ExFlyer Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 39 minutes ago, Legato said: Harpers gone, again, Harpers gone. Thank goodness for that too LOL The point was not who is here and who is not, it is who did the most for out Military....and it was not a conservative. Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 1 minute ago, Moonbox said: Too bad this is what you say this every time anyone disagrees with you. Somewhere between the first and the 1000th time you said this, you lost the last shred of intellectual credibility. It's honestly frightening how little self-awareness you guys have. It is what I say when people lie. It just so happens that you and your pal Beaver end up doing this a lot, so now you cry about it when I call you out. The irony is that you then go on to say I have lost intellectual credibility. You never had any. 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 32 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I agree that it's not that bad of change. It is feasible to argue that in some ways the coast guard is sort of militaristic or should tie into that more so than being just a separate police rescue force, sort of kind of. So i don't think it's TOO slimy or anything, it's reasonably fair to do that. Regardless of the icebreakers which they could have used either way. But. It doesn't represent new military spending. It just doesn't. It's just renaming existing spending. So when Carney claims he's "INCREASED" military spending and includes that, i think even you have to agree that's really not a true statement. He just renamed existing spending. I think integrating our coast guard into the military brings the coast guard into line with other coast guards in the world. A step in the right direction. If they are part of the military...it for sure represents military spending. Considering they were not part of the military before it is certainly military spending to support them. Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Army Guy Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 2 hours ago, BeaverFever said: As has already been explained many times it’s not a “play”. These trees were planned years ago, before Carney and before any pledge to spend 2% and its a trivial amount of money. You guys are just desperate to find any excuse The Liberal government has constantly added to what is counted towards the 2 % of GDP goal, going back a full decade, PBO office which has accounts for all government spending differs from how DND accounts it contributions towards NATO spending. PBO office calculates our % of GDP at only 1.58... Recent NATO Contribution Analysis (2025–2026) The PBO currently tracks DND's progress toward two primary NATO targets: This projection contradicted the federal government's own forecast of 1.76% for the same period. The PBO attributed this discrepancy to what it labeled an "erroneous" GDP forecast by the government, which assumed a four-year economic recession that significantly underestimated Canada's economic growthA recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in October 2025 projected that Canada’s defence spending would reach 1.58% of GDP by 2029-30. Parliamentary Budget Officer +1 Current Liberal government reporting has expanded in the last decade to include the following. When reporting to NATO, the Department of National Defence (DND) includes expenditures that meet the specific NATO definition of "defence expenditure," which often results in a higher reported amount than what is strictly found in DND’s own internal budget. In March 2026, it was reported that Canada met the 2% GDP spending benchmark for 2025 with a total investment of just over $63 billion. HillNotes +2 Core DND Budget Inclusions The majority (approximately 80%) of reported spending comes directly from DND and covers these primary categories: RBC Wealth Management +1 Personnel Costs: Salaries and benefits for members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Operations and Maintenance: Funding for military operations, missions (e.g., Operation REASSURANCE), and equipment sustainment. Major Equipment (Capital): Purchases of new assets such as the River-class destroyers, F-35 fighters, and P-8A Poseidon aircraft. Infrastructure: Construction and maintenance of military bases and facilities. Research and Development (R&D): Costs for defence-related R&D projects, even if they do not result in final production. www.nato.int +5 Eligible Other Government Department (OGD) Costs To meet NATO's reporting standards, Canada includes "elements other than pure DND spending" from other federal entities: HillNotes +1 Veterans Affairs Canada: Direct payments and pensions to retired CAF members. Global Affairs Canada: Contributions to NATO’s military and civil budgets, and UN peacekeeping mission costs. Canadian Coast Guard: Activities specifically related to national defence. Communications Security Establishment (CSE): Cyber defence and signals intelligence. Shared Services Canada: IT support provided directly to DND and the CAF. Military Aid: Financial and military assistance provided to allies or partners, such as military aid to Ukraine. Parliamentary Budget Officer +6 Direct NATO Contributions DND specifically earmarks funds for direct NATO-managed budgets: Canada.ca +1 Military Budget: Supports international military staff and NATO's command structure. Security Investment Program (NSIP): Funds capital costs for communications and infrastructure like airfields. Common Funding: Canada’s agreed-upon share (roughly 