Canadian Defence News

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

These people will still be sworn into the military not just civilian servants issued guns. 

And? Not sure i see the difference. The current force is ex military people who actually served  These will be civil servants they handed guns to for  a week. 

 

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

Nobody is saying these civil servants will be given guns and unleashed on the public or the enemy. 

Of course they are, reserves or not the intent is for them to be sent against an enemy if needed.  Otherwise what's the point of giving them guns and training in the first place?

[paxamericana]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

guilt-mongering

Why is this a thing!!!! It only seems to infect weak minded naive western people. 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Nobody is saying these civil servants will be given guns and unleashed on the public or the enemy. 

No, but the Carney is passing it off as defense spending to please Trump

Edited November 14, 2025 by Legato

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No, your logic is incorrect as usual. There’s a reason police and military firearms have continuously evolved to carry more ammunition

Of course there is. There are many reasons. In addition my logic didn't have anything to do with why guns did or didn't evolve, it had to do with using ammunition as an effective control against violent crime.

So you couldn't even follow the very basic logic that was being put forward  and you wonder why sometimes I get mad at you   Pay attention for god's sake. 

But yes, civilian firearms have evolved to take more ammunition for a variety of very good reasons. If there weren't good reasons we wouldn't buy them. Millions and millions of guns capable of taking more than five rounds sold to civilian sports shooters, and apparently according to you they're all stupid and didn't realize there's no point to it. Give your head a shake

And the same reason that the military likes to have more applies to civilians as well on top of their reasons.

If your plane can go first with a 223 which is popular it's nice to have multiple rounds so you don't have to stop and reload. Or if you're hunting coyote or even more so wolves. At the range it's a huge advantage if you can just keep shooting rather than having to stop, take your gun off of arrest or shift positions, and then reload, and get back to shooting because that really affects your precision in certain circumstances.

Further there's a number of shooting sports that really require larger magazines. iPSC for example which is insanely fun, ,or three gun or a bunch of others. 

And people use firearms for self defense as well. They use it against animals such as bears and they use them against humans where necessary. SO they have the same needs as police. 

So there's millions of reasons why people Should have more than 5 rounds and of course many guns do carry more than five rounds, such as lever actions.

And if you actually knew anything about guns or military history you would know that was a very little bit of practice you can accurately fire even a bolt action rifle almost as fast as a semiauto Especially in the larger cartridges. They used to drill on it back in the day, it was called the mad minute drill. 

So the bottom line is you're 100% completely full of shit again. My logic was perfectly fine, you just misunderstood what we were talking about. And there's no reason in the universe why civilians don't benefit from larger magazines

 

 

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you can accurately fire even a bolt action rifle almost as fast as a semiauto

Here's a world record effort from a few years ago... even a high average performance in pistol calibre is pretty impressive though:

 

Edited November 15, 2025 by Venandi

[Venandi]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

They’re not talking about “training civil servants to use guns” they’re talking about civil servants being encouraged to voluntarily join the military.

OK, I find myself forced to type LOL... did you actually proofread that before you hit submit?

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

People who support gun control mostly don’t have a problem with firearms in the hands of trained military and law enforcement, there’s nothing hypocritical about that. 

That speaks volumes about the people who support the gun grab. When I talk to some of these folks I always ask them what regulation they would enact if they were King for a day. Almost invariably they are surprised to hear that it already exists and that when combined with the cross over from provincial hunting regulations is even more strict than their King for a day idea.

At one week a year you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to say the words "trained military" and Civil Service Reserve Force in the same sentence. This will be a very costly social experiment. Kit issue alone is going to be fun to watch, we can't even get that right for deployed Regular Force members.  

Here's another fun fact, most police officers aren't the weapon handling experts you think, there are a few hobbyists/competitors who are very good and TRU team members that specialize in CQB are excellent (relatively speaking) because they drill it. Generally though, they are the exceptions and very much in the minority, for most cops carrying a duty weapon is just part of the job and it's a matter of qualifying once or twice a year... not much different than non combat arms military members.

Most active IPSC competitors are hands down more proficient. 

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No, your logic is incorrect as usual.

I struggled to find so much as kernel of logic in your posts on this topic and unpacking the rest of it will no doubt fall on deaf ears anyway so I won't bother. If you (meaning voters) want this and you're willing to pay for it then go ahead and do it... It doesn't make sense to me but I'm rooting for you anyway. 

