Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

Maybe she's being hidden there to escape the fallout of a government that seems to be in decline. Out of Sight and out of mind until Trudeau and his more visible team are gone, so she can step in a lead the part to better fortunes after they are ousted.

That strikes me as a degree of Machiavellian foresight and strategic planning that I don't give the Liberals credit for.

 

[Furniture]

That strikes me as a degree of Machiavellian foresight and strategic planning that I don't give the Liberals credit for.

Maybe she came up with it?

 

[dapaterson]

Budget 2023 announced reductions in travel, in contracted services, and budgets; reconciling those reductions will require a strong minister at TB.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Budget 2023 announced reductions in travel, in contracted services, and budgets; reconciling those reductions will require a strong minister at TB.

I would buy that for a dollar... if the Government de jure respected the independence of Ministers, vice their well documented centralization of power within the PMO and his staff.

This was exile with a smile for Anita Anand.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I am amazed at how short-sighted everyone on this site is. Your hatred of the Liberals have blinded you to their genius.

They will easily meet the 2% target, and will likely get to 3%.

If a country lacks the will, capacity, fortitude, competence, awareness etc to change the numerator, they can just change the denominator.

On the current trajectory of abject ineptitude and criminal stupidity, the GDP will shrink, and voila, just like Greece, we will be at the top of the NATO spending ranking again.

 

[daftandbarmy]

 

[Underway]

That strikes me as a degree of Machiavellian foresight and strategic planning that I don't give the Liberals credit for.

Don't underestimate the Liberals. And don't confound JT with Liberals, they are not the same thing. There is a reason they form governments 2/3's of the time and its not because they are stupid. No one takes and retains power better than them. And unlike other parties they actually groom replacements (multiple ones at a time). They (collectively) think dynastically. Conservatives sure as hell don't.

Budget 2023 announced reductions in travel, in contracted services, and budgets; reconciling those reductions will require a strong minister at TB.

Exactly. Treasury board is the hatchet weilder. They take on the unions, enforce budget discipline, create/enforce hiring rules, manage and enforce advertizing/communications. You generally don't put dummies in that position. You may put asshats though (see Tony Clement and Scott Brison as examples).

On the current trajectory of abject ineptitude and criminal stupidity, the GDP will shrink,

I know you are being partially sarcastic to expound other criticism of the gov't, but there is little chance of this happening outside of a normal recessional cycle. Canada's fundamentals and more importantly our neighbours fundamentals are perfectly fine.

 

[WLSC]

Don't underestimate the Liberals. And don't confound JT with Liberals, they are not the same thing. There is a reason they form governments 2/3's of the time and its not because they are stupid. No one takes and retains power better than them. And unlike other parties they actually groom replacements (multiple ones at a time). They (collectively) think dynastically. Conservatives sure as hell don't.

I generally agree with that but I don’t really understand JT. He must have been a hell of a seller to be able to be there. With all the corporate knowledge LPC I can understand that they let him do one, maybe two terms but three?

I like a consensus driven government it’s generally a good thing, when it’s used to stall and force your agenda, that’s not cool.

 

[KevinB]

Don't underestimate the Liberals. And don't confound JT with Liberals, they are not the same thing. There is a reason they form governments 2/3's of the time and its not because they are stupid. No one takes and retains power better than them. And unlike other parties they actually groom replacements (multiple ones at a time). They (collectively) think dynastically. Conservatives sure as hell don't.

Recently it’s been simply the use of the Conservatives gaffes and unclear policies to create fear.

Exactly. Treasury board is the hatchet weilder. They take on the unions, enforce budget discipline, create/enforce hiring rules, manage and enforce advertizing/communications. You generally don't put dummies in that position. You may put asshats though (see Tony Clement and Scott Brison as examples).

However no one likes the Hatchet wielding folks...

I know you are being partially sarcastic to expound other criticism of the gov't, but there is little chance of this happening outside of a normal recessional cycle. Canada's fundamentals and more importantly our neighbours fundamentals are perfectly fine.

Except down here we sunk an ass ton of Money into infrastructure and industry. Y’all expanded your Public Service.
Which was a better use of funds?

