# Greens Bash Ottawa About Not Buying Ships



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2008)

Mods, feel free to shift if it's already being discussed elsewhere.  MSM links below.

*Green leader slams navy and Coast Guard procurement cancellations*
Green Party of Canada news release, 24 Aug 08
News release link

NEW GLASGOW - Green Party leader Elizabeth May today slammed the Harper government for canceling a multi-billion dollar plan to procure new vessels for both the navy and the Coast Guard.

"Canceling these projects is tremendously irresponsible," said Ms. May. "New supply ships for the navy and the 12 additional mid-shore patrol vessels for the Coast Guard are not simply luxury items but are essential to the successful day-to-day operations. Particularly in Atlantic Canada, the Coast Guard plays a critical role in protecting so many who make a living at sea and this latest Harper cash slash may be putting lives at risk."

Ms. May noted that the Harper government promise to repair the dysfunctional defense procurement system has apparently been broken but instead of acknowledging this problem, the government has chosen to blame the companies bidding on the contract.

"Just as the Harper government refused to follow its own procurement rules by giving a contract for Atlantic-based submarine refits to a BC company, this situation has been badly bungled. This latest reversal of a Harper promise, one announced by former Minister of Defence, Gordon O'Connor, is further evidence that current Defence Minister Peter MacKay is not able to deliver on issues that matter to Atlantic Canadians. No wonder the release to media was at 8:30 on a Friday night."

MSM  coverage here, here, here and here.

_- edited to add more MSM coverage -_


----------



## Monsoon (24 Aug 2008)

Ah yes. Those old friends of the military, the Green Party.


----------



## Jungle (24 Aug 2008)

Wow... the Green Party criticizing the CANCELLATION of a project to procure Military equipment !!


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2008)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Wow... the Green Party criticizing the CANCELLATION of a project to procure Military equipment !!



Yup.....and if the Conservatives had gone ahead with a project that cost well above the publicly announced plans, they would have critcized then too !!


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Aug 2008)

It surely can only be a coincidence that Ms May is running against the MND in Central Nova.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Aug 2008)

Ok I had to read that again...the Greens....who would have ever thought....


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Aug 2008)

Shouldn't they be applauding the reduced carbon footprint of a smaller fleet?


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Shouldn't they be applauding the reduced carbon footprint of a smaller fleet?



 :rofl:

I had not thought of it that way.....


----------



## kratz (24 Aug 2008)

Actually my DH pointed out that with the purchase of newer, updated ships, the replacements would more than likely be more environmentally friendly than the current AORs.

I had not thought of that point of view.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2008)

So then, is that their policy on the military ?

Environmentaly freidly weapons ?


----------



## Strike (24 Aug 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Shouldn't they be applauding the reduced carbon footprint of a smaller fleet?



Actually their view on this is that the newer ships have more efficient engines, thus making them easier on the environment than what we are currently using.  Sorry, that's the environmentalist in me coming out.   

Hey, if the Green's start following their European counterparts a little more often than they could become the "other" option.


----------



## Mike Baker (24 Aug 2008)

Whoa, then I guess Toronto might have a shot at the Cup this year.

:

Deadpan


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It surely can only be a coincidence that Ms May is running against the MND in Central Nova.



Hence this mention in the news release....


> "New supply ships for the navy and the 12 additional mid-shore patrol vessels for the Coast Guard are not simply luxury items but are essential to the successful day-to-day operations. Particularly in Atlantic Canada, the Coast Guard plays a critical role in protecting so many who make a living at sea and this latest Harper cash slash may be putting lives at risk."



Translation:  fewer ships=fewer jobs in my riding+possible problems among the seagoing voters

All politics are local, right?



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So then, is that their policy on the military ?



Depends who you ask when - this, from the party boss:


> “The UN request for Canadian leadership in commanding its biggest mission reflects the high regard for our former experience and abilities in peacekeeping,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “But after extending the combat mission in southern Afghanistan beyond the previous February 2009 exit date, the Conservatives apparently cannot even spare one single two-star general and a few support staff as requested by the UN. The Harper government’s abandonment of Canada’s traditional role as a peacekeeping nation has never been more obvious.”



