# Saudis sending Canadian-made LAVs to combat Yemeni Rebels



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2016)

(The title of this piece of reporting really reflects poorly on the EDITOR of the Globe and Mail.) 


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Saudis appear to be using Canadian-made combat vehicles against Yemeni rebels
> STEVEN CHASE AND ROBERT FIFE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> Published Monday, Feb. 22, 2016 10:51PM EST
> ...



More on LINK.

Dear Editor

There is no ambiguity in the article about the origins of the armoured vehicles.  What "appear to be using Canadian-made combat vehicles" are indeed Canadian-made.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Feb 2016)

Newsflash: Military vehicles are being used for military purposes in combat. In other news, hockey sticks used for playing hockey.


----------



## RCPalmer (23 Feb 2016)

When we sell armaments to another country, we have to give some thought to how they will be used.  We have an arms export control process in place, but it is unfortunately very politicized., as we have seen in this case.  This story simply provides further confirmation of the reality on the ground. The question is "does this sale reflect Canadian values or are we compromising our values to protect Canadian jobs"? If it is the latter, I have cause for concern.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Feb 2016)

Oh well, they'll no doubt get these taken away and used against them by the rebels, just like the sniper rifles... (yawn)


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Feb 2016)

"We" compromise values whenever it is politically convenient.  Sell the LAVs, and sell some more.


----------



## RCPalmer (23 Feb 2016)

So, we should sell to anyone willing to buy?  In a similar example, I think the French showed some moral courage in turning off the Mistral deal with the Russians.  While they ultimately found another buyer, I'm sure they still took a bath on the deal in terms of penalties.  I realize that our relationship with the Saudis is somewhat different, but ultimately the are engaged in a conflict where human right abuses are rampant.  Further, the long term Canadian strategic interests in the region should be considered when making such a deal.  Is this sale in the national interest?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Feb 2016)

It is because we need Saudi oil to run the East coast, as the Federal government and Quebec/Ontario block domestic oil in pipelines to curb offshore demand.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2016)

Lets stay factual PuckChaser: the oil for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces that is not from Newfoundland is sourced, for 95% from the North Sea and Venezuela. Ontario's is Albertan/Saskatchewan.

In Canada, we are almost totally independent from any Middle East oil.

Only reason for the GoC authorizing the sale by Canadian companies of LAV's and other armoured types of vehicles to the Kingdom is the same as everybody else: We put a sh**t load of public money into building that industry for our own needs, so we want to keep them going during the down time between Canadian orders to keep them going as cheaply as possible. It's the mantra of arms salesman the world over.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lets stay factual PuckChaser: the oil for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces that is not from Newfoundland is sourced, for 95% from the North Sea and Venezuela. Ontario's is Albertan/Saskatchewan.
> 
> In Canada, we are almost totally independent from any Middle East oil.
> 
> Only reason for the GoC authorizing the sale by Canadian companies of LAV's and other armoured types of vehicles to the Kingdom is the same as everybody else: We put a sh**t load of public money into building that industry for our own needs, so we want to keep them going during the down time between Canadian orders to keep them going as cheaply as possible. It's the mantra of arms salesman the world over.




And it's a good, and in my opinion, wholly (and morally) acceptable mantra, too ... whether it's us or, much, Much, MUCH more likely the American, French, Russian, German, Dutch or Singaporean arms merchants saying it. Weapons systems are routinely _recycled_ from e.g. Canada to Turkey or to the Netherlands and from there to Venezuela and to the gods alone know where else. Sometimes the weapons are recycled, as recently, by being captured and then used against the former owners ... frankly I can think of few people against whom I would rather see the weapons that we sold them, in the first place, reused than the Saudis: serves 'em right!

Weapons systems have intended purposes, no matter who uses them ... some people are uncomfortable with that fact, and I respect their delicate sensibilities, too, but as you said, there is "a shit load"of our money "invested" in the LAV_n_ and we should all hold our noses while we try to recoup just a bit of it.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Feb 2016)

As of 2015 the regions we import oil from are:

#1 USA
#2 North Sea 
#3 Middle East 
#4 North Africa 
#5 West Africa 

Figures taken from neb-one.gc.ca 

I am working from my cell phone or I would post the link. 

From what I can find out oil from N & L is all exported. 

I screwed up trying to read my link on a small screen. 


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Feb 2016)

Shocked I tell, shocked, wait till they find out what happened to those 6x6 LAV's we sold to Africa


----------



## RCPalmer (24 Feb 2016)

None of this is shocking.  It doesn't mean we should ignore it.  

At least the Grizzlies and Cougars we sold/gifted in Africa supported a policy objective at the time (supporting the AU Force), but any undesired subsequent use should serve as a cautionary example. I would be curious to know how many of them are still running.    

As you say, there is lots of scope for weapons to be recycled, though I would assert that the more they are recycled, the less useful they will be (due to wear and tear and a lack of maintenance capabilities in third world forces and non state actors).  

Major arms sales however (and I'm guessing $15B buys a lot of LAVs), have the potential to intensify or prolong conflicts, and that has human security implications which are of concern for Canada.  

From a policy perspective, the government appears committed to arms control initiatives:
http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/military-militaires/index.aspx?lang=eng
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/prmny-mponu/canada_un-canada_onu/positions-orientations/peace-paix/disarmament-desarmement.aspx?lang=eng

If we are "holding our nose" to support domestic industry, the government should just say so.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Feb 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> If we are "holding our nose" to support domestic industry, the government should just say so.


I doubt if any government of any colour would ever say that out loud so clearly - here's the closest to such verbal wizardy I've seen:


> Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion says the Liberal government does not necessarily approve of Canada’s sale of $15 billion worth of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a country with a dismal human rights record.
> 
> But Dion says the government is simply allowing a previously negotiated contract to stand.
> 
> ...


In fact, one former foreign minister loves the idea - highlights mine ...


> ... former foreign affairs minister John Baird said ... that the multi-billion dollar deal has merit.  Baird said while Canada and Saudi Arabia "share many different values" there are also common interests. *There's an economic interest linked to the deal*, he said, but also *a shared interest in security as the battle against the Islamic State continues*.  "I'd sign it again today," Baird said of the deal, *which will support manufacturing jobs in Ontario*.  He said the Liberals choosing to honour the commitment made under the last government "says all you need to say."  "It obviously isn't that bad. Obviously we have a lot of military jobs in Canada, we export to a lot of countries," he said.


As an ad man once said, “The Risk of Insult is the Price of Clarity.”


----------



## gryphonv (28 Jul 2017)

Ottawa ready to review Saudi arms deals amid crackdown
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-arms-deal-canada-shia-1.4227018
Shared via the CBC News Android App

Sorry guys wrong forum.can it be moved for me .


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2017)

This could hit the London ON plant pretty hard.  I recommend cancelation of the contract be met with immediate industrial compensation in the form of a new contract to provide the CAF with:

a complete LAV 6 based bison replacement
a LAV 6 replacement TLAV & MTVL for platforms in Arty, Engr and Svc Bn use
LAV 6 TOW
LAV 6 mortar carrier
LAV 6 vehicles to sp a fourth rifle coy in every mech Bn
a complete LAV 6 Op Stock fleet of a size suitable to support the new defence policy
a complete LAV 6 fleet to support BLUEFOR & REDFOR on CMTC exercises (yes, this failed the last time we tried but because it was done at the expense of the field force while the Afghan mission was simultaneously being resourced at the expense of the field force)
LAV 6 EOD and search vehicles (to replace the cougars)
a small pool of LAV 6 recce & Engr Sect Carriers to enable CFSME to train at the Tp + or Sqn - level (I understand other Gagetown schools already have resources to do this, but provide top-up as needed)
a fleet of observer/trainer LAV 6 for level 4/5 range safety staff and to conduct driver training at Div and branch training centres (picture the Leopard 1 driver training platform)
maybe something for the PRes to be held at the Div training centres and used at summer concentrations


----------



## gryphonv (28 Jul 2017)

My big gripe is the liberals were against it during the election. Ended up supporting to suck up to the Saudis, now they may try to kill it.

Sounds like playing two sides of the same coin.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Sorry guys wrong forum.can it be moved for me .



No prob.

$15B CAD is a lot of LAV6s. Adding the cost of the initial LAV3 buy and the LAVUP program is around $5B, $15B triples our LAV6 fleet. We'd never be able to maintain, house and run that many vehicles. We likely could provide all those variants that you listed MCG, but it would be a fraction of the total loss and devastate GDLS-C.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Jul 2017)

I guess we will also immediately stop importing Saudi oil to Eastern Canada and start using Alberta oil flowing West/East in the Trans-Canada pipeline.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No prob.
> 
> $15B CAD is a lot of LAV6s. Adding the cost of the initial LAV3 buy and the LAVUP program is around $5B, $15B triples our LAV6 fleet. We'd never be able to maintain, house and run that many vehicles. We likely could provide all those variants that you listed MCG, but it would be a fraction of the total loss and devastate GDLS-C.



The Saudis were buying LAV 7s as well.  Much larger than the LAV 6 and definitely not compatible with the majority of our current fleets.


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We likely could provide all those variants that you listed MCG, but it would be a fraction of the total loss and devastate GDLS-C.


Well, if the government is going to make a decision that will require taxpayers to compensate a company, then we may as well at least start with something that provides a return for that investment (to include both military capability & preserving the Canadian jobs that were dependant on the contract that may be put to death).



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Saudis were buying LAV 7s as well.  Much larger than the LAV 6 and definitely not compatible with the majority of our current fleets.


Last time that I toured the plant, they were quite boastful of their ability to produce multiple different variants and generations of LAV without need to stop and retool, so this should not be a problem.  But, I would still be interested in a supporting reference for there being a "LAV 7"


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jul 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I recommend cancelation of the contract be met with immediate industrial compensation in the form of a new contract to provide the CAF with:



Let's play with the numbers here.



> a complete LAV 6 based bison replacement


My (old) numbers suggest 195.



> a LAV 6 replacement TLAV & MTVL for platforms in Arty, Engr and Svc Bn use


294.



> LAV 6 TOW


Probably need about 60.



> LAV 6 mortar carrier


Probably about 45.



> LAV 6 vehicles to sp a fourth rifle coy in every mech Bn


90.



> a complete LAV 6 Op Stock fleet of a size suitable to support the new defence policy


Let's say 100 for a BG+.



> a complete LAV 6 fleet to support BLUEFOR & REDFOR on CMTC exercises (yes, this failed the last time we tried but because it was done at the expense of the field force while the Afghan mission was simultaneously being resourced at the expense of the field force)


Let's say 100 for a BG vs a Cbt Tm.



> LAV 6 EOD and search vehicles (to replace the cougars)


30.



> a small pool of LAV 6 recce & Engr Sect Carriers to enable CFSME to train at the Tp + or Sqn - level (I understand other Gagetown schools already have resources to do this, but provide top-up as needed)


Let's say 10.



> a fleet of observer/trainer LAV 6 for level 4/5 range safety staff and to conduct driver training at Div and branch training centres (picture the Leopard 1 driver training platform)


Let's say 15 per TC - so 60.



> maybe something for the PRes to be held at the Div training centres and used at summer concentrations


Let's say 0 for now.  The TAPV can provide this.

