Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don't buy this argument. It might be marginally more difficult. But that just means it requires a bit more leadership. At the end of the day, when voters go to the polls, most are thinking personal, not provincial, self-interest. And that makes them persuadable to honest and passionate arguments. But at least, I've yet to see somebody even try during my lifetime. Except for maybe during the unity crisis of the 90s.

Respectfully I disagree - Quebec voters definitely think provincially when they vote Federally and I would argue that the Maritimes has the ability to fall into this trap and Alberta has moved substantially towards this as well.

 

[ytz]

@ytz Shouldn't the looming die off of the "wealthiest generation" correct some of this ?

That's not how it works though. The next generation inherits, which at first shot, looks great. But not everybody inherits, so you end up with even higher inequality. Feudalism basically. And those who don't inherit enough will be asking for even more from government. This is one of those "wicked problems".

 

[Good2Golf]

This is similar to the suggestion of Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, to meet 2%. He suggested a 1% GST increase ($10B) and a repurposing of operating expenses ($10B) to provide $20B more to defence.

What would it take for Canada to hit NATO’s 2% defence spending target? - National | Globalnews.ca

Experts say getting Canada's defence spending to two per cent of GDP is not as simple as moving money around and will require multiple measures and years of planning.

globalnews.ca

I have no faith that politicians can resist the temptation of freed fiscal room to ramp transfers (Liberals) or give tax cuts (Conservatives). As such, I would argue that there needs to be an explicit 2% increase in GDP tied to meeting NATO target. Possibly even legislation that says the defence budget will always be equal to or exceed the revenue of 4% GST equivalent (roughly works out to 2% GDP with that tax).

Imagine if defence became a statutory expenditure?

There's an inkling of vision in Poilievre's argument for more internal trade. Whether he will actually put muscle and political capital behind it remains to be seen. I hope it's more than just election rhetoric. I'd like to be see some real effort to see this country become a tad more East-West than the North-South we are right now.

This. Fixing the E-W internal tariffs (essentially), would be a good start to reinforcing our national output.

 

[ytz]

Respectfully I disagree - Quebec voters definitely think provincially when they vote Federally and I would argue that the Maritimes has the ability to fall into this trap and Alberta has moved substantially towards this as well.

I wouldn't call it thinking "provincially". Quebec voters are substantially motivated by protection of their heritage and culture. They vote accordingly. They have a regional party that caters quite well to that sentiment. They'd vote for other parties, if those parties delivered on that score.

Albertans and the Maritimers aren't thinking about their province per se. They are thinking about their personal well-being. A province with an economy based on resource extraction will have a lot of voters sensitive to pressure on that sector. Good federal leadership would find a way. Quebec voters worried about a pipeline through Montreal? Okay, take the pipeline to the Great Lakes or Hudson Bay. Find a way, instead of just arguing endlessly and trying to get one party to impose their will on the other provinces.

 

[ytz]

This. Fixing the E-W internal tariffs (essentially), would be a good start to reinforcing our national output.

Not just economics. But unity. Everybody who has served in the CAF should understand this implicitly. Working with each other builds relationships and trust. And eventually unity. Right now, it just seems like we mostly view each other as frenemies at best.

I'm an immigrant kid who grew up in suburban Toronto. I should have nothing in common with a Cape Bretoner. Yet, my best military friends have been Maritimers. My closest friends when OUTCAN were Quebecers. And so on. I consider this, the greatest blessing of my military career. I may hate Donair Sauce. But I'll take a bullet for the right to dip those Garlic Fingers things you Maritimers love, in your gross Donair Sauce.

 

[FSTO]

Okay, take the pipeline to the Great Lakes or Hudson Bay

Churchill or Port Nelson on Hudson Bay are in the best position to become energy super-ports. The MB government (in conjunction with the Feds) have dedicated 80 million to improve the railroad to Churchill. If the opening of the arctic is unstoppable then we should be building the infrastructure now to take advantage of the future.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I wouldn't call it thinking "provincially". Quebec voters are substantially motivated by protection of their heritage and culture. They vote accordingly. They have a regional party that caters quite well to that sentiment. They'd vote for other parties, if those parties delivered on that score.

Albertans and the Maritimers aren't thinking about their province per se. They are thinking about their personal well-being. A province with an economy based on resource extraction will have a lot of voters sensitive to pressure on that sector. Good federal leadership would find a way. Quebec voters worried about a pipeline through Montreal? Okay, take the pipeline to the Great Lakes or Hudson Bay. Find a way, instead of just arguing endlessly and trying to get one party to impose their will on the other provinces.

