In last week’s Coast, freelancer Mairin Prentiss has an article examining the “Ships Start Here” PR campaign. This gives me the excuse to express my reservations about not just the PR campaign, but the ship building contract itself.
First, some background. There are actually two ship building contracts at play, as detailed on the federal government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy page.
One contract, for $25 billion, is for straight-up warships:
• six to eight Arctic/Offshore Patrol ships capable of “conducting armed sea-borne surveillance of Canada’s waters, including the Arctic.”
• Two, or possibly three Joint Support ships.
• Fifteen Surface Combatants, which will replace existing frigates and destroyers.
The second contract, for about $10 billion, is for boats for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard. They are:
• An Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel, which is a replacement for the very old (built 1963) CCGS Hudson, based out of BIO in Dartmouth.
• Three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels, which will replace four boats now in use for scientific research.
• One Polar Icebreaker.
The two contracts are qualitatively different. One is for warships, one primarily (but not entirely) for scientific research. I don’t have huge issues with the smaller contract—we need more, not less, scientific research.
But there’s a sad irony at play here: A big part of both contracts is related to the melting of the Arctic. All through the government’s procurement announcements is language devoted to “strengthening Canada’s Arctic sovereignty,” which simply wouldn’t be an issue if climate change wasn’t making the Northwest Passage a navigable seaway that foreign nations say they have the right to use.
So on the one hand, the federal government is pursuing a fossil fuel-laden economic plan that directly speeds up the melting of the Arctic, and then on the other hand allocates billions of dollars in defence of that melting territory.
Still, you won’t find me arguing against the scientific research components of the contracts. Although I do have an argument about how those research components are second-class citizens compared to the war machinery.
See, when it comes to the military components of the contracts, money simply isn’t a worry. “The mission description [of the warships] is close to meaningless,” reports Defense Industry Daily, and it appears the details will be worked out as the ships are being built. But the research ships are being nickeled and dimed down in capability, even before the contracts are awarded. As I reported earlier this year, 44 federal ocean-going researchers were so alarmed at the budget-cutting for a replacement for the Hudson, they took the unusual step of co-signing a letter to the ministers expressing their outrage.
The Harper government is making its priorities clear: Open chequebooks for warships, penny-pinching for scientific research.
Basing an economy on war
As for the warship component of the contracts, I often find myself in a conversation that goes something like this:
Me: I don’t think we should be basing an economy on building stuff for war.
Friend: Yeah, sure, you unrealistic peacenik, I’ll humour you and say in some perfect world we shouldn’t be building stuff for war, but if the federal government is going to spend billions of dollars for war anyway, shouldn’t we want them to spend it here?
Well, that’s a good rhetorical comeback, but it doesn’t really address my point: we shouldn’t be basing an economy on building stuff for war. And, no, we should not want the money spent here, even if it’s going to be spent somewhere else instead.
Here’s why.
Look, I recognize the context here, which is an impoverished provincial economy where people are having difficulty finding decent paying jobs. There’s real hurt out there. And I don’t envy premier Darrell Dexter’s position, overseeing an economy taking multiple hits (still reeling from the 2008 recession, which is likely morphing into a lost decade or more of economic growth; the closure of NewPage and the resulting hit to the forestry industry; the inherited heavy provincial debt burden), none of them primarily his own doing. It no doubt makes immense political sense to support projects that will result in a boost in near-term employment: the convention centre, for example, and now the ship building contract.
And yes, there’s no doubt building the convention centre will result in lots of immediate construction jobs, and in a narrow sense, increased employment at the convention centre itself after the new facility opens. My opposition to the convention centre has always been long term: the costs of operating the thing will outweigh any localized gain in employment, as the taxes needed to subsidize it will hurt economic performance across the province.
Similarly, if the Halifax yard lands one of the ship building contracts, it absolutely will result in big increases in local employment over the term of the contract, say, the next four years, safely past the next provincial election. But what happens after that? At that point, the winding down of federal contracts will serve as an anti-stimulus, bringing less outside money into the province and causing local businesses to cut their investments in new building and hiring. The economy starts suffering, with the economic indicators all heading south, even more so than they are at present.
