# The "Diefenbreaker"



## Spencer100 (28 Aug 2008)

STEVEN CHASE 

Globe and Mail Update

August 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM EDT

INUVIK — Stephen Harper says he will name Canada's new flagship icebreaker after former prime minister John Diefenbaker – a fellow Tory – in a move that puts a clearly Conservative stamp on his high-profile Arctic sovereignty agenda.

The Prime Minister announced the move in Inuvik Thursday as he concludes a brief tour of the Arctic before an expected federal election call.

When it's completed in 2017, the John G. Diefenbaker will replace the Louis St. Laurent, which is currently the most powerful icebreaker in Canada and was named after Canada's 12th prime minister, a Liberal.

The Tories first announced $780-million in funding for the new vessel in the 2008 federal budget but didn't name the ship at the time.

Harper on election-style tour of the Arctic

The Prime Minister's sweeping visit included Tuktoyaktuk on the Mackenzie Delta to the historic gold rush town of Dawson in the Yukon


 Mr. Diefenbaker, Canada's 13th prime minister, succeeded Mr. St. Laurent in power in 1957 and the Conservatives say the new ship named for the Tory leader will be bigger and more powerful than its predecessor.

“When it launches for the first time into the frigid Canadian waters, the Diefenbreaker, as it is almost certain to be nicknamed, will be a crowning achievement for our country,” Mr. Harper said.

The new vessel will be the pride of Canada's coast guard fleet and is the single biggest budget item in Mr. Harper's Arctic initiative, which seeks to reassert Canadian control over this country's Far North as global hunger grows for polar petroleum riches.

Mr. Harper said the new vessel name is appropriate because Mr. Diefenbaker championed the Far North during his time in office. It was the Saskatchewan leader's government that established Inuvik in the late 1950s and he was the first sitting prime minister to travel north of the Arctic Circle, Mr. Harper noted.

The Tory leader's event yesterday was designed to evoke memories of Mr. Diefenbaker's prime ministerial visit to Inuvik in 1961, when he officially inaugurated the town.

“I can think of no better name for this [new] ship than the name of the man who spoke a few metres from where I am standing today,” the prime minister said as he stood outside a school in downtown Inuvik where Mr. Diefenbaker delivered a speech 47 years ago.

Mr. Harper is an admirer of Mr. Diefenbaker and in some ways has mirrored him. Both men would be described as western Canadian populists and both first took power by winning minority governments. Like Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Harper has set out to make the North a major item in his government's agenda.

“John George Diefenbaker, like Sir. John A. MacDonald, was a prime minister with a dream, not just seeing the great expanse of the country but the greatness that Canada and Canadians should aspire to,” Mr. Harper said.

He noted that Mr. Diefenbaker's government commenced a massive infrastructure program in the North, called “Roads to Resources” that built over 1400 miles of road through the territories including the Dempster highway linking Inuvik to southern Canada.

“Prime Minister Diefenbaker is no longer with us but the geopolitical importance of the Arctic and Canada's interests in it have never been greater,” he said.

The naming of the Diefenbaker caps a week of Arctic announcements for Mr. Harper as he prepares for what is widely expected to be an election call in early September.

Despite a pledge to set fixed election dates – he had designated October 19, 2009 as the first – Mr. Harper is expected to ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament next month, saying opposition parties are frustrating his ability to govern.

This week Mr. Harper has laid out a series of pro-Arctic announcements that aim to demonstrate he is standing up for Canada in the polar region, including a defence of the Northwest Passage against foreign nations that consider it international waters and a drive to identify and claim Far North petroleum and mineral wealth for Canadians. 

On Tuesday, he announced a $100-million map the Far North's mineral and petroleum wealth, “to help prospectors and producers find the vast stores of gas, oil, gold, diamonds and other wealth buried beneath the tundra.”

On Wednesday, he announced that Canada is expanding by half a million square kilometres the amount of Arctic Ocean it will consider to be Canadian territory for the purpose of policing pollution violations, and will make it mandatory for all ships entering its polar waters to report their presence.

“These initiatives are real, tangible expressions of our determination to develop and protect our true north,” Mr. Harper said.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

Sweet thread name.  I approve of this name.  Diefenbaker rocks.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Aug 2008)

the man that single handedly destroyed our avaiation industry...yeah great name....


