Canada misses NATO 2% gdp defence spending target despite promises from Carney government

[ironstone]

30 Canadian soldiers suffer frostbite during Arctic exercise.

I have heard stories in the past about the poor quality or lack of proper equipment for our soldiers so this reinforces the narrative about government neglect for the men and women serving this country.

 

Department of National Defence spokesperson Nick Drescher Brown said ”the nature of the injuries was consistent with those expected, both in type and severity, during major operations in the North.”

But soldiers said the incident showed poor planning and leadership and inadequate equipment.

https://torontosun.com/public-service/defence-watch/canadian-army-soldiers-frostbite-arctic/wcm/6353b1d3-3adb-414b-99df-3287c6e26252

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

Funny how you guys on the left always react with anger when you read something you don't like.🙂

Yes we find stupidity aggravating and we don’t like it. 

[Army Guy]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

You don’t know what you’re talking about. We have a free trade agreement with US and EU. Any tariffs that existed prior to Trump’s trade war were mutually agreed upon tariffs that were specified in those trade agreements including the one Trump negotiated with us in his first term and called “the greatest deal ever”  

And we don’t have blanket tariffs on any country much less the entire world because everyone with an IQ higher than 10 understands that is completely stupid. It’s so stupid you might get a FIFA Prize for it. 

While we don't have blanket tariffs we do have a SH!t ton of tariffs imposed around the globe...

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-54.011/index.html

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2026/01-99/01-99-2026-eng.pdf

[herbie]

So let's get rid of many more without insisting we adopt their standards and they ours. Like snivelling over a tiny dairy market and accepting their lowly food, environmental, health and employment standards.

If flipflops are cheaper to make there and two by fours here, so be it. If EU car safety standards are good enough here, we won't insist they're good enough somewhere else.

[Army Guy]

46 minutes ago, ironstone said:

30 Canadian soldiers suffer frostbite during Arctic exercise.

I have heard stories in the past about the poor quality or lack of proper equipment for our soldiers so this reinforces the narrative about government neglect for the men and women serving this country.

 

Department of National Defence spokesperson Nick Drescher Brown said ”the nature of the injuries was consistent with those expected, both in type and severity, during major operations in the North.”

But soldiers said the incident showed poor planning and leadership and inadequate equipment.

https://torontosun.com/public-service/defence-watch/canadian-army-soldiers-frostbite-arctic/wcm/6353b1d3-3adb-414b-99df-3287c6e26252

Some of the new artic kit is crap...new winter sleeping bag, is garbage, the old one was a lot better but heavy and was a three piece system....the major problem was not all troops are given winter gear, like the parka, instead they make due with a combination of fall jacket/ and fleece, same as the heavy bib overall, just not enough in the system for issue to everyone...

Now did these troops have access to artic kit not sure...but in my days in Petawawa not everyone was issued the extreme cold kit...and it gets cold in Petawawa in the winter with temps getting as low as -40-45...

There is not much money for training these days, basic winter warfare is only a couple of weeks long....you really can't train someone to survive in the winter in that time and going north of 60 you need to have your poop in a pile...So soldiers and leadership could be lacking the proper training not saying they are but there is a possibility........and you really can't teach all the subject indoor in a classroom....Our unit use to do 2 maybe 3 weeks on ex in the winter...not much time really...considering that back in the day the army was on exercise 8 to 9 months out of the year...today you might be lucky with 6 weeks...summer and winter...

 

[User]

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yes we find stupidity aggravating and we don’t like it. 

Well, your behavior here suggests you love engaging in it. 

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Yes we find stupidity aggravating and we don’t like it. 

"Yes we find opinions contrary to our own aggravating and we don't like it"

Fixed it for you.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

Obviously, not all money in the defense budget goes towards weapons and other hardware. But the question is, what percentage does go to new hardware or any kind of combat upgrades?

And I'm sorry but someone's going to have to explain to me how large-scale planting of trees represents military spending.

