Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They rolled a 2 billion dollar tree planting program into it

"While some reports indicate the 2-billion-tree program has faced cancellations or shifts in funding, the inclusion of environmental or community projects in the military budget is being used to bolster the total, officially reported defence spending, according to these sources. "

CBC +4

See my previous post I’m done repeating myself 

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You are being deliberately obtuse.  Everything has been explained to you multiple times now. There is nothing unusual or abnormal happening here. Canada didn’t “change the standards” Canada complies with the NATO standards

If there had never been any national tree planting program or any 2% NATO spending pledge and if even ifTrump-loving Conservatives ran Canada, the  defence budget would STILL include the cost of any trees the military planted on their properties. When the US military plants trees on their property it counts in the US defense budget. I don’t know how many other ways I can explain this to you. There’s nothing different or unusual happening here  

 

No, you’re lying. Western standard doesn’t have “investigative reporters” and the article is behind a paywall so you have no idea what it actually says or what “numbers” they did or didn’t look at. 
 

re you as bad at math as you are logic?  Let’s try to apply some abductive reasoning and recap some point I already explained to you

1) As I already educated you: the MOU for these trees was signed in 2022, long before Carney was elected and pledged to meet the NATO target  So that alone sinks your whole argument right there 

2) The Federal Lands stream of the 2 billion trees program was specifically designed for tree planting projects with various federal government departments that have federally owned land.  The military was not even the largest of these.  For example The National Capital Commission agreement covered 88,500 trees and Parks Canada is in the millions.  So again the claim that there was a plot to pad the military budget falls apart. 
 

3) Logically, 14,500 out of TWO BILLION is an extremely small insignificant amount, statistically zero percent ….0.000725% in fact. So it would be absurd to suggest these trees were dreamed up as part of the 2 billion trees program

4) According to Chat GPT the cost to DND to plant these trees over 5 years is a maximum of $1 million or $200,000 per year, an invisible ROUNDING ERROR in the scheme of the $41 Billion per year DND budget so it’s absurd to suggest there’s a sinister plot to “pad” the budget by 0.000487805%

5) 14,500 over 5 YEARS is a normal and reasonable number of trees given the massive lands the Canadian defence department holder and the major housing projects they have planned  

6) The people who originally complained about this federal lands stream were the pro-tree people accusing Trudeau’s 2 billion trees pledge of including trees the government was going to plant anyway 

6) 

But you're trying to dodge the issue and it's painfully obvious.

Nobody said that they did anything illegal. What they said is that obviously it's not actually just had spending

If carney says we need to spend more money on our defense and then blows 2 billion on trees for the environment then even if that's perfectly legal it's got nothing to do with actual defense. It's money he would have spent on environmental issues that he tries to pretend his defense spending

So cut with the bullshit i'll get real. A lot of the new defense spending has absolutely nothing to do with defense.

 

[User]

38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You are being deliberately obtuse.  Everything has been explained to you multiple times now. There is nothing unusual or abnormal happening here. Canada didn’t “change the standards” Canada complies with the NATO standards

If there had never been any national tree planting program or any 2% NATO spending pledge and if even ifTrump-loving Conservatives ran Canada, the  defence budget would STILL include the cost of any trees the military planted on their properties. When the US military plants trees on their property it counts in the US defense budget. I don’t know how many other ways I can explain this to you. There’s nothing different or unusual happening here  

This is a joke man. 

You started off denying, claiming it was all a lie, false, and after I have repeatedly shown you wrong with the facts, now you are reduced to justifying it as nothing different or unusual happening here. 

Um, yeah, there is. Your country has been shirking its NATO obligations for years. You sit here talking about following standards and you can't even follow your spending obligations. 

In an attempt to cook the books, according to the investigation in the article, your country is now scrambling to figure out how to count anything and everything it can, including some national tree planting program, as part of its defense spending. 

You started off pretending you couldn't read the source, repeatedly trying to say it was all a lie, and now you are reduced to saying so what, nothing unusual here. LOL

42 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No, you’re lying. Western standard doesn’t have “investigative reporters” and the article is behind a paywall so you have no idea what it actually says or what “numbers” they did or didn’t look at. 

Where is my lie? The article I provided is not behind a paywall. 

There were two sources provided: the original source and the Western Standard, which was reporting on the original behind a paywall. 

 I never specifically claimed it was a Western Standard investigative reporter either. Just more of your dishonest response tactics. Try to focus in on some strawman to argue against and ignore the point. 

