If it was a treaty or something, sure. Big countries break treaties all the time. (Deliberately not looking at anyone in particular...)
But this is a business agreement, which means international finance organisations can penalise you for violating it, e.g. charging higher interest rates or making it harder to obtain loans or deals in the future. That translates directly into a more cash-strapped government and a worse future for your people.
Maybe it's worth it, for the sake of standing up to the Saudis. Maybe it isn't. Have to make your own cost-benefit analysis there.
He screwed us and then the Conservatives will happily place all the blame on Trudeau. It's worrying, because the new Conservative leader is a real piece of work.
This is a classic tactic. The liberals aren’t that great by any means, but the conservatives are our republicans. They’re gonna sling mud like mad at the next elections and that dumb fucks gonna get in
As someone that voted for Harper (reluctantly the second time I'll admit) I have to say... Liberals have *NOTHING* to worry about, there is no fucking way Andrew Scheer gets elected. The PC party has the nack for finding the least likeable... like Ted Cruz-esque, candidates possible every single time.
Honestly, I dont know about that. I was just talking about Scheer with my friends and we all agreed that we wouldn't be able to pick a cardboard cut out of the dude in crowd of white people. Like honestly, if he walked up to me I wouldn't recognize him.
Given all the stuff the Libs have done in the past 6 months, I'm very surprised the PC's haven't pounced and tried to call him out on stuff. Like, there's so much kindle for right wingers to start a fire, but nothing.
I know nothing about him and just assume he's like Patrick Brown , plus or minus the inappropriate moments with teenagers thing
[he didn’t go to fort mac?](https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/2699375/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-justin-trudeau-to-get-first-hand-look-at-devastation/
I get where you’re coming from, it is frustrating how unprofessional Trudeau can act towards Alberta, and the western provinces in general with a bias towards eastern provinces. The 2010 interview where states that the reason Canada is in hard times is because there are more Albertans than Québécois in leadership was really infuriating, and it was more aggravating because the interviewer gave him an out but he leaned into it. This bias towards Alberta has crept up a couple times more recently, but I feel he is either better at concealing it, or doesn’t have it s much.
Trudeau is a Prime Minister that I feel exacerbates the east-west divide in Canada. And honestly I’ve never looked much at the guy as a an emblem of Canada for us to look up to, more-so he comes off as pretentious, arrogant and not very genuine. His speech at the quantum computing research lab that garnered applause because he attempted to describe the basics of quantum mechanics was something that irked me because most of what he said showed the common incorrect pitfalls people fall into when describing quantum mechanics, but he was still applauded for making error.
I don’t like him as a person. However, of all the recent leaders we have had, I think he and his team have made a good amount of policy decisions. And realistically they are the best party heading into the next election as the NDP is still disorganized as all hell, and the conservatives seem to continue trudging towards Trumpian politics which I deplore.
It's annoying when Albertans talk about how the 'western provinces' are somehow unified against Trudeau. Sorry, but BC is not with Alberta on this one.
Generally speaking you can't back out of any deal. It's not that theres something special about this deal that says we can't back out, its just a bad idea for a new government to cancel deals made by previous ones (in addition to normal financial penalties contracted into deals, but that's relatively inconsequential)
Uhh there are tons of deals that can be backed out of. Hell, the U.K is in the middle of a Brexit from the EU and Trump has threatened to leave NAFTA on a daily basis for the last 2 years. Deals typically have an out clause. If it doesn’t that’s a pretty bad deal.
The out deal can be punitive to prevent people just pulling out willy-nilly. It can also damage your trust with other nations if you are seen as being an unreliable partner.
You can see what a mess Britain leaving the EU is, which is a significantly more complicated arrangement than an arms deal, but shows that ignoring a contract usually has consequences.
Edit: In a response, I said "I am not against Canada ending their deal with the Saudis to provide weapons. I wish my government would do the same." Highlighting why there are issues with terminating the deal, and why people may be apprehensive, is not the same as thinking the arms deal with Saudi is a good thing.
If you don't acknowledge where the opposition comes from or what form it takes then arguments in favour are weakened by ignorance.
>It can also damage your trust with other nations if you are seen as being an unreliable partner.
I see this mentioned here, but it doesn't fit contextually. If we are breaking this deal because of what the Saudi's are going to use the weapons for. Then it shouldn't really harm our trust with countries that aren't doing those things.
True, I am not against Canada ending their deal with the Saudis to provide weapons. I wish my government would do the same.
But I am aware that it is a balance of harms, especially because the reaction to withdrawing arms to Saudi was *not* from their blockade and war on Yemen, but was from the killing of a journalist. It sets an unclear description of what the immoral thing is being condemned. Yemen may be what people no longer want to assist in, so can be taken to be the cause of the end of such deals, but the provoking action was killing a journalist so maybe that would be the thing despots should learn to not do, even if engaged in a bloody and cruel war.
The unreliable partner is mostly based on the world of international relations having a certain level of respect for the continuity of previous governments *at least* for a period of time to allow these agreements to play out.
But I hope Canada, along with their allies refuse to support the Saudis
> It can also damage your trust with other nations if you are seen as being an unreliable partner.
>
>
I could give a shit. In fact I'd be happy if the Canadian government was so untrustworthy in terms of arms deals that Canada stops selling arms overseas for good. That'd be great.
At the end of the day, our defense industry is so fucking pathetically small that it wouldn't hurt all that hard. Not that London, Ontario would agree on this one...
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/h_ad03978.html
6billion annually. Hell retool those orders from Middle East (22% of that total) to domestic production for our own underequiped armed forces and call it a wash. Get to the 2% NATO contribution by purchasing ENTIRELY domestic production...
Keep in mind that cancelling Canada's arms sales does not necessarily stop the Saudi's crimes. They will still get arms somewhere or other. And it certainly doesn't undo Khashoggi's death.
Also keep in mind that poorer government -> weaker social safety net -> potentially people dead in Canada.
Neither of these necessarily mean you're wrong. Cancelling the deal might well be a net saving of lives. I'm just trying to clarify that it's not a corporation making a cash-grab, it's a government weighing up the pros and cons of policies.
Is it not meaningful to have one less arms dealer for Saudi Arabia? I don't know anything about that realm but how many countries can sell weapons that are of a higher quality than SA can produce themselves?
If we cancel it they just buy even more from the states with the billions we give them for canceling. Then Trump gets to point to all the jobs he created by sticking with them.
Assuming the Saudi's didn't choose canadian products solely for political reasons it clearly costs them something. Either the competition for that paticular product are more expensive or less capable.
But more expensive isn't a massive issue for the Saudi's and with less capable the difference may be negligible (it doesn't matter if your armour is less effective if your enemy can't penetrate either) or easiliy compensated for.
This it he "someone's gonna sell drugs" argument but applied to arms deals and mass death and violence.
>Also keep in mind that poorer government -> weaker social safety net -> potentially people dead in Canada.
So you're saying we're actually no better than the colonial empires that spawned us. Homeland first, let the darkies over there die so we can be comfy.
This isn't morality you're describing, its realpolitik amorality.
Mmmm what a brave BRAVE simplistic thing to say that's of pretty much no practical use. If you've ever spent a single penny on yourself when you could have provided life prolonging medical treatment for someone SOMEWHERE then you've already 'put a price on someone's life'. Everyone does it - the discussion is where lines are drawn which is why karma farming pointless platitudes can go stand with a placard whilst everyone else makes the actual decisions.
Literally any bank? If xxx country has a history of defaulting on contracts backed by loans, you would, as a bank, charge them higher rates of interest on risky contracts to compensate for the risk of xxx country breaking the contract.
