• 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.
 
ALL RIGHTY THEN...

Right now the CA claims to have 4 Divisions (which theoretically would mean a Corps)

These 4 "Divisions" consist of 3 Regular Force CMBG's, 1 Regular Force Combat Support Bde, and 10 PRes Bde Groups.

For whatever reason the CA has given each "Division: 1 Reg force Bde - and 2-3 PRes CGB's.

Yet the CA does NOT have equipment for most of the force (unless one considers the "MLoCopter" to be a viable troop carrier...

The CA:
For the Infantry Corps, it has LAV's for basically 4 Inf BN's (using full Combat establishment strength) so basically 1 Bde worth and some spares.
- No ATGM Carrier
- No Mortar Carrier
- No Tracked IFV to work in harmony with the Leo 2
- No OverSnow Carriers (I mean why would Canada need that right)

The Armoured Corps - well three different models of Leo 2 exist, and enough to make a 3 Squadron Armoured Regiment with spares. It is also saddled with the TAPV, and has the LAV 6.0 and a Surveillance version coming on line to replace the Coyote -

The Engineer Corps - it appears to have (maybe @McG or others can correct me) enough LAV to make a Medium CER - with the understanding the LAV isn't suited for a lot of Engineering tasks, I don't see any AVLB, AEV or other Heavy Armor or even light armor tracked engineering vehicles

The Artillery - it is fairly painful to even look at this, but basically enough M777 to field a 18 gun Reg't and some spares -- no GS or Rocket forces for Division work - and the PRes Arty have the C3 which isn't a viable system anymore - even if they worked.

No dismounted ATGM, for any part of the CA, no AD capability for any of the CA

Communications, Navigation, STANO, IFF, are all missing for much more than a Battle Group, and some of that is old to the point of obsolescence.
Logistics -- not enough heavy trucks, not enough medium trucks to support much more than a Bde for operations (at best)

So from a Corps paper entity the CA can basically field a poorly equipped Bde missing a slew of equipment, or a Btl Gap missing some key equipment.

I dint dig into a lot of stuff in detail simply due to time constraints - and the fact I doubt folks who dont already know this care.

Who bribed you to not talk about boots? ;)
 
If the CAF was actually serious about having resourcing a combat ready armed force (Navy, Army, AF) with general capabilities then you would need to reconsider the logistical infrastructure, material handing equipment, IT systems, space, security along with the required logistical, maintenance and engineering personnel required. You would also need to adequately man the ops unit so can have the chance to even perform basic maintenance tasks of their ships, aircraft, vehicles, weapons and material.

Most of these basic logistical, maintenance, engineering necessities were cut during the 1990s when PM Chrétien drastically cut the federal government's budget in order to balance the books.
Also a lot of ‘admin’ positions built around additional headquarters that command basically nothing.
This brings us to the question, what should the Government get for their budget assuming that the Gov't would want at least a Naval TF or BG or Air Sqn:
Three poorly equipped, under-manned and not readily deployable Services?
One fully equipped, manned and readily deployable Service?
Two fully equipped, manned Services, but ready to deploy within 30/60/90 days?

What should the CDS advise thew gov't knowng that the World and Canada's political and secuity constantly changes? Not an easy decision.
Or three fully equipped smaller services?

I don’t see why the Army has 4 poorly equipped Reg Force Bde’s and 10 basically non equipped Res Bde’s.

Maybe 3 Army Bde’s - 1 100% Regular, 1 70% Regular and 30% PRes, and 1 30% Regular and 70% PRes?

As well the RCAF should be able to have PRes Aviation, Transport and Fighter squadrons.

Unsure what can be done with the Navy in terms of Reg/Res
 
Guess SAR got the stocking with coal in it…

Sexy Talk Dirty GIF by SWR3
They did indeed...not sure what we should do this with this situation...

We will have 16 aircraft sitting on the ground looking for something to do, and a small fleet of SAR planes retired.


Do we make the C-295 work with the intended SAR role? (What is the main issue anyway, that it can't perform the purpose for which it was purchased?)
 
They did indeed...not sure what we should do this with this situation...

We will have 16 aircraft sitting on the ground looking for something to do, and a small fleet of SAR planes retired.


Do we make the C-295 work with the intended SAR role? (What is the main issue anyway, that it can't perform the purpose for which it was purchased?)

Coles notes version: everything ;)

 
Coles notes version: everything ;)

I literally can't wrap my head around how f**king stupid our political class is, or how dim witted our bureaucrats are...

So we went with the one plane that had been scratched from a previous competition due to all of the problems we are now tangibly trying to deal with. Problems we knew we would have before we even signed the contract for them...


It's Monday lol too early in the week for this!

That was depressing to read lol it's Monday, I need to
 
So we went with the one plane that had been scratched from a previous competition due to all of the problems we are now tangibly trying to deal with. Problems we knew we would have before we even signed the contract for them...

Should've just bought some 'short bus' J-Model Hercs. No need to significantly re-train personnel and the supply chain is already there. I think it makes too much sense so logically it wasn't selected.
 