Given no other changes in the local economy, there will be five options for workers after the contract is completed: they can become unemployed, collecting EI until it runs out; they could find some crappy paying service job with no benefits; they can move somewhere else where there might be better employment options, like the tar sands; they can join the military and get relatively well-paid work on the ships they just built; or they could build more military ships. So after the ships are built, the political pressure will be, hey, we’ve got this great shipyard here, we should be building stuff and putting people to work, let’s build more ships. And since Canadian shipyards will never be able to compete against Asian yards for building ships for the private sector, that means building more Canadian warships.
This has been the logic of a military-based economy in all human societies across all of history: Preparing for war leads to more preparing for war, which in turn ultimately ends in war itself.
At both the federal and provincial level, our governments have been elevating the rhetorical importance of war. The Harper government is spending $28 million to celebrate the War of 1812 and, predictably, there’s no shortage of pundits telling us that war was the “helped define who we are,” that “Canada was born in War of 1812” and other assorted nonsense. Of course, just a few years ago we were told that it was Vimy Ridge that “forged Canada’s identity as a nation separate from Great Britain.” I guess the details don’t matter—War of 1812, World War 1, whatever—the point is that Canada was borne through the bloodletting of war; war is at the heart of our identity as a nation.
But of course nothing is further from the truth. As John Ralston Saul points out at great length in Reflections of a Siamese Twin, Canada was actually created through a peaceful process that was the exact antithesis to war: the poor farmers of Upper and Lower Canada coming together to mutually redress their common complaints with British rule, and to forge ahead as a nation through negotiation, compromise and non-violence, and it is those values that have brought out the best in Canadians and best define this fine country.
Still, the myth of Canada being born through militarism and the on-going reframing of political discourse in militaristic terms serves a narrow political purpose of supporting an economic order that favours large capital investments that benefit large financial and industrial corporations over a more equitable economic order. This, incidentally, is why the Occupy movements resound so much with those left out of the equation.
And on the global scale, increased military spending is probably the worst way to deal with potential conflict; it’s far better to prevent the causes of conflict in the first place. Certainly avoiding climate change will do more to make the world a safer place than all the warships we’ll ever be able to build. And the biggest threat to world peace is an inequitable global economic order, but Canada refuses to meet its minuscule promises of foreign aid.
Another way
So if we’re not going to build military ships as a route to prosperity, what should we do?
In part, that question misframes the issue; it buys into the “silver bullet” approach to economic development—that if only we hit on some mega-project that brings a lot of money into the province, we’ll solve all our economic problems. I’ve been collecting a series of the absurd ideas that have been trotted out as our economic salvation through the years: the 10-reactor nuclear power plant at Stoddard’s Island; the heavy water plant (built twice) at Glace Bay; the Clairtone Sound Corporation screw-up; the proposed Canso and Pittson oil refineries; the Mercator One cruise ship fiasco; the Commonwealth Games bid; turning downtown Halifax into the “next Singapore” and on and on and on. And now: we’re going to build dozens of warships that will never be used in a war, no siree.
I’d like us to catch our collective breath, step back and admit something we don’t like to talk about: Nova Scotia is a poor province. It’s unfortunate, I agree, but it’s the fact nonetheless; I don’t like it any more than you. Despite a bunch of crap the economic development people spew out about our time zone, we’re not greatly positioned geographically in the modern global economy, and with some minor exceptions we aren’t blessed with significant oil or mineral resources. Tidal power has always been oversold, and even if it eventually gets developed, it won’t be a significant contributor to the economy.
And those resources we once had—fish, timber, coal—have been or are being so mismanaged or not leveraged to their full potential, that they are now bringing diminishing returns.
What would happen, I wonder, if instead of looking for “silver bullets,” we just assumed, for the sake of argument, that Nova Scotia is going to continue to be a poor province for, say, the next 200 years? How would this change our outlook, and what would we do differently?
Thankfully, we have a history that can help inform this view; through all our screw-ups, our mismanagements, our political corruption, shines a light that might give us some direction: the Antigonish Movement. I don’t have time or space to detail the movement, and I wouldn’t endorse everything about it for our present purposes, but it boils down to this: instead of looking for some outside influence to bring us prosperity (and notably, for the Catholics behind the movement, instead of embracing communism), we should develop institutions of self-reliance and cooperation that better spread the wealth we do have.
The modern day incarnation of the Catholic Antigonish Movement is the largely Buddhist-inspired GPI Atlantic; there are important differences between the two approaches, but at heart they share a vision of a more equitable society that values what’s truly important. In neither vision does militarization play a role.