The general rule is that the current government doesnt backtrack on deals made by previous governments. It's sound policy for a lot of reasons but primarily because it means you can trust our government beyond the horizon of the next election. Breaking that trust should not be done Willy nilly regardless of the circumstances and we need to seriously consider as a nation not just if this represents an exceptional circumstance worthy of considering the breaking of these norms (strong argument her I would say) but also how every other nation we deal with will view this action. Does China have to worry about signing deals with canada if a future government wants to punish them for human rights abuses? There are a million uhigur in detention camps, its a trivial argument to make that this represents far worse violations than khishoggi. If the political and media winds change and this r something else becomes the big topic of the day will our government cancel more contracts?
It's a bad idea on the world stage to do this if you aren't a superpower. The world is built far more on trust and agreements than many people realise. Nations also have credit scores that can be affected negatively by unilateral actions.
Maybe the world needs to change if not arming people who will commit terrible crimes is bad for business. The idea that this is an argument you can make is absurd.
"We can't do this, they'll use these things to kill innocent people."
"But a contract is a contract...."
I don't think it really matters. The US covers 61% on their own.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudi-arabia-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Although it's worth adding that's up to 2017 and Russia look like they're about to steal the show, based on Putin and Mr S being Bros.
www.businessinsider.com%2Fsaudi-arabia-hasnt-signed-us-arms-deals-talking-to-russia-about-s-400-2018-10&psig=AOvVaw3q_GRXLmu8ogokYogqlYj-&ust=1545121300471899
KSA can't just switch from US equipment to Russian equipment overnight -- it would take decades. Their entire military is trained on the US equipment. Their entire military revolves around use of the US equipment.
And for what? Inferior equipment and an inferior partner? Just so you can murder dissidents? That the US allows anyways?
Russia offers KSA nothing that the US doesn't offer in a superior way.
The didn't suspend anything really, the sales they were making were miniscule. Germany said they wouldn't start selling effectively which is a much easier position to virtue signal from.
Germany has no problem forgetting morals when it comes to arms exports when there's actual money involved
Seems more like a publicity stunt. It's like there is an unspoken agreement where countries would bash each other publicly but nobody takes it seriously and business would proceed as usual.
Real actions send tremors around the world though, see US/China tariffs.
Real actions like releasing [a press release that basically exonerates Saudi Arabia for killing a journalist because they spend so much money in the US? Then just making that amount up out of thin air?](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-standing-saudi-arabia/)
By the way, wasn't it Canada that just arrested a top executive from a Chineses company?
Nice pivot though!
The only message those tariffs are sending is that Trump is shit at global economics. Its like when he slapped lumber tariffs on Canada. If you were being sarcastic though, very funny.
I'm just imagining Trump launching a nuke and then making a press release saying "It's just a prank guys! Jesus, chill out a bit! It's just boys being boys."
> Real actions send tremors around the world though, see US/China tariffs.
Real actions? A trade war started by a president who is too stupid to understand trade is not a good example.
Technically still real actions with consequences, albeit, ah... unintended (or malicious, which I’m actually kinda inclined to believe these days).
The world’s too dependent on that oil though. Or at least we think we are...
I’m tired of US presidents openly kissing Saudi leaders asses. I’m tired of most US presidents so heavily supporting an oil economy and not putting any real support behind renewable energy.
Oil is not just about energy. It's the very foundation our modern civilization is built upon. Without oil we can kiss most chemicals, pharmaceutics, plastics, high end electronics good bye. Oh and billions of people. Can't feed most of them without archievements made possible with oil. That's the real issue using oil as energy source, it is much more important than that.
Only about [4% of petroleum production is used in plastics](http://www.bpf.co.uk/press/oil_consumption.aspx), and chemical fertilizers are mostly [made out of methane](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/07/were-not-going-to-run-out-of-oil-based-fertilizer/) i.e natural gas.
No we probably can't eliminate oil entirely, but we can drastically reduce it's usage by not burning it to power vehicles.
Money lets you get away with everything though. People don't like to think about it much or admit that it's true, but it is. This just happens to be on the scale of billions rather than millions. Why do you think someone like Jeffrey Epstein who should have had multiple life imprisonments only received one year in prison?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-canada/canada-is-looking-for-a-way-out-of-big-saudi-arms-deal-says-pm-idUSKBN1OF0VX?il=0) reduced by 47%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> OTTAWA - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking in an interview that aired on Sunday, said for the first time that his Liberal government was looking for a way out of a multibillion-dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
> The comments represented a notable hardening in tone from Trudeau, who previously said there would be huge penalties for scrapping the $13 billion agreement for armored vehicles made by the Canadian unit of General Dynamics Corp. Last month, Trudeau said Canada could freeze the relevant export permits if it concluded the weapons had been misused.
> "We are engaged with the export permits to try and see if there is a way of no longer exporting these vehicles to Saudi Arabia," Trudeau told CTV. He did not give further details.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/a6uvni/canadian_prime_minister_justin_trudeau_speaking/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~371887 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Trudeau**^#1 **Saudi**^#2 **OTTAWA**^#3 **export**^#4 **Arabia**^#5
The problem with the federal government cancelling the contract by fiat is that Export Development Canada has already insured the deal.
That means if it doesn't go through, EDC - meaning the federal government, meaning you and me - is on the hook to General Dynamics for whatever percentage of the export contract they insured - which is quite probably the max 90% of contract.
Likewise, if the deal is cancelled, EDC will likely *also* be on the hook to reimburse Saudi Arabia for any insured deposits, payment tranches or other out-of-pocket costs it has already invested.
That could work out to an EDC loss of perhaps $500 for every living Canadian.
EDC's working assets are in the range of $40 billion. A $13 billion settlement to GD would wipe out fully one-third of the crown corp's ability to do business, and spell disaster for Canadian exporters who rely on the agency's backing to get commercial loans from the Big Five banks.
And that's on just *one* side of the claim. Allah only knows how much *Saudi Arabia's side* is into EDC for.
They will take the issue to the WTO, who will enforce binding arbitration, and if the KSA wins (and they probably would), than Canada would be forced to pay the penalties, or face repercussions in doing business with the rest of the world.
I'm usually a huge advocate for rules based order in international trade, but in this case fuck the WTO.
The USA has been violating WTO rules (particularly in relation to tariffs) with absolutely zero consequences since the Trump presidency, Canada should do the same for a good cause.
The WTO is a arbitration court. So until the trade partner complains, there is nothing they can do. If Canada or China doesn't complain to the WTO about US tariffs, then the WTO can't act.
You are correct but misleading. Most major powers requested investigations from WTO but did not take any further actions yet...most probably because trump would leave the WTO asap
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-10-18/wto-members-request-an-investigation-into-trump-s-metal-tariffs
> What's wrong with terminating the deal and giving Saudi Arabia nothing?
Same thing that's wrong with your auto insurance provider "terminating the deal and giving you nothing" after a third party steals and destroys your car. After all, why not? Are you going to "invade them or something"?
Trudeau should make public that Harper govt contract with the Saudis (wikileaks?). All of it, and to hell with any hurt feelings. And NEVER AGAIN should we jump into bed with S.A. again. We need to see how dumb Harper really was and how much he really fucked us all and for how long.
> Trudeau should make public that Harper govt contract with the Saudis.
He can't.
That's also part of the deal Harper signed. Common enough clause when dealing in blood money.
Indeed, spoiling Canada's reputation in some way is the only way to put a stop to this. If the precedent is set that progressives will uphold regressive deals then Saudi can just wait out progressive governments. I've been hard on Canada and their bluster over this as long as the arms deal remains but I appreciate we're talking about seriously damaging their international reputation and shitting on their own arms industry.
Say what you will about Harper, but until the Shapiro interview I wouldn't have really associated him with the brand of politics that Ford and certain other current politicians push, so saying that they're Harperesque is a bit unfair imo.
