jdobbin

I was referring to the 8 Orca patrol boats which have their last delivery days in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_navy And working within the American fleet is the "interoperability" program that Canada has with the United States. No other nation, not even in NATO, can join a U.S. carrier fleet and be considered part of that fleet except Canada's navy. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=836 As for the Kingston-class ships, they are what you would expect from a minesweeper ship. The problem is that it has patrol boat status as well. The two roles are something that Canada has found to be incompatible. This is why the Kingston-clas vessels are to be replaced in 2020. According to the Canada American Strategic Review, you can thank Mulroney for settling on the wrong type of design for a patrol boat. The decision was made in 1993. Can't blame the Liberals for that one. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mcdv-midlife2.htm Overall though, the ships are identified as good in their class, just not as good as Canada needs. You can read the comparisons on the link. The Canadian destroyers are to be retired in 2010. However, they are considered to good enough to act in command and control situations for NATO forces. The one major weakness, helicopters. It was a CBC radio interview regarding deployability. I am still looking to see the link but the officer being interviewed said that 48 hours is the notice needed for a 2 ship deployment. He then went on to say the HMCS Fredericton just recently got back from Africa from a patrol off the coast there and he gave a time frame for a trans-Atlantic trip. It should be noted that Harper has ordered two ships on 48 hour standby. Would he do that if he knew they weren't capable of it? During the Tsunami crisis in Indonesia, he cited the details of how fast Canada could deploy if the Liberals had ordered it. I am trying to find those quotes. At any rate, there are 2 ships on standby. The Conservatives have said in the past that they can mobilize that type of force in 48 hours and the military concurs. As far as the Liberals being totally to blame for the deterioration of the forces and for poor decision made, I think that they certainly take a large of the blame but not all. The Forces themeselves have argued for purchases that have shown they don't much about procurements. The submarimes purchase was driven by demand by the Forces. The Conservatives under Mulroney also have a few things to answer for. Selling the Chinooks and the patrol boats not meeting certain levels of performance for coastal patrol.

"Some" Like who? Inco and Falconbridge.

Sorry, I was going by how the census metropolitan areas work in North America. They cross state and provincial borders for comglomerations of metropolitan populations. If we go straight by city size, Vancouver as a city falls below Winnipeg in population. Ottawa falls below many other cities as well. So, I went by CMA for the figures.

There has been talk all morning on American talk shows about a NATO force being placed in southern Lebanon. CNN asked U.N. John Bolton if the story was true and whether the force would be comprised mainly of European and Canadian troops? He hedged and said that what everyone wanted was for Lebanese troops to take position there but that they lack the capabilities. Anybody getting a queasy feeling that there might be a phone call to Harper to see if the can shake out some people for Lebanon in the near future? Syria has also said they will fight Israel if they approach the Syrian border.

Harper's support might come from what he eventually offers Quebec economically. And that might hurt him more elsewhere in Canada.

That would take what - another $600million of our money? Yuck! The BBC, which has one one time zone, is funded by $6 billion a year. The CBC, with multiple time zones and jurisdictions, less than a billion. At the moment, the CBC is spread too far and asked to do too much. If the Conservative want to cut funding, it will just make it an even worse network. Drop it all together if that is the intent. Most Canadians, according to polls, are not interested in any Canadian broadcasting except perhaps a local news. Perhaps it is time to sell it all.

I think Calgary will replace Ottawa as the fourth largest city in Canada by 2017. There might be changes in the 7th, 8th and 9th places as well but it will depend on immigration and birthrates. Québec could drop to 9th due to birth rates and lower immigration. Hamilton or Winnipeg might rise to 7th due to immigration. 1 Toronto CMA (Mississauga), Ontario 2 Montréal CMA (Laval), Québec 3 Vancouver CMA (Surrey), British Columbia 4 Calgary CMA, Alberta 5 Ottawa–Gatineau CMA, Ontario–Québec 6 Edmonton CMA, Alberta 7 Québec CMA (Lévis), Québec 8 Winnipeg CMA, Manitoba 9 Hamilton CMA (Burlington), Ontario 10 London CMA, Ontario

I agree that many heavier manufacturing industries could reduce employment up till 2017. I think there will be more efforts to process Canadian resources rather ship them run to other places. For example, I think there will be more agricultural processing over the years. I think we are already seeing evidence that Canada doesn't have slaughterhouse capacity when the U.S. shuts the border. I think Canada will continue to be a base for automobile manufacturing due to our location to the U.S., the quality of the work and the access to energy supplies. I believe one of the things that might effect China's ability to grow in leaps and bounds is energy. No energy, no breakneck growth.

So, what do people think will the the top 10 cities for population in Canada in 2017? Any changes? Any surprises?

I'd rather they sell it than see it become a joke. Seriously. I think CBC should end the commercials, get out of sports and receive stable funding from the government. if not, sell it and end Canadian broadcasting altogether.