So, this adds up to 984 new LAVs, or roughly 1.5 x the current holdings.  That's a pretty ambitious buy.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jul 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Last time that I toured the plant, they were quite boastful of their ability to produce multiple different variants and generations of LAV without need to stop and retool, so this should not be a problem.  But, I would still be interested in a supporting reference for there being a "LAV 7"



http://www.janes.com/article/71612/export-lav-700-enters-production


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Jul 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, this adds up to 984 new LAVs, or roughly 1.5 x the current holdings.  That's a pretty ambitious buy.



I'd say add to that about two dozen LAV 6 MMEV's for AD. As well we would need a LAV 6 recovery platform, cause right now the only thing that can recover a LAV is an ARV. so thats another maybe 4 per battalion? so 36?

We could pull off such a massive buy, and GD could probably deliver rather quickly.


----------



## McG (29 Jul 2017)

The Bison and MTVL families include fitters, MRTs, and recovery variants.  So some of that requirement is covered in the numbers pulled from my list already.

I don't think I would resurrect the MMEV, but maybe an air defence vehicle if the systems integration work is done.


----------



## gryphonv (29 Jul 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Bison and MTVL families include fitters, MRTs, and recovery variants.  So some of that requirement is covered in the numbers pulled from my list already.
> 
> I don't think I would resurrect the MMEV, but maybe an air defence vehicle if the systems integration work is done.



Is ADATS a good candidate for this? Or is it too short range as a reliable AS weapon?


----------



## Ostrozac (29 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Is ADATS a good candidate for this? Or is it too short range as a reliable AS weapon?



The ADATS missile is probably overkill for the kind of AD threat we are most worried about: Russian/Iranian/Whoever UAV. You'd probably want a mixed gun/missile system like the one of the old USMC LAV-AD.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Jul 2017)

ADATS is dead. There are no more missiles. No one makes them any more.

Better to go with some sort of modern gun/missile combo, netted to a sensor.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Jul 2017)

Guys lets be real, the government isn't killing any deal.  The review is announced and will never actually happen.


----------



## jmt18325 (29 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Guys lets be real, the government isn't killing any deal.  The review is announced and will never actually happen.



It might very well happen - it will just end with the continuation of the deal.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It might very well happen - it will just end with the continuation of the deal.



Pretty much  ;D


----------



## GAP (29 Jul 2017)

I wonder now if we should ban the sale of CC. Horrible things have happened because someone misused it. 

When are we going to stop this perpetual whining because some nervous nelly has a hair up their ass.


----------



## ballz (29 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> http://www.janes.com/article/71612/export-lav-700-enters-production



Ou, I get a little... excited... seeing that there are no side-bins to be ripped off every time I need to blaze a trail through the woods.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Ou, I get a little... excited... seeing that there are no side-bins to be ripped off every time I need to blaze a trail through the woods.



My source mentioned that these have a lot of "chrome and plastic" on them.  I highly doubt they would last long in our troops hands.   [


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jul 2017)

Not to mention the GoC isn't in a position to buy a ton of new vehicles to make up for production losses if the deal with KSA was shit canned.  They can't even afford to buy what they need to replace anticipated equipment like ships and fighters.  If they make any noise it will be like a fart, all smell with no substance.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2017)

The idea of purchasing new LAVs for ourselves to make up for a potentially killed deal with the KSA is interesting to say the least. One other way to figure out how many LAV 6.0 hulls to build might simply be to count up the various micro fleets of TLAVs, Bisons, Coyotes, etc that we have. Over the years I have seen various figures suggesting we should have purchased @ 1000 LAV's to replace the various vehicle fleets we had (the highest figure I recall was @ 1400), so the figure Infanteer came up with is in the ballpark when added to the existing fleet of @ 400 or so.

Given that the government has committed to increasing military spending by 70% in order to get closer to the 2% GDP spending we are committed to through NATO, the idea that we "can't afford" it seems a bit ludicrous. Indeed, once you take the logistical streamlining by having only one fleet family as the basis of the fleet of vehicles then you should come out slightly ahead in terms of O&M, not to mention lower unit costs by building them assembly line fashion and getting economies of scale.

Sadly this is just a fantastical vision given the extreme difficulty we have getting boots and other very simple. low tech equipment to the troops.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jul 2017)

Ah, just because it makes sense to streamline vehicles AND save money... 

Even though we're supposed to be increasing the budget, I'll believe it (all the ship's and aircraft we really need) when I see it.  If my part of the procurement pie area is any indication, money is still tight.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Guys lets be real, the government isn't killing any deal.  The review is announced and will never actually happen. come up with the conclusion desired by The Bosses.


FTFY  ;D


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ah, just because it makes sense to streamline vehicles AND save money...



If the LAV 6 became the basis for almost all non heavy armour combat vehicles in our innovatory in one way or another, the saving from the streamlined logistics chain, and maintenance/spare parts would be significant I believe.


----------



## medicineman (30 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ah, just because it makes sense to streamline vehicles AND save money...



Hey now, you know the motto of the GOC and DND - "If it makes sense, do the exact opposite (after a lengthy Royal Commission or expensive feasibility project says to do the sensible thing)."

Now, I might pay attention to the headline if it read something along the line of "Canadian Armed Forces personnel observing (or helping) Saudi Forces combat test new armoured vehicles...are they safe for Canadians?" or words to that effect.  Otherwise, it sounds like someone is trying to make this into a "Soldiers.  In the desert.  With guns." sort of thing, at least to me.  We sold them the stuff with the expectation that they might be used in anger - I'm pretty sure it wasn't one of those things like when PET Sr. sold a CANDU reactor to another country under the condition of it not being used for nuclear weapons research (which I doubt he sent anyone to verify).

 :2c: for what it's worth.

MM


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> ........  We sold them the stuff with the expectation that they might be used in anger - .



Apparently, the ones sold with all the chrome are mainly intended for military parades.   >


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jul 2017)

:rofl:


----------



## medicineman (30 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Apparently, the ones sold with all the chrome are mainly intended for military parades.   >



...in the places they've just conquered  :nod:

MM


----------



## RCPalmer (31 Jul 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Hey now, you know the motto of the GOC and DND - "If it makes sense, do the exact opposite (after a lengthy Royal Commission or expensive feasibility project says to do the sensible thing)."
> 
> Now, I might pay attention to the headline if it read something along the line of "Canadian Armed Forces personnel observing (or helping) Saudi Forces combat test new armoured vehicles...are they safe for Canadians?" or words to that effect.  Otherwise, it sounds like someone is trying to make this into a "Soldiers.  In the desert.  With guns." sort of thing, at least to me.  We sold them the stuff with the expectation that they might be used in anger - I'm pretty sure it wasn't one of those things like when PET Sr. sold a CANDU reactor to another country under the condition of it not being used for nuclear weapons research (which I doubt he sent anyone to verify).
> 
> ...



It is clearly more than the expectation that the vehicles be used "in anger".  We have an arms export control regime in place precisely to keep weapons out of the hands of states with a history of human rights abuses, and this specific concern was raised throughout the approval process.  Now, we are in a position where two successive governments have elected ignore this process, and prioritize the economic imperatives.  

With regards to CANDU reactors and the Indian nuclear weapons program, that was a highly embarrassing incident which should serve as a cautionary example...just like this case.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My source mentioned that these have a lot of "chrome and plastic" on them.  I highly doubt they would last long in our troops hands.   [



I suspect our troops will take better care of them, then the current customers, just watch a few of the Houthi Rebel videos of how Saudi troops respond to being attacked.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Jul 2017)

Only idiots couldn't see this coming.

If you sell someone weapons, you should expect them to use them when they get involved in a war.

To have different expectations is simply ridiculous.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... If you sell someone weapons, you should expect them to use them when they get involved in a war ...


There you go, making sense again - wherever will _THAT_ get us?


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jul 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Only idiots couldn't see this coming.
> 
> If you sell someone weapons, you should expect them to use them when they get involved in a war.
> 
> To have different expectations is simply ridiculous.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2017)

Radical Islamists, killing radical Islamists of a different sect, hmmmmm struggling to see why we care.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jul 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Radical Islamists, killing radical Islamists of a different sect, hmmmmm struggling to see why we care.



Yup, varmint on varmint crime, nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## gryphonv (31 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yup, varmint on varmint crime, nothing to see here, move along.



Why not provide weapons to both sides to speed it along? We can ask the US for tips on how to do it...


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jul 2017)

FFS....Does this "title" not make you think that this Government really thinks that the more informed members of the Public are stupid?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Feds don't know how Saudi Arabia got Canadian made military vehicles
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> First posted: Friday, July 28, 2017 09:44 PM CDT | Updated: Friday, July 28, 2017 09:58 PM CDT
> 
> ...



Still trying to blame the Harper Government.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Jul 2017)

Stupid enough to give them a mandate for four years.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jul 2017)

I guess the government figured they'd only be hangar queens ....,  :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... If you sell someone weapons, you should expect them to use them when they get involved in a war ...


Well, there's always THIS option  ;D





(source)


----------



## George Wallace (2 Aug 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, there's always THIS option  ;D
> 
> (source)



With the brain cells of many in Government, I would not put that past their way of thinking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2017)

" Now, Sir, if you'll just sign here saying you won't drive your new car from us, over the speed limit we can wrap this up"

Excuse me? Is this my car? "Yes". Is there anything I owe you that would let you tell me what I can and can't do. "No, other than this paper". Does anything stop me from exceeding the speed limit? "No, but we won't sell you any more cars, if you do". You are not the only game in town. not even the best or cheapest, we don't need to give you our business. "Uhhhmmmmmm, aahhhhh, well, you know, uhhhmmmmmm.

Canada/Saudi Arabia no different.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Only idiots couldn't see this coming.
> 
> If you sell someone weapons, you should expect them to use them when they get involved in a war.
> 
> To have different expectations is simply ridiculous.



Expect the unexpected.  LAVs make excellent means of delivering sternly-worded letters of admonishment.  I'm certain that's what the Government honestly thought the Saudis would be using them for. :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Aug 2017)

I bet they promised never to use our vehicles against their Sunni Citizens.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I bet they promised never to use our vehicles against their Sunny Citizens.



Fixed that for you.  It all makes sense now...  :nod:


----------



## McG (3 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> FFS....Does this "title" not make you think that this Government really thinks that the more informed members of the Public are stupid?


Well the current fuss is not about Canadian made LAV, but rather it is about the Terradyne Gurkha.  Built on a Ford F550 and found in the service of several Canadian large city police forces, I would imagine it was sold without the government as a middle agent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terradyne_Armored_Vehicles_Gurkha


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Nov 2017)

And at the link, an apparently informed CBC opinion that Saudi Arabia is likely to invade Lebanon soon, and that the IDF has recently completed large scale exercises to take on Hezbollah while the Saudis deal with the rest.
A far reaching scenario, and if it were to happen would certainly involve the use of the LAV. 


http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/war-middle-east-1.4407876


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Nov 2017)

"Opinion" being the operative word.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Nov 2017)

and by what magical means does SA get through Syria in order to attack Lebanon?  Regardless of their collaboration I doubt very much that Israel would allow a Saudi armoured division to drive up the highway past Jerusalem on the way to the Lebanese border and I am even more certain that Damascus would file an objection or two


----------



## Altair (19 Nov 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> and by what magical means does SA get through Syria in order to attack Lebanon?  Regardless of their collaboration I doubt very much that Israel would allow a Saudi armoured division to drive up the highway past Jerusalem on the way to the Lebanese border and I am even more certain that Damascus would file an objection or two


by way of Egypt?


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Nov 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> by way of Egypt?