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Aug 2008)

A post at _The Torch_--links there:

The Diefenbreaker--in 2017!?!
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/diefenbreaker-in-2017.html



> Good grief. The Louis St. Laurent will be almost 50 years old before it's replaced by the John G. Diefenbaker. It's all very good to name the vessel, but why nine years to build--with a great deal of luck (keep the JSS/MSPV fiascos in mind)? That is just not good enough, buy the damn ship offshore. And what about the Coast Guard's four other aging icebreakers?
> 
> Hell, at this pace by the time we get a new icebreaking fleet there won't be much ice left to break if the global warmers are right. Maybe the slowness in replacing our vessels is a sign that the Conservatives now really are believers
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Aug 2008)

Picture of Icebreaker


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2008)

Polar 8 part 2  :

This is getting drawn out more than BSG...

I wa lucky, I actually got to see the only chunk of our Polar 8 Icebreaker made. It was a slab of metal that they were testing to see what they would make the hull out of. I think they spent 35 million without building anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_8


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Aug 2008)

What "Polar class" will this new icebreaker be?  I am assuming not as big.


----------



## Huzzah (28 Aug 2008)

The cancellation of the Avro Arrow was incredibly stupid.Diefenbaker
destroyed a cutting edge Aviation Industry.Those great minds went
elsewhere,the United States,NASA.The ship deserves a better name.


----------



## Rodahn (28 Aug 2008)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> The cancellation of the Avro Arrow was incredibly stupid.Diefenbaker
> destroyed a cutting edge Aviation Industry.Those great minds went
> elsewhere,the United States,NASA.The ship deserves a better name.



Welcome to the wonderful world of polotics.........


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> The cancellation of the Avro Arrow was incredibly stupid.



No. The actions taken after the cancellation of the CF-105 were stupid.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (28 Aug 2008)




----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> The cancellation of the Avro Arrow was incredibly stupid.Diefenbaker
> destroyed a cutting edge Aviation Industry.Those great minds went
> elsewhere,the United States,NASA.The ship deserves a better name.



*Absolute rubbish!*

The Arrow, had any government allowed it to go ahead, would have *disarmed* Canada.

The project was opposed by, _inter alia_, the Treasury, the Naval Staff, the General Staff and a goodly proportion of the Air Staff - for good reasons. Diefenbaker, as he should have, followed the best available financial and military advice. He made the correct decision.

It was a good airplane, probably even a very good airplane but not one that could be sold to anyone else. It would have been a HUGE white elephant. _The Chief_ made the politically and militarily correct decision. Canada did not need the Arrow; Canada could not afford the Arrow; the Arrow met the fate it deserved: the scrap heap.


Edit: I added a bit because I hit the Post button when I meant to hit Preview.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Absolute rubbish!*
> 
> The Arrow, had any government allowed it to go ahead, would have disarmed Canada.
> 
> The project was opposed by the Treasury, the Naval Staff, the General Staff and a goodly proportion of the Air Staff. It was a good airplane, probably even a very good airplane but not one that could be sold to anyone else. It would have been a HUGE white elephant. _The Chief_ made the politically and militarily correct decision. Canada did not need the Arrow; Canada could not afford the Arrow; the Arrow met the fate t deserved.



Exactly. The mission for which the CF-105 had been created had long vanished. The "bomber gap" did not exist and the ICBM was the main, overriding threat. The CF-105 could do nothing about those.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell: Exactly.  But the myth, with a huge dose of anti-Americanism will live on as long as there is a Canada--one which those lefties (a fair portion of Arrowheads generally) who love the Arrow don't want to pay for now to arm.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Aug 2008)

Ok what happened to Canada's ability to design and produce our own fighter aircraft? Did not the Chief replace it with the BOMARC because he felt manned fighter aircraft were obsolete? I feel because of his actions, a lot of people went elsewhere to work in the aerospace industry.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

topic split ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Aug 2008)

Ok folk lets get back on topic

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ok what happened to Canada's ability to design and produce our own fighter aircraft? Did not the Chief replace it with the BOMARC because he felt manned fighter aircraft were obsolete? I feel because of his actions, a lot of people went elsewhere to work in the aerospace industry.



We never had much of a capability, even then. A lot of good ideas came together in one (British) company's Canadian plant. But, in terms of military aircraft, we were, and still are a parts and component suppler - the AVRO CF-100 _Canuck_ being the notable exception, the one that proves the rule, perhaps? Our civil aviation industry is in adequate shape. We need to wait and see about our space industry.