45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

re you as bad at math as you are logic?  Let’s try to apply some abductive reasoning and recap some point I already explained to you

So, you have no evidence. 

Just your BS attempt at bad reasoning. 

 

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So cut with the bullshit i'll get real. A lot of the new defense spending has absolutely nothing to do with defense.

Don't soldiers need trees to hide behind on occasion? It stands to reason invaders will attack places soldiers live too so maybe they should plant even more.

Maybe you have to apply conservative reasoning based on fear to see how this could be spun. $10 says you'd say something like this if it was a Conservative or other right wing government being accused of dodgy funding priorities or accounting.

Take the cost of shooting a Iranian drone down with a Patriot missile for example. Worth every penny right?

Edited March 15 by eyeball

[Legato]

44 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

See my previous post I’m done repeating myself 

So who's going to train those tree's the difference between 5.56 and .223.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Don't soldiers need trees to hide behind on occasion?

We have a pretty reasonable number of them already currently installed    Many already equipped with tactical squirrels. 

 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, User said:

You started off denying, claiming it was all a lie, false, and after I have repeatedly shown you wrong with the facts,

It is a lie and and you have not shown any facts

3 hours ago, User said:

justifying it as nothing different or unusual happening here. 

Nothing different or unusual is happening here

 

3 hours ago, User said:

Your country has been shirking its NATO obligations for years. You sit here talking about following standards and you can't even follow your spending obligations. 

This part of what you are claiming is partially true but lacks important context.
 

1) NATO established a VOLUNTARY target of 2% of GDP in 2014. Canada signed that non/binding pledge but in reality chose not to spend this much. They didn’t “cook the books” or violate standards they just never followed through like most NATO countries 

2) NATO had set the standards and guidelines of what would count as spending towards their target and what doesn’t. This is a NATO standard, meaning it only matters whether NATO thinks you are meeting the spending. So what would be the point of planting trees to meet the NATO targets if NATO isn’t going to recognize it?  Like every single MAGA who lives their life online, you have not applied any critical thinking to this topic 

 

3 hours ago, User said:

In an attempt to cook the books, according to the investigation in the article, your country is now scrambling to figure out how to count anything and everything it can, including some national tree planting program, as part of its defense spending. 

I am tired of repeating myself. There was no investigation, you didn’t read the article because it’s behind a paywall, and the agreement for the insignificant number of trees was signed years ago. Why do you refuse to even acknowledge this key point?  You just repeat your original arguments and ignore all rebuttals because you have you have no intelligent response. 
 

3 hours ago, User said:

You started off pretending you couldn't read the source, repeatedly trying to say it was all a lie, and now you are reduced to saying so what, nothing unusual here. LOL

How dense are you??  The lie is that the very normal thing is actually a scheme to “cook the books. Can you not understand that?

 

3 hours ago, User said:

Where is my lie? The article I provided is not behind a paywall. 

There were two sources provided: the original source and the Western Standard, which was reporting on the original behind a paywall. 

 I never specifically claimed it was a Western Standard investigative reporter either. Just more of your dishonest response tactics. Try to focus in on some strawman to argue against and ignore the point. 

Both the Western Standard and Blacklocks articles are behind paywalls.  Cooy-paste the article here if you claim otherwise. Both are also privately owned right-wing echo chamber outlets  

3 hours ago, User said:

So, you have no evidence. 

Just your BS attempt at bad reasoning. 

uh I presented a ton of evidence which you obviously have no rebuttal for so you are borrowing a page from cdnfox and just say “so you have no evidence”. You fools think that’s a magic sentence that you can just bust out in any argument at any time to automatically win. Hilarious low IQ MOVE. If the points I raised are somehow insufficient you will need to explain why and rebut them you can’t just arbitrarily declare them “Bs” simply because they disagree with your preferred narrative. 
 

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But you're trying to dodge the issue and it's painfully obvious.

Nobody said that they did anything illegal. What they said is that obviously it's not actually just had spending

If carney says we need to spend more money on our defense and then blows 2 billion on trees for the environment then even if that's perfectly legal it's got nothing to do with actual defense. It's money he would have spent on environmental issues that he tries to pretend his defense spending

So cut with the bullshit i'll get real. A lot of the new defense spending has absolutely nothing to do with defense.