Edited November 15, 2025 by Venandi

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I wouldn’t call Esprit De Corps left and considering that Trump’s extra-judicial killings are clearly illegal we do need  to ensure we’re not indirectly involved. 
 

Trump is already fishing around for his “gulf of Tonkin” moment, massing forces off the Venezuelan coast and conducting black ops throughout that country, he’s looking for a pretext to for invasion and regime change and he will find one or fabricate one soon.  My bet is USA is prepping dissidents to stage a coup and then USA will use that as an excuse to invade to “bring stability”. 

So what? Venezuela's government is both massively incompetent and massively corrupt, and has beaten, tortured, murdered, and starved its own people for years. Trump can do whatever the hell he wants to them as far as I'm concerned.

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, Venandi said:

When I heard about this my first thought was the gun grab.

Imagine the logical gyrations a liberal voter would have to perform in order to think that proceeding with both of these things simultaneously is a jolly good idea. The thought of training civil servants to use guns whist simultaneously having the same people actively engaged in taking guns away from those who actually know how to use them is a uniquely Canadian idea. Even the Good Idea Fairy didn't think this one would pass muster. 

While our best Regular Force recruiting efforts are barely able to stay ahead of attrition, no one with a hand held calculator questions the  logical absurdities here. Even more delicious is the fact that many of the people defending it also think getting submarines is a "silly" idea and simply shrug at the notion that we can't equip and train what we already have in a timely and efficient manner. 

I hope they go ahead and do it, I'm looking forward to watching it play out. 

It would be worth a couple cases of beer just to sit on the side lines on the range, and watch this train wreck take place in real time...It would make for good TV...

[Venandi]

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It would be worth a couple cases of beer just to sit on the side lines on the range, and watch this train wreck take place in real time...It would make for good TV...

I'll bring the popcorn.

Guess I'll burn that RSO certificate too... just in case the phone rings.

Edited November 15, 2025 by Venandi

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Well is there any military person you would trust back when they were still an untrained civilian with no military experience?  The CDS has clarified that they aren’t proposing a policy of sending untrained civilian bureaucrats into war zones, or drafting public servants, they’re only suggesting that the government could theoretically consider encouraging or incentivizing public sector employees to join the reserves alongside their fellow Canadians.. I think the right wing media is so triggered by this and overreacting is due to their general contempt for public sector employees (other than cops and firefighters etc), whom they love to constantly demonize but if you think about it a lot of reservists already are public sector workers. 

It would take all of the reserves and regular force years upon years to train 400,000 civilians....not to mention you would have to continue this training on a regular basis to those already trained....it would be one big circle of training....and in 10 years you would have 400,000 reserve soldier trained to the basic level....not to mention regular force troops who would be need of updating more courses, etc....Why waste this effort in peace time , why not pour all this funding into training more Regular force soldiers along with more primary reserves...instead of waste time and effort on wannabees...that most would not even meet basic military standards for being physical fit, or in the age category....I mean if any of those in the civl services wanted to be in the forces that would already happened.....Have you seen your typical civil servant....

This is all part of the mobilization of a mass amount of troops in time of crises....lots of double talk going on here....first you say they will not be deployed to war zones....but suggesting they be part of the reserves....but the facts remain that the reserves be it primary or supplementary are meant to either form new combat units or act as reinforcements to regular force units in time of crises or for any operation....So ya they are going to have a rifle and shoved where they are needed...even our truck drivers, Loggies, cooks, maintainers, drone operators  are expected to perform their duties under combat conditions...suggesting other wise is a lie....

This is not about a bunch of right wingers freaking out, this is about members on here or other media sites, with operational experience saying are you crazy....you might get maybe 50,000 adults that fit military duty requirements out of all the civil service.... the rest are aged out, not physically fit, ...

37 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I'll bring the popcorn.

Guess I'll burn that RSO certificate too... just in case the phone rings.

Ya, not my monkeys not my circus.

[herbie]

Sweden just made Canada a Grypen E offer that's too good to refuse.
Take it

[Army Guy]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

Sweden just made Canada a Grypen E offer that's too good to refuse.
Take it

What is so good about it, the jobs, the price, or they are made in Canada maybe ....or the fact that the air force does not want it...

[Army Guy]

Well i guess the public did not take the plan to recruit from [public service...and is now second guess the tiger tewams report or suggestions...