Interesting ideas/thoughts.
Regarding Quebec, voting linguistically/culturally and voting provincially is one and the same I'd still argue.
A curse of Canada is this endless need to find 'consensus' before moving forward on something - sometimes it leads to paralysis by constant analysis. A true leader realizes at a certain point or on a certain subject that the big dog needs to loudly bark sometimes and just get things done.

 

[ytz]

A true leader realizes at a certain point or on a certain subject that the big dog needs to loudly bark sometimes and just get things done.

My concern here is that leaders are more interested in fighting than building. They would rather have no pipeline than give in to Quebec (which after Lac Megantic has a very different perception of oil traveling through their province). That seems silly to me. Endless arguing has a cost too. Find another path, with willing participants, and move on.

 

[Kirkhill]

Russia is spending 9% of GDP on its offensive military. If they somehow come out intact from Ukraine, they'll be going after somebody else next. Putin can't stop. He needs war to keep his regime in power.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1895160776098267262

I wish a real Canadian statesman would step up to the podium and make the argument for a stronger military just like Kaja Kallas has done since the first day of the full scale invasion.

I also wish we had leaders who had the balls to make the destruction of the Russian force in Ukraine an outright war aim.

Apparently there is an opening upcoming. If you want the job.

 

[childs56]

CAF purchases are not major. Tripling the number of LVM trucks would still be a drop in the bucket on a modern production line.

Yes, there are authorities that can be exercised. It's a question of where and when to do so.

1000 small truck order and a 500 large truck order is pretty significant for any company to have.
Billion dollar contracts are significant.

 

[ytz]

Apparently there is an opening upcoming. If you want the job.

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

Unfortunately, this doesn't get people elected in this country. Contrast this to the courage of Ukrainians who voted for Zelensky when he basically made the same offer.

 

[Kirkhill]

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

Unfortunately, this doesn't get people elected in this country. Contrast this to the courage of Ukrainians who voted for Zelensky when he basically made the same offer.

That is a fair offer.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile ...

What Britain must now do to survive in Trump’s new world order

The US president’s fiery row with Volodymyr Zelensky should make one thing clear to Keir Starmer – he must adapt while he still can

www.telegraph.co.uk

What Britain Canada must do to survive in the new world order​

The Trump administration siding with Russia over US allies at the UN confirmed the death of the post-war consensus – Starmer Canada must adapt

David Blair Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator

28 February 2025 4:25pm GMT

This article very much applies to Canada. We have been supporters of the Atlantic Charter since its inception

Donald Trump might have played the gracious host when he received Sir Keir Starmer in the White House; no doubt the lunch of grilled sea bass and winter green salad was delicious.

Afterwards the Prime Minister was visibly delighted by his victories. The President will allow the British to give away their own territory in the Indian Ocean. He will permit them to fete him on a state visit. He might just exempt Britain from America’s new tariffs, which means keeping our trading arrangements as they are. And Trump thinks the Prime Minister is “terrific” and his wife “beautiful”.

But look beneath the surface and no amount of warmth or hospitality can disguise one hard fact. America is now trying to settle the fate of Europe’s biggest country, Ukraine, in direct talks with Russia from which Ukrainians and all other Europeans are excluded.

We know that Russia will demand that America’s military presence in Europe should be up for debate and these shadowy negotiations could determine the future security of our continent.

Trump has allowed his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, and vice-president, JD Vance, to give the impression that America is no longer bound by its promise to defend Europe. While the President said on Thursday that he supported Article V of the North Atlantic treaty, which obliges America and every Nato member to come to the aid of any ally, his remark was not scripted and it was instantly qualified when Trump added: “I don’t think we’re going to have any reason for it.”

No wonder that European leaders will come to London on Sunday for their second emergency summit in as many weeks.

So what is to be done? How should Britain recast its foreign policy for a new era when, for the first time since 1941, we cannot be certain that America would fight to defend its European allies?

Just before meeting Trump, Sir Keir began to answer that question by announcing higher defence spending funded by cutting overseas aid. But the Prime Minister did not question the fundamental assumptions behind our foreign policy or redefine its overall objective. He should, and this is how.

Change has arrived.

Wake up and smell the coffee​

For nearly eight years I worked in the Foreign Office and Downing Street, writing speeches and offering policy advice for three foreign secretaries and one prime minister.

