Canadian Defence News

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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

You're the liar here kiddo. I said he knew Gislaine Maxwell

You said the pictures were fake and I said they were real

She is Epstein's girl So absolutely there is a tie in and he did meet with her after his conviction.

 

You used to be a halfway decent thinker for a lefty at least part of the time but now you just: Full-blown liar and fact denier

You're pathetic. Being liberal really does rot the brain over time

Back to your cult little boy, the adults are talking

[ironstone]

24 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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

Search assist

Yes, the Liberals moved the Canadian Coast Guard under the Department of National Defence, which allows its budget to count towards Canada's defence spending to meet NATO targets. This change was announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney in June 2025.

 Wikipedia fasken.com

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Search assist

Yes, the Liberals moved the Canadian Coast Guard under the Department of National Defence, which allows its budget to count towards Canada's defence spending to meet NATO targets. This change was announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney in June 2025.

 Wikipedia fasken.com

He's in full denial mode, he's been giving all of this information and more already. He's just repeating lies that have been proven to be false again and again

This is how the liberal mind works. When it faces facts that don't support its position it breaks. Sadly he's broken

[ironstone]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He's in full denial mode, he's been giving all of this information and more already. He's just repeating lies that have been proven to be false again and again

This is how the liberal mind works. When it faces facts that don't support its position it breaks. Sadly he's broken

I don't know what it is with so many of these leftists and their inability to engage in civil discourse. So many meltdowns when they come up against opposing viewpoints and straight up facts.

[LinkSoul60]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

The Coast Guard was moved to the Department of Defense last year, and is part of our military.  You always need to listen to the accountants and they were adamant that the spend be accounted for in the military ledger, despite your extensive list of qualifications and objections.

[Legato]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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?  

Wooosh right over your head.

NATO says how much Carney says this much.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The Coast Guard was moved to the Department of Defense last year, and is part of our military.  You always need to listen to the accountants and they were adamant that the spend be accounted for in the military ledger, despite your extensive list of qualifications and objections.

No coast guard is not part of the military, it has it's own separate department/ chain of command, it does not take orders from DND, nor does it perform any military missions....for "accounting" purposes it falls under the military spending for "NATO" accounting, as per NATO policies for all NATO countries... It is still a separate federal department with it's own budget attached to it's operations....As are portions of the RCMP budget accounted by NATO for NATO accounting purposes, as well as minister of transport aircraft budget counted towards our NATO military budget...each one is a separate department with separate HQ's and separate federal budgets. They are connected Via what is allowed to count as Military spending by NATO policies for accounting only.. no one falls under the department of defense

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The Coast Guard was moved to the Department of Defense last year, and is part of our military.

Well first off last year was what we are talking about. 2025.  So yeah. That's our point. 

And while it's now under the military budget nothing changed. This is not new spending, it's just relabelling existing spending. 
So yeah. you're pointing out what we said is true.  Thanks, really wasn't necessary, we already knew 

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

 You always need to listen to the accountants and they were adamant that the spend be accounted for in the military ledger,

Absolutely blatant lie and the last organization to listen to the accountants is the military

It was moved from one purpose and one purpose only, to be able to include its budget when calculating the military spending for NATO purposes. The move had absolutely nothing to do with actual military, none of it is a new spending, it is just relabeling existing expending so that it counts towards nato. 

Which is fine, but it's important that we acknowledge that it's not actual improvements in military spending.

[User]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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??

Nope. This is your usual bullshit.

You run away, come back days or weeks later, then pretend like you have no idea what was already discussed and go right back to the same BS that was already responded to. 
 

 

[User]

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

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.  

Oh man… you will cry for days about my calling people dishonest, but have no qualms posting your own crap like this. 
 

The issue for me here was never about what NATO says. It was never a point of contention.

That is the distraction Beaver comes up with to avoid owning up to his stupidity and lies.

Even now… look at how pathetic you are. Trump has nothing to do with anything here in this discussion. Your brain has been eaten up by your own hate you can’t help but bring him up. 

[Venandi]

17 hours 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.

