Why are Tories so determined to defend the F-35?

Even Stephen Harper’s detractors will acknowledge – after a few libations and with no microphones in view – that the prime minister has generally shown a deft hand in foreign affairs. Indeed, along with economic management, this has become one of Harper’s greatest strengths.

So why, some in and around Ottawa wonder, is the Harper government so dead-set on championing the much-delayed, expensive and controversial F-35 fighter purchase, even as the project takes on ever more ballast?

Day after day in the House, opposition MPs pose pointed, scathing questions about why the government has “sole-sourced” this estimated $16-billion (including maintenance costs) purchase from U.S. aircraft maker Lockheed-Martin, with no competitive tender. Day after day a trio of ministers – up to and including the PM himself – deliver wan responses, looking unhappy as they do so.

Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians doubt whether ultra-high-tech new fighters should be a priority. The government’s three stock arguments in their defence – it was the Liberals who launched the program in the late 1990s, our pilots deserve the best, and the industrial spinoffs will be huge – look weak, in an era of looming budget cuts.

International support for the joint strike fighter has gone wobbly. The Turks are out, because of a disagreement over rights to the F-35’s critically important software source code. Australia is buying Boeing Super Hornets. Norway has delayed its purchase. The British are reviewing their purchase of more than 100 F-35B models – the JSF’s vertical landing variant. And there are rumblings that the Italians may soon do the same, if they can order any planes at all, given their debt woes.

As if all that weren’t bad enough, the U.S. military – on the hook for 2,443 F35s, at an estimated cost of $380-billion (US) – is under siege because of America’s own debt crisis. There is rampant speculation the Pentagon itself will soon be forced to curtail its order. Because pricing is based on economies of scale, that would change the game for every other member of the consortium, including Canada. As orders get reduced, the price per plane goes up.

Therefore, why so dogged? Here’s a partial answer. The growing turmoil, itself, is one reason why the Harper government remains grimly at the table.

Source http://blogs.canada.com/2011/11/17/why-are-harper-tories-so-doggedly-determined-to-defend-the-f-35/

Gazette opinion: Build pipeline to supply U.S. with friendly fuel

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not a risk-free project. However, there are risks in not building this oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas.

The United States needs oil. We consume more than we produce and we put ourselves and our military members at risk to defend distant, unstable sources of oil.

Conservation and energy efficiency must become a higher priority for our great nation. But we won’t be able to conserve away our oil import demand in the foreseeable future.

In a guest opinion printed Sept. 26 on this page, a Canadian diplomat noted that construction of the pipeline is expected to create “5,531 person-years of employment and $7.5 million in state tax revenues” in Montana.

“Both Canada and the United States are moving towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but this transition, while necessary, will take time,” Landan Amirazizi wrote from Denver. “Until we sufficiently reduce demand and secure alternative sources that can meet our requirements, turn to Canada.”

A 1,700-mile pipeline from Canada’s oil sands north of the Montana border is a reasonable, necessary source of dependable oil supply.

Montana onramp

Montana has strong interests in this project, which would cross 284 miles of the state from the Port of Morgan north of Malta to a pointsoutheast of Baker. Gov. Brian Schweitzer insisted that the project include an onramp near Baker to transport Montana and North Dakota crude to oil refineries in Oklahoma and Texas.

Last fall, TransCanada’s “open season” drew commitments for shipping 65,000 barrels a day from the Bakken oil play. Dave Galt, executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, said last week that he expects the full 100,000-barrel-per-day onramp capacity will be used once it becomes available.

“This is a big deal for the Williston Basin,” said Tad True of Bridger Pipeline, which has oil pipelines in Eastern Montana. True said the Keystone XL onramp would give this oil-producing region a direct connection to Cushing, Okla., the largest oil market in the world, and it would increase the basin’s overall export capacity.