Yes, of course, because they get along so well together  :sarcasm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2017)

Well Egypt does have to shiny new Mistrals now with KA-52 attack helicopters and 12 LST/large landing craft with about 12 Frigates for support. Saudi has no landing craft by the looks of it and appears to have about 4 operational frigates. So any assault on Lebanon would need Egypt to back them. Likely the only thing Israel would do is to pin Hezbollah in place to prevent them for moving against the landing force, mainly through air and artillery assets. Highly unlikely the rank and file Egyptian soldier will willing take part in a joint battle with the IDF, particularly in Lebanon.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes, of course, because they get along so well together  :sarcasm:


 http://nationalpost.com/opinion/vivian-bercovici-you-can-thank-obama-for-the-looming-mideast-war-against-iran



> As the world welcomed the demise of ISIL’s reign of terror in the Mideast, it largely missed a more spectacular development: the entrenchment of Iranian power and control, from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea, controlling large swaths of Syria and all of Lebanon, and strategic outposts in Yemen and Libya. As ISIL filled the vacuum left by the abdication of American power by the Obama administration, so now Iran will occupy the space left by ISIL.
> 
> Iran openly brays its desire for the destruction of Israel and its intention to spread its extreme, radical and violent brand of Islam throughout the region. In Iran’s sights are Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> The Obama administration romanced Iran, but snubbed and even humiliated traditional American allies, like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Kuwait. As a result, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two significant powers threatened and marginalized by Obama’s pro-Iranian policy, have become close and unlikely allies of Israel. Strategic, political, military and intelligence co-operation among these countries is reported to be deeply entrenched and close.



Well enough it seems.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Nov 2017)

Really, Altair !!!

Relying on the baseless opinion of Vivian Bercovici. Vivian Bercovici! Why not ask the disinformation branch of the Mossad to write the opinion piece to start with, and have it done with?

Pro-Saudi, yet calling Iran's brand of Islam "extreme, radical and violent"? That's the pot calling the kettle black, if I ever saw a practical application of the expression.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Really, Altair !!!
> 
> Relying on the baseless opinion of Vivian Bercovici. Vivian Bercovici!


You mean there's more to "expertise" than the ability to cut & paste?  ???

Inconceivable.   op:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2017)

From my reading the ties with Israel and the KSA goes back to the 60's with secret information exchanges and support by Israel, funded by KSA for 
Royalist Yemen rebels against Nasser Egyptian forces. 

Here is an article from 2016 of an IDF general interviewed by a Saudi paper https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-spokesperson-tells-saudi-paper-iran-should-beware/

and 4 days ago https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.823163

Let's face it, the ME is an soap opera with dire consequences, it's unlikley that people can make up the scheme and alliances that form and dissolve as time goes by.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Really, Altair !!!
> 
> Relying on the baseless opinion of Vivian Bercovici. Vivian Bercovici! Why not ask the disinformation branch of the Mossad to write the opinion piece to start with, and have it done with?
> 
> Pro-Saudi, yet calling Iran's brand of Islam "extreme, radical and violent"? That's the pot calling the kettle black, if I ever saw a practical application of the expression.


Oh for the love of all... 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/23/understanding_the_israeli-egyptian-saudi_alliance_123742.html

Not Vivian. 



> The partnership that has emerged in this war between Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a direct consequence of Obama’s abandonment of the US’s traditional allies. Recognizing the threat that Hamas, as a component part of the Sunni jihadist alliance, constitutes for their own regimes, and in the absence of American support for Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have worked with Israel to defeat Hamas and keep Gaza’s borders sealed.



That count?


----------



## McG (20 Nov 2017)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> And at the link, an apparently informed CBC opinion that Saudi Arabia is likely to invade Lebanon soon, and that the IDF has recently completed large scale exercises to take on Hezbollah while the Saudis deal with the rest.
> A far reaching scenario, and if it were to happen would certainly involve the use of the LAV.
> 
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/war-middle-east-1.4407876


While you did manage to find a tenuous conection to the thread subject, your post really is 90 degrees off topic from Canadian manufactured armoured vehicle sales. Maybe there was a better place to make the post.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Inconceivable.   op:


----------



## dimsum (20 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

>



Please tell me that a) you know that kid and b) you will educate him on said movie and its significance.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Nov 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Inconceivable.



I do not think that word means what you think it means...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2017)

More on the "why" of Saudi military activity in Yemen:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/20/washington-battles-isis-iran-broadens-its-reach/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpBMFl6STBNREJoTmpFMSIsInQiOiJpTFJmVHhmMmZwYkh2bUlmVE9Yck9zWnV2cWQ2NFlrSGErUFgyeFhcL2lySzNwa0JTcWR4XC9NSHRUTVBxZ3lcL012Q0hsaU0zUTZXSnl6d3ZCV3JXclNXZmxPN0pRdHVudnpxZ0FCSUw5d3RuYVpGU0YyY1hVUEU5ekEyUjJmbWxOcCJ9



> Iran’s imperial project
> By Ilan Berman - - Monday, November 20, 2017
> ANALYSIS/OPINION:
> Iran is on the march in the Middle East.
> ...


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2018)

CBC just filed an "EXCLUSIVE" article on the sale of LAVs to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-saudi-arms-deal-1.4579772

Anyone here who hasn't known about this for several years?

Oh wait. Here's a Globe and Mail article from Jan 2016:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-saudi-arms-deal-what-weve-learned-so-far/article28180299/

**** Staff edit: due to guidelines ****

And the Winnipeg Free Press in Feb 2015:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/saudi-sale-guts-canadas-principles-305792801.html

Even a blogger got it right in Jan 2015

https://yvesengler.com/tag/saudi-arabia/

and here

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/01/23/Canada-Saudi-Arabia-Weapons-Deal/

After 4 years they've finally been able to get a snippet of the numbers of vehicles which may or may not be included. Really diligent work there CBC. You're worth every penny of the $675 billion we give you each year.

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Mar 2018)

It does have the Kumbaya brigades on full howl in the comments section.


----------



## QV (20 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> CBC just filed an "EXCLUSIVE" article on the sale of LAVs to Saudi Arabia.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-saudi-arms-deal-1.4579772
> 
> ...



Certainly worth it to the Liberals anyway.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2018)

When a car salesman sells a hot fast car to a young customer they don’t lecture them on safe driving etc. Just a stupid observation 😉


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> When a car salesman sells a hot fast car to a young customer they don’t lecture them on safe driving etc.


Conversely, when someone buys a BMW, the dealership provides a mandatory 'drive like a douche' lecture.   :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Mar 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Conversely, when someone buys a BMW, the dealership provides a mandatory 'drive and park like a douche' lecture.   :nod:



You’re welcome.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Mar 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Conversely, when someone buys a BMW, the dealership provides a mandatory 'drive like a douche' lecture.   :nod:



I wonder what the lectures are that a new Harley owner receives...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Mar 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I wonder what the lectures are that a new Harley owner receives...



They are taught the location of the secret switch that activates the muffler when you get near cops and deactivate it after you have passed them.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> They are taught the location of the secret switch that activates the muffler when you get near cops and deactivate it after you have passed them.


I asked the dealer how much it cost to have quieter pipes put on one of the bikes (it had aftermarket straight pipes on it). He said "I don't know; no ones ever asked." I told him they could keep the loud ones. He replied, "oh, it's free then."   ;D

I installed a dual air horn though, for when I needed to make noise.   :nod:

/increasing tangent


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I asked the dealer how much it cost to have quieter pipes put on one of the bikes (it had aftermarket straight pipes on it). He said "I don't know; no ones ever asked." I told him they could keep the loud ones. He replied, "oh, it's free then."   ;D
> 
> I installed a dual air horn though, for when I needed to make noise.   :nod:
> 
> /increasing tangent



CBC is blind, deaf and dumb. And worth about a billion in public funding a year.....am I correct or is it more?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2018)

To be fair, CBC North does a pretty good job.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2018)

I'm sorry. Call it conspiracy theories. Right wing nutbar ranting whatever. CBC, seldom condemns the grits for anything. If they do it's normally pretty tame though. This looks like the makings of a Trudeau grit announcement and CBC is setting the stage.


----------



## FJAG (21 Mar 2018)

The Government responds:



> Trudeau defended the deal and his government's decision to approve it.
> 
> "Permits are only approved if the exports are consistent with our foreign and defence policies, including human rights," he told the House of Commons Tuesday. "Our approach fully meets our national obligations and Canadian laws."
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-lav-deal-1.4585035

Good on him (notwithstanding the cheap shot at Harper)

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Mar 2018)

Got it: 

- Helicopters without permanently-mounted small-arms weapons - BAD. 

- Armoured vehicles with complex fire-control systems to guide permanently-mounted 25mm chain-gun against targets of nation’s choice - OKAY.

Check. 

Perhaps people will pretend to be surprised when a company like Textron relocates its helicopter production facility from Canada (Quebec), back to the United States?

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (21 Mar 2018)

Hey, some of those armoured vehicles are going to have 105 mm cannons.  That makes all the difference as compared to  helicopters. 

Right?


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Mar 2018)

I love this bit.



> Trudeau has stood behind the deal in the past, saying Canada had to respect contracts signed by previous governments.



Only when it suits the LPC.  EH 101, eh JT?


----------



## Dale Denton (21 Mar 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I love this bit.
> 
> Only when it suits the LPC.  EH 101, eh JT?



I hope this decision to keep to the deal is a sign of lessons learned from that debacle. Hypothetical: Would the KSA sue us $500mil if we backed out this late in the game?


----------



## FJAG (5 Apr 2018)

> $15B General Dynamics deal means big things for London workers
> Details emerge of $15-billion contract that includes ongoing support
> Norman De Bono



http://lfpress.com/news/local-news/maintenance-on-gdlss-saudi-contract-boosts-long-term-job-security

 :cheers:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I love this bit.
> 
> Only when it suits the LPC.  EH 101, eh JT?



PMJT has as much to do with the cancellation of the EH 101 as Andrew Scheer has to do with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow. In this case, Trudeau did something that helped workers in London, On so why is that a negative thing?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Apr 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> PMJT has as much to do with the cancellation of the EH 101 as Andrew Scheer has to do with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow. In this case, Trudeau did something that helped workers in London, On so why is that a negative thing?



It's the flip flop on the helicopter deal vs the LAV deal, of course they get cover by blaming the CPC for the LAV contract, but have to wear anything if the helicopter deal went through. The lack of consistency and balls are the issue.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Apr 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's the flip flop on the helicopter deal vs the LAV deal, of course they get cover by blaming the CPC for the LAV contract, but have to wear anything if the helicopter deal went through. The lack of consistency and balls are the issue.



There's consistency in that the LPC has said they don't agree with the weapons sales. They were pretty clear that they didn't agree with the LAV contract but would see it through basically doing the opposite of what Chretien did.

The lack of balls is a different story. However, if there position is to not sell weapons to dictators than its a fait accompli.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Apr 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's the flip flop on the helicopter deal vs the LAV deal, of course they get cover by blaming the CPC for the LAV contract, but have to wear anything if the helicopter deal went through. The lack of consistency and balls are the issue.