[BeaverFever]

On 3/13/2026 at 3:23 PM, Army Guy said:

While we don't have blanket tariffs we do have a SH!t ton of tariffs imposed around the globe...

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-54.011/index.html

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2026/01-99/01-99-2026-eng.pdf

Not a sh-t ton. A normal amount.

We don’t have free trade agreements with every nation on earth that is normal. In fact we have more free trade agreements than just about any other country I believe. 

And even with the countries we DO have free trade agreements with, the agreements have specific and targeted exclusions on very specific products for very specific reasons.  That is also normal.  

 

Edited March 15 by BeaverFever

[WestCanMan]

Mr Hyde: "I'M AN ELBOWS-UP BADASS!! ME AN' MY EURO-BROS FORMED AN ALLIANCE TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE US BECAUSE WE DON'T TRUST THE US ANYMORE, AND WE ARE ALL GONNA SPEND 5% OF OUR GDP ON THE MILITARY !!!!!!!! FIGHT DA POWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!."

Procto-Carney: "We're only spending 1.5% 👱‍♀️ Help me Obi-Trump!"

[BeaverFever]

On 3/13/2026 at 5:56 PM, CdnFox said:

And I'm sorry but someone's going to have to explain to me how large-scale planting of trees represents military spending.

That’s already been explained to you. It landscaping that’s happening on military bases and military housing sites, not “large scale planting”. Your insistence in spread fake news even when you’ve been educated to the contrary is astounding. 

On 3/13/2026 at 4:05 PM, ironstone said:

"Yes we find opinions contrary to our own aggravating and we don't like it"

Fixed it for you.

Well your opinions are both stupidity and contrary to ours. So both statements are true. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s already been explained to you. It landscaping that’s happening on military bases and military housing sites, not “large scale planting”. Your insistence in spread fake news even when you’ve been educated to the contrary is astounding. 

Nothing fake about it. It is called the National 2 Billion Trees Program. 

That seems pretty "large-scale"

https://natural-resources.canada.ca/forest-forestry/2-billion-trees-program

 

[WestCanMan]

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s already been explained to you. It landscaping that’s happening on military bases and military housing sites, not “large scale planting”. Your insistence in spread fake news even when you’ve been educated to the contrary is astounding. 

Well your opinions are both stupidity and contrary to ours. So both statements are true. 

I woulda swore that you could speak English before.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s already been explained to you. It landscaping that’s happening on military bases and military housing sites, not “large scale planting”. Your insistence in spread fake news even when you’ve been educated to the contrary is astounding. 

 

Nobody said crap to me about it so lie number one.

And it does seem that they're actually talking about a lot of tree planting. I'm sorry but you don't spend billions of dollars planting trees on military housing sites. Trees cost about $150 to plant perjury with any decent professional landscaping service. Which is all you would use if you were doing it on a base, we're not talking about in the wilderness or something

This is 2 billion in trees. Are you telling me we need a 13,300,000 trees planted to make housing look nice for the military?

Give your head a shake you liar

 

[Venandi]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It landscaping that’s happening on military bases and military housing sites, not “large scale planting”. Your insistence in spread fake news even when you’ve been educated to the contrary is astounding. 

By all accounts this effort involved 3 bases: Dundurn, Wainwright and Moose Jaw and 14,500 trees were planted at a cost of some $200,000.

There are 170 housing units in Wainwright, and 128 between Moose Jaw and Dundurn which would mean that an average of 48 trees were planted per lot.... which is simply not reasonable.

I had a long discussion with an AI bot and broke it all down for the critter... it initially argued the point (much like the discussion here) but finally admitted that this was part of the 2 billion tree project and that the landscaping model for military housing made no sense.... it took me a beer to get there:

It started off saying that only two bases were involved:

Yes, you're correct. The assertion that 14,450 trees were planted in relation to just 128 housing units (40 in Dundurn and 88 in Moose Jaw) is indeed disproportionate and doesn't make sense numerically. 