Back then, I would write that the goal of British diplomacy was to sustain the pillars of the post-1945 international order which, in flights of optimism, I would eulogise for having allowed more people to live in peace and prosperity than ever before.

This objective was not only desirable, it might even have been achievable for as long as America was on board.

But Trump’s America is now not on board; in fact Washington lined up with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations this week to oppose a General Assembly Resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine.

The laws and institutions of the post-war world might have survived the wrecking balls of Russia and China; they surely cannot withstand America joining the demolition squad.

If that is the President’s intention, then we may soon have to write the obituary of the post-1945 order, noting the irony that it was finished off by the very nation that created it.

The first challenge for British diplomacy is to acknowledge that possibility without sentiment or nostalgia and recognise how the world has decisively reverted to its natural state of power politics between competing nations.

The "natural state" if you are a Hobbesian and not a Progressive.

Buy American​

That cold reality means downgrading our objective: British foreign policy cannot seek to preserve what may become unpreservable.

Instead, our overriding aim should be to strive with allies to deter Russia from waging general war on Europe, thereby preventing Ukraine’s tragedy from engulfing yet more of our continent.

Might those allies include America? Jeremy Hunt, the former foreign secretary who dealt with Trump during the President’s first term, believes there is still “all to play for”.

He said: “The key issue is that President Trump thinks the US is being ripped off by the Europeans underspending on defence. If we can deal with that unfairness, we can secure America’s commitment to the alliance.”

“My meetings with Trump made me conclude that he wasn’t bluffing on this. His base genuinely believes that America is being ripped off and he’s a politician who’s highly attuned to the concerns of his base.”

Hunt praised the Prime Minister’s decision to raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 as a “good start”, adding: “But in the end we are only going to resolve this issue when we remove the unfairness of the US taxpayer funding a third of the cost of European defence.”

“That means that we need to spend more like what America is spending [currently 3.4 per cent]. The Government should now firm up with dates and amounts how we reach 3 per cent in the next Parliament.”

Hunt questioned whether, at present, President Trump would honour Nato’s Article V. “Right now we can’t be sure and that’s why we need to take action,” he said. “If Trump sees Europe stepping up on defence that would be a major victory for him. I’m very confident that he would say what he needs to say to reaffirm America’s commitment to Article V.”

Caution dictates that we cannot assume this outcome. Instead, the painstaking work of preparing for a scenario where Europe has to stand alone must begin.

One cause for optimism is that whatever European countries do to strengthen their own defences is both necessary in itself and exactly what America wants – inevitably involving more orders from the US arms industry – reducing the risk of the worst case scenario.

“In the short term, one of the few things the Europeans can do is buy American,” says Ed Arnold, senior research fellow on European security at the Royal United Services Institute.

From 1.3% to 3.4% is the jump that is being discussed here. For exactly the same reasons. America is tired. And angry.

And wants some relief and signs of gratitude.

Booing at hockey matches probably isn't going to get us much love.

Buying a Brigade's worth of Armour and an MDTF while investing in Iron Dome might just.

And think about Iron Dome for a minute and what it says about the Americans. My generation of Americans have spent their life waiting for sirens to go off and having to cower under their school desks. Praying that the people they put in charge have done everything they can to prevent this because once the missiles started flying, there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it. And now they are dying and their kids, grand kids and great grand kids are living under the same threat. They are poorer. They have fewer opportunities. And nobody is thanking them for contributing to the peace of the last 75 years, unstable as it has been. It could have been much worse.

By all means plan to take matters into our own hands and work independently, or with others other than the US but in the short term it is important to acknowledge where we are.

I know this goes against the grain just now, when confronted with trade threats but, in self interest, the Americans have the most and the best of the things we need to defend ourselves, and the Americans, and the Europeans, and the Taiwanese....

But do stand up to Washington​

In the meantime, Britain’s entire international effort should be tested against the objective of deterring Russia.

Do not underestimate how much of a cultural shock the decisions that might follow will represent for the Foreign Office, which absorbed the old Department for International Development in 2020 and now has thousands of officials specialising in overseas aid.

After Sir Keir cut the aid budget by 40 per cent, the two permanent secretaries at the top of Foreign Office, Sir Oliver Robbins and Nick Dyer, called an all-staff meeting on Wednesday to offer reassurance.

“I cannot deny that today has been tough,” said another senior official. “In moments like this, find the opportunity.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a 40pc cut to foreign aid to fund increases in the military budget Credit: Getty
Meanwhile, Britain’s mission at the UN in New York will have been appalled by the spectacle of their American colleagues turning against them, after years of working side-by-side.

