for Conversion! - COATcoat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/64/64-all.pdf · Or How Ottawa Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb In 2009, for the first time in two decades, a weapons

ffffforororororPrPrPrPrPressessessessess

CCCCConvonvonvonvonvererererersion!sion!sion!sion!sion! November 2009 November 2009 November 2009 November 2009 November 2009 Issue #64 Issue #64 Issue #64 Issue #64 Issue #64

CANSEC

a disara disara disara disara disarmingmingmingmingmingllllly anti-wy anti-wy anti-wy anti-wy anti-war pubar pubar pubar pubar publicalicalicalicalicationtiontiontiontion

LATUFF 2006

Extra! Extra

!

Published by theCCCCCoalition to

OOOOOppose the

AAAAArms

TTTTTrade

Press forConversion!

NNNNNationalationalationalationalationalUUUUUnionnionnionnionnion ofofofofofPPPPPublicublicublicublicublic andandandandandGGGGGenerenerenerenereneralalalalalEEEEEmplomplomplomplomployyyyyeeseeseeseesees and the

PPPPPublicublicublicublicublicSSSSServiceerviceerviceerviceerviceAAAAA lliance lliance lliance lliance lliance ofofofofofCCCCCanadaanadaanadaanadaanada

for donating thecopying of this issue!

20 y20 y20 y20 y20 yearearearearears and still kickin’s and still kickin’s and still kickin’s and still kickin’s and still kickin’

Please Please Please Please Please SUBSCRIBE,SUBSCRIBE,SUBSCRIBE,SUBSCRIBE,SUBSCRIBE,

RENEW RENEW RENEW RENEW RENEW &/or&/or&/or&/or&/or

DONADONADONADONADONATETETETETE ... ... ... ... ...

DrDrDrDrDr. . . . . StrStrStrStrStrangeloangeloangeloangeloangelovvvvveeeee: : : : : HoHoHoHoHow Ottw Ottw Ottw Ottw Ottaaaaawwwwwa La La La La Learned tearned tearned tearned tearned to Sto Sto Sto Sto Stop Wop Wop Wop Wop Worrying orrying orrying orrying orrying & & & & & LLLLLooooovvvvve the Bombe the Bombe the Bombe the Bombe the Bomb..........33333DFDFDFDFDFAIT GenerAIT GenerAIT GenerAIT GenerAIT Generously Fously Fously Fously Fously Funds CADSI tunds CADSI tunds CADSI tunds CADSI tunds CADSI to Push Milito Push Milito Push Milito Push Milito Push Military Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportsssss................1................1................1................1................111111TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: Jobs Cr Jobs Cr Jobs Cr Jobs Cr Jobs Created beated beated beated beated by $1 Billion in Spending..................................15y $1 Billion in Spending..................................15y $1 Billion in Spending..................................15y $1 Billion in Spending..................................15y $1 Billion in Spending..................................15

FFFFFuelling Wuelling Wuelling Wuelling Wuelling War: Canadian Militar: Canadian Militar: Canadian Militar: Canadian Militar: Canadian Military Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportary Exports at Ws at Ws at Ws at Ws at Work...............................22ork...............................22ork...............................22ork...............................22ork...............................22Pie Chart:Pie Chart:Pie Chart:Pie Chart:Pie Chart: RRRRRecipientecipientecipientecipientecipients os os os os of Canada’f Canada’f Canada’f Canada’f Canada’s Milits Milits Milits Milits Military Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportary Exports (200s (200s (200s (200s (2003-2006).......223-2006).......223-2006).......223-2006).......223-2006).......22TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: Canadian Milit Canadian Milit Canadian Milit Canadian Milit Canadian Military Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportary Exports ts ts ts ts to Countries with To Countries with To Countries with To Countries with To Countries with Trrrrroops Fight-oops Fight-oops Fight-oops Fight-oops Fight-

ing in Major Armed Conflicts (2003-2006)....................................23ing in Major Armed Conflicts (2003-2006)....................................23ing in Major Armed Conflicts (2003-2006)....................................23ing in Major Armed Conflicts (2003-2006)....................................23ing in Major Armed Conflicts (2003-2006)....................................23Graph:Graph:Graph:Graph:Graph: Canadian Military Exports to Countries Fighting inCanadian Military Exports to Countries Fighting inCanadian Military Exports to Countries Fighting inCanadian Military Exports to Countries Fighting inCanadian Military Exports to Countries Fighting in

IrIrIrIrIraq, aq, aq, aq, aq, AfAfAfAfAfghanistghanistghanistghanistghanistan, Haiti and Internal Wan, Haiti and Internal Wan, Haiti and Internal Wan, Haiti and Internal Wan, Haiti and Internal Wararararars (200s (200s (200s (200s (2003-2006)................243-2006)................243-2006)................243-2006)................243-2006)................24TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: Canada’Canada’Canada’Canada’Canada’s Ts Ts Ts Ts Top 40 Wop 40 Wop 40 Wop 40 Wop 40 War Industries: Linkar Industries: Linkar Industries: Linkar Industries: Linkar Industries: Links ts ts ts ts to CANSEC o CANSEC o CANSEC o CANSEC o CANSEC andandandandand CADSI. CADSI. CADSI. CADSI. CADSI......2525252525

Canadian MilitCanadian MilitCanadian MilitCanadian MilitCanadian Military Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportsssss, W, W, W, W, War Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gaza, and CANSEC.............26a, and CANSEC.............26a, and CANSEC.............26a, and CANSEC.............26a, and CANSEC.............26TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: Canadian ExporterCanadian ExporterCanadian ExporterCanadian ExporterCanadian Exporters at CANSEC 2009 helping manufs at CANSEC 2009 helping manufs at CANSEC 2009 helping manufs at CANSEC 2009 helping manufs at CANSEC 2009 helping manufacturacturacturacturactureeeee

US WUS WUS WUS WUS Weapons used teapons used teapons used teapons used teapons used to Bomb Lo Bomb Lo Bomb Lo Bomb Lo Bomb Lebanon (2006) & Gazebanon (2006) & Gazebanon (2006) & Gazebanon (2006) & Gazebanon (2006) & Gaza (2008-2009)....27a (2008-2009)....27a (2008-2009)....27a (2008-2009)....27a (2008-2009)....27TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: CPP InvCPP InvCPP InvCPP InvCPP Investmentestmentestmentestmentestments in US Maks in US Maks in US Maks in US Maks in US Makererererers os os os os of Isrf Isrf Isrf Isrf Israeli Waeli Waeli Waeli Waeli Weapons Syeapons Syeapons Syeapons Syeapons Systemsstemsstemsstemsstems....28....28....28....28....28

Banning AntiWBanning AntiWBanning AntiWBanning AntiWBanning AntiWar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Showwwwwsssss..............................29..............................29..............................29..............................29..............................29DemocrDemocrDemocrDemocrDemocracacacacacy under Ay under Ay under Ay under Ay under Attttttttttack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abroad:oad:oad:oad:oad:OttOttOttOttOttaaaaawwwwwa’a’a’a’a’s Mas Mas Mas Mas Mayyyyyor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Technologies and CANSEC................3echnologies and CANSEC................3echnologies and CANSEC................3echnologies and CANSEC................3echnologies and CANSEC................300000

TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: Canadian WCanadian WCanadian WCanadian WCanadian War Industries helping build B-52sar Industries helping build B-52sar Industries helping build B-52sar Industries helping build B-52sar Industries helping build B-52s.......................3.......................3.......................3.......................3.......................300000

“Secure Canada”: The Demise of a US Arms Bazaar in Ottawa.............33“Secure Canada”: The Demise of a US Arms Bazaar in Ottawa.............33“Secure Canada”: The Demise of a US Arms Bazaar in Ottawa.............33“Secure Canada”: The Demise of a US Arms Bazaar in Ottawa.............33“Secure Canada”: The Demise of a US Arms Bazaar in Ottawa.............33TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: 1111100 Canadian W00 Canadian W00 Canadian W00 Canadian W00 Canadian War Industries Exporting Par Industries Exporting Par Industries Exporting Par Industries Exporting Par Industries Exporting Partartartartarts &/or Servicess &/or Servicess &/or Servicess &/or Servicess &/or Services

fffffor Wor Wor Wor Wor Weapons Syeapons Syeapons Syeapons Syeapons Systems used in Irstems used in Irstems used in Irstems used in Irstems used in Iraq, and other Waq, and other Waq, and other Waq, and other Waq, and other Warararararsssss.........................36.........................36.........................36.........................36.........................36

Canada PCanada PCanada PCanada PCanada Pension Plan Invension Plan Invension Plan Invension Plan Invension Plan Investmentestmentestmentestmentestments in the Ws in the Ws in the Ws in the Ws in the World’orld’orld’orld’orld’s Ts Ts Ts Ts Top Wop Wop Wop Wop War Industriesar Industriesar Industriesar Industriesar Industries.....39.....39.....39.....39.....39TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: CPP InvCPP InvCPP InvCPP InvCPP Investmentestmentestmentestmentestments in Ts in Ts in Ts in Ts in Top 1op 1op 1op 1op 100 Global W00 Global W00 Global W00 Global W00 Global Weapons Makeapons Makeapons Makeapons Makeapons Makererererersssss.............39.............39.............39.............39.............39TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: CPP InvCPP InvCPP InvCPP InvCPP Investestestestests in Ws in Ws in Ws in Ws in Weapons used in Ireapons used in Ireapons used in Ireapons used in Ireapons used in Iraq with Canadian Paq with Canadian Paq with Canadian Paq with Canadian Paq with Canadian Partartartartartsssss......39......39......39......39......39

WWWWWeapons with Canadian Componenteapons with Canadian Componenteapons with Canadian Componenteapons with Canadian Componenteapons with Canadian Componentsssss, used in Ir, used in Ir, used in Ir, used in Ir, used in Iraq and other Waq and other Waq and other Waq and other Waq and other Warararararsssss.....40.....40.....40.....40.....40TTTTTable:able:able:able:able: WWWWWeapons: Canadian Complicityeapons: Canadian Complicityeapons: Canadian Complicityeapons: Canadian Complicityeapons: Canadian Complicity...........................................44...........................................44...........................................44...........................................44...........................................44

LLLLLetter fretter fretter fretter fretter from COom COom COom COom COAAAAAT’T’T’T’T’s coors coors coors coors coordinatdinatdinatdinatdinatororororor..........................................................49..........................................................49..........................................................49..........................................................49..........................................................49

Picasso

AAAAAcknocknocknocknocknowledgementwledgementwledgementwledgementwledgementsssssResearch, Writing, Design, Layout:Richard SandersCopying: Special thanks for the do-nation of copying for this issue fromNUPGE and PSAC.Union liaison: Mandy Rocks (PSAC)and Len Bush (NUPGE)Mailing issue # 63: Ria Heynen,Rew MacCrimmon, Kaven Niven,Rosalie Reynolds, Richard Sanders,Tony Whitely and Jo Wood.Computer support: Paul GrossWebpage: Richard Sanders

Thanks to the

Sculpture at UN headquartersby Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd.

CANSEC:CANSEC:CANSEC:CANSEC:CANSEC: W W W W War is Businessar is Businessar is Businessar is Businessar is Business

COAT,

WA

R

... and ... and ... and ... and ... and BUY EXTRA COPIESBUY EXTRA COPIESBUY EXTRA COPIESBUY EXTRA COPIESBUY EXTRA COPIESof of of of of Press for Conversion!Press for Conversion!Press for Conversion!Press for Conversion!Press for Conversion!to plant seeds with...to plant seeds with...to plant seeds with...to plant seeds with...to plant seeds with...• journalistsjournalistsjournalistsjournalistsjournalists• politicianspoliticianspoliticianspoliticianspoliticians• t eache r st eache rst eache rst eache rst eache rs• l ibrariesl ibrariesl ibrariesl ibrariesl ibraries• activistsactivistsactivistsactivistsactivists• studentsstudentsstudentsstudentsstudents• clerclerclerclerclergygygygygy, et, et, et, et, etccccc.....

