Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Those tactical trees will come in handy   LOL

 Obviously this didn't happen, our own records show differently.  But nato has to back us right now to keep trump in line. 

LMAO you don’t know WTF you are talking about. There a no “records” that show differently. 

[User]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO you don’t know WTF you are talking about. There a no “records” that show differently. 

You didn't know what you were talking about with the trees either, repeatedly lied, over and over again, and now you are running away like you usually do. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, User said:

Ah, yes, you have spent pages lying about the trees, and now all you are left with is ignoring those lies and mocking them instead. 

The trees were only one part of what was being called out as an effort to try to find anything and everything they could scrape up to call defense spending, so they could meet the target. 

Then you spent days on here and numerous posts spanning pages of this thread, lying about it. 

I have not lied about anything and have explained it to you repeatedly including the fact that the tree planting was planned years ago before Carney and before any pledge to spend more money. You are such a brainwashed idealogue desperate to win arguments on the internet you can’t accept your flimsy claims have been completely destroyed. 
 

Also not only do you have ZERO evidence that these trees are inappropriate expenses you have ZERO evidence that any other inappropriate expenses are being “scraped up”.   In your mind the existence of the first proves the existence of the second, which proves the existence of the first.:  The only way to prove the Liberals deliberately mischaracterized the tree planting is you believe they also mischaracterized other inappropriate expenses. The only way to believe they deliberately mischaracterized other inappropriate expenses is to believe if they did it for tree planting they must have done it for other expenses for which there is no evidence. You can’t even see the pathetic circular logic you have employed here
 

Also you completely overlooked that it is NATO not Carney who determined what has been spent. 
 

You are desperate you are irrational you are not able to form or change your beliefs based on fact or logic and so you just repost repost repost the same defeated claims and false accusations over and over pretending they haven’t been absolutely dismantled. Because you live on the internet and have no life in the real world this is all you have. 

5 minutes ago, User said:

You didn't know what you were talking about with the trees either, repeatedly lied, over and over again, and now you are running away like you usually do. 

Absolutely False. You know nothing about Canada or the military or this topic and you simply ignore facts that dismantle your silly claims and you resort to falsely accusing people of being liars when you have nothing else to say

[Legato]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Quick somebody call nato and tell them about the $400,000 worth of trees they somehow overlooked out of that $63 billion!  The conservative “intelligence” network is clearly much more effective than the NATO’s intelligence 

 

 

Canada’s military spending officially hits 2% of GDP, NATO says

 

NATO said Thursday that Canada’s military spending has finally hit the alliance’s target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product, a benchmark set by members years ago.

It’s a long-overdue accomplishment for Canada, which has long lagged a NATO alliance spending goal set by members in 2006 and then reaffirmed in 2014. 

The federal government’s fiscal 2025-26 year spending represents the first time in roughly 35 years that Canada has devoted 2 per cent of its gross domestic product to defence. The last time Canada matched this rate of military spending was the end of the Cold War.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Thursday issued a report on military spending among 32 member countries. It noted Canada is spending more than $63-billion now on defence.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-nato-defence-military-spending/

Well, since GDP has been falling......

[User]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I have not lied about anything...

Yes, you have. Notice how you completely avoid the subject here and try to misdirect to things that were not in contention between us:

1. Tree planting planned years ago <- Not the point in discussion between us

2. Trees are "inappropriate" expenses <- Subjective, and again, not the point in discussion between us

3. NATO approved this as an expense <- Again, not the point in discussion between us

This is what you usually do, you type out a bunch of shit, to filibuster, to deceive, to continue to be dishonest and avoid your lies and the point. You think if you can just BS your way out with typing up a bunch of crap, that will do something. 

No. It will not. 

I know your dumb games now. You have done this for as long as I have been here on numerous topics. You get caught saying something ignorant, get called out, then turn it into a repeated lie rather than just admit you were wrong then run away, then if you do respond come up with some lengthy bullshit that has nothing to do with anything. 

Again:

The point is that you repeatedly lied and denied the facts, that the trees were in fact part of a special program to plant trees, not normal landscaping that would occur anyhow, and that these trees were then counted as part of defense spending. 

It is just a simple fact. Yet you had to go on denying it and lying about it and now running away from just admitting you were wrong. 

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Canada’s military spending officially hits 2% of GDP, NATO says

Yeah? Whoopy.

Are we hiring more people? Is the size of the military growing? Do they have modern tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, helmets, flak jackets, and enough socks to go around? Sleeping bags that work? Any defense against drones? Is it still gonna be ten years before we get anything?