This from the Central Nova Youth Dude


> ....There's really nothing wrong with having a sizable military as long as it is used responsibly. Of course nothing ridicules like China or America but bigger then what we have now. The military is an excellent subsidy out of the reach of NAFTA and other trade deals, and a lot of people in my home of Nova Scotia depend on the military for various jobs both in and out of the Armed Forces. Building a ship, planes or tanks creates a lot of employment. I think we as Greens should also create a law restricting the use of our armed forces. A majority of MP's can vote today to start a war, if the Government even wants to put it to a vote. This should be looked at carefully..../



From the deputy leader:


> "Shocked and dismayed was how I felt", said Adriane Carr, deputy leader of the Green Party of Canada when she heard the news this morning that CBC is dismantling its Radio Orchestra for lack of funds.  "The CBC Orchestra's budget was less than one million dollars per year. The Harper government's 2008 budget just increased military spending by $270 million (a 1.5% increase to the $18.2 billion defense budget) and gave another $700 million for law and order and security measures ....  "The government's priorities are all wrong," said Carr, adding, "We need more music, arts and beauty in our lives, not more tanks, guns and war .... It bodes poorly for our country and culture if we keep increasing military spending and can't find a million dollars to keep an artistic institution like the CBC Radio Orchestra going," concluded Carr.



This from Green Party International Affairs critic Eric Walton:  


> “What is happening today in the heart of Africa is a continuing crime against humanity. It is Rwanda, parts two and three,” said Mr. Walton. “But the Conservative Government has so reduced Canada’s military flexibility that it cannot answer the call for help even when it comes loud and clear. It is a shameful day for Canada when our country turns its back on the UN and refuses to assist those in such dire need of aid in the Congo.”



Not to mention traditional anti-Americanism from some candidates (including the boss)


----------



## cameron (24 Aug 2008)

Actually when I checked my "unread posts" and saw this story I thought someone must have spiked my tap water.


----------



## Exarecr (25 Aug 2008)

All these posts and not one....not one angry response to the oh so typical cancellation of yet another badly needed equipment purchase. The Armed Forces of this country are doomed if the so called Conservative guardians of our military begin playing Liberal fiscal games of cancellation. Gut our Navy at a time when the world short of energy wants everything we have. How do you spell stupid in Canada. C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.V.E. Who will I vote for now.....nobody. They are now all the same.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2008)

Exarecr said:
			
		

> All these posts and not one....not one angry response to the oh so typical cancellation of yet another badly needed equipment purchase. The Armed Forces of this country are doomed if the so called Conservative guardians of our military begin playing Liberal fiscal games of cancellation. Gut our Navy at a time when the world short of energy wants everything we have. How do you spell stupid in Canada. C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.V.E. Who will I vote for now.....nobody. They are now all the same.



I guess you haven't been following the discusions on the JSS and those on what the Navy needs and doesn't need.


----------



## Strike (25 Aug 2008)

Exarecr said:
			
		

> All these posts and not one....not one angry response to the oh so typical cancellation of yet another badly needed equipment purchase. The Armed Forces of this country are doomed if the so called Conservative guardians of our military begin playing Liberal fiscal games of cancellation. Gut our Navy at a time when the world short of energy wants everything we have. How do you spell stupid in Canada. C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.V.E. *Who will I vote for now.....nobody. They are now all the same.*



My reaction to views like this is if you don't vote then don't complain, since you had absolutely no influence on the outcome.

As for the reaction to the cancellation, there's already a topic covering it.  The issue at hand here is the Green Party's reaction to it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Aug 2008)

Exarecr said:
			
		

> All these posts and not one....not one angry response to the oh so typical cancellation of yet another badly needed equipment purchase. The Armed Forces of this country are doomed if the so called Conservative guardians of our military begin playing Liberal fiscal games of cancellation. Gut our Navy at a time when the world short of energy wants everything we have. How do you spell stupid in Canada. C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.V.E. Who will I vote for now.....nobody. They are now all the same.