6.7%) of NATO’s collective operating costs. Canada.ca +2 RCMP portions of their budget are also included... Relation to NATO Spending Targets While they are separate budgets, some portions of RCMP spending (specifically related to international or national security operations) can sometimes be included in Canada's reporting of total defence expenditures to meet NATO's 2% of GDP target. However, this is a reporting categorization for international comparisons and does not mean the RCMP is part of the DND's internal organizational budget I think the government has shown that it will grab at any opportunity to increase spending when there is no actual increase to the Military over all budget...but rather what is reported to NATO. SO while liberals are celebrating the news of hitting our 2 % GDP commitment, when it was them that had signed on to a commitment to reach this goal in 2014....to meet 2 % by 2024 ....to which they got close 1.42 % of GDP in 2024...and now PBO office is saying thats not true....that we are way short at 1.58 % of GDP...Who do we believe....PBO office, or a NATO report that relies on Liberal figures... 1 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Legato Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 15 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Thank goodness for that too LOL The point was not who is here and who is not, it is who did the most for out Military....and it was not a conservative. You were trying to use Harper as a foil and as usual failed. Fob it off, old chap. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 26 Author Report Posted March 26 29 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Too bad this is what you say this every time anyone disagrees with you. Followed by 29 minutes ago, Moonbox said: It's honestly frightening how little self-awareness you guys have. Which is literally what you say whenever someone disagrees with you, you said it to me earlier and say it to people frequently LOL ohhhh the irony 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: I think integrating our coast guard into the military brings the coast guard into line with other coast guards in the world. A step in the right direction. If they are part of the military...it for sure represents military spending. Considering they were not part of the military before it is certainly military spending to support them. How so, they are not armed, or equipped to protect the country...nor is it being planed to be armed, or equipped, they do not play a role in defending the country, they can't even do a fisheries patrol all that has happened to date is they budget is folded into the militaries...to boast our % of GDP in NATO spending ... it is a political move that accomplishes nothing.... 1 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted March 26 Author Report Posted March 26 28 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: I think integrating our coast guard into the military brings the coast guard into line with other coast guards in the world. A step in the right direction. You could make a strong case for that for sure, but the point is it's not 'new' military spending if you just roll the existing spending into 'military' spending. 29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: If they are part of the military...it for sure represents military spending. They're not part of the military. They're still the coast guard and not a military organization nor a part of the military command. This would be more budgetary than anything. Nothing really changes in the real world. So they're not part of the military. They WOULD be a part of military spending .... but what i said very specifically is that they would NOT represent NEW military spending. And that's what's being proposed Look at it this way. IF the coast guard was .25 percent of gdp, and our actual military spending was 1.75 gdp and we'd been spending that all along, and you claim you want to increase military spending to 2 percent... if all you do is say "well i'm now just adding the existing ,25 to the 1.75", then you haven't spent a single penny more than you were before. You have not increased military spending to 2 percent, you've just added other spending to the military spending to make it look like 2 percent. But not a penny additional was actually spent. You see what i mean i'm sure. The 2 percent isn't real, it's just 'rebranding' previous spending. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 32 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Thank goodness for that too LOL The point was not who is here and who is not, it is who did the most for out Military....and it was not a conservative. Was Chretien a liberal?, the author of the decade of darkness....ya he did a lot for the military....Which liberal are you talking about....and what did they do for the military.....was it Justin who told our vets you are asking for more than we can give...YA he did a lot for the military....Carney has promised a lot of things....and if he comes through then you can brag, but right now liberals over all have not treated the military well except when looking for cuts ... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