 

[Underway]

Except down here we sunk an ass ton of Money into infrastructure and industry. Y’all expanded your Public Service.

Not entirely true. There is a lot of money going to industry (battery plants as a flagship example) to create the next generation of corporate welfare bums. Just like in the US.

They say they aren't socialist down there but they sure as hell act like it all the time.

 

[KevinB]

Not entirely true. There is a lot of money going to industry (battery plants as a flagship example) to create the next generation of corporate welfare bums. Just like in the US.

They say they aren't socialist down there but they sure as hell act like it all the time.

Sometimes a little socialism for national security isn’t a bad thing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sometimes a little socialism for national security isn’t a bad thing.

Like Peace, Land, Bread... maybe?

 

[Rifleman62]

Budget 2023 announced reductions in travel....

Except his nibs. Flying to PEI to walk in the Gay Pride parade is an example.
Records show Trudeau was on the ground for the Lunar New year parade for only four hours on a trip that cost taxpayers an estimated $58K

GUNTER: Trudeau proves he’s a jet-setting carbon-tax hypocrite

Between mid-February and mid-March, our “green” leader flew in RCAF executive jets 17 times, roughly once every other day.

torontosun.com

​

GUNTER: Trudeau proves he’s a jet-setting carbon-tax hypocrite - 1 Apr 23​

Extract:
Between mid-February and mid-March, our “green” leader flew in RCAF executive jets 17 times, roughly once every other day.

Ten of those flights (nearly 60%) were under an hour’s duration. Trudeau seems especially fond of the 22-minute flight between Ottawa and Montreal.

On St. Patrick’s Day, Trudeau even ordered his jet to come pick him up from an appearance in Waterloo, Ont. (flight time approximately 20 minutes), rather than inconveniencing himself with the hour-long drive to Toronto where his jet was parked.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Except his nibs. Flying to PEI to walk in the Gay Pride parade is an example.
Records show Trudeau was on the ground for the Lunar New year parade for only four hours on a trip that cost taxpayers an estimated $58K

GUNTER: Trudeau proves he’s a jet-setting carbon-tax hypocrite

Between mid-February and mid-March, our “green” leader flew in RCAF executive jets 17 times, roughly once every other day.

torontosun.com

​

GUNTER: Trudeau proves he’s a jet-setting carbon-tax hypocrite - 1 Apr 23​

 

[Rifleman62]

Canada the ‘laggard’​

WE SHOULD BE SETTING AN EXAMPLE AT NATO, NOT BACKSLIDING​

National Post - 8 Aug 2023

• Derek H. Burney Derek H. Burney is a former 30-year career diplomat who served as ambassador to the United States from 1989 to 1993.

At a time when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is celebrating Finland and Sweden joining the alliance, Canada’s paltry financial contributions to NATO are more exposed than ever, Derek H. Burney writes.

Critics of Canada’s lax defence spending keep piling on, most recently Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan who, during a hearing on the new commander for Norad, said, “Americans are frustrated when our allies don’t pull their weight. With regard to NATO, Canada is not even close.”

Sullivan’s comments came on the heels of a stinging Wall Street Journal editorial labelling Canada as a “military free-rider in NATO,” adding that we see our membership largely as “a place to rub elbows with global powers and a platform for moral pronouncements.”

A communiqué from the recent NATO summit in Lithuania stressed that the alliance’s funding target of two per cent of GDP is no longer merely aspirational but a minimum requirement to be considered as a “member in good standing.”
It was reported earlier this year that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau privately told NATO officials he didn’t think Canada would ever hit the two per cent target. He has reportedly pleaded for the alliance to broaden its definition of military spending to include research on space, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, but, not surprisingly, his proposal has gained no traction.

The WSJ suggested the Trudeau government sees its military as “more of a social project than a fighting force.” It cited the prime minister’s mandate letter to the minister of national defence in December 2021: “Your immediate priority is to take concrete steps to build an inclusive and diverse Defence Team, characterized by a healthy workplace free from harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct and violence” — in fact, a cultural manifesto that had nothing to do with military capability.