Ummm hello haave you even checked the Naval forums here. Some of us have been commenting on quite a long time WRT the JSS. :


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2008)

Exarecr said:
			
		

> Who will I vote for now.....nobody. They are now all the same.



I really hate to break it to you there sport but politicians have all been generaly the same for years and years.

You could always waste your vote on the NDP

You could always vote for the ruin-the-economy-carbon-tax-party......err.....liberals

JSS was going to cost more than the government was willing to pay. They are not the only government in the world to do this. Whats the surprise here ? Cancel a program that was too expensive ( and by too expensive it means "beyond what the gov could reasonably sell to the taxpayers" ) and the military will propose something else. Remember that we need alot of other things in additions to new supply ships, so cost is a major factor. We spend too much on this, we cut comething else.

Its the same thing you do when you buy a new car for your family.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Aug 2008)

I am sure that Ms May will come out and add to her train of thoughts being "Green" and the way forwards.   There should use a renewable resource for the manufacture (Wood), and an eco friendly method of propulsion that has zero carbon foot print (Wind).  Now that's a green shift for you.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (25 Aug 2008)

And be built entirely in Canada. 

Voila...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_St._Lawrence_(1814)

 ;D



*_edited to fix link_*


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Aug 2008)

Exarecr said:
			
		

> All these posts and not one....not one angry response to the oh so typical cancellation of yet another badly needed equipment purchase. The Armed Forces of this country are doomed if the so called Conservative guardians of our military begin playing Liberal fiscal games of cancellation. Gut our Navy at a time when the world short of energy wants everything we have. How do you spell stupid in Canada. C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.V.E. Who will I vote for now.....nobody. They are now all the same.


I understand your bitterness, but information is power. Also remember that your democratic duty does not end at the polling booth.  Find out why this was cancelled.  If not satisfied, write a letter, ask someone.  Believe it or not, but letters do make a difference.


----------



## sm1lodon (10 Jan 2009)

Would a real, all-forces-involved shooting war assist them in seeing a need for more war toys? Or just convince them that we need to disband our military because Canadians are getting hurt?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> Would a real, all-forces-involved shooting war assist them in seeing a need for more war toys? Or just convince them that we need to disband our military because Canadians are getting hurt?



Why are you on this kick about shooting and killing? Get a life.


----------



## sm1lodon (11 Jan 2009)

The fact is that a military force is used, not just to parade around a parade ground with boots and buttons shined to a blinding sheen. People join the military for many reasons, it is true.

But, if the military does not have a very good chance at actually doing any fighting, then it de-motivates the people who actually are good at that sort of thing from getting involved, and de-motivates anyone providing any funding from actually using new and updated equipment.

To imply that those who actually are suited to direct combat roles are somehow inferior to your evidently genetically, morally, mentally superior self is not having an accurate view of the world.

It's like saying that a doctor that enjoys surgery is twisted because no one in his right MIND would enjoy cutting people open and removing parts that are diseased or defective. How could anyone be so sick as to enjoy cutting people open? Oh My God what a nut case!

So, to reiterate my point, if we don't need the stuff we have, what motivation is there to buy newer, more modern stuff that we don't need?

This is the mentality that has to be overcome if there is no active participation in utilization of the equipment in all aspects of its designed capabilities.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jan 2009)

Personally I think you're wrong. In naval battles you won't be losing 1 or 5 sailors in a battle you will be losing 10s to _hundreds_ in an engagement. :


----------



## Haletown (11 Jan 2009)

I'm sure May wants the ships built.

What she hasn't said so far is the the Greenies will demand they be sail equipped to reduce the evil carbon outputs.


----------



## Sub_Guy (11 Jan 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> But, if the military does not have a very good chance at actually doing any fighting, then it de-motivates the people who actually are good at that sort of thing from getting involved


*insert price is right losing sound here*
Wrong

This is not a video game, from the tone of your posts I am starting to think that you believe that we should be out there sailing around like a bunch of drunk Vikings.


----------