LinkSoul60 Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: The Liberal government has constantly added to what is counted towards the 2 % of GDP goal, going back a full decade, PBO office which has accounts for all government spending differs from how DND accounts it contributions towards NATO spending. PBO office calculates our % of GDP at only 1.58... You missed the words 'current projections'....meaning it's a forecast, not a factual number PBO noted that while NATO military spending targets are 2% of GDP, current projections, when corrected for GDP forecasts, suggest military spending will only reach 1.58% of GDP by 2029-30. 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Who do we believe....PBO office, or a NATO report that relies on Liberal figures... Suppose you have to go with the NATO report given it's in dollars today, not in 2029-30 'projected' dollars. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said: You missed the words 'current projections'....meaning it's a forecast, not a factual number No I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the rush that the government has been under which we've already documented to throw additional spending in there to try and reach the amount.It looks like the GDP is going to come in less than expected which isn't exactly good news although it does make it easier to hit 2% of GDP But as I saidthis is a fact you just seem to be bound and determined to ignore, when you do things like roll billions of dollars of spending on the coast guard into the military all you've done is change the name of the spending, you haven't actually increased military spending. If I'm spending $10 on apples and $10 on oranges and I turn around and say that oranges are actually apples so therefore I'm spending $20 on apples so i've increased apple spending by double, that doesn't really make it true and it doesn't mean that I've spent any more money than I was before I understand this involves math but do you understand what I'm saying? That if all you've done is change the label on the spending you haven't actually increased spending? 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 2 minutes ago, herbie said: still arguing black is white, I see Black AND white. And in this case it is. You had 7 words and you still managed to eff it up 1 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
LinkSoul60 Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: No I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the rush that the government has been under which we've already documented to throw additional spending in there to try and reach the amount.It looks like the GDP is going to come in less than expected which isn't exactly good news although it does make it easier to hit 2% of GDP But as I saidthis is a fact you just seem to be bound and determined to ignore, when you do things like roll billions of dollars of spending on the coast guard into the military all you've done is change the name of the spending, you haven't actually increased military spending. If I'm spending $10 on apples and $10 on oranges and I turn around and say that oranges are actually apples so therefore I'm spending $20 on apples so i've increased apple spending by double, that doesn't really make it true and it doesn't mean that I've spent any more money than I was before I understand this involves math but do you understand what I'm saying? That if all you've done is change the label on the spending you haven't actually increased spending? 1.9% or 2.1% it doesn't matter, we're spending on our military which is long overdue, including under your guy Harper. You probably won't like how it will be paid for, but can't have it all. 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 (edited) 15 hours ago, Legato said: You were trying to use Harper as a foil and as usual failed. Fob it off, old chap. Nope...not using Harper as a foil...just trying to debunk that he was good for the Military. "the Harper government reduced military spending between 2012 and 2015, cutting approximately $1.1 billion by 2014-15 and lowering defense spending to 1% of GDP, the lowest in Canadian history at the time. While initially pledging to increase funding, the Conservative government enforced cuts, cancelled procurement projects like Close Combat Vehicles, and saw billions in approved budgets go unspent." Edited March 27 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
ExFlyer Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 (edited) 15 hours ago, Army Guy said: How so, they are not armed, or equipped to protect the country...nor is it being planed to be armed, or equipped, they do not play a role in defending the country, they can't even do a fisheries patrol all that has happened to date is they budget is folded into the militaries...to boast our % of GDP in NATO spending ... it is a political move that accomplishes nothing.... I disagree, moving the coast guard into the Military is smart and can make the coast guard an effective branch of Canadian sovereignty and defence. I never said they are not "armed" but, since you brought it up, what weaponry does the coast guard have? I have worked with the coast guard many times in my career, while in Comox and in Gander and can say they are not "military" in any way. They are most effective on the East coast with the ice breakers but on the West coast, primarily fisheries and lighthouse support. Their helicopters do not even havehoists so they cannot do rescues at sea. They are not considered military or even a police force. They cannot do drug interdiction as the do not have anything but a few small arms. Until integration, it was considered a civilian fleet. Coast Guards in other maritime countries are all part of the Military. While you may think it is political (whatever that is supposed to mean), it is a smart thing to do. Edited March 27 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