Then:

Locations Included:

• 15 Wing Moose Jaw (near Moose Jaw)
• CFB Dundurn
• Wainwright, Alberta

In order for the numbers to make sense, we had to expand into the Dundurn and Wainwright training areas and finally got to this:

The total number of trees allocated for planting across these sites is part of the larger commitment to support Canada’s environmental goals, specifically contributing to the federal government’s Two Billion Trees program.

Is the critter right? Well, I don't actually know and I'd be hard pressed to say I care.... all I would suggest is that a smattering of reasonableness be applied to such things.

The spectacle of CE planting 48 trees in a small PMQ lot strikes me as one of the more ridiculous things I've seen them undertake but who am I to argue tree logic with a beaver. 

Apparently "military training areas" are now referred to as "green spaces" (cool eh?) and it looks like that's where the disconnect lies.

Let's amend all the maps and call that NATO spending too.

 

 

 

Edited March 15 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Venandi said:

By all accounts this effort involved 3 bases: Dundurn, Wainwright and Moose Jaw and 14,500 trees were planted at a cost of some $200,000.

There are 170 housing units in Wainwright, and 128 between Moose Jaw and Dundurn which would mean that an average of 48 trees were planted per lot.... which is simply not reasonable.

I had a long discussion with an AI bot and broke it all down for the critter... it initially argued the point (much like the discussion here) but finally admitted that this was part of the 2 billion tree project and that the landscaping model for military housing made no sense.... it took me a beer to get there:

It started off saying that only two bases were involved:

Yes, you're correct. The assertion that 14,450 trees were planted in relation to just 128 housing units (40 in Dundurn and 88 in Moose Jaw) is indeed disproportionate and doesn't make sense numerically. 

Then:

Locations Included:

• 15 Wing Moose Jaw (near Moose Jaw)
• CFB Dundurn
• Wainwright, Alberta

In order for the numbers to make sense, we had to expand into the Dundurn and Wainwright training areas and finally got to this:

The total number of trees allocated for planting across these sites is part of the larger commitment to support Canada’s environmental goals, specifically contributing to the federal government’s Two Billion Trees program.

Is the critter right? Well, I don't actually know and I'd be hard pressed to say I care.... all I would suggest is that a smattering of reasonableness be applied to such things.

The spectacle of CE planting 48 trees in a small PMQ lot strikes me as one of the more ridiculous things I've seen them undertake but who am I to argue tree logic with a beaver. 

Apparently "military training areas" are now referred to as "green spaces" (cool eh?) and it looks like that's where the disconnect lies.

Let's amend all the maps and call that NATO spending too.

 

 

 

That's all 100 perent true but they also rolled some of the liberals "tree planting' initiive into it as well, completely aside from those numbers.  Apperently 'fighting climate change' is partly considered 'military spending'.  Sort of like how they're considering fixing roads and highways to be 'strategic'. 

[BeaverFever]

Meanwhile back in reality conservative fake news FAILS AGAIN 

 

Canada officially hits NATO defence spending target of 2% GDP

 

After more than a decade of plodding progress, Canada has officially hit the NATO spending target of 2 per cent GDP set in 2014.

According to data in NATO’s annual report, Canada spent more than $60 billion on defence in 2025 – an amount that adds up to 2.01 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product.
 

Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to mark the historic milestone in Halifax later this morning while touring a Royal Canadian Navy frigate. The end of the federal government’s fiscal year comes on March 31, but spending data was submitted to NATO earlier.

This year’s annual report shows that all 32 alliance members have met the 2 per cent guideline set during the 2014 Wales Summit.

In 2024, Canada was spending 1.47 per cent of GDP on defence. It was one of 11 member nations that did not meet its NATO obligations. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/canada-officially-hits-nato-2-gdp-target/

[John Johnston]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Meanwhile back in reality conservative fake news FAILS AGAIN 

 

Canada officially hits NATO defence spending target of 2% GDP

 

 

After more than a decade of plodding progress, Canada has officially hit the NATO spending target of 2 per cent GDP set in 2014.

According to data in NATO’s annual report, Canada spent more than $60 billion on defence in 2025 – an amount that adds up to 2.01 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product.
 