Ah, but some folks are too thick to understand the double standards being played by their favorite party.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Sep 2018)

Canadian made LAV’s, MRAP and US made armoured HUMVEE and Abrams tanks captured,  destroyed in North Yemen. At least 2 of the LAV appear to be sporting the 90mm gun, 1 seems to have a chain gun turret. https://youtu.be/zJ8cjoWjLeg


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Sep 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Canadian made LAV’s, MRAP and US made armoured HUMVEE and Abrams tanks captured,  destroyed in North Yemen. At least 2 of the LAV appear to be sporting the 90mm gun, 1 seems to have a chain gun turret. https://youtu.be/zJ8cjoWjLeg



I don't think the 90mm armed LAV's were made in Canada? Older video. the Saudis are making headway against the Rebels, you note the anti-Saudi Coalition propaganda is ramping up significantly as the Saudi's begin to win and the battle is currently at a pivot point around the main supply port for the Houthi.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Sep 2018)

looks like I was wrong, sold in 1999 https://www.armyrecognition.com/belgium_belgian_light_heavy_weapons_uk/lcts90_weapon_system_90_mm_turret_armoured_armored_cockerill_gun_vehicle_design_development_product.html

The PM at that time was Jean Chrétien, awkward.......


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2018)

So it looks like Saudi Arabia premeditated an American citizens murder.  They killed him, had a body double leave the building then chopped up the victims body (and burried it in a garden).
At first they denied it then    (very likely) murdered someone else they blamed for the journalists murder, under the cover of a car accident.
Pretty savage stuff that sounds like a spy movie.
What's the chances Canada keeps selling these guys weapons of war?


----------



## Dale Denton (23 Oct 2018)

CBC 

*'Difficult contract' binds Canada to Saudi LAV deal, Trudeau says*

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-metro-morning-lavs-saudis-1.4874383



> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says it's difficult to break Canada's deal to supply light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia because of the way the contract was negotiated by the previous Conservative government.
> 
> "The contract signed by the previous government, by Stephen Harper, makes it very difficult to suspend or leave that contract," Trudeau told host Matt Galloway on CBC Radio's Metro Morning on Tuesday. "We are looking at a number of things, but it is a difficult contract.
> 
> "I actually can't go into it, because part of the deal on this contract is not talking about this contract, and it's one of the binds that we are left in because of the way that the contract was negotiated."


----------



## Half Full (23 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So it looks like Saudi Arabia premeditated an American citizens murder.


Not an American citizen...he was only a permanent resident.  He was a Saudi citizen.


----------



## CBH99 (23 Oct 2018)

It's so ironic that the contract negotiated with the Saudi government sounds a lot like Fight Club.  "The first rule of Fight Club is...we do NOT talk about Fight Club!"


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Oct 2018)

Sounds easy, cancel the damn contract.

Oh, we aren’t talking about helicopters?


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Oct 2018)

Would it be possible to buy out the contract? Take the vehicles for the CF instead?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Oct 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to buy out the contract? Take the vehicles for the CF instead?



Keep in mind that the only involvement of the Canadian Government was the approval for export of restricted goods.  The manufacturer of these arms is an American multinational, it is only incidental that the subsidiary and its plant is in Canada.  If I was the CEO of GDLS, my immediate thought (and what I would be having my lawyers looking at right now) is what legal action I can take against the Canadian government should the export permit be cancelled so that I could recoup any sunk costs as well as any lost future profit.  If my company could get a payout for those amounts without actually providing the goods and services (and part of the contract is long term maintenance and support) then I would be smiling all the way to the bank - make my profit margin without paying out for materials and labour.  It could also probably be cheaper for the Canadian government to settle for those amounts than to acquire a $15 bn contract for vehicles that may not meet our defence needs.


----------



## YZT580 (23 Oct 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that the only involvement of the Canadian Government was the approval for export of restricted goods.  The manufacturer of these arms is an American multinational, it is only incidental that the subsidiary and its plant is in Canada.  If I was the CEO of GDLS, my immediate thought (and what I would be having my lawyers looking at right now) is what legal action I can take against the Canadian government should the export permit be cancelled so that I could recoup any sunk costs as well as any lost future profit.  If my company could get a payout for those amounts without actually providing the goods and services (and part of the contract is long term maintenance and support) then I would be smiling all the way to the bank - make my profit margin without paying out for materials and labour.  It could also probably be cheaper for the Canadian government to settle for those amounts than to acquire a $15 bn contract for vehicles that may not meet our defence needs.


A multi-national whose only reason for keeping the London factory open is to manufacture LAVS.  If Trudeau elects to cancel the export permit it is goodbye factory for London.  There are lots of empty floors in Detroit and lots of labourers who will happily start assembling LAVS in about 2 weeks time.  What the Saudis did was inexcusable but I don't see Chinese shipping being blocked or sales to China being censured despite their murderous actions against Muslim minorities and episodes like Tienanmen Square.  How about Russia?  We still allow Bombardier products to be sold there regardless of the actions in Syria and Ukraine.  What is being suggested is selective morality which is hypocrisy: just spelled differently.  Incidentally having lived in Saudi in the past and experienced their culture first hand (including Friday prayers (when beheadings take place)  I am in total favour of cancelling or taking other concrete action I just abhor political expediency as a reason.


----------



## Dale Denton (24 Oct 2018)

Regardless of the jobs and lawsuit from GDLS-C, its the contract wordings that really matter.

And since the public doesn't even have access to the section of the contract (or any of it) to actually find out, then we'll never know (unless someone leaks).

The Kingdom could have had it written out that we would have to pay them ~$1 Billion if we were to cancel it. Perhaps a way out would be to wait for them all to be delivered, then stop supply of spare parts, but KSA lawyers or GDLS-C probably have contingencies for this too. Something tells me that KSA foresaw a future CAN gov't after Harper try to block the deal, and made excessive contingencies to prevent them. Maybe Harper painted us into a corner with this to appease a new G7 leader?

If it was a case of simply taking over the contract, I think the ball would have already rolled seeing how popular a decision that would be in the press/public/international community.

I say we disregard whatever fees, pay off GDLS-C with a giant contract for research and building of new LAV 7/8s (or whatever you wanna call them), upgrade all existing LAVs further somehow, and LAV-ify everything wheeled and armoured.


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to buy out the contract? Take the vehicles for the CF instead?


Arguably yes (and we do have a few projects to buy armoured vehicles which could be satisfied with more LAV 6), but that only avoids penalties that might be owed to the manufacturer (GDLS Canada) and not penalties that would be owed to the buyer (Saudi Arabia).  That being said, I would be happy to see this option taken.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Oct 2018)

The UK kept the tanks they built for the Shah of Iran after he 'lost his job' in the 70s....

They seem to have paid them back just recently, though: 

Britain owes Iran around £450m for a cancelled arms deal in the 1970s. The deal was made with the country’s then Shah, and would have seen 1,750 tanks and other vehicles sold by Britain to Iran. However, the Shah was toppled in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and almost none of the vehicles were delivered. Britain kept the money, sparking a decades-long legal wrangle between the two countries.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/britain-iran-debt-pay-400-million-pounds-tehran-iranian-ambassador-hamid-baeedinejad-nazanin-zaghari-a8060626.html


----------



## Platitudinarian (14 Dec 2018)

Breaking news - US senate votes to  "direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress”), marking the first time the War Powers Resolution, which limits presidential power to deploy or expand military engagement, was invoked by the Senate to pull the U.S. out of an overseas war."

https://thinkprogress.org/outraged-over-khashoggis-murder-senate-votes-to-end-u-s-support-of-saudi-arabia-in-yemen-war-d1e7f5ec957d/?fbclid=IwAR33hWmk2Uj867HZmy1ubZ0Kt16woHyaV2EibZ0tjnfrFECOJsb6KQZ-ncA


The original agreement for for 928 LAV-6's and the 2016 revision brought that down to 742, and it's reported that:

 "The prime minister repeated what he said in question period Monday about Canada suspending military export permits in the past. "We're certainly willing to do it again.

"But at the same time," Trudeau told Galloway, "I do not want to leave Canadians holding a billion dollar bill because we're trying to move forward on doing the right thing. So we are navigating this very carefully and that's pretty much all I can say on that."

The contract to which the Conservative government agreed contained extraordinary confidentiality provisions, in addition to cancellation penalties. 

The Saudis insisted on the secrecy and, according to a report in The Globe and Mail, former prime minister Stephen Harper had to back it up with a personal letter to the late king, Abdullah, who passed away in 2015."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-metro-morning-lavs-saudis-1.4874383

Wonder what effect will have on what's left of the LAV contract, if any.


----------



## Ping Monkey (17 Dec 2018)

Trudeau says Canada trying to end arms contract with Saudi Arabia

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-says-canada-trying-to-end-arms-export-deal-to-saudi-arabia/

Maybe the Canadian Army will get stuck with these LAVs after all?


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2018)

Sounds good. Tank $14B out of the economy and 13,500 jobs (and probably a massive cancellation penalty), instead of taking $300M CAD out of the Saudi economy by using notwithstanding to build Energy East and new refineries. That'll sure show the Saudis. :facepalm:


----------



## garb811 (17 Dec 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sounds good. Tank $14B out of the economy and 13,500 jobs (and probably a massive cancellation penalty), instead of taking $300M CAD out of the Saudi economy by using notwithstanding to build Energy East and new refineries. That'll sure show the Saudis. :facepalm:


How, exactly, would the notwithstanding clause have an impact on Energy East?


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> How, exactly, would the notwithstanding clause have an impact on Energy East?


It pushes it past provincial roadblocks for projects of a great national interest. Could have been used to quash the BC lawsuits for Northern Gateway. Quebec is currently the only province with stated opposition to Energy East, but the Liberals desperately need those votes so realistically we'll never see them forced to do anything to help the remainder of Canada.


----------



## garb811 (17 Dec 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It pushes it past provincial roadblocks for projects of a great national interest. Could have been used to quash the BC lawsuits for Northern Gateway. Quebec is currently the only province with stated opposition to Energy East, but the Liberals desperately need those votes so realistically we'll never see them forced to do anything to help the remainder of Canada.


I don't see it, the notwithstanding clause's application and power isn't unlimited:


> Exception where express declaration
> 
> 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.


Section 2 are fundamental freedoms.
Section 7-14 are legal rights.
Section 15 is equality rights.

Where does a pipeline fit into any of those, or even anything at all covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2018)

Not that I trust the current PMs grasp of Canadian law,  but he seems to think he could (but wont) use it for Northern Gateway.

https://nationalpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ftrudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction

If the NEB approves Energy East, Quebec would sue and Notwithstanding clause in federal legislation overrides their legal challenge. Its far more complicated than that but that's the gist I get from some research.


----------



## Remius (17 Dec 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not that I trust the current PMs grasp of Canadian law,  but he seems to think he could (but wont) use it for Northern Gateway.
> 
> https://nationalpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ftrudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction
> 
> If the NEB approves Energy East, Quebec would sue and Notwithstanding clause in federal legislation overrides their legal challenge. Its far more complicated than that but that's the gist I get from some research.



the PM has not mentioned the NW Clause in that article at all. Where did he say he would use the clause?  The federal government could use legislation yes but does so at immense political risk. 

See this link for a bit of an explanation. I think.  

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/provincial-government

Disallowance and Reservation  

_The federal government still retains the power to disallow a provincial statute, but has not done so since 1943. Any federal Cabinet that contemplated using disallowance today would encounter significant political difficulties. A lieutenant-governor's power to reserve a bill passed by the provincial legislature (in other words, to defer its assent to the governor general) can similarly be regarded as a relic of an earlier age of intergovernmental relations. The last reservation, which occurred in Saskatchewan in 1961, went against an 80-year-old understanding that this power would only be exercised on instructions from the governor general, and the bill was subsequently approved. 
_

He could also sue Trumpian tactics in negotiations ie withhold something to get what he wants.   But he indicates that he won't do that.