Canada Post 40008371

COAT was initially formed in 1989 to oppose ARMX, whichwas then Canada's largest war industry bazaar. COAT’s first

campaign led to Ottawa’s 20-year ban prohibiting arms shows onCity property. Over the past two decades, COAT has—with lim-ited resources—published Press for Conversion!, and organizedantiwar rallies, vigils, conferences, festivals and other events.Please join us in exposing and opposing Canada’s often-hidden rolein aiding and abetting US-led wars and invasions! It’s time Canadakicked the arms trade habit and pressed for conversion!

3November 2009 (Issue # 64) Press for Conversion!

By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coa-lition to Oppose the Arms Trade

As if converting the heart of adowntown residential neigh-bourhood into a warmonger’s

theme park was not transgressionenough, Ottawa’s City Council hasvanquished the municipality’s 20-yearban on hosting international arms ba-zaars. And, what’s worse, in place ofthe national capital’s long-standingprohibition on facilitating these com-mercial spectacles for the trafficking ofwar technology, Ottawa Council votedto open wide the City’s arms to all suchmilitary-industrial exhibitions.

This regressive decision was aninsult to thousands across Canada whoexpressed opposition to pimping upOttawa’s publicly-funded fairground totransform it into an ugly big-box empo-rium for blow-out war sales.

But Ottawa Council wasunworried by widespread public con-cerns and untroubled by the prospectof stirring up deeply-felt apprehensionsabout renewing the City’s role in thegiving financial reward to the folly ofwar. Council was likewise unperturbedby all the petitions, letters, articles anddetailed peace reports that they re-ceived on this issue. Members of Ot-tawa Council also closed their eyes andignored the many public events, vigilsand protests that drew attention to thepart played by Ottawa’s arms fairs infuelling wars that are ravaging innocentcivilians in other cities across theglobe. Similarly, Council paid no notice-able heed to statements from the Ot-tawa Presbytery of the United Churchof Canada, the local Anglican Bishop,more than a hundred Catholic nuns,plus Unitarian, Buddhist and Jewishorganizations, and thousands of otherconcerned voices who appealed tothem with high hopes for a symboliclocal nod to world peace and justice.

Instead, Ottawa Council lis-tened very intently to a small handfulof corporate representatives whose fi-nancial stake in the lucrative businessof war revealed them to be the epitomeof a special interest group.

Yes, Ottawa Council has turnedits back on peace. Two full decadeswithout a single City-sanctioned armsexhibition was apparently long enoughfor Ottawa’s current crop of obsequi-ous, corporate-minded politicians.

As a result, CANSEC—Cana-da’s largest showcase for export-de-pendent military companies—will re-turn in 2010 and it will do so with avengeance. Yes, next June, CANSECwill be back with all of its most belli-cose bells on! Like some obscene graf-fiti reappearing to deface a communi-ty’s public buildings, CANSEC will bewrit large once again on Ottawa’s civicproperty, scrawled bigger than everbefore, in dripping indelible technicol-our. And, now that the gory dye is cast,and the CANSEC brand is deeplyetched on Ottawa’s walls, this warmon-gers’ dream come true will no doubt cel-ebrate its homecoming by vending anincreasingly astonishing array of toolsdesigned to meet the every need of do-mestic and foreign combatants alike.Ottawa has thus come to the aid of hun-dreds of companies that are scramblingto reap their share in the never-endingprofits of war. For this service, the na-tion’s capital will take its cut for abet-ting the whole sordid process.

But CANSEC organisers should

beware. Although they will be return-ing, so too will those who oppose whatthe world-class CANSEC arms showrepresents. For despite all the disqui-eting developments surrounding theworrisome re-invasion of Ottawa’s pub-lic spaces by the worst of corporatebelligerents, citizens concerned aboutpeace have not lost hope. In fact, al-though we have suffered this blow topeace, and witnessed the Machiavel-lian machinations of Ottawa Council anda City staff determined to assist Cana-da’s war industries, we know that ourefforts against CANSEC 2009 were ac-tually a tremendous success.

We made great strides in build-ing public awareness, mobilizing pro-gressive elements within our commu-nity and deepening the peace move-ment’s commitment to thinking globallyby acting locally. Through this impor-tant work, we have ensured that whenCANSEC returns again next spring,Canada’s most flagrant manifestationof the international arms trade will haveto face an even stronger and more vi-brant opposition than ever before!

And, perhaps, it is still not betoo late to celebrate the fact that in 1989,Ottawa’s municipal facilities were setfree of all war industry exhibitions.1 Thatfreedom lasted exactly twenty years,

DrDrDrDrDr. Str. Str. Str. Str. Strangeloangeloangeloangeloangelovvvvve:e:e:e:e:Or How Ottawa Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

In 2009, for the firsttime in two decades,

a weapons bazaarwas held at a Cityof Ottawa facility.

Ottawa Counciloverturned its ban onweapons shows and

welcomed these eventsback to City property.

Len

Mun

nik

4 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 64) November 2009

and two days. (But who’s counting?)The City’s official ban was won thanksto a campaign by the Coalition to Op-pose the Arms Trade. It was a signifi-cant victory for peace-minded citizensand those conscientious city leaderswho, deeply alarmed by the destruc-tive effects of the international trade inweapons systems, gave a resolute andprincipled “NO” to using Ottawa prop-erty for expos that flaunt the sale ofmilitary technology.

However, despite all that, onMay 27 and 28 of this year, the fair-grounds and exhibition halls at Otta-wa’s century-old Lansdowne Parkserved once again as a giant shoppingmall catering to the needs of war fight-ers from around the world. Not sincethe ARMX ’89 military trade show hadthe City thrown wide its doors for themarketing of machine guns, tanks, am-munition, missiles and all the otherhigh-tech products, gizmos and serv-ices that are so essential to wagingmodern armed conflicts.

But these displays, thoughwanton and conspicuous, were not laidout in the open for all to see. First of all,CANSEC was a strictly private affair.The general public is not allowed in-side such banal supermarts of deathand destruction. The irony in this ex-clusion is more than acute. After all, thepublic was forced to provide the venuefor this war exposition. On top of that,the public must also finance the gran-diose military institutions that plan andwage war. And, the public foots the billfor creating and developing many ofthe technological innovations that mili-tary forces have grown so accustomedto demanding. But besides all thesebountiful gifts unto Caesar, the generalpopulation—especially the poor—areplumbed as the source of human fod-der for Mars’ deadly exercise.

So, although public subsidiesfinance the war fighters, and line thepockets of private international weap-ons-makers and their professionalguilds, and pay the required toll inblood, Canadian taxpayers are not partof the in-club that is permitted entryinto these sacred mercantile shrines ofwar. This is entirely understandable.To allow common publicans into such“dens of thieves” as CANSEC wouldonly open the door to potentially em-

barrassing scenes, like the overturningof exhibition tables heavily laden withdeadly products, or the ringing out ofsuch cleansing curses as “Hypocrites!”

But the physical walls, closeddoors, police, identity passes, barbedwire and other “security” measuresused to surround and protect such re-tail temples are not the only means used

to hide the ugly face of war merchan-dising from public scrutiny. In fact, thewhole gaudy and seductive science ofdeath and destruction is much more ef-fectively cloaked by a far more impen-etrable barricade of symbols. Thosewho market war and its pretexts do sobehind a panoply of clever words andjingoistic phrases underlain by adeeply-rooted mythos. Speaking in softand measured tones to conjure up de-

lusions of “peace” and “freedom,” “de-fence” and “security,” the mongers ofwar dispense a fog of buzz words thatcamouflage and shield the manifest im-plements of battle on display.

So thick is this verbal smoke-screen that even if the whole CANSECweapons kit were laid bare on exhibittables and exposed to public view, many

might not discern what wasbefore their eyes. As a re-sult, the effort to exposesuch events is not a simplematter of literally openingthe gates of CANSEC topublic attendance, as somehave proposed. It is insteadthe much more difficultstruggle to remove the rose-coloured scales of militarismthat so effectively glazeover many people’s eyes.

So, since 2008, when alegal technicality was usedby Ottawa City staff to al-low war hucksters to gettheir foot back in the door

of the region’s largest tax-funded facil-ity for so-called “defence and security”trade shows, COAT has been exposingthe grisly gamut of weapons-relatedtechnologies that military exhibitors areengaged in exporting.

But in spite of this effort, manylocal politicians saluted the municipali-ty’s de facto renewal of assistance tomilitary industrial behemoths likeCANSEC. They disguised their wel-

The circular War Room in Stanley Kubrick’s classic anti-warfilm, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying

and Love the Bomb”—starred Peter Sellers.

“Ma“Ma“Ma“Ma“Mayyyyyororororors fs fs fs fs for Por Por Por Por Peace”eace”eace”eace”eace”Since 1983, the City of Ottawa hasbeen a member of a global network

of municipalities started by theMayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


come for this supposed “defence show”with all the flag-waving “Support-our-Troops” sloganeering that they couldmuster. Countering such nationalistichype has been a difficult exercise in de-bunking the myth that Canada is a pow-erful force for peace and reconciliationin a troubled world.

City Council’s late-June decisionto reverse Ottawa’s historicban was, of course, a tre-mendous shame. The igno-miny of this nodding en-couragement to arms ped-dlers should be an embar-rassment to all those in-volved. Despite efforts tocloak their resolution be-hind the prevailing nationalmythology that Canada is agreat peacemaker, this epi-sode symbolises a bowingobeisance of those whoserve the violent gods ofmetal by helping them tosatisfy their unquenchablethirst for profits. The Cityof Ottawa’s decision has not only dis-graced and exposed the national capi-tal region but the country as a whole.

Canada is clearly not the noblepeace-loving nation that so many stillimagine. CANSEC exposes thatCanada—for its share in the spoils ofwar—is an ever-eager beaver, workinghard to supply whatever military tech-nology is required to help build theworld’s damnable corporate empires.

Campaign SuccessesIn the midsummer of 2008, the Coali-tion to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)started spreading the word that armsmerchandizing events were once againbound for Ottawa’s prime public facil-ity. Since then, thousands have ex-pressed their sincere and ardent oppo-sition to the Canadian military export

business that such war fairs so brazenlyrepresent. In contrast, the only voicesthat publicly expressed their supportfor CANSEC came from the show’s or-ganizer and some military industry rep-resentatives—including Ottawa’sMayor Larry O’Brien—who are moti-vated by economic self-interest.

For many months, the struggleto expose and oppose CANSEC gath-ered momentum. Finally, on May 27,

Lansdowne was brimming to capacitywith glitzy displays showcasing thecontraptions of war. Throngs of buy-ers and sellers, bedecked in trim dressuniforms and sharp business suits,browsed the booths. Meanwhile, out-side the gates, peace activists with con-siderably less-fashionable attire held anall day vigil in the drizzling rain. Thatevening at a nearby church, about 400citizens attended an indoor rally withnumerous speakers and musicians.2 Al-though completely and utterly ignoredby the mainstream corporate media, thislarge event was a fine climax to our edu-cation campaign. It gave eloquent ex-pression to the widespread public re-pulsion not only to the reappearanceof arms shows on city property but toCanada’s role as one of the world’s larg-est exporters of major conventionalweapons systems.3

Besides making significantstrides in raising public awareness, andstrengthening the resolve of many ac-tivists to oppose Canada’s war exports,we laid the groundwork for an evenlarger and more determined oppositionto CANSEC 2010 next June.