In those terms we are about consistent with our allies, friends, neighbours and competitors.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Aug 2008)

We should just be glad that it's not an icebreaking HELICOPTER we're buying or you will be able to buy a tropical vacation to Igloolik before they're ready  ;D


----------



## Huzzah (28 Aug 2008)

Hi MarkOttawa,
   Personally,I'm not a "leftie-Arrowhead".I vote Conservative.The Americans are
our Allies,and we are at war.(no anti-Americanism here either).I'm not convinced
that the cancellation of the Arrow was of any benefit to Canada though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Absolute rubbish!*
> 
> The Arrow, had any government allowed it to go ahead, would have *disarmed* Canada.
> 
> ...



Stopping the program was one thing, how they went about it was criminal. The prototypes could have flown as test aircraft, no need to scrap them, destroying the plans etc. They could have wound it down in such a manner that it cancellation would have not had the same impact on our aviation industry.


----------



## Ammo (28 Aug 2008)

First the "Diefenbunker" and now the "Diefenbreaker".

_The seven Emergency Government Headquarters (commonly referred to as Diefenbunkers) are nuclear fallout shelters that were built across Canada at the height of the Cold War, during the infancy of the ICBM threat. The nickname, "Diefenbunkers", was coined by federal opposition politicians of the early 1960s, and was derived from the name of the prime minister of the day, John Diefenbaker, who authorized their construction._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diefenbunker


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2008)

I'm not too concerned.  I am positive that they will not turn out to be "Bennett Buggies".


----------



## FSTO (29 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ok what happened to Canada's ability to design and produce our own fighter aircraft? Did not the Chief replace it with the BOMARC because he felt manned fighter aircraft were obsolete? I feel because of his actions, a lot of people went elsewhere to work in the aerospace industry.



He wasn't alone in that thought. With the launch of sputnik (sp) governments around the world were re-assessing their fighter jet needs and requirements. Canada could not afford to continue with a project that may or may not be even useful in a few years.

Now was the government of the day a mite brutal in ending the project? Yes, but there was overiding concerns regarding the Soviets getting the plans. Could the government have gone in a different direction and kept that expertise? Yes, but what?

What is less known is that at the same time we had a military shipbuilding industry that was producing some of the most innovative warships of the day. Just as devestating was the slow death of that legacy.

As a side note, I went to the comment section of that G&M story. Over 500 replies that lay out in stark relief the ignorance and stupidity of what appears to be a vast majority of Globe and Mail readers.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2008)

FSTO said:
			
		

> As a side note, I went to the comment section of that G&M story. Over 500 replies that lay out in stark relief the ignorance and stupidity of what appears to be a vast majority of Globe and Mail readers.



It sometimes is like reading the "Funnies" and at other times very dishearting to read the comments in those types of forums.  It is a means that some of these wack jobs use to force their views on the less read/knowledgeable in the public.  One can go to youtube.com to see the work and effort Mike Sparks has put towards his fanatical one man efforts in claims that the M113 is called a "Gavin".  He has even gone through the efforts of creating multiple accounts and personalities to further his agenda, and has even moved on to Wikipedia to carry out his efforts.  There are a lot of "Crazy people" out there, who are not institutionalized (but should be), and posting on the Net.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (29 Aug 2008)

Looks like the US isn't too keen on the prospects of our new ship. 

http://www.canada.com/ch/chchnews/story.html?id=187be7c6-54df-4655-a404-7c45add3eb35


----------



## aesop081 (29 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Looks like the US isn't too keen on the prospects of our new ship.
> 
> http://www.canada.com/ch/chchnews/story.html?id=187be7c6-54df-4655-a404-7c45add3eb35



No big surprise there. The US does not consider the NWP as Canadian waters so of course they are going to express their concern over the manditory registration. The title of that article is missleading as the new icebreaker is not even mentioned. Sounds like the media looking to create controversy from nothing with their headline.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (29 Aug 2008)

"we will be discussing the proposal with Canada" to ensure it doesn't violate international law. 


 That's the part of the article that caught my attention. I some how doubt the US will care two hershey squirts about bending the borders in thier favour, nor do i doubt thier intentions to make sure we fall in step or face the concesquences. 

 Cheers.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2008)

The US in not concerned about the "Diefenbreaker", which is unlikely to be in the water in less than a decade.  It's concerned about the immediate application of mandatory NORDREG reporting to the Canadian Coast Guard--which could prove difficult to enforce currently.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/MarineSafety/TP/Tp13670/DFOCCG.htm

A couple of articles worth reading:

Arctic sovereignty
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=39be70fc-ce84-426b-953b-c9e7c378530b

Guarding Canada's northern coast
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c73cfd5-d71b-4b28-8670-43f374e8dc88

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Sub_Guy (29 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> That's the part of the article that caught my attention. I some how doubt the US will care two hershey squirts about bending the borders in thier favour, nor do i doubt thier intentions to make sure we fall in step or face the concesquences.