And I don't count the new planes that they now have officially listed since taking over the Transport Canada fleet, or the new ships from the coast guard.

Edited March 26 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Yeah? Whoopy.

Are we hiring more people? Is the size of the military growing? Do they have modern tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, helmets, flak jackets, and enough socks to go around? Sleeping bags that work? Any defense against drones? Is it still gonna be ten years before we get anything?

And I don't count the new planes that they now have officially listed since taking over the Transport Canada fleet, or the new ships from the coast guard.

We've got some new trees!  AND they're training the squirrels as look outs.  So....  elbows up!! 

[Venandi]

I see that the tree thing is still getting a work out...

I had a short conversation with an AI bot about this, specifically the initial effort in Wainwright, Dundurn and Moose Jaw. It's take on it and the supporting evidence it used is summarized below. I still say it was clever... in a leading jab at Donalds chin sort of way.

As to the coast Guard, I don't see how anyone can credibly consider the portion of their budget transferred to the military as NEW MILITARY SPENDING.... it's a new concept to be sure to the tune of about 2.4 billion dollars though.

So sure, I could be convinced that including it in the DND budget makes a degree of sense, but considering it to be a "POOF new DND spending effort" amounts to snowing the Snow Queen to her face. Categorizing it as such is a stretch IMO.... defending it as "being new" seems worse than actually doing it to me. My first thought is "who do you think you're fooling here."

Here's what the bot said about the trees... offered for what it may be worth, I won't defend it because I don't really care and I still think it's cute if true. 

I found contemporaneous reporting and government material showing the Moose Jaw, Dundurn and Wainwright plantings were reported as part of the federal 2 Billion Trees program.

Key evidence:

• August 2022 reporting (Regina Leader-Post / National Observer reporting) quotes a DNDspokesperson saying ~8,000 trees will be planted at 15 Wing Moose Jaw, CFB Dundurn andCFB Wainwright and states the work is “part of the federal government’s two billion treesprogram.” It also notes an MOU between Natural Resources Canada and the CanadianForces Housing Agency and that approved DND proposals receive 50% funding fromNRCan’s program.
• NRCan’s 2 Billion Trees project highlights and related Canada.ca materials list federal-landsprojects and federal partners; the program includes federal lands streams and partnershipswith other departments (NRCan backgrounders note federal lands projects and examplesof planting on Department-managed sites).

Conclusion: those specific base housing-site plantings were presented by DND and NRCan as being funded through the 2 Billion Trees program (not solely an independent, pre-existing DND contract).

 

Edited March 28 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Venandi said:

Post / National Observer reporting) quotes a DNDspokesperson saying ~8,000 trees will be planted at 15 Wing Moose Jaw, CFB Dundurn andCFB Wainwright and states the work is “part of the federal government’s two billion treesprogram.”

no no no not possible!!!  @BeaverFever has been screeching at me like a banshee for days about how that's a LIE LIE LIE and anyone who says different doesn't' know what they're talking about!!!!  You must be "ONE OF THEEEEEMMMMM"

8 hours ago, Venandi said:

As to the coast Guard, I don't see how anyone can credibly consider the portion of their budget transferred to the military as NEW MILITARY SPENDING.... 

I just don't even see how that's controversial. It seems so obvious to me That you can't refer to this as new military spending

And yet again we've got at least two people here arguing February that it absolutely is

I said the same thing as you, I can see why they might choose to do it and it's not the worst idea I've ever heard of but it's not new military spending. I got called names for saying that

I just don't understand how somebody can be so blindly loyal to the liberals that these things which seem so obvious are so hard for them to accept

[BeaverFever]

On 3/27/2026 at 8:10 PM, Venandi said:

I see that the tree thing is still getting a work out...

I had a short conversation with an AI bot about this, specifically the initial effort in Wainwright, Dundurn and Moose Jaw. It's take on it and the supporting evidence it used is summarized below. I still say it was clever... in a leading jab at Donalds chin sort of way.

As to the coast Guard, I don't see how anyone can credibly consider the portion of their budget transferred to the military as NEW MILITARY SPENDING.... it's a new concept to be sure to the tune of about 2.4 billion dollars though.

So sure, I could be convinced that including it in the DND budget makes a degree of sense, but considering it to be a "POOF new DND spending effort" amounts to snowing the Snow Queen to her face. Categorizing it as such is a stretch IMO.... defending it as "being new" seems worse than actually doing it to me. My first thought is "who do you think you're fooling here."

