Harper Announces Six Arctic Patrol Boats

[AndrewL]

Either way, the US and Canada are going to exploit this region for its resources. Is there any reason i should care who is sovereign over it? Is there a difference between the way the US or Canada would treat this land?

I suppose you can say that about Canada as a whole or of the planet as a whole.

Sure. So who cares if the US has sovereignty over this land? In fact, given the way oil companies operate in Alaska there would be far more benefits to the locals if it was american owned than if it was Canadian owned.

Andrew

Edited July 10, 2007 by AndrewL

[M.Dancer]

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once. Big deal. As for the rest of it all there is is increased crime, increased ecological destruction, increased traffic, and a major drain on the infrastructure and social services. Those are not benefits. There is no glory.

If you truly loved your country you would demand that Canada protect its claim with these ships in order to prevent the resources from being developed.

Andrew

When did Syncrude, Suncor, Nexen, CNR Ltd, etc etc etc.......become foriegn?

....never mind.....your ability to plainly show that you haven't a clue on any aubject in every thread you participate in leaves my somewhat bored.....

[Michael Bluth]

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once.

Yes, all the benefits go to foreign companies. They fly all their own workers in, buy all their material from foreign countries and return nothing to the local economy.

Very well-informed and thoughtfully presented sir.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[AndrewL]

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once.

Yes, all the benefits go to foreign companies. They fly all their own workers in, buy all their material from foreign countries and return nothing to the local economy.

Very well-informed and thoughtfully presented sir.

So where is the benefits? Where is the glory? A few jobs have been created for a transient work force that has made edmonton the murder capital of canada... how glorious.... It has had an enormously negative environmental impact... very glorious..... we get pathetic royalties that the klein government did nothing with anyway.

Where are the benefits? If you think it is jobs think again... Hollywood employs more poeple in Alberta than the oil sands do.

The entire thing is a mess and all the real benefits go straight to foreign companies.

Im convinced america would treat the arctic and it people much better than Canada would. At least they do in Alaska.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

in 2005 8.5 billion was invested in the oil sands (that's 8.5 billion invested in Canada....)

1.5% of the GDP in Canada is tied to the Oil sands.....

Over 26,000 jobs directly connected with Oil Sands

over 100,000 new jobs as a result of the oil sands.....

...and apparently not eneough money to teach andrew how not to appear stupid........

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committ..._Chap_4_ENG.htm

[AndrewL]

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once. Big deal. As for the rest of it all there is is increased crime, increased ecological destruction, increased traffic, and a major drain on the infrastructure and social services. Those are not benefits. There is no glory.

If you truly loved your country you would demand that Canada protect its claim with these ships in order to prevent the resources from being developed.

Andrew

When did Syncrude, Suncor, Nexen, CNR Ltd, etc etc etc.......become foriegn?

....never mind.....your ability to plainly show that you haven't a clue on any aubject in every thread you participate in leaves my somewhat bored.....

Lets just take Syncrude for example

They are a join venture owned in part by ConocoPhillips and Imperial oil (exxon).

These are all publicly traded companies where the majority of shareholders live and spend there money outside of this country.

Are you suggesting that few jobs that benefit an extreme minority of Canadian, with most of the money going outside of the country, very little in the way of royalties, incompetent governance and planning, ecological destruction, lack of infrastructure and services, a transient workforce, and housing market priced out of middle class range, a booming criminal culture, and so on... is worth producing a few rich canadians.

And you think replicating all this in the Arctic is glorious and full of wonderful benefits??? You are being quite foolish and naive

Andrew

Edited July 10, 2007 by AndrewL

[White Doors]

Look, even a class 8 ice breaker would only be 'seasonal' and the navy experts were arguing that a class 8 icebreaker is useless for any enforcement issue as they are ploddingly slow.

The only person who doesn't like this is Denis Coderre, and you.

Of course the navy should get these vessels.

Kingston class patrol boats do 15 knots. Canada's heavy icebreaker does 20 knots.

Canada's frigates and destroyers do 29 knots but have to slow down for ice.

Which Navy experts are you referring to? I have cited one expert already in this thread who said the need for heavy icebreakers is still there. This is not a full-time commitment to the north.

I supported the Tory proposal for heavy icebreakers because it was year round coverage of the north. I have criticized Liberal policy of not proposing anything for the north except a tax deduction.

The heaviest ice breaker there is - cannot operate there year round. I cited the experts that I could find who were calling for this before it was announced. Must have missed yours, I'll check and have a look.

Checked from your cbc link.

One was a northern resident...

And another was from the UofC whose skepticism seemed to centre around the need to replace the aging coast guard ice breakers and the fact that he wants to see them actually start to build them before he celebrates. The coast guard icebreakers that we currently have are not capable of operating year round up north either and neither would their replacements. I;m sure they will be replacing the coast guard's vessels as well.