What concesquences?   We have the oil, what we need is someone in office who has a big set.   

With next to no military presence up north its pretty much wide open anyway.


----------



## blacktriangle (29 Aug 2008)

Like Mark said considering the icebreaker is a decade at least away... I don't think the US is very worried. They could probably start today and have a fleet of icebreakers up there to meet ours at its launch, if they deem it worthwhile...  >


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2008)

In fact the government hasn't actually yet done anything to strengthen our maritime claim--the fine print:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2246



> ...the Prime Minister announced his *Government’s intention* [emphasis added] to introduce new legislation extending the enforcement zone of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (AWPPA) in the next sitting of Parliament.
> 
> In addition the Prime Minister announced that his Government was also bringing in new regulations extending the range at which Arctic bound ships must report to Canadian authorities through the NORDREG reporting system...
> 
> ...



Legislation on the AWPPA will obviously take some time--and if there is an election? Will even new NORDREG regulations be issued promptly?

Lots more here:
http://benmuse.typepad.com/arctic_economics/2008/08/the-northwest-passage---at-least-the-southern-route---is-open-again-this-year-arctic-shortcuts-open-up-decline-pace-stead.html#more

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Aug 2008)

I won't hold my breath for this one to come off the slips.  Plenty of mismanagement and politics between concept/announcement/commissioning/operational.  The present masters are great at bluster and fanfare but don't deliver in the end....so far.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2008)

Something stinks.  See the *Update* at this _Torch_ post
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/diefenbreaker-in-2017.html
--incredibly vanishing links to vessels of the CCG at the government site:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/at-last-one-new-icebreaker-for-canadian.html

On the other hand maybe it's not nefarious--just a consequence of trying to implement the feds' "Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0":
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/clf2-nsi2/index-eng.asp

Bureacratic madness--without any additional funding from Treasury Board. So the content of sites is often reduced.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2008)

Links to CCG vessels can still be found, how I could not see:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0000439

See josh's comment (#4) here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22793240&postID=4867302016193217925

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (31 Aug 2008)

Harper announced that he is naming the new ship the Diefenbaker.  Here's how it should go:

"Do the R&D

Build the prototypes and make them the best in the world

Announce our success and the fact we have beat everyone, especially the Americans

Build the ships (maybe six?)

Line them up on the dock

Cut them up and destroy the remnants

Buy American Ice Breakers

The Diefenbaker way”

http://tinyurl.com/62n4k7


----------



## observor 69 (31 Aug 2008)

And this is the sad option we got stuck with:

The Diefenbaker government also infuriated the US administration by refusing to honour its commitment to accept nuclear warheads, thereby rendering the Bomarc-B, the Voodoo and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of other weapons systems virtually useless. In the 1962 election the hapless Diefenbaker government was reduced to a minority, and in 1963 it fell after a non-confidence vote condemning its ill-considered and badly-managed conduct of Canada's foreign policy and defence policy.

http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/aftermath.htm


----------



## FSTO (31 Aug 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Like Mark said considering the icebreaker is a decade at least away... I don't think the US is very worried. They could probably start today and have a fleet of icebreakers up there to meet ours at its launch, if they deem it worthwhile...  >



Looks like the US is not quite as efficient as you may assume.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae2557a55-2008-46d4-8cc1-414530e03820


"Defense Technology International - One of the Coast Guard’s duties is to patrol the freezing cold waters off the northernmost coast of our United States. And they can't do it in shoddy boats. Two of the three USCG polar icebreakers – the Polar Star and Polar Sea – have exceeded their intended 30-year service lives. And on the service’s current schedule, the first replacement ship might not enter service for another decade."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2008)

The USCG is famous for running really old ships. Generally with crews that were born after their midlife refit.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Sep 2008)

Love the thread title - it would be a howl if they actually named it that!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Something stinks.  See the *Update* at this _Torch_ post
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/diefenbreaker-in-2017.html
> --incredibly vanishing links to vessels of the CCG at the government site:
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/at-last-one-new-icebreaker-for-canadian.html
> ...



I recall my boss muttering a couple of weeks ago how they intend to mess up our website to get a common look, ours was working well as opposed to the rest of TC painful to read site.


----------

