# The PM's arrogance...hurries past war graves



## John Nayduk (21 Feb 2002)

By SHAWN   McCARTHY
   From Thursday's Globe and Mail

   Munich - At a site that evoked reverence and reflection among the premiers, Prime Minister Jean Chré'©en appeared impatient to move on to the next stop on his Team Canada tour of Germany.
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/C/20020221/wxceme?hub=homeBN&tf=tgam%252Frealtime%252Ffullstory.html&cf=tgam/realtime/config-neutral&vg=BigAdVaria bleGen erator&slug=wxceme&date=20020221&archive=RTGAM&site=Front&ad_page_name=breakingnews


----------



## bossi (21 Feb 2002)

This thread should have been titled "PM shows his true colours, and his disrespect for Canadian soldiers who gave their lives".  Fortunately, I‘m going to control myself, and not use the word for excrement I‘d really like to use to describe this display of arrogance by "Da Liddle Thug From Shawningan".

Here‘s the rest of the story:

------------------------
PM hurries by war graves

Chrétien strides past Canadian tombstones in Germany; premiers make time to pause

By SHAWN MCCARTHY

Thursday, February 21, 2002

MUNICH -- At a site that evoked reverence and reflection among the premiers, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appeared impatient to move on to the next stop on his Team Canada tour of Germany.

Mr. Chrétien paid his respects to Canada‘s war dead yesterday, but he hurried out of the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Durnbach with barely a glance at the names on the tombstones marked by small Canadian flags.

The premiers accompanying Mr. Chrétien snatched time to pause at well-maintained graves of Commonwealth fliers and pronounced themselves profoundly moved.

The cemetery, set in rolling farmland near the Bavarian Alps, contains the remains of 2,468 Allied servicemen killed during the Second World War, including 483 Canadians shot down over Germany.

The Prime Minister and the premiers visited the cemetery during a stop in Munich for a Team Canada trade and investment mission.

On a grey, damp, chilly morning, Mr. Chrétien and the premiers laid wreathes at a cenotaph amid the shrill blare of bagpipes. Bavarian Science Minister Hans Zehetmaier also laid a wreath. 
When the ceremony was over, the Prime Minister turned to go but was encouraged by a photographer to walk among the gravestones. Off he strode, taking two minutes to walk the rows, slowing once, for the slightest moment.

Then he was out the gate and off to meet the President of the Bavarian Parliament, Johann Boehm, the next stop on what has been a whirlwind tour of business meetings, photo opportunities and sessions with senior political leaders.

Ontario Premier Mike Harris, accompanied by a photographer, arrived ahead of the official delegation and laid wreathes at the tombs of three airmen from North Bay. His aides said he intends to send the pictures to family members, some of whom live in Ontario.

"The three airmen were 19, 20 and 26," Mr. Harris said. "I have a son who turned 17 yesterday, and that‘s getting pretty close to this age. It is very emotional for me, as is what they went through and the freedoms that we enjoy."

The three North Bay dead are Daryl Owens McMahon, Edward Peverly and Lindsay Wilkie Webster.

Mr. Chrétien said he felt he had paid his respects during the rushed visit through the cemetery. "You know, I visited a certain number of tombs and I paid my respects." He noted that Mr. Harris had visited the gravesites of men whose families had lived in his riding.

"There was no indication that there was anybody [from Shawinigan] -- I looked at the names."

Mr. Chrétien suggested it was difficult to stop for a reflective moment when he was leading a large delegation of premiers, German hosts and officials. Had he stopped as he strolled up one row and down another, he might have read: Pilot Officer, W. J. Hope, Air Gunner, Royal Canadian Air Force, 26 August 1944, Age 20. Beloved son Fred. K. Hope and Vera M. Norman, Born Perth, Ontario, Canada, November 9, 1923.

Or he might have noticed the granite slab dedicated to Flight Sergeant R. J. O‘Reilly, age 18 when he was shot down on March 16, 1945.

The premiers -- many of whom were making their first official visits to European military cemeteries -- were clearly moved by the rows of tombstones. Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert said that his father had been sent to Germany during the war.

"It was for me, then, an emotional experience, thinking about my father -- not killed -- survived, came home," Mr. Calvert said. "But that he might have shared one of those graves was very real to me.

"And when you think of the number of Canadian flags of a similar nature that are scattered about Europe, and indeed, across the world, one understands the role our nation, our people have played."

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer said the graves of boys from towns close to where he grew up brought home the tragedy. "These were kids that would have probably, for many of us, been known to our family members, probably danced with my mother in Neepawa."

"So it really comes home, the tragedy of war . . . the youth, a lost generation."


----------



## bossi (25 Feb 2002)

aaahh ... now I understand.
Obviously the PM had more important things on his mind ... like this:

Friday, February 22, 2002 
Plum for Chretien relative
Grandniece moves to $94Gs job
By ANNE DAWSON <mailto:adawson@sunpub.com
<mailto:adawson@sunpub.com> >, Sun Media

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Jean Chretien‘s grandniece was quietly given a plum government job that pays up to $94,400-a-year in the tough-to-crack foreign affairs department, Sun Media has learned. 

Although many who have held her new position in the past have been required to take an extensive foreign service exam, Caroline Chretien was advised it wasn‘t necessary. 

Caroline Chretien, whose father Raymond is Canada‘s ambassador to France, had previously been employed by her uncle Jean in the Prime Minister‘s Office as a senior special assistant. 

Until she was quietly shuffled off to her new executive post at foreign affairs last fall, she had spent the past several years travelling the world doing advance work for the PM‘s foreign trips. 

Foreign affairs spokesman Carl Schwenger confirmed the younger Chretien is the new deputy chief of protocol and the director of diplomat core services. 

She‘s responsible for meeting visiting dignitaries at the airport, and acts as a liaison for the 8,000 foreigners who have diplomatic status in Canada. 

"She‘s got extensive experience in the world of visits and protocol issues," Schwenger said. 

"That‘s an integral part of when the PM goes overseas -- getting those little issues right." 

He said the exam "isn‘t mandatory" because her job requires no overseas travel, but conceded many who have held the position previously have had to take the exam. 

Tory Senator Marjory LeBreton criticized Chretien for putting his family first when it comes to government jobs. 

"It‘s proof that the PM views the whole government and all its departments and agencies as his own personal fiefdom," said LeBreton.


----------



## Spr Earl (26 Feb 2002)

Me make‘s me F‘n SICK one rule for us and another for the RICH!!!!!

 And yet we are the daft bugger‘s that go out and protect these ARSEHOLE‘S!

 At least we have our HONOUR which no man can take away and if we meet in the street we can hold our heasd‘s HIGH! when we meet.


----------



## enfield (26 Feb 2002)

This is disgusting. 
If the Liberals aren‘t gone in the next election, than I am.


----------



## Spr Earl (26 Feb 2002)

Enfield were are you going to ?

 Do you have a trade or profession i.e plumber ,fitter ,machinest ?

 If you have these paper‘s you can get a job any where  in the world. STOP and think before you act this from an OLD FART WHO DID the same as you are thinking about now and got ****ed    
when I was young and foolish.


 Rethink what you are going to do and have a plan and  if it don‘t work  have an out!

Do you have a duel nationality as I do and where are you going to "Don‘t Say the Legion" it‘s harder than you think!


 Be Smart young man don‘t act foolishly!
Stay in School if you are still there and don‘t rely on the MIlitia becuase it will suck you in to a void with no out let!


----------



## Marauder (26 Feb 2002)

I thank the Warrant Above every day that I‘m enrolled in a program that will give me a degree that is in white hot demand around the world when I graduate.
I love Canada a lot, it has been more than good to my family for more than four generations, and I love my fellow Canucks, but I am on the same page as Enfield: One more Liberal government, and I swear I am gone.


----------



## bossi (1 Mar 2002)

hmmm ... what was it our arrogant PM said when he cancelled the EH101 contract (and cost the taxpayers well over 500 million dollars in penalty clauses)?
Something about how the Armed Forces didn‘t need a ‘Cadillac‘ helicopter ... ?

Friday, March 1, 2002 
Talk about limousine Liberals!

By David Gamble

OTTAWA -- Federal cabinet ministers are getting 25% more to tool around the nation‘s capital in their chauffeur-driven limousines. 

Government spending estimates released yesterday reveal the cabinet‘s 26 senior ministers will each get $65,000 -- a $13,000 increase -- in their budgetary allotment for operating limos and paying their drivers. 

Alberta Alliance MP John Williams decried the fact that the same estimates show Agriculture Canada will receive $4 million less this year. 

"Gas is going up for the ministers, but for the farmer ... he gets nothing, he gets shafted," Williams said.


----------



## bossi (3 Mar 2002)

(more op ed on Da Arrogant Liddle Thug from Shawinigan ...)

March 3, 2002 
PM should have Eggs on his face
Statements show his utter disdain for tradition
By BEN MULRONEY -- Tor the Sun
 Last week, before a sea of Liberal MPs, Prime Minister Jean Chretien absolved his minister of defence, Art Eggleton, of any wrongdoing. 

"Myself, cabinet and the Liberal party have confidence in the abilities and the dedication of the minister of national defence." 

Isn‘t that nice? 

The problem is, in doing so, he undermined the already pathetic power of the committee charged with judging his conduct in the JTF2 scandal. 

Simple math dictates that a solid Liberal majority inside the House of Commons translates into control over parliamentary committees. 

Such a reality cannot be avoided. 

But when the prime minister usurps the voice of the committee and passes a judgment which is not his to pass, Canadian democracy is done a terrible disservice. 

Chretien had neither been sitting on the committee nor had he been privy to all the evidence in the hearing. 

Eggleton has said that he would gladly return before the committee in order to clarify his position. Why bother? 

His boss has already cleared him of all charges. 

And since J.C. speaks on behalf of his entire political flock, he also spoke on behalf of the committee. For him to jump the queue and unilaterally forgive Eggleton demonstrates the utter disregard our leader has for tradition and protocol. 

It is entirely possible that Eggleton did nothing wrong, and that he was acting in the best interest of both the nation and the men and women of the military. For all we know, he did the best job he could have done under his given circumstances. 

Unfortunately, we will never know, because the system that should have led us to that conclusion was railroaded by the prime minister. Instead of allowing for the process to wind its way to a logical conclusion, Chretien took a shortcut to the finale he was looking for, and in doing so, cheapened our democracy. 

The leap of faith Canadians take in order to trust our system of government is a great one. 

CHECKS, BALANCES 

We must trust that a government elected with less than half the votes cast will govern to the benefit of each and every citizen. We must believe that a government elected by a minority of voters will wield its power respectfully. 

The checks and balances imbedded into the American system of government do not exist here. There, each branch of government exists, ideally, to circumscribe the power of the others. 

We have no such systemic safeguards. Instead, we rely on faith and tradition. 

While our committee system has very little power, it does serve a traditional purpose. It allows for an airing of grievances that question period does not. 

It enables MPs to clear the air of any misunderstandings, quarrels or misapprehensions and it maintains a level of transparency in government that otherwise would not exist. 

If our government continues to disregard the traditions that allow Canadians to have faith in our parliamentary democracy, it will be establishing a new set of traditions -- one future generations will strive desperately to forget.


----------



## bossi (3 Mar 2002)

(hmmm ... apparently the PM isn‘t the only one with this affliction ... Dennis Mills:  Come on down!)

March 3, 2002 
Two straight shooters
RICK GIBBONS -- Ottawa Sun
 Hey, let‘s play the hottest new board game in town. It‘s called Cover the Boss‘ Butt. It‘s fun, it‘s easy. Just present yourself with an interesting ethical dilemma, then role the dice. 

STEP 1: YOUR ROLE 

Pretend you‘re one of the highest ranking officers in the military. You have spent a career upholding the traditions of duty and honour and have been rewarded, accordingly, through promotion. You have earned the respect of your troops as a straight shooter. 