 

Wtf are you talking about?? Now you’re claiming he spent 2 BILLION ON TREES?  It’s 1 million  so you’re only by 2,000x that’s pretty accurate for you  

Is it not enough for you to repeat this fake news,  you have to embellish it with your own exaggerations?  The MAGA fake news bubble is just like a sewing circle or what black people call the “nigga-net” you just gossip and believe anything you hear from any random person as little as it’s “juicy” and you embellish and exaggerate every story until it’s distorted beyond all recognition. Hilarious. 
 

As I already pointed out to your adhd brain, this insignificant number of trees was agreed to in 2022 which is well before Carney was PM and before any pledge to meet 2%. In fact zdo you recall rhis headline from 2023?

 

Why would we tell NATO we will “NEVER” reach 2%,  while trying to include an insignificant tree planting money to convince them that we will (and while still falling short by tens of billions as we were back then)?

NATO has specific rules about what they will and will not consider counting towards a country meeting its 2%  

 

U.S. report claims Trudeau told NATO Canada will never meet its military spending target

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadian-forces-nato-washington-post-1.6815616

 

 

Think about it: The whole point of spending 2% of GDP on defense is to appease NATO and USA. WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF SPENDING DEFENCE MONEY ON PROGRAMS THEY DON’T COUNT???

[User]

18 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It is a lie and and you have not shown any facts

OK, you might as well just run away like you usually do if all you are going to do is act like a child and say NO YOU DIDNT!

Like I have done before with you, no point in moving past this one either, as I have provided several sources now, when you first tried to claim in the other thread there was no tree planting effort and I showed you wrong and here when you tried to claim it was all just normal land scaping and I showed you wrong yet again. 

 

[Army Guy]

27 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

1) NATO established a VOLUNTARY target of 2% of GDP in 2014. Canada signed that non/binding pledge but in reality chose not to spend this much. They didn’t “cook the books” or violate standards they just never followed through like most NATO countries 

2) NATO had set the standards and guidelines of what would count as spending towards their target and what doesn’t. This is a NATO standard, meaning it only matters whether NATO thinks you are meeting the spending. So what would be the point of planting trees to meet the NATO targets if NATO isn’t going to recognize it?  Like every single MAGA who lives their life online, you have not applied any critical thinking to this topic 

 

 

1.....No Canada signed an agreement to meet the 2014 NATO goal of 2 % by 2024....As did all the other NATO countries that signed that day.....below it mentions this in the US letter the US senators sent.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24681408-shaheen-tillis_canada_defense_spending_letter/

This is how justin kept his promise...He had no intention of keeping that 2024 deadline....he made up his own dead line....he claimed he would reach 1.76 by 2029/30....6 years past the original deadline that NATO had asked for....it should also be noted that Justin signed on to an agreement to meet 2 % of GDP, by 2024, it was not voluntary, but an agreement to spend 2 % by the date 0f 2024....Here we are in 2026, and no closer to reaching 2 % despite what Carney has said....Looks like the big middle finger to me....actions speak louder than words...so it does not really matter if justin told NATO his intentions or not...the factremains he did not keep his signed to agreement with NATO...

 

But even with those additional commitments, the government estimates that Canada will see military spending hit 1.76 per cent of GDP by 2029-30 — still short of the NATO benchmark.

Blair pointed to the new policy as a sign Canada is working on increasing spending.

"Canada is on a very strong upward trajectory in defence spending. We know we've got work to do, we've acknowledged that since day one," he said.

"We've clearly indicated in our budget the path to getting that done."

In the NATO alliance, Canada spends less on defence than almost any other country as a percentage of its economy. But because it is wealthier than most NATO members, Canada spends more in actual dollars than all but a handful of NATO members.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senators-note-canada-nato-spending-1.7212784#:~:text=The senators noted that Canada's,describes as a mininum contribution.

 

2....Canada has written the book on finding loop holes to prevent spending money on it's military, and i agree counting those few trees into NATO spending is a bit much.....but if you listened to Carneys defense speech in Yellowknife he plans to include a vast amount of non military spending items such as highways, new infra structure, for the Inuit, etc etc...this is not the first time DND has been used as a cash cow for other departments. take Afghanistan, Canada help build a DAM project, all out of DND funds....along with pave road net works...etc etc...and I'll bet one out of very few dollars spent will on the military, the most will go to projects to buy votes for those up north... 