By these important measures,the whole effort to oppose CANSEC2009 was in fact very successful andincredibly useful. Here are some of themany accomplishments achieved dur-ing our efforts against CANSEC:

Building public awareness:Numerous articles and detailed researchreports about CANSEC 2009 were cre-ated and published by COAT. This in-formation and analysis helped to informmany thousands of people in Ottawaand across Canada about this militarytrade show and its role in facilitatingthe international arms trade.4

Changing the “Googlescape”:Thanks to COAT’s work, anyone whois now doing online searches for theterm “CANSEC” will now encounterthousands of references to wars, re-gime changes and human rights abusesthat are directly linked to the productsof top Canadian arms companies exhib-iting at this military trade show.5

Gathering Petitions:Almost 5,000 people—two thirds ofthem in Ottawa—signed COAT’s onlineand paper petitions to Stop Ottawa’sArms Shows.6

The City of Ottawa’s circular Council Chamber where officialsvoted—in June 2009—to reverse the municipality’s

20-year ban on hosting international war-industry bazaars.

“Think Globally“Think Globally“Think Globally“Think Globally“Think Globally, A, A, A, A, Act Lct Lct Lct Lct Locally”ocally”ocally”ocally”ocally”CANSEC 2009 exhibitors included

many Canadian war industriesexporting essential components fornuclear weapons delivery systems.


Ottawa’s CorporateOttawa’s CorporateOttawa’s CorporateOttawa’s CorporateOttawa’s CorporateServices CommitteeServices CommitteeServices CommitteeServices CommitteeServices CommitteeOn June 2 and 15, about 60 peace activ-ists made heartfelt presentations in Ot-tawa’s Council Chambers to the City’saptly-named “Corporate Services”committee. This conclave is the City’smost right-wing, “business-friendly”body. It is widely seen as the creatureof Ottawa’s controversial Mayor, LarryO’Brien. Although “His Worship,” wasnot in his usual position as chair of thisformidable group, his presence seemedpalpable. (Mayor O’Brien was unableto oversee his committee in June be-cause he had been charged by policewith bribery and purported influencepeddling and was on trial for allegedlymanipulating the 2006 city election.11)

Notwithstanding O’Brien’s no-table absence from City chambers, com-mittee members remained in apparentmental lockstep with their predisposedleader. They rallied to defend the inter-ests of high-tech military concerns likeO’Brien’s very own company, CalianTechnologies. Calian—which O’Brienfounded in 1982—was one of about 225military industries exhibiting their prod-ucts at CANSEC 2009.12 (For more onO’Brien and his firm’s military contracts,see “Democracy under Attack at Homeand Abroad,” pp.30-32.)

It became quickly obvious topeace activists that the politicians onthis committee were hard set againstthe public appeal to stop Ottawa’s sup-port for the business of war profiteering.Councillors seemed oblivious to thefact that dozens of CANSEC exhibitorsare engaged in fuelling major armedconflicts that are snuffing out innocentcivilian lives around the world. And,

what’s worse, they did not want to lis-ten to the many public delegations thatpresented them with such information.

Committee members did noteven feign an interest in absorbing anynew information that might conflict withtheir preconceived understanding ofthe issues at hand. Although paid torepresent Ottawa taxpayers, most ofthese politicians gave very limited (ifany) attention to the dozens of thought-ful and informed public presentationsmade to their committee. Some Coun-cillors did not bother to glance up fromtheir laptops during eloquent state-ments by many peace-oriented Ottawacitizens. Others could not pull them-selves away, even momentarily, fromtheir disruptive conversations.

This studious disregard for thecitizenry’s pro-peace testimonials wasin direct contrast to the focused atten-tion that these same politicians dis-played when a couple of corporate ex-ecutives showed up to represent theindustries and associations with a pri-vate stake in CANSEC’s success.

Fortunately, not all Councillorsare prone to such fawning deference tocorporations or to the tendency toshow contempt towards civic input intothe democratic process. Councillor AlexCullen, for example, took the lead at CityHall against CANSEC. Two other down-town Councillors, Clive Doucet andDiane Holmes, were also deeply com-mitted to maintaining Council’s historicban on facilitating Canadian weaponsemporiums. Not being members of the“Corporate Services” committee, thesethree dedicated public servants wereunable to vote at its meetings. How-ever, they did attend to make their dis-senting voices for peace heard in the

MultimillionairMultimillionairMultimillionairMultimillionairMultimillionaire industrialiste industrialiste industrialiste industrialiste industrialist“Daddy W“Daddy W“Daddy W“Daddy W“Daddy Warbuckarbuckarbuckarbuckarbucks”s”s”s”s”

plaplaplaplaplayyyyys the Mas the Mas the Mas the Mas the Mayyyyyor or or or or ooooofffff

Vigiling for Peace:Many activists braved therelentless rain on May 27to witness for peace out-side CANSEC between7:30 am and 6:30 pm.7

Rallying for Peace:A large and enthusiasticindoor rally with inspiringmusic and great speakersrepresenting a diverse com-munity was attended bysome 400 people on May 27.8

Speaking truth to power:Dozens of peace, development and re-ligious organizations sent delegationsto address Councillors at Ottawa CityHall on June 29 and 1510 .

Understanding local “democracy”:Ottawa activists gained a deeper un-derstanding of how democracy works(and does not work!) at the local level.Many will no doubt be more motivatedthan ever to get involved in future mu-nicipal elections to hold Councillors toaccount for facilitating CANSEC.

Strengthening the peace community:We bolstered the existing communityof activists who oppose Canada’s rolein the business of manufacturing andexporting war technologies.

Preparing for CANSEC 2010:Our preparations set the stage for alarger and stronger response to the re-turn of CANSEC, June 2-3, 2010.

What we were up againstWhenever activists challenge the age-old business of war, we are well-ad-vised to enter the nonviolent fray witha full understanding that in many con-crete ways the odds are stacked againstus. This was certainly the case duringour latest bid to unmask Canada’s com-plicity in the global commerce of war.

Besides having to contend withelected and unelected powers-that-beat City Hall, there were several other,more formidable institutions that wereallied against our humble efforts. Wewere opposed by interlocking networksof well-established old boys clubswhose tentacles embrace across vari-ous levels of government and indus-try. Let’s take a look at a few of theseadversaries who stood up to supportCanada’s military export business.


halls of municipal power.As expected, the Mayor’s com-

mittee remained loyal to “CorporateService.” It was unswayed by rationalarguments, impassioned pleas, en-dorsements from religious congrega-tions, community groups, academic ex-perts and NGOs representing women,students, veterans, and by statementsfrom groups working to improve theconditions of those in impoverished na-tions ravaged by war. Similarly, anti-CANSEC rallies, vigils, meetings, peti-tions, emails and letters, were dutifullyignored, as were COAT’s articles andresearch reports detailing howCANSEC exhibitors have equippedbelligerents in recent and ongoing wars.

In the end, this committee votedunanimously against CouncillorCullen’s motion to uphold the City’s 20-year ban on hosting arms shows.What’s more, led by Councillor RickChiarelli, they decided to take an un-precedented step down the path ofcomplicity with the purveyors of wartechnology. The entire committee votedas one to support a new motion fromChiarelli that effectively declared it Ot-tawa’s official duty and responsibility,as Canada’s capital, to smooth the wayfor this country’s military industrialcomplex by leasing whatever City fa-cilities are requested for their businessoperations, including arms bazaars.

Ottawa City CouncilOttawa City CouncilOttawa City CouncilOttawa City CouncilOttawa City CouncilTo come into force, Chiarelli’s motionhad to be approved by City Council asa whole and was placed on its June-24agenda. On that day, Councillors fa-vouring war manufacturers almost suc-ceeded in pushing through the com-mittee’s regressive resolution withouteven allowing Council to debate theissue of Ottawa’s 20-year ban on host-ing arms shows. Eventually, after manyjostling legalistic arguments, the rightto discuss this issue was won and thosefew councillors who oppose CANSECfinally had an opportunity to expressthemselves. But, as expected, theircomments fell on deaf ears. The major-ity of Councillors had already made uptheir minds and were not about tochange. Fourteen Councillors favouredthe hosting of arms trade shows at Ot-tawa facilities, while only five voted tokeep these events off City property.13

It was all reminiscent of Aesop’sfable—“The Wolf and the Lamb.” Inthis powerful ancient allegory, a caninepredator sees an innocent lamb and de-cides that he will make a tasty meal.However, before devouring his prey,the wolf decides that he will grant hisvictim the right to engage in a little de-bate. The parable is quite satisfyingbecause the lamb then ably defeatsevery ridiculous and devious argument

put forward by the wolf. Again andagain, the innocent youth exposes theflagrant lies of his carnivorous oppres-sor. However, the lamb’s verbal andmental prowess in exposing the wolf’sdeceptions does not prevent him frombeing eaten. In the end, the hungrydespot disregards all of the lamb’swords and simply remarks: “I do notintend to be talked out of my break-fast.”

The point of the story is thatrational discussion and the truth are to-tally irrelevant when confronting thosewhose will is enforced and inflicting byraw physical power. Although backedby the truth, and more than able to out-argue an autocratic bully, innocent vic-tims will still loose if forced into physi-cal confrontation. As the moral of thetale’s 1919 version explains:

“The tyrant can always find an ex-cuse for his tyranny.The unjust will not listen to the rea-soning of the innocent.”14

So, after all the arguments weresaid and done, and it finally came tomaking their decision, Ottawa politi-cians backed Councillor Chiarelli’sshameful motion. They voted 14 to 5 toopen wide the City’s gates to allowingmunicipally-funded facilities to be usedby merchants of war who live by thewolfish doctrine that “Might is Right.”

It will be considered unjust by

The WThe WThe WThe WThe Wolf and the Lolf and the Lolf and the Lolf and the Lolf and the Lambambambambamb. . . . . In this Aesop’s fable, a wolf decides to grant his victim the right toengage in a debate. The innocent lamb then ably exposes each and every flagrant lie and deviousdeception put forward by her carnivorous oppressor. Despite this, the hungry despot disregardsall of the lamb’s words and simply remarks: “I do not intend to be talked out of my breakfast.”

Moral of the story?“The unjust will not listen to the reasoning of the innocent.”Il

lust

ratio

n by

Milo

Win

ter


some to so bluntly compare OttawaCouncillors or their prosperous corpo-rate allies in the military industrial com-plex, with vicious predatory wolves.This is indeed unfair—to the reputa-tion of wolves. These noble beasts donot, of course, support anything so vileand bestial as war. Wolves thereforedo not deserve to be semantically linkedwith creatures who facilitate, let aloneprofit from, such ignoble violence.

Ottawa City StaffOttawa City StaffOttawa City StaffOttawa City StaffOttawa City StaffNot only was an array of “businessfriendly” Councillors allied in supportof CANSEC, certain unelected City ofOttawa staff were also determined tosupport the blatant interests of Cana-da’s war industries. Prime among thesewas Rick O’Connor, the City’s Chief So-licitor, who also doubles asOttawa’s City Clerk. He hadbeen central to the behind-the-scenes efforts that wonthe return of military tradeshows to Ottawa facilities.