STEP 2: THE SITUATION 

You have dispatched troops into a war zone. However, turns out it‘s your boss, the minister of national defence, who is facing hostile fire on the homefront amidst allegations of lying and incompetence. The boss claims he wasn‘t fully informed of the details of a military operation capturing prisoners until a specified date. As chief of the defence staff, you know otherwise. Gulp! 

STEP 3: THE DILEMMA 

You‘re called before a Commons inquiry to set the record straight. What to do, what to do ... It‘s time to roll the dice! You have four options. Tread carefully, you have now entered a dangerous political minefield. 

a) Tell the Commons committee it‘s all your fault. It was your job to brief the boss and if he‘s confused over exactly when he learned what, then you‘re to blame for confusing him. This is known as the Fall-On-Your-Sword Gambit and may earn you shiny new baubles later. 

b) Rag out the clock. Claim not to understand the questions. Frown a lot. Offer stirring lectures about Our Men and Women in uniform. Drink lots of water. Never, ever admit fault on the part of anyone. This will take time, will-power and a large bladder, but could earn you a new ribbon. 

c) Take the Ivory Tower defence. Bury the committee in confusing bureaucratic bafflegab. Be patronizing. Apologize if matters are too complex. Mention national security. 

When pressed about exactly what you told the boss, say something like, "I informed the minister that the extemporary nature of extraneous circumstances required extra-ordinary extramural extractions and that to extrapolate further might be extrinsic to military interests.‘‘ Repeat often, if necessary, and prepare to take a congratulatory call from the minister. 

d) Take an oath to tell the truth and follow it accordingly. Tell the interrogators exactly what you told the boss and exactly when you told him, even though it conflicts sharply with the boss‘s confusing account of briefings. 

Hold your ground, stick to the facts, tell it like it is. Oh, and if you have time, you might want to kiss your sorry ***  goodbye ... 

Hey, that was fun. Now it‘s time to see how our contestants did. 

Joining us to assess their performance is Dennis Mills, perennial Liberal backbencher who brings to the case years of frontline experience monitoring Liberal ethical standards. Mr. Mills, both our players selected Option Four. They opted to stick to the facts and tell the committee the truth, as uncomfortable as it was. Let‘s roll the tape for a few selected highlights, shall we? First, here‘s Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, the man whose job it was to brief the boss about troops taking prisoners. 

"The minister was briefed that we had been on a successful mission, that we had followed the appropriate rules of engagement, that none of our people were hurt, that we had captured suspected Afghani terrorists or al-Qaida terrorists, that they had been transported safely, that they had been turned over to the Americans ..." 

Well, that seems clear. Now, let‘s hear from Ray Henault, chief of the defence staff: 

"The minister was aware of the development of the mission ... The minister was kept fully aware of Canada‘s military operations ..." 

Okay, Mr. Mills, it seems you disagree on how our players did. 

Dennis Mills: "If my employees tried to hang me out to dry on the national stage, I‘d just say ‘Look! You‘re working in the wrong company.‘ " 

Wrong company? Hey, we‘re fresh outta time, but join us again for another peek into Liberal ethical standards ...


----------



## Korus (4 Mar 2002)

You say you love your country, yet you are ready to desert it in a few years when the liberals get back into power? You leave because things are rough? Is that what the army is teaching these days? I sure hope not..


----------



## bossi (4 Mar 2002)

Au contraire, mon western chum.
Each and every soldier and officer presently serving in the Army is a testimony to the loyalty they have, IN SPITE of the shabby, shameful treatment the Liberals have inflicted (definitely not a minority opinion, either):

Monday, March 4, 2002  The Halifax Herald Limited 
------------------------------
No time for a creampuff in Defence portfolio 

  THERE ARE three critical situations looming for the Canadian Armed Forces: a full review of the department‘s mandate and capabilities; discussions with the United States aimed at a joint homeland defence network; the increasing likelihood of American military action against Iraq, in which Canada would face strong pressure to participate. 

In short, this is no time for a weak minister at the Department of National Defence. 

But in Art Eggleton, as recent weeks have clearly revealed, that is exactly what Canada has. 

The chain of events that led to the Defence minister‘s appearance last week before the Commons‘ privileges and House procedures committee, which is investigating whether he intentionally misled the Commons, was incredible enough. 

Mr. Eggleton‘s contradictory statements about when he first learned Canada had taken prisoners in Afghanistan, and his failure to inform Prime Minister Jean Chretien of that fact, were sharply out of step with the intense public scrutiny the prisoner issue was already receiving, vis-a-vis the application of the Geneva Conventions. 

But it was even more astonishing to see the very top DND brass refuse to throw Mr. Eggleton a life preserver at the Commons committee hearings last week. Instead, they hung him out to dry, refusing to play the political game of defending a minister by providing soft, equivocal answers. 

If anything, Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, deputy chief of defence staff, made Mr. Eggleton look stupid when he told the committee that it was not until the third briefing on the matter that the significance of the situation seemed to "click" with the minister. 

Where on earth was Mr. Eggleton‘s mind, during his visit to Mexico, when he received the first briefing? On a pina colada, or perhaps a banana-boat ride? 

And during the second briefing, when he and Adm. Maddison discussed the situation in light of a front-page newspaper photograph of Canadian troops transporting prisoners (they had been misidentified as American troops), apparently the minister did not think to call the prime minister with the news. 

That led to incorrect information being presented in the Commons during question period, first by the prime minister and then Mr. Eggleton, which led to the committee hearings. 

While it was unexpected, it is understandable why DND brass refused to go out on a limb for this minister, who has consistently failed to deliver for his department. Despite the repeated criticism of the funding shortage at DND, as compared to its mandate and operational roles, Mr. Eggleton has had no clout in securing the needed additional funds for the Forces. 

The ongoing delays over the replacement shipborne helicopters, now further exacerbated by a split-contract process that DND brass opposed, is another example of a minister who has been unable to deliver. 

Meanwhile, troops are sent overseas to desert conditions with green jungle camouflage uniforms, ships are sent to sea without proper replacement parts for their helicopter detachments and maintenance standards for all types of military equipment are on a downward slide. All of these problems are due to inadequate funding. 

But none of this prevents the federal Liberals from using the military for their own political flag-waving, bragging about Canada‘s great peacekeeping role even as its soldiers suffer burnout and medical complications from repeat missions. 

Stunned or deceptive? In the end, it doesn‘t really matter why Mr. Eggleton chose his course of action on the prisoner question. Neither explanation is acceptable in a job that requires strength, forthrightness and, most important, the respect of his troops from top to bottom. 

In the mind of Mr. Chretien, precisely the right person is in the Defence portfolio. 

It is not the person Canada needs right now. But from the perspective of a prime minister who has stubbornly refused to acknowledge the critical role of a strong military to the sovereignty and security of this country, Art Eggleton is a perfect fit. 

- 30 -


----------



## rceme_rat (4 Mar 2002)

As stated in another forum, this is an excellent example of when to go public -- senior officers should not be expected to take the fall for the Minister when he bungled it.  This is not airing out dirty laundry in public and it is not a political battle on the part of the military.  It is making sure the public has the facts straight without playing partisan politics.  I‘m glad to see it.  Kudos to the senior staff.


----------



## Korus (5 Mar 2002)

> Au contraire, mon western chum.
> Each and every soldier and officer presently serving in the Army is a testimony to the loyalty they have, IN SPITE of the shabby, shameful treatment the Liberals have inflicted (definitely not a minority opinion, either):


And that‘s the way it should be. I‘m joining because I have pride in my country despite it‘s flaws. Better liberals than to loose our autonomy and become the next state.


----------



## Canidule (5 Mar 2002)

well....I won‘t talk too much because I could talk days about this subject....but how do you expect us to have a better military when every single student is brainwashed by teacher that keep talking how great marxism is and ****s like that......especially history teachers...to me its sickening......liberals will still be there for probably over 100 years if nothing happens, with all the immigrants coming, it just take 3 years before they can vote and they vote for liberals and more and more of their pathetic friends come to our country....and they all think that this is some sort of banana republic.....i say **** them....this is Canada and it will always be


----------



## Marauder (5 Mar 2002)

Korus, you know sweet **** all about my patriotism and my loyalties. Don‘t make yourself look like some numpty **** by a$$-uming about **** you don‘t know.
Capice?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Mar 2002)

Hey Marauder, don‘t you already feel like some old-salt on these boards with all the FNG‘s...God, we need some RSM to sort us out.


----------



## Marauder (6 Mar 2002)

****ing scary isn‘t it Infanteer? Maybe we just need a MCPL to jack us up... God knows I still have an ungodly fear of any sleeve that has a maple leaf or crown on it.   

But hey, I just got my G-Tex boots and boonie hat and FINALLY got ALL my DEUs (after SEVEN ****ING MONTHS). I‘ve got a dip in, a beer in both hands, and I just found out our April ex is a LIVE FIRE PL attack with no ****, HONEST TO GOD CHOPPERS ferrying in all elements. Not ML-o-copters, real GRIFFONS bay-bee.       For the moment all is right with the world.


----------



## cagomez (6 Mar 2002)

Hey Marauder

I thought you guys were making fun of FNGs. Heres a tip. Never believe anything they tell you unitl about 5 minutes AFTER you start doing it. Been promised griffons, Hercs, all kinds of nifty training aids. Ive seen orders go to ****  half a pace from stepping off. They told us once that a Griffon would fly us out of a Recce ex, even did helo exiting drills with the CSM. Low and behold it begins to pour and we all have to "sleep" out in the field. Next day as we drive out of the base we see the Griffons all nicely lined up and flagged on the helipads. Im assuming they dont like to fly in the rain. Good luck with your Griffons


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (6 Mar 2002)

The Liberal Gov‘t hasn‘t supported the military in years, they are only upping the budget because of world pressure. If it was up to them we‘d only have a small peacekeeping force and no fighting troops. For this reason I‘ll NEVER support the Liberals( unless they start supporting our men and woman of the Forces)


----------



## Korus (6 Mar 2002)

whoa.. calm down.. Sorry for offending you..


----------



## enfield (6 Mar 2002)

Marauder, I will **** kittens if the Militia allows you onboard an aircraft with live rounds.

I remember a great "live fire ambush" I did once. A night-long patrol to the friggin‘ Range, and all within sight of the Canex. Stop at the back of the range, go non-tactical, get issued ammo, form up long 100m line, waste a bunch of Fig 11‘s, go through a declaration, then run up to the targets where some Intelligence volunteers were pretending to be wounded and did a 3km stretcher carry and some first aid. 
Somehow the guy with the spinal injury ended up on the ground sheet and the guy with the broken arm on the stretcher, but oh well....


----------



## bossi (13 Mar 2002)

(oh course, the PM already has a musical fountain built at taxpayers expense in his home riding ... besides, he‘s probably thinking there‘s no evidence the Canadians killed in the World Trade Centre attack were card-carrying Liberals, anyway ...)