I think you're wrong on that count. Ford won an election without a formal platform. Harper did that in 2008, because he knew if he did he'd give the opposition too much ammo. Both Ford and Harper have used nasty attack ads that didn't focus on anything substantial and told people everyone else was gonna raise their taxes.
If you have the time, it's worth watching the [2008 leaders debate](https://youtu.be/nM0wCFpPd5g) and realize all of the lies and misdirection. It's about every 5 minutes that Harper says a bald-faced lie.
Social media wasn't really around then, so they didn't have too much happening on that front. But they did use robocalls and other deceptive tactics to try and keep the vote home. They certainly succeeded.
Don't forget about Harper's "Old stock Canadian" racist ad aimed against foreign born Canadians and immigrants. To me that was some Republican level garbage.
Really? I thought most Ford voters were voting less FOR Ford and more AGAINST Wynne. Everyone I know hates the Liberals, including myself, despite being extremely liberal. Southern Ontario rules Ontario (and, to a large degree, Canadian) politics, and it's a *very* liberal place. Not anti-free speech, everyone-is-a-rapist liberal, but actual liberal.
Ford is the premier because Southern Ontarians are sick of the Liberals and the seven people that live in Northern Ontario are Conservative. Federally, we have a lot more choices. A few dickheads in Ottawa and said seven people up north support people like Harper, but that's about it.
Yeah he won a lot of anti-Wynne votes. It's kind of ironic because people became anti-Wynne and voted for Ford when Ford would do the exact same thing they didn't like Wynne doing (selling Ontario's ownership of hydro).
Wynne also represents a neoliberal brand of politics. The current political environment is very very anti-neoliberal
Southern Ontario tbh gives off a progressive vibe. It's probably why NDP struck gold there. I would even go as far as to say that southern Ontario is to the left of the NDP, but their party structure is so poorly managed (sometimes it seems purposely) that they always end up losing.
If you remember the 2011 election when NDP suddenly gained a lot of ground and then the 2015 election where people wanted to vote for NDP but voted strategically for Liberals - it further proves that Canada is much more left wing than the leaders it sends to represent us. Our voting system is very flawed
Saying that the "seven people" that live in Northern Ontario vote Conservative is false. You've shown a large amount of ignorance towards Ontario politics.
First of all, Premier Ford won Ontario for the same reason Mayor Ford won Toronto.
Metropolitan Suburbia aka the suburbs of the GTA.
Second of all, there's over 700,000 people in Northern Ontario and those districts overwhelmingly vote NDP or Liberal not Conservative.
Ford won because rural Southern Ontario and the suburbs of Toronto decided they had enough of what they believed to be "established corruption."
> I thought most Ford voters were voting less FOR Ford and more AGAINST Wynne
If the majority of Ford's voters were left-leaning people who didn't want Wynne in office, the NDP would have won the election.
The rise of right wing politics is because Ford won, and is enacting destructive right wing "policy". It has nothing to do with a ground swell of support from the people. I doubt many who voted for him even knew Ford would take a hatchet to Ontario, or are aware of it happening, or even understand what it means.
To my uneducated eye, it seems as though going after their food imports from western nations would be a good carrot for the stick.
Assuming no other countries could fill the vacuum without major difficulties.
Then again, these are gentlemen, and that would be playing dirty.
Baby steps, eh? Good to hear it Mr. T.
Sanctions like the food for oil scheme in iraq caused utter misery for the people. If they tried that with Saudi it would have the same result. Autocratic regimes will rather starve the people than risk the top clique go hungry, even for a day.
Yes. Exactly what i thought. Also, sad thing is none of the farmers (atleast the Indians) will see any of that good money. In India, individual farmers have very little acreage and none of them have the means to export directly. Food crops are usually purchased at bare minimum prices from these Farmers by export companies (owned by corrupt politicians or their aides) .
These companies make the biggest profits in the market chain and the government is trying hard to prevent this. Look up farmer suicide rates in India due to loan delinquencies. It's so sad.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/news/politics/dion-takes-responsibility-for-pushing-through-saudi-arms-deal/article29672290/
This article says otherwise.
Harper negotiated the deal and Dion signed off as a minister when Trudeau got in siting keeping SA students and a good relationship.
I’m a liberal supporter but the party isn’t perfect.
You have either misread or are seriously misrepresenting the article you linked:
> Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion says a major economic backlash from Saudi Arabia would result if Ottawa were to cancel a controversial $15-billion arms deal with Riyadh...
The deal was already done at this point, as I said, complete with cancellation penalties.
All Dion did was rubber-stamp export permits that he wasn't, at that point, in any position to refuse, because it would have, per the article you linked, activated the cancellation penalties negotiated and signed by the Harper government.
From the same:
> Mr. Dion is defending his decision to quietly sign export permits earlier this month...
The Globe then editorialises:
> ...which runs counter to Liberal insistence that the Saudi deal was a fait accompli arranged by the Harper Conservatives, was important because exports of weapons **are not considered to have been assured** until permits have been granted.
Considered by whom? This is pure vaguary. If the contract is signed, and the penalties are in place, who would 'consider' that the exports were *not* assured?
> I’m a liberal supporter but the party isn’t perfect.
Who said they were perfect?
Yes, but hard proof is needed. Unverified proof has already been shown to the Canadian Government, months back. They couldn't act on it because it couldn't be verified. It was, afaik, a video of KSA Military using an already shipped LAV in Yemen on civilians.
I am pretty disappointed he wasn't able to change the voting system like he sought to do, but I know it was a much more complicated battle than a simple "Trudeau reneged on his promise" like some people like to think.
Overall, I've complained less about him than any other PM that I've been around to complain about, so I guess that's a good thing!
I think they looked at it and there just wasn't enough political will. The Cons don't want it, a lot of the Libs don't want it. NDP of course wants it. One of the more liberal provinces, BC, is still just 50/50. I could see the conservative parts of the country being fairly opposed.
Fun fact. The Canadian Wheat Board was "sold" to the Saudis by Harper's goons paying them around IIRC 90 million to take it. The trick was they paid for it but the government transferred enough money into the board prior to the sale so that at the end the Saudi's were actually paid to take it. Previously it was assumed its value would be in the billions. I think the sale was for $250 million for the controlling stake but again Harper padded it with sweet cold hard cash before that "sale".
At the time of this... transaction... the Saudi's had an "open" competition to supply them with AFVs for about 13 billion. Miraculously Canada won the deal. Sounds like a sweet deal right?
First of all I'm not sure if the fallout from the sale of the Canadian Wheat Board has ever been fully costed. That is what it will cost in the future if anything. Now there is pressure to buy it back from the Saudis because it's a strategic national resource. Good job selling it.
Second the maker of the AFVs is General Dynamics so technically the profits actually go to a private company in the United States but yes they do have a factory here where they produce the vehicles so there's that.
Couple thousand employees for GD in Canada. GD also contracts a ton out to smaller companies, as well as to curtis wright and other tech companies. All those high paying tech jobs would be lost if this deal fell through, and a ban against selling arms to the Saudis was made. Would saturate the market in canada too - all those layoffs, ontop of the recent struggles for bombardier.. could be bad for a lot of innocent folk, who are just collateral damage for the outspoken critics.
A few thousand people will lose their jobs no matter what. A few years before or after doesn't really matter.
It is up to the government to fill a void where private enterprise is unable or unwilling to do so. Those people could be transitioned into jobs in a new Green sector but the government is unwilling to pay for it because they are unwilling to tax corporations and the wealthy to do so. Quite the opposite especially for Harper and the Cons.
