Canadian Defence News

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The Coast Guard has no communications tasks. It is also not really a Search and Rescue organization although, it does help anyone in distress at sea if close enough...as is required by all vessels.

2% is what has been asked of NATO members since day one of NATO. Some countries never met that objectives. 

You are correct war with Iran is not NATO and asking NATO to intervene is wrong and not within NATO mandate. The Strait of Hormuz is not in NATO territory so assistance there would require NATO countries to step out of their bounds. "The mandate of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is to guarantee the freedom and security of its 32 member states through both political and military means, acting as a system of collective defense. Based on the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, its core purpose is to deter aggression, manage crises, and foster cooperative security, with Article 5 establishing that an attack against one member is an attack against all" and that does not include the Middle East.

Yes I know the NATO obligations. Canada could support keeping the Strait open in a non-combat role outside of NATO.

The Coast Guard operates the only ice breaking capacity and search and rescue capability along major stretches of our coastal and inland waterways. Communications are a vital component of that.  

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

'll put a new label on the glass marked "BEER" and let you know tomorrow, 

 

Being as there's now blood on the mats I moved the experiment forward in an effort to ease the trauma some posters are clearly experiencing with this.

First I established a working base line:

- I bought a magnum can of 7% German beer and pored it into a beer glass... it remained beer; and

- I poured rum from a rum bottle into a shot glass... it remained rum.

Then I mixed it up to observe the presence and extent of any observed change of state:

- I pored rum into the beer can and emptied the contents into a beer glass... it remained rum; and

- I pored beer into the empty rum bottle and the contents of that into a shot glass... it remained beer.

After tabulating the results, I observed that the cost and flavour of both beverages remained the same regardless of labeling and the only "new spending" was for the taxi ride home.

 

 

[ExFlyer]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes I know the NATO obligations. Canada could support keeping the Strait open in a non-combat role outside of NATO.

The Coast Guard operates the only ice breaking capacity and search and rescue capability along major stretches of our coastal and inland waterways. Communications are a vital component of that.  

For sure the Coast Guard ice breaking capability is noteworthy and required.

As for SAR, they, like all vessels at sea provide rescue for vessels at sea. The prime SAR duties are with the Airforce SAR. We do not have enough Coast Guard vessels to be on SAR duties. They assist when in the vicinity.

I m not sure what you mean by "communications"? Communications of and by what? 

[Venandi]

For the non-drinkers in the crowd, here's the published list of CCG vessel primary duties.

These duties didn't change as a result of the move from Fisheries to DND. If you happen to be wearing a rainbow t-shirt and sipping gin and tonic your mileage may vary:

 

Primary duties of Canadian Coast Guard vessels (in order of priority)

1. Search and Rescue (SAR) — saving lives at sea and responding to distress calls.
2. Aids to Navigation (AtoN) — maintaining and servicing buoys, beacons,  lighthouses, and other navigational aids.
3. Marine Pollution Response — detecting, containing,  and cleaning up oil and hazardous-material spills.
4. Icebreaking and Ice Management — keeping shipping lanes open,      escorting vessels, andsupporting communities and resupply in ice conditions.
5. Maritime Safety and Regulatory Support — enforcing safety regulations, conductinginspections, and supporting marine traffic management.
6. Environmental Response and Scientific Support — supporting environmental monitoring,scientific research, and fisheries protection activities.
7. Public Safety and Law Enforcement Support — assisting federal departments (e.g.,Fisheries and Oceans, RCMP) with fisheries enforcement and law-enforcement operationswhen tasked.
8. Marine Communication and Traffic Services Support — aiding communication networks andtraffic services where vessels are equipped to assist.
9. Support to Indigenous, Remote and Coastal Communities — supplying services, emergencysupport, and logistical aid as needed.

Edited April 4 by Venandi

[Zeitgeist]

Marine communications are the most important communications for vessels, including naval vessels. Navigation is part of that: buoy, markers, etc.  I think what ExFlyer is referring to is communications around the detection and use of weapons systems and military operations. There’s some overlap for sure though, as the Coast Guard does have radar, sonar, and satellite navigation and detection systems.  They may not be involved in combat directly, but they certainly monitor traffic and alert the military where necessary.  Let’s not forget too that in times of conflict even privately owned vessels can be commissioned by the military.  

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Venandi said:

Moving existing spending to a folder with a new label doesn't suddenly make old spending new spending, even if you had to purchase a label maker to do it.

I don't know why but I found that outrageously amusing.  