At a time when NATO celebrates the addition of Finland and Sweden to the alliance and there is steady progress in Ukraine’s valiant fight against Russia, Canada’s pathetic contribution is more exposed than ever. Our spending of about 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence falls well below the 2 per cent commitment and ranks sixth from the bottom in the 31-member alliance.

As NATO Secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg warned at the alliance’s recent summit, “It will be a tragedy for Ukraine if President (Vladimir) Putin wins, but I think also people realize the very simple fact that if President Putin wins in Ukraine, it will be not only bad for Ukrainians, it will be dangerous for us, because then the message will be to all authoritarian leaders that when they use military force, when they violate international law, when they invade another country, they get what they want.”

In a piece he wrote for Foreign Affairs, Stoltenberg noted, “China, in particular, is watching to see the price Russia pays or the reward it receives for its aggression.”
True to form, Trudeau questioned the U.S. announcement to provide cluster bombs to Ukraine — in part to counter Russia’s use of the same weapons against Ukraine — saying smugly that Canada “will continue to stand very strongly that they should not be used.” Why did he not convey the same moral bromide to Moscow?

Canada studiously sidesteps any involvement in the American missile defence system, assuming presumably that we will be protected by the United States whether we contribute or not.

The current state of Canada’s military is woeful and globally embarrassing by any measure. Our aging fighter aircraft, which are more than 40 years old, were not able to participate in a major NATO training exercise over Germany in June. Our navy — with four tired, often inoperable submarines — is not able to patrol one ocean effectively, let alone the three that border our nation. Nonetheless, I was told by an informed source that this submarine “fleet” is commanded by not one, but three admirals — a clear example of the bloated, top-heavy ratio of officers to enlisted personnel that permeates all segments of the military and a ratio that is about twice that of the U.S. Marines.

Though Canada likes to see itself as a Pacific, as well as an Atlantic, power, we were not invited to join the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (comprised of the U.S., United Kingdom, Australia and India) or AUKUS (consisting of Australia, the U.K. and the U.S.), both of which are intended to strengthen security measures directed at China.

The reason was simple enough. We have little militarily to bring to the table. The door is now open for New Zealand to join AUKUS but, when asked specifically about Canada’s potential involvement in these groups, U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby dodged the question. That prompted former Canadian national security adviser Vincent Rigby to tell CTV’S Question Period, “If it turns out that the U.S. has shut the door completely to possible Canadian membership, it will mean Canada will continue to be left out of a major partnership among Five Eye allies while also being denied access to advanced defence technology. On both accounts, this would be a major blow for Canada.”

The Liberal government prefers to lavish billions of dollars in subsidies on foreign manufacturers in support of its green agenda, rather than the $18.2 billion increase in military spending that would be required to hit NATO’S target. This imbalance discounts national security, which should be an overarching priority for any government, especially these days.

It is also worth noting that since Trudeau came to power in 2015, while defence spending has languished, the size of the federal bureaucracy has grown a whopping 40 per cent.

Our current military posture is a stark rebuke of Canada’s stalwart effort in the Second World War. In facing contemporary challenges we cannot ignore our proud history. As Sullivan observed during an interview with WABC 770 AM radio, “Canada landed on Juno Beach (on D-day). Did an incredible job. But right now, they’re not doing a good job with regards to their obligations in NATO . ... Canada is one of the biggest laggards.”

Our government is obsessed with moral pronouncements on trendy topics, but has turned a blind eye to its responsibility to preserve and protect our security. The freeloading on our benign North American partner should never be taken for granted. If we do not take defence preparations seriously, we will be less likely to get a fair hearing in Washington on issues of concern to Canada.

There is growing political angst in America that the U.S. is carrying an inordinate share of the NATO defence burden, notably a commitment to Ukraine that is the vast majority of the total — one reason why, according to polls, fewer than 50 per cent of Republicans currently “approve” of NATO.