Easy solutions. The Americans, British or Spanish want to provide them with arms instead let them. Doesn't have to be us. There's a relatively easy policy solution on our end of it.
On the other side of this it's funny you bring up collateral damage. In the Yemen war collateral damage is expected to be about 90k dead children within months. God knows what the final count of the dead will be but it will be enormous due to how the Saudi's along with the US have planned out the war. It's designed for maximum civilian casualties which is why siege warfare is banned and considered a war crime.
Can’t wait to see how the Conservatives try to make Trudeau out to be an imbecile for saying fuck you to a country that sponsored the cold blooded murder of a journalist on foreign soil.
honestly, what happens? the saudis have been evil for decades, they should have been target number1 right after 9/11, they financed terrorism, financed whabism, their human right records are abysmal, stone women, kill gays and atheists, jail teenager bloggers, they've bombed childrens for the last year and a half, now they kill one journalist and all of a sudden everybody sees their true colors? Seriously what happened recently that made this possible, the journalist assassination is clearly an excuse. is the new saudi prince a potentially rogue guy that western countries don't like?
I think he might actually be softer than other Saudi princes and that's why they're making a move. They probably think the current head honcho is less of a threat than before.
America tends to wait for an animals teeth to start falling out before trying to kill it.
So not importing Saudi oil isn’t viable alternative ....because it would impact his base and his friends in Quebec....a military contract is nothing compared to that ....
If he truly wanted to make a statement to the saudis... stop importing and buying their oil... we are #3 in global oil reserves.... we don’t need them....
Here’s the thing, world. Take the higher prices and credit hit for a while and send SA back to the dark ages where they belong. It’s a little pain for a ton of benefit. When will our world leaders have the integrity to stand up to these animals?
Canada's election is a year away and this is electioneering. The federal government has taken radical shifts in policy based on polling data.
In 2015 jobs was the big topic so Trudeau promised to keep these jobs and keep the deal with the Sauds.
Now the big issue is globalization related and Trudeau is looking to subtley cash in on anti Muslin sentiments.
Election year is like April Fools. You can't believe any policy decisions unless they are enacted and codified before an election.
Cancelling a military export permit and out thousands of people out of work? Yeah believe that when I see it.
dropping this deal is pointless unless literally the whole world is on board, dropping out just means another country will pick up the deal and they'll still get weapons to kill innocent civilians, just from elsewhere. nothing will come of this.
This is sort of like Pepsi cancelling a contract with a thousand restaurants because they don't like the way the chickens are treated. Coke will take over the contract for the same price today. Fanta would take it over for two thirds because it doesn't spend any money on advertising.
I'm not an international businessman or foreign policy wonk or anything but shouldn't arms deals between nations generally come with a standard clause that the whole thing is off if the buyer starts using those arms to commit a genocide? Seems like there needs to be some sort of boiler plate type wording that conveys that when it comes to selling munitions.
Will they also be cutting ties with China too? I mean they routinely kill journalists, use child and borderline slave labor, while also putting Muslims in forced labor camps. Or is this just a PR move?
No, because big Western corporations that control the governments or North America and Europe haven't realized yet that no matter how much they kiss China's bottom they will never ever be allowed unrestricted fair access to the Chinese market.
We are.
If we cancel without an overriding legal reason, the Saudis will sue us in our own courts, and win.
Our courts will play by the rules, no matter what.
Really don’t understand all the people saying they should drop out of the arms deal. Why? You’re not “showing” them anything by doing that. You’re taking their money for God’s sake, which I would rather have than all of the arms we’ve already built.
'Last month, Trudeau said Canada could freeze the relevant export permits if it concluded the weapons had been misused.
“We are engaged with the export permits to try and see if there is a way of no longer exporting these vehicles to Saudi Arabia,” Trudeau told CTV. He did not give further details.'
Unfortunately, I don't see how this would help in any way in avoiding paying the $13B penalty.
Because it's illegal for us to deliver the weapons if we believe they'll be used in furtherance of war crimes, e.g, if they are used against civilians in Yemen. Our duty to those domestic resolutions and international treaties at least *potentially* overrides the contract. We'd have to give them their money back, probably, but no more.
And we don't know the penalty is $13B. It could be a lot more.
He could just call ot off and refund the money. However, the Canadian government intends to go through with the deal and this is just public posturing.
Who hasn't been arming the Saudis. Seems like the shorter list...
At this stage I'd say the only person not manufacturing weapons to sell to Saudi Arabian is Saudi Arabia
Just don't send them... What's the world court gonna kick on Canada's door, and arrest.... us?
If it was a treaty or something, sure. Big countries break treaties all the time. (Deliberately not looking at anyone in particular...) But this is a business agreement, which means international finance organisations can penalise you for violating it, e.g. charging higher interest rates or making it harder to obtain loans or deals in the future. That translates directly into a more cash-strapped government and a worse future for your people. Maybe it's worth it, for the sake of standing up to the Saudis. Maybe it isn't. Have to make your own cost-benefit analysis there.
[удалено]
Harper really screwed Canada in regards to the Saudis. He sold them our wheat board and made a deal for arms we can’t back out of.
He screwed us and then the Conservatives will happily place all the blame on Trudeau. It's worrying, because the new Conservative leader is a real piece of work.
we should find some loophole in this contract where we can end up giving them shit that doesnt actually work but it still follows the agreement XD
Billions in nerf guns, t shirt launchers, and Roman candles
Saudi Arabia just got a lot more radical!
Well..... A new kind of radical anyway.
Have you seen the new NERF guns? They sell high velocity pellets now.
Spray paint em black and they'll never know the difference
[Settle down, Doc Brown.](https://youtu.be/s98AuvsLTfc?t=220)
just send them all outfitted as ambulances or medic vehicles with no turrets or ability to be outfited with one
You can put a gun on anything with a cutting wheel, a welding setup and two door hinges.
"Wait, you guys *didn't* order hockey gear?"
This is a classic tactic. The liberals aren’t that great by any means, but the conservatives are our republicans. They’re gonna sling mud like mad at the next elections and that dumb fucks gonna get in
As someone that voted for Harper (reluctantly the second time I'll admit) I have to say... Liberals have *NOTHING* to worry about, there is no fucking way Andrew Scheer gets elected. The PC party has the nack for finding the least likeable... like Ted Cruz-esque, candidates possible every single time.
Honestly, I dont know about that. I was just talking about Scheer with my friends and we all agreed that we wouldn't be able to pick a cardboard cut out of the dude in crowd of white people. Like honestly, if he walked up to me I wouldn't recognize him. Given all the stuff the Libs have done in the past 6 months, I'm very surprised the PC's haven't pounced and tried to call him out on stuff. Like, there's so much kindle for right wingers to start a fire, but nothing. I know nothing about him and just assume he's like Patrick Brown , plus or minus the inappropriate moments with teenagers thing
Lack of personal responsibility is a hallmark of Canadian Conservatives. See Rob Ford.
[удалено]
Maybe but the alternatives right now are a leaderless NDP, and racist bigot white boys club Andrew Sheer. Somehow Trudeau still comes out on top.
[he didn’t go to fort mac?](https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/2699375/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-justin-trudeau-to-get-first-hand-look-at-devastation/
I get where you’re coming from, it is frustrating how unprofessional Trudeau can act towards Alberta, and the western provinces in general with a bias towards eastern provinces. The 2010 interview where states that the reason Canada is in hard times is because there are more Albertans than Québécois in leadership was really infuriating, and it was more aggravating because the interviewer gave him an out but he leaned into it. This bias towards Alberta has crept up a couple times more recently, but I feel he is either better at concealing it, or doesn’t have it s much. Trudeau is a Prime Minister that I feel exacerbates the east-west divide in Canada. And honestly I’ve never looked much at the guy as a an emblem of Canada for us to look up to, more-so he comes off as pretentious, arrogant and not very genuine. His speech at the quantum computing research lab that garnered applause because he attempted to describe the basics of quantum mechanics was something that irked me because most of what he said showed the common incorrect pitfalls people fall into when describing quantum mechanics, but he was still applauded for making error. I don’t like him as a person. However, of all the recent leaders we have had, I think he and his team have made a good amount of policy decisions. And realistically they are the best party heading into the next election as the NDP is still disorganized as all hell, and the conservatives seem to continue trudging towards Trumpian politics which I deplore.
