Harper Sinks Navy

Fortunata · August 23, 2008

The getting-to-be-regular Friday night releases of bad news by the Harper government now has cancelled the ships they loudly announced in broad daylight:

Two major programs to rebuild Canada's maritime capabilities were thrown into limbo Friday night after the Conservative government scuttled its multibillion-dollar plans to purchase a resupply ship for the navy and new patrol vessels for the coast guard.
In a news release, the government announced it had rejected the bids it had received for the navy's $2.9-billion Joint Support Ship project. Both bids were significantly over the established budget for the shipbuilding program, the release stated.

Canwest News Service reported in May that the government had rejected the bids but federal officials claimed the procurement process was continuing.

..

The navy currently uses two 40-year-old ships to refuel and resupply its frigates and destroyers. The Joint Support Ships were to replace those vessels by 2012.

..

The late night Friday release was in sharp contrast to the fanfare that had accompanied the Harper government's announcements for both the Joint Support Ship project and the coast guard vessel purchase.

The government had used the Joint Support Ship project to kick off its Canada First re-equipment strategy in the summer of 2006.

..

Gordon O'Connor, defence minister at the time, heralded the event as a new beginning to transform the Canadian military for the future.

At the time, O'Connor said the project showed the Conservative government was "committed to getting the right equipment for the Canadian Forces,

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...7e-a4295bb7d34c

New beginning? Committed?

If we need the ships we need the ships. Harper needs to quit spending so much money mailing out propaganda and put it to use where we need it.

Smallc · August 23, 2008

The getting-to-be-regular Friday night releases of bad news by the Harper government now has cancelled the ships they loudly announced in broad daylight:
New beginning? Committed?

If we need the ships we need the ships. Harper needs to quit spending so much money mailing out propaganda and put it to use where we need it.

That is simply terrible news.

jdobbin · August 23, 2008

The getting-to-be-regular Friday night releases of bad news by the Harper government now has cancelled the ships they loudly announced in broad daylight:
New beginning? Committed?

Typical late night Friday announcements on the part of this government. Have they no sense of shame after all those years criticizing the Liberals over such things?

If we need the ships we need the ships. Harper needs to quit spending so much money mailing out propaganda and put it to use where we need it.

I agree. I accept that we need the ships. It is hard to believe that they are dropping it in the middle of the night as they are.

Wilber · August 23, 2008

It's a shame, it always seems to be the military that gets it in the neck first whenever money gets tight. The Navy will finally be getting its second choice in helicopters, 15 years after its first choice was canceled.

normanchateau · August 23, 2008

Harper and Flaherty have been spending like drunken sailors during the past two years. How ironic that now they chose to punish the Canadian Navy.

Oh well, this will probably gain them votes in Quebec.

eyeball · August 23, 2008

That is simply terrible news.

This is the best news I've heard all day/night or whatever.

Wild Bill · August 23, 2008

You know, this sort of thing is an old game. A government lets out a tender but it comes back and the best deal is not what they really wanted, like a foreign firm would win or even a Winnipeg outfit instead of one in Quebec.

So you put the tender out again with some revisions. It might take a couple of tries but eventually you get who you want to win.

Even better in this case, if the Liberals go ape over the idea of not supporting the navy then when they DO get an acceptable tender the Liberals will be in no position to criticize.

I'm willing to see how this one plays out! It may well prove interesting...

normanchateau · August 23, 2008

This is the best news I've heard all day/night or whatever.

Why? Do you think it will cost Harper votes?

eyeball · August 23, 2008

Why? Do you think it will cost Harper votes?

No, I just think there are more important things we need to spend our money on. Defence should be low on our list of priorities because there is nobody threatening us.

I'd rather see the money that was earmarked for the navy being dedicated to health, and especially towards improving Canadian's awareness of and attitudes towards, mental health.

Fortunata · August 23, 2008

No, I just think there are more important things we need to spend our money on. Defence should be low on our list of priorities because there is nobody threatening us.
I'd rather see the money that was earmarked for the navy being dedicated to health, and especially towards improving Canadian's awareness of and attitudes towards, mental health.

And if there were someone threatening us or our sovereignty? Do we say, please, can you wait three or four years so we can build some new ships? Our navy is small; it should be well-equipped. We are a rich country, why can others' afford their navy and we can't/won't especially in boom times.

Harper made such a big deal out of Liberal spending cuts to the armed forces (every department was cut, not just DND) and yet he pulls this on a Friday night so hopefully it won't look so hypocritical on him? It must be for votes somewhere in someway - he'd prostitute our country in any way to get his majority.

normanchateau · August 23, 2008

Defence should be low on our list of priorities because there is nobody threatening us.

In the early 30's, many in the UK, including government MPs, wanted to reduce military spending as it was inconceivable to them that Japan and Germany would become threats.

