Ottawa eyeing Ukrainian partnership, EU loans for defence equipment, minister says
McGuinty said the idea is under 'active consideration' by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces and the government is looking at Denmark and France as potential models.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
3 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
GUNTER: Trudeau cost Canada a chance to get into global LNG game — Trump and U.S. are reaping the benefit
President Donald Trump reads from a paper and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen listens after reaching a trade deal between the U.S. and the EU at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland Sunday, July 27, 2025. Photo by Jacquelyn Martin / AP Last Sunday, at President Donald Trump's golf resort in Scotland (a.k.a. King Donald's summer palace), Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Union pledged European countries would buy US$750 billion (over $1 trillion Canadian) of U.S. energy – largely LNG – over the next three years in return for Trump promising to impose only 15% tariffs on the union's member states. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Boy, those American and European trade negotiators must be dunces. Don't they know that three years ago, then-German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a special trip to Canada to ask our government to sell tens of billions in LNG to his country? Our economic genius of a prime minister, Justin Trudeau rejected Scholz's request because 'there is no business case' for selling LNG to Europe. The Germans almost immediately turned around and signed a 15-year agreement with Qatar for about $1.5 billion a year in LNG from that Gulf state. This past Thursday, the South Koreans made a similar deal with the U.S. — $100 billion (about $138 billion Canadian) in energy over four years, primarily LNG. What's wrong with these countries? Can they not see that the greatest economic mind of the 21st Century, Justin Pierre James Trudeau, had decreed it was foolhardy to sign such agreements? Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The U.S. deals with the EU and Korea just for LNG are worth about $800 billion Canadian over the next four years. The rest of the sales are for oil and nuclear fuels. A good part of that market might have been Canada's had we not been ruled by a 'green' dreamweaver and eco-cultist who prevented this country from jumping into the world LNG market early in the game. Now the Americans have sucked up a lot of the oxygen in the room, and it will be hard for Canada to get a foothold, even if current Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney gets off his duff and agrees to more pipelines and LNG ports. Trudeau's thinking (which remains Carney's thinking until the current Liberal government does more than just talk a good game) cost Canada at least $400 billion in investment during the Trudeau decade, drove down our per capita income, dropped us out of the 25 richest countries in the world, distorted our housing market and drove up prices and unemployment. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Even after the change in prime ministers this year, the OECD still projects Canada will have the lowest level of economic growth of any developed country in the world for at least the next 20 years, because we just can't bring ourselves to do the tough work of becoming an energy superpower. Do you have any idea how much government revenue could be generated from $400 billion? At least $100 billion in corporate taxes and energy royalties. And that doesn't include more income tax collected from more Canadians working at higher-paying jobs. I was being facetious above, of course, when I said Trudeau was an economic genius. I would list him and the economic devastation he wrought as the worst government this country has ever had. He and his woke, 'green' obsessed cabinet dug a huge pit and threw us in it. (Then he trotted off to a Katy Perry concert and date.) This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Mark Carney may sound and look more competent than Trudeau, but is he? Just about half of his cabinet were ministers in Trudeau's cabinet and were just as obsessed as Justin with combatting climate change and shutting down oil and gas. They voted in lockstep with Trudeau for the emission caps, harsh eco regulations, EV mandate, net-zero power grid and opposition to resource development and pipelines. Carney himself spent the better part of a decade, before becoming P.M., acting as the U.N.'s ambassador on 'green' investing (even though in his own portfolio he retained millions of shares in oil companies). He also frequently advocated leaving most of today's proven oil and gas reserves in the ground. Count me skeptical that this leopard has changed his spots. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Read More Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don't miss the news you need to know — add and to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here. You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribers gain unlimited access to The Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Edmonton Journal | The Edmonton Sun. Toronto Blue Jays Homes Sunshine Girls Sunshine Girls Columnists
Edmonton Journal
5 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Gunter: Trudeau cost Canada a chance to get into global LNG game — Trump and U.S. are reaping the benefit
Article content Last Sunday, at President Donald Trump's golf resort in Scotland (a.k.a. King Donald's summer palace), Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Union pledged European countries would buy US$750 billion (over $1 trillion Canadian) of U.S. energy – largely LNG – over the next three years in return for Trump promising to impose only 15% tariffs on the union's member states. Article content Article content Boy, those American and European trade negotiators must be dunces. Don't they know that three years ago, then-German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a special trip to Canada to ask our government to sell tens of billions in LNG to his country? Our economic genius of a prime minister, Justin Trudeau rejected Scholz's request because 'there is no business case' for selling LNG to Europe. Article content Article content Article content This past Thursday, the South Koreans made a similar deal with the U.S. — $100 billion (about $138 billion Canadian) in energy over four years, primarily LNG. Article content What's wrong with these countries? Can they not see that the greatest economic mind of the 21st Century, Justin Pierre James Trudeau, had decreed it was foolhardy to sign such agreements? Article content Article content The U.S. deals with the EU and Korea just for LNG are worth about $800 billion Canadian over the next four years. The rest of the sales are for oil and nuclear fuels. Article content Article content A good part of that market might have been Canada's had we not been ruled by a 'green' dreamweaver and eco-cultist who prevented this country from jumping into the world LNG market early in the game. Article content Now the Americans have sucked up a lot of the oxygen in the room, and it will be hard for Canada to get a foothold, even if current Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney gets off his duff and agrees to more pipelines and LNG ports. Article content Trudeau's thinking (which remains Carney's thinking until the current Liberal government does more than just talk a good game) cost Canada at least $400 billion in investment during the Trudeau decade, drove down our per capita income, dropped us out of the 25 richest countries in the world, distorted our housing market and drove up prices and unemployment.