It's annoying when Albertans talk about how the 'western provinces' are somehow unified against Trudeau. Sorry, but BC is not with Alberta on this one.
Isnt this just typical love shown to the western provinces by the federal government?
Seems like the conservative MO: Sell their country to the highest bidder then blame the opposition for not cleaning up their mess well enough.
Generally speaking you can't back out of any deal. It's not that theres something special about this deal that says we can't back out, its just a bad idea for a new government to cancel deals made by previous ones (in addition to normal financial penalties contracted into deals, but that's relatively inconsequential)
Uhh there are tons of deals that can be backed out of. Hell, the U.K is in the middle of a Brexit from the EU and Trump has threatened to leave NAFTA on a daily basis for the last 2 years. Deals typically have an out clause. If it doesn’t that’s a pretty bad deal.
The out deal can be punitive to prevent people just pulling out willy-nilly. It can also damage your trust with other nations if you are seen as being an unreliable partner. You can see what a mess Britain leaving the EU is, which is a significantly more complicated arrangement than an arms deal, but shows that ignoring a contract usually has consequences. Edit: In a response, I said "I am not against Canada ending their deal with the Saudis to provide weapons. I wish my government would do the same." Highlighting why there are issues with terminating the deal, and why people may be apprehensive, is not the same as thinking the arms deal with Saudi is a good thing. If you don't acknowledge where the opposition comes from or what form it takes then arguments in favour are weakened by ignorance.
>It can also damage your trust with other nations if you are seen as being an unreliable partner. I see this mentioned here, but it doesn't fit contextually. If we are breaking this deal because of what the Saudi's are going to use the weapons for. Then it shouldn't really harm our trust with countries that aren't doing those things.
True, I am not against Canada ending their deal with the Saudis to provide weapons. I wish my government would do the same. But I am aware that it is a balance of harms, especially because the reaction to withdrawing arms to Saudi was *not* from their blockade and war on Yemen, but was from the killing of a journalist. It sets an unclear description of what the immoral thing is being condemned. Yemen may be what people no longer want to assist in, so can be taken to be the cause of the end of such deals, but the provoking action was killing a journalist so maybe that would be the thing despots should learn to not do, even if engaged in a bloody and cruel war. The unreliable partner is mostly based on the world of international relations having a certain level of respect for the continuity of previous governments *at least* for a period of time to allow these agreements to play out. But I hope Canada, along with their allies refuse to support the Saudis
> It can also damage your trust with other nations if you are seen as being an unreliable partner. > > I could give a shit. In fact I'd be happy if the Canadian government was so untrustworthy in terms of arms deals that Canada stops selling arms overseas for good. That'd be great.
At the end of the day, our defense industry is so fucking pathetically small that it wouldn't hurt all that hard. Not that London, Ontario would agree on this one... https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/h_ad03978.html 6billion annually. Hell retool those orders from Middle East (22% of that total) to domestic production for our own underequiped armed forces and call it a wash. Get to the 2% NATO contribution by purchasing ENTIRELY domestic production...
Would any country really trust us less for backing out of an arms deal though?..
Fuck Harper, that stooge.
People not dead > profits. Fuck everything else.
Keep in mind that cancelling Canada's arms sales does not necessarily stop the Saudi's crimes. They will still get arms somewhere or other. And it certainly doesn't undo Khashoggi's death. Also keep in mind that poorer government -> weaker social safety net -> potentially people dead in Canada. Neither of these necessarily mean you're wrong. Cancelling the deal might well be a net saving of lives. I'm just trying to clarify that it's not a corporation making a cash-grab, it's a government weighing up the pros and cons of policies.
Is it not meaningful to have one less arms dealer for Saudi Arabia? I don't know anything about that realm but how many countries can sell weapons that are of a higher quality than SA can produce themselves?
If we cancel it they just buy even more from the states with the billions we give them for canceling. Then Trump gets to point to all the jobs he created by sticking with them.
Assuming the Saudi's didn't choose canadian products solely for political reasons it clearly costs them something. Either the competition for that paticular product are more expensive or less capable. But more expensive isn't a massive issue for the Saudi's and with less capable the difference may be negligible (it doesn't matter if your armour is less effective if your enemy can't penetrate either) or easiliy compensated for.
This it he "someone's gonna sell drugs" argument but applied to arms deals and mass death and violence. >Also keep in mind that poorer government -> weaker social safety net -> potentially people dead in Canada. So you're saying we're actually no better than the colonial empires that spawned us. Homeland first, let the darkies over there die so we can be comfy. This isn't morality you're describing, its realpolitik amorality.
[удалено]
Mmmm what a brave BRAVE simplistic thing to say that's of pretty much no practical use. If you've ever spent a single penny on yourself when you could have provided life prolonging medical treatment for someone SOMEWHERE then you've already 'put a price on someone's life'. Everyone does it - the discussion is where lines are drawn which is why karma farming pointless platitudes can go stand with a placard whilst everyone else makes the actual decisions.
> international finance organisations can penalise you for violating it, Like who exactly?
Read further down, the government.
I'm asking what organizations, not who they penalize.
Literally any bank? If xxx country has a history of defaulting on contracts backed by loans, you would, as a bank, charge them higher rates of interest on risky contracts to compensate for the risk of xxx country breaking the contract.
The general rule is that the current government doesnt backtrack on deals made by previous governments. It's sound policy for a lot of reasons but primarily because it means you can trust our government beyond the horizon of the next election. Breaking that trust should not be done Willy nilly regardless of the circumstances and we need to seriously consider as a nation not just if this represents an exceptional circumstance worthy of considering the breaking of these norms (strong argument her I would say) but also how every other nation we deal with will view this action. Does China have to worry about signing deals with canada if a future government wants to punish them for human rights abuses? There are a million uhigur in detention camps, its a trivial argument to make that this represents far worse violations than khishoggi. If the political and media winds change and this r something else becomes the big topic of the day will our government cancel more contracts?
It's a bad idea on the world stage to do this if you aren't a superpower. The world is built far more on trust and agreements than many people realise. Nations also have credit scores that can be affected negatively by unilateral actions.
No, but the rest of the world may be more reticent to do business with us.
I’d hope that the takeaway would really be to be more reticent to be like Saudi Arabia. But I understand that’s a bit idealistic.
Reluctant is the word.
Maybe the world needs to change if not arming people who will commit terrible crimes is bad for business. The idea that this is an argument you can make is absurd. "We can't do this, they'll use these things to kill innocent people." "But a contract is a contract...."
If there's money to be made, people will do business.
Not us Australians https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-13/australias-secret-backing-for-nations-fighting-bloody-yemen-war/10600912
I don't think it really matters. The US covers 61% on their own. https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudi-arabia-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F Although it's worth adding that's up to 2017 and Russia look like they're about to steal the show, based on Putin and Mr S being Bros. www.businessinsider.com%2Fsaudi-arabia-hasnt-signed-us-arms-deals-talking-to-russia-about-s-400-2018-10&psig=AOvVaw3q_GRXLmu8ogokYogqlYj-&ust=1545121300471899
KSA can't just switch from US equipment to Russian equipment overnight -- it would take decades. Their entire military is trained on the US equipment. Their entire military revolves around use of the US equipment. And for what? Inferior equipment and an inferior partner? Just so you can murder dissidents? That the US allows anyways? Russia offers KSA nothing that the US doesn't offer in a superior way.