ExFlyer Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 14 hours ago, Army Guy said: Was Chretien a liberal?, the author of the decade of darkness....ya he did a lot for the military....Which liberal are you talking about....and what did they do for the military.....was it Justin who told our vets you are asking for more than we can give...YA he did a lot for the military....Carney has promised a lot of things....and if he comes through then you can brag, but right now liberals over all have not treated the military well except when looking for cuts ... Yes, Chretien was a liberal. He was PM when we purchased the Cormorant SAR helicopter. Also the subs from England and replacement for the old H model Hercs and for some air to air refuelling Hercs. As well as Chinooks for Afghanistan. He also was the one that bought into the F35 development program. Justin began the process for the Sea King replacement and procurement project and got them delivered in his tenure. As well as the Fixed Wing SAR program. And Herc J model procurement. And C-17 procurement. I cannot speak to Army of Navy issues but...they did quite a bit., maybe not enough but far from "decade of darkness". Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
John Stone Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 15 hours ago, CdnFox said: I agree that it's not that bad of change. It is feasible to argue that in some ways the coast guard is sort of militaristic or should tie into that more so than being just a separate police rescue force, sort of kind of. So i don't think it's TOO slimy or anything, it's reasonably fair to do that. Regardless of the icebreakers which they could have used either way. But. It doesn't represent new military spending. It just doesn't. It's just renaming existing spending. So when Carney claims he's "INCREASED" military spending and includes that, i think even you have to agree that's really not a true statement. He just renamed existing spending. Re: It doesn't represent new military spending. exactly! 2 Quote
John Stone Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Yes, Chretien was a liberal. He was PM when we purchased the Cormorant SAR helicopter. Also the subs from England and replacement for the old H model Hercs and for some air to air refuelling Hercs. As well as Chinooks for Afghanistan. He also was the one that bought into the F35 development program. Justin began the process for the Sea King replacement and procurement project and got them delivered in his tenure. As well as the Fixed Wing SAR program. And Herc J model procurement. And C-17 procurement. I cannot speak to Army of Navy issues but...they did quite a bit., maybe not enough but far from "decade of darkness". The Canadian navy sought to acquire conventionally powered submarines following the cancellation of the so-called, Canadian nuclear-powered sub program? In 1988(??) the Canadian government announced the potential acquisition of the Upholder class from the Brits. Procurement costs were to be 750 mil – these were used hulls and it was expected to cost that amount again (at least) to make them serviceable. Under the Justin Trudeau’s government the operational life of each Victoria-class boat was to be extended by one additional "life-cycle" (or by about eight years).This was designed to permit the operation of the fleet into about the early to mid-2030s. (???). OMG! These hulls have seen very little service – basically hangar Queens, Kanada lacks the technical ability to perform corrective / preventative maintenance as evidenced by the Chicoutimi disaster. Likely the reason for Canada to acquire subs post retiring the Oberon class was to keep a seat warm at International conferences. Oh, Kanada! 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 3 minutes ago, John Stone said: The Canadian navy sought to acquire conventionally powered submarines following the cancellation of the so-called, Canadian nuclear-powered sub program? In 1988(??) the Canadian government announced the potential acquisition of the Upholder class from the Brits. Procurement costs were to be 750 mil – these were used hulls and it was expected to cost that amount again (at least) to make them serviceable. Under the Justin Trudeau’s government the operational life of each Victoria-class boat was to be extended by one additional "life-cycle" (or by about eight years).This was designed to permit the operation of the fleet into about the early to mid-2030s. (???). OMG! These hulls have seen very little service – basically hangar Queens, Kanada lacks the technical ability to perform corrective / preventative maintenance as evidenced by the Chicoutimi disaster. Likely the reason for Canada to acquire subs post retiring the Oberon class was to keep a seat warm at International conferences. Oh, Kanada! Never said buying used British subs was a good idea or even a smart idea...just saying Liberals did it The reason I even mentioned it was that on the same day the defence minister was in England espousing the great deal that was made for old used subs, we (me included) were in Milan taking delivery of the first SAR Cormorant from Augusta with the highly regarded secretary of the Canadian Embassy as a the official Canadian government representative LOL Oh and, there was only a white paper "proposal" in the late 80's to look at buying 10 or so nuclear powered subs but I think the US stepped on that idea LOL Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
