• 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.
 
Similar to the USN? Even though the Marines are a "separate" service, they are so integrated with the Navy that their operations are seemless.

I have it in my head that Hellyer wanted us to be an organization similar to the USMC. Truth ? Or did I fabricate that ?
 
Well the stink of being CDS (or not being CDS) hasn't been exclusively draped on the RCN has it? There is enough has-beens, near do wells, and boot lickers from all parts of the CAF to stink up all of Canada. In the end, what CDS has really moved the ball towards anything? We are hostages to the whims of the PMO and always will be.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being CDS is by any means the be all to end all. Some have been complete bootlicks, others unimpressive, some influential.

McDonald-Baines-Edmundson

The Axis of Weasels? 😀

Ah yes, forgot the third horseman of the RCN Apocalypse… 😆 Shame on me.

The initial iteration of Maritime Command would have been great, the Navy had been advocating for control of the MPA community for years. But as per all the other maneuvering and backstabbing post Hellyer, the Air Force mafia was able to wrest control of all the flying communities from the Army and Navy.
I don’t have any real insight/experience on a would-be post-integration Fleet Air Arm, but will say that from the green side, there is (or more accurately was) much visible bemoaning by FMC about the poor state of support by Air Command, and yet for the actual “Deeds, Not Words” bit, FMC threw aviation under the bus several tomes; first ‘giving’ the green CF-5s to Air Command (no meaningful pushback when AIRCOM stated they’d be transferring the CF-5s from 10 TAG to FG), then deciding to not fund the CH-147’s upgrade from C to D-models, which was followed with FMCS decision (it funded aviation at the time) to let the Chinook be decommissioned; then the infamous CH-146 purchase in 1992 (again, FMC still had the funding means and decision for tactical aviation).

So, while many will romanticize the “parent service as proponent for component aviation”, the reality (at least in the green side) was that environmental aviation is just one more card in the deck and doesn’t always (often) make the cut compared to core environmental capabilities.
 
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being CDS is by any means the be all to end all. Some have been complete bootlicks, others unimpressive, some influential.



Ah yes, forgot the third horseman of the RCN Apocalypse… 😆 Shame on me.


I don’t have any real insight/experience on a would-be post-integration Fleet Air Arm, but will say that from the green side, there is (or more accurately was) much visible bemoaning by FMC about the poor state of support by Air Command, and yet for the actual “Deeds, Not Words” bit, FMC threw aviation under the bus several tomes; first ‘giving’ the green CF-5s to Air Command (no meaningful pushback when AIRCOM stated they’d be transferring the CF-5s from 10 TAG to FG), then deciding to not fund the CH-147’s upgrade from C to D-models, which was followed with FMCS decision (it funded aviation at the time) to let the Chinook be decommissioned; then the infamous CH-146 purchase in 1992 (again, FMC still had the funding means and decision for tactical aviation).

So, while many will romanticize the “parent service as proponent for component aviation”, the reality (at least in the green side) was that environmental aviation is just one more card in the deck and doesn’t always (often) make the cut compared to core environmental capabilities.
Same within the RCN. There was always a fight between the Airdales and the Line Officers with the dasterdly submariners wanting a piece as well. Usually the Line Officers won, but as mentioned above their views were short-sighted as well.
 
Would that have more to do with HQ bloat ?
HQ bloat came, it seems to me, with the 2000s ... I watched, in absolute horror, as commanders were downgraded (and reduced in rank) and staff officers were promoted and given absolutely unnecessary and inappropriate authority.

The staff has two functions, and only two:

1. To assist the commander in the function of command by relieving her/him of detail; and
2. To assist subordinate formations, units and elements in carrying out their tasks by coordinating activities and, on the commander's behalf, reallocating resources, including time, as necessary.

If you're not actually engaged in combat or support operations then you ought to be doing those two things, well ... otherwise you don't belong in the Army.

Everything else is busywork.
 
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being CDS is by any means the be all to end all. Some have been complete bootlicks, others unimpressive, some influential.



Ah yes, forgot the third horseman of the RCN Apocalypse… 😆 Shame on me.


I don’t have any real insight/experience on a would-be post-integration Fleet Air Arm, but will say that from the green side, there is (or more accurately was) much visible bemoaning by FMC about the poor state of support by Air Command, and yet for the actual “Deeds, Not Words” bit, FMC threw aviation under the bus several tomes; first ‘giving’ the green CF-5s to Air Command (no meaningful pushback when AIRCOM stated they’d be transferring the CF-5s from 10 TAG to FG), then deciding to not fund the CH-147’s upgrade from C to D-models, which was followed with FMCS decision (it funded aviation at the time) to let the Chinook be decommissioned; then the infamous CH-146 purchase in 1992 (again, FMC still had the funding means and decision for tactical aviation).

So, while many will romanticize the “parent service as proponent for component aviation”, the reality (at least in the green side) was that environmental aviation is just one more card in the deck and doesn’t always (often) make the cut compared to core environmental capabilities.