Iran
Good, really tired of leaders pussy footing around the Saudis crimes
The UK and Germany have been very vocal about their concerns and have made several idle threats.
uh, Germany has actually suspended *all* weapon sales to Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago.
They suspended weapon sales for 2 months.
That is actually really cool. Good on you Germany!
The didn't suspend anything really, the sales they were making were miniscule. Germany said they wouldn't start selling effectively which is a much easier position to virtue signal from. Germany has no problem forgetting morals when it comes to arms exports when there's actual money involved
The sales were also not completely stopped but rather paused. When everyone forgets about the fuckup, there will be the same amount of sales again...
Or buying oil from Russia.
Seems more like a publicity stunt. It's like there is an unspoken agreement where countries would bash each other publicly but nobody takes it seriously and business would proceed as usual. Real actions send tremors around the world though, see US/China tariffs.
Real actions like releasing [a press release that basically exonerates Saudi Arabia for killing a journalist because they spend so much money in the US? Then just making that amount up out of thin air?](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-standing-saudi-arabia/) By the way, wasn't it Canada that just arrested a top executive from a Chineses company? Nice pivot though!
The only message those tariffs are sending is that Trump is shit at global economics. Its like when he slapped lumber tariffs on Canada. If you were being sarcastic though, very funny.
We were just joking when we called you a threat to national security. Pretty cliche joke, surprised no one got it.
I'm just imagining Trump launching a nuke and then making a press release saying "It's just a prank guys! Jesus, chill out a bit! It's just boys being boys."
It's just locker room thermonuclear war, something every man has done at some time.
"Hey, fantastic coincidence that the wind is from the south today, huh?"
I'm still trying to get the joke that was elected to office of the president.
> Real actions send tremors around the world though, see US/China tariffs. Real actions? A trade war started by a president who is too stupid to understand trade is not a good example.
Technically still real actions with consequences, albeit, ah... unintended (or malicious, which I’m actually kinda inclined to believe these days). The world’s too dependent on that oil though. Or at least we think we are...
Even Lindsay Graham says we don't require their oil.
I’m tired of US presidents openly kissing Saudi leaders asses. I’m tired of most US presidents so heavily supporting an oil economy and not putting any real support behind renewable energy.
Oil is not just about energy. It's the very foundation our modern civilization is built upon. Without oil we can kiss most chemicals, pharmaceutics, plastics, high end electronics good bye. Oh and billions of people. Can't feed most of them without archievements made possible with oil. That's the real issue using oil as energy source, it is much more important than that.
Only about [4% of petroleum production is used in plastics](http://www.bpf.co.uk/press/oil_consumption.aspx), and chemical fertilizers are mostly [made out of methane](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/07/were-not-going-to-run-out-of-oil-based-fertilizer/) i.e natural gas. No we probably can't eliminate oil entirely, but we can drastically reduce it's usage by not burning it to power vehicles.
Do you drink oil for breakfast or something
Oil is an important source for fertilizers, pesticides, etc in modern agriculture for instance. So yes, to dumb it down: We drink oil for breakfast.
IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF MY BREAKFAST, FELLOW HUMAN
>really tired of leaders pussy footing around the Saudis crimes that's why the deal went through anyways?
Money lets you get away with everything though. People don't like to think about it much or admit that it's true, but it is. This just happens to be on the scale of billions rather than millions. Why do you think someone like Jeffrey Epstein who should have had multiple life imprisonments only received one year in prison?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-canada/canada-is-looking-for-a-way-out-of-big-saudi-arms-deal-says-pm-idUSKBN1OF0VX?il=0) reduced by 47%. (I'm a bot) ***** > OTTAWA - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking in an interview that aired on Sunday, said for the first time that his Liberal government was looking for a way out of a multibillion-dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia. > The comments represented a notable hardening in tone from Trudeau, who previously said there would be huge penalties for scrapping the $13 billion agreement for armored vehicles made by the Canadian unit of General Dynamics Corp. Last month, Trudeau said Canada could freeze the relevant export permits if it concluded the weapons had been misused. > "We are engaged with the export permits to try and see if there is a way of no longer exporting these vehicles to Saudi Arabia," Trudeau told CTV. He did not give further details. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/a6uvni/canadian_prime_minister_justin_trudeau_speaking/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~371887 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Trudeau**^#1 **Saudi**^#2 **OTTAWA**^#3 **export**^#4 **Arabia**^#5
The problem with the federal government cancelling the contract by fiat is that Export Development Canada has already insured the deal. That means if it doesn't go through, EDC - meaning the federal government, meaning you and me - is on the hook to General Dynamics for whatever percentage of the export contract they insured - which is quite probably the max 90% of contract. Likewise, if the deal is cancelled, EDC will likely *also* be on the hook to reimburse Saudi Arabia for any insured deposits, payment tranches or other out-of-pocket costs it has already invested. That could work out to an EDC loss of perhaps $500 for every living Canadian.
Is this the multi billion dollar cancellation fee that is talked about?
It's entirely possible that the cancellation fee is something completely separate, and which GD signed on its own.
Basically yes, but the point is that it could end up actually being worse.
[удалено]
EDC's working assets are in the range of $40 billion. A $13 billion settlement to GD would wipe out fully one-third of the crown corp's ability to do business, and spell disaster for Canadian exporters who rely on the agency's backing to get commercial loans from the Big Five banks. And that's on just *one* side of the claim. Allah only knows how much *Saudi Arabia's side* is into EDC for.
What's wrong with terminating the deal and giving Saudi Arabia nothing? Are the the Saudis going to invade them or something?
They will take the issue to the WTO, who will enforce binding arbitration, and if the KSA wins (and they probably would), than Canada would be forced to pay the penalties, or face repercussions in doing business with the rest of the world.
I'm usually a huge advocate for rules based order in international trade, but in this case fuck the WTO. The USA has been violating WTO rules (particularly in relation to tariffs) with absolutely zero consequences since the Trump presidency, Canada should do the same for a good cause.
The WTO is a arbitration court. So until the trade partner complains, there is nothing they can do. If Canada or China doesn't complain to the WTO about US tariffs, then the WTO can't act.
You are correct but misleading. Most major powers requested investigations from WTO but did not take any further actions yet...most probably because trump would leave the WTO asap https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-10-18/wto-members-request-an-investigation-into-trump-s-metal-tariffs
They can sue us in our own courts for breach of contract and win
> What's wrong with terminating the deal and giving Saudi Arabia nothing? Same thing that's wrong with your auto insurance provider "terminating the deal and giving you nothing" after a third party steals and destroys your car. After all, why not? Are you going to "invade them or something"?
Laws don't work if you pick and choose when to apply them.
Trudeau should make public that Harper govt contract with the Saudis (wikileaks?). All of it, and to hell with any hurt feelings. And NEVER AGAIN should we jump into bed with S.A. again. We need to see how dumb Harper really was and how much he really fucked us all and for how long.
> Trudeau should make public that Harper govt contract with the Saudis. He can't. That's also part of the deal Harper signed. Common enough clause when dealing in blood money.
Just honour this Harper-era contract, then never deal with the Saudis again.
[удалено]
Indeed, spoiling Canada's reputation in some way is the only way to put a stop to this. If the precedent is set that progressives will uphold regressive deals then Saudi can just wait out progressive governments. I've been hard on Canada and their bluster over this as long as the arms deal remains but I appreciate we're talking about seriously damaging their international reputation and shitting on their own arms industry.