We won’t ever be a rich province, but we can be a pretty good place to live, where people live fruitful and productive lives in a healthy environment with quality communities. I don’t have all the answers, but they start with some pretty basic forms of economic development that share the wealth and build on our strengths: Reducing our reliance on imported energy, building local food networks, rebuilding our housing stock for energy efficiency and transforming our urban transportation system to one based on transit.
When we do these things, we’ll find that, unlike building ships, the stimulus effects never end: our reduced costs result in on-going economic growth, forever.
Related Stories
National conference showcases women taking action for peace
This article appears in Oct 13-19, 2011.
Me: “Tim, you really are a drippy little tampon, aren’t you”
You :”But war is harmful to children and other living things”.
Well, yes that is a good rhetorical comeback, but it really doesn’t address the issue at hand.
Until the happy campers in the Grand Parade are occupying 24 Sussex Drive and holding long discussions and endless drum circles about whether or not Stan should have the right to have a baby, despite the fact that he doesn’t have a womb, and until they replace the Department of National Defence with a 1-800 number that plays a recording of John Lennon’s “Imagine” we are going to have a military. And that military is going to have to do the tasks set for it by the Canadian Government. And to properly do those tasks it will need equipment. I was going to say “proper equipment”, but from the Ross Rifle of WW1 to the cancellation of the EH-101 that has rarely been the case in this country and it is our servicemen who have paid the ultimate price for that.
So, Short version – If we are going to have a military to look after those aspects of our national interests that only a military can do, we are morally obliged (or should be) to equip our servicemen and women with what they need to perform the task. Because while the last 70 years have seen just about every Government in power ,at one time or another, cancel capital purchases and freeze salaries and so forth , not one has ever scaled back our military commitments in a commensurate manner.
As far as your statement “we’re going to build dozens of warships that will never be used in a war, no siree. ” you must either believe in the Mayan prophecy about the world ending in 2012 or you’ve been smoking some really primo bud with those young people at the Cenotaph who are trying to build a better world by playing endless games of hackey-sack.
In case you haven’t been following current events, every warship built in this country has been used in a war of some type or another. The Cold War, Operation Friction, Operation Apollo, anti-piracy patrols off Somalia, supporting the rebels in Libya. Get the picture. That doesn’t include the various peace-keeping missions, humanitarian operations, search & rescues that have involved a naval element. It is to our eternal credit that we have a military that can do all of these things, and I, for one, am incredibly proud of that fact.
So, Ships really do start here, and so do the dedicated men and women who crew them.
Oh please! The usual nostrums but nothing specific. A diatribe against war with a passing reference to the environment. I heard this 50 years ago. “The Maritimes will have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!” That is nothing new and it is still the ultimate solution. However, we have not yet had a government, federal or provincial that would get the hell out of the way and let the people do it!
You decry the expenditures about to be made on the engines of war. You silly twisted boy. Have a good look around the world today. Look closely at the financial & demographic make-up of Europe. In passing, note Russian attitudes. If you have failed to note the conflicts and armament levels in the Middle East I suggest you have been resident in an extraterrestrial habitation. China, perhaps about to experience a financial slowdown with the potential to trigger social unrest. And you want us to be ready for these possibilities wearing a peace button?
“This will never be a rich province.” – SAYS WHO? Talk about culture of defeat. I wonder if Newfoundlanders ever thought that way? 200 years of poverty…now a rich province. Nova Scotia can be a rich province too. Hopefully, after we explore and exploit our oil and gas resources a bit more, we WILL be a rich province. I want 0% provincial sales tax and $400 checks to every man woman and child in NS. BRING IT ON.
For peacekeeping missions you need a military not peace and love and hugs and flowers
If you don’t know how WWI started, this article gives a great explanation on it.
http://explainlikeakid.blogspot.com/2011/1…
Rachel Styles
Please tell us the American President at the time was considered a Anti-War President. That how he got elected. The USA only entered the war because the Germans refused to “I’m sorry” for the sinking of the Lusitania. Also the United States sold arms to both the British and the Germans. Also what is the article sources? there seem to be none?