 

Not sure why anyone would defend the liberals on military spending, not after the last 11 years....Our military is in the state it is in now because of the lack of will or spending ...and the only reason it is getting investment now is because if they don't do something fast they will have nothing able to go into modern battle...every major platform is well beyond its life time....It is not a record worth defending, it is one we should all be ashamed of....And it is our young members that will suffer... But Canadians know that, and still they don't care...they still refuse to invest, or force investment....Generations of past soldiers have already paid for these mistakes with their life's...and nothing has changed...

[BeaverFever]

28 minutes ago, User said:

OK, you might as well just run away like you usually do if all you are going to do is act like a child and say NO YOU DIDNT!

Like I have done before with you, no point in moving past this one either, as I have provided several sources now, when you first tried to claim in the other thread there was no tree planting effort and I showed you wrong and here when you tried to claim it was all just normal land scaping and I showed you wrong yet again. 

 

LMAO I never said there was no tree planting effort. I have presented numerous facts and logical arguments debunking this claim and you have not been able to refute a single one of them

 

You don’t know nothing about this subject. You amd CdnFox have teamed up for another “cans of gasoline” shitshow of gibberish that is way over your head

So if you want to believe that Mark Carney launched a plot to add $400,000 per year to a $41 BILLION (with B ) annual defence budget by time-travelling back to 2022 when he wasn’t even PM then there’s no convincing you otherwise  

I guess now that the cat’s out of the bag we should soon hear NATO declare that as far as they’re concerned they’re only recording that Canada spent 40.99996 Billion not $41 Billion   Right?  Imagine a G7 country went through all that plotting and trickery and deceit just so they could underspend the NATO target by $400, 000.  WOW.   I mean that’s like almost 1 penny from every Canadian. Or they could have come to me for the money, I am a supporter of the military, I have $400k in my rrsp I could have lent them  

 

[User]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO I never said there was no tree planting effort. I have presented numerous facts and logical arguments debunking this claim and you have not been able to refute a single one of them

You are a petty liar to the end. 

"That’s already been explained to you. It landscaping that’s happening on military bases and military housing sites, not “large scale planting”. "

Of course, you ran away from that thread after I called you out:
 

 

 

[BeaverFever]

38 minutes ago, User said:

You are a petty liar to the end. 

"That’s already been explained to you. It landscaping that’s happening on military bases and military housing sites, not “large scale planting”. "

Of course, you ran away from that thread after I called you out:
 

 

 

You clearly can’t follow.

NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT THE ENTIRE 2 BILLION TREE PROGRAM WAS DONE UNDER THE DEFENCE BUDEGT. NOT EVEN YOUR FAKE NEWS ARTICLE THAT YOU CANNOT EVEN READ  

 

1) The military’s housing program planned to plant 14,500 trees over 5 years across most of its bases at a cost to them of $400,000 per year,

2)For reference JUST ONE city,  London Ontario alone routinely plants 5,000 to 10,000 trees EVERY YEAR just for general upkeep and maintenance for trees that die, get infected, come down in storms, etc  So that one community plants 2x-3x more trees every year than the entire military did across all of its communities coast to coast  

= therefore military did not have s “large scale planting program”  THE MILITARY SPENT AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TREES IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS HOUSING PROGRAM 

3)  the 2Bn trees program is not a military program,  it is not Department of National Defence. The only connection is they agreed they could count the DND’s 14,500 trees towards their own program’s total, an agreement they had with every other federal department not just defence

I was correct and you once again prove you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.  
 

ps I didn’t run away from that thread I took the argument here because unlike you pathetic no-life unhinged nutjobs who spend your entire life online, I am not having the same argument in 2 threads. One of the reasons you guys are so politically rabid and out of touch with reality is because you spend almost all your waking time online. Seriously I can reply to you at any time of the day or night and boom you reply. You’re at my beckon call 24/7 like I own you. How many hours a day are you on here or on the internet in general?  It’s bad for your mental health. Get a hobby and some personal relationships. 

Edited March 16 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Wtf are you talking about?? Now you’re claiming he spent 2 BILLION ON TREES?  It’s 1 million  so you’re only by 2,000x that’s pretty accurate for you  

 

You didn't read what I posted did you. They're old part of trudeau's tree planting program into it

And your lies are obviously an attempt to avoid having to answer the very basic Point I raised. A lot of our so-called military spending is not going to actual military things

Never mind. Obviously you're not interested in honest discussion about the issue.