But I think the NW Clause is not something that is relevant to this.


----------



## CountDC (17 Dec 2018)

He's not saying the PM mentioned the NW.  

I think the idea is that they could legislate and then when Quebec challenged use the nw to squash the challenge. Of course that won't happen as they are desperately trying to hold on to the Quebec vote.


----------



## Remius (17 Dec 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> He's not saying the PM mentioned the NW.
> 
> I think the idea is that they could legislate and then when Quebec challenged use the nw to squash the challenge. Of course that won't happen as they are desperately trying to hold on to the Quebec vote.



he said this:

"Not that I trust the current PMs grasp of Canadian law,  but he seems to think he could (but wont) use* it *for Northern Gateway." then quoted an article to support that statement.   * It* I assume is the NW Clause that has been discussed. 

The NW clause is irrelevant.  Legislating the pipeline is but highly unlikely.  I will assume that is the gist of what he wanted to get across and leave it at that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Dec 2018)

Circling back ...


			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ... If I was the CEO of GDLS, my immediate thought (and what I would be having my lawyers looking at right now) is what legal action I can take against the Canadian government should the export permit be cancelled so that I could recoup any sunk costs as well as any lost future profit ...


On that, this just in ...


> The Canadian arm of General Dynamics Corp warned Ottawa on Monday the federal government would incur "billions of dollars of liability" by unilaterally scrapping an agreement to sell armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia.  General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada made the comment in a statement issued shortly after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said for the first time that his Liberal government was looking for a way out of the deal ... "Were Canada to unilaterally terminate the contract, Canada would incur billions of dollars of liability to General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada," the company said.  "Terminating the contract would have a significant negative impact on our highly skilled employees, our supply chain across Canada, and the Canadian defense sector broadly."


op:


----------



## CBH99 (17 Dec 2018)

Just sell them the vehicles.  The contract is signed, and has been for a while.  And they've already received a good chunk of the vehicles they were slated for any way.

Right now, Canada CAN NOT AFFORD to lose any additional jobs due to political BS'ery.  GM closing it's Ontario plant is a huge hit, and the inability to start on the pipeline out west is another huge hit.  Add to that the low cost of Canadian oil, oil rigs shut down off the east coast, and we really can't be making decisions that give companies like Bell Textron, GDLS, etc any incentive to close up shop here.


Are they tyrants?  Yes.  But they were before we signed a contract with them.  We knew that going into it.

Are they using military vehicles for military purposes, albeit ethically wrong ones?  Yes.  But they can buy just as easily from the Russians or Chinese too.


Just sell the vehicles, and hopefully ppl in Ottawa will stop bringing it up so the media will stop kicking THAT ball around.  Get it done & over with, and just know better for the next time.


----------



## Dale Denton (17 Dec 2018)

I place morality ahead of arguments involving:

1. But jobs...
2. Somehow related to a pipeline because money
3. We've sold them stuff before, which means we can't change our minds no matter what happens now
4. The cost if we cancel

What about the human cost to the civilians starving to death, when the KSA uses them to block food and aid shipments? Many nations are retaliating against KSA, yet at the same time we sell them LAVs _and _condemn them? They know we won't sell them any more in the future nor spare parts after the contract is up, so they'll buy Russian/ Chinese equivalents anyways. This won't look well for us in the future, looking back; not on the acceptable side of history on this one.

Surely the gov't won't hang GDLS-C out to dry. Will most likely buy them at the same time, same cash. Could even find another way of giving GDLS-C money for the rest of the fleet, bring in the skilled workers from GM in Oshawa to grow the line. Hand off some as donations/cheap replacements to Columbia and NZ (who both operate older versions still?). They've already been accounted for and re-rolled into the fleet in previous posts in the thread too.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Dec 2018)

I agree with everything you wrote, LoboCanada.  You are 100% right on all of your points, I am in full agreement.

Allow me to clarify what I was trying to say...


-  If Canada were to purchase the vehicles to fill out the LAV fleet, I'd totally support ending sales to the Saudis immediately.

-  If Canada were to financially compensate GDLS with a mix of cash/purchasing the vehicles, I'd totally support ending sales to the Saudis immediately.


We can divest older variants of vehicles to other countries, or send them the hulls to help them replace their older vehicles.  Both great ideas, I totally support.


**I guess what I was trying to say, broadly, is that I don't think we should end the contract AND NOT HAVE some kind of replacement plan for GDLS.  And it was in THAT train of thought that - if we don't purchase the vehicles for ourselves, or find some kind of solution so GDLS isn't screwed over - we should just wrap up the contract & be done with it.

By having us purchase the vehicles, it would actually be a better long term investment for GDLS & the region for spare parts, supply chains, etc etc.  As you are right, we won't be selling supporting materials to the Saudis.



So I do agree with you.  I guess I should have clarified and worded it much differently in that I think we need to come up with a plan for GDLS, so we don't end up with another 10,000 people laid off in the region.  That's how I should have worded it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Dec 2018)

I'm quite certain that, when we bought Leopards I and II from Germany, there wasn't a contract rider telling us who we could shoot with them. Dealing arms mean you are complicit in someone's death at some point. Too late to get morally shirty, IMO.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm quite certain that, when we bought Leopards I and II from Germany, there wasn't a contract rider telling us who we could shoot with them. Dealing arms mean you are complicit in someone's death at some point. Too late to get morally shirty, IMO.



And, of course, our 'CANDU' attitude means that we have helped the world build its nuclear arsenals, too  

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/october-2008-were-major-supplier-uranium-nuclear-weapons


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm quite certain that, when we bought Leopards I and II from Germany, there wasn't a contract rider telling us who we could shoot with them. Dealing arms mean you are complicit in someone's death at some point. Too late to get morally shirty, IMO.



No, but given that there are 'national interest' considerations in major arms exports, and that the national interest includes basically having some regard for the public conscience, it's appropriate to be somewhat selective about what we allow and to whom. There are countries who generally are pretty reliable in using their military capabilities responsibly, and others that are not. We can only get so mercenary about it before we become part of the problem.


----------



## FJAG (17 Dec 2018)

So far I haven't seen any articles or other evidence showing that these LAVs have been used in any irresponsible way. There were some about some other vehicles but regarding the LAVs it's been nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Maybe living close to London and Canada's only remaining heavy military equipment industry has made me a bit jaded but before we pay the Saudis a billion for cancelling the contract and many billions more to GDLS for lost business we should think beyond public popularity and what one segment of the population thinks.

Let's just remember that if they don't drive our LAVs, there are perfectly usable BMPs and BTRs to be had for a song.

 :subbies:


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Dec 2018)

X'd out.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Dec 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, but given that there are 'national interest' considerations in major arms exports, and that the national interest includes basically having some regard for the public conscience, it's appropriate to be somewhat selective about what we allow and to whom. There are countries who generally are pretty reliable in using their military capabilities responsibly, and others that are not. We can only get so mercenary about it before we become part of the problem.



We're already firmly in the fartsack with SA by importing metric assloads of their morally ambiguous non gender equality tested oil every single day, and paying top dollar for it. Roll in the mud and expect to get dirty.


----------



## Dale Denton (18 Dec 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, but given that there are 'national interest' considerations in major arms exports, and that the national interest includes basically having some regard for the public conscience, it's appropriate to be somewhat selective about what we allow and to whom. There are countries who generally are pretty reliable in using their military capabilities responsibly, and others that are not. We can only get so mercenary about it before we become part of the problem.



Agreed.


I just read that KSA was actually buying LAV 700s, and not modified LAV3s. Wouldn't this be a bigger win for us if we bought them all from GDLS-C instead? 

To add to my last post:
- refund the Kingdom to the cent
- Give LAV3s to some Reserve units and LAV-ify the whole Army
- The more we use (economies of scale, etc...) the more $ they'll make on support, refit, and maintenance contracts.
- Buy a couple buses, use them to take workers from Oshawa/area GM workers to London for each shift: 2 birds...


----------



## garb811 (18 Dec 2018)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> 
> I just read that KSA was actually buying LAV 700s, and not modified LAV3s. Wouldn't this be a bigger win for us if we bought them all from GDLS-C instead?
> ...


GDLS isn't going to be giving any refunds to SA if the Gov't cancels the export permit because breaking the contract isn't their fault, so...guess who would be? On top of the billions of dollars that would be paid in liability costs directly to GDLS. And then you want us to buy those LAVs? Sounds like the sweet deal the Chretien Gov't foisted on us by cancelling the EH-101 contract where we paid $500 million for nothing.  And who wouldn't want to buy a fleet of another variant of LAVs to complicate the supply and maintenance issues we already have and effectively pay 3x the cost for each one. A plan so unsound it just might work.


> - Buy a couple buses, use them to take workers from Oshawa/area GM workers to London for each shift: 2 birds...


You do realize that GDLS and GM are two separate and distinct companies right?


----------



## YZT580 (18 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> GDLS isn't going to be giving any refunds to SA if the Gov't cancels the export permit because breaking the contract isn't their fault, so...guess who would be? On top of the billions of dollars that would be paid in liability costs directly to GDLS. And then you want us to buy those LAVs? Sounds like the sweet deal the Chretien Gov't foisted on us by cancelling the EH-101 contract where we paid $500 million for nothing.  And who wouldn't want to buy a fleet of another variant of LAVs to complicate the supply and maintenance issues we already have and effectively pay 3x the cost for each one. A plan so unsound it just might work.You do realize that GDLS and GM are two separate and distinct companies right?


And it is at least a 3 hour drive-probably 4 when you factor in getting across Toronto.  Good deal for GM workers-a full days pay every day for riding a bus.  No work.


----------



## Dale Denton (18 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> GDLS isn't going to be giving any refunds to SA if the Gov't cancels the export permit because breaking the contract isn't their fault, so...guess who would be? On top of the billions of dollars that would be paid in liability costs directly to GDLS. And then you want us to buy those LAVs? Sounds like the sweet deal the Chretien Gov't foisted on us by cancelling the EH-101 contract where we paid $500 million for nothing.  And who wouldn't want to buy a fleet of another variant of LAVs to complicate the supply and maintenance issues we already have and effectively pay 3x the cost for each one. A plan so unsound it just might work.You do realize that GDLS and GM are two separate and distinct companies right?



Any suggestions then? 

As the contract was allowed to be fully secret, with none of it available for scrutiny, I can only assume that there may be a cancellation fee. This is a contract between 2 parties, one being another gov't, and not something that we bought from X company. We would buy all of the LAVs, keeping the company at work, reducing their loss (albeit, a 1 time loss, as its not as if they were going to be allowed another with KSA later).

There could be a way to forgo paying KSA a fine for not facilitating the deal further, but we may use one of the many reasons to block this, and use them as a sanction.

How many other current fleets of vehicles could we replace with a LAV3 or LAV700? Replacing M113, Bisons, Coyotes? I'm sure we could find a job these could do, no? Throw a bigger turret on them like the Stryker 'Dragoon' and use them as IFVs? This wouldn't even be uncommon, as we've bought locally for big markups before...How many could we donate/loan to AU or UN (there's a Michael Byers article suggesting so, but I can't quote it here).

And helping out the Southern Ontario industrial sector would be a topical, given that a plant is closing a few hours away.


----------



## McG (18 Dec 2018)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> How many other current fleets of vehicles could we replace with a LAV3 or LAV700? Replacing M113, Bisons, Coyotes?