John Stone Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Never said buying used British subs was a good idea or even a smart idea...just saying Liberals did it The reason I even mentioned it was that on the same day the defence minister was in England espousing the great deal that was made for old used subs, we (me included) were in Milan taking delivery of the first SAR Cormorant from Augusta with the highly regarded secretary of the Canadian Embassy as a the official Canadian government representative LOL Oh and, there was only a white paper "proposal" in the late 80's to look at buying 10 or so nuclear powered subs but I think the US stepped on that idea LOL 6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Never said buying used British subs was a good idea or even a smart idea...just saying Liberals did it The reason I even mentioned it was that on the same day the defence minister was in England espousing the great deal that was made for old used subs, we (me included) were in Milan taking delivery of the first SAR Cormorant from Augusta with the highly regarded secretary of the Canadian Embassy as a the official Canadian government representative LOL Oh and, there was only a white paper "proposal" in the late 80's to look at buying 10 or so nuclear powered subs but I think the US stepped on that idea LOL re: 'proposal' - yeah, fodder for the ignorant domestic audience? No dearth of that flavor. Canada? Nuclear subs? bwahahahah - gasp! Edited March 27 by John Stone 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Stone said: re: 'proposal' - yeah, fodder for the ignorant domestic audience? No dearth of that flavor. Canada? Nuclear subs? bwahahahah - gasp! I was in the Military for 35 years. I saw and read many many "proposals" and "papers". Most were just as you said, for the domestic audience. In all my years, the Military was not "that flavour" for the Canadian public. The only time the Military got any real sympathy was when we started bringing home soldiers in coffins from Afghanistan.... and that was short lived. :( Edited March 27 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Moonbox Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 17 hours ago, User said: It is what I say when people lie. It just so happens that you and your pal Beaver end up doing this a lot, so now you cry about it when I call you out. It just so happens that anyone who disagrees with you gets called a liar, so only liars disagree with you I guess. What a child-like grasp of reasoning. In addition to me and "my pal Beaver", why don't I start a list of all the people you cry liar at? Maybe after the first few hundred names you'd start getting some actual perspective on your behavior...but no. That's unlikely for someone like you. 🤡 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 10 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: 1.9% or 2.1% it doesn't matter, we're spending on our military which is long overdue, including under your guy Harper. You probably won't like how it will be paid for, but can't have it all. I actually do approve of spending on the military, but the point is.... are we? We are on paper but in the real world? You can't just change the label on a 10 billion dollar coast guard program and pretend 'military' spending actually went up 10 billion dollars. Not that i'm opposed to the move but you can see what i mean, it's not actually new money. Money on 'trees' isn't real military spending etc. I mean i get that it's important to give the impression we're hitting our nato targets for political reasons but that doesn't actually benefit our soldiers. I heard they were getting a raise, don't know if that happened, but that would be nice. But where's the AA systems, the armoured personnel stuff, and how much of what we bought went to the ukraine? That's where the aa and wheeled vehicles we bought previously went. I'd be fine with spending 2 percent on our miilitary ir we were actually getting more 'military' out of it, new gear and guns and such, but i don't think that's what's happening by and large. 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Never said buying used British subs was a good idea or even a smart idea...just saying Liberals did it The only thing worse than spending no money on the military is spending completely wasted money on the military. Absolutely nothing to be proud of. That could have gone to improving wages or purchasing better gear for our guys and instead it literally got sunk 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Yes, Chretien was a liberal. He was PM when we purchased the Cormorant SAR helicopter He also cancelled the order for the sea king replacements Immediately upon taking office in 1993, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien cancelled a -billion contract to purchase 50 EH-101 helicopters (designed to replace aging Sea Kings), calling them a "Cadillac" in a time of fiscal restraint. This political move cost taxpayers roughly million in penalties, causing significant procurement delays So he cancelled more helecopters than he bought, and delayed the military getting replacements by a decade or more. Justin cancelled the purchase plan for the f35 harper started, and now a decade later they're just going to start buying them THe liberals have a long history of cancelling purchases the Conservatives have made, waiting a decade then announcing the same purchases. They are NOT a 'net' spender on the military 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.