I'm trying to argue that it was a target of opportunity and a clever idea.

And, I'm trying to argue that shifting Coast guard funding to DND was as well.

Both are clever, both count, and part of me truly enjoys the jab at Donalds chin. So..... I'm not as hard core opposed to this as others may be (but that's just me). They have a valid point though, I'm just not as torqued about it since the military can't actually spend the full 2% of GDP anyway; there's a new thread for you BTW. 

But... and it's big bloody honking BUTT OF A BUT:

What I don't like is people like you trying to snow the Snow Queen and thinking that she's a dummy. This was a clever idea IMO but don't pretend that this is "new military spending," and then get snotty when people point out that it actually isn't... I'm not a budget guy (we all have our gifts I guess) but I'd call this a change in accounting with little change in substance. 

It seems like AI bots are in on the "snow the Snow Queen" effort as well... the critter only relents when you challenge it with facts and call it out on previous misleading statements. Here's what it reluctantly admitted to me after I argued with it....

it was sort of like talking to you:..  and I'll leave that to others now as I see no further point in it::

Sorry — my earlier replies should have acknowledged the widely reported CA$2.9 billion figure. What I meant was there was no single cash transfer between departments; the CA$2.9 billion refers to spending that could be reclassified as NATO/defence‑eligible, not an actual movement of money.

 

Edited April 3 by Venandi

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Sorry — my earlier replies should have acknowledged the widely reported CA$2.9 billion figure. What I meant was there was no single cash transfer between departments; the CA$2.9 billion refers to spending that could be reclassified as NATO/defence‑eligible, not an actual movement of money.

As an aside, I'm beginning to see the potential misuse (I think some call it dangers) of AI now.

As I said above, I'm not a budget or administration guy but.... If I didn't know enough about the budget process, chain of command, operational employment etc to argue with the AI bot, the information it would have left me with would rival that of the best of the disingenuous posters on this forum. It's the soft nudge" chapter in the IO manual and there are courses on such things.

Not quite a blatant lie, but not the truth either. It's carefully packaged and there is no entity better at gift wrapping it than an AI bot.  

We seem to be headed toward a world of politically trained AI bots with those who hold power running the classroom. It almost looks like an additional layer added to the unholy trinity of government, media, and security force alignment. And when those three elements become fixed and rigid, the streets end up being patrolled by strapping, ruggedly handsome guys in blue hats and grocery outlets only carry rice and onions for portions of the year.

I predict that opinion on this will be split and will align with personal political affiliation. I'd also predict that those who like the idea now won't like it later when the see-saw of political change catapults them over the playground fence.

 

Edited April 3 by Venandi

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

No coast guard is not part of the military, it has it's own separate department/ chain of command, it does not take orders from DND, nor does it perform any military missions....for "accounting" purposes it falls under the military spending for "NATO" accounting, as per NATO policies for all NATO countries...

I'm wondering if this is allowed because in many NATO countries, like the US, the coast guard is armed. The US used to use the coast guard in miltiary areas like the Gulf (pre drones) in order to combat small boats

Canada's coast guard, of course, is not armed, and unlike in the US, its sailors are all civilians.

Edited April 3 by I am Groot

[LinkSoul60]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

No coast guard is not part of the military, it has it's own separate department/ chain of command, it does not take orders from DND, nor does it perform any military missions....for "accounting" purposes it falls under the military spending for "NATO" accounting, as per NATO policies for all NATO countries... It is still a separate federal department with it's own budget attached to it's operations....As are portions of the RCMP budget accounted by NATO for NATO accounting purposes, as well as minister of transport aircraft budget counted towards our NATO military budget...each one is a separate department with separate HQ's and separate federal budgets. They are connected Via what is allowed to count as Military spending by NATO policies for accounting only.. no one falls under the department of defense

Yes it is, and does report to the Minister of National Defence.  The Coast Guard was officially transitioned into the Dept of Defence on Sept 2/25. and is now part of our military.  Any dollars spent in this department are included towards our military spend.