[BeaverFever]

Trees felled for temporary 400-unit housing complex at CFB Esquimalt
 

CFB Esquimalt plans to plant replacement trees according to base policy, which usually requires two trees to be planted for every tree cut down

…

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/trees-felled-for-temporary-400-unit-housing-complex-at-cfb-esquimalt-12096811

OMG they’re planting trees!  They have a POLICY of replanting trees 2:1 whenever they have to cut any down!  Somehow this is wrong!!  Quick call NATO!!  HOAX! HOAX!  CONSPIRACY!!  CONSPIRACY!!  HELP!!  HELP!!😀

 

^ This all to point out, once again, that tree planting is a part of normal and routine activity on military bases and they have existing policies around it. 

Edited April 5 by BeaverFever

[User]

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

OMG they’re planting trees!  They have a POLICY of replanting trees 2:1 whenever they have to cut any down!  Somehow this is wrong!!  Quick call NATO!!  HOAX! HOAX!  CONSPIRACY!!  CONSPIRACY!!  HELP!!  HELP!!😀

 

^ This all to point out, once again, that tree planting is a part of normal and routine activity on military bases and they have existing policies around it. 

And yet again, you keep lying, arguing against things not said and ignoring the actual point already made you have already lied repeatedly about. 

The argument was never about if some trees are planted routinely. Duh. Of course they are. It was that there was in fact a special Canadian program to plant a shit ton of trees across the country and they did in fact include the military in this special program. 

You can't be honest, you can't admit you were wrong, no... You have to repeatedly fabricate something to mock instead. 

[BeaverFever]

7 minutes ago, User said:

And yet again, you keep lying, arguing against things not said and ignoring the actual point already made you have already lied repeatedly about. 

The argument was never about if some trees are planted routinely. Duh. Of course they are. It was that there was in fact a special Canadian program to plant a shit ton of trees across the country and they did in fact include the military in this special program. 

You can't be honest, you can't admit you were wrong, no... You have to repeatedly fabricate something to mock instead. 

You have no idea what this argument is about. You will never know enough about Canada or the military to say anything intelligent in this thread amd you are not honest enough to understand when your claims have been rebutted.
 

I am not repeating myself again, I have explained “the special program” to you numerous times and that simply adds the trees routinely planted by other federal departments to its target number. If you don’t get it by now you never will. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You have no idea what this argument is about. You will never know enough about Canada or the military to say anything intelligent in this thread amd you are not honest enough to understand when your claims have been rebutted.
 

I am not repeating myself again, I have explained “the special program” to you numerous times and that simply adds the trees routinely planted by other federal departments to its target number. If you don’t get it by now you never will. 

No, you have offered nothing but your own baseless claim that the trees were just part of those routinely planted. On the other hand, I have offered actual official Canadian government sources claiming they were part of the special program. 

You just can't admit you were wrong. You are so committed to not only this lie, but doing this in almost any discussion you are in. 

 

[BeaverFever]

On 4/4/2026 at 11:04 AM, Venandi said:

Being as there's now blood on the mats I moved the experiment forward in an effort to ease the trauma some posters are clearly experiencing with this.

First I established a working base line:

- I bought a magnum can of 7% German beer and pored it into a beer glass... it remained beer; and

- I poured rum from a rum bottle into a shot glass... it remained rum.

Then I mixed it up to observe the presence and extent of any observed change of state:

- I pored rum into the beer can and emptied the contents into a beer glass... it remained rum; and

- I pored beer into the empty rum bottle and the contents of that into a shot glass... it remained beer.

After tabulating the results, I observed that the cost and flavour of both beverages remained the same regardless of labeling and the only "new spending" was for the taxi ride home.

 

 

And guess what?  It all counts as part of your alcohol budget where previously you bought the  beer and wine at the grocery store and instead counted it as part of your grocery budget. 

Edited April 5 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

9 minutes ago, User said:

No, you have offered nothing but your own baseless claim that the trees were just part of those routinely planted. On the other hand, I have offered actual official Canadian government sources claiming they were part of the special program. 

You just can't admit you were wrong. You are so committed to not only this lie, but doing this in almost any discussion you are in. 

 

But like a typical MAGA you don’t know wtf you’re talking about you just keep repeating the same isolated tidbit over and over and pretending all other facts context and logic don’t matter.
 