$28 million to commemorate the War of 1812? Well that’s CHEAP compared to Tony Clement’s $50 million G8 legacy slush fund. The Conservatives must not being including gazebos (I think they call them “Muskoka Gazebos” now) in their commemoration plans. Perhaps part of the estimated cost is to have the military on READY ALERT just in case Defense Minister Peter Mackay needs quick EVAC from a lobbyist’s fishing lodge in order to cut a ribbon or kiss a baby or do some other performing monkey trick for the media.
I’m all about history and remembering where we’ve been and who lied to whom and who stole what and so on and so forth . . . I don’t think people learn enough about history in general. But on the subject of the War of 1812, I wonder if any of the Conservative cabinet have actually read anything about the War of 1812. I have and I think $28 million to commemorate the skirmishes which took place at that period in our nation’s history is much ado about nothing. Others may disagree but why THAT “war” and why NOW?
I think the money would be better spent on improved benefits for our living veterans and currently serving military folks. The government has fallen shamefully short in this area and no matter how many times Peter Mackay dons a flight suit or Stephen Harper puts on an ill-fitting flak jacket it won’t erase their shabby treatment of this nation’s veterans.
I think the bullshit artists in the Conservative Party are up to something with this War of 1812 thing and it ain’t Canadian History 101. No doubt we’ll find out soon enough.
I’m still waiting to see what the Conservative government is going to do if the Americans cancel the F-35 program. It has already been acknowledged by the U.S. Pentagon (but not by our government) that the aircraft will likely cost at least twice the original estimates and this has put the F-35 program in the cross-hairs of a spending-averse Republican U.S. Congress.
Maybe they’ll give the money to Tony Clement to blow in his riding. You can never have enough Muskoka Gazebos.
Cute link Rachel. Tell me, exactly how seriously should I take an article about 1914 that has a photo of a 1960’s vintage Bundeswehr Leopard 1 tank as it’s header.
Wecome back from Gitmo, El Jefe. How was the waterboarding, er, uh skiing. Yeah, that’s it
Waterskiing.
I don’t see why the left-wanks aren’t more jizzed about this whole War of 1812 kerfuffle. What better way to rub into the faces of those fascist Amerikans that we stonewalled “Operation: Enduring Hickory” and beat them at their own game, thus preserving our independence as an outpost of the British Empire.
Though not without terrible cost it must be said. I hear that at least one poor sod from Sherbrooke lost his legs (Oh, I’m sorry Professor Golfman. I hope that didn’t depress you TOO much) and spent the rest of his life singing for shillings on a Halifax pier.
Great article Tim, don’t listen to these poor misguided commenters. As per usual, we share the same viewpoints on all these issues, except for one glaring exception.
You put forward alternatives that are supposed to guarantee Nova Scotia’s economic development! This is no solution at all.
We need to DE-grow our economy; that is where the real solution lies. Instead of being focused on money, let us now turn our focus to living at one with nature in a society where personal gain is irrelevant.
This is also the best defense plan because when shit hits the fan, it would really help to have a sustainable model society waiting for any invading armies to be welcomed into.
If we try to kid ourselves that Canada can win a conflict through violence then we have a lot more to learn about our national identity than I thought.
Fucking hilarious Tommy, do you do standup? Here’s a little acid flashback from my generation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7jHp7OchP0
Pretty sure I saw Billy Jack down at the Grand Parade, kung fu-ing his way to peace and tolerance.
Once again, Tim, your sloppy attempts at so-called journalism have led you astray.
This line: “Similarly, if the Halifax yard lands one of the ship building contracts, it absolutely will result in big increases in local employment over the term of the contract, say, the next four years, safely past the next provincial election. But what happens after that?” is utter bullshit, dude.
CHECK YOUR FACTS. The big contract is for 12,000 jobs for 35 years – yes, a generation. Kinda shatters your argument about limited economic development, doesn’t it?
For fuck’s sake man, get it right for ONCE.
I agree with Tom to a certain extent. All levels of government (and the citizens who support them) should be examining ways to make our communities more resilient in the face of the coming threats of climate instability and energy insecurity. Feeble or no action on the part of elected representatives leaves the matter in the hands of the citizenry. A fine grass-roots effort in these areas is the Transition Towns movement, which has spread from England to communities around the developed world and is already making an impact on municipal decision-making in other parts (although not here in Halifax as of yet).