It was O’Connor’s“legal opinion” in the sum-mer of 2008, that Council’s1989 Motion no longer ap-plied to the one City facilitycoveted by arms organiz-ers.15 This convenient es-cape from the obligation torespect Council’s Motionwas due to a dubious tech-nical loophole relating to thefleeting transfer of Lans-downe Park to the RegionalMunicipality of Ottawa-Carleton in 1999, just beforethe city’s amalgamation.

Based on O’Connor’sconvenient “opinion,” theCity opened its doors to leas-ing its facilities for a large mili-tary trade show that was to be held lastautumn. That exhibition, sponsored inlarge part by the US Embassy, variousUS government departments and USwar industries, was officially dubbed“Secure Canada.”16 Although eventu-ally cancelled, this arms bazaar serveda valuable role in allowing such showsto once again get their foot in the doorof Ottawa’s prime public facility. Thismeant that City Staff were able to leaseLansdowne for the even biggerCANSEC 2009 expo. (For more about

“Secure Canada,” see pages 33-35.)The peace movement could not,

of course, afford to retain legal counselto challenge the “opinion” of Ottawa’stop lawyer. Such prohibitively expen-sive actions are beyond the financialresources of grassroots initiatives.

Also, when it came to the hear-ings before Council’s “Corporate Serv-ices” committee in June, activists hadto contend with the clever manoeuvringof City Staff. After lining up dozens oforganizations to provide speakers toaddress the committee on June 16, andafter widely publicising this event, wewere informed by City Staff, just a fewdays in advance, that they had changedthe meeting date to June 15.

A far greater inconveniencehowever occurred on June 24. On that

day, when more than 50 citizens turnedup at City Hall to witness Council’s his-toric vote, only a few paid war-indus-try representatives were in attendance.No other item on the working agendadrew so many spectators. AlthoughCouncil agendas have in the past beenaltered out of common courtesy to ac-commodate the presence of numerousvisitors in the public gallery, this con-sideration was not extended to Otta-wa’s peace activists on June 24. Instead,the CANSEC item was shifted back until

it was the very last item. This meantthat interested members of the publicwere forced to wait eight full hours be-fore the issue was dealt with. By thistime, of course, only a third remained.And, all of the TV cameras and severalreporters that were there earlier in theday had disappeared long before theCANSEC debate finally began.

However, by some odd coinci-dence, the head of the national busi-ness association that organizesCANSEC was not inconvenienced bythis delay in the agenda. It was as ifTim Page, president of the CanadianAssociation of Defence and SecurityIndustries (CADSI), had been notifiedin advance when the debate would oc-cur. He therefore did not need to wastehis time waiting around City Hall sur-

rounded by a crowd of peaceactivists. Instead, he simplyidled in at the right moment.Some speculated that, publicbe damned, the CANSEC itemhad been timed to accommo-date Page’s schedule.

When Councillors fi-nally voted to welcome armsshows onto Ottawa facilities,only a dozen diehard peaceactivists remained in the visi-tors’ gallery. When a few heldup banners, one reading:“Weapons Fair: Not in ourname. Not with out money,”Council was not amused.Three plainclothes City-paid“security” personnel werecalled into action. These same“bouncers” had, earlier thatday, painfully assaulted andforcibly removed an Ottawa-Vanier NDP activist who hadthe audacity to hand out me-dia releases inside the City’s

hallowed chamber. They also hustledaside a dozen activists singing a peacesong (“Last Night I had the StrangestDream”) in the foyer outside the Coun-cil Chamber. When the “Weapons Fair”banner was unfurled, these same Cityemployees grabbed it and laid handson one of the activists. When this as-sault failed to intimidate the activists,the City’s strong arms phoned the po-lice. However, by the time “the law”arrived, the vote was over and most ofthe activists had already left.

CANSEC will be back June 2-3, 20CANSEC will be back June 2-3, 20CANSEC will be back June 2-3, 20CANSEC will be back June 2-3, 20CANSEC will be back June 2-3, 20111110,0,0,0,0,but so will we!but so will we!but so will we!but so will we!but so will we!


OttOttOttOttOttaaaaawwwwwa Pa Pa Pa Pa Police Folice Folice Folice Folice ForororororcececececeThe Ottawa police are another publicly-funded institution that has kindlychipped in to assist the CANSEC cause.As Ottawa Police Chief, Vern White,has noted

“Within the terms agreed to with theCity, the security precautions under-taken by the [CANSEC 2008] con-ference organizer were very limited.The costs of the Police deploymentwere in the range of $30,000, the ma-jority of it for officer overtime.”17

This indicates that CANSECorganizers had established an agree-ment with the City that the publicly-funded police force would bear thebrunt of security costs at its privateevent. This is ironic in several ways.

Besides being a forum for wartechnologies, CANSEC is also toutedas Canada’s primary showcase for “se-curity” and “public safety” equipment.Despite this, the private CANSEC showrequired municipal funding to ensurethe security and safety of its partici-pants from the very public it was sup-posed to be protecting.

Although it is not unusual forOttawa’s police to cover such expenses,the extent of security costs deemednecessary for protecting CANSEC wasrelatively high. Ottawa Police Servicesestimated that $880,000 is spent annu-ally to police “185 events unique to be-ing associated as the nation’s Capi-tal.”18 While this works out to an aver-age of $4,750 per event, the cost of po-licing CANSEC 2008 was more than sixtimes that amount. Another indicationof the relatively high costs of policingCANSEC, is that in discussing the“Overtime Related to Special Events inthe City of Ottawa,” an Ottawa PoliceServices report for 2008 mentions onlyone “example of the impact that theseevents have on the Police budget.”19

That one example was CANSEC.Among other things, Police Ser-

vices noted that“Weapons and munitions are exhib-ited, as part of the CANSEC and pro-test and special interest groups areoften on-site.... Officers were de-ployed to ensure the safety of theconference delegates, the protesters,interest groups, and the public.” 20

Notably, the first and foremostgroup of people that the police are in-

terested in protecting are the so-called“conference delegates,” even thoughthey were the only ones in possessionof “weapons and munitions.”

In 2009, police again protectedthe “rights” of war industries to goabout the business of selling their“weapons and munitions.” To “ensurethe safety of the conference delegates,”police employed a variety of tactics. Forinstance, police picked up their bi-cycles and used them as battering ramsto shove activists off the street whentheir peaceful protest blocked a bus car-rying delegates to the weapons show.Another more traditional police methodof “crowd control” was then usedagainst this People’s Global Action pro-test. At least seven activists sufferedthe intensely painful effects of beinghit in the eyes with pepper spray andrequired immediate medical assistance.

Another example of a doublestandard that anti-war activists mustdeal with is that while police use publicfunds to protect arms merchants whogather to conduct their business, mem-bers of the public who want to cometogether to oppose such war profiteer-ing at tax-funded facilities in their com-munity are supposed to obtain policepermits allowing them to express theirconstitutionally-protected rights tofreedom of expression and assembly.

But this was by no means thefull extent of police involvement in try-ing to shield CANSEC from public op-position. In the spring of 2009, policeofficers actually initiated a meeting with

an official representative of a main-stream Ottawa religious organizationwho was just then becoming involvedin the broadly based peace movementcampaign against CANSEC. Police in-stigated this private meeting in orderto urge this key Ottawa citizen to with-draw support from efforts to expose andoppose the CANSEC war show.

Although the police are theo-retically supposed to protect the pub-lic and their democratic rights, this in-cident is a clear example of police inter-ference with such rights.

Meanwhile in many countriesaround the world, there are military, po-lice and other so-called “security”forces that infringe upon people’sdemocratic rights in far more brutalways. During the anti-CANSEC cam-paign, COAT drew attention to theseabuses of power by publishing a seriesof detailed reports. COAT’s researchdocuments the fact that dozens ofCANSEC exhibitors are deeply engagedin the business of supplying essentialparts and services for many major USweapons systems used, for example, inthe Iraq War. In this way, CANSECcompanies aid and abet the commissionof crimes against peace and crimesagainst humanity. This information washowever of no apparent interest to Ot-tawa police. They were instead con-cerned with protecting the supposedcorporate rights of Canadian compa-nies engaged in the international armstrade and in thwarting public opposi-tion to the crimes associated with war.

R NichollsR NichollsR NichollsR NichollsR Nichollssells pepper spray, teargas, gas guns, pistols,

machine guns, sniper riflesand grenade launchers.

Colt CanadaColt CanadaColt CanadaColt CanadaColt Canadamakes automatic and semi-automatic weapons used inthe Iraq and Afghan wars,

and by various police forces.

TTTTTwwwwwo oo oo oo oo of the manf the manf the manf the manf the many CANSEC 2009 ey CANSEC 2009 ey CANSEC 2009 ey CANSEC 2009 ey CANSEC 2009 exhibitxhibitxhibitxhibitxhibitorororororsssssexporting weapons to police around the worldexporting weapons to police around the worldexporting weapons to police around the worldexporting weapons to police around the worldexporting weapons to police around the world


Canadian AssociationCanadian AssociationCanadian AssociationCanadian AssociationCanadian Associationof Defence & Securityof Defence & Securityof Defence & Securityof Defence & Securityof Defence & SecurityIndustries (CADSI)Industries (CADSI)Industries (CADSI)Industries (CADSI)Industries (CADSI)The CANSEC bazaar is a creature ofCADSI, the business group that frontsfor 800 of Canada’s largest and mostprofitable military industries. Among itsmembers are all of Canada’s “Top 40”war manufacturers—as ranked by Ca-nadian Defence Review magazine.About 85% of these “Top 40” firmswere exhibitors at CANSEC. (See p. 25.)

COAT research has identified100 Canadian firms exporting parts/services for weapons used in the IraqWar. About 80 of these firms are cur-rent or former members of CADSI, while45 of them exhibited at CANSEC 2008and/or 2009. (See pp.36-38.)

CANSEC appears tobe the chief fundraising en-terprise of CADSI, whichrents 500 10’x10’ boothspaces for $3,250 each. Italso charges entrance fees,sells event sponsor-ships,and ads in the CANSEC“show guide,” as well asoverpriced food and alcohol.

CADSI describes it-self as a “not-for-profit busi-ness association”21 and “theprimary advocate”22 forCanada’s military and secu-rity industries. It sees its roleas advancing “the interestsof industry to governments,politicians, the media, spe-cial interest groups, opinionleaders, and the public.”23 Invarious self-promotional ma-terials, CADSI calls itself“the voice” of Canada’s mili-tary industries.24

CADSI says that it“has its roots in the creation of theCanadian chapter of the AmericanDefense Preparedness Association(ADPA) on November 30, 1983. Theorganisation’s founding missionwas to be patriotic, educational, sci-entific, and non-political.”25

CADSI members, like Canadianmilitary companies in general, exportmost of what they produce.26 There-fore, to do their job properly as “thevoice” for this sector, CADSI helps Ca-

nadian industries to market their prod-ucts abroad. According to Tim Page’stestimony at the June 2 “CorporateServices” Committee, the US accountsfor 80% of Canada’s military exports.Page also admitted that foreign embas-sies—“mostly NATO”—sent del-egates to CANSEC. Organizing eventsto push Canadian military exports isone of CADSI’s main services. As such,it sponsors seminars and conferencesin collaboration with counterparts in theUS, Britain, Israel and elsewhere.27

CADSI also publishes reportsthat provide tips for military and “se-curity” businesses on exporting to theUS. One such CADSI report acknowl-edges the “Department of Foreign Af-fairs and International Trade (DFAIT)for support of CADSI’s initiatives

through the Programme for Export Mar-ket Development (PEMD).” It alsothanked Bruce Fox of Chateau Market-ing, for organizing a CADSI conferenceon this subject in January 2008.28

Fox is now working on a CADSI“Trade Mission” scheduled for Janu-ary 8 to 15, 2010. The “Mission Profile”states that CADSI has

“received financial support from theDepartment of Foreign Affairs andInternational Trade to lead a trademission of Canadian Defence and

Dealingin Conflict

Security firms to Saudi Arabia andthe UAE.... [Y]ou will have the op-portunity to interact with Canadianembassy officials...and be intro-duced to Agents in the region whospecialize in Defence and Security.”29

In all such endeavours, CADSIworks hand in glove with the Canadiangovernment. Through the good officesof CADSI, DFAIT will subsidize 50%of the travel expenses of six Canadianmilitary and “security” industries forCADSI’s Middle East export junket.