On Monday America sided with Russia and China in the Security Council to support a Resolution on Ukraine that contained no condemnation or even mention of Russia’s invasion.

Never before in the history of the UN had America backed Russia against its European allies on an issue of European security.

Having witnessed the immense effort that goes into high stakes UN votes, I’m in no doubt that America will have placed our diplomats under huge pressure to follow Washington’s lead in the Security Council. The UK’s decision to defy Washington and abstain on this morally bankrupt Resolution will have required steel and determination.

It also flew in the face of years of habit and practice. British and American diplomats are accustomed to cooperating more closely with one another than with the envoys of any other country.

This is particularly true in international organisations, inspired by the fact that America and Britain were co-architects of the world order and see themselves as sharing special responsibility for safeguarding its future.

Can that still be true? In the UN – the most important pillar of that order – this unspoken assumption suddenly fell apart this week.

As I said in another thread about dealing with the Japanese. It is important to learn how to calibrate the bow, neither subservient nor arrogant. Look them in the eye as equals.

Above all, deter Russia​

Now Britain will have to take a series of decisions, all guided by the ultimate objective of deterring Russia.

First, spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence merely avoids further cuts and maintains our armed forces at their present size. To expand Britain’s military firepower, we are going to have to invest at least 3 per cent and do it sooner than the Government plans, probably before the next election. Sir Keir should set out a timetable.

To fund this, our diplomats should ask searching questions going far beyond the future of the overseas aid budget. How does our pledge to spend £11.6 billion on international climate finance by 2026, for example, deter Russia?

More broadly, how would this goal be served by relinquishing the Chagos Islands, including the joint US-UK military base on Diego Garcia?

Britain has no legal obligation to hand over this archipelago, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory. No court has ruled that we must award the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

Instead, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a non-binding opinion to that effect. Our Government is choosing to treat this as if it were a binding judgment – which, in fact, it isn’t.

This accords with the doctrine proclaimed by Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, that Britain should not just obey international law but “go further than simply meeting our obligations”.

Has any other country adopted such a purist self-constraining definition of adherence to the international rule of law? Isn’t abiding by the law enough? Has any nation in history ever sacrificed sovereign territory pursuant to a non-binding opinion from the ICJ?

In this era of power politics, Britain cannot afford the luxury of being perhaps the only state in the world that would behave as if we lived in utopia and give up vital territory without any legal obligation to do so. By lowering the bar in this way, the danger is that we will invite a flood of new claims from any country with a grievance, real or imagined.

The Chagos agreement might once have been defensible, but no longer, not even with America’s support. Sir Keir should scrap it immediately.

Meh. Kindofish. Yes it is important to deter Russia. Frankly I think that has been done, at least for a while. Like Brer Rabbit it is stuck in the Ukrainian tar baby for a while.

In the meantime China has got a lot more freedom of movement, especially in its chosen hybrid battlefields. And those hybrid assaults have a lot more importance to us here in Canada.

Ditch net zero​

Other sacred cows must be led to the slaughter. The Foreign Office should insist on re-examining the strategic consequences of the pursuit of net zero.

Decarbonising transport and electricity can only be achieved by making Britain’s economy and society ever more dependent upon China, now Russia’s main strategic partner.

If our roads are filled with Chinese electric vehicles and our lights are kept on by Chinese-supplied solar panels and wind turbines, all requiring a constant flow of components, maintenance and operating updates from Beijing, how much would this compromise our energy security? Would it not be safer to buy fossil fuels from friendly countries?

China is underwriting Putin’s war on Ukraine by supplying the vital components of almost every suicide drone, missile and advanced munition that Russia fires at its neighbour. With this decision, China has made itself an accomplice to the biggest assault on European security since 1945.

How would it make sense for Britain to respond to this reality by handing China the ability to disrupt – perhaps paralyse – our national life? And if Russia knew that its strategic partner held this power over us, would the Kremlin be deterred or emboldened?

No doubt. And sooner rather than later.

Seize Russian assets​

Meanwhile Russian Central Bank assets worth about €230 billion (£190 billion) still languish, frozen and pristine, in European financial institutions, principally Euroclear in Brussels.

Plenty of work has already been done to identify legal ways to seize these assets.

The risk is that any breach of property rights, even if legally defensible, could deter inward investment and damage the reputation of European financial systems, discouraging other states from keeping their assets here. Hence finance ministries and central banks are dead against seizures.

