda level of kit, that is safe, effective, and affordable enough to buy enough of it to be useful in a real war.

I agree that layers of systems is the best bet, I just worry that we will spend so much time trying to find the "best" layers, then conclude we can't afford the best, so we end up like we are now with no layers at all.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Every country deserves an army, their own or someone else's.

 

[JLB50]

Pool of Canadians

38,000,000	Total Canadians	100%​
31,981,916	Canadians 15 and Over	84%​
30,879,381	Canadians 18 and Over	81%​

Existing evidence of social cohesion (% of Total)

23,940,000	Religious Canadians	63%​
9,500,000	Observant Canadians	25%​
4,000,000	Union Members	11%​

Inclination to work for the common good

13,300,000	Volunteers	35%​
2,070,000,000​	hours per year
1,035,000	Full Time Equivalents
1,330,000	Core Volunteers	4%​
548,550	Full Time Equivalents
16	hours per week
1,995,000	Engaged Volunteers	5%​
248,400	Full Time Equivalents
5	hours per week
9,975,000	Occasional Volunteers	26%​
238,050	Full Time Equivalents
1	hour per week

Volunteer activities

1,596,000	Sports	12%​
1,596,000	Social Service Non-Profits	12%​
1,330,000	Education and Research	10%​
1,197,000	Religion	9%​
798,000	Health	6%​

In 2005 when the population was only 80% of what it is now

Population aged 15 and over
	Total Team Sport Players
	thousands
Total population	26,106​
Total participants	7,314​
Ice hockey	1,298​
Soccer	708​
Basketball	626​
Baseball	520​
Volleyball	513​
Curling	294​
Softball	265​
Football	244​
Ball hockey	128 E
Rugby	116 E
In-line hockey	68 E
Total Team Sport Participants	4,468​

Population aged 15 and over
	Total Individual Sport Players
	thousands
Total population	26,106​
Total participants	7,314​
Golf	1,487​
Swimming	764​
Skiing (downhill/alpine)	490​
Cycling	459​
Tennis	403​
Snowboarding	270​
Badminton	268​
Skiing (cross-country/nordic)	197​
Bowling (10 pin)	177​
Mountain-boarding	167​
Squash	152 E
Bowling (5 pin)	123 E
Canoeing/kayaking	93 E
Martial arts	88 E
Snowshoeing	73 E
Gymnastics	72 E
Karate	72 E
Equestrian	69 E
In-line skating	67 E
Total Individual Sport Participants	4,682​

76,000 Guides with 21,000 volunteers
53,000 Scouts with 17,000 volunteers
54,000 Cadets with 7,800 CIC
5,000 Junior Rangers

How many are into extreme sports?

How many kids and adults are playing on-line adventure games and first person shooter and multi-player video games?

How many airsoft and paintball players are there? Aren't those team players?

How many people spend their time staring at screens looking to interact with the rest of the world?

Archaeology has been exploiting the crowd for a long while now with people spending their free time interpreting air and satellite images looking for lumps, bums, shine, shape and shadow in order to locate ancient landforms and constructions.

And with all of that potential we struggle to maintain a volunteer force of 23,000.

Perhaps the fault is within ourselves?

We're not offering the right opportunities.

Somewhere, a few years ago, I read that in 1962 (pretty much the height of the Cold War), Canada‘s armed forces totalled 125,000. That was back when our population was only 18,000,000, only half of what it is today. Also, back then only men were allowed to join. Mind you, I’m not sure if that 125,000 figure included the reserves or not. Also, training wasn’t as specialized as it is today, etc. etc. etc. Still…

Countless Canadians I’ve talked to (both native-born and recent immigrants) have told me that they basically see Canada‘s military role in the world as a peace keeping force…even though (IMHO) peace keeping isn’t what it used to be and probably never what was what ”it used to be”, especially after Ruanda and the Balkans. Also, Canadian diplomatic strength isn’t what it used to be either.

Despite the fact that I consider myself basically a Liberal, the liberal press seems to continually push this agenda that the military is basically a relic of the past and that it should be underfunded and understaffed...kind of like “defund the police”. The only time they seem to exhibit any positive sentiments is on November 11th when they say how much they are grateful to those who have served and/or paid the ultimate price. Otherwise, pack up the sentiments and store them on a shelf until next year, same time.

I do believe that a lot of Canadians, both men and women, would be willing to serve. However, it’s often a case of “out of sight…out of mind”. It’s been several years since I’ve seen any CAF recruitment commercials on TV and if there are any on the social media, I have yet to see them. Also, an appeal to patriotism seems quite anachronistic in today’s culture.

I only hope that everyone—the members of all political parties, the media and the general public—will awaken from their long slumber now that the invasion of Ukraine is threatening world stability. Is it too late for Canada given the state of its lack of military commitment? I don’t think so, but definitely things would have been much better if both the Conservative and Liberals who have governed this country over the years would have made a serious commitment to defence. Basically, will Canada finally show that it has a spine? Australia should serve as a role model for us.

Anyway, I’m probably preaching here to the converted. In conclusion, I do believe that if enough Canadians make their opinions known then government will eventually listen. In the last few weeks I have sent numerous emails to my MP as well as Ministers Anand, Freeland and the Prime Minister. I like to think that my voice made a difference when the announcement was made earlier this week that the Defence budget will likely increase. Hey, it’s a start.