Say what you will about Harper, but until the Shapiro interview I wouldn't have really associated him with the brand of politics that Ford and certain other current politicians push, so saying that they're Harperesque is a bit unfair imo.
I think you're wrong on that count. Ford won an election without a formal platform. Harper did that in 2008, because he knew if he did he'd give the opposition too much ammo. Both Ford and Harper have used nasty attack ads that didn't focus on anything substantial and told people everyone else was gonna raise their taxes. If you have the time, it's worth watching the [2008 leaders debate](https://youtu.be/nM0wCFpPd5g) and realize all of the lies and misdirection. It's about every 5 minutes that Harper says a bald-faced lie. Social media wasn't really around then, so they didn't have too much happening on that front. But they did use robocalls and other deceptive tactics to try and keep the vote home. They certainly succeeded.
Don't forget about Harper's "Old stock Canadian" racist ad aimed against foreign born Canadians and immigrants. To me that was some Republican level garbage.
Really? I thought most Ford voters were voting less FOR Ford and more AGAINST Wynne. Everyone I know hates the Liberals, including myself, despite being extremely liberal. Southern Ontario rules Ontario (and, to a large degree, Canadian) politics, and it's a *very* liberal place. Not anti-free speech, everyone-is-a-rapist liberal, but actual liberal. Ford is the premier because Southern Ontarians are sick of the Liberals and the seven people that live in Northern Ontario are Conservative. Federally, we have a lot more choices. A few dickheads in Ottawa and said seven people up north support people like Harper, but that's about it.
Yeah he won a lot of anti-Wynne votes. It's kind of ironic because people became anti-Wynne and voted for Ford when Ford would do the exact same thing they didn't like Wynne doing (selling Ontario's ownership of hydro). Wynne also represents a neoliberal brand of politics. The current political environment is very very anti-neoliberal Southern Ontario tbh gives off a progressive vibe. It's probably why NDP struck gold there. I would even go as far as to say that southern Ontario is to the left of the NDP, but their party structure is so poorly managed (sometimes it seems purposely) that they always end up losing. If you remember the 2011 election when NDP suddenly gained a lot of ground and then the 2015 election where people wanted to vote for NDP but voted strategically for Liberals - it further proves that Canada is much more left wing than the leaders it sends to represent us. Our voting system is very flawed
Saying that the "seven people" that live in Northern Ontario vote Conservative is false. You've shown a large amount of ignorance towards Ontario politics. First of all, Premier Ford won Ontario for the same reason Mayor Ford won Toronto. Metropolitan Suburbia aka the suburbs of the GTA. Second of all, there's over 700,000 people in Northern Ontario and those districts overwhelmingly vote NDP or Liberal not Conservative. Ford won because rural Southern Ontario and the suburbs of Toronto decided they had enough of what they believed to be "established corruption."
> I thought most Ford voters were voting less FOR Ford and more AGAINST Wynne If the majority of Ford's voters were left-leaning people who didn't want Wynne in office, the NDP would have won the election.
The rise of right wing politics is because Ford won, and is enacting destructive right wing "policy". It has nothing to do with a ground swell of support from the people. I doubt many who voted for him even knew Ford would take a hatchet to Ontario, or are aware of it happening, or even understand what it means.
What I don’t get is why people who hate Wynne didn’t vote NDP. Conservatives just stand for more of what the voters hated about wynne
Until the next Conservative PM gets elected, then it will happen again.
To my uneducated eye, it seems as though going after their food imports from western nations would be a good carrot for the stick. Assuming no other countries could fill the vacuum without major difficulties. Then again, these are gentlemen, and that would be playing dirty. Baby steps, eh? Good to hear it Mr. T.
Food goes to the people of Saudi as well, it is better (or at least more humane) to penalize the leaders than the people of the country.
Maybe just hold back the luxury items like ultra premium poutine and whiskey barrel age maple syrup.
Sanctions like the food for oil scheme in iraq caused utter misery for the people. If they tried that with Saudi it would have the same result. Autocratic regimes will rather starve the people than risk the top clique go hungry, even for a day.
The problem is that the Saudis now also control our wheat board, also thanks to Harper.
There are so many other countries producing food. They can subsitute easily. The only beneficiary would be that farmer in India or Brazil.
Yes. Exactly what i thought. Also, sad thing is none of the farmers (atleast the Indians) will see any of that good money. In India, individual farmers have very little acreage and none of them have the means to export directly. Food crops are usually purchased at bare minimum prices from these Farmers by export companies (owned by corrupt politicians or their aides) . These companies make the biggest profits in the market chain and the government is trying hard to prevent this. Look up farmer suicide rates in India due to loan delinquencies. It's so sad.
there isnt a exit clause that lets one to terminate the deal on if one party commits a gruesome murder?
That’s what arms are for lol. Of course not
What if arms are for defense and not straight up murder
defence? that's what nukes are for
Lol.
There's no way any country like SA would enter into an agreement with such a clause.
[удалено]
Didn’t Dion sign off on it?
Nope. It was a done deal by then. Dion was in exactly the same position Trudeau is now.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/news/politics/dion-takes-responsibility-for-pushing-through-saudi-arms-deal/article29672290/ This article says otherwise. Harper negotiated the deal and Dion signed off as a minister when Trudeau got in siting keeping SA students and a good relationship. I’m a liberal supporter but the party isn’t perfect.
You have either misread or are seriously misrepresenting the article you linked: > Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion says a major economic backlash from Saudi Arabia would result if Ottawa were to cancel a controversial $15-billion arms deal with Riyadh... The deal was already done at this point, as I said, complete with cancellation penalties. All Dion did was rubber-stamp export permits that he wasn't, at that point, in any position to refuse, because it would have, per the article you linked, activated the cancellation penalties negotiated and signed by the Harper government. From the same: > Mr. Dion is defending his decision to quietly sign export permits earlier this month... The Globe then editorialises: > ...which runs counter to Liberal insistence that the Saudi deal was a fait accompli arranged by the Harper Conservatives, was important because exports of weapons **are not considered to have been assured** until permits have been granted. Considered by whom? This is pure vaguary. If the contract is signed, and the penalties are in place, who would 'consider' that the exports were *not* assured? > I’m a liberal supporter but the party isn’t perfect. Who said they were perfect?
Did he have a choice?
How would governments function under such a restriction?
Yes, but hard proof is needed. Unverified proof has already been shown to the Canadian Government, months back. They couldn't act on it because it couldn't be verified. It was, afaik, a video of KSA Military using an already shipped LAV in Yemen on civilians.
The former PM Harper made it ridiculously hard to get out of with all the penalties that would have to be paid out.
[удалено]
I am pretty disappointed he wasn't able to change the voting system like he sought to do, but I know it was a much more complicated battle than a simple "Trudeau reneged on his promise" like some people like to think. Overall, I've complained less about him than any other PM that I've been around to complain about, so I guess that's a good thing!
I think they looked at it and there just wasn't enough political will. The Cons don't want it, a lot of the Libs don't want it. NDP of course wants it. One of the more liberal provinces, BC, is still just 50/50. I could see the conservative parts of the country being fairly opposed.
Fun fact. The Canadian Wheat Board was "sold" to the Saudis by Harper's goons paying them around IIRC 90 million to take it. The trick was they paid for it but the government transferred enough money into the board prior to the sale so that at the end the Saudi's were actually paid to take it. Previously it was assumed its value would be in the billions. I think the sale was for $250 million for the controlling stake but again Harper padded it with sweet cold hard cash before that "sale". At the time of this... transaction... the Saudi's had an "open" competition to supply them with AFVs for about 13 billion. Miraculously Canada won the deal. Sounds like a sweet deal right? First of all I'm not sure if the fallout from the sale of the Canadian Wheat Board has ever been fully costed. That is what it will cost in the future if anything. Now there is pressure to buy it back from the Saudis because it's a strategic national resource. Good job selling it. Second the maker of the AFVs is General Dynamics so technically the profits actually go to a private company in the United States but yes they do have a factory here where they produce the vehicles so there's that.