It makes perfect sense thatCADSI’s tour focuses on Saudi Ara-bia. Although this kingdom is a world-renowned for aversion to democracyand its mediaeval-style human rightsabuses, it is a glowing prize in the eyesof Canada’s arms exporters. Between

2003 and 2005, it bought over $600million worth of Canadian militaryhardware. Almost $400 million of thiswas for armoured battle vehiclesfrom CADSI member and CANSECexhibitor—General Dynamics LandSystems Canada. This made SaudiArabia second only to the US in itspurchases of Canadian weapons.30

COAT research shows thatdozens of CADSI members are alsoarming a main Saudi adversary,

namely Israel. See pp.26-28 forlists of these CADSI membersand their participation in theCANSEC war industry bazaar. While it is loud and clear that

“the voice” of Canada’s military in-dustries is CADSI, it is also undeni-able that “the voice” of CADSI is TimPage. This “son of a naval com-mander and grandson of an army gen-eral,”31 has been repeatedly listed inThe Hill Times as one of Canada’stop lobbyists.32 He is thus well-em-bedded within two money-spinning

growth industries: Lobbying and War.The former is conservatively thoughtto pull in $300 million a year, that’s a 10-fold increase over the past decade.33

This however is a paltry sum comparedto what Canada’s war industries rakein. As CADSI states, it represents in-dustries that “generate over $10 billionin annual sales, half of which is earnedin international markets.”34

Although the lobbying andarms export industries are regulated inCanada, it’s easy to argue that neither


As the “voice” of Canada’s war industries,CADSI has received generous federal

government grants to promote exports.However, in its registration to the

Commissioner of Lobbying, CADSI statedthat it received no government funding.

are controlled nearly enough. CADSI,with Page at the helm as president, isan excellent case in point. Canadianlaws now require that all lobbyists mustregister with the Office of the Commis-sioner of Lobbying. In accordance withthis law, Page has been on the booksfor more than a dozen years.35

CADSI most recently updatedits record with the Lobbying Commis-sion in June 2009. The data it suppliedis online in the Registry of Lobbyists.There we see that CADSI responded“No” when asked if it was “funded inwhole or in part by any domestic or for-eign government institution in the lastcompleted financial year.”36

However, the truth is thatCADSI received at least $191,554 inhandouts from Canada’s Department of

Foreign Affairs and International Trade(DFAIT) between 2006 and 2008. Thisbountiful munificence, doled out underDFAIT’s Programme for Export MarketDevelopment (PEMD) was explicitlygiven to CADSI to assist its “interna-tional business development activi-ties.”37 In other words, the governmentwanted to encourage and rewardCADSI for promoting Canada’s sizablecontribution to the international armstrade. Most recently, in 2008, DFAITcut CADSI what can be called a corpo-rate welfare cheque. This giveaway,totalling $97,907, was described byDFAIT as a “multi-year agreement.”38

So, CADSI did receive fundingfrom a “domestic ... government insti-tution in the last completed financialyear.” It should therefore have revealed

that fact when filing to renew its appli-cation with the Lobbying Commission.In other words, CADSI fibbed.

The law clearly states that if alobbyist’s employer “is funded in wholeor in part by a government or govern-ment agency,” then it must disclose “thename of the government or agency...and the amount of funding received.”39

CADSI did neither.It seems counterintuitive, in-

deed even unethical, that lobbyistsshould receive even a dime in fundingfrom the very government agencies thatthey are being paid by corporations toinfluence. But there it is. The law is thelaw. In theory, those who give profes-sional voice to corporate interests, andwho lobby within the corridors ofpower for legislation and policies to

Canada’s Department of ForeignAffairs and International Trade(DFAIT) generously supports

the lobby group representing hun-dreds of war industries. This organiza-tion, the Canadian Association of De-fence and Security Industries (CADSI),also organizes Canada’s largest militarytrade show in Ottawa. Government do-nations to CADSI have totalled at least$191,554 between 2006 and 2008. These

grants were targeted to expand Cana-da’s role in the global arms trade.

However, when CADSI updatedits registration with Canada’s Commis-sioner of Lobbying, it said that it hadnot received any funds from the Cana-dian government during the previousyear. This was not true. CADSI wasbeing economical with the truth. In2008, CADSI received almost $100,000for what DFAIT described as a“multiyear” grant. (For more on this le-gal and moral transgression, see thearticle above.)

This government support to

CADSI to promote Canada’s military ex-ports is evidenced in an online DFAITsource called “Disclosure of Grant andContribution Awards Over $25,000: In-ternational Trade.” This database docu-ments the fact that CADSI receivedthree grants from DFAIT between 2006and the 2008. (Note: DFAIT only dis-closes its handouts to business asso-ciations if the value of donations is morethan $25,000. If individual contributions

under that amount werealso given to CADSI,they remain unreported.)

DFAIT grants toCADSI are part of the“Program for Export Mar-keting Development forAssociations.” Its ex-press purpose is to pub-

licly finance “generic international busi-ness development activities.”

Many Canadians would likelyoppose federal government donationsof tax dollars to a military-industry frontgroup especially for efforts to promoteCanada’s arms exports. Besides its lob-bying efforts, CADSI’s main work is toorganise the CANSEC arms bazaar, abristling military trade exhibition hostedon City of Ottawa property in May 2009that will return again in June 2010.

CADSI employs registered lob-byists who meet with top bureaucratsand politicians, including Canadian

Foreign Affairs and International Trade CanadaGenerously Funds CADSI to Push Canada’s Military Exports

cabinet ministers. CADSI lobbying isnot done to benefit the public but toserve the bottom line of its corporatemembers. It is clearly inappropriate forDFAIT to fund this private front groupthat lobbies the government on behalfof Canada’s highly profitable war in-dustries. It is also inappropriate, andillegal, for CADSI not to report theseDFAIT grants to Canada’s LobbyingCommissioner.

DFAIT Grants to CADSIYear Amount of Grant2006 $47,1381

2007 $46,5092

2008 $97,9073

Total $191,554References1. Disclosure of Grant and Contribution

Awards Over $25,000: InternationalTrade, March 24, 2006.w01.international.gc.ca/dg-do/index_it-ci.aspx?lang=eng&p=4&r=8&c=320

2. Disclosure of Grant and ContributionAwards Over $25,000: InternationalTrade, May 15, 2007.w01.international.gc.ca/dg-do/index_it-ci.aspx?lang=eng&p=4&r=13&c=802

3. Disclosure of Grant and ContributionAwards Over $25,000: InternationalTrade, April 24, 2008.w01.international.gc.ca/dg-do/index_it-ci.aspx?lang=eng&p=4&r=17&c=1575


boost their corporate profits, are sup-posed to at least admit publicly whenthey are in financial bed with govern-ment entities that they are pressuring.However, in the case of CADSI, the lawwas flaunted and the evidence isonline. (See article on previous page.)

The Lobbying Act is supposedto have teeth, at least hypothetically.The law states that any lobbyist whofiles a report to the Commission and“knowingly makes any false or mislead-ing statement...is guilty of an offenceand liable” to a fine of between $50,000and $200,000, and/or a prison term ofbetween six months and two years.40

But the idea that Mr. Page, orany such front man for Canada’s bus-tling military-industrial complex, mightbe jailed or even fined for not reporting$100,000 in government donationsseems a laughably-remote possibility.

Besides Tim Page, CADSI alsoemploys another professional lobbyist,namely Janet Thorsteinson. She is their“Vice President of Government Rela-tions.” Unlike Page, she is a newcomerto the world of lobbying, having onlyrecently retired from a 30-year career inthe federal government, “including 16years at the executive level.”41

In recent postings she was re-sponsible for awarding governmentcontracts to industries, including thoseproviding military hardware. One of herstints was as Acting Assistant DeputyMinister (Acquisitions) with Public

Works and Government Services, be-tween Nov. 2004 and Nov. 2005.42

Since July 2008, when the newLobbying Act became law, senior pub-lic officials (referred to as DPOH - Des-ignated Public Office Holders) have notbeen permitted to lobby the governmentfor five years after they leave theirposts. This prohibition includes As-sistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs). Al-though Ms. Thorsteinson was only an“Acting ADM,” her position should becovered by DPOH Regulations becauseshe held this “temporary” position forthree times longer than the allowablefour months. However, Ms. Thorstein-son isn’t subject to this regulation be-cause only acting appointments that be-gan on or after May 4, 2009, are cov-ered by the Act.43

This is but one example of theLobbying Act’s weakness in control-ling corporate interests that wish tocash in by hiring former governmentofficials. The Act has not preventedCADSI’s Thorsteinson from pushingback through the revolving door intothe government halls of power whereshe once worked. Once back inside, sheworks to encourage her former col-leagues to institute policy decisionsthat will increase corporate profits forher new masters in industry.

Adding insult to injury, lobby-ists like Page and Thorsteinson canwrite off their business expenses. Inthis way, “taxpayers actually subsidize

this distortion of the democratic proc-ess, to the tune of an estimated over$100 million a year.”44

CADSI’s high-flying ventures infacilitating and promoting arms ped-dling, make for an interesting foil to thehard-slogging volunteer efforts ofpeace activists. The two worlds couldnot be farther apart.

An example of this gulf betweenthe two realms can be seen in thesphere of communications. In the peacemovement, the work of communica-tions is taken on by ordinary peoplewho are thrown together thanks to theirshared concerns about some injustice.CADSI on the other hand, has a Com-munications Committee chaired by anexecutive from Hill and KnowltonCanada (H&KC).45 This huge PR com-pany, one of CADSI’s 800 corporatemembers, is “the nation’s leading stra-tegic communications consultancy”and is connected to “the world’s fore-most communications company.”46

Its US parent has been an in-veterate flak catcher for many of theworld’s worst corporate fraudsters, pol-luters, dictators, torturers, warmongersand other global pariahs.47 H&K is in-famous for concocting the fabricated“incubator-baby” story that was a usedas a pretext to manufacture widespreadpublic support for the genocidal USbombardment of Iraq in 1991.48

Retired Canadian Brigadier Gen-eral Gordon O’Connor was a Senior As-sociate at H&KC between 1996 and2004.49 While there, he lobbied formany weapons industries before mak-ing becoming the Conservative Party’sfirst Minister of Defence in 2006.

In opposing CANSEC, not onlywere we up against an influential, gov-ernment-funded association represent-ing many of Canada’s top multi-billiondollar war industries, we were also con-tending with professional corporatepropagandists and leading lobbyists.

In imagining the work of CADSIlobbyists, peace advocates shouldtherefore be under no illusion that thereis an adversarial relationship betweenthe denizens of military-industry andtheir friends in government. On thecontrary, the working relationship be-tween these two old-boys’ clubs is soclose that we could say, they are bothturning from the same page.