Quote

 

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan and defence deputy minister Stefanie Beck signed a document on May 30, 2025, launching a plan to boost both the reserves and what is known as the Supplementary Reserve.

The supplementary force is currently made up of inactive or retired members of the Canadian Forces who are willing to return to duty if called. At this point, there are 4,384 personnel in the Supplementary Reserve, but, in the case of a national emergency, that would be boosted to 300,000, according to the document issued by Beck and Carignan.

 

It should be noted that active duty pers are asked if they want their names added to the supplementary reserve list , of all the people who retire only 4384 of them decided to put their names forward to be recalled if this nation faced crises.....it has to be telling that's thousands that retire year after year that only 4383 decided to serve once again if needed....It is not that they don't believe in this country, i mean they have already pledged to defend it with their lifes.....it is because what our government has done to the military, lack of training funding, lack of modern equipment , lack of veteran coverages, benefits,  lack of Canadians having their backs...What they asking Canadians is to have their backs 365 days a year, like they have yours, and not just one day on Nov 11 ..but all year...

https://torontosun.com/public-service/defence-watch/top-soldier-public-servants-reserves/wcm/353eddba-a3b8-4f7f-a5b9-7a67669e3fd7

 

Quote

But now, following significant pushback from the public after the Citizen revealed the plan, Carignan appears to be having second thoughts.

Quote

But now, following significant pushback from the public after the Citizen revealed the plan, Carignan appears to be having second thoughts.

 

Quote

 

Defence insiders say the initiative appears to have been poorly planned. Former senior military public affairs officers have also questioned how the Canadian Forces was caught off-guard by not having a proper communication plan for the public about such a major initiative.

Retired colonel Brett Boudreau, a former top military public affairs officer, said a robust mobilization framework was a long-standing need for defence of the country, but the leadership dropped the ball on explaining that to Canadians.

“It’s another classic study of a failure by defence leaders to anticipate public interest in their activities and planning, even if just at the gestation stage, and to build in communications as an integral part of their work,” said Boudreau, a Canadian Global Affairs Institute Fellow.

 

Not sure if these guys are right wing or not...but apparently they are of the same mind as me and many others....

https://torontosun.com/public-service/defence-watch/top-soldier-public-servants-reserves/wcm/353eddba-a3b8-4f7f-a5b9-7a67669e3fd7

Edited November 15, 2025 by Army Guy

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Venandi said:

Here's a world record effort from a few years ago... even a high average performance in pistol calibre is pretty impressive though:

 

That's incredible,  my fave cw shooter was spencer "the lead dispenser'  for quite a few years  

 

But i meant with a bolt aciton - here's a taste from someone who is NOT a world record holder at all   

BTW - the world record i believe is 38 HITS - not shots but hits - on a 42 inch target at 300 yards! 300 and he still hit it 38 times in a minute! And that's reloading eery 10 rounds! Set by a brit soldier many years ago as i recall

 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It would be worth a couple cases of beer just to sit on the side lines on the range, and watch this train wreck take place in real time...It would make for good TV...

I'd recommend being on the other side of a bullet proof partition   

I don't know much about military matters when it comes to training but i've taught dozens and dozens of people to shoot. And sure i can get them doing ok within 2 or 3 days at the range.... from a BENCH in a STATIC situation against a SET target.  That isn't TOO far away.  If they do their homework at home after each day.  

But even then there;s no way theyd be trained up to deal with a 'combat' situation reliably such as dealing with a charging bear or the like, and i guarantee if that's all they shoot if they wait a year and come back there're going to be an absolute menace yet again on their first day.  Can't imagine it would be better in a combat situation which is even more confusing and scary and the "bears" shoot back. 

[BeaverFever]

13 hours ago, Venandi said:

I'll bring the popcorn.

Guess I'll burn that RSO certificate too... just in case the phone rings.

I don’t see how this is any different from when any new recruits receive training. 
 

So to recap:  civilian off the street with no experience wants to join the reserves = no problem. But if their civilian job happens to be in the public service somehow it’s a disaster waiting to happen?

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It would take all of the reserves and regular force years upon years to train 400,000 civilians....not to mention you would have to continue this training on a regular basis to those already trained....it would be one big circle of training....and in 10 years you would have 400,000 reserve soldier trained to the basic level....not to mention regular force troops who would be need of updating more courses, etc....Why waste this effort in peace time , why not pour all this funding into training more Regular force soldiers along with more primary reserves...instead of waste time and effort on wannabees...that most would not even meet basic military standards for being physical fit, or in the age category....I mean if any of those in the civl services wanted to be in the forces that would already happened.....Have you seen your typical civil servant....