You don’t understand what you call “part of the special program” means so you make a false narrative. It simply means is that the trees  paid for with Dept of National Defence money on Dept of National Defence property for Dept of National Defnce purposes over the next few years will be included in “the special program’” total. As will trees planted by other federal departments. And they promise to follow through on it.  INCLUDING THOSE 2:1 TREES IN ESQUIMALT I JUST MENTIONED  
 

Period. End of story. All other plots and conspiracies are imagined by the right wing haters. 

Edited April 5 by BeaverFever

[User]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But like a typical MAGA you don’t know wtf you’re talking about you just keep repeating the same isolated tidbit over and over and pretending all other facts context and logic don’t matter.
 

You don’t understand what you call “part of the special program” means so you make a false narrative. It simply means is that the trees  paid for with Dept of National Defence money on Dept of National Defence property for Dept of National Defnce purposes over the next few years will be included in “the special program’” total. As will trees planted by other federal departments. And they promise to follow through on it.  Period. End of story. All other plots and conspiracies are imagined by the right wing haters. 

What false narrative?

I provided a source for a simple fact. 

You are the one who refuses to accept that and has to play this stupid game. 

Even now, you put this in quotes like it is not real. Holy shit man, you are a pathological liar. I don't even know if you know you are the way you are. It is just a condition and you can't help yourself but lie like this at this point.

 

Edited April 5 by User

[Army Guy]

On 4/4/2026 at 11:35 AM, ExFlyer said:

The Coast Guard has no communications tasks. It is also not really a Search and Rescue organization although, it does help anyone in distress at sea if close enough...as is required by all vessels.

2% is what has been asked of NATO members since day one of NATO. Some countries never met that objectives. 

You are correct war with Iran is not NATO and asking NATO to intervene is wrong and not within NATO mandate. The Strait of Hormuz is not in NATO territory so assistance there would require NATO countries to step out of their bounds. "The mandate of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is to guarantee the freedom and security of its 32 member states through both political and military means, acting as a system of collective defense. Based on the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, its core purpose is to deter aggression, manage crises, and foster cooperative security, with Article 5 establishing that an attack against one member is an attack against all" and that does not include the Middle East.

I think 2 % would be enough as well, but then again we waited until everything rotted out to start all of this....but since we are including everything under the sun today, like major highways in the north, water treatment plants, new infra structure at airports and new power plants, that will be multi use civilian and military....it should be easy to spend 5 % and get major projects down not only up north but every where there is a military presence...plus we kill two birds one stone, Indigenous get clean water and we increase our military presence up north....

When you say it does not cover the middle east you mean those middle eastern countries not in NATO right....What about British forces that have been attacked on British bases do they count....what about French forces on French bases do they count...or does it only count when they are in their home countries ? ....

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Trees felled for temporary 400-unit housing complex at CFB Esquimalt
 

CFB Esquimalt plans to plant replacement trees according to base policy, which usually requires two trees to be planted for every tree cut down

…

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/trees-felled-for-temporary-400-unit-housing-complex-at-cfb-esquimalt-12096811

OMG they’re planting trees!  They have a POLICY of replanting trees 2:1 whenever they have to cut any down!  Somehow this is wrong!!  Quick call NATO!!  HOAX! HOAX!  CONSPIRACY!!  CONSPIRACY!!  HELP!!  HELP!!😀

 

^ This all to point out, once again, that tree planting is a part of normal and routine activity on military bases and they have existing policies around it. 

Did they have a budget for this beforehand?

If they did then it's not new military spending

If they didn't then you might argue it is.

The money they've announced for trees so far has been money that was already budgeted for and set aside for another program that they re-labeled as military

How stupid do you have to be not to get your head around this? Like honestly kids in grade school can get this

[Venandi]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

And guess what?  It all counts as part of your alcohol budget

No, I moved the alcohol budget to "entertainment."

Then, since I enjoy landscaping (and thus consider it a form of entertainment), I incorporated the apple trees I recently purchased (using the property enhancement budget) into entertainment as well.

As a result, my alcohol expenditures have dropped to zero, the  property looks great and since the alcohol budget is now at zero, it cost me nothing for the trees.

Thanks for your service.... 

 

 

Edited April 6 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I think 2 % would be enough as well, but then again we waited until everything rotted out to start all of this....but since we are including everything under the sun today, like major highways in the north, water treatment plants, new infra structure at airports and new power plants, that will be multi use civilian and military....it should be easy to spend 5 % and get major projects down not only up north but every where there is a military presence...plus we kill two birds one stone, Indigenous get clean water and we increase our military presence up north....