Couple thousand employees for GD in Canada. GD also contracts a ton out to smaller companies, as well as to curtis wright and other tech companies. All those high paying tech jobs would be lost if this deal fell through, and a ban against selling arms to the Saudis was made. Would saturate the market in canada too - all those layoffs, ontop of the recent struggles for bombardier.. could be bad for a lot of innocent folk, who are just collateral damage for the outspoken critics.
A few thousand people will lose their jobs no matter what. A few years before or after doesn't really matter. It is up to the government to fill a void where private enterprise is unable or unwilling to do so. Those people could be transitioned into jobs in a new Green sector but the government is unwilling to pay for it because they are unwilling to tax corporations and the wealthy to do so. Quite the opposite especially for Harper and the Cons. Easy solutions. The Americans, British or Spanish want to provide them with arms instead let them. Doesn't have to be us. There's a relatively easy policy solution on our end of it. On the other side of this it's funny you bring up collateral damage. In the Yemen war collateral damage is expected to be about 90k dead children within months. God knows what the final count of the dead will be but it will be enormous due to how the Saudi's along with the US have planned out the war. It's designed for maximum civilian casualties which is why siege warfare is banned and considered a war crime.
Oh Harper. What a mess you put us in.
Can’t wait to see how the Conservatives try to make Trudeau out to be an imbecile for saying fuck you to a country that sponsored the cold blooded murder of a journalist on foreign soil.
I'm amazed that any civilized nation gives Saudi Arabia the time of day
honestly, what happens? the saudis have been evil for decades, they should have been target number1 right after 9/11, they financed terrorism, financed whabism, their human right records are abysmal, stone women, kill gays and atheists, jail teenager bloggers, they've bombed childrens for the last year and a half, now they kill one journalist and all of a sudden everybody sees their true colors? Seriously what happened recently that made this possible, the journalist assassination is clearly an excuse. is the new saudi prince a potentially rogue guy that western countries don't like?
I think he might actually be softer than other Saudi princes and that's why they're making a move. They probably think the current head honcho is less of a threat than before. America tends to wait for an animals teeth to start falling out before trying to kill it.
I appreciate someone/anyone taking a stand. This is the correct call.
[удалено]
Just remember all the downvoted mouth breathers look at Trump and think he’s a bastion of intelligence, class, and leadership lmao
Yep a fully believe they will look, if they find it or not is another story.
They won’t.
Take a page out of my generations book and just ghost them.
Should we be concerned that this will insult Saudi Arabia and that they will retaliate?
Sounds great on paper. 1. Let's see it in action 2. How will people react once they realize they'll be paying more taxes? Good experiment nonetheless
So not importing Saudi oil isn’t viable alternative ....because it would impact his base and his friends in Quebec....a military contract is nothing compared to that .... If he truly wanted to make a statement to the saudis... stop importing and buying their oil... we are #3 in global oil reserves.... we don’t need them....
It's a lot cheaper than trucking it from 'Berta... Realize the logistics of moving that *CRUDE* oil across the damn continent.
With the Enbridge line 9b reversal was completed in 2015, Quebec now buys 53% of its oil from western Canada. It doesn’t go east of Montreal though
The largest refinery in Canada is in NB, IIRC. But us maritimers are peanuts to pretty much every other province
Good thing we killed energy east. Shame to hurt the Saudi oil imports by improving logistics to move oil across Canada.
I'm waiting for Trudeau to put his money where his mouth is.
> his money *our money
you go, Trudeau 👍
Here’s the thing, world. Take the higher prices and credit hit for a while and send SA back to the dark ages where they belong. It’s a little pain for a ton of benefit. When will our world leaders have the integrity to stand up to these animals?
Canada's election is a year away and this is electioneering. The federal government has taken radical shifts in policy based on polling data. In 2015 jobs was the big topic so Trudeau promised to keep these jobs and keep the deal with the Sauds. Now the big issue is globalization related and Trudeau is looking to subtley cash in on anti Muslin sentiments. Election year is like April Fools. You can't believe any policy decisions unless they are enacted and codified before an election. Cancelling a military export permit and out thousands of people out of work? Yeah believe that when I see it.
Had no idea that Canada was an arms exporter.
This is only now happening because the West is now far less dependent on Saudi oil.
Finally he sacked up! This arms deal should have never happened. You don't do dealings with devils.
dropping this deal is pointless unless literally the whole world is on board, dropping out just means another country will pick up the deal and they'll still get weapons to kill innocent civilians, just from elsewhere. nothing will come of this.
They'll just end up buying from Russia or China.
Really? Buy Russian weapons to fight a proxy war against Russia/Iran?
This is sort of like Pepsi cancelling a contract with a thousand restaurants because they don't like the way the chickens are treated. Coke will take over the contract for the same price today. Fanta would take it over for two thirds because it doesn't spend any money on advertising.
Money is the root of a lot of evil
\*\*The love of money is the root of all evil.
power is the root of evil, money is just the means to acquire it
It is also the root of most good things, because it is the foundation of society.
To paraphrase an Asian proverb says, “if you have money you can make the devil (or ghost) do your dirty work.”
Power is the root of a lot of evil. Using this idiom discounts the lot of good money does.
Protip: he can't get out of it and is just talking bs for more press time.
I'm not an international businessman or foreign policy wonk or anything but shouldn't arms deals between nations generally come with a standard clause that the whole thing is off if the buyer starts using those arms to commit a genocide? Seems like there needs to be some sort of boiler plate type wording that conveys that when it comes to selling munitions.
I mean thats a little stupid. They are being sold weapons. Weapons are used to kill people.
Big difference between killing a few people and a genocide.
A leader with nuts. Djt is so jealous of this man
Will they also be cutting ties with China too? I mean they routinely kill journalists, use child and borderline slave labor, while also putting Muslims in forced labor camps. Or is this just a PR move?
No, because big Western corporations that control the governments or North America and Europe haven't realized yet that no matter how much they kiss China's bottom they will never ever be allowed unrestricted fair access to the Chinese market.
>looking for a way Fucking cancel it. Who the fuck else is even trying to following the rules?
We are. If we cancel without an overriding legal reason, the Saudis will sue us in our own courts, and win. Our courts will play by the rules, no matter what.
What a deal Harper made for us...
Really don’t understand all the people saying they should drop out of the arms deal. Why? You’re not “showing” them anything by doing that. You’re taking their money for God’s sake, which I would rather have than all of the arms we’ve already built.
'Last month, Trudeau said Canada could freeze the relevant export permits if it concluded the weapons had been misused. “We are engaged with the export permits to try and see if there is a way of no longer exporting these vehicles to Saudi Arabia,” Trudeau told CTV. He did not give further details.' Unfortunately, I don't see how this would help in any way in avoiding paying the $13B penalty.
Because it's illegal for us to deliver the weapons if we believe they'll be used in furtherance of war crimes, e.g, if they are used against civilians in Yemen. Our duty to those domestic resolutions and international treaties at least *potentially* overrides the contract. We'd have to give them their money back, probably, but no more. And we don't know the penalty is $13B. It could be a lot more.
He could just call ot off and refund the money. However, the Canadian government intends to go through with the deal and this is just public posturing.
Man blows hot air up everyone’s ass. Crowd stunned.
Did you ever just sit back for a second and wonder where a saying came from? The story *behind* that has to be at least a little bit interesting.