Ivan, the irony of THIS government choosing to make a big deal ($28 million) about the War of 1812 is that, while they go about promoting symbols of Canadian heritage and sovereignty (putting the “Royal” back in the CF air and sea elements and wanting to commemorate the War of 1812 as a defining moment in Canadian history, a debatable proposition) they have negotiated and signed, behind closed doors, an agreement with the Americans that goes a long way towards eliminating that heritage and negating that very sovereignty that they make so much noise about.
I think that’s what’s really going on here. They’re pursuing this tactic of wrapping themselves in the flag (maybe they’ll try to revive the old one?) while at the same time they’re giving away the store. If the War of 1812 really WAS a significant event in shaping this nation’s identity, then those British subjects (proto-Canadians?) who fought in that war would be rolling in their graves at the way various recent Canadian governments have been working hard at eliminating the border on the 49th parallel.
As far as Gitmo is concerned, the state security apparatus and I have reached a mutual understanding regarding my activity on this website: They won’t send me back to THAT place as long as I refrain from making any disclosures about the real identity of a sock puppet known as “Survivor”, who in reality is the well-known Member of Parliament for
Some things that irritate me about this article:
“Similarly, if the Halifax yard lands one of the ship building contracts, it absolutely will result in big increases in local employment over the term of the contract, say, the next four years, safely past the next provincial election”
Ships don’t take 4 years to build, this is a legacy project, that will take more than 20 years to build. I don’t know where you got your facts from, or if you worked in the shipbuilding industry, but ships of that complexity and scale take a very long time to build. The shipyard contract will employ people for a long part of their career. After the ships are built, they will need mid life refits and maintenance in order to keep them up to date.
“We won’t ever be a rich province”
Way to drive Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s message of Maritimers being a culture of defeat. Nova Scotia in the past was one of the richest colonies of the North American British Empire. I don’t see why we can’t position ourselves again to be a thriving province. Nova Scotia lacks skilled labour, it also lacks in the manufacturing sector. The shipyard will generate manufacturing work, and provide the workers there a place to gain experience.
War has always been a part of Halifax’ history, you need to look no further than Citadel hill for proof. It is also better to be prepared for war rather than sit around and wait for it to happen. World War 2 proved this when all the Allies sat on their hands while they waited for Hitler to mobilize. Had the allies kept modern equipment, and kept their men trained, the war could have faired quite differently!
The war of 1812 is the reason we are in the dire straits we are as a province – soon afterwards we joined Canada, and the raping of us began (remember, every single bank in Canada started in Halifax) and now we are left wondering what happened?
We joined Canada. That’s what happened.
That St.Lawrence Seaway sure has been a boon for us folks out east, too.
You may want to change your headline to “National Defence not the answer” Because this is what you are saying here. Most of these ships are 40+ years old, but I’m sure you know this. They are constantly breaking down, costing millions of dollars to repair (something else I’m sure you already know).
These ships would help this “poor province” you speak of, if only for the next 15 years so be it. At least a couple thousand people in this province will be able to work at home and earn a living in the “poor province” they love. Possibly, just possibly….other manufacturing jobs might spin off from this and stay after the ships are built? National security is everyones business, including yours. While I respect your opinion, that’s just what it is. If they want to upgrade a portion of their aging equipment,I say, let them. After all it’s your freedome these military people are defending right?
No no no, the last thing we want are people running around Halifax with jobs and money to burn, even if it is only for a few years. Fuck, who would want that? the 1%ers thats who! And small businesses! And the people who employ them. What has happened to The Coast over the past year?
We are a harbour city with a few things going for us. One has always been shipbuilding. I have a feeling that the only reason anybody would not want us to get this contract is over a matter of principle. “War is not the answer and we should look to ourselves for self sustainability.” So lets give up the 20 or so years of ship building and maybe by the next millennium we will be living in a world that is war-free and NS will be it’s own utopia. Really?
Tim must believe that this wealthy country owes no duty of care to poor places in the world who need sustained and organised help when an earthquake, monsoon or tsunami strikes or when civil war breaks out.
Does Tim really believe that NATO should have just sat by and let the Serbs murder the muslims in Kosovo ? Of course he doesn’t but he could tell us how we should handle a similar situation.
For decades the rest of the world has relied on US military assets and personnel to respond rapidly to disaster.
Canada needs to help do some of the heavy lifting and that means having the physical capability to help. Sitting around for 3 weeks waiting to rent a Russian Antonov to move water making equipment to Asia is not consistent with the abilities of a first world country.