This is how the Canadian military gets sold out. People like you who want to pretend funding tree planting is somehow improving our military standing. It reminded a bunch of the other things on that list

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You didn't read what I posted did you. They're old part of trudeau's tree planting program into it

And your lies are obviously an attempt to avoid having to answer the very basic Point I raised. A lot of our so-called military spending is not going to actual military things

Never mind. Obviously you're not interested in honest discussion about the issue.

This is how the Canadian military gets sold out. People like you who want to pretend funding tree planting is somehow improving our military standing. It reminded a bunch of the other things on that list

You don’t know what you’re talking about, plain and simple. This has all been explained ad nauseum

If the expenses are illegitimate then NATO wont give Canada credit for it and Canada will still be short in their books so what would be the point?

[BeaverFever]

Meanwhile back in reality another day another big defence spending announcement 

 

 

Minister McGuinty Announces Strategic Investments in Sovereign Space Launch

From: National Defence

News release

March 16, 2026 – Ottawa – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces

Amid a more complex and unpredictable security environment, Canada is taking decisive actions to strengthen its security and sovereignty and to reinforce the resilience and long-term strength of the country.

Today in Ottawa, the Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, announced an historic $200 million investment in core infrastructure for a Canadian-owned spaceport, along with other major new space-related capabilities and initiatives. This marks a significant step forward in Canada’s sovereign space program as outlined in Security, Sovereignty, Prosperity: Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy.

Canadian-owned spaceport

Demand for timely and resilient launch options are at historic highs worldwide and sovereign access to space has become a critical capability underpinning national security, economic competitiveness, and reliable access to essential space‑based services.

The investment is a 10‑year, $200‑millionagreement to lease a dedicated space‑launch pad that will serve as the central foundation for a multi-user spaceport near Canso, Nova Scotia. Operated by Maritime Launch Services, this spaceport will support the operational needs of the Department of National Defence (DND), the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), and the wider Government of Canada, while also offering ad hoc access to allies and partners.

Launch the North

Minister McGuinty also announced was the selection of innovators for the first round of the Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program’s Launch the North contest. This contest is providing $105 million in multi-year grants to support the development and demonstration of breakthrough technologies to advance Canada’s sovereign space launch capabilities. The goal of this challenge is to enable the launch of Canadian payloads from Canadian soil, achieving an initial light lift operational capability by 2028. For the first round of this contest, the following three highly ranked applicants have each been conditionally approved for $8.3 million in funding:

• NordSpace – NordSpace Tundra Canadian Responsive Scalable Launch
• Canada Rocket Company - Canadian Sovereign Launch Capability Development (R1)
• Reaction Dynamics - Aurora-8 Responsive Launch Vehicle

These innovators will move their ideas from concept to prototype and testing, helping Canada build the technical readiness and partnerships required for a future sovereign launch capability.

NATO STARLIFT

In recognition of Canada’s firm commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Minister McGuintyannounced that Canada intends to become a full member of the NATO STARLIFT initiative. STARLIFT is a NATO High Visibility Project, which aims to develop a more resilient, responsive and cost-effective network of space launch capabilities to help Allies launch assets at short notice from spaceports across the Alliance.

Sovereign launch program

These announcements support Security, Sovereignty, Prosperity: Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy, which establishes a long-term framework to develop a robust Canadian defence industry that provides technological and operational advantage to the CAF and its security partners in their mission to defend Canada, and maximizes growth, job creation and economic benefits for all Canadians. Within the strategy, space launch is identified as a key sovereign capability.

Canada is taking a major step toward securing its future in the rapidly evolving space domain by advancing a core pillar of its emerging sovereign launch program, first outlined in Budget 2025. This effort positions the country to launch satellites and payloads from Canadian soil, on Canadian‑built rockets, at Canadian‑run facilities. The sovereign launch program outlines how Canada will leverage a variety of tools, including directed procurements, grant and contribution programs, support from Crown Corporations, and regulatory changes, to advance sovereign capabilities.

As global demand for space launch services continues to surge, countries around the world are investing in responsive, reliable, and independent space access. Canada’s decision to partner with Maritime Launch Services reflects a forward‑looking commitment to our security, sovereignty, and economic prosperity, while positioning itself to meet strategic needs and fuelling domestic innovation and industry growth.