Here's what the bot said about the trees... offered for what it may be worth, I won't defend it because I don't really care and I still think it's cute if true. 

I found contemporaneous reporting and government material showing the Moose Jaw, Dundurn and Wainwright plantings were reported as part of the federal 2 Billion Trees program.

Key evidence:

• August 2022 reporting (Regina Leader-Post / National Observer reporting) quotes a DNDspokesperson saying ~8,000 trees will be planted at 15 Wing Moose Jaw, CFB Dundurn andCFB Wainwright and states the work is “part of the federal government’s two billion treesprogram.” It also notes an MOU between Natural Resources Canada and the CanadianForces Housing Agency and that approved DND proposals receive 50% funding fromNRCan’s program.
• NRCan’s 2 Billion Trees project highlights and related Canada.ca materials list federal-landsprojects and federal partners; the program includes federal lands streams and partnershipswith other departments (NRCan backgrounders note federal lands projects and examplesof planting on Department-managed sites).

Conclusion: those specific base housing-site plantings were presented by DND and NRCan as being funded through the 2 Billion Trees program (not solely an independent, pre-existing DND contract).

 

You are trying to argue without evidence that the military wouldn’t have planted any trees for its housing projects without this tree program and there is no evidence of that. You are then further suggesting that somehow that means something bad happened  But there’s no actual evidence to support either claim.  

DND was only one of several departments that signed a MOU to plant trees and the number they committed to is very small, and insignificant particularly since they are one of largest landowners in Canada

Half the money came from the tree program half came from defence. What’s spent by defence budget on defence property is defence spending, period. Military housing is defence spending regardless of whether it has no trees or a million trees or no swimming pool or a dozen swimming pools. 

I mean what are you asserting?  That if  everything was done properly with no “funny business” then the housing would have been built with zero trees planted? Or that the trees would have been planted but NATO should somehow have calculated and carved out of the cost of trees?  

You guys are throwing spaghetti at the wall as usual and since your beliefs ate politically motivated they are not going to be changed by facts or reason 

[BeaverFever]

NORAD commander says F-35-type aircraft not needed to defend North America

 

Gregory M. Guillot made the comments at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 19.

Published Mar 30, 2026
 

The U.S. commander of NORAD says fifth-generation fighters such as the F-35 aren’t needed to defend North America, undercutting the central claim by supporters of the aircraft that Canada requires such jets to protect the country.

The Canadian Forces has emphasized that the F-35 is part of its plans to modernize the North American Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD. Canada’s top soldier, Gen. Jennie Carignan, has also stated that the U.S.-built fighter jet is needed to defend the Arctic.

Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt. Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet has also stressed the need for such fifth-generation aircraft to protect Canada.

But U.S. Air Force General Gregory M. Guillot, who heads the joint U.S.-Canada NORAD, says such advanced jets aren’t needed by his organization. “Frankly we don’t need fifth (generation) to defend our borders,” Guillot told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 19.

The NORAD commander said fifth-generation jets, considered the most advanced type of aircraft, had a role to play in attacking overseas targets. “Those capabilities are better used overseas where their stealth, air to ground weapons and penetration capability are needed,” Guillot added.

Those capabilities are better used overseas where their stealth, air to ground weapons and penetration capability are needed

U.S. Air Force General Gregory M. Guillot

He said what was needed for NORAD were more fourth-generation fighter jets that had been modernized. Guillot gave the example of the F-15EX, an aircraft made by Boeing and in service with the U.S. and Israel.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Carignan did not provide a comment about Guillot’s statement. Speiser-Blanchet did not comment about the statement, either.

In 2023, the Liberal government announced it was purchasing 88 F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin in the U.S.

But Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of the F-35 purchase in mid-March 2025 in the wake of threats against Canadian sovereignty by U.S. President Donald Trump. At this point, the federal government has only committed to buy 16 F-35s. Carney will be making the final decision on whether to proceed with the additional purchase of another 72 of the stealth fighters, but it is unclear when that will happen.

Saab, a Swedish company, has offered Canada the Gripen fighter jet as an alternative to the F-35.

On Jan. 28, the National Post reported the Liberal government was considering purchasing 40 F-35s in total and complementing those with the purchase of as many as 80 Gripens.