One problem that I should point out that Jane's said about the Navy was that in missions to the Persion Gulf up until 2003, fifteen of Canada's eighteen warships were involved and over ninety per cent of our sailors. It left little to operate what they called a fairly decent patrol component back on Canada's coasts. And once again, I have to point out that the Ombudsman this week pointed out that the Forces were not getting back to people such as engineers, nurse and doctors who wanted to join the Forces. That is a management problem in the Forces themselves that has to be corrected.

The was Jane's Defence that has Canada's fleet as one of the largest and newest. As I mentioned, it isn't largest in sailors. The frigates and patrol boats are the backbone of the fleet, some of them still to be delivered until 2007. The destroyers were completely refitted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Weaknesses are definitely in helicopters and newer supply ships as well as recruiting (which this week the Ombudsman lay blame on poor follow-up on from the Forces themselves). The Navy still insists that the subs will be a good investment. I think Parliament was convinced that they would be as well. Never trust the British Navy again, I say. Canada's navy is the only navy in the world that can join U.S. fleets in operations around the world. And according to Naval spokesmen, could have been in the Med by the beginning of this week if they had gotten the go ahead on Monday. So having said all that, even critics in the U.S. on Canada's defence usually have a fairly positive outlook on Canada's navy vessels. The Liberals has already started the process for getting replacements for the Sea Kings. The 28 Cyclones should be in place by 2008.

Sadly, the Chinooks that we used to have are being used by the Dutch in...Afghanistan. They were sold by Mulroney. There was talk that we might be able to get some Chinooks off the assembly line but I didn't hear the details.

What Liberals didn't lay blame at Hezbollah's door for the hostilities starting?

I was referring to the person who started the thread but thanks for answering. They originally wrote so much that I was curious what they wanted for themselves at the end of this. At some point, people break free to pull themselves out of their condition but only if they have a personal goal. It is part of the trade offs, as you say. You sacrifice personally in hopes of a better life.

It is Pakistan that I feel represents a destabilizing force on Afghanistan. That, and Afghanistan's grinding poverty, makes me fear that there might be no end in sight.

What are your own personal aspirations for yourself? Are you able to escape the conditions you live and work under?

I'd like to see a reponse from Arbour before passing judgement. If she has more specific, I'd be interested in hearing them.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...2/soldiers.html Two more Canadians killed there today in a suicide bombing. I support the troops there but like a lot of Canadians, I'm getting a bit queasy about the idea that a good deal of the source of the insurgency is in Pakistan and we will never be able to root it out of there without Pakistan's support. Does anyone know how fast the Afghanis are in getting their military and police up to snuff to secure their own country?

It seems to me we got a lot of Somalian refugees in when their country disintegrated in the 1990s. I have no idea if there is still a lot coming in even though the situation there is still awful. As for Jamaican Canadians, I have not heard what the progress has been from last year's meetings when a problem was acknowledged to exist in the community.

When you came back and replied " racism isn't a theory when it manifest itself in hatred" was a contradiction to the dictionary definition of racism as being a theory which I had posted initially. This I considered 'antagonistic' and replied " You just don't get it, do you?" in ( your correct ) an antagonistic way. In this instance I would call it an 'eye for an eye' and requires NO apologies, not on MY part anyways. No apologies needed. There is debate on the subject and it's definitions. As I said to Argus, I'll try not to use antogonistic language when discussing things with you. We can disagree and that will be fine. When I see your contributions, I might ask questions, ask you to define what you mean but I won't assassinate your character.

It isn't over yet and it is probably why the prime minister has got HMCS Preotecteur and HMCS Halifax ready to go.

It is not unreasonable that the Globe may not have had it right. But then again their sources might have been correct. There have been quite a few cases of "shoot the messenger" from the government as diplayed in the U.S. A newspaper's sources would dry up if they revealed all their sources. However, if McKay has evidence that he or the PMO was slandered, he could go to court. Some of the evacuations of people in Lebanon were on ships smaller than Canadian frigates. Had some of those ships been put on standby Friday and departed Monday, they would be well enroute for whatever support was needed. And at 36 ships, the Canadian navy is considered one of the largest and most modern in the world in terms of ships but not in people. In people, the total is less the one U.S. aircraft carrier. Aside from the issue of helicopters, the Navy was capable of doing a sealift. In fact, they are on standby right now. In any event, all airlines were booked and Canadian were trying to get out prior to the airport's destruction. There were just not enough flights.

Not to jump to Argus' defence but I think he was generally in support of the women who immigate from Jamaica doing their best. And the woman in your office sounds like she is doing well by her family. However, even in the Jamaican community in Toronto, there has been questions about where the fathers are in family life. Statistics have shown a disproportionate amount of displacement in their community. I had heard there was effort by Toronto and Ontario to work alongside the community to help families through this tough period but I have heard nothing lately on the progress of that.

This discussion was an improvement over what we had previously. I'll try not antagonize you with accusations. But I will challenge things when I see broader statements that require more context. I am open to seeing a point of view when it is presented with thought.