CBC
9 hours ago
- CBC
Carney wants to spend an extra $9B on defence by April. Is that possible?
Social Sharing Prime Minister Mark Carney's goal of hitting NATO's defence spending target of two per cent of gross domestic product this year will be an uphill — nearly impossible — battle, say experts and critics. An extra $8.7 billion is earmarked for defence spending by the Department of National Defence (DND) or other government departments, and $370 million for the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Allies had been pushing Canada to meet NATO's goal for nearly 20 years — but actually actually doing so became imperative with Donald Trump in the White House. "Mark Carney's words are right, but he's gotta crack the whip here real quick," said John Ball, a former Canadian defence industry executive for nearly four decades and now consultant. NATO defines defence expenditures as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, or those of allies and the alliance. Conservative MP and defence critic James Bezan warns it will be difficult for procurement officials inside government to reverse a long-standing culture of risk aversion, deferred decisions and allowing billions of dollars in lapsed spending. WATCH | Canadian defence spending expected to climb further: Canada, NATO allies agree to 5% defence spending target 1 month ago "By the time we get back into Parliament and a budget is passed, we're going to have half a year to spend money that the department won't be able to shovel out the door," Bezan said in an interview with CBC News. He wonders if the government will just engage in a "game of creative accounting" to meet its NATO commitments on paper. But some within the Canadian defence industry as well as DND and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) themselves point to existing mechanisms that can be leveraged to move quickly. Those include the use of standing offers, supply arrangements and pre-qualified vendor lists, as well as strategic partnerships with defence companies identified as centres of excellence, bilateral partnerships with other countries and the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. In situations that are truly time sensitive, the government can invoke a National Security Exception (NSE), Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) or issue an Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN). Although these have strict eligibility criteria and are not everyday tools. "If the government can demonstrate to us that this is in the interest of national security and there is a limited availability from a competitive factor, we would be open to those types of procurement," said Bezan. "But we can't make a habit of using NSEs as a way to … get the equipment that we require for the Canadian Armed Forces." Carney outlined on June 9 the general areas for increased investment, but gave no specifics. The list included better compensation; health care and infrastructure for personnel; new equipment such as aircraft, armed vehicles and ammunition; expanding the Canadian Coast Guard and moving it under DND; repairing and maintaining existing ships, aircraft and other assets; and developing new drones and sensors to monitor the sea floor and the Arctic. "We think it's largely going to be made up of items that are already identified or some that have been languishing in the procurement pipeline or projects that were underfunded," said Christyn Cianfarani, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). Spending at home One way to spend faster would be to expand existing orders for armoured vehicles, ships and planes. For example, augmenting an existing contract for 360 light armoured vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems in London, Ont. A company spokesperson says it would be able to quickly respond to contract amendment requests. But if the government intends to buy equipment not already on order or in the inventory, Cianfarani argues DND and PSPC have to change their approach. "There should not be a protracted procurement process," she said. "Probably a good portion of that $9 billion could be spent on Canadian firms." The prime minister has explicitly stated that part of the goal is to build up the Canadian defence industry, while acknowledging that continuing to do business with allies, including the U.S., will remain necessary. Cianfarani is far from alone in her concern over Canada's procurement process, one of the main reasons critics argue spending $9 billion in less than a year is doubtful. PSPC says its preference is for open, fair and competitive procurement. But many argue the process is overly long, and in some cases merely a box-ticking exercise where the winner is a foregone conclusion. "Why did they do it? They did it to appease," said Ball of those requests for proposals that already have a preferred candidate in mind. Cianfarani said it's frustrating for firms to spend millions on a bid for which they never had a real chance. She said it would be better to engage in "directed procurement" more often, as is done in other countries, where the government knows what it wants to invest in — and who the best suppliers are — and it then chooses them. But Bezan and others warn of the risk of boondoggles increases if the rush to spend money also means hurried oversight. "Talking about going to two per cent, and higher down the road, doesn't mean we give licence to spend money frivolously," said Bezan. 'Deliberate urgency' Those in the defence industry argue that they too want to make sure there's value for money. "I use the phrase 'deliberate urgency,' in that we need to think about how that money impacts the Canadian economic situation," said Chris Pogue, a former Royal Canadian Air Force pilot and now president of Calian Defence and Space. "I don't think we should let urgency overcome smart procurement, but things can move quickly if we have a sense of the direction we want to go and the kind of capability we need." Pogue said capabilities around sovereignty need to be homegrown, such as equipment and supplies needed for operations in the Arctic. An additional challenge is that most defence spending, at least on the capital side, is spent and accounted for over a number of years. But a senior government official says they truly plan to increase defence spending by $9 billion before April. That said, the government continues to describe both the amount and the deadline as targets, not certainties.