When you say it does not cover the middle east you mean those middle eastern countries not in NATO right....What about British forces that have been attacked on British bases do they count....what about French forces on French bases do they count...or does it only count when they are in their home countries ? ....

Look, if infrastructure is not there and we want our military to support, protect etc, then to build that infrastructure, it a military expense.

The French and Brits are not there in any NATO capacity. The Brits are there to support British interests and the French are there for their own interests as well, not under NATO. Both have been there for decades...for their own purposes.  French President Macron has already told Trump they will not participate in his ....whatever.

[I am Groot]

On 4/3/2026 at 11:15 AM, 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. 

Unlike many of the rest, our coast guard is completely unarmed and useless in any military context.

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Look, if infrastructure is not there and we want our military to support, protect etc, then to build that infrastructure, it a military expense.

The French and Brits are not there in any NATO capacity. The Brits are there to support British interests and the French are there for their own interests as well, not under NATO. Both have been there for decades...for their own purposes.  French President Macron has already told Trump they will not participate in his ....whatever.

Is this something new, when we built CFB "what ever" did we build water treatment plants sewage plants, power plants as well to support the ever growing civilian population...No we did not in all cases.... , this is just an example of what Carney includes in that infrastructure 5 %....the fact that most Military bases rely on civilian infra structure for water, sewage, and power... Each base "should" have it's own military infra structure to be self sufficient but that is not the case every where.

NATO article 6 describes where the NATO article 5 can take place...So one does not have to be on NATO missions or business as you suggest....At least not according to NATO policies....

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France ², on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Is this something new, when we built CFB "what ever" did we build water treatment plants sewage plants, power plants as well to support the ever growing civilian population...No we did not in all cases.... , this is just an example of what Carney includes in that infrastructure 5 %....the fact that most Military bases rely on civilian infra structure for water, sewage, and power... Each base "should" have it's own military infra structure to be self sufficient but that is not the case every where.

NATO article 6 describes where the NATO article 5 can take place...So one does not have to be on NATO missions or business as you suggest....At least not according to NATO policies....

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France ², on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty

I cannot say for all bases but yes, we did for most of them. Certainly not for bases in major cities (Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, Victoria etc) but others like Cold Lake, Bagotville, Gagetown, Wainright etc, we did.

Your Article 5 is not applicable. The US did not get attacked. The US did the attacking.

 

 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Is this something new, when we built CFB "what ever" did we build water treatment plants sewage plants, power plants as well to support the ever growing civilian population...No we did not in all cases.... , this is just an example of what Carney includes in that infrastructure 5 %....the fact that most Military bases rely on civilian infra structure for water, sewage, and power... Each base "should" have it's own military infra structure to be self sufficient but that is not the case every where.

There is no civilian infrastructure in the north that the military can feed from. Hell the civilians up there barely have enough for themselves let alone provide for themselves and the CAF. 

And yes much if not most of what exists up there for things like airstrips used by the military has been built or maintained by CAF. 

[BeaverFever]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Did they have a budget for this beforehand?

If they did then it's not new military spending

If they didn't then you might argue it is.

The money they've announced for trees so far has been money that was already budgeted for and set aside for another program that they re-labeled as military

How stupid do you have to be not to get your head around this? Like honestly kids in grade school can get this

So you’re saying Trudeau acting got us to 2% years ago 

 

As I previously pointed out you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too flailing for an argument any argument

 

When it’s announced you say it doesn’t count because it hasn’t been budgeted 

When it’s budgeted you say it doesn’t count because it hasn’t been spent 

When it’s spent you you say it doesn’t count because it was previously announced and budgeted 

And when the military builds military housing planned by the military paid for by the military’s money it’s a military expenditure  

How stupid do you have to be to not get your head around this? Like honestly kids in grade school can het this. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

So you’re saying Trudeau acting got us to 2% years ago 

I will speak slowly so you can understand. 

they.... are... relabelling.... spending... set .... aside..... years...ago... by.... trudeau..... to.... make....a..... claim.... of ....2 percent...but...it .... is..... not..... new..... spending. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

As I previously pointed out you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too flailing for an argument any argument

It was stupid when you said it the first time it hasn't gotten less stupid now

This is quite simple. When you relatable spending that already exists then it's not you spending. We didn't increase military spending to reach 2%. We just simply called things that weren't previously called military spending military spending now to give the appearance that we've had our 2%

. I swear to god kindergarten kids could get the concept. Why the hell are you struggling with this? If I have a $10 bill and another $10 bill and I change them for a $20 bill I don't actually have any more money than when I started.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

When it’s announced you say it doesn’t count because it hasn’t been budgeted 

I have never said that.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

When it’s budgeted you say it doesn’t count because it hasn’t been spent 

If it's budgeted then it would be spent. If it's not spent as part of the budget then it either becomes part of the next year's budget or it was never spent.

