• 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.
 
So when that door blew off the 737 or whatever it was - did anyone check the bolts that held the door on to see if they were OEM or aftermarket?

I ask this because when we rebuilt the Barracuda the builder asked "where did these door bolts come from? They are wrong and substandard. Lets go find some proper door bolts."
 
So that got me reading…and it’s an interesting read.

MSN reposted (since it doesn’t actually report news) a Fox Business article, which was a summary of a City Journal post by a noted DEI critic. City Journal is published by the Manhattan Institute, a Conservative think tank.

Now, I could be performing mental gymnastics here, but I would argue that it may be a bit biased against DEI in general and “situating the estimate” a bit.



Airbus is French-led. Their work policies would make North American conservatives scream bloody murder.
Left, right and centre. 44 articles about the Texas AG questioning about DEI. You'll have to do your own research if you want more info.

 
Left, right and centre. 44 articles about the Texas AG questioning about DEI. You'll have to do your own research if you want more info.

I have to admit that I’m not sure we’ve always struck the best balance between hiring the best and having inclusive hiring practices so that all communities have a chance to become the best.

However, the Texas AG’s actions leads to some questions, specifically about jurisdiction. The have no aviation jurisdiction, that is federal through the FAA. They have no location jurisdiction, Spirit is in Kansas and Boeing is in Washington.

Given that, and the AG’s own political issues in the links provided (Ground News), is it possible Texas is again stirring the pot for political reasons?
 
Left, right and centre. 44 articles about the Texas AG questioning about DEI. You'll have to do your own research if you want more info.


Your love of this specific news aggregator (which to caveat I haven't looked into in depth to see what bias it may have) is either inadvertently or deliberately trying to push a red herring. 44 news reports from across the political spectrum about Ken Paxton trying to stir the base (the pessimist in me would say in an attempt to divert attention from his significant legal/ethical problems) does not mean that any of those sites agree with his dipshit claim about DEI, but rather they're reporting the facts that he did indeed make that claim (with varying levels of editorialization). "44 news agencies report that US partisan said 'X'" is a much different conclusion than "44 news agencies write article asserting 'X'".
 
If the US Navy owns the IP of the ASW suite, and is willing to move away from Boeing (that's the big if), the West can fairly easily move the kit to another platform, be it an A220-300 or an A320neo of Airbus. I'm sure Airbus would jump at the opportunity and make sure its engineering is done right even if just for the bragging rights. I bet Embraer would also love to sink its teeth into such a game.
Integrating mission systems to a civilian aircraft is difficult.

ask me how I know…
 
What is this "earth" thing you speak of?

It gets in the way of this guy's view ...

 
I have to admit that I’m not sure we’ve always struck the best balance between hiring the best and having inclusive hiring practices so that all communities have a chance to become the best.

However, the Texas AG’s actions leads to some questions, specifically about jurisdiction. The have no aviation jurisdiction, that is federal through the FAA. They have no location jurisdiction, Spirit is in Kansas and Boeing is in Washington.

Given that, and the AG’s own political issues in the links provided (Ground News), is it possible Texas is again stirring the pot for political reasons?
Could be. Or maybe they want to make enough noise that lobbyists can't shove it under the rug, no matter the jurisdiction?
 
It seems the key issues are far more profound, and should probably steer us away from considering Boeing as a supplier:


Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

Aggressive cost cutting and rocky leadership changes have eroded the culture at Boeing, a company once admired for its engineering rigor, says Bill George. What will it take to repair the reputational damage wrought by years of crises involving its 737 MAX?

Once again, Boeing’s 737 MAX is back in the headlines.

After two crashes that killed 346 people in 2018 and 2019 and five years of ensuing design changes and regulatory scrutiny, the 737 MAX is grounded again after a mid-air blowout of a fuselage panel on January 5. After loose bolts were discovered on other MAX 9s, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the planes and opened an investigation into whether MAX is safe to fly, accompanied by a stern warning, saying, “This incident should have never happened, and it cannot happen again.”

Boeing has also experienced repeated problems in design and production with its newest jumbo jet, the 787 Dreamliner. Such frequent, repeated crises point to a deeper issue than isolated engineering mishaps. The underlying cause of these issues is a leadership failure that has allowed cultural drift away from Boeing’s once-vaunted engineering quality.

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago - HBS Working Knowledge
Except the P-8 and E-7 aren't 737 MAX products, they're standard 737 Next Generation, which do not suffer from the same issues.
 
Your love of this specific news aggregator (which to caveat I haven't looked into in depth to see what bias it may have) is either inadvertently or deliberately trying to push a red herring. 44 news reports from across the political spectrum about Ken Paxton trying to stir the base (the pessimist in me would say in an attempt to divert attention from his significant legal/ethical problems) does not mean that any of those sites agree with his dipshit claim about DEI, but rather they're reporting the facts that he did indeed make that claim (with varying levels of editorialization). "44 news agencies report that US partisan said 'X'" is a much different conclusion than "44 news agencies write article asserting

To begin with, I never staked out a position one way or another. I simply made an assumption based on some reports, that DEI might be a problem at Boeing.