We already have a contract to replace Coyote with LAV 6 ... or, we have a contract to convert LAV 3 to a LAV 6 surveillance variant.

There are no contracts yet in place for Bison and M113 families of vehicles, but there is a project in definition phase.  So, this could be an option but we would (maybe) need to buy a lot more than just a replacement fleet.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> We're already firmly in the fartsack with SA by importing metric assloads of their morally ambiguous non gender equality tested oil every single day, and paying top dollar for it. Roll in the mud and expect to get dirty.



Ah yes, because the money they're making from selling us oil isn't going towards funding their Yemen war or various terrorist organizations. If we want to cry about sudden morals then we need to shut off the oil purchasing too.

Trudeau talking about the (Canadian) oil industry and how it's mostly male what about women bla bla. Just brutal.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> There are no contracts yet in place for Bison and M113 families of vehicles, but there is a project in definition phase.  So, this could be an option but we would (maybe) need to buy a lot more than just a replacement fleet.



So we'll get LAV 12s to replace them, since it'll take 25 years to start delivery at current procurement project paces.


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Dec 2018)

How many of the Saudi LAV's have been produced/delivered? 300/19? 

Just let the order finish, too late to worry about it now, just seems like stupid posturing by the Trudeau government, and not thinking about the consequences. When the Saudi production just roll into the Bison/M113 replacement fleets. 

What is the difference between the Saudi LAV's and our LAV's


----------



## YZT580 (19 Dec 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> How many of the Saudi LAV's have been produced/delivered? 300/19?
> 
> Just let the order finish, too late to worry about it now, just seems like stupid posturing by the Trudeau government, and not thinking about the consequences. When the Saudi production just roll into the Bison/M113 replacement fleets.
> 
> What is the difference between the Saudi LAV's and our LAV's


maybe ours have heaters instead of air conditioners


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> What is the difference between the Saudi LAV's and our LAV's



LAV 6.0 Datasheet:https://www.gdlscanada.com/files/products/LAV-6.0.pdf
LAV 700 Datasheet: https://www.gdlscanada.com/products/LAV/LAV-700.pdf

LAV 700 is taller, longer, wider, but lighter with longer range. It also can come with a bigger gun. Options for RWS with 7.62/50Cal or 30/40MM as well as 90/105MM and 120MM Mortar variants.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> LAV 6.0 Datasheet:https://www.gdlscanada.com/files/products/LAV-6.0.pdf
> LAV 700 Datasheet: https://www.gdlscanada.com/products/LAV/LAV-700.pdf
> 
> LAV 700 is taller, longer, wider, but lighter with longer range. It also can come with a bigger gun. Options for RWS with 7.62/50Cal or 30/40MM as well as 90/105MM and 120MM Mortar variants.



Um, like, we should buy that too then, right?


----------



## Dale Denton (19 Dec 2018)

My thoughts exactly.

Or, we could do a switcheroo and ship the Saudi's used LAV3s and steal their LAV700s... 

But in all seriousness, i'm sure there is a legal way to take some of the remaining 700s, throw some larger weapons up top and use them as IFVs. The 'hope' is that GDLS-C is handed contracts to keep jobs, with the benefit of gaining newer LAV700s.

On another note, was there ever any interest in building a more LAV-centric Army? Have almost all LAV variants in the fleet in one way or another? It looks like it has the magic 3: built locally, already in use, and already Canadianized.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2018)

We could always let it slip that the workers working on the LAVs are Jewish. Saudi Arabia won't want touch them and will cancel the contract. We'll get to keep the LAVs we made still in Canada AND we hit them with the contract cancelation fee.

Maybe offer to buy the LAVs over there at a very reduced price. 

I'm a genius, Trudeau can fire his $1200 a day aide and hire me.


----------



## ringo (19 Dec 2018)

IMHO the CAF's shouldn't expect anything if JT cancels the Saudi contract.

GDLS will simply move Saudi LAV production to the states.

GDLS & Canada lose credibility buy not fulfilling the contract.

GDLS may consider closing down Canadian LAV production entirely.

Canada out 1 billion in cancelation fees.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Dec 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we'll get LAV 12s to replace them, since it'll take 25 years to start delivery at current procurement project paces.



Hahahaha.

Maybe we will even get a LAV 12 MEWT!!! Any bets?


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2018)

standingdown said:
			
		

> Hahahaha.
> 
> Maybe we will even get a LAV 12 MEWT!!! Any bets?


Probably with the same crappy gear managed by Cold War dinosaurs who cant spell SDR.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Dec 2018)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> On another note, was there ever any interest in building a more LAV-centric Army? Have almost all LAV variants in the fleet in one way or another? It looks like it has the magic 3: built locally, already in use, and already Canadianized.



Back in the mid 2000s before realizing we still needed tanks, there was a plan for the Armoured Troop of the future to be 2 x Lav 3 105mm MGSs, 2 x Lav 3 TUA, 2 x Lav 3 MMEV. Still have the article from CDR interviewing a few officials about the plan. If we wanted to, we could have a full mechanized force using LAV 6 platforms, mortor carriers, ambulances, SPA, SPAA, recovery. GDLS already makes these varients and more. We could have a very "light", mobile mechanized force capable of self sustainment and all around defensive amd offensive operations.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Back in the mid 2000s before realizing we still needed tanks, there was a plan for the Armoured Troop of the future to be 2 x Lav 3 105mm MGSs, 2 x Lav 3 TUA, 2 x Lav 3 MMEV. Still have the article from CDR interviewing a few officials about the plan. If we wanted to, we could have a full mechanized force using LAV 6 platforms, mortor carriers, ambulances, SPA, SPAA, recovery. GDLS already makes these varients and more. We could have a very "light", mobile mechanized force capable of self sustainment and all around defensive amd offensive operations.



But will there be a 'Chimera'?


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Dec 2018)

If there is a $1 Billion cancellation clause, and you currently owe $1.8 Billion........


http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181220

*Saudis now $1.8B behind on bill for AVs* - NP - 20 Dec 18
    _Payment delays date to regime change_

LONDON, ONT. • Saudi Arabia has fallen behind in making payments on its $15-billion arms deal with Canada, a contract that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he’s looking for ways to halt. The Saudi government was short $1.8 billion in payments to the end of September for light-armoured vehicles assembled at General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (GDLS) in London, according to financial statements from the Canadian Commercial Corp., the Crown corporation overseeing the controversial contract. “It is a problem. There is concern, absolutely,” a federal official with knowledge of the agreement told The London Free Press on Wednesday.

The arrears can be traced to a new regime in Saudi Arabia since the agreement was signed in 2014, and there have been delays in payments since the change, said the official, who declined to be identified. “That changed the way everything worked, including payments,” he said. However, since September the oil-rich country has been making payments and has reduced the amount owed, the official added.

The deal, which the Liberals are under pressure to scuttle amid Saudi human rights abuses, including the slaying of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the country’s consulate in Turkey, affects thousands of workers in the London area and in a supply chain that extends nationwide. Trudeau, whose government inherited the deal from former prime minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, said publicly this week for the first time that the Liberals are trying to find a way to stop the sale involving hundreds of light armoured military vehicles built by the Canadian division of American defence giant General Dynamics.

The report by the Crown corporation handling the sale says “trade receivables” are short $1.86 billion as of quarterly statements ending Sept. 30, and that payments have been sparse over the course of about one year. “The significant increase in past due trade receivables, is mostly attributable to the ABP contract,” the report says, referring to the armoured brigades program.

The payment issue hasn’t been helped by recent public musings by Trudeau, who on Sunday told CTV’s Question Period the government is looking for a way to halt the sale. “We are engaged with the export permits to try and see if there is a way of no longer exporting these vehicles to Saudi Arabia,” he said, without being specific. Such a move would devastate GDLS Canada’s 1,800-member workforce in London, as well as thousands of jobs with supplier companies, said David Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute think-tank.

The Saudis may now feel even less inclined to write a cheque, he added. “It does not give the Saudis a reason to catch up on payments. The government of Canada is responsible for making sure GDLS gets paid for the work it has done,” said Perry.


----------



## suffolkowner (20 Dec 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> LAV 6.0 Datasheet:https://www.gdlscanada.com/files/products/LAV-6.0.pdf
> LAV 700 Datasheet: https://www.gdlscanada.com/products/LAV/LAV-700.pdf
> 
> LAV 700 is taller, longer, wider, but lighter with longer range. It also can come with a bigger gun. Options for RWS with 7.62/50Cal or 30/40MM as well as 90/105MM and 120MM Mortar variants.



Thanks for the links/info. 

Going forward would we continue with the LAV 6 or is the LAV 700 an improvement, looking at a Bison/M113 replacement?
Why would one use a 6 vs 700, do they each have their own niche?

In my former life of buying equipment, we just bought equipment every year and never had a strict fleet profile even if it might have been desired Even sticking with a manufacturer/model over 5-10 years there would or could be considerable differences. I mention this because the various micro fleets have been disparaged on here many times and am wondering if having LAV 6's and 700's would be that much of a handicap?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Dec 2018)

Could reconfigure some to indirect and direct fire support


----------



## dapaterson (29 Oct 2019)

The cheque is in the mail: Saudi Arabia is $2.5B US in arrears in payments for LAVs built in Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-arabia-lav-canada-armoured-vehicles-1.5340087


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Oct 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The cheque is in the mail: Saudi Arabia is $2.5B US in arrears in payments for LAVs built in Canada.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-arabia-lav-canada-armoured-vehicles-1.5340087



They aren't going to pay someone who is giving them poor customer service.  Just saying  :nod:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Oct 2019)

How about some free oil in barter??


----------



## CBH99 (29 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They aren't going to pay someone who is giving them poor customer service.  Just saying  :nod:




How is it poor customer service?  (Honest question.)


They order X number of vehicles.

X number of vehicles costs Y number of dollars.

They pay money, they receive vehicles.


How on earth do we ship them $2.5B of vehicles that aren't even paid for?


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Oct 2019)

Any Canadian journalists thinking of heading over to cover the story?


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Oct 2019)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> How is it poor customer service?  (Honest question.)
> 
> 
> They order X number of vehicles.
> ...



I hope to god GDLS has stopped deliveries, otherwise thats just a bad business model. Anyone wanna take bets on if our buying of 360 LAV's  might of been taking over the last of the saudi contract?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Oct 2019)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> How is it poor customer service?  (Honest question.)
> 
> 
> They order X number of vehicles.
> ...



Ehmmm, where have you been the last few years?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4935735

The Government of Canada brought tonnes of heat and light down on their business partner.  The Saudis expected to be given their vehicles and left to their own devices and we couldn't do it so now they aren't paying us.

The nature of the deal is KSA pays GoC who in turn pays GDLS.  If GoC doesn't get paid by KSA, GDLS is still owed money; therefore, GoC has to pay GDLS because jobs, jobs, jobs!

It's all about leverage and demonstrating just whom exactly is pulling the strings.  Why are Canadians so bloody Naive?

Whatever you think of the Saudis, one thing they are not is stupid.  Most of KSA Royal Family have been educated at the top Ivy League and International Business Colleges in the World.  They understand Grand Strategy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Oct 2019)

And we balance ourselves......


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Oct 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And we balance ourselves......



The real issue is the Government of Justin Trudeau thought they could score short term political points by taking a hardline against the Saudi Regime over the Khashoggi Affair and use the Armoured Vehicle Contract as fake leverage.  They thought they could do this while simultaneously singing a different tune in the back room.