Should've just bought some 'short bus' J-Model Hercs. No need to significantly re-train personnel and the supply chain is already there. I think it makes too much sense so logically it wasn't selected.
Penny wise, dollar foolish…
Hmm the RCAF with another orphan fleet what could go wrong


I’m sure the flight hour cost, and initial platform cost are much higher on the Hercules, but it’s also a larger more capable airframe already in service, in the CAF.
 
Who bribed you to not talk about boots? ;)
Don’t you even dare suggest repealing BOOTFORGEN - the one thing that’s worked out totally well so far.

Should've just bought some 'short bus' J-Model Hercs. No need to significantly re-train personnel and the supply chain is already there. I think it makes too much sense so logically it wasn't selected.
It wasn’t even in the competition. Unsure whether LM even offered it. Considering that the two bidding airframes ended up being the C-27 and the CC-295, I’m guessing that LM didn’t bid. You can’t pick something that the company isn’t bidding - contrast that with the recent P-8 purchase, since Boeing had already pitched the P-8.

This brings us to the question, what should the Government get for their budget assuming that the Gov't would want at least a Naval TF or BG or Air Sqn:
Three poorly equipped, under-manned and not readily deployable Services?
One fully equipped, manned and readily deployable Service?
Two fully equipped, manned Services, but ready to deploy within 30/60/90 days?

What should the CDS advise thew gov't knowng that the World and Canada's political and secuity constantly changes? Not an easy decision.
I, for one, would love to see the infighting between the Army Regiments as to who stays and who goes. The RCN and RCAF units may put up a bit of a complaint, but in general they aren’t as tied to a particular unit.
 
It wasn’t even in the competition

Rumour is they didn’t bid because Canada wanted an ophan fleet and all-new capability with sims etc. We are already set up to fly the Herc, so technically LM didn’t meet our requirements. We are stuck with that POS CC295 so it’s all semantics at this point.
 
Rumour is they didn’t bid because Canada wanted an ophan fleet and all-new capability with sims etc. We are already set up to fly the Herc, so technically LM didn’t meet our requirements. We are stuck with that POS CC295 so it’s all semantics at this point.
So is there any working military value to that aircraft at all then?
 
Rumour is they didn’t bid because Canada wanted an ophan fleet and all-new capability with sims etc. We are already set up to fly the Herc, so technically LM didn’t meet our requirements. We are stuck with that POS CC295 so it’s all semantics at this point.
I don't know if they changed it, but years ago I was on a relatively big project (~$100M) and we were one of the first to go through the replacement for IRBs (Value Proposition).

Some of the points on that revolved around creating new work in Canada, with extra points for Small and Medium Enterprises (not to be confused with subject matter experts). One of the bidders was already established in Canada, and had a pretty good network of sister companies in their supply chain. They lost out on a bunch of points because they weren't creating new jobs, and whatever the corporate structure was the sister companies didn't count as SMEs.

So essentially our own (GoCs, not DND; those are ISED contract terms that get bolted on) RFP disadvantaged an existing Canadian company and benefitted foreign companies setting up a new supply chain. Which in PM/supply chain side, creates a risk you don't have compared to an existing supply chain that isn't solely dependent on you to keep working. The company pointed that out during the RFI stage and was essentially told 'that's the strategic goal yada yada yada'

Sometimes our own requirements are dumb AF with unintended consequences. I'm sure there are times we unintentionally undercut good options from all the layers of RFP BS that add on, which sometimes means companies don't even bother bidding.
 
There is a surprising number of operators, and not just all “poor” countries.


I’m guessing that at least some of those operators think it’s good enough for the mission they’re tasked.
I find it so odd that none of that is Arctic SAR or Cold Weather operations…
:ROFLMAO:

It may be a perfectly fine plane for many nations - but it really doesn’t meet the requirements for Canada’s FWSAR…
 
Rumour is they didn’t bid because Canada wanted an ophan fleet and all-new capability with sims etc. We are already set up to fly the Herc, so technically LM didn’t meet our requirements. We are stuck with that POS CC295 so it’s all semantics at this point.
I know you are kidding, but I think the Herc was too large an airframe based on a quick view of the original RFP.
 
I think the only reason a company would even bother bidding is because of the dollar figures involved, and because of the product being pitched is partially a labour of love, ie new build, modernized Buffalo aircraft out of Calgary

And one would have to feel pretty passive about it, and weren't relying on the GoC project to sustain themselves or put food on the table


Because otherwise, why even bother?

The delays (sometimes measured in decades) or the absurdly political requirements, or the lack of common sense just seems like it wouldn't be worth it from a mental health perspective alone...
 
There is a surprising number of operators, and not just all “poor” countries.


I’m guessing that at least some of those operators think it’s good enough for the mission they’re tasked.
I say convert them to the MPA configuration that Airbus offers. Would be a good complement to our new P-8's and give us something at least approaching the MPA fleet size that a country with our amount of coastline needs.

It would also have the added bonus of causing the heads of every Bombardier fanboy to spontaneously explode!
 
Back
Top