The Canadian Forces has recommended Canada proceed to buy all 88 F-35s. Canadian military leaders are extremely close to their U.S. counterparts and they see the F-35 as pivotal in further integrating the two forces.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But the fighter jet file is an extremely sensitive one for the Carney government and the Canadian Forces has been trying to limit the amount of information the public is told about the F-35 deal.

The Royal Canadian Air Force and Department of National Defence refused to answer questions from the Ottawa Citizen about recent payments made for the systems and parts that will be used to build another 14 F-35s for Canada. CBC News first reported details of those payments on Feb. 10.

In addition, the Canadian military has refused to release a photo of Speiser-Blanchetsigning the fuselage of Canada’s first F-35, fearing it could undercut messaging from the Liberal government that the jet review was ongoing, according to sources.

Problems have also emerged with the Block 4 version of the F-35, the type that Canada plans to buy. Block 4 is at least $6 billion over budget and five years behind schedule, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog organization, revealed on Sept. 3, 2025.

The U.S. has been pressuring Canada to continue with its F-35 purchase, which is key to supporting American high-tech jobs in the defence sector.

In a Jan. 26 interview with CBC, Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. ambassador in Ottawa, warned Canadians they could face dire consequences if the Carney government didn’t buy the F-35. He stated the NORAD agreement would have to be changed, suggesting that Gripens wouldn’t be as “interchangeable, interoperable” with U.S.-operated F-35s.

But Bill Sweetman, a U.S. aviation writer and author of a book about the F-35, said on the social media site X on Jan. 26 that Hoekstra was “babbling nonsense.”

“Canada has been flying different aircraft from the USAF in NORAD for 40+ years and controls its jets through Winnipeg, and the F-35’s stealth is irrelevant in NORAD because Russian bombers do not have air-to-air radar,” wrote Sweetman, author of Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed Out the U.S. Air Force

 

 

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/norad-f-35-figher-jet-north-america

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You are trying to argue without evidence that the military wouldn’t have planted any trees for its housing projects without this tree program and there is no evidence of that.

You just graduated to being the stupidest person on this board

The military has admitted directly and pointedly that these trees were part of the previously funded liberal tree planting program. 

That is the end of the debate. This was not new military spending this was spending for environmental purposes which had already been allocated and has absolutely nothing to do with the military and they changed the label to make it look like military spending but it wasn't

You now look like the biggest twat on the board and we've got Robo Smith

[User]

51 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You guys are throwing spaghetti at the wall as usual and since your beliefs ate politically motivated they are not going to be changed by facts or reason 

Look who is back, pulling his same old song and dance routine.

The point remains the same, that the facts are that Canada years ago had a special tree planting program, as part of that special program to plant a bunch of trees, the military was included, and now in an effort to scrape up any and all funding sources this was considered part of defense spending. 
 

Every step in the way you have tried to deny reality here then repeatedly lie to avoid owning up to your stupidity. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You just graduated to being the stupidest person on this board

The military has admitted directly and pointedly that these trees were part of the previously funded liberal tree planting program. 

That is the end of the debate. This was not new military spending this was spending for environmental purposes which had already been allocated and has absolutely nothing to do with the military and they changed the label to make it look like military spending but it wasn't

You now look like the biggest twat on the board and we've got Robo Smith

Nope none of what you say is true. Just like when you falsely said the military spending was audited and it was proven that Canada didn’t resch 2%. Just like when you said there were photos with carney and Epstein and carney admitting to being an acquaintance. Just like when you said Trump ensorsed carney for PM and told Canadians “he wanted Carney in”. Just like a dozen other completely bogus claims you have made. None of that happened, none of it is true

Edited April 2 by BeaverFever

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Half the money came from the tree program half came from defence

Cool... slow progress is still progress.

 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, User said:

Look who is back, pulling his same old song and dance routine.

 

Yeah the routine of telling the truth while you repeat your debunked claims over and over and ignore all facts and logic that conflicts with your ideology. 
 

There is no evidence that these expenses are “just now being scraped up” or haven’t been included in previous years or wouldn’t normally be included. Those are all made up suppositions by you. 

And YOU STIILL avoid and hide from the fact that it is NATO who decided that our spending is compliant with the 2% goal so NATO must be ok with it right??

[BeaverFever]

5 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Cool... slow progress is still progress.

 

Progress in disproving whatever half-baked claim you’re trying to make?

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And YOU STIILL avoid and hide from the fact that it is NATO who decided that our spending is compliant with the 2% goal so NATO must be ok with it right??

NATO gets it's info from guess who. Pro tip, it's not the tooth fairy.