Quotes

“Today, we build on Canada’s proud legacy as a nation of innovators, explorers, and builders. With this step, we are not only advancing our capabilities here on Earth—we are reaffirming our place among the spacefaring nations shaping the future beyond it. Because in the decades ahead, our security, our prosperity, and our sovereignty will increasingly extend beyond our atmosphere.

Canada will be there.

Ad Astra Defendimus”

The Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence

“Space is fundamental to modern military operations. The Canadian Armed Forces rely on space-enabled capabilities for everything from communications and navigation to awareness of the operating environment. Strengthening Canada’s ability to operate in space will help ensure we continue to build the warfighting capabilities needed to defend Canada and contribute to allied operations in an increasingly complex security environment.”

General Jennie Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff

“Located on Canada’s Atlantic coast, Spaceport Nova Scotia offers safe over-ocean launch corridors and access to highly sought-after orbital inclinations, providing a unique capability that only a limited number of global launch locations can support. Spaceport Nova Scotia helps address a global launch capacity bottleneck, where demand for access to orbit continues to outpace available launch infrastructure.”

Stephen Matier, President and CEO, Maritime Launch Services Inc.

“Space is strategically vital to modern defence and represents a major economic opportunity for Canada. With world-class capabilities across our space ecosystem, Canada must adopt policies and make investments that enable our space industrial base. A key step is further developing a sovereign space launch capability in Canada, ensuring we can support growing global demand while protecting both our economic and national security interests.”

Brian Gallant, CEO of Space Canada

"This selection is a clear signal that the Department of National Defence recognizes the urgent need for a scalable, sovereign pathway to orbit. At Canada Rocket Company, we've assembled a team with over 100 years of combined orbital launch experience - bringing world-class Canadian talent back home to secure Canada’s strategic autonomy through assured access to space. This funding provided through the IDEaS program helps accelerate development timelines and further catalyzes private investment in the space sector."

Hugh Kolias, Chief Executive Officer, Canada Rocket Company

"Today, our nation has sent an unequivocal signal that Canada too will become a spacefaring nation capable of assured access to space. For NordSpace, sovereign launch is certainly about securing our national interests, building a stronger economy, and supporting our allies. However, it is also about healthier food on our plates, clearer communication with loved ones, faster responses to environmental challenges, reshoring advanced manufacturing, and revivifying Canadian dynamism. At NordSpace, we have been working for years to develop scalable end-to-end space launch capabilities for Canada, so we thank the Government of Canada and IDEaS for accelerating our company to launch the north."

Rahul Goel, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, NordSpace

“The moment has arrived. For nearly a decade, Reaction Dynamics has championed a new class of launch capability: storable, stockpiled, and Canadian-controlled. Thanks to the Department of National Defence through the IDEaS program, its Launch the North challenge now brings that vision to life, ensuring Canada and its allies can access space even in the most contested domains.”

Bachar Elzein, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Technical Officer, Reaction Dynamics Inc. 

Quick facts

• Budget 2025 announced an investment of $182.6M over the next three years to establish a sovereign launch program. That program includes capability development, led by DND’s Defence Research and Development Canada, and launch infrastructure, led by the Royal Canadian Air Force and supported by DND’s Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment). 

• Reliable and independent launch access will enable Canada to place critical satellites into orbit even during global uncertainty, geopolitical tensions, or disruptions in foreign launch markets. With military, emergency response, and government services increasingly dependent on space-based systems, sovereign launch protects national interests and enables continuity of operations.

• The 10-year lease agreement stipulates that Maritime Launch Services must provide a dedicated launch pad and associated services at an initial operational capability state by the end of 2026. It also stipulates that 90% of the funds received by the company from the lease must be spent in Canada. That means at least $180 milliongoing back to Canadian businesses. 

• IDEaS is DND’s innovation program that helps Canadian innovators develop solutions to defence and security challenges through competitive funding and targeted challenge calls.

• The IDEaS program’s Launch the North is designed to accelerate Canadian space launch-related innovation and to strengthen the foundations needed for future sovereign launch capability. A total of $105 million is planned for investment in this challenge, with $25 million allocated for fiscal year 2025–26, followed by $40 million annually in fiscal years 2026–27 and 2027–28.

• Projects were selected through a competitive, merit-based process considering criteria such as technical merit, feasibility, team capability, impact, and alignment with defence and security priorities.

• The global space economy is expected to reach approximately $2 trillion by 2040. Investing in sovereign launch capability now means that Canadians and their businesses can benefit for decades to come.