Also I have never really said this even though what you have said is inadvertently absolutely correct. What I did say is you cannot call it spending if it's scheduled to happen in the future

.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

When it’s spent you you say it doesn’t count because it was previously announced and budgeted 

Again something I've never said. What I said was that if it was previously announced and budgeted as part of a different budget but now you're just simply calling it military spending then it does not represent new military spending

 

You stupidity on this is absolutely baffling. You are not the dumbest leftist on this board by any stretch and yet you're behaving in a fashion that makes me question if you're old enough to drive.

If you say your budgeting $2 billion dollars to plant trees in order to fight climate change and then you later decide to claim that this two billion will be moved to the military spending budget you cannot at that point claim that this is new spending or new military spending. This is relabeling old spending

Quit lying your ass off and get your head out of your butt because it's really getting annoying having to repeat the same basic concept that anyone in an elementary school could get their head around in 2 seconds

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

There is no civilian infrastructure in the north that the military can feed from. Hell the civilians up there barely have enough for themselves let alone provide for themselves and the CAF. 

And yes much if not most of what exists up there for things like airstrips used by the military has been built or maintained by CAF. 

Are you sure, Yellowknife is bigger than i city i live in now, military wise not very much, but enough civilian infra structure to host even more military than it already does...

Yellowknife population 20340, https://www.century21yk.ca/blog/2022/03/does-yellowknife-need-a-new-neighbourhood/

Whitehorse, population 31,000  Look like it supports a lot, even could support more military than there is already...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehorse#/media/File:Panorama_for_the_Yukon_College_Roof.jpg

 

Resolute bay , population almost 200, they seem to have power, water, and sewage....but then again it is one of the most northern communities in Canada....CAF use to do it's advanced winter warfare course up there....not sure how many more troops would be posted there....

Inuvik, population 3200 people, even has a mosque....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuvik#/media/File:Inuvik,_NT.jpg

Iqaluit

population 7400 people looks like they are doing well, they have water, sewage, power looks like they could handle some more military personal....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Leg_Building_Iqaluit_2000-08-27.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit#/media/File:Iqaluit_skyline.jpg

Each one has an airstrip, Yellowknife and Whitehorse have there own airports with the military off to the side, and i'm pretty sure both are operating under provincial funding....the others are dirt strips...and very few have a military presence...Not sure where you got your info from...but it does not support much of your post...

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Are you sure, Yellowknife is bigger than i city i live in now, military wise not very much, but enough civilian infra structure to host even more military than it already does...

Yellowknife population 20340, https://www.century21yk.ca/blog/2022/03/does-yellowknife-need-a-new-neighbourhood/

Whitehorse, population 31,000  Look like it supports a lot, even could support more military than there is already...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehorse#/media/File:Panorama_for_the_Yukon_College_Roof.jpg

 

Resolute bay , population almost 200, they seem to have power, water, and sewage....but then again it is one of the most northern communities in Canada....CAF use to do it's advanced winter warfare course up there....not sure how many more troops would be posted there....

Inuvik, population 3200 people, even has a mosque....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuvik#/media/File:Inuvik,_NT.jpg

Iqaluit

population 7400 people looks like they are doing well, they have water, sewage, power looks like they could handle some more military personal....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Leg_Building_Iqaluit_2000-08-27.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit#/media/File:Iqaluit_skyline.jpg

Each one has an airstrip, Yellowknife and Whitehorse have there own airports with the military off to the side, and i'm pretty sure both are operating under provincial funding....the others are dirt strips...and very few have a military presence...Not sure where you got your info from...but it does not support much of your post...

There is no surplus infrastructure in the far north for a massive influx of military personnel eating drinking shitting showering and consuming massive amounts of electricity and fuel 24/7/365.   And why would there be given how exonerating and complicated it is to build anything up there?  There are barely any year-round roads amd chronic housing shortages. The grocery prices in those places are already ridiculous. Much of what does exist is already heavily subsidized by federal government and the CAF. That seems pretty self-evident and I thought common knowledge. I recently saw a picture of an 8-pack of diet coke in Cambridge Bay it was $36