It's difficult to predict the future and many would argue that it's best to be prepared for a threat.

From purely a self-interest perspective, sure, I'd probably benefit more from increased health spending than increased military spending. But eventually either Canada or a friend of Canada will be threatened and we should be prepared by funding those brave people willing to risk their lives for us.

eyeball · August 23, 2008

And if there were someone threatening us or our sovereignty? Do we say, please, can you wait three or four years so we can build some new ships?

Nobody is going to threaten us. The super-powers would never stand for it. That said, I'm actually more worried about a future super-power agreement that divies up the globe in some Neo World oligarchy. For that contingency I'd build a small arsenal of really big nukes.

Our navy is small; it should be well-equipped. We are a rich country, why can others' afford their navy and we can't/won't especially in boom times.

We should direct our riches towards becoming a more humane country and by extension an example of what a country should look like.

Harper made such a big deal out of Liberal spending cuts to the armed forces (every department was cut, not just DND) and yet he pulls this on a Friday night so hopefully it won't look so hypocritical on him? It must be for votes somewhere in someway - he'd prostitute our country in any way to get his majority.

I think becoming more humane generally is the only thing that will cure these ills.

normanchateau · August 23, 2008

Nobody is going to threaten us.

When Canada declared war on Germany in 1939, Germany was not threatening Canada. Should we have left it to others to fight fascism and not declare war on Germany?

eyeball · August 23, 2008

In the early 30's, many in the UK, including government MPs, wanted to reduce military spending as it was inconceivable to them that Japan and Germany would become threats.
It's difficult to predict the future and many would argue that it's best to be prepared for a threat.

From purely a self-interest perspective, sure, I'd probably benefit more from increased health spending than increased military spending. But eventually either Canada or a friend of Canada will be threatened and we should be prepared by funding those brave people willing to risk their lives for us.

Its 2008 and the world's a completely different place now. We can afford an unconventional defence in the form of a few big nukes but big conventional armed forces with all the bells and whistles is a pipe dream. I think its fairly easy to predict the future actually, its going to be characterized by shortages of natural resources, especially oil. Fighting over them will only use them up faster and the return on investment will get smaller and smaller.

I really do believe that our best defence is to simply be more likable people and that starts right here at home. Given the dismal findings on attitudes of Canadians towards mental health we should start trying to be more likable amongst our selves first.

eyeball · August 23, 2008

When Canada declared war on Germany in 1939, Germany was not threatening Canada. Should we have left it to others to fight fascism and not declare war on Germany?

I don't know what we should have done because I wasn't around. I do however think we should get over the fact that its not 1939 anymore.

I bet if people in Germany prior to 1939 had spent money on cultivating more empathic attitudes amongst themselves they would never have become a threat in the first place.

normanchateau · August 23, 2008

I really do believe that our best defence is to simply be more likable people and that starts right here at home.

Probably that's not the best way to defend ourselves or our friends abroad against fascist dictators intent on expanding their territory.

Wilber · August 23, 2008

I don't know what we should have done because I wasn't around. I do however think we should get over the fact that its not 1939 anymore.
I bet if people in Germany prior to 1939 had spent money on cultivating more empathic attitudes amongst themselves they would never have become a threat in the first place.

The world you live in is a direct result of what happened in 1939 and the following six years. I bet they would have to, but they didn't.

normanchateau · August 23, 2008

I don't know what we should have done because I wasn't around.

I wasn't around either. It doesn't take a huge amount of reading of history to form an opinion as to whether Canada should or should not have fought Hitler and the Nazis. You know you do reduce your credibility somewhat by not having any opinion on this issue.

eyeball · August 23, 2008

I wasn't around either. It doesn't take a huge amount of reading of history to form an opinion as to whether Canada should or should not have fought Hitler and the Nazis. You know you do reduce your credibility somewhat by not having any opinion on this issue.

Only to those who persist on trying to equate every single doubt about the usefullness of military spending to appeasment of Hitler. That persistence stretches credibility to the breaking point.

normanchateau · August 23, 2008

Only to those who persist on trying to equate every single doubt about the usefullness of military spending to appeasment of Hitler. That persistence stretches credibility to the breaking point.

I take it you still have no opinion as to whether Canada should have fought the Nazis.

eyeball · August 23, 2008

I take it you still have no opinion as to whether Canada should have fought the Nazis.

I think if Canada hadn't gotten involved in the 1st WW there's a good chance the second one never would have started. As far as I'm concerned its all just been one big stupid war for the last several hundred years.

eyeball · August 23, 2008

Probably that's not the best way to defend ourselves or our friends abroad against fascist dictators intent on expanding their territory.

Some people think the best way to defend ourselves is to make friends with dictators. Hitler would be laughing his head off if he could see the way the world's turned out.