[Moonbox]

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And YOU STIILL avoid and hide from the fact that it is NATO who decided that our spending is compliant with the 2% goal so NATO must be ok with it right??

Yes but it doesn't matter what NATO says.  This donkey has his nose buried so far up Trump's rectum that what Orange Jesus says is the only thing that matters.  

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

NATO gets it's info from guess who. Pro tip, it's not the tooth fairy.

You think you know about the scandalous trees but NATO doesn’t?

AND If you think we could just earn our 2% boyscout badge at any time by simply lying to NATO wouldn’t we have been doing that all these years?  

[ironstone]

What other things might Carney move over into the account of defense spending so it will count as a spending increase?🤔

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Nope none of what you say is true.

You've literally been provided with quotes from military representatives saying it's 100 percent true. 

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

ust like when you falsely said the military spending was audited and it was proven that Canada didn’t resch 2%

It didn't.  So they 'relabelled' some things   And i think that was the auditor general who said it, Not that it was "aduited". 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Just like when you said there were photos with carney and Epstein and carney admitting to being an acquaintance.

Sorry kid i never said that.  I said there were photos of him and Gislaine.  And that turned out to be true and he's offered explanations.  

"Based on available information and fact-checking, there is no evidence that Mark Carney was friends with or had a close relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell, though they were photographed together at a public event in 2013."

 

• The 2013 Photo: A real, authentic photo exists from August 2013 showing Carney, his wife Diana Fox Carney, and Ghislaine Maxwell at the Wilderness Festival in Oxfordshire, England.

He is also mentioned in the Epstien files but not in a way that suggests he did anything wrong 

"Yes, the name of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney appears in the documents known as the "Epstein files," "

So even there it turned out i was quite correct.  He did know her as an acquaintance,  they WERE photographed together. 

 

LOL but thanks for brining it up again so i could show everyone i'm right and you're wrong   

 

Kid,  you have gone full delusional about this. 

The trees were not military trees.  The spending was not new military spending. They took spending from tonnes of things that had NOTHING to do with the military and simply relabled it, the military did not benefit from that 

 

Time to stop lying and get your head out of your ass.  This is exactly what i said would happen and exactly what did happen. 

[BeaverFever]

23 minutes ago, ironstone said:

What other things might Carney move over into the account of defense spending so it will count as a spending increase?🤔

Nothing was “moved over into the account of defence spending” you clueless simp. 

[BeaverFever]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You've literally been provided with quotes from military representatives saying it's 100 percent true. 

 

It didn't.  So they 'relabelled' some things   And i think that was the auditor general who said it, Not that it was "aduited". 

Sorry kid i never said that.  I said there were photos of him and Gislaine.  And that turned out to be true and he's offered explanations.  

"Based on available information and fact-checking, there is no evidence that Mark Carney was friends with or had a close relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell, though they were photographed together at a public event in 2013."

 

• The 2013 Photo: A real, authentic photo exists from August 2013 showing Carney, his wife Diana Fox Carney, and Ghislaine Maxwell at the Wilderness Festival in Oxfordshire, England.

He is also mentioned in the Epstien files but not in a way that suggests he did anything wrong 

"Yes, the name of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney appears in the documents known as the "Epstein files," "

So even there it turned out i was quite correct.  He did know her as an acquaintance,  they WERE photographed together. 

 

LOL but thanks for brining it up again so i could show everyone i'm right and you're wrong   

 

Kid,  you have gone full delusional about this. 

The trees were not military trees.  The spending was not new military spending. They took spending from tonnes of things that had NOTHING to do with the military and simply relabled it, the military did not benefit from that 

 

Time to stop lying and get your head out of your ass.  This is exactly what i said would happen and exactly what did happen. 

You are such lying failure. You didn’t say Carney met Maxwell at a concert years after Epstein was convicted. You falsely claimed he was a longtime acquaintance of Epstein no different than Trump and that his campaign admitted it.  Which is a Lie

 

And if your ADHD-riddled brain had actually bothered to read the article instead of just brainlessly copy-pasting the headline you would see it says Carney is NOT mentioned ian any epstein email correspondence. His name is only found in news articles from financial news outlets that Epstein had subscribed to email alerts for. 
 

Thanks for reminding us waht a confused and/or dishonest twat you are. 

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Nothing was “moved over into the account of defence spending” you clueless simp. 

it absolutely was and you've been given proof.  The coast guard for example. 

You're just  a brainless liar at this point.