As a founding member of the alliance, Canada should set an example to others instead of backsliding ignominiously into irrelevance at the NATO table.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Canada the ‘laggard’​

WE SHOULD BE SETTING AN EXAMPLE AT NATO, NOT BACKSLIDING​

National Post - 8 Aug 2023

• Derek H. Burney Derek H. Burney is a former 30-year career diplomat who served as ambassador to the United States from 1989 to 1993.

At a time when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is celebrating Finland and Sweden joining the alliance, Canada’s paltry financial contributions to NATO are more exposed than ever, Derek H. Burney writes.

Critics of Canada’s lax defence spending keep piling on, most recently Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan who, during a hearing on the new commander for Norad, said, “Americans are frustrated when our allies don’t pull their weight. With regard to NATO, Canada is not even close.”

Sullivan’s comments came on the heels of a stinging Wall Street Journal editorial labelling Canada as a “military free-rider in NATO,” adding that we see our membership largely as “a place to rub elbows with global powers and a platform for moral pronouncements.”

A communiqué from the recent NATO summit in Lithuania stressed that the alliance’s funding target of two per cent of GDP is no longer merely aspirational but a minimum requirement to be considered as a “member in good standing.”
It was reported earlier this year that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau privately told NATO officials he didn’t think Canada would ever hit the two per cent target. He has reportedly pleaded for the alliance to broaden its definition of military spending to include research on space, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, but, not surprisingly, his proposal has gained no traction.

The WSJ suggested the Trudeau government sees its military as “more of a social project than a fighting force.” It cited the prime minister’s mandate letter to the minister of national defence in December 2021: “Your immediate priority is to take concrete steps to build an inclusive and diverse Defence Team, characterized by a healthy workplace free from harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct and violence” — in fact, a cultural manifesto that had nothing to do with military capability.

At a time when NATO celebrates the addition of Finland and Sweden to the alliance and there is steady progress in Ukraine’s valiant fight against Russia, Canada’s pathetic contribution is more exposed than ever. Our spending of about 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence falls well below the 2 per cent commitment and ranks sixth from the bottom in the 31-member alliance.

As NATO Secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg warned at the alliance’s recent summit, “It will be a tragedy for Ukraine if President (Vladimir) Putin wins, but I think also people realize the very simple fact that if President Putin wins in Ukraine, it will be not only bad for Ukrainians, it will be dangerous for us, because then the message will be to all authoritarian leaders that when they use military force, when they violate international law, when they invade another country, they get what they want.”

In a piece he wrote for Foreign Affairs, Stoltenberg noted, “China, in particular, is watching to see the price Russia pays or the reward it receives for its aggression.”
True to form, Trudeau questioned the U.S. announcement to provide cluster bombs to Ukraine — in part to counter Russia’s use of the same weapons against Ukraine — saying smugly that Canada “will continue to stand very strongly that they should not be used.” Why did he not convey the same moral bromide to Moscow?

Canada studiously sidesteps any involvement in the American missile defence system, assuming presumably that we will be protected by the United States whether we contribute or not.

The current state of Canada’s military is woeful and globally embarrassing by any measure. Our aging fighter aircraft, which are more than 40 years old, were not able to participate in a major NATO training exercise over Germany in June. Our navy — with four tired, often inoperable submarines — is not able to patrol one ocean effectively, let alone the three that border our nation. Nonetheless, I was told by an informed source that this submarine “fleet” is commanded by not one, but three admirals — a clear example of the bloated, top-heavy ratio of officers to enlisted personnel that permeates all segments of the military and a ratio that is about twice that of the U.S. Marines.

Though Canada likes to see itself as a Pacific, as well as an Atlantic, power, we were not invited to join the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (comprised of the U.S., United Kingdom, Australia and India) or AUKUS (consisting of Australia, the U.K. and the U.S.), both of which are intended to strengthen security measures directed at China.

The reason was simple enough. We have little militarily to bring to the table. The door is now open for New Zealand to join AUKUS but, when asked specifically about Canada’s potential involvement in these groups, U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby dodged the question. That prompted former Canadian national security adviser Vincent Rigby to tell CTV’S Question Period, “If it turns out that the U.S. has shut the door completely to possible Canadian membership, it will mean Canada will continue to be left out of a major partnership among Five Eye allies while also being denied access to advanced defence technology. On both accounts, this would be a major blow for Canada.”

