Saudis sending Canadian-made LAVs to combat Yemeni Rebels

[Colin Parkinson]

looks like I was wrong, sold in 1999 https://www.armyrecognition.com/belgium_belgian_light_heavy_weapons_uk/lcts90_weapon_system_90_mm_turret_armoured_armored_cockerill_gun_vehicle_design_development_product.html

The PM at that time was Jean Chrétien, awkward.......

 

[Jarnhamar]

So it looks like Saudi Arabia premeditated an American citizens murder.  They killed him, had a body double leave the building then chopped up the victims body (and burried it in a garden).
At first they denied it then    (very likely) murdered someone else they blamed for the journalists murder, under the cover of a car accident.
Pretty savage stuff that sounds like a spy movie.
What's the chances Canada keeps selling these guys weapons of war?

 

[Dale Denton]

CBC

'Difficult contract' binds Canada to Saudi LAV deal, Trudeau says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-metro-morning-lavs-saudis-1.4874383

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says it's difficult to break Canada's deal to supply light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia because of the way the contract was negotiated by the previous Conservative government.

"The contract signed by the previous government, by Stephen Harper, makes it very difficult to suspend or leave that contract," Trudeau told host Matt Galloway on CBC Radio's Metro Morning on Tuesday. "We are looking at a number of things, but it is a difficult contract.

"I actually can't go into it, because part of the deal on this contract is not talking about this contract, and it's one of the binds that we are left in because of the way that the contract was negotiated."

 

[Half Full]

So it looks like Saudi Arabia premeditated an American citizens murder.

Not an American citizen...he was only a permanent resident.  He was a Saudi citizen.

 

[CBH99]

It's so ironic that the contract negotiated with the Saudi government sounds a lot like Fight Club.  "The first rule of Fight Club is...we do NOT talk about Fight Club!"

 

[Sub_Guy]

Sounds easy, cancel the damn contract.

Oh, we aren’t talking about helicopters?

 

[MilEME09]

Would it be possible to buy out the contract? Take the vehicles for the CF instead?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Would it be possible to buy out the contract? Take the vehicles for the CF instead?

Keep in mind that the only involvement of the Canadian Government was the approval for export of restricted goods.  The manufacturer of these arms is an American multinational, it is only incidental that the subsidiary and its plant is in Canada.  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.  If my company could get a payout for those amounts without actually providing the goods and services (and part of the contract is long term maintenance and support) then I would be smiling all the way to the bank - make my profit margin without paying out for materials and labour.  It could also probably be cheaper for the Canadian government to settle for those amounts than to acquire a $15 bn contract for vehicles that may not meet our defence needs.

 

[YZT580]

Keep in mind that the only involvement of the Canadian Government was the approval for export of restricted goods.  The manufacturer of these arms is an American multinational, it is only incidental that the subsidiary and its plant is in Canada.  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.  If my company could get a payout for those amounts without actually providing the goods and services (and part of the contract is long term maintenance and support) then I would be smiling all the way to the bank - make my profit margin without paying out for materials and labour.  It could also probably be cheaper for the Canadian government to settle for those amounts than to acquire a $15 bn contract for vehicles that may not meet our defence needs.

A multi-national whose only reason for keeping the London factory open is to manufacture LAVS.  If Trudeau elects to cancel the export permit it is goodbye factory for London.  There are lots of empty floors in Detroit and lots of labourers who will happily start assembling LAVS in about 2 weeks time.  What the Saudis did was inexcusable but I don't see Chinese shipping being blocked or sales to China being censured despite their murderous actions against Muslim minorities and episodes like Tienanmen Square.  How about Russia?  We still allow Bombardier products to be sold there regardless of the actions in Syria and Ukraine.  What is being suggested is selective morality which is hypocrisy: just spelled differently.  Incidentally having lived in Saudi in the past and experienced their culture first hand (including Friday prayers (when beheadings take place)  I am in total favour of cancelling or taking other concrete action I just abhor political expediency as a reason. 

 

[Dale Denton]

Regardless of the jobs and lawsuit from GDLS-C, its the contract wordings that really matter.

And since the public doesn't even have access to the section of the contract (or any of it) to actually find out, then we'll never know (unless someone leaks).

The Kingdom could have had it written out that we would have to pay them ~$1 Billion if we were to cancel it. Perhaps a way out would be to wait for them all to be delivered, then stop supply of spare parts, but KSA lawyers or GDLS-C probably have contingencies for this too. Something tells me that KSA foresaw a future CAN gov't after Harper try to block the deal, and made excessive contingencies to prevent them. Maybe Harper painted us into a corner with this to appease a new G7 leader?

If it was a case of simply taking over the contract, I think the ball would have already rolled seeing how popular a decision that would be in the press/public/international community.

I say we disregard whatever fees, pay off GDLS-C with a giant contract for research and building of new LAV 7/8s (or whatever you wanna call them), upgrade all existing LAVs further somehow, and LAV-ify everything wheeled and armoured.

 

[McG]

Would it be possible to buy out the contract? Take the vehicles for the CF instead?

Arguably yes (and we do have a few projects to buy armoured vehicles which could be satisfied with more LAV 6), but that only avoids penalties that might be owed to the manufacturer (GDLS Canada) and not penalties that would be owed to the buyer (Saudi Arabia).  That being said, I would be happy to see this option taken.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The UK kept the tanks they built for the Shah of Iran after he 'lost his job' in the 70s....

