# Canadian Military Arms Export



## McG (8 Jan 2014)

> *Canada planning to sell guns and military equipment to developing countries to maintain domestic arms industry*
> Lee Berthiaume,
> Postmedia News
> 05 January 2014
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/05/canada-planning-to-sell-guns-and-military-equipment-to-developing-countries-to-maintain-domestic-arms-industry/

So, I imagine that being added to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List would mean that a country could by assault rifles from Colt Canada and maybe the ammunition to fire through those rifles.  Does the list authorize more than this?  The article also links the ability to buy LAVs to being on the list.  But it still seems to somewhat sensationalize the issue.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jan 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> But it still seems to somewhat sensationalize the issue.


Ya think?  Hell, the funniest line in there:  "But Staples said .....rather than a proper analysis of..." from a guy who's never shown an ability to conduct proper, (ie - unbiased) analysis of _anything_ Canadian defence related.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2014)

Jobs are a big part of the CPC electoral strategy, and 109,000 skilled, well paying jobs is a pretty big trump card to play. While the government may not "push" military exports very hard, they are going to play it for all its worth come election time.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Jan 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Jobs are a big part of the CPC electoral strategy, and 109,000 skilled, well paying jobs is a pretty big trump card to play. While the government may not "push" military exports very hard, they are going to play it for all its worth come election time.



Particularly with General Dynamics and Colt being located in the Greater London area, which has had what 4 Major plant closings (Ford, Caterpillar, Heinz, Bicks) in the last year or two?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2014)

Not to mention 500 more jobs lost from Kellogg's and between 40 to 100 from Cargill in the London food industry.

Of course City Council has made dynamic job creation <sarc>even easier</sarc> preventing food trucks from opening by sending their menus to committee last spring to "determine if they are sufficiently diverse", with a reporting time in the fall of last year. While I never heard if the menus passed muster for being "diverse enough" it would be interesting to compute the number of food trucks it would take to earn the money paid to the politicians and bureaucrats to examine the menus for "diversity".

Of course 0 new jobs were created last summer by food truck operators, nor any spinoff employment by suppliers, website designers, sign painters, advertisers etc. etc.

City Council had better hope GDLS and Colt can make some sales...


----------



## McG (15 Feb 2014)

Here is another bit that seems to sensationalize the message.


> * General Dynamics Canada wins $10B deal with Saudi Arabia
> Will supply armoured vehicles, equipment, and training over 14 years*
> James Cudmore, CBC News
> 14 February 2014
> ...


 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/general-dynamics-canada-wins-10b-deal-with-saudi-arabia-1.2537934

I am curious as to what GDLS is actually selling that is being labeled “sophisticated weapons systems”.    The vehicle is not a weapon system, and it can be bought with as little as a pintle mount for which the customer must supply their own machine gun.  Odds are that Saudi Arabia is buying something more, but if one is going to cry doomsday over “sophisticated weapons systems” then one should be able to identify what those weapon systems are.  Right now, the concern only points to an eight wheeled armoured truck.

… and I am not even sure that we know which truck either.  “LAV” includes several generations of vehicles that can still be bought.  The USMC was contracting for new LAV 1+ back in 2006, and I suspect the 13 LAV contracted by the USMC last year are of the same variety (because that is what they have).  Saudi Arabia is also an old LAV customer but, given the dollar value, I suspect they are buying large enough quantities as to not feel constrained by the current inventory. But, we are not given the information to know.

More on this topic here: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Government+touts+billion+contract+Saudi+Arabia+amid+human+rights/9509843/story.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2014)

I don't know what the big hubbub is about, GDLS and it's predecessor has been selling various configurations of AVGP & LAV vehicles out of it's London plant to princes and kings in most of the allied friendly ME countries for years.

They have been sending retired Canadian military guys as trainers for the same amount of time, both for driver (& maintenance) as well as gunnery.

This article is about 15 years too late.


----------



## Tibbson (15 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This article is about 15 years too late.



Yep, slow news day I guess.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't know what the big hubbub is about, GDLS and it's predecessor has been selling various configurations of AVGP & LAV vehicles out of it's London plant to princes and kings in most of the allied friendly ME countries for years.
> 
> They have been sending retired Canadian military guys as trainers for the same amount of time, both for driver (& maintenance) as well as gunnery.
> 
> This article is about 15 years too late.