The Keystone XL pipeline is projected to create tens of thousands of constructions jobs nationwide as well as refinery jobs in Texas. That’s what brought out much of the crowd at a Glendive hearing Tuesday. Union workers and local government leaders voiced support for the pipeline as a job creator.

After completion, the pipeline would generate millions of dollars annually in property taxes for the counties through which it passes and for the state as a whole.

The Gazette has printed dozens of letters from readers for and against the pipeline. Concerns about the danger of leaks and fairness to landowners whose property the pipeline would cross must be addressed in the pipeline permit.

Environmental protection

TransCanada officials have pledged to build this pipeline to the highest safety standards. State and federal regulators must hold the company to that commitment.

TransCanada should provide the emergency response plan that some landowners and neighbors have called for.

The Keystone XL project has been exhaustively studied. An environmental impact statement, nearly three years in the making, found that the pipeline wouldn’t significantly affect the environment.

The EIS includes 57 conditions covering construction materials, pipeline pressure, temperature, reporting requirements and many other points. Those conditions should be part of the permit to ensure that the project runs as safely as possible.

The governments of Canada and the United States have required oil producers to reduce pollution. Additional technology is needed to make oil sands less polluting.

However, lack of better pollution controls isn’t reason to veto this project. If this oil doesn’t flow through the Keystone XL pipeline, it will get to market another way, and probably go to developing nations far from U.S. shores.

The final decision is up to President Barack Obama. We call on the president to support this project for a safer, more dependable source of oil and for the construction jobs that it would start generating next year.

Source http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_1c687d98-aa73-58f5-896d-580623fa9652.html

Without a navy, Canada won't matter

Canada's coastlines are the longest in the world. Canada's economy relies on safe passage for our exports, and Canada's allies depend on our support at sea. Canada has a big stake in the Pacific Ocean, where the new studs of the political world are starting to flex their naval power. All of which makes one wonder about the indifference with which the Harper government is treating Canada's navy -the abandoned child of the Canadian Forces.

The government is committed to F-35 jet fighters for the air force. It has taken a number of measures to replenish the army, which has captured a lot of attention during our mission to landlocked Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the navy continues to rust out. There is now little hope of plugging what are fast becoming huge gaps in Canada's capacity to defend our interests off our coasts and on the high seas.

Here's one example. When naval formations go to sea, they need destroyers to supply air defence in case of an attack on frigates and other ships. Only destroyers can supply this defence as well as play a leadership role (command and control) in missions involving more than one ship. Without destroyers, a country's fleet becomes much more vulnerable.

The process to replace Canada's four destroyers should have begun long ago. One -the Huron -has already rusted out and was retired from the fleet in 2005. Canada needs at least two new destroyers on each coast to ensure that one is always available. This should be an urgent issue, but it is met with silence.

Instead the government has prioritized the procurement of six to eight Arctic coastal patrol vessels which can only operate in northern waters for four months a year -the last thing the navy or anyone else needs. With only feeble icebreaking capacity and low speed (only enough to keep up with most fishing trawlers), these ships will be expensive and ineffectual window-dressing for Arctic sovereignty claims that will be sorted out in the courts, not in battle.

There has been no recent action on the much-ballyhooed Joint Supply Ships that are supposed to replace Canada's aged refuelling vessels and provide support for army deployments around the world. We need four of them -again, two on each coast. The government originally promised three, then balked at the cost last summer and said two should do. Wrong. That will mean a void on one coast or the other during refits. This can't be avoided or denied by the government, so they just don't talk about it.

Meanwhile, our coasts are vulnerable to visiting freighters planting mines in our waters and then disappearing over the horizon. Imagine a ship from a hostile force dropping mines in the West coast waters off Prince Rupert and Vancouver -mines that won't surface and activate until six months after the ship that laid them has disappeared. Not only does Canada not have sufficient surveillance capacity to determine who laid the mines, we don't have the capacity to sweep those mines away. These delayedaction mines are a legitimate threat -one we're not paying attention to.