March 12, 2002

‘Cold‘ PM rejects memorial to Sept. 11
Criticized in Commons: ‘There are other tragedies that occur from time to
time,‘ Chrétien says

Tim Naumetz
Southam News
OTTAWA - Jean Chretien was criticized yesterday for rejecting a monument to Canadians killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by saying the
catastrophic event, which killed more than 3,000 people, was not the only tragedy in the world.
On the six-month anniversary of the attack, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Canadians have already expressed sorrow over the victims,
including 24 Canadians killed in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In response to a question from Canadian Alliance MP Monte Solberg, who said the government has shamefully neglected to offer any memorial to the
Canadians, Mr. Chretien said he personally met victims‘ families in New York City and that the government is not contemplating a special monument.
"There are other tragedies that occur from time to time," Mr. Chretien said.
"I do not feel it is absolutely necessary to have a monument built for that occasion."
Mr. Solberg appeared shocked by Mr. Chretien‘s response but said: "I‘m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that we just caught him by surprise a little bit. I thought his answer was a little cold, to be honest."
Robert Basnicki, of Toronto, whose brother Ken died on the 106th floor of the Trade Center‘s north tower, was incredulous.
"Why can‘t the Canadians be recognized, just like the Americans are being recognized?" said Mr. Basnicki, who added the monument could be in Canada.
He said the government should have paid tribute yesterday to the victims.
"It wasn‘t just my brother, there were others," Mr. Basnicki added.
Opposition MPs criticized the Chretien government for failing to hold a special event to mark the occasion and also because more than 2,600 Canadian troops are taking part in the war on terrorism that was launched in response to the al-Qaeda attacks.
Joe Clark, the Conservative leader, said Mr. Chretien‘s reluctance to mark the anniversary suggests the government is a reluctant ally in the war on terrorism being waged by the United States and other coalition partners.
"I don‘t think this government thinks of itself as being part of that coalition and I don‘t think that our allies think of us as being part of the
coalition," said Mr. Clark, who added Mr. Chretien‘s comment trivializes the events.
While acknowledging Sept. 11 is not the lone tragedy the world has experienced, Mr. Solberg likened it to the Pearl Harbor attack that drew the
United States into the Second World War.
"I think people will remember that date [Sept. 11] forever," Mr. Solberg said.
However, Mr. Chretien noted Canada has contributed militarily in the response to the attacks, passed two anti-terrorist bills and committed itself to spend $7.5-billion in national security and defence.
George W. Bush, the U.S. President, led ceremonies yesterday to mark the date six months ago when four passenger jets hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists
crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a country field in Pennsylvania, killing at least 3,063 people.
Mr. Chretien has come under fire before because of his response to the events of Sept. 11.
He was criticized for not going to New York to support to express support
until almost three weeks after the tragedy.
Opposition MPs noted a week before an official visit to New York, Mr. Chretien bypassed the city after a meeting with Mr. Bush in Washington and
instead flew to Toronto to speak at a Liberal fundraiser.
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister; Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese Prime Minister; Jacques Chirac, the French President; and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, all visited New York before Mr. Chretien‘s official visit.
Mr. Chretien defended his delay, saying he wanted to go immediately after the attacks but was advised state visits were being discouraged because they would affect security resources.
He said he went after finally getting approval from Rudolph Giuliani, then-mayor of New York.
The three-week gap was criticized as a lacklustre performance that failed to show support for Americans.
Stockwell Day, then-Canadian Alliance leader, said at the time he was glad Mr. Chretien was finally going to visit New York.
Mr. Chretien was also attacked because Canada was one of the countries last to declare a national day of mourning over the World Trade Center tragedy.


----------



## bossi (15 Mar 2002)

Mar. 14, 2002. 05:57 PM  


 Liberals end Eggleton inquiry  
 Defence minister accused of lying to Commons over PoW capture  
 OTTAWA (CP) - Liberal MPs have cut off an inquiry into Defence Minister Art  
 Eggleton‘s flip-flop about Canadians taking prisoners in Afghanistan, saying  
 it was becoming a "witch hunt."  
 The opposition cried cover-up.  
 The Liberals used their majority on the Commons procedure and House affairs  
 committee today to reject opposition motions that would have recalled  
 Eggleton for more testimony and invited other witnesses to appear.  
 The committee will now work on its report. Opposition MPs said they‘ll  
 likely submit their own minority report.  
 After an hour discussing the report behind closed doors, Leon Benoit, the  
 Alliance defence critic, marched out, muttering: "What a charade."  
 Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish said Eggleton simply "goofed."  
 "His intent was not malicious," she said, "nor was it intentional."  
 The developments suggest the committee will rule that Eggleton did not  
 deliberately mislead the House.  
 The opposition argues that Eggleton‘s testimony contradicted the statements  
 of top military officers.  
 The Liberals said there were no contradictions and that the minister was  
 simply mistaken in his statements before the Commons.  
 Eggleton gave the House two different accounts of when he learned that  
 Canadian special forces soldiers had taken prisoners in Afghanistan and  
 turned them over to the Americans.  
 And he told the committee that he waited more than a week to reveal that  
 Canadian soldiers had captured suspected terrorists and turned them over to  
 U.S. troops because he was waiting for more details about the Canadian  
 involvement.  
 But top military officials testified Eggleton was fully briefed on the  
 operation and clearly understood the Canadian involvement.  
 While Eggleton kept the information to himself - not even telling the prime  
 minister - there was a public debate over the issue of what Canadian troops  
 would do with any prisoners. A week after the operation, Prime Minister Jean  
 Chretien said no prisoners had been taken.  
 Benoit said Eggleton should be recalled by the committee to ``explain the  
 direct contradictions between him and his top military people."  
 "If we leave these contradictions there, what are the public going to think  
 about the minister of defence?"  
 Benoit said there was a clear "coverup" in the committee proceedings.  
 Liberal Joe Jordan countered that the proceedings were "turning into a witch  
 hunt."  
 "I think it was very clear, the minister explained his actions," he said,  
 adding there‘s no proof Eggleton deliberately misled the Commons.  
 The minister wouldn‘t comment: "I‘m not going to discuss the committee‘s  
 matter, they haven‘t reported yet."  
 The controversy arose on Jan. 29, when Eggleton told the Commons that  
 Canadians had taken prisoners in Afghanistan and that he had learned of it  
 on Jan. 25, the previous Friday.  
 The next day, he said he had actually learned of the captures on Jan. 21, in  
 a phone briefing while he was on a government trip to Mexico. His reference  
 to Friday, he said, was to a news photo showing Canadian soldiers with  
 prisoners. He only learned of the photo on Friday, he said.  
 Brian Pallister, the Alliance MP who lodged the formal complaint against  
 Eggleton, told the committee he believed that Eggleton kept the capture  
 secret because he feared the issue would divide the Liberal caucus.  
 Some Liberal MPs were opposed to handing prisoners over to the Americans  
 without guarantees of fair treatment.


----------



## bossi (15 Mar 2002)

PUBLICATION: The Whitehorse Star  
DATE: 2002.03.14  
BYLINE: Robinson, Walter  

Helicopter fiasco: paying for Liberal vanity  

In 1993, the Liberals rode to power by promising to cancel the GST, roll back NAFTA, restore integrity to public life and cancel the Conservatives‘ $5.8-billion, 43-unit, EH-101 helicopter contract.  
Of course, the GST is still with us, and Mr. Chretien is now a big free-trader. And when it comes to Liberal "integrity", just think of names like Dupuy, Minna, Fry, and Gagliano. Enough said?  
Sadly, the one area where a promise was kept was on the helicopter file. In fairness, Canada did not have the fiscal capacity in 1993 to buy 43  helicopters at a price tag of $5.8 billion. But there was and is no doubt about the operational need for new whirlybirds. Now, nine years later, this need is even more acute.  
The original Tory contract was for 15 new EH-101s for search and rescue (replacing the Labrador fleet) and another 28 EH-101s to replace the Navy‘s aging Sea Kings. These Sea Kings - 41 in total - were delivered between 1963 and 1969, and some were already 30 years old by 1993.  
Since 1963, 11 choppers and seven lives have been lost in Sea King crashes.  
It now takes over 30 hours of maintenance for each hour a Sea King spends in the air. And there have been six emergency landings of Sea Kings in the last year alone.  
Nonetheless, Chretien and crew cancelled the contract in 1993 at cost of $500 million to taxpayers. And it wasn‘t until 1998 that Team Cormorant (the EH by another name) was awarded a $790-million contract to replace the 15 Labradors. To date, four units have been delivered, two more are en route from Italy and all will be in hand by late 2003.  
Under the original Tory deal, the choppers would have been delivered starting in 1997 with all 43 in operation by 2003. But the expected delivery date for first of the 28 units (valued at $2.9 billion) needed by our Navy is 2005 at the earliest.  
In the hunt for this $2.9-billion deal are Team Cormorant, Sikorsky, Eurocopter and NH Industries. The procurement itself has been mired with the usual competition between bidders but has been made worse by the government‘s dithering.  
Ottawa has insisted in splitting the procurement into two parts, one for airframes and the other for internal avionics components.  
This will move delivery from 2005 back to 2007 and will cost taxpayers an extra $400 million: $180 million for project and contracting overhead and an extra $220 million in risk liabilities.  
To make matters worse, the contract specifications now on the street ask for shorter en-durance times, slower cruising speeds, lighter weight loads and minimal hovering capacity during crisis periods than even the Sea King could perform in its heyday.  
Apparently, King Jean C. and his truth-challenged "minister", Art Eggleton, believe that saddling our troops with a helicopter for 25 years that can‘t even match a brand-new Sea King is good public policy. Well, it‘s not: it‘s an absolute disgrace!  
Mr. Eggleton is destined to match First World War Col. Sam Hughes in the "incompetence" file. It was Mr. Hughes who gave us the Ross Rifle, a pull-back bolt design that killed our own soldiers! It wasn‘t even made for military use, and had to be replaced midway through the war.  
This helicopter fiasco also reminds us of the early-1990s Griffon debacle: a civilian helicopter design that couldn‘t carry soldiers and their equipment at the same time.  
It costs the military an extra $60 million/year to keep the Sea Kings in operation. With more than 15 years of delay, this will add up to an extra $900 million.  
Add this to $500 million in cancellation costs, $790 million for the first Cormorant contract and now at least $3.3 billion for 28 new choppers and you get a cost of at least $5.5 billion.  
The Liberal government is doing its best to stall this process and its own backbenchers admit as much.  Sadly, it is taxpayers and our depleted military that will pay for this vanity.

The writer is the federal director of the Canadian Tax-payers Federation in Ottawa.

++++++

Friday, March 15, 2002 
PM‘s act is Dino-mite

By ANNE DAWSON, Sun Media

WASHINGTON -- It was the luck o‘ the Irish that gave Prime Minister Jean Chretien his nickname "Dino." 

That‘s according to the little guy from Shawinigan. 

Chretien was well prepped and ready to fire yesterday when asked about a report out of Washington that revealed White House officials have dubbed him Dino -- like the prehistoric dinosaur on The Flintstones. 

"Because it was at the time of St. Patrick‘s Day and the guy was speaking in the Irish way and he meant (to say) ‘Dean O‘ the G8,‘ " Chretien quipped. 

It was even on the agenda of U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci, who was here yesterday. 

"We can‘t find anyone in the White House who‘s ever used that word," he insisted, as he walked away laughing.


----------



## bossi (18 Mar 2002)

PUBLICATION WINNIPEG FREE PRESS 
DATE : MON MAR.18,2002 

Chretien dithers while troops fight 

Fred Cleverley

When President George Bush divided the world
between "those who are with us and those who are with the terrorists," most Canadians knew
where they stood and where they thought their government stood. During the six months that have passed since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, most Canadians still
stand with their friends and neighbours to the south. Where the Canadian government stands is anyone‘s guess. 

Last Monday, on the six-month anniversary of the attacks, Prime Minister Jean Chretien equated those attacks with "other tragedies that occur from
time to time." He said the government had no plans to erect a memorial to the two dozen Canadians who died, but would "look into" such a memorial if others suggested it. "But I don‘t feel that it‘s absolutely needed." 

He expanded his remarks by pointing out that  Canada  had 4,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. This, obviously in the prime minister‘s mind, gives ample proof of Canada‘s whole-hearted support of the war against terrorism. Perhaps anxious to
appear what he is not, Mr. Chretien had inflated the figure by more than 1,000.
Canadian ground troops number about 850 in Afghanistan, and we have 2,000 sailors in this
fight. 

Compared to his other gaffes on the issue, Mr. Chretien‘s brush-off of a memorial and his lack of accurate knowledge of our real involvement are
small potatoes. Nevertheless, he is proving that Mr. Bush was wrong when he said there were only those with him and those against him. There‘s a third category, one in which Mr. Chretien fits perfectly, even though most Canadians do not.

This category includes those who offer vocal support for the war, who even take steps toward physical support for the fight against terrorism, but who hold tightly to the ground of moral superiority which allows them to disregard the fact that the war is one being fought between good and evil
and who try to allocate, equally, the blame for causing it. 

In dealing with this war Mr. Chretien appears to be following another prime minister, Mackenzie King. Mr. King, attempting to deal with a divided Canada,
preached: "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."

