Canadian Defence News

[Moonbox]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I thought you weren't looking for absolute proof of anything,  can't disprove without proof. 

I said I was looking for evidence.  I don't think the difference between evidence and absolute proof needs explaining, does it?  You misquoted me deliberately.

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You mean rational debate and intelligent discussion. 

Is that what the insults are for?  

If something specific is being claimed, some evidence should exist for it.  If none is provided, we have nothing to test or evaluate - nothing to disprove.  Your longwinded personal commentary, opinions and interpretive storytelling don't build the case.  You're just repeating the claim with more and more words, and insisting that people accept it.  

Edited March 10 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I said I was looking for evidence.  I don't think the difference between evidence and absolute proof needs explaining, does it?  You misquoted me deliberately.

I'm not sadly. And you spoke about proof. And what I said that the burden of evidence is shared and does not require absolute proof you freaked out and said that this was insane! Crazy talk!

Now you realizing I was right and you try to walk back your statements.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Is that what the insults are for?  

You tell me. Almost without fail all of your conversations with me start with an insult, often when I haven't even replied to you yet.

For me they usually something I think is funny. For you it seems to be some sort of coping mechanism

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

If something specific is being claimed, some evidence should exist for it.  If none is provided, we have nothing to test or evaluate - nothing to disprove. 

We believed in the Higgs boson for almost a hundred years before we could prove it existed. Einstein made a compelling argument that it should exist and people believed it based on the strength of his argument alone even though we have no proof or evidence. Turned out he was right. We can say the same thing of dozens and dozens of physics facts which turned out to be correct despite the fact we had no proof of for decades. 

A rational argument is evidence. If you disagree with it you must either produce a similar proof or better.  It is not up to the other person to provide proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Which is what you want. And if you get anything less you will send them back saying it's their duty to provide more proof etc etc

And you're wrong

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Your longwinded personal commentary, opinions and interpretive storytelling don't build the case.  You're just repeating the claim with more and more words, and insisting that people accept it.  

Sorry kiddo I proved what I was saying was accurate both in logic and facts.

You're crying and filling your diapers because you hate the idea that you can't try and win an argument by demanding cites Which is always been a go-to.

If you think he's wrong provide some species of evidence to show he's wrong, and it has to be at least as good as or better than the evidence he provided with regards to him being correct. If you can't then he's probably correct

[Moonbox]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm not sadly. And you spoke about proof

You were.  I spoke very specifically about evidence.  If you're just going to argue against points I never made, go for it.  It's only your own time you're wasting.  🙃

Pounding out an extra 1000 words of irrelevant commentary doesn't change anything.  

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

You were.  I spoke very specifically about evidence. 

No, you demanded that the burden of evidence was on him alone to prove his point.

If that's not what you're saying you're agreeing with me. In which case yes you're right. Everything I said was correct. Little weird for you to be admitting it at this stage of the game but yes absolutely

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Pounding out an extra 1000 words of irrelevant commentary doesn't change anything.  

The fact that you find a few sentences so hard to read and so draining emotionally and so upsetting does explain why you keep getting these things wrong. Maybe you should build up your tolerance for reading and learn a thing or two?

[ironstone]

Blacklock's Reporter states that the Carney Liberals are counting planted trees as part of our NATO spending budget.

https://www.blacklocks.ca/counts-trees-in-nato-target/

(The trees are planted at 'strategic locations' though)

Search Assist

 

commons.wikimedia.org

SECWAR / Public domain

David McGuinty, the Defence Minister, has included the costs of planting approximately 14,450 trees in the efforts to meet NATO's military spending target of 2 percent, although the defense department still fell short by billions. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to enhance military readiness and environmental responsibility.

 blacklocks.ca

[Moonbox]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, you demanded that the burden of evidence was on him alone to prove his point.

If that's not what you're saying you're agreeing with me. In which case yes you're right. Everything I said was correct. Little weird for you to be admitting it at this stage of the game but yes absolutely

The fact that you find a few sentences so hard to read and so draining emotionally and so upsetting does explain why you keep getting these things wrong. Maybe you should build up your tolerance for reading and learn a thing or two?

Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim.  That's basic reasoning.  That's why we assume innocence until guilt is proven.  It's why scientific hypotheses are just that until proven by experiment.  

The standard for evidence is lower on an internet forum, but it doesn't disappear.  Longwinded, insult-laden emotional rants don't act as a substitute.  Like the unsupported claim, they're just discarded.  

If you make specific claims, you are the one that needs to provide evidence.  Insisting it works backwards is insane.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. 