The Liberal government prefers to lavish billions of dollars in subsidies on foreign manufacturers in support of its green agenda, rather than the $18.2 billion increase in military spending that would be required to hit NATO’S target. This imbalance discounts national security, which should be an overarching priority for any government, especially these days.

It is also worth noting that since Trudeau came to power in 2015, while defence spending has languished, the size of the federal bureaucracy has grown a whopping 40 per cent.

Our current military posture is a stark rebuke of Canada’s stalwart effort in the Second World War. In facing contemporary challenges we cannot ignore our proud history. As Sullivan observed during an interview with WABC 770 AM radio, “Canada landed on Juno Beach (on D-day). Did an incredible job. But right now, they’re not doing a good job with regards to their obligations in NATO . ... Canada is one of the biggest laggards.”

Our government is obsessed with moral pronouncements on trendy topics, but has turned a blind eye to its responsibility to preserve and protect our security. The freeloading on our benign North American partner should never be taken for granted. If we do not take defence preparations seriously, we will be less likely to get a fair hearing in Washington on issues of concern to Canada.

There is growing political angst in America that the U.S. is carrying an inordinate share of the NATO defence burden, notably a commitment to Ukraine that is the vast majority of the total — one reason why, according to polls, fewer than 50 per cent of Republicans currently “approve” of NATO.

As a founding member of the alliance, Canada should set an example to others instead of backsliding ignominiously into irrelevance at the NATO table.

Maybe we should try being more innovative with what we have?

Oh, wait ...

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Maybe we should try being more innovative with what we have?

Oh, wait ...

View attachment 79339

"Making do" and finding more creative ways of "making do" are what got us here in the first place.

You can saw down a tree with a Gerber. It will take a while, and you should probably use a chain saw, but you can make do with the Gerber.... until it breaks, the tree is about to crash down on your car, and you should have bought the chainsaw when it was cheaper and could afford it....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Maybe she's being hidden there to escape the fallout of a government that seems to be in decline. Out of Sight and out of mind until Trudeau and his more visible team are gone, so she can step in a lead the part to better fortunes after they are ousted.

This presumes Team Red higher-up's want to "protect" her for future leadership duties, a level of magnanimity I suspect is beyond the current wheelhouse team.

Maybe she came up with it?

Now THIS is more than possible! Good one.

Don't underestimate the Liberals. And don't confound JT with Liberals, they are not the same thing. There is a reason they form governments 2/3's of the time and its not because they are stupid. No one takes and retains power better than them. And unlike other parties they actually groom replacements (multiple ones at a time). They (collectively) think dynastically. Conservatives sure as hell don't ...

I agree with you re: Big Team Red writ large, but JT has far more control over who gets the high-versus-low profile seats at the cabinet table.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Maybe she's being hidden there to escape the fallout of a government that seems to be in decline. Out of Sight and out of mind until Trudeau and his more visible team are gone, so she can step in a lead the part to better fortunes after they are ousted.

I’m going out on a long limb here and am going to put forward the idea that she was pushed out of DND by members of the Sikh wing of the Liberal Party who saw her as a threat and wanted to ‘punish’ Indian Canadians and remind them of their discontent of recent events back in India.
I’d make the argument that the 2 branches of Indian Canadians supporters of the Liberal Party fall under either Sikh Canadians or Hindu/Other Indian Canadians and there is no love between the two sides. Each side working to improve their own camps status within the halls of power here in Canada.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I’m going out on a long limb here and am going to put forward the idea that she was pushed out of DND by members of the Sikh wing of the Liberal Party who saw her as a threat and wanted to ‘punish’ Indian Canadians and remind them of their discontent of recent events back in India.
I’d make the argument that the 2 branches of Indian Canadians supporters of the Liberal Party fall under either Sikh Canadians or Hindu/Other Indian Canadians and there is no love between the two sides. Each side working to improve their own camps status within the halls of power here in Canada.

You could be on to something.