 The last 15 years saw Canada involved in a war that was often justified by arguments around human rights and protecting women from Islamic fundamentalists. We can't have it both ways.  In a strictly realist sense, this deal is a logical continuation of standing policy. But our government never had the balls to explain Afghanistan in a realist sense. They decided to bring in the moral ascendency claptrap to build support. So yes, we SHOULD be questioning the fact that our government is selling arms to a regime that beheads women for adultery. we spent billions of dollars prevent a similar legal system from taking hold in Afghanistan. At least that's what we're told.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Feb 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ..... to a regime that beheads women for adultery.



It appears that the executions have overwhelmingly been for murder, with a couple being drug-related:


> Of the 12 women known to have been executed in the Gulf over the past 32 months, 10 were put to death for alleged murder, four for killing their husbands, one for killing her father, one for killing a stepdaughter, two for killing employers and three on drugs-related offences.



Shame about those pesky facts though;  saying that the death-sentences were all for adultery just seems so much more  anic:


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Feb 2014)

The official sentence for adultery in Saudi Arabia is death. As it is for armed robbery, “apostasy”, drug smuggling, kidnapping, rape, “witchcraft” and “sorcery”.

The ideas we were supposedly fighting against in Afghanistan are public policy in a regime that we are selling weapons to. Surely you can see this is a problem. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/fate-of-another-royal-found-guilty-of-adultery-1753012.html

If you want to defend our government's support for this disgusting regime be my guest. I guess we're saving good union jobs. Though I would imagine you hate unions.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Feb 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The ideas we were supposedly fighting against in Afghanistan...


I didn't for a moment believe I was in Afghanistan for women's rights or any such thing.  Sure, the HQ people used things like "girls' schools built" as a metric of 'success,' but their powerpoint victories merely gave us something to recapture down the road.  In reality, we were there only to show post-9/11 solidarity with the US because of the shock of the immensity of that terrorist attack; we were hunting the bad guys.  Then, because we had no legitimate national security rationale for being there, we ended up stuck without a clearly definable end-state.

Islamist abuse of women is bad.  No argument.  But there are a limit number of issues I can get worked up over, otherwise I'd spend my days organizing protests and crying in my chai latte -- a dozen women put to death for murder and drugs does not figure among them.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I didn't for a moment believe I was in Afghanistan for women's rights or any such thing.  Sure, the HQ people used things like "girls' schools built" as a metric of 'success,' but their powerpoint victories merely gave us something to recapture down the road.  In reality, we were there only to show post-9/11 solidarity with the US because of the shock of the immensity of that terrorist attack; we were hunting the bad guys.  Then, because we had no legitimate national security rationale for being there, we ended up stuck without a clearly definable end-state.
> 
> Islamist abuse of women is bad.  No argument.  But there are a limit number of issues I can get worked up over, otherwise I'd spend my days organizing protests and crying in my chai latte -- a dozen women put to death for murder and drugs does not figure among them.



I agree (from a left perspective)  with you and others that this deal isn't surprising, and it's par for the course. You're able to identify the real reasons we were in Afghanistan but that's not what the government told Canadians. And sure, Canadians are a naive bunch when it comes to FP, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be questioning an arms sale like this. You can not care about executions in Saudi Arabia all you want, but I think it would be a concern for most people. And that's why it's news.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Feb 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> .....I think it would be a concern for most people. And that's why it's news.


If it _truly_ was a concern for most people, it would have been news before this arms sale.  It's "news" now only because a government-hating media and military-hating 'think'-tanks have a drum to beat; as others have noted, we've been selling these vehicles to pretty much anyone for years without anyone raising an eyebrow.

And that is a problem with people with 'causes' -- whether it be arms sales or global warming -- they presume, and it makes them feel righteous, that "_most_ people agree with them" and whatever they're proposing _must_ be the best solution.

_In this particular instance_, I suspect that most people would see greater value in GDLS employment than pontificating against the Saudis; but like you, I have absolutely no facts to back up that statement.

So on that note, I leave the soapbox to you.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I didn't for a moment believe I was in Afghanistan for women's rights or any such thing.  Sure, the HQ people used things like "girls' schools built" as a metric of 'success,' but their powerpoint victories merely gave us something to recapture down the road.  In reality, we were there only to show post-9/11 solidarity with the US because of the shock of the immensity of that terrorist attack; we were hunting the bad guys.  Then, because we had no legitimate national security rationale for being there, we ended up stuck without a clearly definable end-state.
> 
> Islamist abuse of women is bad.  No argument.  But there are a limit number of issues I can get worked up over, otherwise I'd spend my days organizing protests and crying in my chai latte -- a dozen women put to death for murder and drugs does not figure among them.