PPPPPeter MacKeter MacKeter MacKeter MacKeter MacKaaaaayyyyyCanada’s Minister of Defenceattended the CANSEC 2009arms bazaar in Ottawa andmet with its organizers.Addressing Canada’s top warindustry representatives,MacKay declared from theCANSEC podium that despitethe global economic melt-down, his government wouldguarantee the transfer of $60billion in taxes to militarycompanies. He also told thedelighted crowd at CANSECthat Canada’s annual warbudget of $19 billion wouldincrease by more than 50%to $30 billion by 2027.


FFFFFederederederederederal Goal Goal Goal Goal GovvvvvernmenternmenternmenternmenternmentData filed by CADSI with the Lobby-ing Commission states that on May 27and 28, 2009—while peace activistswere locked outside Ottawa’s prime,publicly-funded city facility—CADSIlobbyists were behind closed doorsrubbing shoulder pads with two ofCanada’s top Cabinet Ministers andseveral of their closest friends in thebureaucracy. During the two-dayCANSEC war fest, CADSI had meet-ings with these power brokers:• Tony Clement, Minister of Industry• William King, Chief of Staff to the

Minister of Industry• Ron Parker, Assistant Deputy Min-

ister of Industry• Peter Mackay, Minister of National

Defence• Dan Ross, Assistant Deputy Minis-

ter (Materiel), Department of Na-tional Defence (DND)

• John Macdonnel, Chief of Staff, Min-ister of National Defence

• Drew Robertson, Chief of the Mari-time Staff, DND

• John Adams, Chief, CommunicationsSecurity Establishment, DND

• Brian Macdonald, Senior Policy Ad-visor, Minister of National Defence

• Senator Hugh Segal• Marie-Lucie Morin, National Secu-rity Advisor, Privy Council office.50

Over the previous months,CADSI had also had dozens of privatemeetings with other top government of-ficials.51 Perhaps it was, in part, due toall this persuasive CADSI smooth-talk-ing that our so-called “Defence” Min-ister, Peter MacKay, announced fromthe security of the CANSEC 2009 po-dium that—despite the global economicmeltdown—the Canadian governmentwould guarantee a transfer of $60 bil-lion in taxes to this country’s militaryindustries. Minister MacKay also toldCANSEC’s delighted military-industrialcrowd that Canada’s current war budgetof $19 billion would be increased bymore than 50% to $30 billion by 2027.52

Although DND, DFAIT and In-dustry Canada are the main governmentdepartments tied to the CANSEC warexhibition, they are only the tip of theiceberg. As we are told by a CANSEC2009 promotional puff, “Over 70 gov-ernment departments and agencies areexpected to attend CANSEC.”53

Free Lunch, Anyone?Free Lunch, Anyone?Free Lunch, Anyone?Free Lunch, Anyone?Free Lunch, Anyone?On March 13, 2009, a DND memoran-dum promoted CANSEC and encour-aged military personnel and DND staffto attend.

54 This government memo was

signed by none other than Canada’sChief of Defence Staff, Walt Natynczyk,one of three Canadian generals whocommanded tens of thousands oftroops in the current Iraq war.55 Butmore than just pushing a private event,this memo gave CANSEC attendees ablanket exemption from military conflict-of-interest rules on the “Acceptance ofGifts, Hospitality and other Benefits.”56

Natynczyk’s letter said that allDND staff and Canadian Forces per-sonnel were permitted to

“visit CANSEC 2009 without priorapproval and may accept CANSEC2009 and its members’ invitation toattend the breakfasts, network lunch-eons, and evening reception that arepart of the CANSEC programme.”57

He went on to state that “Al-though the costs of these events...mayexceed minimal value as outlined” inconflict-of-interest rules, “any CF mem-ber and DND employee invited to at-tend any of these events is herebyauthorised to do so.”58

The events in question wereCANSEC’s free meals: two breakfastsat $40 each, two lunches at $70 each,and an $85 dinner. In total, the poten-tial windfall totalled $305 per person.

(That’s $326.35 with GST.)The military industries exhibit-

ing at CANSEC were apparently morethan happy to pick up the additionaltabs for DND staff and CF personnelwho attended these extravagant meals.According to an insider who attendedCANSEC and took part in the feedingfrenzy, there were between 800 and 1000people at these over-priced feasts.

Peace activists can only imag-ine how many additional people mightbe attracted to anti-war events if weoffered such culinary incentives.

Bending the conflict-of-interestrules by allowing military contractorsto pick up the tab for the meals of mili-tary personnel attending CANSEC wascertainly yielded a financial windfall forCADSI. However, when compared toCanada’s overall military spending,such corporate giveaways are nothingmore than mere chicken feed.

Pigs at the TPigs at the TPigs at the TPigs at the TPigs at the TrrrrroughoughoughoughoughThe real feeding troughs are to befound in various government programsthat transfer billions of dollars in pub-lic funds to private military enterprises.Industry Canada’s “Strategic Aero-space and Defence Initiative” (SADI)is a case in point. One of SADI’s maingoals, it reveals, is to make Canada “at-tractive to top scientific and engineer-ing talent in cutting-edge A&D [Aero-space and Defence] industries.”59

A memo from Chief of Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk,urged military personnel to attend CANSEC. His memo gave ablanket exemption from Canada’s conflict-of-interest rules onthe “Acceptance of Gifts, Hospitality and other Benefits.”


This “cutting-edge” metaphor isnot only well-honed and well-used, itis quite apt. Canada’s highly subsidisedmilitary technologies have very sharpapplications indeed. They are all-too-often found at the extreme business endof Canada’s most pointed contributionsto major US weapons systems.

Over the past year and a half,the SADI program has “invested” $415million in nine Canadian companies.60

While only three of these exhibited atCANSEC 2009, this trio received the li-on’s share of all the SADI funding, get-ting 80% ($346 million) of the totalamount it disbursed. Let’s take a peekat these CADSI triplets and their recentsuccesses in suckling at the SADI teatof government largesse.

ThrThrThrThrThree Wee Wee Wee Wee War Industriesar Industriesar Industriesar Industriesar Industries

Bristol Aerospace:Bristol, whose parent companyMagellan Aerospace exhibits at theCANSEC war show, is famous the worldover for its government-subsidizedCRV-7 air-launched missile system.(CRV stands for Canadian Rocket Vehi-cle.) This unguided Canadian missilecarries a variety of warheads—includ-ing those loaded with antipersonnelcluster munitions, fragmentationbombs, dart-like flechette projectilesand high explosives mixed with a chemi-cal called white phosphorus.61 The lat-ter is inextinguishable by water and canburn right through the flesh to bone.

In September 2008, Conserva-tive MP Vic Toews announced that a

federal “investment” of$43.4 million in Bristolwould put Manitoba onthe “cutting edge of re-search, innovation, education and skillstraining.”62 (Emphasis added.)

His speech, on behalf of then-Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice, cutto the chase when explaining that themoney would help “sustain Canada’sparticipation in the multinational JointStrike Fighter (JSF) program.”63 TheJSF, is a major US-led effort to build theworld’s most advanced airborne weap-ons system, the F-35 “Lightning II.” Itis also one of history’s biggest cashcows, or, as Toews puts it:

“The government’s commitment tothis program provides the Canadianaerospace industry with access tothe largest international defence

contract ever awarded.”64

As summarised by IndustryCanada, the $300-billion65 JSF is

“A multinational acquisition pro-gram for the United States Air Force,Navy, Marine Corps, and eight co-operative international partners (in-cluding Canada). The stealth, super-sonic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is ex-pected to replace a wide range of ag-ing fighters and strike aircraft.”66

From the beginning, IndustryCanada has led the charge to partici-pate in building these warplanes by

“providing R&D funding to Cana-dian aerospace firms on favourableterms to assist them in securing workon the systems development and de-

monstration phase of the program.”67

The Canadian government isexpected to channel over $500 millionin the JSF project over the next fourdecades. In return, military advocatesare hoping to receive “$8 billion in op-portunities for Canadian industry.”68

Bristol’s part in the productionof this futuristic weapons system wasdescribed by Toews as “focused onadvanced composite technologies re-quired” for the JSF.69

CADSI’s website says Bristol“is positioned to move into the pro-duction phases of the [JSF] programin the following areas: machining ofwing, airframe and landing gearstructural items; production of ma-jor composite structural items; pro-duction of complex frames and as-semblies for the engines; and ma-chining, fabrication and assembly ofkey portions of the LiftFan™ for theSTOVL variant.”70

Toews’ glowing pronounce-ments project that the government’s in-vestment in Bristol will:• “push the boundaries of manufac-

turing precision and tolerances”• “have a positive impact on the Win-

nipeg region and Canada as awhole”

• “help strengthen Winnipeg’s posi-tion as a composite centre of excel-lence.”71

But the bottom line used in publiclypromoting this disbursement of $43+million in cash is simply jobs; lots ofsupposedly great high-paying jobs.Toews bragged that

“The jobs that will be generatedthrough this project will be high-technology, knowledge-based posi-tions. As one of Winnipeg’s largestindustrial employers, Bristol’s highlytrained workforce will benefit frombeing at the leading edge of com-posite expertise.”72

Exactly how many jobs, Toewsdidn’t actually mention, but sevenmonths later, we got an answer. In June2009, the Winnipeg Free Press wasglowing with excitement because Bris-tol had just received an additional $20million from Manitoba’s NDP govern-

Industry Canada recently “invested” $415 millionin nine Canadian aerospace/“defence” exporters.Of these, three exhibited at CANSEC 2009. This trio—Bristol, CMC and CAE—got 80% of the handouts.


Military 8,555 --HomeConstruction 12,804 +49.7%(Weatherization& Infrastructure)

Health Care 12,883 +50.2%Education 17,687 +106.7%

ment to assist with its JSF contract. Thearticle quotes Bristol’s vice-presidentas saying there “are now about 15 to 20Bristol people working on the JSF.”73

With such a measly number ofactual jobs in place, Bristol’s JSF projectseems a far cry from the “cutting edge”foray into employment creation prom-ised by the government’s overly-opti-mistic pronouncements. The reality atBristol, leads one to a healthy skepti-cism that pretending to pull jobs out ofa high-tech hat is just a pretext for cor-porate hand outs. If the governmentreally wanted to help people by creat-ing jobs, wouldn’t it invest in socially-useful, labour-intensive sectors?

Over the decades, many stud-ies have demonstrated that militaryspending is actually one of the worstmethods ever devised for putting peo-

ple to work. For instance, research pub-lished by the Institute for Policy Stud-ies in 2007 shows that while shovelling$1 billion into high-tech military indus-tries can create 8,555 jobs, this paleswhen compared to investing the sameamount in socially-useful, but less capi-tal-intensive sectors. For example, $1billion creates 50% more jobs in homeconstruction and health care; morethan twice as many jobs in educationand 2.3 times as many jobs in mass tran-sit.74 It is equally important to note thatinvesting in these other sectors wouldalso provide socially-useful benefits tothe public, who are after-all providingthe cash. (See the table above.)

So, if “investing” in Bristol andother arms industries isn’t really doneto create jobs, what is driving the gov-ernment’s obsessive support for war

technologies? The answer is clear. Thisis about the Canadian government’sfirm determination to wage future wars.

In a few years, the Canadiangovernment—no matter which partyholds power—will want to retire its CF-18 fighter planes and replace them with“cutting-edge,” state-of-the-art F-35s.As the Winnipeg Free Press tells us,“the Canadian Forces are consideringacquiring up to 80 of the $100-millionjets.”75 (This is separate from its $500million “investment” in the project.)