"Rob Huebert, an analyst with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said Canada needs new icebreakers to replace the aging fleet of Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers currently in service.

While Huebert said Ottawa's made a positive step in the right direction with Monday's announcement, he remains somewhat skeptical because he has heard a lot of Arctic spending promises before.

"When we see the actual contract, and we see an actual ship start construction … it's at that point that I'll feel totally comfortable that in fact we are making the right steps," he said."

I don't see him expressing negativity about this announcement however.

Edited July 10, 2007 by White Doors

[White Doors]

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once. Big deal. As for the rest of it all there is is increased crime, increased ecological destruction, increased traffic, and a major drain on the infrastructure and social services. Those are not benefits. There is no glory.

If you truly loved your country you would demand that Canada protect its claim with these ships in order to prevent the resources from being developed.

Andrew

When did Syncrude, Suncor, Nexen, CNR Ltd, etc etc etc.......become foriegn?

....never mind.....your ability to plainly show that you haven't a clue on any aubject in every thread you participate in leaves my somewhat bored.....

Lets just take Syncrude for example

They are a join venture owned in part by ConocoPhillips and Imperial oil (exxon).

These are all publicly traded companies where the majority of shareholders live and spend there money outside of this country.

Are you suggesting that few jobs that benefit an extreme minority of Canadian, with most of the money going outside of the country, very little in the way of royalties, incompetent governance and planning, ecological destruction, lack of infrastructure and services, a transient workforce, and housing market priced out of middle class range, a booming criminal culture, and so on... is worth producing a few rich canadians.

And you think replicating all this in the Arctic is glorious and full of wonderful benefits??? You are being quite foolish and naive

Andrew

Socialism is fun!

[M.Dancer]

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once. Big deal. As for the rest of it all there is is increased crime, increased ecological destruction, increased traffic, and a major drain on the infrastructure and social services. Those are not benefits. There is no glory.

If you truly loved your country you would demand that Canada protect its claim with these ships in order to prevent the resources from being developed.

Andrew

When did Syncrude, Suncor, Nexen, CNR Ltd, etc etc etc.......become foriegn?

....never mind.....your ability to plainly show that you haven't a clue on any aubject in every thread you participate in leaves my somewhat bored.....

Lets just take Syncrude for example

They are a join venture owned in part by ConocoPhillips and Imperial oil (exxon).

Oh....how....tedious......

ConocoPhillips has a ....wait for it.......a 9.03% stake in Syncrude......NINE >FRICKING ZERO THREE PERCENT.......Imperial has a 25 % stake.....exxon owns 69.9% of Imperial.....

You really need not go to all this effort....we already know

[AndrewL]

in 2005 8.5 billion was invested in the oil sands (that's 8.5 billion invested in Canada....)

1.5% of the GDP in Canada is tied to the Oil sands.....

Over 26,000 jobs directly connected with Oil Sands

over 100,000 new jobs as a result of the oil sands.....

...and apparently not enough money to teach andrew how not to appear stupid........

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committ..._Chap_4_ENG.htm

You are totally missing the point.

I live in the economic boom and this province in general is far worse off as a result of oil sands development. My quality of life was far better before. Edmonton itself has become a fucking dump (or more of a dump).

100,000 new jobs out of 17 million is hardly significant and those jobs could easily have been created in more sane sectors.

26,000 of the jobs that are directly related to the oil sands are young transient workers that have made Ft. Mac and Edmonton a haven for criminals.

And further to this, our incompetent government refused to buil services to accommodate this increase in people. This is bad, not good.

On top of this, the housing market has essentially priced itself out of the middle class demographic. This really sucks beyond belief.

And then we have the environmental destruction, the waste of water and natural gas, and the further logging of old growth forest.

All this for a few rich Canucks, and many more rich yanks and other foreigners?????

Where is the glory? Where is the benefit? It idiotic to think there is any.

Andrew

Edited July 10, 2007 by AndrewL

[White Doors]

Well I live in Alberta and I love it.

my house has doubled in 3 years.

My stocks are doing very well and the problems you speak about are due to growth. Good problems to have.

I grew up in the maritimes. The problems associated with NOT growing are much worse, trust me.

[AndrewL]

Oh....how....tedious......

ConocoPhillips has a ....wait for it.......a 9.03% stake in Syncrude......NINE >FRICKING ZERO THREE PERCENT.......Imperial has a 25 % stake.....exxon owns 69.9% of Imperial.....

You really need not go to all this effort....we already know

No effort at all.

Lets see you seem to be excited about 100000 of 17 milllion jobs, and a 1.5% GDP (which is an average and says nothing about quality of life).