What happened to "I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PROOOOOOOOFFF!!!! NO PROOF!! NEVER SAID THAT!!!! REEEEEEEEE

LOL didn't take you long to make a mess of that did it. 

No it isn't, I just proved that, I posted an articles about it, that is stupid. It is appropriate for a debate club that you may have attended in grade school but it is not appropriate for non-line internet discussion, I posted part of the reasons why and explained it

You are Beyond stupid. The circle back to your original position after kind of denying your original position is dumb

This is why you lose almost every single argument you have on this forum. Get a clue

Edited March 11 by CdnFox

[Moonbox]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What happened to "I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PROOOOOOOOFFF!!!! NO PROOF!! NEVER SAID THAT!!!! REEEEEEEEE

Only you can answer that, because you're quoting your imagination.  

This hot mess you just posted is your idea of rational and intelligent conversation?   OKAY.  

Edited March 11 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Only you can answer that, because you're quoting your imagination.  

 

We both know I'm not sadly.

But I'll answer it for you regardless. You're wrong.

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This hot mess you just posted is your idea of rational and intelligent conversation?

That grade three level response trying to deflect from your own stupidity and failings is your idea of a witty retort?

Kid, once again you said something stupid.

Instead of being an adult's about it when it was pointed out you tripled down on the stupid.

And same as always you now want the stupid to be someone else's fault other than your own

Kid. You are responsible for your own stupid.

[Moonbox]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

We both know I'm not sadly.

If you were telling the truth, you could quote it.  You'd have the evidence that would help you prove that claim. 

As usual, you can't, so you won't.  A bunch of insults and emotional ranting is what you'll offer instead, and after you've flustered yourself enough you'll somehow confuse yourself into believing you said something useful.  🙃

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If you were telling the truth, you could quote it. 

oh you mean you want a cite.   Yawn. 

People can read the thread on their own.

I get that you're embarrassed that you said something which has now been shown to be stupid. You are there for trying to deny that's what you said. Just like you denied ever suggesting that there has to be proof and then immediately went on into say no what's your demanding is that there's proof

You have a good day at school kiddo, take your teacher an apple and behave during nap time

[Moonbox]

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

oh you mean you want a cite.   Yawn. 

People can read the thread on their own.

Of course I do.  That's what this thread is about.  Your self-serving personal commentary is useless and nobody's interested in debating with your imagination. 

We're here to debate, not listen to Fox Storytelling.  🤡

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Of course I do.  That's what this thread is about. 

But I thought it wasn't, I thought you weren't demanding proof!

Anyway I cite this thread.  

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

We're here to debate, not listen to Fox Storytelling

Yes yes,  you're very pretty, give me the picture you made and i'll put it on the fridge.  

[BeaverFever]

On 3/10/2026 at 6:06 PM, ironstone said:

Blacklock's Reporter states that the Carney Liberals are counting planted trees as part of our NATO spending budget.

https://www.blacklocks.ca/counts-trees-in-nato-target/

(The trees are planted at 'strategic locations' though)

Search Assist

 

 

 

commons.wikimedia.org

SECWAR / Public domain

David McGuinty, the Defence Minister, has included the costs of planting approximately 14,450 trees in the efforts to meet NATO's military spending target of 2 percent, although the defense department still fell short by billions. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to enhance military readiness and environmental responsibility.

 blacklocks.ca

Addressed in the other thread. It’s an out of control lie. Upkeep and operation of military bases is a bonafide military expense   This includes all sorts of items including building maintenance and landscaping the latter being where the “planting trees” nonsense comes from. If the soldiers have spaghetti for dinner tonight in the mess hall, it doesn’t mean McGuinty has plot to count pasta as a military expense. 
 

As I said before notice how all the cons are sharing the headline but nobody can access the actual story including 99% of the people circulating ot  but that’s what you people do, light on facts heavy on emotion and sensationalism  

 

[BeaverFever]

Kongsberg-led venture to design future Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard
 

A Kongsberg-led team will develop the six new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard, the PMO has confirmed in a statement today from Norway. The Team of Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, Salt Ship Design, and the Ottawa-based Adaptive Marine Solutions Inc have been awarded a $9.6 million contract to carry out design work for the future Mid-Shore Multi-Mission vessels.

The Mid-Shore Multi-Mission (MSMM)vessels will replace the three mid-shore science vessels (Limnos, Otter Bay, Vector) while also filling the future gap in CCGs medium-sized utility fleet, as many of the current fleet are being replaced by much different, much larger vessels.