• This investment supports a stronger, more connected Canadian space ecosystem—bringing together industry, academia, and research organizations. They will help grow high-value jobs, strengthen Canadian supply chains, and position Canadian firms to compete in the global space economy—while supporting defence and security objectives.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2026/03/minister-mcguinty-announces-strategic-investments-in-sovereign-space-launch.html

[User]

16 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

You clearly can’t follow.

NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT THE ENTIRE 2 BILLION TREE PROGRAM WAS DONE UNDER THE DEFENCE BUDEGT. NOT EVEN YOUR FAKE NEWS ARTICLE THAT YOU CANNOT EVEN READ  

More of your usual BS framing. 

YOU tried to claim there was no special program for tree planting. I never said anything about the "entire" thing, you simply tried to deny it at all. 

Now, after the repeated denials, you are only left with trying to claim it was still a legitimate NATO expense. 

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Meanwhile back in reality another day another big defence spending announcement 

Are you meeting your NATO obligations yet?

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, User said:

Are you meeting your NATO obligations yet?

Why, are you arseholes planning on creating even more messes with your excursions or whatever you call them these days around the planet?

[herbie]

Such a long list of facts Beav wasted on a stone brained MAGAt that doesn't want to hear any.
Donnie Diapersniper thinks NATO's his private country club and the mentally challenged thinks it runs on dues. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why, are you arseholes planning on creating even more messes with your excursions or whatever you call them these days around the planet?

Nice distraction. Your obligations are the obligations regardless.

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

Such a long list of facts Beav wasted on a stone brained MAGAt that doesn't want to hear any.
Donnie Diapersniper thinks NATO's his private country club and the mentally challenged thinks it runs on dues. 

No, the mentally challenged conflate "dues" with military spending obligations. 

 

[herbie]

We should ask Greg if User and Deluge have the same IP address....

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, User said:

Nice distraction. Your obligations are the obligations regardless.

I'm perfectly happy not squandering blood and treasure bailing you dingbats out of the Gulf.

Meanwhile we're contributing more financial aid per capita to Ukraine than anyone else in the G7 and you arseholes are extorting NATO with the threat of giving Putin what he wants.

Americans have turned themselves into the biggest source of chaos on the planet bar none.

Edited March 16 by eyeball

[User]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm perfectly happy not squandering blood and treasure bailing you dingbats out of the Gulf.

Meanwhile we're contributing more financial aid per capita to Ukraine than anyone else in the G7 and you arseholes are extorting NATO with the threat of giving Putin what he wants.

Americans have turned themselves into the biggest source of chaos on the planet bar none.

You are completely incapable of arguing straight and on topic. 

Your country meeting its spending obligations has nothing to do with bailing us out. 

 

[eyeball]

Just now, User said:

You are completely incapable of arguing straight and on topic. 

Your country meeting its spending obligations has nothing to do with bailing us out. 

It does now that you're threatening NATO that it better come bail you out.

[User]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It does now that you're threatening NATO that it better come bail you out.

No, it doesn't. 

These are obligations regardless. 

 

[Venandi]

What if the dingbats and stone brained magats had left Iran to fester?

Had it gone sideways, the same folks doing the name calling now would be holding those self same dingbats and stone brained magats responsible for not acting in a timely manner. 

Those with a time machine would surely have pointed to 2026 as the year to get er done.... it followed record domestic production and Iran was still at 60% with (at least) a portion of their stocks depleted. 

At times (mostly after reading some of the nonsense here), a perverse part of me almost longs for the chance to watch enrichment crack 80% (where non-missile options start) and then move to missile purity at about 90%. I can imagine Herb hatching kittens on the kitchen floor as all of the non-dingbats sarcastically ask why the magats failed to act decisively when they had the chance?

This was damn sure going to happen sooner or later; and if you think sooner is messy I'd invite you to conjure up the spectre of later.

So, for all y'all doing the name calling, did you think Iran was going to have a sudden epiphany and change their ways or would you really have rather rolled the dice, waited until 90% purity and hoped for the best?

Since I see only two options, do it now and take the pain, or do it later and suffer agony, I'm wondering what the smart folks here consider the peaceful third option to be and how the epiphany that created it as a viable option would come to be.   

While you're thinking about it, here's a link to proper tree planting in case you want to participate in Canada's quest for 2%:

https://www.vintagetreecare.com/proper-tree-planting-steps

Edited March 16 by Venandi