Really MD, you cant be that big of an idiot can you?

Again, where is the glory, where is the benefit?

Andrew

Edited July 11, 2007 by AndrewL

[AndrewL]

Well I live in Alberta and I love it.

my house has doubled in 3 years.

My stocks are doing very well and the problems you speak about are due to growth. Good problems to have.

I grew up in the maritimes. The problems associated with NOT growing are much worse, trust me.

These are awful problems to have. And they will only get worse.

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

What we have seen over recent years is a fight between Canada's Navy and Coast Guard.

Yes, a typical turf war - fought for everyone's interest save that of Canada.

Thankfully we got rid of the three-branch service game for the same reason. Is it time to be rid of the Coast Guard?

Canada is a relatively small country. We don't need separate services for everything. No reason in the world that the Navy can't do what we expect the Coast Guard to do.

And if the Coast Guard is unionised, that is a double-bonus in getting rid of it.

[White Doors]

Well I live in Alberta and I love it.

my house has doubled in 3 years.

My stocks are doing very well and the problems you speak about are due to growth. Good problems to have.

I grew up in the maritimes. The problems associated with NOT growing are much worse, trust me.

These are awful problems to have. And they will only get worse.

Andrew

Awful problems?

In your opinion I suppose.

if you think economic prosperity and crime go hand in hand, you should see what happens when an economy goes south.

[ScottSA]

A couple of frigates bobbing about isn't going to stop a concerted effort by anyone to occupy and utilize sites in the artic.

International reaction will though. The US couldn't go in an seize a possible gas or oil site because of international pressure. The US can act unilaterally against common enemies of the West, but pushing that agenda against a G8 nation surely would be unproductive. The cost to the US would be far greater than whatever benefits a company would get from a gas well. An invasion of Canada's claimed land by force would be massively condemned throughout the world.

I think you're missing the point though. The US doesn't recognize many of Canada's claims in the arctic, and there are a great many other countries who don't either. In fact, that's why Canada is so concerned about showing the flag there, because really, much, if not most, of the territory it claims is only Canadian in the minds of the Canadian government. If the US set up a drilling rig in disputed territory, it's not an "invasion of Canada" as far as international law is concerned.

[jdobbin]

The heaviest ice breaker there is - cannot operate there year round. I cited the experts that I could find who were calling for this before it was announced. Must have missed yours, I'll check and have a look.

Checked from your cbc link.

One was a northern resident...

And another was from the UofC whose skepticism seemed to centre around the need to replace the aging coast guard ice breakers and the fact that he wants to see them actually start to build them before he celebrates. The coast guard icebreakers that we currently have are not capable of operating year round up north either and neither would their replacements. I;m sure they will be replacing the coast guard's vessels as well.

"Rob Huebert, an analyst with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said Canada needs new icebreakers to replace the aging fleet of Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers currently in service.

While Huebert said Ottawa's made a positive step in the right direction with Monday's announcement, he remains somewhat skeptical because he has heard a lot of Arctic spending promises before.

"When we see the actual contract, and we see an actual ship start construction … it's at that point that I'll feel totally comfortable that in fact we are making the right steps," he said."

I don't see him expressing negativity about this announcement however.

Harper's original proposal was for heavy icebreakers that could operate year round. It was a proposal I supported.

Critics have all day said on radio and TV that the present plan falls way short of that.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...6b12eba&k=44729

But an international law professor who specializes in Arctic sovereignty says that while the vessels are a welcome addition, the government must revitalize the country's ageing icebreaker fleet so it can have a regular presence in the Arctic.

"That capability to operate anywhere in Canadian waters at any time of the year will not be answered with this announcement," said Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia. "It's not what we really need for the decade or two ahead and it's not what [the Prime Minister] promised."

Prof. Byers said both Russia and the United States operate heavy icebreakers able to sail in Arctic waters claimed by Canada pretty much any time those countries wish.

Even military officials privately agree that this plan will better help the east and west coast rather than the north.

Military officials privately agree, adding the ships would be more valuable for patrolling the East and West Coasts, in place of the more expensive frigates currently used.

When it was revealed a few months ago that icebreakers were being replaced with a plan for ice-strengthened O'Connor said this:

Six months ago, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Conservative government would not proceed with the purchase of the armed icebreakers promised by Mr. Harper. Instead, it would acquire Arctic patrol vessels, in line with a Conservative defence strategy also obtained by the newspaper. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor dismissed the article as "inaccurate [and] sensationalist."

I have heard nothing in terms of a Coast Guard announcement for year round icebreaking. It seems the Russians with their nuclear fleet of icebreakers will be claiming the North Pole this winter knowing that they will have that territory to themselves for a long time to come.