Arctic ice melting will not be ending any time soon and we need equipment to signal our determination to protect our interests.
Awww, don’t be so glum Timmy. Dexey may just have bought himself another 4 years. That’s gotta be a good thing, right?
Well, it seems we’ve won the big one. While I’m not thrilled that we’re building warships, I will certainly enjoy the economic benefits for the next 20 years. My big hope, though, is that the citizens and government of Nova Scotia will have the foresight to use this relative prosperity to reinvest in the future. Fuck $400 vote purchases (I mean… tax rebates), let’s finally build the transit system Halifax needs, invest in renewable energy, educate our young, and build cutting-edge business start ups and research capacity. Let’s keep this boom going long past 20 years.
I misread the phrase at the bottom of the article; I thought it said “the largely Bullshit-inspired GPI Atlantic”, which would have been more accurate.
Harper majority, Osama and Moammar deader’n maggots, CF-35s and Halifax gets the ship contract.
The Coast’s Op-ed staff must be on suicide watch right now.
Tim, in short, I love you. Thank you so much for having the guts to say the hard stuff. And thank you so much for the insight. Nothing but love here.
Ian. I see you’re having fun with these peaceniks. I guess they never heard of “peace through strength”. We have peace in the West because we will fight for it. I like what one author wrote “The meek will inherit the Earth after the Savage tame it.” We don’t have peace because others graciously allow it, we have it because they don’t want to fuck with us.
I’d rather have a military and not need it than not to have one and it’s too late.
A project of this size that will create jobs and provide an infusion of money into the local economy for years to come is something that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. I think Tim erred in stating that there would only be “big increases in local employment over the term of the contract, say, the next four years”, unless he is referring to the fact that the deal has numerous exit points for the government. While construction of the entire projected fleet could take decades, the government has reserved the right to cancel the project at its convenience. This thing could be wrapped up in Tim’s time frame for a variety of reasons, the main one being budgetary pressures in some future fiscal year.
Which brings to mind the F-35 program that some here assume is a done deal. The Canadian government hasn’t actually signed anything that would commit them to buying these fighters. Only when they sign on the dotted line will they be given some relatively firm cost estimates, but that contradicts their own pre-election insistence about what the cost-per-unit would be for the fighters. No wonder they were found in contempt of Parliament over their refusal to provide details of the price they quoted to Canadians. The U.S. DoD’s own officer in charge of procurement stated BEFORE the last Canadian election that the F-35s were likely to cost at least twice the figure that Lockheed-Martin had been tossing around earlier in the program (the same figure that the Conservatives were using at the time).
The F-35 fighter program is running years behind schedule and the cost overruns are beginning to make the Republican-controlled Congress nervous about continuing to fund the project. Added to this fiscal reality is the fact that two of the U.S. military services (the Navy and Air Force) would really prefer to have modernized versions of their current aircraft types since the projected price of the F-35s means they won’t be able to buy them in the quantities they need. Parts of the F-35 program are already being scaled back and/or cancelled and the entire program could be scrapped if Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee has his way.
What does this have to do with building warships in Halifax? Just this: the ship-building deal isn’t a guarantee of prosperity for decades to come – only a politician’s promise and subject to the vagaries of fortune and government budgetary constraints for as long as it lasts.
Whether this deal will lead to more ship building for the private sector in Halifax is anyone’s guess. Tim may be right. The military building may be all there is, in which case the deal constitutes a multi-year, taxpayer-funded job creation project. That doesn’t constitute a strike against it in my book but that’s because I’m a socialist. I don’t have an aversion to governments funding job creation, unlike some of my libertarian, anti-government brethren. In fact, as most economists will tell you, direct government spending on things like this is far more effective in creating jobs than tax cuts on the wealthy and the corporate sector.
So as the Harper government spends our tax dollars on creating ship building jobs in Nova Scotia, we could be thankful but also ask, if it’s good enough for warships, why isn’t it also good enough for other projects, like green energy technologies for example, which would have as big an impact on Canada’s long-term security as a couple of dozen warships?