The Liberals fundamentally misunderstood the KSA mindset though.  

The vehicles themselves are completely inconsequential to the KSA.  They could have bought vehicles from anyone but they bought them from us because they thought it would buy them favour in the court so to speak with our Government which is what this deal was all about.  We screwed them for domestic political gain and now they are going to make us pay for that move.

 It's that sort of 4 year election cycle calculus that has us on the hook for Billions of dollars of military hardware.  We fundamentally misjudged a Regime with 275 years of governance experience and history that thinks about things far differently than we do.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Oct 2019)

From my experience, Saudi Arabia paying late / making partial payment is per SOP.

Their business systems are like POTUS.  Pay when overdue, and then only the minimum, and fight in court.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2019)

...and it's only now a CBC headline because the London ON's three ridings voted Liberal, Liberal, and NDP, surrounded by Conservative ridings.

/cynic


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We screwed them for domestic political gain and now they are going to make us pay for that move.



'Sunny Ways', meet 'Realpolitik'  :nod:


----------



## FSTO (30 Oct 2019)

So next time (if there is a next time) there will be a Leopard 2 on the jetty that sits in front of the loading ramp and not one piece of equipment is loaded until an Saudi Prince drives an armoured truck full of gold equal to the value of the equipment on the jetty off the ship.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 'Sunny Ways', meet 'Realpolitik'  :nod:



 :nod:

Saudis aren't stupid.  275 years of Absolute Power, you don't maintain that level of control by being dumb.

Canadians seem to be fairly ignorant of this fact and think it's simply a purely transactional relationship.  But it isn't just about that.  Saudis value civility and not losing face.  

I have to believe they took the comments from Chrystia Freeland and Global Affairs Canada very poorly and that the relationship between the Saudis and us is probably over until this Government leaves power.


----------



## FSTO (30 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Saudis aren't stupid.  275 years of Absolute Power, you don't maintain that level of control by being dumb.
> 
> ...



F*** em, those House of Saud sons of aborted camel calves can fry in the desert. Worst rich people in the world and we should have nothing to do with them.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Oct 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> F*** em, those House of Saud sons of aborted camel calves can fry in the desert. Worst rich people in the world and we should have nothing to do with them.



Oil embargo, wonder how fast quebec would want a pipeline if they couldn't buy suadi oil


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> F*** em, those House of Saud sons of aborted camel calves can fry in the desert. Worst rich people in the world and we should have nothing to do with them.



Certainly but that doesn't negate the fact that we are now on the hook for $3.4 Billion Canadian with the number rising by $200 Million every quarter.  

Couple of really nice tidbits here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-arabia-lav-canada-armoured-vehicles-1.5340087



> According to General Dynamics' quarterly earnings statements, the Saudi late payment debt has been growing by $200 million every quarter since the beginning of the year.
> 
> According to CCC's website, "every contract signed has the legal effect of being signed in the name of the Government of Canada, providing foreign government buyers with the assurance that the contract will be delivered per the agreed terms and conditions, guaranteed."



Of course, the GoC will be on the hook for this as GDLS Canada is a sub-contractor of the Government of Canada as it is the Government of Canada who pays GDLS.



> General Dynamics said in its quarterly earnings report that the late payment amounts — totalling $2.6 billion US, or roughly $3.4 billion Cdn —will be billed to the Canadian government "in accordance with the agreed-upon contractual terms."
> 
> "We continue to meet our obligations under the contract and are entitled to payment for work performed," the company said in its earnings release. "Therefore, we expect to collect the full amount currently outstanding."



If we think the Government of Canada won't step in to make up the shortfall, guess again!  It appears more and more that the 360 LAVs for the Canadian Army have a lot to do with making sure GDLS Canada doesn't close up shop as well as a $650 million "repayable" loan.



> To help General Dynamics deal with the financial shortfall, the federal government announced on Aug. 16 that it would provide a repayable loan of up to $650 million to the company as it "navigates a challenging and dynamic international defence market," officials with Global Affairs Canada said in an email.
> 
> On that same date, the federal government announced its intention to acquire 360 LAVs for the Canadian Armed Forces, which already operate a fleet of older LAV models. The $1.7-billion contract was formally awarded to General Dynamics on Sept. 5.


  

This all fits with my theory that the non-payment is 100% related to the highlighted bit in yellow.



> Relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia went into a tailspin in August of 2018, after a series of tweets by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and Global Affairs Canada criticized the arrests of women's rights activists in the kingdom and urged their immediate release.
> 
> Saudi Arabia expelled Canada's ambassador in Riyadh over what officials called "blatant interference in the Kingdom's domestic affairs," recalled its ambassador in Ottawa and halted all new investment and trade transactions with Canada.
> 
> In November of 2018, Canada imposed sanctions against 17 Saudi nationals linked to the murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed at the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on Oct. 2.



Canada has a decision to make:  We can't hope to be a big manufacturing player selling weapons and military hardware to other Nations on one hand only to openly criticize those same Nations at every turn on the other hand and also try and dictate to them when, where and how they use said weapons.

Sweden operates a large and comprehensive defence industry through SAAB that makes every sort of military equipment you can imagine:  AFVs, Ships, Submarines, Radars, Rocket and Missile Systems, Aircraft, Weapons, etc.  They sell those systems to many different countries.  Nobody in the Swedish Government is going on Twitter and putting any of their business partners on sound blast while simultaneously trying to do multibillion dollar business deals with them.  Yet, nobody inside or outside Sweden is claiming there government isn't a beacon of light for progressive thought and action.

SAAB made over a $1 Billion Cdn in profit last year, NOT INCOME, PROFIT!

3]1]E0EXG$XSTO_3110&externalidexchange=EX$$$$XSTO&LanguageId=en-GB&CurrencyId=SEK&BaseCurrencyId=SEK&tab=-1&ClearXrayPortfolioManagerApiInputData=true&xid=SE0000112385]http://lt.morningstar.com/gj8uge2g9k/stockprofile/default.aspx?SecurityToken=0P0000A6J8]3]1]E0EXG$XSTO_3110&externalidexchange=EX$$$$XSTO&LanguageId=en-GB&CurrencyId=SEK&BaseCurrencyId=SEK&tab=-1&ClearXrayPortfolioManagerApiInputData=true&xid=SE0000112385

We have a lot of maturing to do as a Nation, we need to learn to "speak softly and wave a big stick" rather than our usual stance of "speaking loudly and waving a small stick".


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2019)

>We have a lot of maturing to do as a Nation

For selected values of "we".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2019)

For those who think Canada's Allies will be jumping at the bit to help the Government of Canada impart Sunny Ways on the Saudis:

https://army.ca/forums/threads/131409/post-1588156/topicseen.html#new

Link to Large Article: "The UK’s Secret military unit that Answers to Saudi Arabian Commanders"


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Canada has a decision to make:  We can't hope to be a big manufacturing player selling weapons and military hardware to other Nations on one hand only to openly criticize those same Nations at every turn on the other hand and also try and dictate to them when, where and how they use said weapons.
> 
> 3]1]E0EXG$XSTO_3110&externalidexchange=EX$$$$XSTO&LanguageId=en-GB&CurrencyId=SEK&BaseCurrencyId=SEK&tab=-1&ClearXrayPortfolioManagerApiInputData=true&xid=SE0000112385]http://lt.morningstar.com/gj8uge2g9k/stockprofile/default.aspx?SecurityToken=0P0000A6J8]3]1]E0EXG$XSTO_3110&externalidexchange=EX$$$$XSTO&LanguageId=en-GB&CurrencyId=SEK&BaseCurrencyId=SEK&tab=-1&ClearXrayPortfolioManagerApiInputData=true&xid=SE0000112385
> 
> We have a lot of maturing to do as a Nation, we need to learn to "speak softly and wave a big stick" rather than our usual stance of "speaking loudly and waving a small stick".



The "virtue signaling" has to stop. JT and C Freeland make us look like idiots on the world stage.


----------



## FJAG (30 Oct 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The "virtue signaling" has to stop. JT and C Freeland make us look like idiots on the world stage.



It's all that they are capable of doing and, based on the election results from Metro Toronto,  :brickwall: it seems to work well for them.

 :stirpot:


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Oct 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It's all that they are capable of doing and, based on the election results from Metro Toronto,  :brickwall: it seems to work well for them.
> 
> :stirpot:



Thank you.  ;D

When the media first ran with this story my first thought was "What did you expect they'd do with them? Parade them around Riyadh or wherever?" 

LAVs are made to transport people who's sole mission is to kill other people.


----------



## CBH99 (30 Oct 2019)

I know I got roasted on this a while back, about how job losses here & there "don't really add up to much, and I'm overly concerned about it."

But it truly does add up when you have a car plant close here, another plant close there...500 families now unemployed here, another 300 families unemployed there, etc etc.




Then you look at the LAV deal with the Saudis, or the helicopter deal with Indonesia.  It really does add up.

We aren't the only country in the world that makes good armoured vehicles.  Saudi can easily purchase from a number of other countries, without the moral lectures that come from JT & company.  (And if there is one group of people who not only don't care, but will turn on you in the blink of an eye for attempting to bring up concerns about human rights, it's the Saudis.)  

Flush with cash and wanting to purchase a few hundred?  Great.  Come in.  Pay upfront.  Here's your vehicles.


If we have concerns about your f**ked up country being run by your f**ked up family, we either state so beforehand or we hold our tongue until the contract is done & funds are in place.  

(I don't disagree with Freeland btw, somebody had to speak out about the ladies who were arrested, detained, and I'm sure degraded in horrible ways, simply for speaking out against cruelty.)  But Twitter shouldn't be the mechanism of communication for politicians - it shouldn't even be the mechanism of communication for teenagers for crying out loud.



Indonesia wants 15 general utility helicopters?  Sounds good.  Here ya go.  Pay us money, and here's your helicopters.

The nonsense there was unreal.  It's a GENERAL PURPOSE UTILITY HELICOPTER based on a 50yo design at this point.  It isn't an attack helicopter by any means, and they too can (and did) just go purchase 15 general utility helicopters from someone else.  Whether they bolt some machine guns on afterwards really isn't under anybody's control except theirs, since they purchased the machines and now own them...and they can do that with literally any airframe they purchase.


I agree with the above posters.  We either manufacture arms and sell them, or we lecture other countries on how not to be total dicks.  I don't think we can really do both.  A tiny country like Sweden has a great arms industry, for a reason.

 (Another recent article which I'll find later is a Canadian company that had an order for 20,000 rifles ordered by our friends the Kurds, who ultimately couldn't export them...even though the Canadian government was open to supplying them with similar weaponry.  So they packed up shop and moved to the US to do so.)


It really adds up, and it's Canadian families who ultimately suffer the final consequences of a poor business environment.  It doesn't do much to bolster our world image either - you think Saudi Arabia gives a flying f**k what a white woman in Canada thinks?   <unintentional rant off>   :2c:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Thank you.  ;D
> 
> When the media first ran with this story my first thought was "What did you expect they'd do with them? Parade them around Riyadh or wherever?"
> 
> LAVs are made to transport people who's sole mission is to kill other people.