 

Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to mark the historic milestone in Halifax later this morning while touring a Royal Canadian Navy frigate. The end of the federal government’s fiscal year comes on March 31, but spending data was submitted to NATO earlier.

This year’s annual report shows that all 32 alliance members have met the 2 per cent guideline set during the 2014 Wales Summit.

In 2024, Canada was spending 1.47 per cent of GDP on defence. It was one of 11 member nations that did not meet its NATO obligations. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/canada-officially-hits-nato-2-gdp-target/

The Cons will have problems with this anyway. It's what they do. 

[BeaverFever]

On 3/15/2026 at 5:50 AM, Venandi said:

By all accounts this effort involved 3 bases: Dundurn, Wainwright and Moose Jaw and 14,500 trees were planted at a cost of some $200,000.

Those 3 locations were just for the first 8000 trees .  The full 14,500 plan includes future planting, IIRC by 2027

 

On 3/15/2026 at 5:50 AM, Venandi said:

There are 170 housing units in Wainwright, and 128 between Moose Jaw and Dundurn which would mean that an average of 48 trees were planted per lot.... which is simply not reasonable

My chat gpt  tells me there are more than 500 housing units in Wainright and more than 400 in moose jaw. 
But regardless its not just trees on housing lots it’s also for common areas, parks,  soil erosion and windbreaks on the property.  Keep in mind that in the open prairies you are building tree canopies and tree lines from scratch not simply filling in thin patches or replacing deadfall  

 

On 3/15/2026 at 5:50 AM, Venandi said:

Let's amend all the maps and call that NATO spending too.

it is NATO not Carney who determines whether a country is meeting the 2% target and if this egregious $200k out of a $63 billion budget is not acceptable defence spending it will be excluded   Every military in the world spends defence budget money on housing and landscaping and land management and among other things and I sincerely doubt it is explicitly forbidden from the 2% total.
 

Note that NATO has a separate spending target for major equipment and R&D., which is that 20% of the defence budget must be spent on those items, which in thais case would be $12.6 Bn. Did we spend that much on capital equipment and r&d in fy 2025?  Hard to say as the announcements are for multiyear expenditures and didn’t make clear in what cash flows in what year but I am guessing no. EDIT:  Nato report shows we spent 21.2% so we met this target as well. 

Edited March 26 by BeaverFever

[Venandi]

56 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

My chat gpt  tells me there are more than 500 housing units in Wainright and more than 400 in moose jaw. 

The difference is barrack block rooms (apartments for lack of a better word); I only counted PMQs because they have small lots where trees could actually be planted. When I did the search I specifically searched for "PMQs" but have no way of confirming that the information returned was either current or correct.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate trees with you or the appropriateness of counting them toward the 2%. It's a clever idea, it kills two birds with one stone and it's exactly the sort of thing I would have done myself since the military can't actually spend the 2% anyway.

The only difference is if I did it you likely wouldn't be defending it. At best the idea is a bit "shady" and frankly, my only real interest is in who is defending it now.

If this was a conservative play the proponents for and against planting "assault style trees" would swap... and I'd still say it was clever and I'd still call it "shady."

 

Edited March 26 by Venandi

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, John Johnston said:

The Cons will have problems with this anyway. It's what they do. 

I can't even call them cons.  That used to means something beyond culture war screeching and conspiracies.   

[User]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Meanwhile back in reality conservative fake news FAILS AGAIN 

How was any of this fake news? The fact that you are finally meeting it now doesn't make it fake news to call out that you failed to do so before. From the article that started this thread:

Actual defence spending totalled $45.4 billion, leaving Ottawa roughly $4.6 billion short of the commitment it had vowed to meet by December 31.

[herbie]

Prime Minister Carney announces Canada has achieved the NATO 2% defence spending target

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

Prime Minister Carney announces Canada has achieved the NATO 2% defence spending target

Carney announces a lot of things    But he never really achieves. 

[herbie]

He just DID

Can't, won't, didn't aren't everyone's constant vocabulary.