The government seems to have convinced itself that Canada doesn't really need a navy -a stunning thought given all those coastlines and our proximity to the Pacific theatre, likely to become the world's next military hot spot. Navies transport armies and provide invaluable logistical and firepower support for ground troops in conflicts in countries with coastlines -which means just about everywhere but Afghanistan. Indeed, the mere presence of naval vessels off a country's coast can pre-empt land battles that place troops in great danger.

Navies intercept threats before they get to our coasts. Navies counter piracy. They provide emergency assistance in places like Haiti. Navies help countries like Canada pull their weight in alliances with countries we are going to need if our international interests are threatened.

Countries with navies matter. Countries without them matter mostly to themselves. Canada is never going to rule the world. But while defending itself it can help keep the world from falling apart. Without a navy, we can't pull our weight on the global stage. If the government wants Canada to matter, it needs to take the navy seriously.

Source http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Without+navy+Canada+matter/5105615/story.html

Midwives defend their actions

In the face of a PR nightmare following the death of a baby, Quebec midwives who have been fighting for years for acceptance and recognition again find themselves on the defensive.

However, they are hoping questions that arose after a newborn died at a Pointe Claire birthing centre are an opportunity to set the record straight.

“It’s terrible. My first thoughts last week were, ‘Oh dear, this is so ugly,’ ” said Claudia Faille, president of the Regroupement des sages-femmes du Québec, a non-profit group that speaks on behalf of the province’s midwives.

“We’ve been working so hard for the last 10 years to have midwifery accessible to the whole population and then this happens, and public opinion is affected.

“We just want the facts made public,” Faille said, referring to misleading information about the circumstances in the death of a newborn on June 21 at the West Island Health and Social Services Centre birthing centre.

Faced with an impending complication in the birth, the centre had placed a 911 call at 9:12 a.m. to transfer a woman with labour complications.

The baby, however, was born before the fire department’s first responder team arrived, and the centre barred them from entering.

Centre director Christiane Léonard told them that the baby was in cardiac distress and three midwives were attempting to revive and stabilize him while the facility awaited specialized neonatal transport from the Montreal Children’s Hospital.

Outraged, a fire department responder threatened to break down the door and then called the police, who arrived followed by Urgences Santé paramedics.

Her staff did nothing wrong professionally, Léonard said, and the standoff with the first responders should never have happened.

“That’s a strong image,” Faille said. “Even people who know me said: ‘You didn’t let them in?’ ”

But that’s only half the story, Faille said.

The police and firemen do not understand the role of midwives, she said.

The fact is, midwives are the first responders and they’re trained in advanced neonatal resuscitation while firemen and ambulance technicians are not, Faille said.

“It’s absolutely not their place. Access was rightfully denied – they’re not trained for that,” Faille said.

The centre has an agreement with 911 for transfers and the firemen should not have been deployed, Faille said. “It was a dispatch mistake.”

Birthing centres have all the necessary equipment and medication to intubate and resuscitate a newborn while waiting for the neonatal transfer team.

First responders would never threaten to break down a door of a hospital, Faille added.

Intervention from their team would not have saved the baby, she said.

“We’re going to have to work at getting the facts out. Babies die in a hospital every day and we never hear about it but because it’s a midwife, it’s a big thing,” Faille said.

The practice continues to suffer from lack of acceptance, she said.

“I don’t know why the reaction. But if you look at (the) neonatal mortality rate, we always say it’s similar to doctors in hospitals,” Faille said, which is 4.2 deaths per 1,000 births.

“It’s important to get the right information out so this never happens again,” Faille said.

The Quebec coroner, police and the provincial order of midwives have launched investigations into emergency protocol at the centre.

About 25 per cent of women surveyed last year said they would choose to give birth outside a hospital if they could.

Officially reintroduced in Canada in the 1990s, midwifery is answering a real need for perinatal care, Faille said.

But there are wait-lists, she added. Three out of four women who request midwife services are refused in the Montreal area because the services are not available.