All that had to happen was putting wings on a Leopard. Problem solved.
 
That is my initial assesment as well. Except he forgot that the Marines need the Navy to get to the fight.

They still do. But the USN buys the Marines ships that will take them to the fight.
 
Same within the RCN. There was always a fight between the Airdales and the Line Officers with the dasterdly submariners wanting a piece as well. Usually the Line Officers won, but as mentioned above their views were short-sighted as well.
There is a story floating around that the reason the Airforce was given NavAir was the result of a study.
Wait for it ......it wasn't a sturdy of how to make the most effective use of Maritime air .
It was a study that showed that a higher percentage of Naval Aviators were getting more ship commands then surface warfare types. And it looked like it would continue into the future.
Ouch?
 
Last edited:
There is a story floating around that the reason the Airforce was given NavAir was the result of a study.
Wait for it ......it wasn't a sturdy of how to make the most effective use of Maritime air .
It was a study that showed that a higher percentage of Naval Aviators were getting ship commands then surface warfare types. And it looked like it would continue into the future.
Ouch?
True, and many submariners (since command of a sub was LCdr position) became very effective surface ship commanders (a Cdr position).
So yes, it was all about egos and short sightedness.
 
Gator Navy is still run by the Navy, the Marines get to ride in them.

I think we're saying the same thing.:ROFLMAO:
We is.

Although I was thinking more about Canadian Admirals and Big Honking Ships.

In an Expeditionary Force the Navy transports the Army and the Air Force that supports the Army while providing cover to the Navy.

In a Canadian Domestic Force the Police are supported by the Army which is co-located with the Police or transported by the Air Force which supplies support and cover to the Police and the Army.

The Expeditionary Force is a tool of Global Affairs.
The Domestic Force is a tool of Public Safety.
 
There is a story floating around that the reason the Airforce was given NavAir was the result of a study.
Wait for it ......it wasn't a sturdy of how to make the most effective use of Maritime air .
It was a study that showed that a higher percentage of Naval Aviators were getting more ship commands then surface warfare types. And it looked like it would continue into the future.
Ouch?
That sounds like the most MARS/NWO thing I've heard in a while.

I'd 100% believe that to be true.
 
Snide remarks aside. We as a force suffer so much because of egos and agendas. Like the unwritten rule that you have to a ring knocker to be CDS.
I always assumed that was MAD related. If you tried to be a strong CDS and restructure the CAF that one of your classmates would burn you out with tales from one’s history at school.
 
Like the guy in Four Weddings and a Funeral?

"I was at school with his brother Bufty. Tremendous bloke. He was head of my house. Buggered me senseless. Taught me things about life."
 
I always assumed that was MAD related. If you tried to be a strong CDS and restructure the CAF that one of your classmates would burn you out with tales from one’s history at school.
I heard the words Incestuous self liking ice-cream about those fine institutions 😏
 
Snide remarks aside. We as a force suffer so much because of egos and agendas. Like the unwritten rule that you have to a ring knocker to be CDS.

Are you sure it's unwritten? The increase in the % of Officers trained through RMC was a stated 'culture change' policy post-Somalia, even though it was more expensive and, paradoxically, perhaps resulting in more sexual assault issues in recent times:

Developing Strategic Lieutenants in the Canadian Army

The office of the auditor general reviewed the Royal Military College to ensure the insitution’s value for money and compliance with federal legislation, and concluded in 2017 that the college was an expensive way to produce officers.

Focusing on efficiencies and costs, however, obscures the college’s role as an engine of reform for the officer corps and fails to realize the value of institutions that foster officership.

The recommendations of the various reports provide a checklist to measure progress over time. In 2005, Cowan noted the connections between the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Military College had strengthened, the CDS and service leaders frequently visited the college, and college leaders realized the desirability of increased utility to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thus, some of the recommended reforms were being implemented at that time. Nonetheless, the idea of using the RMC as the engine of reform for the Canadian officer corps was never fully realized. Cowan stated this effort was . . . the one that got away. It was to go from 25% of officer intake to approximately 35-40%.

While events in Saint Jean help take some of the pressure off, ultimately, what we need to understand is the original reasoning. This was essentially cultural. There are 110 universities in Canada, but we only control the culture in one of them. If you want to evolve the culture of the officer corps through an institution at the input end of the spectrum, you need to broaden the flow through that institution.

While the percentage grew to approximately 28 to 29 percent of the officer intake in 2005, it remained short of the target. The SSAV noted the percentage in 2012–13 was approximately 25 to 27 percent of intake, with RMC graduates comprising 55 to 57 percent of the general and flag officers in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This number should not be interpreted as a sign the core curriculum was producing generals. In 2012–13, the majority of the general and flag officers had over 25 years of service, which meant they were commissioned in the mid- to late-1980s. Royal Military College graduates were retained longer or progressed faster than peers commissioned by other means. Exactly why this phenomena occurred is not easily determined.

 
Back
Top