This is all part of the mobilization of a mass amount of troops in time of crises....lots of double talk going on here....first you say they will not be deployed to war zones....but suggesting they be part of the reserves....but the facts remain that the reserves be it primary or supplementary are meant to either form new combat units or act as reinforcements to regular force units in time of crises or for any operation....So ya they are going to have a rifle and shoved where they are needed...even our truck drivers, Loggies, cooks, maintainers, drone operators  are expected to perform their duties under combat conditions...suggesting other wise is a lie....

This is not about a bunch of right wingers freaking out, this is about members on here or other media sites, with operational experience saying are you crazy....you might get maybe 50,000 adults that fit military duty requirements out of all the civil service.... the rest are aged out, not physically fit, ...

Ya, not my monkeys not my circus.

Well I don’t see how we get there from here in terms of the sheer scale, when we can’t even fill the empty positions we have. But in terms of everyone freaking out about recruiting from public service ranks, they’re a broad cross-section of society just like any other group, they’re not inherently less qualified or capable of being trained than any other civilians out there.  IMO the conservative freak-out over this has more to do with the fact that they have been conditioned to despise public servants as human beings. 

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Well I don’t see how we get there from here in terms of the sheer scale, when we can’t even fill the empty positions we have.

Me either.

Now, if you were to cast your mind back to the Primary Reserves of yesterday and commit to two training nights a week, one Saturday per month and 2 months in the summer the only thing I would question would be the logistics, facilities, instructor availability and your willingness to pay for it all. 

Say we wanted to produce a given amount of MSE OPs (drivers), calling them combat drivers might be better. Between Sept and June of the following year we could complete basic training. In the summer we would do the basic trade qualification course (say 6-8 weeks). 

If that was your (our) plan I'd say OK, but it isn't... not by a long shot.

My turn to use an extreme example: As currently envisioned It would take about 10 years to complete basic training and another 8-10 years to produce a trade qualified driver and by the time we were done the only thing we would have gained is a pension liability. 

Even if you went a step down from my driver analogy and said we will do 2 months of basic training followed by two (continuous) weeks of training per year I could get on board with the potential reasonableness of doing it. That's not what we're talking about though.

Here's another potential issue, by necessity, those two weeks would be pretty intense in order to provide the value intended and I think attrition would be disappointingly high. The reason civil servants would make good candidates here is the fact that their employer is actually the one sponsoring their military training and time away from work. I think that was the thought process in suggesting them as a recruiting pool.

Anyway... if this had been presented logically and the numbers made any sort of sense at all, you would likely see much less resistance from people who have a passing familiarity with such things.

Edited November 15, 2025 by Venandi

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Me either.

Now, if you were to cast your mind back to the Primary Reserves of yesterday and commit to two training nights a week, one Saturday per month and 2 months in the summer the only thing I would question would be the logistics, facilities, instructor availability and your willingness to pay for it all. 

Say we wanted to produce a given amount of MSE OPs (drivers), calling them combat drivers might be better. Between Sept and June of the following year we could complete basic training. In the summer we would do the basic trade qualification course (say 6-8 weeks). 

If that was your (our) plan I'd say OK, but it isn't... not by a long shot.

My turn to use an extreme example: As currently envisioned It would take about 10 years to complete basic training and another 8-10 years to produce a trade qualified driver and by the time we were done the only thing we would have gained is a pension liability. 

Even if you went a step down from my driver analogy and said we will do 2 months of basic training followed by two (continuous) weeks of training per year I could get on board with the potential reasonableness of doing it. That's not what we're talking about though.

Here's another potential issue, by necessity, those two weeks would be pretty intense in order to provide the value intended and I think attrition would be disappointingly high. The reason civil servants would make good candidates here is the fact that their employer is actually the one sponsoring their military training and time away from work. I think that was the thought process in suggesting them as a recruiting pool.

Anyway... if this had been presented logically and the numbers made any sort of sense at all, you would likely see much less resistance from people who have a passing familiarity with such things.