This at a time when Canadians were dying by the hundreds in Italy, in desperate need of reinforcements, while there were 100,000 fully trained troops walking around the country who could not be sent overseas to fight this just war because of Mr. King‘s underlying objection to the political consequences of wholeheartedly supporting it. 

That Mr. Chretien apparently feels the same way about today‘s war was evident when he passed up an opportunity to visit New York‘s ground zero to
attend a Liberal fund-raiser and when he decided to deliver the war news not to Parliament but to other Liberal gatherings. 

His government‘s trouble over the prisoners taken by Canada‘s JTF-2 commandos is another pitiful example of why we seem to be neither in the war
or out of it. Instead of finding ways to describe their success or to celebrate their victories, we immediately got into a scrap over the
impossible proposition that we made a mistake by turning the captured terrorists over to our allies, who have the only prison there to look after
them. 

Our troops, who are more fully committed to the war than our government appears to be, are probably thankful that the decisions being taken for
their safety are being made by people like U.S. General Tommy Franks and U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, rather than by Canada‘s defence
minister, Art Eggleton, who either has to be told something three times before he understands it, or is terribly afraid of telling Mr. Chretien anything he does not want to hear. 

Mr. Chretien‘s next decision will be whether to support George Bush when the U.S. expands the war to other terrorist supporters such as Iraq‘s Saddam Hussein. Will he agree with Great Britain‘s Tony Blair that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is real and must be contained? Or will he join the wobbly-kneed Arab and European partners of the present coalition? 

Mr. Chretien will waffle, he will delay, he will sabotage our relations with our neighbour until he is convinced that expansion of the war is without
political liability. 

Most Canadians, who do not want to see any repetition of the events of Sept. 11, know what should be done and are willing to do it. Mr. Chretien‘s hesitation does not serve Canada‘s majority. It only panders to the political classes of this country. 

fclever@escape.ca


----------



## bossi (18 Mar 2002)

PUBLICATION: The Edmonton Sun 
DATE: 2002.03.18 
BYLINE: Neil Waugh 

THE FORGOTTEN 24 

It‘s as obvious as the nose on your face: Jean Chretien didn‘t get it, still doesn‘t get it and we suspect never will get it when it comes to Sept. 11. 

And from the ongoing antics of the prime minister, the Liberal response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington will continue to be a source of embarrassment and anger for Canadians. 
There‘s one Ottawa Liberal who is in tune with the situation. Deputy Prime Minister John Manley almost single-handedly kept the North American economic and trade union together despite the indifference and complacency displayed by Chretien. 

On the eve of the six-month anniversary of the murderous bombings last week, Manley was assuring Canadians that the relationship with our American cousins is "as warm and positive as you can hope it to be." 

Manley‘s comforting words had a shelf life of less than 24 hours, when Chretien rejected the notion of erecting a monument to the innocent victims
of the attacks.  "There are other tragedies that occur from time to time," Chretien sniffed. 

Let‘s get this straight: Canadian soldiers, the bulk of them drawn from the Edmonton Garrison, are risking their lives in Afghanistan hunting down those responsible for the attacks and their backers, while a good portion of Canada‘s naval strength is on patrol in the Indian Ocean playing its part in the war against terrorism. 

Why are they there? Presumably much of it is to avenge the deaths of Sept. 11‘s victims and hunt down those who would perpetrate and support this kind of extreme evil. 

Foremost in the mind of the government surely must be the 24 Canadian citizens who perished in the attacks - either in the buildings or in the hijacked aircraft. 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair clearly understood why his country became involved. The death of British citizens reportedly played a major part in Blair‘s unequivocal backing of the United States. And the memory of those Americans who perished in the attacks or on the heroic rescue missions has been a key impetus for the military actions. 

Yet in Canada the Chretien government has shown such scant interest in our citizens who died we suspect that many Canadians aren‘t even aware of it.

Meanwhile the unrelenting hunt continues for a fitting memorial for Pierre Trudeau - a Liberal politician who was despised in a large part of the country over the economic and social damage he caused. 

Our hearts go out to the forgotten 24 and their families.  
They deserve better from our callous and indifferent federal government.


----------



## Yard Ape (19 Mar 2002)

*PM praises troops‘ work, rejects hike in spending* 
By SHAWN McCARTHY
From Tuesday‘s Globe and Mail
19 Mar 02

Ottawa — While praising the performance of Canadian troops, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien rejected calls for massive increases in spending on the Canadian Forces that critics say are necessary to meet its mandate.

In an interview with CBC Television Monday, the Prime Minister said his government has increased military spending substantially since balancing the budget in 1997, but suggested it won‘t meet unending demands.

Specifically, Mr. Chrétien appeared to rule out the government purchasing a heavy-duty transport plane that could ferry troops to hot spots around the world, suggesting he is content to rent planes when they are needed.

"It‘s cheaper. It‘s not my money. Having planes that are waiting in case there‘s a war, that not a good investment. We can rent a plane," he said.

He added that the increased Canadian military commitment as part of the global war on terrorism has "not fundamentally" changed his views on how much funding the Canadian Forces require.

A recent Senate committee report argued the government should increase its military budget by $4-billion a year, up to $16.5-billion, in order to provide the equipment and personnel needed to meet all the Forces‘ diverse commitments.

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser said in a report late last year that the Forces need a major infusion of cash to upgrade their equipment.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton insisted Monday that there has been no decision on the the proposed acquisition of a long-range transport aircraft, though he was not sounding optimistic.

"Whatever we do, we want to do something that is cost efficient," he said. "We don‘t want to buy planes that will be spending lots of time not being used."

Mr. Chrétien said military planners have an insatiable appetite for new and modern equipment.

"In all the armies around the world, they want new equipment, more modern, [and] there are always companies that produce something a bit better."

Canadian Alliance acting leader John Reynolds said the Liberals have overstated how much they have plowed back into the Forces after several years of cutbacks.

"They didn‘t get a lot of money. He‘s wrong. He‘s misleading Canadians," Mr. Reynolds said.

Mr. Chrétien praised the work of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, where they recently ended a mopping-up operation in the mountains.

"I think I was very impressed by the quality of the work of our troops there, and everybody is very satisfied by their performance and their ability to do the job quickly and effectively."

The Prime Minister said the battle against terrorism will last a long time. He said Canadians will remain in Afghanistan until at least July, but may stay longer if the Taliban continue to resist.

But he refused to commit Canadians troops to new war zones once the situation in Afghanistan has been stabilized.

"In terms of troops involved, if there is a need, if there were to be the situation like that developing elsewhere, we‘ll look at the situation at that time, like we did in getting involved in Afghanistan," he said. "At this moment, there is no proposition, no plans to move involving Canadians."

While the interview — like much of Mr. Chrétien‘s attention — was focused on international arena, the Prime Minister did express satisfaction with the country‘s emergence from last fall‘s economic downturn, which was less severe in Canada than in the United States.

"We used to say when the Americans had a cold, Canada had pneumonia. And this year, they had the pneumonia and we had the cold," he said.

He also deflected questions about his own retirement plans, saying he is enjoying his job but has not decided whether to run for a fourth term.

"You know, you never know. Some day, I will say that it‘s time to go, but it‘s not today and I‘m still enjoying it. But it‘s a tough job."

With a report from Daniel Leblanc


----------



## Korus (19 Mar 2002)

On the way to school this morning, on the radio news it was mentioned that the PM said that he would consider sending Canadian troops into Iraq with the US, if the US provided proof of terrorist in Bagdhad (sp?)...

He can‘t seriously be considering deploying more troops without increasing the DND budget, even though it wouldn‘t be right away...

Maybe it‘s just a bunch of PR.. oh well, the majority of the population will forget all of the liberal‘s blunders and re-elect ‘em in the next election..


----------



## Disturbance (20 Mar 2002)

Korus "You say you love your country, yet you are ready to desert it in a few years when the liberals get back into power? You leave because things are rough? Is that what the army is teaching these days? I sure hope not.. "

Tell that to all the X-Airborne who left because "it got rough" and I am sure they will give nice piece of foot in *** . There is no limit to how long a soldier serves his country before he is considered to have done his time.  i dont think you are in a position to make a comment on why someone wishes to leave the forces. For everyone its different, but more often than not its because of lack of faith in the leadership.

I have talked to many people in our forces who have said that if they had the chance to go serve somewhere else they would. So why not serve yours and one where they will treat you a lil better than boyscouts. I am with Enfield. Its hard when your anger for your leader is almost greater than it is for your enemy. 

We all joined because we love our country, thats not the issue.


----------



## Yard Ape (21 Mar 2002)

Wednesday, March 20, 2002
Canadian soldiers seen as poor cousins
Canadian Press

Bagram, Afghanistan    Two Canadian soldiers have been recommended for bravery medals after putting themselves in danger at the back of a pitching helicopter to save a dangling young corporal from falling off.

 "Their actions, taken at great hazard to their own personal safety, helped to prevent a very serious tragedy," the recommendation said.

 Their bravery is made all the more poignant by a similar incident in which another U.S. helicopter was shot down and a U.S. special forces soldier died at the hands of the enemy when he was thrown out during "precisely the same manoeuvre," it said.

 . . .

 Despite the recent praises Canadian troops in combat in eastern Afghanistan have received they are aware they are fighting in an American-led operation.

 Most of the Canadians appear genuinely glad to be there. But with limited airlift capability, no air support and little ground transportation of their own, they are considered the poor second cousins in this war-time coalition.

 Moving 500 Canadian troops 450 kilometres to Bagram  outside Kabul  from Kandahar took three days because the American air force couldn‘t spare the planes to carry them. The last of the troops arrived late last Tuesday night, just hours before they were to be sent into combat on Terghul Ghar, or the Whale‘s Back.

 Most didn‘t get any sleep. Some never left the tarmac before turning around and climbing aboard U.S. Chinook helicopters to fly another 55 minutes to the battle zone.

 Canada‘s non-commissioned officers have become resourceful improvisers, rounding up vehicles, equipment, even socks to meet their needs.

 "Canadian infantrymen, for as long as I can remember, have been the masters of scrounge," said Sergeant-Major Brad Gates of Edmonton. "We‘ve had to make do with so little for so long that we‘ve mastered adapting and overcoming."

 "We can take a sack of **** and turn it into a machine-gun."

 Last week‘s ground tactical plan was Canadian-conceived, but approvals and timings were changed almost hourly, largely by American commanders.

 Resupply was late. Some units, told to bring only 24 hours‘ rations to the battle zone, were sharing food and water as they waited for fresh supplies. The evacuation of soldiers needing medical attention, guaranteed at a maximum of 90 minutes, was well over two hours. One Canadian soldier who broke his ankle on the mountain waited more than half a day before he was airlifted out.

 Even so, it‘s evident that Canada‘s regular troops are among the best-trained and conditioned in the coalition. The battalion commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran said Canadians should be proud of their soldiers.

 "From the perspective of the soldiers, a fight‘s a fight, and they‘d go to a fight in a wheelbarrow if the opportunity presented itself."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2002)

No problem, just tell the Yanks we need to rent more planes, helos, food water, ammo, medic, etc, etc, etc. It the approved plan of the PM. But lets try to just borrow it first.


----------



## enfield (21 Mar 2002)

CANFORGEN:
a) As per new rental policy, all Canadian soldiers will carry a credit card, mark 1, and a cellphone, to meet their battlefield needs if "on-site acquisition" does not meet needs.

b) Personnel are asked to contact Wal-mart or Fedex directly to streamline the supply process. NDHQ has nothing left to give, please do not bother calling us. If need is dire, refer to annex A: "Begging for American Help"

c) Personnel will be allowed to continue renting until such a time as their expenses interfere with Liberal golf trips and Shawinigan development projects.

Sincerely,
Your Civilian-Military Defense Team


----------



## portcullisguy (24 Mar 2002)

> Originally posted by Enfield:
> [qb]CANFORGEN:
> a) As per new rental policy, all Canadian soldiers will carry a credit card, mark 1, and a cellphone, to meet their battlefield needs if "on-site acquisition" does not meet needs.
> 
> ...