Yes Ossifer Tim, I am having a great deal of fun with the Coasties right now. I remember how they crowed when Jean Poutine canceled the EH-101 for the absolute stupidest of reasons. Payback is a mofo. I’d love to see Tim Biscuit go down and lecture the boys of C.A.W. Local 1 about the immorality of building *gasp* WAR ships. Here’s a hint; it’s kind of hard to sing “Solidarity Forever” with your jaw wired shut.
And Comandante, you’ll be pleased to know that I too am starting to have doubts about the F-35. It could be another F-111 fiasco. McNamara’s attempt to force a joint aircraft on all 3 services and producing something that could do none of it’s tasks particularly well. The Brits and Aussies were signed up to buy into the program. The Brits bailed and bought Phantoms instead while developing the Tornado for it’s next generation multi-role airframe. But, I digress. The main bullet point of my ramble is that the F/A-18 Super Hornet is starting to look like a much better option for us.
Peace – through Air Superiority.
War is not the answer? What? Have you been studying the situation with India & Pakistan? Turkey or Israel? Russia and everyone? Iran & Iraq? China & Taiwan. Korea?
“War is not the answer?”
Well it certainly damn well is the question isn’t it?
This is insane.
Halifax’s reason for existence has always been a military installation.
What a turd this magazine is.
Congratulations to all the Shipyard Workers. All Nova Scotians.
An extra 120 Million dollars a year in tax revenue for the next 30 years.
The rest of you imbeciles grow up. Do some homework or something.
Wow, Admiral. What are people like you doing reading the Coast???
Tim, regarding the smaller jobs farmed out, is there a way to find out whether any of that money goes to, say, the big Norwegian weapons maker in Ontario or to an American company?
@arteest – Just being the turd in the punchbowl, the skunk at the garden party. Reminding the Coasties what “diversity” really means.
Here’s an idea to boost Nova Scotia’s Economy — A local Currency.
Salt Spring Island in BC is doing it with some success it appears.
http://www.saltspringdollars.com/
The Global Economy crashes. Who cares about that, if we can get our dollars to stay in Nova Scotia. this Nova Scotia Dollar can only be spent at Locally owned Nova Scotia Businesses.
Say it comes about and 60-70% of our dollars stay here. We can weather any storm and not have to kiss the ass end of every ‘Silver Bullet’ idea that comes along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv_EwU8-3Gs
You’d never know the Canadian economy was “fragile”, at least according to the Conservatives who keep reminding us of that every time unionized workers threaten to strike. I suppose an argument can be made for building new ships for Canada’s navy, but on top of a deeply flawed and hugely expensive planned acquisition of F-35 fighters, now Peter “Top Gun” Mackay is floating the idea of replacing the derelict sub fleet with nuclear submarines.
The Conservatives have deliberately misled Canadians about the cost of the F-35 procurement program. Rather than the approximately $75 million cost per fighter that they keep quoting, the actual cost will likely be DOUBLE that amount, and this new estimate is coming from the U.S. Pentagon’s Chief Procurement Officer, the U.S. government and just about any other military analyst who has looked at the program. The British military, one of the largest customers, has cut their planned purchase of F-35s in HALF (from more than twice the number Canada is buying to less than 60 airframes). The U.S. military won’t be buying them in the numbers originally planned. The cost per airframe depends heavily on the total number eventually produced and now that number is nowhere near the 5000 airframes Lockheed-Martin has used as the basis for their ever-increasing cost estimates.
All of this on top of serious questions about the refusal of the Conservatives to find replacements for the current fleet of CF-18s through a competitive process. The Conservatives have also misled Canadians on this issue, insisting that the original competition to select a manufacturer for the Joint Strike Fighter back in the 1990s, counts as a competition for Canada’s acquisition a new fighters in the next few years. This kind of evasion is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians, whose taxes will be spent to pay for any new aircraft.
If Peter “Top Gun” Mackay is serious about the purchase of nuclear subs (at today’s prices around $3 billion each) I can only wonder where in the world the goververnment will find the money. Perhaps the Conservatives will continue to follow the “American Plan” when it comes to government spending – deep cuts to everything EXCEPT military spending, no matter how large the deficit. Of course, this kind of plan makes sense if you happen to be the CEO of a large defense contractor and it doesn’t surprise me coming from a government which “gave” Tony Clement $50 million (money earmarked for border infrastructure) to blow on things like gazebos in his own federal riding.
Beware the military-industrial complex indeed.
Give yourself a swift kick in the ass if you actually voted for these clowns.