Buying dozens of F-35s will cer-tainly reward the military industries in-volved. These companies however arenot the only beneficiaries of war pro-duction. Other Canadian enterprises—engaged for instance in foreign re-source extraction or importing productsmade by poorly-paid factory workers—can also expect their profits to be en-hanced when “business-friendly” for-eign regimes are emplaced or proppedup by US-led wars. Investing in thebaneful technology of military “airpower” may therefore be seen by Cana-da’s government as an effective way tomultiply profits in many industries.

CMC Electronics:CMC Electronics:CMC Electronics:CMC Electronics:CMC Electronics:This CANSEC 2009 exhibitor76 is “awholly owned subsidiary of Ester-line,”77 a US aerospace company thatderives about 40 percent of its busi-ness from military production.78

On January 13, 2009, the Cana-dian government announced a $52.3million “investment” in CMC. This gen-erous support for one of Canada’s big-gest money-making war industries wasproudly unveiled by Industry MinisterTony Clement, and Minister of PublicWorks and Government Services, Chris-tian Paradis. In their announcementsupporting CMC’s “innovative cock-pit technologies,” Clement conjured upthe standard images by intoning that

“In addition to encouraging Cana-dian companies to perform cutting-edge R&D, the Strategic Aerospace

and Defence Initiative (SADI) at-tracts foreign investment to Canada,advances innovation and helps de-velop a highly skilled workforce.”79

(Emphasis added.)Although this announcement

may sound great on the surface, thereis much hidden behind the veil of thisdeclaration. CMC was once largelyowned by Canadian billionaire GerrySchwartz, who was Prime Minister PaulMartin’s top fundraiser80 and a leadinglight in Canada’s pro-Israel lobby.81

This is significant because CMC sup-plies technology for many of theworld’s most lethal war machines, in-cluding several brands of US warplanesused by Israel. The most notorious ofthe Israeli weapons systems benefitingfrom CMC technology are the AH-64“Apache” helicopter gunships82 andthe F-1583 and F-1684 fighter/bombers.

At the time of the CMC an-nouncement, Israel was in the middleof a major military offensive that mas-sacred hundreds of innocent people inGaza using these very US weapons. ButCanada’s role in easing the flow of es-sential war technology for use in the

aerial bombardment ofdensely-populated ci-vilian neighbourhoodswas not one of thegovernment’s talkingpoints on January 13.It never is.

On the day be-fore our government’s

kind declaration of monetary supportfor CMC war technology, Canadiandiplomats stood defiantly alone at theUN’s Human Rights Commission inGeneva to vote against a motion call-ing for “urgent international action” tohalt Israel’s “massive violations” ofhuman rights.85

On the next day, when two Ca-nadian Cabinet Ministers stood shoul-der to shoulder smiling with CMC’spresident and announced their be-nevolent investment in CMC, the Is-raeli armed forces were killing dozensof innocent people in Gaza, includingat least 11 children and three women.86

(For more on Canada’s military exportsto Israel, see pp.26-29.)

But, of course, Clement andParadise made no mention of Israel orGaza in their statements. The words

Jobs Created by$1 Billion in Spending

# of JobsRelative

to MilitarySpending

JobsCreated

Sectors


“weapon,” “war,” “death” and “de-struction” were similarly absent fromtheir discourse. Instead, Canadianswere treated to such whitewash as:

“Creating public-private sector part-nerships with companies such asCMC will help to ensure that Canadaremains at the forefront of the aero-space and defence industry.”87

The stated goal of this particu-lar “defence” project is to create “openarchitecture” making “components ofthe cockpit easily customizable andadaptable to both changing technolo-gies and varied aircraft platforms.”88

The “varied aircraft platforms”that CMC has already supplied includemany “cutting-edge” US weapons. Be-sides the three already mentioned war-planes used by Israel in the bombingof Gaza, CMC has also equipped at leasttwo dozen other types of US militaryaircraft.89 (See p.36.) Each of these havebeen employed by the US in the IraqWar, in which over 1.3 million peoplehave been killed since 2003.90 But thatis another story Canadian cabinet min-isters are loath to mention in relation topublic “investments” in “cutting-edge”“defence” industries likeCanada’s CMC.

CAE:CAE:CAE:CAE:CAE:CAE was a major exhibitor at CANSEC2009. It was also one of this militarytrade event’s seven “Show Spon-sors.”91 CAE occupied the space of sixbooths in a strategic location oppositethe main registration area just inside thefront entrance to Lansdowne Park’swell-known Aberdeen Pavilion. (Thishistoric fair building, built in 1898 andaffectionately known to locals as the“Cattle Castle,” is the “last remainingCanadian example of a popular 19thcentury exhibition-hall style” edifice.92

During CADSI’s recent war industry ex-travaganza, this building was coldlyrechristened “General DynamicsHall”93 in honour of one of the world’s“Big Four” weapons manufacturers.)

CAE is also represented onCADSI’s 15-member board of directors.These so-called “senior leaders from abroad spectrum of defence and secu-

rity interests...set the strategic direc-tion” of CADSI.94 The CAE’s point manon CADSI’s board is Marc Parent, thecompany’s executive vice president andchief operating officer.95

CAE is the only Canadian cor-poration on the Stockholm InternationalPeace Research Institute’s list of theworld’s 100 largest war industries.96

This Montreal-based firm has reversedthe usual pattern of North Americanmilitary industries; it is Canadian-owned with branch plants in the US.

CAE’s main products include“innovative modelling and simulation

technologies”97 for dozens of kinds ofwarplanes and military helicopters.

The company’s 2009 disclosurestatement to Canada’s Commissioner ofLobbying frankly notes that “Ninetyper cent of CAE’s C$1.4 billion annualrevenues are derived from worldwideexports” and that it is

“a global leader in the design of so-phisticated military training systemsfor air, land and sea applications,having supplied the defence forcesof more than 30 nations with militarytraining systems and services.”98

Among CAE’s most infamoussystems are high-tech flight simulatorsof which it “has long been the world’sleading supplier.”99 These devices,used by pilots, weapons specialists andother air crew, are part of what CAE callsits strategy for “Staying at the CuttingEdge.” 100 Flight simulators have a two-

edged function. They are designed“specifically for military training andmission rehearsal requirements.”101

So, not only are CAE’s simula-tors used for training purposes, air crewalso use them to rehearse their militarymissions. These trial runs, of course,include practising the deployment ofall manner of weapons during bombingsorties. As such, these sophisticatedCanadian simulation technologies mustalso be recognised as fulfilling a vitallyimportant psychological role. Theyhelp to prepare the minds of warfight-ers who must eventually use many of

the world’s deadliest weapons systemsin devastatingly destructive attacks.

CAE is handsomely rewardedby the Canadian government for itsimportant work in readying dozens ofthe world’s military forces for warfare.For instance, during fiscal year 2008,CAE reported received $11.3 millionfrom Revenue Canada and $52.2 millionfrom the Department of Industry’s Tech-nology Partnership Canada program.102

In its record with the Commissioner ofLobbying, CAE also noted that it ex-pected to get more government fund-ing in 2009. It was, of course, correct.

On March 31, 2009, the Cana-dian government revealed a massive“investment” of $250 million in Cana-da’s top military enterprise, CAE. Thisquarter billion in tax dollars—ostenta-tiously publicized on March 31 by In-dustry Minister Clement—was in aid

CEO RCEO RCEO RCEO RCEO Robert Brobert Brobert Brobert Brobert Brooooown (left) with wn (left) with wn (left) with wn (left) with wn (left) with Cabinet MinisterCabinet MinisterCabinet MinisterCabinet MinisterCabinet Ministers Clement (centrs Clement (centrs Clement (centrs Clement (centrs Clement (centre)e)e)e)e)and Pand Pand Pand Pand Parararararadisadisadisadisadis, t, t, t, t, tour CAE’our CAE’our CAE’our CAE’our CAE’s Montrs Montrs Montrs Montrs Montreal plant teal plant teal plant teal plant teal plant to announce the goo announce the goo announce the goo announce the goo announce the govvvvvern-ern-ern-ern-ern-ment’s $250 million ‘investment’ in one of the world’s most profit-ment’s $250 million ‘investment’ in one of the world’s most profit-ment’s $250 million ‘investment’ in one of the world’s most profit-ment’s $250 million ‘investment’ in one of the world’s most profit-ment’s $250 million ‘investment’ in one of the world’s most profit-able war industries. This handout, they said, would “strengthenable war industries. This handout, they said, would “strengthenable war industries. This handout, they said, would “strengthenable war industries. This handout, they said, would “strengthenable war industries. This handout, they said, would “strengthenCanada’Canada’Canada’Canada’Canada’s ws ws ws ws workforkforkforkforkforororororcecececece.” .” .” .” .” Six wSix wSix wSix wSix weekeekeekeekeeks laters laters laters laters later, CAE la, CAE la, CAE la, CAE la, CAE layyyyyed oed oed oed oed off 7ff 7ff 7ff 7ff 700 w00 w00 w00 w00 workorkorkorkorkererererers!s!s!s!s!

CanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaPPPPPensionensionensionensionension

PlanPlanPlanPlanPlanInvestmentsInvestmentsInvestmentsInvestmentsInvestments

in CAEin CAEin CAEin CAEin CAE(in millions)

2009 $242008 $522007 $682006 $462004 $31


of a CAE project called “Falcon,” anappropriately predatory name. Clementbrandished the project as a way to

“expand the company’s technologi-cal capabilities by allowing it to de-velop new simulation tools and prod-ucts for the civil aviation and defencemarkets.”103

Media announcements aboutthis huge cash transfer were accompa-nied by photographs of a positivelybeaming Clement. In one image, theMinister is seated within a CAE simu-lator shaking hands with CAE’s presi-dent, CEO and chief lobbyist, Robert

Brown. In another photo, accompaniedby Minister Paradis of Public Worksand Government Services, Clement isgrinning ear to ear as he waves to a fewapplauding employees at CAE’s Mon-treal facilities. (See opposite page.) Withthem once again is Brown, the CAEboss, who is a former military officerturned government bureaucrat who hasbeen responsible for CAE’s lobbyingefforts since 2005.104 (Brown reachedthe level of Assistant Deputy Ministerbetween 1982 and 1987.105)

The government’s PR effortspredictably assured taxpayers that oursix-figure “investment” would

“contribute to high-quality employ-ment opportunities, [and] strengthenCanada’s workforce with talentedscientists, engineers and research-ers.”106

However, only six weeks later, a

Reuters story revealed that CAE wasin fact slashing 700 employees from itstalented workforce.107 Most of theselaid off workers are in Montreal, at thevery site of Minister Clement’s joyfulgladhanding photo op.

One might imagine that thingsmust be awfully grim over at CAE for itto be cutting 10% of its workforce. Butthis isn’t the case. As Reuters reported,CAE’s “fourth-quarter earnings...wereC$51.3 million...up 9.1 percent fromC$47 million...a year earlier.” Neitherwere CAE’s revenues down. In fact,they had just risen 19.7 percent to $438.8

million. What’s more, this companyhappily “closed the quarter with a back-log of C$3.2 billion in orders, up fromC$2.9 billion a year earlier.”108 CAE mili-tary contracts totalled $1.1 billion in thequarter, while its civil aviation unitsigned contracts worth almost half abillion.109 CAE was doing so well that,despite labour cut backs, some mighthave seen this as a good news story.

But was everyone overjoyedthat our government had ploughed an-other $250 million into CAE? Certainlynot those 700 unemployed workers andtheir families, or the taxpayers who fi-nanced the whole “cutting edge” fi-asco. But, also—lest we forget—thereare the multitudes of poor at the receiv-ing end of all those sharp CAE-linkedweapons systems used in the war zonesof Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, etc. Surelytheir lives must count for something.