I would laugh.  But soldiers lives are at stake, and this makes the Liberals rent-an-army idea really dangerous.

A G8 nation that cannot afford to ferry it‘s own troops to the battlefield without calling on help.

Imagine if this was the case in WWII.

I can just picture it... 1940 and Canada wants to send over troops and aircrew to the UK.  But alas, they don‘t have the ships.  They call up the Yanks, who are partying away without a care because it‘s before Pearl Harbour and they aren‘t involved yet, and plus, they just got over the depression 1930s so they‘ve got some serious boozing to do.

W.L.M.King: "Frank, it‘s Billy up in Canada, how goes it?"
F.D.Roosevelt: "Just fine Billy, havin‘ a party as usual, how‘s things over there in Canada?"
King: "Not too good Frank.  We‘ve gotta get some of our boys over to Britain, the mother country, to fight the Jerries. Can you spare a ship or two?"
Roosevelt: "Gee, that‘s really Britain‘s problem, ain‘t it Billy? I mean, we‘re just happy as pigs in s*** here in the good ol‘ U.S. of A... Hitler doesn‘t want a piece of us..."
King: "I‘m beggin‘ ya, please, Frankie.  I‘ve got Tories and monarchists and loyalists and WWI vets out of my ying-yang bucking to go over and give the Hun a dose..."
Roosevelt: "We‘ll, let‘s see, I think we got a spare ship or two out in Hawaii... fancy going the long way to Britain?"

Of course, it never would have happened, because even a devout liberal like William Lyon MacKenzie King knew the value of a good navy (even though he tried to strip it bare during the war years).  We had the third largest in the world, if I recall correctly.

C‘est la vie...


----------



## Korus (24 Mar 2002)

Yep.. something like the 4th largest airforce, we had the 3rd largest landing force on D-Day (big enough to get our own beach, But I‘m sure I‘m just repeating already well-known facts on this board), we gained the most ground on the first day of D-Day, etc, etc, etc... A proud military history. 

To bad the succesive governments after the war have picked away at the military as if it where a scab...

But I‘m still damned proud to be joining...

  :bullet:        :bullet:


----------



## enfield (24 Mar 2002)

Well, it‘s official lads. Were now an American Protectorate. Our troops are US Army Auxilaries, and now our borders are guarded by US Customs. Maybe we should start a letter campaign so that we at least get statehood.

Americans buoy security at Canadian ports 
Last Updated Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:11:42 
HALIFAX - A small number of U.S. customs agents will be on duty at three major Canadian ports starting Monday, as part of tightened security in the fight against terrorism. 

Washington is worried that weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled into North America on cargo ships. 
The fear has also surfaced in Ottawa. Earlier this month, a Senate report recommended security be increased at all ports. 

Starting Monday, two U.S. Customs agents will join their Canadian counterparts at each of three ports: Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver. The Americans are expected to share more intelligence reports, and help pinpoint which cargo to inspect. 

"What they‘ll do is look at a manifest, target a vessel or target a container, and we‘ll actually do the work that‘s involved," said Jim Thompson of Canada Customs. 

Every year, at least half a million containers move through Canadian ports and into the United States. Canadian authorities inspect only a fraction of them. 

Both countries have pledged to tighten security without strangling trade. Some shipping companies have said they like the increased co-operation because it means that cargo has to be checked only once when it arrives in North America. 

"Then it becomes one-stop shopping," said Jim Stoneman of the Shipping Association of Canada. 

Critics have argued that Canada is giving up some of its sovereignty by letting U.S. agents work on this side of the border. But those who support the joint operation have said combating terrorists is more important than squabbling over turf. 

If the ports project goes well, Ottawa and Washington have both said they will consider expanding the program to other points of entry. 

Written by CBC News Online staff


----------



## Korus (25 Mar 2002)

That is sad. I don‘t even know what to say to that... Not so much the act in itself, but what it‘s foreshadowing.

<sarcasm>On the bright side, at least the 51st State should get good American military funding... </sarcasm> 

I‘d be interested to hear portcullisguy has to say on this, though... (with respect to customs)

   :bullet:            :bullet:


----------



## nigeljp (25 Mar 2002)

They say history repeats itself...
At the start of WW2 Canada‘s Navy was pathetically small, and at one point BEFORE the U.S. joined the war they offered to take over North American coastal defence and convoy protection, since US merchant ships were at risk. This is what propelled McKenzie King to boost Naval spending during the war. He recognized that this would be an overt loss of sovereignity to our big brothers to the south. It was only at the end when everyone else had been sunk that Canada was left with the third largest, it had expanded by more than twenty times from 1939. That Canada has ever had defensive sovereignity is entirely debatable, it wasn‘t Canadians manning the DEW line in the north, and who does NORAD phone first when a bogey appears on the radar screens up north, Dubya or Jean?


----------



## portcullisguy (25 Mar 2002)

> Originally posted by Enfield:
> [qb]Well, it‘s official lads. Were now an American Protectorate. Our troops are US Army Auxilaries, and now our borders are guarded by US Customs. Maybe we should start a letter campaign so that we at least get statehood.
> 
> (interesting but misleading CBC article snipped....)[/qb]


As a Canadian customs officer, I can say this neither surprises me, nor threatens my country‘s sovereignty, in my opinion.

U.S. customs officers have been working in Canada for a number of years at major airports, including Toronto., performing "pre-screening".  Although they do not carry weapons and have no legal authority, they CAN prevent unwanted persons from boarding their flight if they do not wish to comply with search or document requests.  The program is and has been very successful in keeping undesireables and contraband out of the U.S. and far from removing U.S. customs from Canadian airports, we should be looking at having our own customs present in THEIR airports.

Seaports, it can be argued, are no different than airports.  A certain volume of sea cargo entering Canada is ultimately destined for the United States.  Performing customs clearance here in Canada can allow the goods to enter the U.S. market more rapidly.  Likewise, Canada Customs preclearing cargo in U.S. ports can allow goods being transshipped to Canada to clear more quickly.

Sea shipments originating in Canada will benefit not only from export checks by us, but from import checks by them.

Provided they only check containers destined for the U.S., there is no reason why they can‘t operate here.  It is misleading to think they will be checking shipments on first arrival into Canada, because the CCRA is very adamant about privacy concerns and non-interference from foreign agencies.

As a customs officer, for example, I couldn‘t even communicate the fact that a shipment had arrived to a U.S. customs officer without violating the Customs Act, section 107, prohibition on disclosure of information to a third party.  This has to be done at the "intelligence and targeting" level, and then only with a proper MOU.

While I find the fact that our army must be ferried on rented conveyances to execute a war in a far off land, I can honestly find no problem with allowing foreign customs access to our ports to conduct their own checks of shipments going to their countries.

We did it for years in Germany.  If the CCRA had the money to spend (and they do, they just don‘t want to admit it), we would already be doing pre-clearance in U.S. airports, and I would be writing this email from Dallas-Ft.Worth, Miami or Atlanta, three large hubs of air traffic to Canada, all of which are very nice and warm year round!


----------



## bossi (26 Mar 2002)

Liberals still puzzling over Sea King replacements

Times Colonist (Victoria) 
Tuesday, March 26, 2002

From Ottawa comes more proof that the federal Liberals have become so rotten and complacent that Canadians will eventually have to boot them out, whether the Canadian Alliance and Tories get their act together or not.

Once again the issue is a replacement for the aging and sometimes dangerous Sea King helicopters.

One of the Liberals‘ big clubs against the Progressive Conservatives in the 1993 election was a $4-billion contract to supply EH-101 helicopters to replace the Sea Kings. The EH-101s were "Cadillacs," the Liberals charged, and a waste of taxpayers‘ money. After their victory, the Liberals then wasted an additional $400 million of taxpayers‘ money getting out of the contract.

Fast forward almost a decade, and Canada still doesn‘t have a Sea King replacement. And last week, one of the companies bidding on the helicopter contract pulled out. Eurocopter said its helicopter, the Cougar, was too small to meet Canada‘s bid specifications. It appears another, slightly larger chopper, the NH-90, also won‘t do the job.

Which would leave only two bidders meeting the specifications: the American Sikorsky S-2, and the EH-101 (albeit a slightly cheaper, but less well-equipped version than the ones the Tories bought). 

But the Liberals don‘t want to buy the EH-101 because, well, that would prove the Tories had been right all along, and the Liberals wrong.

Sooner or later, Canadians will decide they‘re fed up with a government that is willing to risk lives in the Armed Forces just to avoid admitting it made a mistake.


----------



## Korus (26 Mar 2002)

> Sooner or later, Canadians will decide they‘re fed up with a government that is willing to risk lives in the Armed Forces just to avoid admitting it made a mistake.


Either that, or (more likely) They‘ll forget about the liberal‘s blunders right before the election, and re-elect them again....


----------



## Harry (28 Mar 2002)

Of course the electorate will forget, there will be a big infusion of cash in the prime Liberal areas.  The rest of us will be considered Western whiners and the Liberal travelling road show will keep it‘s tents pitched on the Hill.

As for the US Customs setting up shop here, does anyone recall an organization named Ports Canada Police.  Probably not, Former Insp Inkster (RCMP) and the Liberals burried them along with the RCMP Special Constable (aerodrome security)program.  Where are our biggest threats, ports and airports.  Who would of thought...?


----------



## bossi (29 Mar 2002)

(I can barely believe my eyes - Chretien cancels the contract to replace the Sea Kings ... but then turns around and buys the most modern executive jet available today in Canada, to fly His Excellency The Little Thug From Shawinigan and his equally arrogant Liberal flunkies around in comfort?)

March 29, 2002

Ottawa finds $100-million for new jets to ferry PM
On last day of fiscal year

Andrew McIntosh
National Post

OTTAWA - The federal government yesterday spent $100-million to buy two Challenger 604 business jets from Bombardier Inc. that will be used to ferry the Prime Minister and other ministers travelling on government business.

The deal was announced on the last business day of the government‘s fiscal year. No public tenders were called and Public Works officials did not explore whether suitable used jets were available.

"I am outraged," said John Reynolds, a Canadian Alliance MP and chairman of the Commons public accounts committee.

"We have 40-year-old military helicopters falling out of the sky and we‘re going to buy jets for the Prime Minister rather than helicopters for our own military pilots. It shows how arrogant this government has become."

A source familiar with the deal said the Prime Minister‘s Office insisted that National Defence come up with the money for the new corporate jets, which were sitting on an apron at a Bombardier plant near Montreal.

The older model Challenger jets have experienced serious problems in the last year and senior officials wondered whether their continued use was appropriate for the Prime Minister. A spokesman for the Prime Minister referred queries to the office of Don Boudria, the Minister of Public Works.

Mr. Boudria dismissed the criticism from opposition MPs, saying the government is merely upgrading and modernizing its fleet.

"This is the best there is," he said. "There is only one Canadian manufacturer. Compatibility with our existing fleet was also a factor."

The two new Challenger 604s, worth $38.2-million each, plus more for spare parts and training, will replace two 19-year-old Challenger models.

The $100-million purchase will be partially offset by proceeds from the sale of the older jets, which should fetch an estimated total of $12-million to $19-million.

The new aircraft has a range of 7,550 km -- 2,000 km greater than the older model -- and its operating costs are 34% lower, Mr. Boudria said.

amcintosh@nationalpost.com


----------



## Andrew (29 Mar 2002)

> Originally posted by Limey:
> it wasn‘t Canadians manning the DEW line in the north
> 
> yes it was
> ...


----------



## Sharpey (30 Mar 2002)

I think our pilots should attempt the flight to Ottawa and park the tired out Sea Kings on the PM‘s front lawn and walk away! Mabye then he would get the hint. Just imagine if the Canadian Military was part of the CAW!!


----------



## enfield (30 Mar 2002)

I realize all of this is illegal, but....
But wouldn‘t it be great if the pilots of the VIP aircraft refuesd to fly? Or if the CDS shut them down, without telling the PM, as "budget cuts"?