Nukes again, huh? Well, that would be one healthy incentive to ensure that this time we buy subs that actually work. Of course, by the time the first one comes off the slipway, the Arctic Ocean is going to be so ice-free that we can send the Bluenose on sovereignty patrols.
Perhaps Peter is going to the Capitol Hill Costume Party as Brian Mulroney and just wants to get in character.
Ooooooh, Scary
http://www.sctvguide.ca/programs/countfloy…
Well, Peter gently tried to make the case for nuclear subs by pointing out that ONLY nuclear subs could do the kind of under-the-ice patrolling that he apparently thinks is necessary to maintain Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic.
But this rationale had an obvious flaw in that it contradicted part of the rationale for augmenting/rebuilding Canada’s surface fleet, that rationale being to beef up Arctic patrols in the soon-to-be ice free Canadian Arctic archipelago (thank you Mr. Global Warming – I guess you really DO exist).
Today it looks like the whole thing was just a daydream. He now says he only meant that nuclear subs would be desirable in an “ideal world”, presumably one where Canada had lots of money to throw around for such things.
But that brings us back to the question of why the government is committed to pouring more money into its fleet of lemons (the current diesel-electrics) when their mission remains unclear.
I think if you’re going to spend money on military equipment you should want the biggest bang for your buck (literally) all the while making sure it’s a bang you can afford.
I could support improvements to Canada’s military capabilities in support of a clearly defined role for Canada’s military and I’m not talking about throwing sandbags in flood-ravaged communities or restricting Canada’s military to U.N peacekeeping duties (although I continue to believe that U.N. peacekeeping efforts can be worthwhile). Interoperability among allies is one thing, but I don’t think equipping ourselves to become a modern day Auxiliary Legion serving under the Eagle of the struggling American Empire is a proper or worthwhile goal for Canada’s military services.
I’m afraid that the Conservatives have been getting some very bad advice when it comes to revitalizing Canada’s military machine and their approach to spending the taxpayers’ dollars should be questioned, especially when they associate themselves with the F-35 promotional efforts of people like retired General Paul Manson, former fighter pilot, former Chief of Air Command, former Chief of Defense Staff and last but certainly not least, former Chairman of Lockheed-Martin Canada, whose parent in the U.S. is building the F-35.
I’d hate to see the current Canadian government follow the Americans down the road of supporting huge military expenditures (relative to GDP) which mainly benefit the corporate partners in the military-industrial complex, while at the same time neglecting the needs of rank-and-file warriors when they return home from the battlefield and short-changing veterans of all eras who have given their service.
Just to let you know Commandante, it was under the Mulroney government that the navy was looking towards nuclear powered (not armed) submarines. This is nothing new. The real problem here is that for decades the military has been neglected (ie equipment not being replaced/upgraded when it needed to be) and hereby this is the reason for the enormous output for ships and jets and everything else and money wasn’t put away for it. Imagine ignoring the maintenence on your house and twenty years down the road you have to replace the roof, furnance, sewer/pipes, electrical, and so on. New ships should have been built yearly or every two years so there is always a new one to replace an old one, same with planes, tanks, etc.
Our dalliance with submarines was a product of the Cold War. We never had any in the RCN in WW2, although Canadian submariners served in the British boats. Near as I can figure the only real purpose they served was as targets to train our surface sailors in A.S.W. Fisheries, anti-pollution and drug interdiction seem like ridiculous rationalizations, even assuming the things function. Maintaining an intrinsic capability only makes sense if there is some compelling reason for it.
You do raise an interesting question. Not being facetious, but has a Canadian Government ever been given good advice re: defence acquisitions and if so, have they ever acted upon it. I’d love to know who the genius was who convinced Jean Poutine that cancelling a program that would replace 2 different types of helicopter with one airframe that could be tailored for S.A.R. and shipboard A.S.W. was in any way a responsible decision. Ditto with the Mulroney genius who decided to sell of our Chinook heavy lift helicopters to the Dutch. Anybody out there, (other than the usual Arms are for Hugging crowd)with an example of an intelligent defense purchase that actually benefitted the folks who used it?
Correction: Canada did possess submarines in the First World War. In fact, the Government of British Columbia acquired a pair of American built Holland boats becasue of the perceived threat posed by the German Asiatic Squadron based at Tsingtao.