The MSMM are expected to be 45 to 50m in length and a tonnage of < 1000MT. They will have a range of up to 3000nm and an endurance of up to 17 days. The MSMM will also be Ice-Strengthened with the class expected to be rated at minimum Ice Class-1C per DNV standards.

https://www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca/p/kongsberg-led-venture-to-design-future

 

[User]

15 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Addressed in the other thread. It’s an out of control lie. Upkeep and operation of military bases is a bonafide military expense   This includes all sorts of items including building maintenance and landscaping the latter being where the “planting trees” nonsense comes from. If the soldiers have spaghetti for dinner tonight in the mess hall, it doesn’t mean McGuinty has plot to count pasta as a military expense. 

What exactly is the lie?

You call it a lie, but then immediately defend and justify it. 

 

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Addressed in the other thread. It’s an out of control lie. Upkeep and operation of military bases is a bonafide military expense   This includes all sorts of items including building maintenance and landscaping the latter being where the “planting trees” nonsense comes from. If the soldiers have spaghetti for dinner tonight in the mess hall, it doesn’t mean McGuinty has plot to count pasta as a military expense. 
 

As I said before notice how all the cons are sharing the headline but nobody can access the actual story including 99% of the people circulating ot  but that’s what you people do, light on facts heavy on emotion and sensationalism  

 

I would like to see how our military spending budget is allocated. How much goes to hardware, training, and how much goes to upkeep, DEI, tampon dispensers and so on.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, User said:

What exactly is the lie?

You call it a lie, but then immediately defend and justify it. 

 

The lie is that the government is try to claim “large scale tree planting” programs unrelated to defence as defence costs. I did mot try to defend or justify that because is a lie

The costs of maintaining military housing and bases, which may or may not happen to include landscaping are counted as defense spending IN EVERY COUNTRY including USA and if that landscaping happens to include any trees that get planted then that also included IN EVERY COUNTRY.

The claim about trees is a s true as saying Donald Trump is trying to claim pasta as defence spending because troops had spaghetti for dinner last night.   Get it?

 

[BeaverFever]

More “doing nothing” from recent weeks. LMAO

What’s hilarious is that the reality outside of the conservative opposite-of-reality fake news bubble is how much money is being spent so quickly people are worrying it’s being spent too fast  

Will it total 2% of GDP by the end of the month?  The Economy has been performing better than forecast back when spending plans were made so it might be a close call but the conservative propaganda machine as usual is trying to paint a different picture entirely  

 

Safran Awarded $118 Million DND Contract to Support Victoria-class Submarines and Partners with Hanwha for CPSP

On February 26, 2026, Canada’s Department of National Defence(DND) awarded a contract to Safran Trusted 4D Canada Inc. to provide digital periscopes, as well as initial in-service support, training services for operation and maintenance, and onboard spare parts and testing equipment for Canada’s Victoria-class submarines.

According to the social media post made by DND, the periscope upgrade is a part of Canada’s Victoria-class diesel electric submarine modernization. The value of the contract is $118 million (excluding tax).

https://canadiandefencereview.com/safran-awarded-118-million-dnd-contract-to-support-cpsp/
 

 

Voyageur Awarded DND Contract to Support Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment Operations

Voyageur Aviation Corp. (“Voyageur”) is proud to announce it has been awarded a contract by the Department of National Defence (DND) to provide specialized aviation support to the Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment (AETE) operating out of Ottawa, Ontario.

https://canadiandefencereview.com/voyageur-awarded-dnd-contract-to-support-aerospace-engineering-test-establishment-operations/

Stantec selected to deliver first phase of Canada’s Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar project

Stantec will deliver the first phase of the Government of Canada’s Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar (A-OTHR) project, providing long-range, early-warning radar coverage of the country’s northern regions.

https://canadiandefencereview.com/stantec-selected-to-deliver-first-phase-of-canadas-arctic-over-the-horizon-radar-project/
 

Galvion receives order for another 29,000 helmets from DND

Galvion was awarded the Canadian Dismounted Infantry Capability Enhancement (DICE) programme contract in February 2023 for 2,100 helmets and 4,200 helmet covers.  In July 2024, the DND exercised an option to order an additional 8,400 helmets and 16,800 helmet covers taking the total Canadian DICE order to 10,500 helmets and 21,000 covers, all successfully delivered. In July 2025 Galvion announced a third follow-on order, with delivery planned for early 2026.  In total, the DICE contract orders total 15,000 helmets and over 30,000 covers.  This latest order, for a further 29,000 this time through NPSA and outside of the original DICE programme contract, takes the total Caiman helmet systems ordered by the Canadian DND to over 44,000 helmets and over 100,000 covers.
 

https://canadiandefencereview.com/galvion-receives-order-for-another-29000-helmets-from-dnd/
 

And so on…

 

 

 

[User]

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The lie is that the government is try to claim “large scale tree planting” programs unrelated to defence as defence costs. I did mot try to defend or justify that because is a lie

The costs of maintaining military housing and bases, which may or may not happen to include landscaping are counted as defense spending IN EVERY COUNTRY including USA and if that landscaping happens to include any trees that get planted then that also included IN EVERY COUNTRY.