If the Guards in Ottawa spent the summer infront of Parliament picketing? Or doing sentry with little signs that say "Please donate to the CF" with a hat. 

If the next time a foreign dignitary visits the military cut the cermonial guard?

But none of it would matter. The people still don‘t care, and never will.


----------



## Brock (30 Mar 2002)

The real kicker is that the $100 million comes out of the defence budget, becuase the CF is in charge of proivding flight service for high Canadian Government officials and foreign/national VIPs.  After the paltry amount given to the military--$1.2 billion--over 5 years and mostly to fund the war effort and not to improve limited capabilities; my faith in Canada‘s government--whatever the brand--is almost beyond the point of no return.


----------



## BillP (30 Mar 2002)

Reading the NP today, one of the Challenger pilots stated that the current fleet were in good condition, despite their age. So these new ones can land on a shorter runway, and have somewhat greater range, but to take the cash out of DND for Cretin‘s "ego trips" is insulting. When that a$$hole was being interviewed by the "Commie Broadcasting Corp." he said that the CF doesn‘t need heavy airlift capability of its own, we can just rent it! Well then why doesn‘t he just rent corporate jets, rather than suck DND dry of funds??


----------



## Marauder (31 Mar 2002)

I‘m with Enfield; it would be a real shame if the CDS said, "Ooops, we can‘t afford those jet‘s fuel and maintenance. ‘Fraid you and your lackeys are gonna have to fly the Sea Kings and Hercs to get to your golf holidays in the States and Quebec."

Any bets on how long it would be before we had a shiny new batch of Blackhawks and C-117‘s sitting on the tarmac in Trenton?
I‘d give it a month.


----------



## bossi (3 Apr 2002)

(you‘ll love the last bit - about Da Liddle Thug From Shawinigan)

Ottawa paid $136,800 for golf balls and tees
MP‘s annual waste report

Tim Naumetz
Southam News
OTTAWA - The federal government spent $121,000 on golf balls last year and a further $15,800 on tees, a Canadian Alliance MP says.
In his annual Waste Report, a survey of questionable spending by federal departments, John Williams says the balls and tees were used as government promotional items, along with golf umbrellas, cameras and even perfume.
Mr. Williams also questioned unusual spending items in the Department of Foreign Affairs, including an $8,000 grant to the Barking Sphinx Performance Society and a $10,000 grant to Mad Pudding, a Canadian Celtic funk band that used the money to travel to Scotland.
Foreign Affairs also doled out $22,500 to the Plug In Gallery of Winnipeg for the World Tea Party. The exhibit apparently explored the art of hosting tea parties by serving it at various World Festival of Sacred Music events.
Other Foreign Affairs spending included: $1,037 for tickets to the Robert Lepage play Far Side of the Moon; $1,000 to Chicks in Flicks Productions, which allowed artist Lulu Keating to travel to Denmark; and $8,000 to the Asociacion Espanola de Estudios in Barcelona, for a seminar on Senate reform.
Mr. Williams also challenged $44,517 spent to refurbish the office and executive washroom of Human Rights Commissioner Michele Falardeau-Ramsay.
Mr. Williams called the grants ridiculous, saying taxpayers would likely have objected to the spending had they been asked.
Musical groups such as Mad Pudding should depend on their own resources to travel, he said.
"If they are that good, they should be able to pay for it on their own," the Alliance MP argued. "Why do they have to be subsidized?"
Under promotional items, the government spent $54,852 on golf umbrellas, $152,451 on briefcases, $16,714 on games and wheeled toys and $1,744 on perfume.
Separate federal departments handed out a total of $2.3-million in grants and funding for six projects and centres in Jean Chrétien‘s riding intended to boost the Prime Minister‘s popularity, Mr. Williams said.


----------



## bossi (5 Apr 2002)

(I find it incredible, pathetic that an offhand, flippant remark from an arrogant ignoramus - Crouton - can scuttle serious debate.  The Liddle Thug From Shawinigan figures we don‘t need military airlift, and then goes out and buys himself two new executive jets ... and makes DND pay for them!  Only in Canada, eh?  Pity ...)

Friday, April 5, 2002
The Halifax Herald Limited 
------------------------

Plans stall for new air force transports 
By John Ward / The Canadian Press

Ottawa - Just a few weeks ago, the air force was busily planning to acquire a fleet of muscular transport planes. But the whole idea has been shot down, say defence analysts. 

"It ain‘t on," said Dale Grant, managing editor of Defence Policy Review. 

David Rudd of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies said the government doesn‘t appear committed to strategic airlift. 

The dream of strategic lift, the ability to fly big loads a long distance, seemed to be solidifying after Canadian soldiers had to hitch a ride from the Americans to get to Afghanistan. 

The inability to fly them there in Canadian planes angered opposition politicians and became a brief news sensation. Generals and planners talked about buying some big planes. They even mused about the huge Boeing C-17, a hulking brute capable of hauling anything the Canadian army operates. 

"What we really need is something that can take outsized cargo, relatively large quantities of it, and take it over long distances in fairly good speed and that‘s the thing we haven‘t had," Lt.-Gen. Lloyd Campbell, head of the air force, said last month. 

Col. Pat Dowsett, project manager for the military‘s future airlift office, spoke of issuing a formal request for proposals to industry by fall. 

Aircraft manufacturers trotted into Ottawa to show off their wares to the military and the Commons defence committee. They included the C-17, the A-400M from Airbus Military and Lockheed‘s C-130-J, a high-tech descendant of the workhorse C-130 Hercules now used by the Canadian air force. 

Even Defence Minister Art Eggleton spoke of the idea as being an active file. 

Then, Prime Minister Jean Chretien blew the whole concept out of the air, said Grant. 

"We can rent planes," Chretien said in a mid-March interview. 

That, said Grant, was the end of the road. 

Eggleton then told the House of Commons that there was nothing special about asking the Americans for a lift to Afghanistan. 

There has been little talk of airlift since. 

Military spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Philip Anido said the airlift project remains on track and officials are "keeping all options open." 

That ranges from buying new transport plans to maintaining the current system of leasing transports when needed. 

But Anido acknowledged that what happens will depend on which way the political winds are blowing. 

"Clearly, what the government wants will rule the day," he said. "We‘re just planning ahead and letting everyone know what the requirement is and we‘ll get what we can." 

Before Chretien squelched the debate, the strategic lift concept seemed to be on the move. 

Paul Cellucci, the American ambassador, gave things a gentle push in a speech to Canadian defence industry people: "A modern military force requires the means to move forces in a crisis." 

Opposition politicians pounced on that, but couldn‘t move the government. 

"It‘s not just what you need, it‘s what can you afford," said Rudd. 

He pointed out that the air force is already looking at billions of dollars to replace the Sea King helicopters and better than $1 billion for upgrades to the CF-18 fighter-bombers and the Aurora long-range patrol planes. 

"Is there enough resource flexibility even to replace the Hercs with anything in the near future?" he asked. "I‘m not entirely sure that there is." 

The helicopter and the upgrades come before transport, he said, "to say nothing of what the other two services want and can‘t afford." 

Grant said the airlift issue was a passing fancy. 

"You can write off strategic lift as another one of those sudden enthusiasms that sweep Canadian defence circles, but never go anywhere after consuming a few hundred million in taxpayer dollars and a lot of wasted effort by defence contractors. 

"Remember nuclear submarines?" 

Rudd agreed, noting the airlift debate was driven by the Afghan situation. 

"A crisis does reveal operational or equipment shortcomings, but once the crisis passes you‘re back to muddling through and I think the government would prefer that." 

Grant said the government isn‘t willing to spend any more on defence than it absolutely has to. 

He quoted Gen. J.C.E. Theriault, a defence chief from the early 1980s: "If you have money to spend, spend it on something that can shoot."


----------



## Infanteer (5 Apr 2002)

Alright...time for a coup d‘etat.


----------



## Harry (5 Apr 2002)

Hmm,

Promised myself I wouldn‘t get into the trenches and slug it out, but sometimes it‘s good to refresh old battle drills.

What a crock of $&!+, the Grits are out of control and we all sit back and play the age old tradition of Canadiana Apathea    .  Wine, gripe and vote Liberal (we see the big cash infusions prior to every election and forget the previous couple of years of dogma and cronyism).

The CF needs prime movers, what do we get, an untendered, under the table matching set of Challenger 604‘s that Bombardier can‘t seem to sell.

We have an elected body of neoclassic cronies who are systematically destroying pretty much every government service we pay taxes for, including Health Care.  Ralphy K. didn‘t cut transfer payments, but the way the Grit hordes and central Canucklehead Land carry on   :crybaby:   ; he has been made the poster boy for it‘s inevitable destruction.

As a nation we are paying more and getting less for our taxpayers dollars.  There is a perfectly serviceable Airbus in Trenton that is scoped out for VIP travel???  Oh right the Taj Mulroney.

The Airforce can‘t even dump the bird (they have tried), so why not use it for its intended role.  That $100 mil for matching Bombardier bookends is coming out of DND.  WHERE?  

We are about to send a Reserve Battle Group to the Balkans.  Excellent idea, if the proverbial hits the fan, send ‘em home, administratively indicate they are/where unfit for duty and write them off.  Then the poor sap‘s have too spend the rest of their adult lives trying to get recognition for their service and benefits should they happen to get injured     .  By the way, who is paying for this ROTO, the CF et al or the Reserves, there seems to be a rumour purporting that NDHQ has very quickly played the financial shell game and is moving this too the reserve accounting books, shielding the Reg Force funds.  Me think the bill is being downloaded unceremoniously and the effects are yet to be realized.  So what happens to the reserves then, no mulla, no kit, no training, yadda yadda.  At least it is good to see the DND mandarins may have learned a lesson from grit economics and can stick it to someone else for a change, I.E. reserves.  Better than having the grunts, pigeons and sailors battling it out.  Especially as the bills for our new found raison dete come in and quickly swallow up the existing $1.2 bil.  I see a lot of cancelled training and kit in the foreseeable future.     

The PM and the Grits are out of control, a gun control org and law that does not work (anyone notice how they tried to download it into the private sector last year) and is way over budget (yes, I have burried my heat and soldering guns), a military that is slowly fading into oblivion financially and resource wise.  A coast guard that can not guard our coasts let alone break ice (other than in the officers wardroom in Dartmouth), need I say more?   :sniper:  

Folks instead of griping, why not start thinking about the alternatives and in the next election bury these power munching, nepotistic cronies.  Oh right, I keep forgetting the old fear, if we lose the Grits, we lose control of the centre of the universe and allow outside impure thoughts from the West.  You could always vote NDPâ€¦   :skull:  (not likely) 

As a nation we listened to the Grit machine and banished the Tory boogieman   :evil:   for an eternity of damnation (did they not increase our military and associated spending in the 80â€™s).  Why not now look at the messengers for the snake oil sales men they are and banish them as well.  Before Shawinigan becomes the Nations Capitol, or betters yet, the social and cultural centre of excellence it is slowly becoming with all the Grit coin that seems to be cascading there.  I will be choked the day it is added to the PGA Masters list.

Ah, that feels better, and to think I am a card carrying Grit   :warstory:  .


----------



## Korus (6 Apr 2002)

I kind of agree with postponing the procurement of heavy-airlift capabilities to put a higher priority on replacing the seakings, and upgrading the 18‘s.

Too bad the gov‘t isn‘t putting much of a priority on ANY of the above.

If the gov‘t cared about the military, they‘d just increase the budget, and we‘d be able to get new sea kings, as well as some heavy transports... But instead we‘ll just have to watch Luxenburg pass us in military spending...


----------



## Brock (6 Apr 2002)

I disagree, the airlift problem is a major issue.  Over 19 of 32 C-130 transports are 35+ years old.  As many as 40% of the 32 aircraft are unavailable for use, becuase of routine maintenance.  That is a large number of aircraft due to age.