Exactly!

In 2002/03 then Prime Minister Chrétien set out three reasons for Canada's military contributions to the Afghanistan war:

     1. To meet a very real, clearly enunciated by Osama bin Laden, threat to Canada;

     2. To do ~ and to be seen to be doing ~ our full and fair share in the "war on terror." To "punch above our weight," as the saying goes; and

     3. To help the Afghans people.

Those were on the DFAIT web site back in the day and you can still find them referenced or copied in some articles here on Army.ca.


----------



## McG (17 Feb 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You can not care about executions in Saudi Arabia all you want, but I think it would be a concern for most people.


The US also executes murderers.  Should they be on the Canadian ban list for military exports?


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If it _truly_ was a concern for most people, it would have been news before this arms sale.  It's "news" now only because a government-hating media and military-hating 'think'-tanks have a drum to beat; as others have noted, we've been selling these vehicles to pretty much anyone for years without anyone raising an eyebrow.
> 
> And that is a problem with people with 'causes' -- whether it be arms sales or global warming -- they presume, and it makes them feel righteous, that "_most_ people agree with them" and whatever they're proposing _must_ be the best solution.
> 
> ...



First of all, there is no "government-hating media" in Canada. Ideally the job of the media is to monitor the centers of power, so yes there will be criticism of our current government, but we all think this is a desirable state of affairs, yes? Everyone's favourite punching bag, the CBC, is so terrified of losing funding it's "criticism" of the government is quite muted. Amanda Lang's fawning interviews of Flaherty, or the very fact that Rex Murphy, while being paid by oil interests to promote the oil sands across the country is also paid by the CBC to provide commentary on the same subject and others would suggest to me that the CBC is quite "middle of the road" when it comes to politics. The producers at the CBC are ok with Kevin O'Leary calling for a flat tax and the abolition of the government, and while he's a blowhard, where is the equivalent left wing voice? You would need to have a straight up Marxist sitting opposite him for a real "balance."  I mean really, the Huffington Post Canada and the Toronto Star are the only major "left wing" media left in Canada. This story is getting attention because the government itself is trumpeting the deal, so the attention is warranted.




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Exactly!
> 
> In 2002/03 then Prime Minister Chrétien set out three reasons for Canada's military contributions to the Afghanistan war:
> 
> ...



Number three is where the problem lies. It was emphasized more and more as the expense of the mission in terms of blood and treasure began making Canadians uncomfortable. All of the more "realist" considerations went out window. Am I alone here in remembering the emphasis on women's rights in both the media and government statements?



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The US also executes murderers.  Should they be on the Canadian ban list for military exports?



 :facepalm: Are you seriously suggesting the US justice system and the Saudi justice system are moral equivalents? This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. If it's Afghanistan, the West is benevolent, morally superior and is motivated by the desire to "help people." Then in this case, Saudi Arabia is just another country (just like us!), and this deal is just another aspect of a realist foreign policy, so "get over it." 

Again, I will stress that this is not surprising to me. The core capitalist countries (no matter how socialist those certain European ones get) will always sell arms abroad, and usually will not be picky about who they sell to. But then our governments CANNOT turn around and tell Canadians we went to war to help people, and to prevent a very similar kind of regime coming to power in Afghanistan that we're supporting in Saudi Arabia. There's no moral consistency there, and I don't expect there to be. It's realist FP. But Canadians like to think of themselves as being moral, and living in a moral country. The ease with which many of us dismiss abuses of human rights in Saudi Arabia is really quite the contrast to the moral imperative of our involvement in Afghanistan. When our government uses women's rights, or the safety of Afghans to sell a war to Canadians (and you can't tell me our government didn't do this), and then continues to aid a regime that _actually_ uses a form of Sharia law,  it's a problem. And it should be an insult to everyone who served in Afghanistan thinking they were there to help people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Feb 2014)

Well at least we aren't selling them reactors.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Feb 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And it should be an insult to everyone who served in Afghanistan thinking they were there to help people.


Please feel free to be insulted on my behalf, and don't hesitate to continue [you will anyway] telling people who were actually there what we should be feeling.   :boring:  

Having refreshed my memory of your previous posting filibusters, I've made my case; I'm sure if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, it will become true. 

I'm done.