[LinkSoul60]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely blatant lie and the last organization to listen to the accountants is the military

It was moved from one purpose and one purpose only, to be able to include its budget when calculating the military spending for NATO purposes. The move had absolutely nothing to do with actual military, none of it is a new spending, it is just relabeling existing expending so that it counts towards nato. 

Which is fine, but it's important that we acknowledge that it's not actual improvements in military spending.

The transition into the military was done to increase our maritime security, which is directly tied into a specific role in our National Defence.

 

[BeaverFever]

15 hours ago, ironstone said:

Search assist

Yes, the Liberals moved the Canadian Coast Guard under the Department of National Defence, which allows its budget to count towards Canada's defence spending to meet NATO targets. This change was announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney in June 2025.

 Wikipedia fasken.com

The coast guard’s move to DND is not in dispute.  That is a legitimate move and is what most other countries do with their Coast Guard. THEREFORE it’s legitimate defence spending. 
 

Your suggestion was that other other illegitimate expenses were included, which is false. 

[User]

21 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes it is, and does report to the Minister of National Defence.  The Coast Guard was officially transitioned into the Dept of Defence on Sept 2/25. and is now part of our military.  Any dollars spent in this department are included towards our military spend.

It only falls under them for the money and technicality of reporting. They remain a civilian-operated branch. 

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The coast guard’s move to DND is not in dispute.  That is a legitimate move and is what most other countries do with their Coast Guard. THEREFORE it’s legitimate defence spending. 
 

Your suggestion was that other other illegitimate expenses were included, which is false. 

Legitimate... how?

You are playing a technicality game. They are still unarmed and civilian-operated. 

 

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, User said:

Nope. This is your usual bullshit.

You run away, come back days or weeks later, then pretend like you have no idea what was already discussed and go right back to the same BS that was already responded to. 
 

 

There’s nothing relevant in the post you linked, just more of your bluster and false accusations when you have no point to make and no valid arguments. 

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, User said:

It only falls under them for the money and technicality of reporting. They remain a civilian-operated branch. 

It retains its civilian responsibilities but takes on a new role in the security and surveillance.  The direct line of reporting is to the Minister of National Defence.

[User]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

It retains its civilian responsibilities but takes on a new role in the security and surveillance.  The direct line of reporting is to the Minister of National Defence.

Still unarmed, still civilian-operated. 

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

There’s nothing relevant in the post you linked, just more of your bluster and false accusations when you have no point to make and no valid arguments. 

LOL, it was the last comment where you ran away from like the coward you are, from your lies and usual BS tactics. 

Of course, you say it is not relevant. You are going to keep running away and lying. 

 

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Still unarmed, still civilian-operated. 

Correct, unarmed but not civilian operated. The personnel are part of the DND...meaning it's operated by the military.  No different than the US, with the exception of being armed, at this point.

[User]

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Correct, unarmed but not civilian operated. The personnel are part of the DND...meaning it's operated by the military.  No different than the US, with the exception of being armed, at this point.

No. 

The CCG will remain a civilian Special Operating Agency that continues to deliver the critical services Canadians rely on every day, while gradually expanding its contributions to Canada’s broader defence and security efforts.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2026/03/message-dm-cds-commissioner-ccg-enhancing-maritime-security-through-bill-c-12.html

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, User said:

No. 

The CCG will remain a civilian Special Operating Agency that continues to deliver the critical services Canadians rely on every day, while gradually expanding its contributions to Canada’s broader defence and security efforts.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2026/03/message-dm-cds-commissioner-ccg-enhancing-maritime-security-through-bill-c-12.html

I stand corrected....  It's part of the DND which is military.  I assumed the personnel would fall under that as well.

 

[User]

15 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I stand corrected....  It's part of the DND which is military.  I assumed the personnel would fall under that as well.

 

Is the world ending tomorrow?

Holy crap, you admitted you were wrong. 

[LinkSoul60]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Is the world ending tomorrow?

Holy crap, you admitted you were wrong. 

I never have a problem admitting it, but happens so infrequently that I need to remind myself.... 😬