They seem to have paid them back just recently, though:

Britain owes Iran around £450m for a cancelled arms deal in the 1970s. The deal was made with the country’s then Shah, and would have seen 1,750 tanks and other vehicles sold by Britain to Iran. However, the Shah was toppled in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and almost none of the vehicles were delivered. Britain kept the money, sparking a decades-long legal wrangle between the two countries.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/britain-iran-debt-pay-400-million-pounds-tehran-iranian-ambassador-hamid-baeedinejad-nazanin-zaghari-a8060626.html

 

[Platitudinarian]

Breaking news - US senate votes to  "direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress”), marking the first time the War Powers Resolution, which limits presidential power to deploy or expand military engagement, was invoked by the Senate to pull the U.S. out of an overseas war."

https://thinkprogress.org/outraged-over-khashoggis-murder-senate-votes-to-end-u-s-support-of-saudi-arabia-in-yemen-war-d1e7f5ec957d/?fbclid=IwAR33hWmk2Uj867HZmy1ubZ0Kt16woHyaV2EibZ0tjnfrFECOJsb6KQZ-ncA


The original agreement for for 928 LAV-6's and the 2016 revision brought that down to 742, and it's reported that:

"The prime minister repeated what he said in question period Monday about Canada suspending military export permits in the past. "We're certainly willing to do it again.

"But at the same time," Trudeau told Galloway, "I do not want to leave Canadians holding a billion dollar bill because we're trying to move forward on doing the right thing. So we are navigating this very carefully and that's pretty much all I can say on that."

The contract to which the Conservative government agreed contained extraordinary confidentiality provisions, in addition to cancellation penalties.

The Saudis insisted on the secrecy and, according to a report in The Globe and Mail, former prime minister Stephen Harper had to back it up with a personal letter to the late king, Abdullah, who passed away in 2015."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-metro-morning-lavs-saudis-1.4874383

Wonder what effect will have on what's left of the LAV contract, if any.

 

[Ping Monkey]

Trudeau says Canada trying to end arms contract with Saudi Arabia

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-says-canada-trying-to-end-arms-export-deal-to-saudi-arabia/

Maybe the Canadian Army will get stuck with these LAVs after all?

 

[PuckChaser]

Sounds good. Tank $14B out of the economy and 13,500 jobs (and probably a massive cancellation penalty), instead of taking $300M CAD out of the Saudi economy by using notwithstanding to build Energy East and new refineries. That'll sure show the Saudis. :facepalm:

 

[garb811]

Sounds good. Tank $14B out of the economy and 13,500 jobs (and probably a massive cancellation penalty), instead of taking $300M CAD out of the Saudi economy by using notwithstanding to build Energy East and new refineries. That'll sure show the Saudis. :facepalm:

How, exactly, would the notwithstanding clause have an impact on Energy East?

 

[PuckChaser]

How, exactly, would the notwithstanding clause have an impact on Energy East?

It pushes it past provincial roadblocks for projects of a great national interest. Could have been used to quash the BC lawsuits for Northern Gateway. Quebec is currently the only province with stated opposition to Energy East, but the Liberals desperately need those votes so realistically we'll never see them forced to do anything to help the remainder of Canada.

 

[garb811]

It pushes it past provincial roadblocks for projects of a great national interest. Could have been used to quash the BC lawsuits for Northern Gateway. Quebec is currently the only province with stated opposition to Energy East, but the Liberals desperately need those votes so realistically we'll never see them forced to do anything to help the remainder of Canada.

I don't see it, the notwithstanding clause's application and power isn't unlimited:

Exception where express declaration

    33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Section 2 are fundamental freedoms.
Section 7-14 are legal rights.
Section 15 is equality rights.

Where does a pipeline fit into any of those, or even anything at all covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

 

[PuckChaser]

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.

https://nationalpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ftrudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction

If the NEB approves Energy East, Quebec would sue and Notwithstanding clause in federal legislation overrides their legal challenge. Its far more complicated than that but that's the gist I get from some research.

 

[Remius]

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.

https://nationalpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ftrudeau-says-he-wont-use-tricks-to-ram-through-pipeline-construction

If the NEB approves Energy East, Quebec would sue and Notwithstanding clause in federal legislation overrides their legal challenge. Its far more complicated than that but that's the gist I get from some research.

the PM has not mentioned the NW Clause in that article at all. Where did he say he would use the clause?  The federal government could use legislation yes but does so at immense political risk.

See this link for a bit of an explanation. I think. 

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/provincial-government

Disallowance and Reservation 

The federal government still retains the power to disallow a provincial statute, but has not done so since 1943. Any federal Cabinet that contemplated using disallowance today would encounter significant political difficulties. A lieutenant-governor's power to reserve a bill passed by the provincial legislature (in other words, to defer its assent to the governor general) can similarly be regarded as a relic of an earlier age of intergovernmental relations. The last reservation, which occurred in Saskatchewan in 1961, went against an 80-year-old understanding that this power would only be exercised on instructions from the governor general, and the bill was subsequently approved.


He could also sue Trumpian tactics in negotiations ie withhold something to get what he wants.  But he indicates that he won't do that.

But I think the NW Clause is not something that is relevant to this.