Edited July 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[Argus]

My take on this - it's a compromise. It's not the full blown icebreakers we want or need, but we do need these ships. I'm guessing that after this has gone through the House and after a wait of a year or two, Harper will then announce 2 full blown icebreakers at a billion or so apiece. I think it's an effort to spread the cost out so as to avoid sticker shock.

Yes, we need ships to show arctic sovereignty. But we need these ships too. We have far too few. We also need some small, fast patrol ships, preferably a couple of dozen of them. We have an enormous coastline which is virtually unprotected against smugglers of people, drugs, weapons or whatever. Big ships are nice, but we need something smaller and cheaper to work closer to shore.

Of course, if the Liberals get back in there'll be no ships of any kind.

[jdobbin]

Of course, if the Liberals get back in there'll be no ships of any kind.

I don't see why not. The Liberals were the ones who put the original order for the Halifax-class frigates in 1983.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/halifax.html

Edited July 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[AndrewL]

Well I live in Alberta and I love it.

my house has doubled in 3 years.

My stocks are doing very well and the problems you speak about are due to growth. Good problems to have.

I grew up in the maritimes. The problems associated with NOT growing are much worse, trust me.

These are awful problems to have. And they will only get worse.

Andrew

Awful problems?

In your opinion I suppose.

if you think economic prosperity and crime go hand in hand, you should see what happens when an economy goes south.

Who said the economy had to go south?

There was an acceptable level of prosperity before the oil sands. And we did not have all these problems to boot.

Andrew

[ScottSA]

Of course, if the Liberals get back in there'll be no ships of any kind.

I don't see why not. The Liberals were the ones who put the original order for the Halifax-class frigates in 1983.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/halifax.html

Yeah, and wasn't it the Liberals who ordered the first iron hulled ships way back in...well..way back when men were men and sheep...well...way back then. Surely they have fulfilled their military procurement obligations by now? What more do we expect? Rifled cannon? Tiger Moths? No sense upgrading precipitously, right?

[jdobbin]

Yeah, and wasn't it the Liberals who ordered the first iron hulled ships way back in...well..way back when men were men and sheep...well...way back then. Surely they have fulfilled their military procurement obligations by now? What more do we expect? Rifled cannon? Tiger Moths? No sense upgrading precipitously, right?

Better to buy the right equipment than the wrong equipment. The Kingston-class patrol vessels were ordered by the Tories and are not considered to be up to the challenge.

Edited July 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[Argus]

Of course, if the Liberals get back in there'll be no ships of any kind.

I don't see why not. The Liberals were the ones who put the original order for the Halifax-class frigates in 1983.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/halifax.html

Years and years overdue, grudgingly, obstinately, resentfully, and aiming not for military efficiency or effectiveness but for how much money and jobs could be put into government ridings - and even then they only ordered a dozen when we needed two.

[geoffrey]

These are awful problems to have. And they will only get worse.

Andrew

I know. Me and most of my friends, not even completely done school making unheard of salaries, having nice condos and cars. It's truly terrible. I mean, I'd rather trade in my import, sell my condo and live as an unemployed fisherman in Newfoundland. My life is just so terrible in Alberta! All the opportunity and the lack of excuses for laziness! It's so stressful!

Now that my sarcasm is over... your not from here, are you?

The traffic on Deerfoot sucks. The people that don't know how to budget and live on the street, oh well, their choice (A two bedroom is found for easily $1100 a month in Calgary... two people making $15 an hour, what you can make at the deli counter at Superstore... make over $3000 a month after tax. If people don't have a place to live, it's because they choose not to). Really, those are two small issues. Whoop de do.

Chronic unemployment, depression, stagnant economies, low productivity and a frosty investment climate are far worse than a bunch of poor budgeters and a 30 minute commute.

[Argus]

Yeah, and wasn't it the Liberals who ordered the first iron hulled ships way back in...well..way back when men were men and sheep...well...way back then. Surely they have fulfilled their military procurement obligations by now? What more do we expect? Rifled cannon? Tiger Moths? No sense upgrading precipitously, right?

Better to buy the right equipment than the wrong equipment. The Kingston-class patrol vessels were ordered by the Tories and are not considered to be up to the challenge.

The reason why the Kingston class vessels are not up "to the challenge" is because the original intent behind ordering them was to get mine sweepers, as we at that time had no capacity for mine clearing. Somehow this evolved, in political fashion, perhaps to make the ships more appealing and "economical" to a "multi purpose" ship which the reserves could practice on, and then to a "patrol ship" which could serve yet more functions. The Kingston serves well as a minesweeper, however. And is also useful for the reserves to practice on. It just isn't fast enough, because of the design of the ship (needed for mine clearing), to serve as a real patrol vessel.