Second, Canada, unlike Europeans requires a heavylift transport aircraft such as the C-17 (capable of transporting 75,000kg+), because Canada has to cross the Pacific, Atlantic, and/or United States to get to our deployment areas.  To rapidly deploy or evacuate troops or citizens we have to have heavylift strategic transports; otherwise its impossible.  It took us just over 3 weeks to get to Afghanistan after months of preparartions.

However, I agree Sea Kings, CP-140, and CF-18 replacement/upgrades must come first.  Strategic transport via air shoud be fourth for the air fleet.


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay (6 Apr 2002)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My youngest son sent me from the Ottawa Citizen:

 http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/story.asp?id={AC27C0DD-C381-44E6-A41C-CD408EC732C8}  

‘No need‘ to replace jets for MPs 

It discussing the hire of a aircraft for C$220K to fly the PM to Brisbane for the CHOGAM Conference.  The rational being:
"the Prime Minister‘s Office said the decision was made to use the Bombardier aircraft because the Challengers lacked the range required to make the 181/2-hour trip to Australia. As well, the military‘s Airbus was too big for the runway near where the conference was being held."

Brisbane International Airport, 17 minutes to the city centre, and RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) Base Amberbly, some 45 minutes to the city centre, are both capable of taking the worlds two largest aircraft (fully laden) the C5 Galaxy and the AN-124, both far larger than the ‘old‘ Airbus used by the CFs.

Lies or what?

Yours,
Jock in Sydney


----------



## bossi (6 Apr 2002)

(Q.  How can you tell when the PM‘s phart-catchers are lying?  A.  When their lips are moving ... and I don‘t mean smoking pole ...).

‘No need‘ to replace jets for MPs
Government spent $101M on new planes even though they were ‘not warranted‘

a journalist  
The Ottawa Citizen 

Saturday, April 06, 2002

Canada‘s top general was told just months ago that the aircraft used to fly Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and other government VIPs are in excellent condition and there is no need to buy new planes, according to documents obtained by the Citizen.

The federal government announced at the end of March it would purchase two new planes at a cost of $101 million to replace the Challenger aircraft now being used to fly the prime minister, governor general and cabinet members.

But the Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Raymond Henault, was told in January that the Challengers have a 99.1-per-cent to 99.4-per-cent reliability rate in being available for the VIPs. 

"Given that there are no identifiable trends or problems with this fleet and given the high dispatch reliability of the Challenger, it is recommended that remedial action such as fleet modernization or replacement is not warranted at this time," according to a report given to Gen. Henault on Jan. 8. 

It was released to the Citizen under the Access to Information law.

Similar aircraft used by corporate executives have a reliability rate of 99.7 per cent, according to the air force report.

In the study done for Gen. Henault, the air force analysed the reliability of the 19-year-old Challengers after a series of mechanical breakdowns and found the aircraft had an excellent track record. For instance, from April 1, 2000 to Nov. 20, 2001 the Challengers flew 1,595 flights with just 13 late departures due to mechanical problems.

But the air force noted that, unfortunately, four of the delays involved Mr. Chrétien or Defence Minister Art Eggleton. On Nov. 20, 2001, Mr. Eggleton had his flight delayed one hour and 20 minutes due to a routine mechanical problem on one of the aircraft. 

On June 22, 2001, a Challenger carrying Mr. Chrétien had a loss of cabin pressure and had to make a precautionary emergency landing in Stockholm. An investigation revealed that debris had been caught in the pressurization valve on the plane. That, however, was considered an isolated incident.

But Renée Filiatrault, a spokeswoman for Mr. Eggleton, said the Challengers are not being replaced because of concerns over their service record or safety. The main reason is that the new aircraft, a more advanced version of the Challenger, will provide greater capabilities, said Ms. Filiatrault.

They will have a range of more than 2,000 kilometres over the older Challengers and will be able to fly from Canada to Europe non-stop. The new aircraft will also be able to land and take off from shorter runways, allowing them to fly into more Canadian communities. The new aircraft would also get better fuel consumption and have more modern guidance and electronic systems.

"All of these things make these Challengers a great acquisition capability-wise," said Ms. Filiatrault. "The bottom line is that these Challengers are a significant upgrade."

Opposition MPs have criticized the purchase of the new aircraft, to be bought from Bombardier of Montreal, as a waste of money. Some defence analysts have also raised concerns that the Canadian Forces will be saddled with the $101-million purchase price at a time when it is struggling to buy much-needed equipment for its troops.

Defence officials said that the money for the new Challengers will initially come out of the military‘s budget. But that money will be reimbursed by Treasury Board so as to not affect overall defence spending.

The Liberals scored political points when in opposition by attacking then-prime minister Brian Mulroney‘s plan to fit a Canadian military Airbus for executive use. They dubbed that plane a "flying Taj Mahal."

But Mr. Chrétien has recently found himself under fire for his travelling habits. In March, he was criticized by opposition MPs for chartering a private plane to take him to a Commonwealth conference in Australia. Opposition MPs said he should have used the larger military Airbus.

The government instead rented a Bombardier Global Express executive jet. The flight, including fuel, ended up costing $220,000.

But the Prime Minister‘s Office said the decision was made to use the Bombardier aircraft because the Challengers lacked the range required to make the 181/2-hour trip to Australia. As well, the military‘s Airbus was too big for the runway near where the conference was being held.


----------



## Jungle (6 Apr 2002)

Just saw it on the news... Our man in nigeria failed !!! He did not hit cretin, but the bus‘s tire !!! He must have been trained by a former RCMP special agent, those who used to shoot themselves in the foot with an MP-5 in airport terminals... Allright, we‘re back to the drawing board. When is the next time he will be visiting a backward village ? I know, we‘ll just wait for him in Shawinigan !!!


----------



## Harry (6 Apr 2002)

Jungle,

Next time make sure the Joo Joo is good to go.  maybe sacrifice an extra chicken or something.

Oh well, next man up.  

BTW, did anyone watch the news tonight when he (JC) sluffed it off as nothing, canine distal posterior.


----------



## enfield (7 Apr 2002)

There‘s still hope - he has to visit more African countries, someone‘s gotta get lucky... Better luck next time!

However, there is a good chance NDP MP Svend Robinson will get something in the 7.62 range soon. Watching the Israeli soldiers push him around (and oh, how tough he looked in that bullet-proof vest) was almost worth the Nigerians missing.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2002)

Holy queer bitch!  Have I missed out on the news or what...
Skinnies taking crack shots at Jean Cretin AND Israeli‘s pushing around that fudge-packer Svend Robinson.
The only thing that would top this off is if their brand new jets were splashed by Taliban with stingers.


----------



## Jungle (7 Apr 2002)

Harry, next time we‘ll go all out... we‘ll sacrifice a cow, a horse, a few sheep... how about a liberal MP ???


----------



## Harry (7 Apr 2002)

Becarefull there Jungle, someone might get the idea your not a happy tax payer.   :mg:   

Besides you have to be more specific.  The going rate is 6 back bench grits to one window display version.  Not to mention, I think including a Grit in the Joo Joo mix would only make bad medicine  :skull:  .  Hear if you throw Svend in, it will lighten the potion-there is a danger with reversing the polarity of anyone smelling the fumes, so be careful.   :blotto:


----------



## bossi (9 Apr 2002)

Liberals won‘t cool their jets

By DAVID GAMBLE, OTTAWA BUREAU (Sun)

OTTAWA -- Despite charges that Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his "fat-cat cabinet" approved a $101-million purchase of two executive jets, the government rejected opposition calls to cancel the deal. 

Taunts by Canadian Alliance MP Grant Hill, about putting the comforts of the comfortable ahead of the needs of Canadians risking their lives in the war on terrorism flying 40-year helicopters, were brushed off. 

Public Works Minister Don Boudria said the deal "does not delay the purchase of the helicopters by the military." 

Canadian Alliance MP Leon Benoit noted that the defence department started planning to replace the aging Sea King helicopters three years before the now-retired 19-year-old Challenger jets went into service. 

He demanded to know why the executive jets for the PM and cabinet have been quickly replaced even though an internal defence department review found them just fine in January. 

Defence Minister Art Eggleton said the internal review of the Challengers was about their safety and didn‘t address the fact the new Challenger 604s could fly further without refuelling and go farther on a tank of gas. 

"What is at question here is providing for a significantly upgraded aircraft that will be able to go to Europe non-stop, that will be more fuel efficient,that will be able to go onto a great number of runways," Eggleton said.


----------



## Yard Ape (9 Apr 2002)

> Originally posted January 2, 2002
> Chretien unlikely to show leadership
> By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
> [qb]"There are a bunch of guys who are lobbyists who are representing those who sell armaments, who tell you that (the military is underbudgeted and poorly equipped)," Chretien told CTV‘s Kevin Newman. "But it is not my money. It is your money and when you spend it on defence, you don‘t have it for health care."
> ...





> PM praises troops‘ work, rejects hike in spending
> By SHAWN McCARTHY
> From Tuesday‘s Globe and Mail
> 19 Mar 02
> ...


"Hello Pot.  This is the Kettle.  You are Black."


----------



## bossi (10 Apr 2002)

(hmmm ... seems to me I remember the Prime Minister saying something about not needing ‘Cadillacs‘ when he cancelled the EH101 ... and now his phartcatcher Boudria crows about buying the best executive jets money can buy ... defence money, that is ... hmmm ... only in Canada, eh?  Pity.)

April 10, 2002

Chrétien‘s air farce

National Post

The contempt with which the federal government holds the Canadian armed forces has been thrown into sharp relief by the decision to buy new business jets to ferry Cabinet ministers around the world. When the $101-million deal with Bombardier for the aircraft was announced last month, Don Boudria, the Public Works minister, boasted that the new jets are "THE BEST THERE IS." What he did not trumpet was the fact that the cost would come out of Canada‘s existing military budget.

The spending priorities of the Liberals are shocking for several reasons. First, there is the fact that Sheila Fraser, Canada‘s Auditor-General, George Robertson, the NATO Secretary-General, Paul Cellucci, the ambassador of our closest ally, the United States, and two-thirds of the Canadian public say the federal government should equip the national armed forces better. It is unconscionable that the money should be taken instead to buy civilian jets that appear to be unnecessary. Scott Brison, a Conservative MP from Nova Scotia, reports that the existing Challenger jets are in "excellent condition," according to their commanding officer. The Chief of Defence Staff added in a recent staff report that "remedial action such as big modernization or replacement is not warranted at this time."

Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, defends the purchase on the grounds that the new aircraft have a longer range than the old ones, are more fuel efficient and can use more runways. But these are scant reasons, particularly when set against the desperate need for new military aircraft. The dilapidated fleet of Sea King helicopters is a national embarrassment, as is the country‘s military transports, which are regularly unserviceable. When Canadian forces in Afghanistan had to be ferried around by American transport planes, the Prime Minister nevertheless insisted he would not buy any, but would, if necessary, rent them.

The February report on Canadian Security and Military Preparedness by the National Security and Defence standing committee of the Senate reveals a general decline. The Air Force can put only 30-60% of its aircraft into the sky at any given moment and missions are aborted because of mechanical problems ever more frequently. There is a shortage of maintenance personnel; 13% of positions are vacant and a further 15% are filled by people who are not fully trained. Lieutenant-General Lloyd Campbell, Chief of the Air Staff, says the Air Force urgently requires a true strategic airlift capability to deploy military forces and their equipment abroad and to respond to domestic disasters.

The general‘s grumbling about the Challenger purchase elicited a promise from the Liberals to pay back the $101-million sometime in the future. But that is not good enough. Even if it is not enough to update the military fleet, $101-million will hire you quite a few air mechanics. The money is needed now, and the Cabinet‘s new jets are not.


----------



## bossi (12 Apr 2002)

(Wait for it ... How much do you want to bet that Art Eggleton or one of his phartcatchers had a brain phart this week?  Specifically, the decision to deny information to the media ... supposedly in the interest of national security ... ?  Ha!  Or, better yet ... How much do you want to bet some Liberal party weasel will try to pretend these executive jets were really purchased for ... the Dwyer Hill Highlanders ... ?  Lastly, get a load of "His Arroganceness" in the Sun article ... what a load of ...)