Perhaps I misunderstood, what you were asking. I did my best. Guess what? You can Google shit yourself. That way you don't have to accuse people of giving you non-existent red herrings and going on biased rants.

I like GN because silly sensitive souls have a habit of attacking a source simply because of the perceived right/ left slant. GN gives them an opportunity to read about a subject from all political perspectives.

Again, don't wait for me to answer. Do some work yourself. A whole page of Boeing and DEI with a very simple search of three words.


Have an illustrious day
 
To begin with, I never staked out a position one way or another. I simply made an assumption based on some reports, that DEI might be a problem at Boeing.

Perhaps I misunderstood, what you were asking. I did my best. Guess what? You can Google shit yourself. That way you don't have to accuse people of giving you non-existent red herrings and going on biased rants.

I like GN because silly sensitive souls have a habit of attacking a source simply because of the perceived right/ left slant. GN gives them an opportunity to read about a subject from all political perspectives.

Again, don't wait for me to answer. Do some work yourself. A whole page of Boeing and DEI with a very simple search of three words.


Have an illustrious day

This is a lot of words to say, "I pulled a bullshit right-wing conspiracy theorist claim about boogeyman-de-jour DEI out of my ass, got called out on it because despite most of army.ca's users being generally right leaning they still embrace legitimate debate, and when put to task I skulked back into saying, well "I never staked out a position one way or another."

You can make a bunch of passive aggressive claims and link to Google search macros to suggest that the rest of us could understand your point if we just did some research. Guess what - most of us are at least somewhat read into the Boeing saga as defence enthusiasts so we immediately knew that your Trump-esque "many people are saying" was bullshit from the start.

I'd say do better, but you've made an entire career on this website of being full of shit, playing it off when you get called out by members all across the political spectrum, and then bringing the same bullshit out the next day as if nothing had happened. I don't know why I continue to engage, but I guess it's for the tidbits of actual subject-matter expertise that gets sprinkled into this forum a few times a week.
 
Integrating mission systems to a civilian aircraft is difficult.

ask me how I know…
It doesn’t have to be (ask me how I know)…

The problem comes when there are requirements that don’t naturally allow it, the contractor doesn’t really understand those requirements, and the people representing the users and customer (they are different) don’t know how to explain them.
 
This is a lot of words to say, "I pulled a bullshit right-wing conspiracy theorist claim about boogeyman-de-jour DEI out of my ass, got called out on it because despite most of army.ca's users being generally right leaning they still embrace legitimate debate, and when put to task I skulked back into saying, well "I never staked out a position one way or another."

You can make a bunch of passive aggressive claims and link to Google search macros to suggest that the rest of us could understand your point if we just did some research. Guess what - most of us are at least somewhat read into the Boeing saga as defence enthusiasts so we immediately knew that your Trump-esque "many people are saying" was bullshit from the start.

I'd say do better, but you've made an entire career on this website of being full of shit, playing it off when you get called out by members all across the political spectrum, and then bringing the same bullshit out the next day as if nothing had happened. I don't know why I continue to engage, but I guess it's for the tidbits of actual subject-matter expertise that gets sprinkled into this forum a few times a week.
Anthony Anderson Abc GIF by HULU
 
Pardon me adding my 2 cents but what gives? Over the last several weeks the level of tolerance and rational discussion has dropped to a level not seen since the last House of Commons debate. Simply put telling someone to F off is not a good repartee. If you have to resort to that you have already lost the argument. We give the Mods enough headaches without this.
 
It doesn’t have to be (ask me how I know)…

The problem comes when there are requirements that don’t naturally allow it, the contractor doesn’t really understand those requirements, and the people representing the users and customer (they are different) don’t know how to explain them.
All true, but I am still saying that making a civilian airliner into an ASW aircraft is not “hand wave, we will bolt a bunch of mission stations in and have it done next week” exercise.

Modifying a commercial fuselage for a bomb bay is not trivial exercise. Weapon separation trials are not a trivial exercise. EMI/EMC trials are not trivial.

Everything is doable- please send money. And with a coherent project management structure. And with a few years.
 
Pardon me adding my 2 cents but what gives? Over the last several weeks the level of tolerance and rational discussion has dropped to a level not seen since the last House of Commons debate. Simply put telling someone to F off is not a good repartee. If you have to resort to that you have already lost the argument. We give the Mods enough headaches without this.
I agree.

That being said, I’ve seen this pop up a few times from various people in the past few weeks - e.g. the reply to @SupersonicMax yesterday.

Maybe there’s something to the whole “don’t discuss politics” thing in the mess…
 
Back
Top