Source http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Midwives+defend+their+actions/5026910/story.html

Canadian BitTorrent User Fined $60,000 By U.S. Court

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Paratroopers defend airborne

Members of the international brotherhood of paratroopers are defending the disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment.

"These guys have heroes dating from World War Two, it's wrong to brand the whole unit for the crimes of a few," retired Staff Sgt. Mike Stocker, a former U.S. Green Beret and president of the Special Forces Association of St. Louis, told QMI Agency. "They were super tight-knit, real tough and real professional. It's unfair, it's as if they have taken their swords, broken them and branded them all. As a paratrooper, I stand behind them."

The Canadian Airborne Regiment was a specialized group of army soldiers selected to jump out of airplanes into hostile territory. The group traces back to the Second World War's First Canadian Parachute Battalion, and the First Special Service Force (FSSF) known as the Black Devils. The American heirs to the Black Devils are the Green Berets.

But the elite Canadian army group was "disbanded in disgrace" by the Liberal government led by former prime minister Jean Chretien in 1995 after Somali teenager Shidane Arone was beaten and killed during a mission in the war-torn country. Several soldiers were court-martialled, and after a controversial hazing video surfaced, the entire regiment was stood down.

The Black Devils was a historic joint-fighting unit between Canada and the United States during the Second World War. The Canadian Airborne Regiment still carried the crossed-arrow and spear-head battle honours of the Black Devils until it was disbanded. Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) and Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) carry them now.

Retired Sgt.-Maj. Gordon Sims, 89, was a Canadian member of the Devils who fought against the Nazis in Italy and France.

"At first, I had felt we had been dishonoured by the Airborne," Sims said.

"But my feelings are tempered now -- it was a couple of radical guys who have tarnished the whole regiment, and should we all be painted with the same brush? No, that's what you had a stockade for."

The last commanding officer of the Canadian regiment, retired Col. Peter G. Kenward, wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to apologize to the airborne soldiers, reinstate the colours and strike "disgrace" from the record. 

Source   http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/05/31/18219721.html

Tory incumbent Mike Wallace cruises to win in Burlington

Mike Wallace blazed past his opponents Monday night, seizing the Burlington riding by a handy margin.

With more than three quarters of the poles counted, the Conservative incumbent had 54 per cent of the vote. Liberal challenger Alyssa Brierley had 23 per cent and NDP candidate David Laird sat at 19 per cent.

“I’m very proud to be Conservative in our great country of Canada,” an elated Wallace said from a podium in his Burlington headquarters to applause, hoots and whistles from an excited crowd. “It is our party and our leader that is here for Canada and I’m here for Burlington.”

Wallace led in every poll, followed closely by Laird and Brierley, who were neck and neck throughout the race.

Laird, a child protection worker with the Children’s Aid Society, glowed from sweat and excitement before the polls closed, pumped to receive the results in what was sure to become his most victorious election yet. With a majority of the polls in, he had 19 per cent of the vote.

Brierley, a lawyer, is a Phd candidate and newcomer on the political scene.

Her supporters gathered across town at a Jack Astors restaurant dotted with red and white balloons.

Wallace’s campaign manager had jokingly promised him a “15,000 vote spread” over the runner-up, following the math of previous wins: In 2008, he took the riding by 10,000 votes; in the race previous by a mere 2,500. In 2004, he lost by a similar margin.

And while he didn’t quite make that goal, the voters did not disappoint.

Wallace, who is most proud of his efforts to clean up toxic mud in Hamilton Harbour.

In the campaign, Brierley and Laird stressed that Burlington, a bedroom community in transition as immigrants and young families seek affordable housing, is a riding hungry for change.

Laird said constituents were concerned about Wallace’s voting record when it came to international issues. Brierley said voters were looking for someone “fresh, new, energetic” and “willing to hustle to get the job done.

Source http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/984428--conservative-mike-wallace-wins-in-burlington