Friday April 12 2002 

‘Security‘ shrouds jet purchase in secrecy

Glen McGregor  
The Ottawa Citizen 

The Canadair Challenger 604 shown on the company‘s Web site features a luxurious interior with wood grain panelling, a bathroom with marble tiling and brass fixtures, and leather bucket seats. The jets ordered by the government are a more austere version. 


Citing unspecified security concerns, the Liberal government is refusing to release details of the contentious $101-million purchase of two Bombardier executive jets.

The Challenger 604s will replace two older versions of the aircraft that are used to fly the prime minister and other cabinet ministers. Although the government made public details of another jet deal with Bombardier last month, Public Works and Government Services Canada says it cannot be as open with this latest contract.

"There is a question of security," said Public Works spokeswoman Jocelyne Limoges, who could not explain the security implications further.

The contract might also reveal confidential information about Bombardier that could jeopardize the company‘s competitive position, Ms. Limoges said.

Instead, she said, anyone seeking more information should file an Access to Information request, a process that can take a month or more.

In March, however, Public Works released details of the $200,000 deal with Bombardier to rent a Global Express executive jet to take the prime minister to the Commonwealth conference in Australia. Those documents were released because they had already been posted on MERX, a government procurement Web site.

But because the purchase of Challengers was sole-sourced and not tendered, there was no reason to put the specifications online. The government sole-sourced the contract to Bombardier because it wanted aircraft compatible with DND‘s existing fleet of four Challengers, two of which will be sold.

The contract to buy the Challenger 604s is thought to contain details about the cabin furnishings and other amenities aboard the aircraft. Although the government contends the jets are not luxurious, the models shown on the Bombardier Web site appear elegantly appointed, with leather bucket seats, wood-grain paneling on the bulkheads and a lavatory embellished by marble tiling and brass fixtures.

In even the most utilitarian configuration, with seating for 12 passengers, the Challenger features "a divan that converts quickly to a berth for a few hours of sleep or a peaceful nap," according to Bombardier‘s promotional material. "Generous executive seats track, swivel and recline, allowing maximum freedom and comfort."

The aircraft is also equipped with a "spacious aft lavatory with fully exposed window (that) doubles as a full-size changing room." The jets have a forward galley that "allows attendant to greet boarding passengers and prepare meals out of view in flight."

Challenger 604s typically sell for between $38.4 million and $41.6 million, depending on the interior configuration. Optional upgrades, such as satellite communications and noise-damping systems, are available at additional cost.

The government paid more because the contract included pilot training and spare parts, a Bombardier spokesman said.

All week, the government had endured angry criticism in the House of Commons over the decision to buy executive aircraft. The issue is politically dicey for the Liberals because, in opposition, the party vilified former prime minister Brian Mulroney for retrofitting an Airbus passenger jet for his own use.

The Liberals dubbed the jet "a flying Taj Mahal" and made much of the fact that Mr. Mulroney, who was fastidious about personal hygiene, had a shower installed in the jet. Like the Challenger 604, the Airbus also had two divans that folded out into berths.

Canadian Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit said yesterday he could see no security reason for keeping the contracts secret.

"That doesn‘t make any sense," he said. "What it is trying to hide the fact that they made a decision in 10 days to buy these for the convenience of the ministers" when it still has not replaced the military‘s aging Sea King search-and-rescue helicopters.

Mr. Benoit said the contracts might prove even more politically embarrassing if they show the aircraft are lavishly appointed. "You‘ve already got the marble bathroom. It looks pretty fancy."

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Defence Minister Art Eggleton repeated the government‘s assertion that the upgraded jets will be less expensive to operate and able to reach destinations in Europe without stopping to refuel. "They are not luxury models, but are more efficient," he said.

The Challenger 604‘s shorter take-off distance will also allow the aircraft to fly into and out of smaller Canadian airports.

+++++

PM ignored objections in buying luxury jets

Full cabinet excluded from discussion on spending $101-million for two planes

By HEATHER SCOFFIELD
Friday, April 12, 2002 – Globe and Mail

OTTAWA -- The Prime Minister rushed through a decision to spend $101-million on two new Challenger executive jets despite objections from senior officials in three departments and bypassed a discussion of the deal with his full cabinet, federal sources say.

The jets are for the use of the Prime Minister and other government officials. The decision caused outrage in the House of Commons because it was announced on March 28, before a long weekend.

The four Challengers now in use are 19 years old and have reportedly experienced serious problems in the past year. The government says the new planes have a longer range, greater fuel efficiency and better avionics. Opposition politicians point out that the Canadian Forces‘ Sea King helicopters are still flying after more than 40 years.

Initially, cabinet ministers were told in a memo from the Privy Council Office that the jet purchase would be discussed in cabinet on March 19 before it went to the Treasury Board for final approval.

The ministers were also warned in the same memo that senior officials in the departments of Justice, Defence and Public Works were concerned that the government was not following proper procedures in buying the jets.

The officials were concerned that the time lines proposed for the deal were too tight, and that the purchase would not be put up for public tender, federal sources said.

But the deal never came up at the full cabinet meeting. After it was approved by the Privy Council Office, it went straight to the Treasury Board, then on to Public Works for approval. Both gave it the nod. Public Works officials were given one day to put the contract together and send the $101-million to Bombardier Inc.

"We were requested to put it together quick and fast," said Denis Paquet, media spokesman for Public Works.

The process shows that the Prime Minister and his government are taking their power for granted, Canadian Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit said. "I think the government has become so complacent and arrogant that they don‘t worry about what things look like," he said. "Normal process? They don‘t bother with that any more."

A Treasury Board spokesman said cabinet approval was not needed for the Challenger purchase, because unlike major defence expenditures, this purchase was off the shelf and low risk.

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said there was a cabinet process of some kind, and all the proper procedures were followed. She would not give any details.

"There was a cabinet process that went on," Thoren Hudyma said. "It was a government decision."

Mr. Benoit said that a deal of this magnitude with such political consequences would normally require a full-cabinet discussion.

By rushing to finalize the contract by the last business day of the fiscal year, the federal government squeezed the purchase onto the 2001-02 books. The money comes out of the budget of the Department of National Defence, which maintains the fleet of government planes and provides the pilots, but it will be reimbursed out of general revenue in the current fiscal year, officials said yesterday.

By designing the transaction this way, the government prevented Defence Department money left over at year-end from going automatically toward the debt, thus keeping the $101-million in the defence budget for next year.

The government has also proposed adding $4-million a year to the defence budget to cover new operating costs of the jets, federal sources say.

Opposition parties say the purchase shows that the Prime Minister is putting his own access to luxury above the urgent needs of the military. They repeatedly point out that Mr. Chrétien and the Liberals opposed the refurbishment of an Airbus for Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1993, calling the plane a "flying Taj Mahal."

The commanding officer in charge of flying the Prime Minister and his cabinet has said there is nothing wrong with the four Challengers currently in use.

Public Works officials said yesterday that they were justified in handing the contract over to Bombardier without a public tender because Bombardier made the other jets in the government‘s administrative fleet, and the new jets need to be compatible. That‘s because the pilots need to be qualified to fly any of the jets at any time.

Part of the cost will be defrayed by selling two of the old Challenger jets, Ms. Hudyma said from the Prime Minister‘s Office.

She said the decision was prompted by Mr. Chrétien‘s trip to Australia in late February, when he flew in a rented plane, one of Bombardier‘s Global Express business jets. Unlike one of the old Challengers, it did not have to make frequent refuelling stops and did not require an especially large runway for landing.

+++++

PM isn‘t using new jets

By ANNE DAWSON, Sun Media

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- Prime Minister Jean Chretien says he won‘t be using the two new $101-million corporate jets purchased last month by his government. 

He said he‘s forced to take much larger military planes when he travels because he has to haul the media along with him. 

"I‘m not travelling with these jets. Most of the time, because you‘re travelling with me, I use the military plane. You know that," Chretien said to reporters grilling him about the extravagant expense. 

When reminded by reporters that they pay handsomely to travel on the government Airbus - the price of a seat on his six-continent swing through Africa is $12,500 - he cracked that it‘s worth it because they get to travel with him. 

"Yes, yes, but you‘re travelling with me. So it‘s the same time, same food - great food," he said. 

Chretien tried to distance himself from the deal to purchase two Challenger 604 aircraft, which was quietly announced at the end of the day before the Easter long weekend and has received a lot of bad press and public criticism. 

"It is a decision that was made by the government to replace these old jets and it was explained by (Public Works) Minister (Don) Boudria last week," said the PM. 

The Canadian-made Bombardier jets were purchased out of the Defence Department‘s budget, even though there has been a huge public outcry against the Chretien Liberals that they have failed to adequately equip the Armed Forces. 

Chretien has failed, despite repeated promises, to buy replacements for Canada‘s dilapidated fleet of Sea King helicopters since he was first elected PM in When Canadian troops in Afghanistan had to be ferried overseas by U.S. transport planes to carry out their role in the war against terrorism, Chretien said it was no big deal - it‘s better to rent transport planes than buy them. 

Minister of Defence Art Eggleton has defended the purchase of the Challengers on the grounds that the new aircraft have a longer range than the old ones, are more fuel-efficient and can use more runways.


----------



## Harry (12 Apr 2002)

I like the ref to "Security Concerns" WRT the details of the Challenger purchases, more specifically, to what extent does the decor exceed the former Airbus Taj Mahal.  :rage:  

The Grits didn‘t seem to concerned yesterday about security issues WRT the G-8 in Kananaskis.  
Anyone wanting to disrupt or worse at that venue, had the blue prints handed to them.  Right down to location of security stations, surveilance, location of principals (I liked the measurements from windows-nice touch for someone with a Ma-Brownig 2 in their arsenal).  :sniper:  

But I guess the colour of the marble in the Challenger‘s crapper is more important?


----------



## Yard Ape (17 Apr 2002)

*PM vows to stay on until next April* 
Wednesday, April 17
By SHAWN McCARTHY
Globe and Mail

Ottawa — In the face of growing speculation over his retirement, Jean Chrétien said Tuesday he plans to remain Prime Minister for at least another year and will put his leadership to the test at a party convention next February.

When he was asked after a cabinet meeting Tuesday whether he would face the scheduled leadership review, Mr. Chrétien said: "Of course."

Asked whether that was for sure, he replied: "Yes. I said earlier that I will be the Prime Minister in April, 2003. So to be the Prime Minister in 2003, you have to conclude I will be the leader in February."

. . . 

Globe and Mail


----------



## Disturbance (18 Apr 2002)

They are crooks. They are stealing our money. It doesnt cost 8million to train 16 pilots and I am sure you can find other holes in the other expenses. 

GOD DAMN I WANNA PUNCH HIM IN THE GUT, KNEE HIM IN THE FACE THEN ELBOW THE BACK OF HIS NECK. and get ready to take on the next MP.


----------



## bossi (24 Apr 2002)

I wonder what the Canadian Forces could have purchased for $100 million dollars, instead of two executive jets for the Prime Minister?

Oh, well ...


----------



## Richie369 (18 May 2002)

Hello,
I‘m not a military man but I am sick to death of the Liberals. They get votes from the immigrants and ignore the real interests of Canada.
I have a proposal: I would like to start a web site/movement dedicated to nothing less than swaying enough Canadian voters and maybe even immigrants to vote for someone else besides the Liberals. I see this as being necessary for the survival of my country. A grass roots movement can accomplish a lot.
I can design pretty decent web sites and would be happy to hear from anyone who wishes to contribute. You can contact me at: rjpurvis@mindspring.com
This project is still in its infancy, so please feel free to toss ideas around...the more the merrier!
Cheers,
Richie


----------



## Spanky (18 May 2002)

I agree.  The Liberals have to go.  I have been a long time Liberal supporter, but no more!  They have gotten way too out of hand.  Too bad their back benchers couldn‘t stand up to the leadership.  Maybe the past by-election will influence them..... naw.

However, there has to be alternative!  There are no other parties that can get their act together and offer an alternative.


----------

