Saudis sending Canadian-made LAVs to combat Yemeni Rebels

[CountDC]

He's not saying the PM mentioned the NW. 

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

 

[Remius]

He's not saying the PM mentioned the NW. 

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

he said this:

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

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

Circling back ...

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

On that, this just in ...

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

op:

 

[CBH99]

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

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


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

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


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

 

[Dale Denton]

I place morality ahead of arguments involving:

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

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

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

 

[CBH99]

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

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


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

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


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


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

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



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

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

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

 

[brihard]

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

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

 

[FJAG]

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

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

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

:subbies:

 

[Cloud Cover]

X'd out.

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

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

 

[Dale Denton]

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

Agreed.


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

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

 

[garb811]

Agreed.


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

To add to my last post:
- refund the Kingdom to the cent
...

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

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

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

 

[YZT580]

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

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

 

[Dale Denton]

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

Any suggestions then?

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

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

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

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

 

[McG]

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

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

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

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

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

 

[PuckChaser]

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

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

 

[suffolkowner]

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

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

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