 

[Booter]

As long as the training system and procurement processes are working against it throwing money at it won’t increase the effectiveness of the org.

I know there are ways around procurement- but it’s not ideal- and we tend to gravitate back to the bureaucratic Process.

The pipe has gotten too narrow for training, almost designed to keep itself slow- so money and bodies forced in don’t really have an effect.

Like a billion dollars into a nursing program in NB. If the training pipe isn’t addressed- no increase in bodies. Just burnt money.

The CF and some other organizations need a hard restart on philosophy and goals. What are we going to do? What can we do well? What does that look like. What can a reservist do well? With how much training? How much more before they can be plugged in effectively?

I guess I remain stuck on the idea that we aren’t using money effectively. So more money isn’t going to make us effective

 

[Kirkhill]

Somewhere, a few years ago, I read that in 1962 (pretty much the height of the Cold War), Canada‘s armed forces totalled 125,000. That was back when our population was only 18,000,000, only half of what it is today. Also, back then only men were allowed to join. Mind you, I’m not sure if that 125,000 figure included the reserves or not. Also, training wasn’t as specialized as it is today, etc. etc. etc. Still…

Countless Canadians I’ve talked to (both native-born and recent immigrants) have told me that they basically see Canada‘s military role in the world as a peace keeping force…even though (IMHO) peace keeping isn’t what it used to be and probably never what was what ”it used to be”, especially after Ruanda and the Balkans. Also, Canadian diplomatic strength isn’t what it used to be either.

Despite the fact that I consider myself basically a Liberal, the liberal press seems to continually push this agenda that the military is basically a relic of the past and that it should be underfunded and understaffed...kind of like “defund the police”. The only time they seem to exhibit any positive sentiments is on November 11th when they say how much they are grateful to those who have served and/or paid the ultimate price. Otherwise, pack up the sentiments and store them on a shelf until next year, same time.

I do believe that a lot of Canadians, both men and women, would be willing to serve. However, it’s often a case of “out of sight…out of mind”. It’s been several years since I’ve seen any CAF recruitment commercials on TV and if there are any on the social media, I have yet to see them. Also, an appeal to patriotism seems quite anachronistic in today’s culture.

I only hope that everyone—the members of all political parties, the media and the general public—will awaken from their long slumber now that the invasion of Ukraine is threatening world stability. Is it too late for Canada given the state of its lack of military commitment? I don’t think so, but definitely things would have been much better if both the Conservative and Liberals who have governed this country over the years would have made a serious commitment to defence. Basically, will Canada finally show that it has a spine? Australia should serve as a role model for us.

Anyway, I’m probably preaching here to the converted. In conclusion, I do believe that if enough Canadians make their opinions known then government will eventually listen. In the last few weeks I have sent numerous emails to my MP as well as Ministers Anand, Freeland and the Prime Minister. I like to think that my voice made a difference when the announcement was made earlier this week that the Defence budget will likely increase. Hey, it’s a start.

I don't know if an appeal to patriotism is anachronistic. Canadians seem quite willing to point out their fellow countrymen in foreign lands, like the US. They seem to like to differentiate themselves from other nations. They enjoy celebrating their victories over other nations. They are at pains to point out that they are not like other nations. They are particularly patriotic about not being patriotic.

They do see themselves as separate and distinct. I think that is a definition of nationalism and patriotism.

Also, perhaps we should be making more of the urge to be peace-keepers/peace-builders/peace-makers.

If we want to send a 1000 bed hospital into a war zone to treat children we need transport to get it there and to get the patients to the hospital and then to safety. We need engineers to build it and maintain it and its services. We need logisticians to keep it supplied with beans, blankets and bandages.

And we need security to defend the kids and the hospital workers.

We need GBAD to supply a dome. We need infantry and ATGMs to supply a hedge. We need cavalry and ISR to patrol the perimeter. We need a strike force to counter incursions.

In other words, to protect the innocent we need an army.

Perhaps there is an urge to protect, even if there is no perceived need to defend.

 

[KevinB]

I suspect if Canadian politicians figured they could get away with it, they would. The US and other partners likely remind them that the cost of not having a token military is worse than continuing to play Weekend At Bernie's with the CAF...


We know that, but do the politicians? I haven't seen much evidence of it in the last 20 years I have been paying attention to politics.


If we have to go back 40-60 years to find proof that Canada can occasionally be serious about defence, I think my point stands. Remember in the 60s and 80s there were still many voters with memories of WWI/WWII, we have spent the last 30 years living in peace and prosperity. Even now the average Canadian has seen zero impact from the war in Ukraine, other than images on their TV and phone.


It's a fair point about training, but we should maybe shoot them more than once in a career as well.

I guess my idea with AT weapons like NLAW/Spike SR, etc., is that we are better off having some capability now, that we can maintain, than we are going whole hog buying a couple of top end LR systems that we don't have enough of to actually deploy with, or train with.



That's why I said Honda, not Lada

My point is we should be looking at the best affordable systems, rather than chasing after the top end stuff we can't/won't buy enough of. We are going to lose kit and people in a war. We need the Honda level of kit, that is safe, effective, and affordable enough to buy enough of it to be useful in a real war.

I agree that layers of systems is the best bet, I just worry that we will spend so much time trying to find the "best" layers, then conclude we can't afford the best, so we end up like we are now with no layers at all.

The CAF isn’t big enough you can afford to not buy the best.