----------



## Bluebulldog (25 Mar 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And sure, Canadians are a naive bunch when it comes to FP, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be questioning an arms sale like this. You can not care about executions in Saudi Arabia all you want, but I think it would be a concern for most people. And that's why it's news.



If it was such a concern for Canadians, then they should be insisting that any fuel used domestically, and any products produced are done using non-Gulf oil. The sad truth is, that there are always a couple of narrow minded, limited scope individuals that would latch on this as a negative, and scream the heck out of it.

These are the same people I'd love to have man the food bank in London when some of those families who were inevitably laid off by GDLS come calling.....


----------



## McG (25 Mar 2014)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> If it was such a concern for Canadians, then they should be insisting that any fuel used domestically, and any products produced are done using non-Gulf oil.


I am sure somebody is campaigning for this.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Mar 2014)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> If it was such a concern for Canadians, then they should be insisting that any fuel used domestically, and any products produced are done using non-Gulf oil. The sad truth is, that there are always a couple of narrow minded, limited scope individuals that would latch on this as a negative, and scream the heck out of it.
> 
> These are the same people I'd love to have man the food bank in London when some of those families who were inevitably laid off by GDLS come calling.....



Well said.

It never ceases to amaze me how much the protest this and that community, gets it's panties in a twist and trots out "Women and Gays and etc are persecuted in Saudia Arabia/ME, don't sell them stuff!!!" and in the same breath will decry the reversal of an oil pipeline so it can export Alberta oil instead of importing Saudia oil. 

The selective moral outrage is tedious.


----------



## WPJ (18 Apr 2014)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> If it was such a concern for Canadians, then they should be insisting that any fuel used domestically, and any products produced are done using non-Gulf oil. The sad truth is, that there are always a couple of narrow minded, limited scope individuals that would latch on this as a negative, and scream the heck out of it.
> 
> These are the same people I'd love to have man the food bank in London when some of those families who were inevitably laid off by GDLS come calling.....



You can say that again, we export oil, and then import oil, why not just keep it, I guess my little pee brain understand this bedsides the typical rip off from the CEO's


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Apr 2014)

WPJ said:
			
		

> You can say that again, we export oil, and then import oil, why not just keep it, I guess my little pee brain understand this bedsides the typical rip off from the CEO's



There are different grades/qualities of crude oil.  Only a few refineries can refine the really heavy thick stuff (aka Alberta oil).  

Think of it like a blended whiskey.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Jan 2015)

With the recent news of a woman being beheaded in public (for murder, though there wasn't much of a trial apparently), and a blogger being sentenced to 1000 lashes, Canadians are again examining our policy towards the Saudis. Even in a strictly realist sense, supporting Saudi Arabia runs counter to Canadian interests unless we WANT to be fighting Islamic terrorism for the next several decades.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/cozying-up-to-saudi-arabia-how-can-that-be-principled/article22489227/


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2015)

Look, Kilo_302 I have nothing but contempt for the _House of Saud_ and it's ramshackle country; I will not shed a tear when the Saudi royal family disappears in an orgy of Arab retribution and when the country is divided amongst its warring tribes and/or conquerors ... _*but*_ until then let's sell them the hardware they need to abuse their own people and threaten their neighbours; it can only hasten their demise.


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Feb 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Look, Kilo_302 I have nothing but contempt for the _House of Saud_ and it's ramshackle country; I will not shed a tear when the Saudi royal family disappears in an orgy of Arab retribution and when the country is divided amongst its warring tribes and/or conquerors ... _*but*_ until then let's sell them the hardware they need to abuse their own people and threaten their neighbours; it can only hasten their demise.



So if I'm correct, you're taking the realist tack, in that Canada will benefit economically while somehow having hundreds of modern LAVs will cause the Saudi government to fall more quickly. This last point is presposterous. The LAVs will be replacing older LAVs in the National Guard, which is the force that would be used in to crush any protests or open opposition. In the long run, arming a despotic regime in Saudi Arabia only guarantees that whoever replaces the royal family will be further radicalized and be immediately hostile to Canada. The classic "they already hate us argument" is also problematic because it assumes these people are not rational actors at all, and are somehow a homogenous group. IF we are at all concerned with protecting Canada ( I don't believe there is much of a serious threat, and if there were, our government's policies are not going to be effective in meeting that threat), we need to be looking at diplomacy, not selling weapons abroad.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Feb 2015)

The LAV's are manufactured in a Union shop. Who in Canada cares? It's jobs. Did the union get on it's "high horse" and refuse to build them? Did the NDP demand the government not sell them, demand the union stop work?