The claim about trees is a s true as saying Donald Trump is trying to claim pasta as defence spending because troops had spaghetti for dinner last night.   Get it?

 

You keep doing it again. You try to claim it is not happening and a lie, but then claim its just as true as claiming pasta as defense spending...

Fact: There is a large-scale tree planting program

Fact: Military bases are a part of this

The fact being asserted: The government changed accounting methods to include not only the tree planting, but many other things indirectly part of "defense" spending to bolster the numbers. 

This was not just some average landscapig costs, it was literally a national effort to plant billions of trees. 

 

[I am Groot]

Somewhere between 30 and 60 Canadian troops injured, mostly with frostbite (some of it allegedly bad enough for amputations of fingers/toes) during winter exercises. Canadian military allegedly doing its best to cover it up and minimize things.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/canadian-army-soldiers-frostbite-arctic

Edited March 15 by I am Groot

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, User said:

The fact being asserted: The government changed accounting methods to include not only the tree planting, but many other things indirectly part of "defense" spending to bolster the numbers.

That is not fact. NATO sets the standard for what counts as military spending for the purpose of meeting their target   And that includes upkeep and maintenance of housing and military bases whether or not trees were a par of that  

 

1 hour ago, User said:

This was not just some average landscapig costs, it was literally a national effort to plant billions of trees. 

1) The cost of the “national effort to plant . billions of trees”  has not been included in military costs, full stop. 

2) In fact it’s the other way around: the 14,500 trees planted on various military housing and bases and - which are and always have been legitimately included in defense spending - are being counted toward the “2 billion trees” planting program under a 2022 MOU between the military and Natural Resources Canada, i.e. long before Carney was in office and therefore long before his 2% spending pledge for this year.   

 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/08/09/news/department-national-defence-planting-trees-military-housing-sites#:~:text=By,of the federal %232BillionTrees program.

[User]

54 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That is not fact. NATO sets the standard for what counts as military spending for the purpose of meeting their target   And that includes upkeep and maintenance of housing and military bases whether or not trees were a par of that  

More of your subtle dishonest tactics. NATO setting the standards is irrelevant to the claim that Canada changed things up this past year. Nor does this dispute Canada trying to pass off its big tree program, in part, as military spending. All you are doing now is trying to say sure it happened, but it still meets NATO standards. 

58 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

1) The cost of the “national effort to plant . billions of trees”  has not been included in military costs, full stop. 

Well... no, that is the whole point of this discussion, that the investigative reporter looked at the numbers and they are. 

Canada counts tree planting and grants toward NATO spending target but still falls short

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/canada-counts-tree-planting-and-grants-toward-nato-spending-target-but-still-falls-short/71765#:~:text=Canada counts tree planting and,Shared Services Canada

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

2) In fact it’s the other way around: the 14,500 trees planted on various military housing and bases and - which are and always have been legitimately included in defense spending - are being counted toward the “2 billion trees” planting program under a 2022 MOU between the military and Natural Resources Canada, i.e. long before Carney was in office and therefore long before his 2% spending pledge for this year.   

What evidence do you have that the military was planting that many trees BEFORE this program?

The article you cited does not say that. 

"The Department of National Defence will plant nearly 14,500 trees on military housing sites over the next five years as part of the federal government’s two billion trees program."

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The lie is that the government is try to claim “large scale tree planting” programs unrelated to defence as defence costs. I did mot try to defend or justify that because is a lie

 

 

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

[BeaverFever]

16 hours ago, User said:

More of your subtle dishonest tactics. NATO setting the standards is irrelevant to the claim that Canada changed things up this past year. Nor does this dispute Canada trying to pass off its big tree program, in part, as military spending. All you are doing now is trying to say sure it happened, but it still meets NATO standards. 

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  

 

16 hours ago, User said:

Well... no, that is the whole point of this discussion, that the investigative reporter looked at the numbers and they are. 

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. 
 

16 hours ago, User said:

What evidence do you have that the military was planting that many trees BEFORE this program?

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)