When equipped with a 25mm bushmaster, they are also very good at killing other people in their own right  ;D

Again, we are very Naive.  Our European friends, not so much.  I personally found the BMM SANG article I posted fascinating, particularly the little tidbit from the Diplomatic Communiques almost 70 years ago:



> One reason the British agreed to the Saudi request was that, “The ‘White Army’” – as the SANG was then known – “is the principal prop of the present Saudi regime, and any successor regime would be worse for our interests in the Gulf than the present one”, the foreign office noted in 1963. It added, “It is thus much to our interest that the ‘White Army’ should be efficient.”



I don't think the situation has changed radically.  While the KSA Royal Family may be pretty bad, the Regime that would succeed it without our support would be much worse.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Oct 2019)

SO herein lies the issues - do we stand by and lecture regimes not as liberal as ours and suffer the consequences?

There are several nations in this world that we could stand by and lecture about human rights etc - China anyone? Russia?

And Twitter should be taken off politicians phones. You don't govern or criticize via Twitter.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2019)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I know I got roasted on this a while back, about how job losses here & there "don't really add up to much, and I'm overly concerned about it."
> 
> But it truly does add up when you have a car plant close here, another plant close there...500 families now unemployed here, another 300 families unemployed there, etc etc.
> 
> ...



I for one think you are on the money. I'm also a pragmatic realist though so you will find that I'm probably in the minority of the Canadian population.

You also can't think about the Factory that builds the vehicle in isolation.  GDLS themselves would have hundreds of subcontractors delivering parts and services as part of the overall project.



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> SO herein lies the issues - do we stand by and lecture regimes not as liberal as ours and suffer the consequences?
> 
> There are several nations in this world that we could stand by and lecture about human rights etc - China anyone? Russia?
> 
> And Twitter should be taken off politicians phones. You don't govern or criticize via Twitter.



We should probably be lecturing everyone if this is the case as there aren't many more Liberal than us.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Oct 2019)

On the bright side, we can argue that the Saudi's are not really using them for fighting, but running away, generally unsuccessfully.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Oct 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> On the bright side, we can argue that the Saudi's are not really using them for fighting, but running away, generally unsuccessfully.



Touché.


----------



## MilEME09 (31 Oct 2019)

it's unfortunate but we may never know how much damage the saudi contract may cause to us since the deal is mostly secret. The loan and the 360 LAVs I firmly believe are trying to cover up and compensate GDLS and the saudi contract falling to pieces. I welcome more kit for us, but at what cost?


----------



## CBH99 (31 Oct 2019)

Should it really a secret anymore though?


The original contract had quite a bit of confidential information included in it.  

However, the Saudis have since breached that contract and have fallen a whopping $3.4B behind on payments, possibly for vehicles that were already delivered, possibly for the next batch - who knows.  

Since the contract has now been breached by the Saudis - and seriously breached at that, as $3.4B isn't exactly a mild accounting error - do the confidentiality clauses still exist if a contract was blatantly breached by the other party?



Under the circumstances, Canadians who are curious do have a right to to know the details.  

The Saudis breaching the contract and not paying $3.4B has affected government coffers in a way that they wouldn't have been affected if the contract was honoured.  The Saudis were the ones who breached the contract.

The government may, or may not, have been forced to spend additional money purchasing vehicles for the CAF that it may not have planned to spend.  (Makes sense to have a common fleet of vehicles, and the older support vehicles needed to be replaced anyway - so this may have just happened to be lucky for the CAF.)

So between the Saudis not paying $3.4B that was already agreed to, and the Government of Canada in turn spending billions it may not have planned on - the consequences of the breached contract were serious enough that I believe any confidentiality clauses would cease to be in effect.



The GoC should do a press release about the broad details.  Even something as simple as "The Saudis breached the contract and stopped making payments, so we in turn purchased the vehicles ourselves ahead of the 2022 planned timeframe in order to keep GDLS plugging along."

Whats the worst case scenario?  The Saudis try to sue the GoC for breach of contract?  Good luck with that...

Relations with the Saudis becomes testy & goes negative for a while?  Oh wait...


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Oct 2019)

LAV's sent to the Saudis should have backup lights.  ;D


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Nov 2019)

More

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2019/11/06/general-dynamics-is-missing-billions-due-to-a-canadian-saudi-spat/


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Nov 2019)

Slightly tangentially, there are some good articles out there regarding ethics and the arms trade. 

My overriding impression? Use caution because 'there be dragons'....

The Ethics of the International Arms Trade

Gavin Maitland

Unless one is a pacifist there is little difficulty in theory in ethically justifying a country's
entitlement to produce or to purchase, or even to market, weapons for the preservation of
internal order or external peace. In practice, however, the international arms industry gives
considerable cause for ethical misgivings, which are here explored. It is difficult to escape
from the notion that the primary factor behind the international sale of arms is the generation
of profits. If companies are left unchecked, there is considerable evidence that companies
will exploit commercial opportunities to the detriment of ethical considerations.''

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/4214-maitland-g-the-ethics-of-the-international-arms


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Nov 2019)

If Saudi doesn't want to pay up just sell the remainder to the Yemeni Rebels.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If Saudi doesn't want to pay up just sell the remainder to the Yemeni Rebels.



You, Sir, are an evil genius.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Nov 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You, Sir, are an evil genius. have alot of potential to do well in a high pressure international sales environment.



There, FTFY


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Nov 2019)

Recent big LAV deal for GDLS London to compensate for Saudis not paying?



> General Dynamics is missing $1.5 billion due to a Canadian-Saudi spat
> By: Aaron Mehta
> 
> An ongoing diplomatic battle between Canada and Saudi Arabia is hitting American defense firm General Dynamics hard, to the tune of about $1.5 billion in missing payments for land vehicles sold to the kingdom.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Shrek1985 (25 Nov 2019)

There was no way in hell the Liberals were going to do anything to hurt GDLS, even slightly before the election; now that it is over?

Canadians have ably demonstrated the willingness to forgive any Liberal misdeeds to a greater degree than ever before. If they are going to slap some wrists any do something that forces the best employer in Liberal Stronghold London to lay off some employees; now is the time.


----------



## Ping Monkey (15 Apr 2020)

Canada to resume approving military-goods exports to Saudi Arabia


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-to-lift-ban-on-export-of-military-goods-to-saudi-arabia/




> The Canadian government is lifting a moratorium on approving new permits for military exports to Saudi Arabia after renegotiating some terms of a controversial $14-billion deal to sell light-armoured vehicles to Riyadh.
> 
> 
> The government said Thursday it would begin reviewing export permit applications on a case-by-case basis, ending a ban on new permits for shipments of controlled goods to Saudi Arabia imposed in the fall of 2018. Controlled goods include military equipment such as light-armoured vehicles (LAVs) made by General Dynamics Land Systems in London, Ont., under a long-term contract brokered by the Canadian government.
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Apr 2020)

> NDP foreign affairs critic Jack Harris panned the decision to reopen export permits. “The Conservatives started this but the fact remains, the Liberal government is sending armoured vehicles to an undemocratic authoritarian regime with a terrible human-rights record. This contract should have been cancelled. Period.”.




They also haven't paid their bill in awhile last i checked


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Apr 2020)

Sell LAVs to both sides.

Follow up on AARs after both sides clash.

Could provide valuable information if we ever find ourselves.......fighting Canadian made LAV3s.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sell LAVs to both sides.
> 
> Follow up on AARs after both sides clash.
> 
> Could provide valuable information if we ever find ourselves.......fighting Canadian made LAV3s.



If the Saudi's abandon their paid for LAV's and the other side uses them I would rather see a remote self destruct capability like a thermite grenade on the engine block.


----------



## CBH99 (15 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> They also haven't paid their bill in awhile last i checked




As of 2 weeks ago, apparently the Saudis started sending payments again.  (I'm at work right now, but will hunt down the link a bit later tonight)


----------



## FJAG (15 Apr 2020)

There was this in February:

https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/02/03/saudi-arabia-makes-665m-payment-on-canadian-lav-contract/

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Apr 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If the Saudi's abandon their paid for LAV's and the other side uses them I would rather see a remote self destruct capability like a thermite grenade on the engine block.



It would make better economic sense to send a sales and tech support team


----------



## FSTO (22 Sep 2020)

The Sunday Morning CBC Radio program had Bob Rae on. He's the new Canadian UN Ambassador. Good old Bob, a loyal foot soldier to the end perpetuating the myth of the Canadian supplied "Jeeps" to the Saudis

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-57-the-sunday-magazine/clip/15798965-bob-rae-stephen-lewis-united-nations-75-canadas

Go to the 17:00 minute and hear Bob talk again about Jeeps.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Sep 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Sunday Morning CBC Radio program had Bob Rae on. He's the new Canadian UN Ambassador. Good old Bob, a loyal foot soldier to the end perpetuating the myth of the Canadian supplied "Jeeps" to the Saudis
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-57-the-sunday-magazine/clip/15798965-bob-rae-stephen-lewis-united-nations-75-canadas
> 
> Go to the 17:00 minute and hear Bob talk again about Jeeps.



Oh my god, that is so cringy lol  He obviously has no idea about what he talks.


----------



## Remius (22 Sep 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Sunday Morning CBC Radio program had Bob Rae on. He's the new Canadian UN Ambassador. Good old Bob, a loyal foot soldier to the end perpetuating the myth of the Canadian supplied "Jeeps" to the Saudis
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-57-the-sunday-magazine/clip/15798965-bob-rae-stephen-lewis-united-nations-75-canadas
> 
> Go to the 17:00 minute and hear Bob talk again about Jeeps.



I love how people that are against this think we are sending tanks, for those that think it's ok, we are sending jeeps.   Lol


----------



## FSTO (22 Sep 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Oh my god, that is so cringy lol  He obviously has no idea about what he talks.



Par for the course from our Political "Leaders"


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Sep 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> I love how people that are against this think we are sending tanks, for those that think it's ok, we are sending jeeps.   Lol
> [/quote
> If a LAV is now classified as a jeep, does that mean I can buy one for personal use? Purely for recreational use of course!


----------



## Donald H (22 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Remius said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Aug 2021)

New report details how Canadian made weapons are allegedly fuelling Yemen war  | Globalnews.ca
					

The Trudeau government is facing fresh calls to end arms exports to Saudi Arabia following a new report that details how Canadian-made weapons are being used in the war in Yemen.




					globalnews.ca
				




Thread necro but the UN and amnesty international once again blast us for selling weapons to the KSA


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2021)

Oh, that'll leave a mark.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> New report details how Canadian made weapons are allegedly fuelling Yemen war  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Trudeau government is facing fresh calls to end arms exports to Saudi Arabia following a new report that details how Canadian-made weapons are being used in the war in Yemen.
> ...


Not that I have any love for the Saudis, but:

Is the implication then that the weapons supplied by the Iranians to the Houthi are somehow “peaceful”?


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> New report details how Canadian made weapons are allegedly fuelling Yemen war  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Trudeau government is facing fresh calls to end arms exports to Saudi Arabia following a new report that details how Canadian-made weapons are being used in the war in Yemen.
> ...


The Yemenis “just experienced it differently.”


----------



## CBH99 (11 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> The Yemenis “just experienced it differently.”


Well I mean, technically and literally, they probably did… 🤷🏼‍♂️

Gotta luv some of those pics of the LAVs being captured and driven around by the Houthi.  (Are we SURE the reserves couldn’t handle the maintenance? Jk jk)

And .50 cal Timberwolf rifles ending up in the hands of the Houthi also?  I hadn’t realized Canada was supplying those also.  How kind of us.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Aug 2021)

LAV 700s and C14s = ‘Sunny Ways!’ 

 (Or should we say….’Sunni Ways’?)


----------