How if they were for Israel  ......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2015)

:Tin-Foil-Hat: anic: :waiting: :rofl:





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So if I'm correct, you're taking the realist tack, in that Canada will benefit economically while somehow having hundreds of modern LAVs will cause the Saudi government to fall more quickly. This last point is presposterous. The LAVs will be replacing older LAVs in the National Guard, which is the force that would be used in to crush any protests or open opposition. In the long run, arming a despotic regime in Saudi Arabia only guarantees that whoever replaces the royal family will be further radicalized and be immediately hostile to Canada. The classic "they already hate us argument" is also problematic because it assumes these people are not rational actors at all, and are somehow a homogenous group. IF we are at all concerned with protecting Canada ( I don't believe there is much of a serious threat, and if there were, our government's policies are not going to be effective in meeting that threat), we need to be looking at diplomacy, not selling weapons abroad.



So that took a month and a half to formulate and type?  You're slipping.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Mar 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ... I don't believe there is much of a serious threat ... _Agreed_ [and] we need to be looking at diplomacy, not selling weapons abroad. _*Arrant rubbish*_ ... we did "diplomacy," pretty much non-stop from 1948 until 2008, what did it get us? Sweet Fanny Adams. Paul Heinbecker and his acolytes in the NDP and on the left wing of the LPC are so full of sh!t that their eyes are brown. "Diplomacy" has failed us and the Americans, Australians, Brits, Brazilians, Chinese, Chileans and Danes and ... well you get my drift, and there is nothing to indicate that it will work now. Diplomacy in most of the _Islamic Crescent_ is a pipe dream of _*some*_ of the Arabists, especially those in some universities and foreign affairs bureaucracies.




Edit: typo


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Mar 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> How if they were for Israel  ......


Like they need OUR hardware compared to theirs - good political point, though.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Mar 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat: anic: :waiting: :rofl:
> So that took a month and a half to formulate and type?  You're slipping.



An excellent contribution to the discussion as always! 

Had I known you were awaiting my reply with bated breath I would have responded sooner. I would suggest YOU are slipping, but that would mean you actually have somewhere to slip from.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2015)

Let's turn the conversation civil - attack arguments not individuals.

Cheers,
The staff.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Let's turn the conversation civil - attack arguments not individuals.
> 
> Cheers,
> The staff.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Jan 2016)

Didn't know where to put this, but it's sort of related in a way.  Today's Bruce McKinnon's cartoon on the LAV sales to the Saudis.

Chronicle Herald Cartoon 22 Jan 16


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Didn't know where to put this, but it's sort of related in a way.  Today's Bruce McKinnon's cartoon on the LAV sales to the Saudis.
> 
> Chronicle Herald Cartoon 22 Jan 16



That's a great cartoon. It's too bad SOME corners are treating this as a partisan issue. The previous government has zero business being critical of the Liberals on this one. So do the papers that supported (or didn't criticize) the deal when it was announced.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That's a great cartoon. It's too bad SOME corners are treating this as a partisan issue. _The previous government has zero business being critical of the Liberals on this one_. _So do the papers that supported (or didn't criticize) the deal when it was announced.
> _[/color





I agree with you, 100%, about the previous government.

The media can attack whatever they want ... no one ever said journalists had to be any of honest, unbiased, consistent, accurate and so on ... all they have to do is fill the white spaces between the adverts (and the electronic equivalents (dead air) thereto).


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jan 2016)

This is all highly amusing.  The CPC brokered the deal.  During the election, as soon as the issue was raised, the NDP and the LPC both got called into backrooms and given the STFU talk by the unions (and the Lib campaign team probably got the same from the Wynne government), and each hastily bent a knee.

If anything is riding over "human rights", it is "union jobs" and "ON jobs".  I'd expect the same for "QC jobs" or "Atlantic Canada" jobs.  The only circumstances under which I could see the anti-arms whingers getting their way is a minor contract with a non-union company in a western province.

Meanwhile, the aggrieved people will try to make the story about CPC hypocrisy - of which there is some, but it's a trivially minor side issue.  I suppose it's the consolation prize.


----------



## McG (25 Jan 2016)

If the sale is interrupted, the unions can be appeased if Canada buys as many vehicles as it cancels.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> If the sale is interrupted, the unions can be appeased if Canada buys as many vehicles as it cancels.