In normal times, their objections would be decisive. But these are not normal times: the future safety of our continent hangs in the balance and we have to get used to doing what would previously have been unthinkable.

The prize on offer is immense. If, for example, €100 billion of Russian assets were transferred to Ukraine, this would represent twice the country’s annual defence budget and 60 per cent of Ukraine’s entire GDP, proportionately equivalent to the UK receiving a windfall of £1.5 trillion.

That would still leave another €100 billion to kick-start Europe’s rearmament and €30 billion for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.

Europe has the collective power to make Russia the first aggressor in history to fund the resistance to its own invasion and bankroll the military expansion of the continent it threatens. The Russian people would then know that they were paying for the very bullets and shells being fired at their soldiers in Ukraine.

The British government should seize the share of Russian Central Bank reserves held in the UK, setting a precedent for European allies to follow suit and collar the rest.

The clock is ticking. If this fails to happen soon, the fate of the frozen assets may be decided over Europe’s head in the negotiations between Russia and America.

Arnold, from the Royal United Services Institute, gave warning that it may already be “too late” to exercise this option, noting how Europe had failed to reach agreement in the three-years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

All the more reason for the UK to move quickly and set an example.

I don't know if I like this or not. If I get into a dispute with some one and seize their assets unilaterally that is known as theft and I end up in court facing a panel of our peers. Alternately I could take the dispute to the panel of our peers and get a judgement on whether or not I am entitled so some or all, or more, of my opponent's assets.

Versailles was bad enough. Court ordered reparations. Outright theft? Is that going to drop the temperature?

We had good warning​

As for America, Sir Keir is right to try and influence Trump as much as possible. The truth is that we have no right to feel aggrieved. For years, American leaders warned that the day would come when their patience with Europe (And Canada) would snap.

In 2011, Robert Gates, then US defence secretary in the Obama Administration, said: “There will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress….to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence.”

He added: “Future US political leaders – those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in Nato worth the cost.”

As long ago as 1963, President Kennedy told his National Security Council: “We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the Nato states are not paying their fair share and living off the fat of the land. We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves.”

Over 60 years later, President Trump is fulfilling Kennedy’s threat and we have no right to be indignant.

Nor should we feign surprise over the return of unrestrained power politics: this was the default setting of international relations throughout recorded history. The truth is that during those eras, Britain prospered mightily and the pillars and statues of the Foreign Office proclaim that success.

In the world we are entering, our diplomats will need once again to master the ruthless lessons of that heritage.

Amen....

There's the pot. What are we doing?

 

[ytz]

I keep going back to this:

Forgot to say. I absolutely love the asymmetric ideas here. And the emergency mobilization ideas.

 

[Quirky]

If the latest exchange in the Oval Office between Trump and Z doesn't send a clear message to Canada WRT national defense, nothing will. Canada can no longer rely on the US for protection, and if we want to keep our cherished social programs, we better be able to defend them. 2% won't be enough I think, not short term.

The next PM of Canada to visit the Oval office better have their shit together.

 

[Genetk44]

About unity…guess who seems to be the best ….

 

[DBNSG]

If the latest exchange in the Oval Office between Trump and Z doesn't send a clear message to Canada WRT national defense, nothing will. Canada can no longer rely on the US for protection, and if we want to keep our cherished social programs, we better be able to defend them. 2% won't be enough I think, not short term.

The next PM of Canada to visit the Oval office better have their shit together.

The Carney message is that in 2030 we might get to 2% which means , elect me twice and after the Trump is out of Office we can go back to business as usual. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

 

[Halifax Tar]

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

I quoted exactly that in another post about a weeke ago.

 

[ytz]

If the latest exchange in the Oval Office between Trump and Z doesn't send a clear message to Canada WRT national defense, nothing will. Canada can no longer rely on the US for protection, and if we want to keep our cherished social programs, we better be able to defend them. 2% won't be enough I think, not short term.

The next PM of Canada to visit the Oval office better have their shit together.

It should also be a reminder that mere defence spending isn't enough. Focus of this forum aside. If there's no robust economy, there will be no robust military.

 

[ytz]

The Carney message is that in 2030 we might get to 2% which means , elect me twice and after the Trump is out of Office we can go back to business as usual. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Flip side is that a lot of Conservatives seem to believe that they if they just suck up harder, Trump will go with a Special Military Operation in Mexico and forget about us. Our entire political spectrum needs to understand that what we face is a different era.