O'Connor Confirms Plan To Build Three New Ships

Posted on Monday, June 26 at 14:25 by rearguard
Hillier said the ships are crucial to the military's performance.

"Without them our ability to do what Canadians ask of us would be greatly diminished," he said.

Full story here

Rearguard writes: Notice that Hillier does not specify exactly what Canadian's want our armed forces to be doing. I somehow doubt that we want our armed forces to be used as an offensive weapons system that foreign interests make use of, but in looking at recent history, our forces have almost exclusively been used as part of US led offensive operations in the Mid East and most recently in Afghanistan. None of these operations are defensive in nature, and none of them have much to do with ensuring that Canada remains as a sovereign state.

Most of the contracting will go to US defense contractors, hidden away through one or two Canadian front companies, who in turn contract it all away to the US. That's what happened the last time ships were built here in Canada.

Note: Full story here

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by Patm
    Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:26 am
    About time! I sailed on Provider for five years in the first half of the 1980s (The West Coast AOR), she was old back then, though only about a decade older than Protecteur and Preserver (east coast AORs). Provider was scrapped in Turkey in (I think) 2000, leaving us with only two AORs, one on each coast.

    Replacing these ships would not really increase our offensive capability, just bring it back to where it was until about 2000.

    Oh and make no mistake, AORs are offensive warships - even the ones that carry no guns (Provider didnt). The defence of Canada does not require that we send ships to Japan or the Gulf of Arabia - last time I looked, Canada wasn't over there, it was sitting atop the USA's northern border.

  2. by RPW
    Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:52 am
    "Three" seems to be some sort of magic number. I believe Harper promised three icebreakers AND a deepwater port to defend our Arctic sovereignty...........

    Say! Maybe these THREE ships could be icebreakers......

    ---
    RickW

    "The purpose of economic competition is to eliminate competition"...." - John Kenneth Galbraith

  3. Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:27 am
    I read in another article that the ships must have some ice breaking capability. So, yes, they are the 3 ships promised.

    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  4. Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:29 am
    Gee golly whizzickers i shor hope this doesn't CONTRAveine some rule.

    ew defence minister a former industry lobbyist

    Updated Wed. Feb. 8 2006 8:48 AM ET

    Canadian Press

    OTTAWA -- The new defence minister is a retired general who once lobbied government on behalf of some big military contractors, a background which some find troubling.

    Gordon O'Connor says he's beholden to no one, but others say it looks odd to have a one-time lobbyist sitting in the minister's office.

    "It's a bad message to be sending,'' says Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch.

    O'Connor, 66, is the first defence minister in 20 years to have actually served in the Forces. But it's his post-service lobbying that has raised eyebrows.

    ---
    The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.... : Albert Einstein

  5. Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:01 am
    Some people just don't seem to get it. You don't get to keep your country just by bulldozing some ice away. These ships are NOT for Canada to build or command. <br><br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_O'Connor">Gordon O'Connor</a> <br><br> <i>He was a Senior Associate with Hill & Knowlton Canada, a world-wide public relations, public affairs and strategic communications company. O'Conner has also been an official lobbyist for several defense industry companies. These companies include: BAE Systems (1996 to 2004), General Dynamics (1996 to 2001), Atlas Elektronik GmbH (1999 to 2004), and Airbus Military (2001 to 2004) .</i> <br><br> : <br><br> <i>Though somewhat muted by the higher profile issues in the namings of David Emerson and Michael Fortier to the cabinet, the posting of Gordon O'Connor to the position of Minister of National Defence by Prime Minister Stephen Harper has met with controversy. Harkening back to ethics and accountability issues including particularly a promised crackdown on lobbying and reforms to lobbying legislation that Harper raised during the '06 campaign, O'Connor's employment as a lobbyist for several major defence industry companies including some of the world's largest military contractors, such as General Dynamics and BAE Systems and Airbus as recently as 2004 was seen by many as peculiar. The minister will be responsible for spending millions of dollars in defence procurements, and will often be dealing with the very companies for whom he advised for and assisted in soliciting defence contracts; seemingly putting him in constant peril of conflict-of-interest issues.</i>

  6. Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:28 am
    Who the &^%$ has any interest in 'taking over' the artic? Canada hands over oil and everything else to the US, and will do the same for shipping.

  7. Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:08 am
    Marcarc,
    The way I see it is the elected offial are the one who hand over stuff
    which says a lot about the electorate

    ---
    The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.... : Albert Einstein

  8. Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:38 pm
    It does say something, but it says more about the system. Canadians have been trying to change that for over a century, you don't blame Iraqi's for Saddams war crimes and americans aren't culpable for Bush's war crimes. Essentially canadians 'fault' is not 'rebelling' which is a pretty harsh criticism against anybody.

    My big question is WHERE are they going to build them? That's a huge political question in itself. Looks like they closed the New Brunswick shipyard JUST IN TIME!

  9. Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:09 pm
    "My big question is WHERE are they going to build them? That's a huge political question in itself. Looks like they closed the New Brunswick shipyard JUST IN TIME!"

    Excellent question!
    Where in deed?

    coincidently I am now readinf an e-book, Merchants of Death


    That I will highly recomend for all to read.

    O'Connor and his cronies must benefit in some fashion in this arms deal

    The spam filter has prevented the inclusion of the address where the material can be found.
    Most annoying!
    How does one lend Legitimacy to their words when such devices are set in place?

    (To the mod- this is an honest question NOT a challenge )



    ---
    The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.... : Albert Einstein



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news