Part of the_* payoff*_ for trade-union support maybe announced today:

According to _CBC News_, the Liberals plan to reward the unions by "repealing two other Conservative laws that the Liberals argue weaken the rights of trade unions. They are Bill C-377, which requires unions to disclose how they spend members' dues, as well as Bill C-525, which makes it harder for unions to organize in federally-regulated workplaces."


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (27 Jan 2016)

Reasons for sale to go a head in my opinion.

1) Not like this is true Canadian made product, or design, or Canadian solely  owned Company ( even if total Canadian owned Company) they would just move production to a more friendly Nation to provide cheaper labour, lower taxes and most of easier export rules and shipping routes.
This plant also use to make locomotives, now made 100 percent in the US and Mexico. Moving the other side of the operation is totally possible

2) Since this has US made parts and gear involved in its manufacturing , US government has to approve export and final user approval. The US owned Company  could just move all production and design work to the US, and skip any  Canadian content or labour force, no money flow in Ontario

3) By having the manufacturing line in Canada, it helps sell the product to Canadian Armed Forces as it will meet Canadian content rules, and provide long term employment.

4) Keeping the production line up and running means Canadian labour force skills are kept up and current when it comes building the next line of Canadian LAVs or what  ever they  pick. we cannot rebuild or upgrade tanks in Canada without using over seas companies, lets not lose this work force and skill set for AFV also

5) HLVW was a totally made in Canada product, once the order was built and turned over to the CF, the line and plant in Kingston was closed. Huge waste of money, one time deal, one time labour force, all skills and money invested gone.

6) Who is going to pick up the cost of this order if the Government orders it to be cancelled , we would never buy that  many lavs and be able to maintain them Some would most likely  rot before they saw any  training or action time.

7) votes and votes and more  votes, another plant closure in that area will not make happy  voters
just my  opinions


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2016)

> 5) HLVW was a totally made assembled in Canada product, once the order was built and turned over to the CF, the line and plant in Kingston was closed. Huge waste of money, one time deal, one time labour force, all skills and money invested gone.



Many of the HLVW parts were manufactured in Austria and shipped to Kingston for assembly.  Just because "Steyr" was replaced by "UTDC" on the hoods of the model 1491 Percheron trucks, does not make them Canadian.


----------



## McG (1 Mar 2016)

If we do not continue with the Saudi deal, I suspect the LAV factory in London ON will very quickly find itself relocating to a US city.  At best, the government might keep it alive for a few years if we buy LAV 6.0 quickly to fill the requirements being defined in the AHSVS project (TLAV & Bison replacement), and maybe also get an additional number of infantry section carriers and artillery observer vehicles to match the numbers that were intended from CCV..



> *Half of Canadians disagree with sticking by Saudi arms deal, poll suggests*
> 40% say normalizing relations and lifting sanctions against Iran would be good for Canada
> By Éric Grenier, for CBC News
> 29 Feb 2016
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-saudi-arms-deal-1.3469205


----------



## CBH99 (1 Mar 2016)

I agree with FormerHorseGuard,

People may be opposed to the sale of the vehicles for moral reasons, BUT - they will be even more-so opposed to the loss of thousands of Canadian jobs in an area that is consistently recessed.

At the end of the day, the Saudi will get their vehicles.  If we cancel the deal, we stand the lose thousands of well paid & skilled jobs, and they will still get their vehicles.

If we were the only possible source for this type of capability for them, we may have some leverage to ensure they are not used to oppress their own people.  If we were the only possible source of this capability, we could attempt to put some pretty strict rules on their use.  

But, we aren't.  Plenty of other countries out there, plenty of other companies, and plenty of other AFV models to choose from.  If someone is going to be paid $15B, it may as well be us.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Look, Kilo_302 I have nothing but contempt for the _House of Saud_ and it's ramshackle country; I will not shed a tear when the Saudi royal family disappears in an orgy of Arab retribution and when the country is divided amongst its warring tribes and/or conquerors ... _*but*_ until then let's sell them the hardware they need to abuse their own people and threaten their neighbours; it can only hasten their demise.



Having met the internal security apparatus in KSA and taken their PRD's back home for consideration, I agree they are truly ominous and dark. No sense of humour at all, about as dedicated as the SS. 
But what is more frightening are some of the assholes they are trying to put down, and it is not just and amorphous or an existential threat to world security. There are at least a few hundred thousand crazies wandering around in that country with the potential to incite extreme radicalization amongst hundreds of millions in the region. Better the devil you know, and in my mind we may not be selling them enough chain guns to deal with the problem ...


----------