I don’t think the intent of the Supplementary Reserve, which has been around for a long time, has ever been to produce mission-ready personnel, heck the Primary Reserve can’t really do that for the vast majority who are Class A.   I think of Supplementary as a step below Class A in terms of readiness. It’s basically an engagement tool, a pool of people for the CAF to “keep warm”, some of whom will be keen enough to volunteer for more than the bare minimum and put their hand up for more opportunities to serve and to train   And the absolute worst case of fantasy scenario where a full mobilization “total defence” situation occurs and the entire civilian population needs to be conscripted and trained, at least they are no starting completely from scratch trying to find people. 

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t think the intent of the Supplementary Reserve, which has been around for a long time, has ever been to produce mission-ready personnel

But it was comprised of trained (not necessarily combat ready) personnel and it provided a means of NOT archiving their personnel records...that was the point of it, they were available and ready to go if needed assuming the member could still make the cut. Going from fully trained to combat ready isn't a big leap, it's a bunny hop. What you seem to be advocating for is an entirely different, vastly dumbed down and bloated critter who's only charm lies in the fact that its idle carcass is 88 times bigger than what you had before. As me grand-pappy would say: "bad trade." 

I see little sense in pursuing this further as nothing I say is going to resonate... if you and enough other voters really want to do this then go for it. Army Guy and I will drink Scotch, gobble popcorn and watch the show.

Best of luck with it...

 

Edited November 15, 2025 by Venandi

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Well I don’t see how we get there from here in terms of the sheer scale, when we can’t even fill the empty positions we have. But in terms of everyone freaking out about recruiting from public service ranks, they’re a broad cross-section of society just like any other group, they’re not inherently less qualified or capable of being trained than any other civilians out there.  IMO the conservative freak-out over this has more to do with the fact that they have been conditioned to despise public servants as human beings. 

Most of the public servants I've dealt with work in the military structure some place they are unionized, and make good money, most of them are already aged out, a good number are ex military....those that are not are not physically fit...Walk into any CRA office or any other governmental dept, and take a good look around and see for yourselves....And most of them are going to be earning more than any military guy to begin with...next age and physically fitness levels it would be hard to find 400,000 k to meet even very reduced standards...

It is not that they despise them, it has more to do with being unionized and using that at every opportunity, , having much different work habits and drive, having the same or better benefits, wages are not that far off...they are listened to by the government....while our military and vets are only thought about on Nov 11.  

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'd recommend being on the other side of a bullet proof partition   

I don't know much about military matters when it comes to training but i've taught dozens and dozens of people to shoot. And sure i can get them doing ok within 2 or 3 days at the range.... from a BENCH in a STATIC situation against a SET target.  That isn't TOO far away.  If they do their homework at home after each day.  

But even then there;s no way theyd be trained up to deal with a 'combat' situation reliably such as dealing with a charging bear or the like, and i guarantee if that's all they shoot if they wait a year and come back there're going to be an absolute menace yet again on their first day.  Can't imagine it would be better in a combat situation which is even more confusing and scary and the "bears" shoot back. 

Even combat troops become over come by fear, including combat vets have bad days......in WWII only one in 10 troops returned fire dur to fear...., today it is about 1 in every two...but they also estimate over 1 million rounds fired to every enemy killed....

Sometimes the bear wins...

[Legato]

20 hours ago, Venandi said:

I'll bring the popcorn.

Guess I'll burn that RSO certificate too... just in case the phone rings.

At my old pistol club there used to what was known as "cop day". The indoor range was taken over once a month by the police from 10am to 2pm,  usually on a Thursday. Us retired folks would be there to assist in range setup etc. They always appointed their own RSO.

Muzzle and trigger control left a lot to be desired, somedays it was like the wild west. The safest place to be was behind the targets.

 

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Muzzle and trigger control left a lot to be desired, somedays it was like the wild west. The safest place to be was behind the targets.

 

Looks like nothing has changed, they were banned (for group training) from our range.

Loading a snap cap or two per magazine would probably provide some entertainment. Sadly, I still need to do that routinely in order to keep the flinch that stole Christmas at bay.   

Edited November 15, 2025 by Venandi

[Legato]

46 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Looks like nothing has changed, they were banned (for group training) from our range.

Loading a snap cap or two per magazine would probably provide some entertainment. Sadly, I still need to do that routinely in order to keep the flinch that stole Christmas at bay.   

Flinch and double flinch. My first time moving from 38 special to 357 Magnum. That was a fun evening