Some Lessons Learnedfrom an

Uneven Playing FieldAccording to official narratives per-petuated in plentiful government me-dia releases extolling the benefits of“cutting edge” war technologies, or bythe websites cranked out by the corpo-rate beneficiaries of this federal lar-gesse, or even by reviews from thecheerleaders for military industrial de-velopment that can be found through-out the daily tripe of mainstream media,the countless foreign civilians that arevictimised by war remain foreverunreckoned. They are nigh on unheard,invisible and presumed worthless.

This human toll of Canadian wartechnology is never tallied when gov-ernment, business or the press calcu-late the supposed value of pouring bil-lions of tax dollars into the coffers ofmilitary industries. So, because the in-nocent victims of Canadian-suppliedwars are silently swept under the rug,citizens who empathise with their plightfeel a moral and social responsibility tohelp make their voices heard. We poolour personal resources and try to pushour way against the mainstream current.Such was the case in the public effortto expose CANSEC 2009 and the elitistpolitics of war profiteering that it sym-bolises. In examining this effort, we cansee that there were numerous inequali-ties and imbalances inherent in thestruggle.

In one corner, fighting to pro-mote CANSEC and the arms trade, thereare the staff lobbyists and professionalPR experts from CADSI—the institu-tional embodiment of raw corporatemilitarism. Strengthened by ample pri-vate and public funding, this businessassociation represents the brute mus-cle of arms manufacturers. Backed bydues from 800 of Canada’s most suc-cessful war-related companies, andsubsidised by liberal disbursementsregularly doled out from the federalgovernment’s kitty, CADSI also re-ceived virtual in-kind donations fromthe City of Ottawa’s legal department,administrative staff and police force.

In the other corner, assortedvolunteers from diverse citizens’groups and religious organisations,came together to speak out on behalfof those countless innocent civilians

CAE is a globalCAE is a globalCAE is a globalCAE is a globalCAE is a globalleader in the designleader in the designleader in the designleader in the designleader in the design

of sophisticatedof sophisticatedof sophisticatedof sophisticatedof sophisticatedmilitary training andmilitary training andmilitary training andmilitary training andmilitary training and

rehearsal systemsrehearsal systemsrehearsal systemsrehearsal systemsrehearsal systemsfor air-, land- andfor air-, land- andfor air-, land- andfor air-, land- andfor air-, land- and

sea-based weapons.sea-based weapons.sea-based weapons.sea-based weapons.sea-based weapons.CAE has built CAE has built CAE has built CAE has built CAE has built high-high-high-high-high-

tech flight simulatorstech flight simulatorstech flight simulatorstech flight simulatorstech flight simulatorsfor at least twofor at least twofor at least twofor at least twofor at least two

dozen different kindsdozen different kindsdozen different kindsdozen different kindsdozen different kindsof US war planesof US war planesof US war planesof US war planesof US war planesand military heli-and military heli-and military heli-and military heli-and military heli-

copters used in thecopters used in thecopters used in thecopters used in thecopters used in thedestruction of Iraqdestruction of Iraqdestruction of Iraqdestruction of Iraqdestruction of Iraq

since 2003.since 2003.since 2003.since 2003.since 2003.


who are the daily roadkill of the world’sravaging war machines. Although ourgrassroots challenge to CANSEC rep-resented unmistakable public interestsin peace and security, we could not ex-pect to receive government donations,subsidies or investments derived fromour own taxes. Similarly, the idea of re-ceiving corporate sponsorships forsuch a campaign would be a laughable.

But setting aside all of these le-gal and fiscal imbalances, even the rulesof engagement in this contest seemedfixed to ensure a victory for thosevested private interests that accruevast riches from war. Well-heeled out-fits like CADSI need never tromp the

streets filling petitions to selfishly de-mand that their arms shows be held atpublicly-financed venues. Nor mustCADSI personnel rally citizens to lobbyin support of corporate welfare for thealready lucrative trade in instrumentsof death and their accessories. And,when have Canada’s military privateersever been required to organize largepublic events to demonstrate that theyenjoy popular backing for their free-wheeling international weapons dealsand their enjoyment of unrestricted mili-tary exports to fuel the US war machine?

The peace movement howeveris continually expected to jump throughelaborate hoops to prove, once and forall, that the world is not flat and thatordinary peace-loving people do notwant to bankroll war racketeers. Suchexpectations seem totally unfair. Whymust we repeatedly demonstrate suchobvious realities? Have activists not al-

ready staged enough of these experi-ments in truth? For instance, publicopinion polls have already clearlyshown that most Canadians do not sup-port their government’s support for theUS-led war in Afghanistan,110 let alonethe destruction of Iraq.

If CADSI, and the private enter-prises they front for, want the public togrubstake them with tax money andother community resources for theirefforts to feed US-led coups, wars andbombing campaigns, is it not up to themto demonstrate that the supposed valueof such faraway exercises in mass mur-der can be justified? (As if the slaugh-ter of innocent people could ever be

justified by some overriding Canadianinterest.) But war industries—and theirkowtowing apologists in public of-fice—need not prove anything of thesort. Governments routinely operate asif their chief responsibility is to help fillcorporate larders. Although lining thepockets of their friends in the big busi-ness of war—like Bristol, CAE andCMC—is always presented as a publicgood, popular support for such hand-outs need never be demonstrated. Suchmunificence is simply viewed as an un-derlying reality about how our peculiardemocratic system works, whether peo-ple like it or not.

On the other hand, because thepeace movement is always expected toprove that it enjoys public support,many exasperated activists can oftenbe heard expressing such refrains as:If only we had more names on petitions.If only people wrote more letters.

If only we organized larger protests.If only politicians had the facts....Then, they would understand.Then, they would end these senselesswars and we could all live in a peace-ful world that respects the public’soverwhelming desire for peace.

But no matter how much we do,or how well we perform the mediadances that are expected of us, our ef-forts are never sufficient to do the trick.

The reason for our apparent“failure” is not that we need to providepoliticians and bureaucrats with moreinformation, or that we needed to im-press them with more people signingpetitions, writing letters or wavingsigns at rallies. The problem is, tragi-cally, far deeper than that.

The reality is that mainstreampoliticians know all too well which sidetheir bread is buttered on, and it is gen-erally not on the side that favourspeace. Politicians have it on good au-thority from the media, and from theirfriends and allies in the military andcorporate worlds, that war is often verygood for business. And, of course, itis. It is damned good, and therein liesthe very root of our predicament.

War is not some insane orsenseless behaviour. War is a cold andcalculated means to overthrow govern-ments that get in the way of our busi-ness interests. And, it is a way of main-taining the power of business-friendlyregimes that allow access to their mar-kets, and their natural resources, andtheir cheap labour. As such, investingin the tools of war is a fabulous way toaccumulate wealth, not simply becausemilitary industries are themselves ex-tremely profitable, but because theproducts that they make are used tofacilitate wars that make so many otherbusinesses profitable as well.

Therefore, the struggle to budgehard-set political minds is often beyondfutile; it can be a waste of the peacemovement’s breath and energy. Suchwas the case with a single-minded ef-fort limited merely to convincing a ma-jority on Ottawa Council to vote in fa-vour of upholding the City’s two-dec-ade long ban on facilitating war indus-try trade shows. The real goal of ourstruggle was not simply to win enoughvotes on Council. That in itself was alost cause and, as such, it was a sure-

The City of Ottawa’s recentThe City of Ottawa’s recentThe City of Ottawa’s recentThe City of Ottawa’s recentThe City of Ottawa’s recentdecision to facilitate thedecision to facilitate thedecision to facilitate thedecision to facilitate thedecision to facilitate the

business of war was a rudebusiness of war was a rudebusiness of war was a rudebusiness of war was a rudebusiness of war was a rudegesture of disrespect togesture of disrespect togesture of disrespect togesture of disrespect togesture of disrespect to

Ottawa’s much-loved formerOttawa’s much-loved formerOttawa’s much-loved formerOttawa’s much-loved formerOttawa’s much-loved formerMaMaMaMaMayyyyyororororor, and CO, and CO, and CO, and CO, and COAAAAAT mentT mentT mentT mentT mentororororor,,,,,

Marion DeMarion DeMarion DeMarion DeMarion Dewwwwwararararar.....

In remembrance of herIn remembrance of herIn remembrance of herIn remembrance of herIn remembrance of herunwavering spirit, activistsunwavering spirit, activistsunwavering spirit, activistsunwavering spirit, activistsunwavering spirit, activists

will continue to opposewill continue to opposewill continue to opposewill continue to opposewill continue to opposeCanada’s military exports andCanada’s military exports andCanada’s military exports andCanada’s military exports andCanada’s military exports and

to expose this country’s largestto expose this country’s largestto expose this country’s largestto expose this country’s largestto expose this country’s largestcommercommercommercommercommercial pageant ocial pageant ocial pageant ocial pageant ocial pageant of wf wf wf wf wararararar,,,,,

CANSEC.CANSEC.CANSEC.CANSEC.CANSEC.


fire trap to set us up for a depressingand demoralising failure.

Our real goal was to raise publicawareness and to build a stronger com-munity of opposition and resistance toCanada’s despicable role in the inter-national arms trade. The underlying is-sues at stake in this greater struggleare not decided by local governmentsbut by federal politicians who makeCanada’s war policies and who pull thepurse strings to dispense our nation’scommon wealth to private industriesthat are fuelling international wars.

By thinking globally and actinglocally, we did achieve many importantsuccesses. Despite the disempoweringvote at Ottawa Council, we did raisepublic awareness and we did build themovement to oppose war. And, whenfuture elections roll around, more peo-ple will have a better understanding ofthe need to work toward replacing theservile corporate-minded politiciansthat are working—in all levels of gov-ernment—to promote war profiteering.

To thousands of citizens en-gaged in local grassroots efforts to op-pose Canada’s role in wars, the City ofOttawa’s recent affront to peace was arude gesture of disrespect to the City’smuch-loved former Mayor, and COATmentor, Marion Dewar.111 Shortly beforeher untimely demise last fall, Marion ex-pressed her resolute commitment to joinCOAT in opposing the return ofCANSEC—and other such militarymarketeering events—to Ottawa prop-erty. In remembrance and recognitionof her unfaltering spirit, activists willcontinue to struggle against Canada’slargest commercial pageant of war.

When flatbed trucks laden withlarge armoured battle vehicles destinedfor war once again roll through thestreets of Ottawa’s quiet downtownneighbourhoods on their way to theoutdoor display areas of Ottawa’s fair-grounds, we’ll be there.

And, when hundreds of thiscountry’s top military exporters beginagain to set up their marketing stallsinside Ottawa’s main publicly-fundedexposition halls, we’ll be there.

And, whether or not you are inOttawa next June, please join us duringthe next round in this ongoing struggleto expose Canada’s largest manifesta-tion of the military-industrial complex.

References1. Ottawa Councillors Outlawed all future

Arms Trade Shows from City Facili-ties in 1989coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/bylaw.htm

2. See links to video clips from May 27rally, and some articles describing itcoat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/newlinks.htm

3. Canada was the 7th largest supplier ofarms to the world in 2007 according tothe US Congressional Research Serv-ice. See Richard F. Grimmett, Conven-tional Arms Transfers to DevelopingNations, 2000-2007, October 23, 2008.www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34723.pdf

4. See “Reports” on the COAT websitecoat.ncf.ca

5. Google search for cansec AND war

www.google.ca/search?hl=en&num=100&q=cansec++war&btnG=Search&meta=

6. More than 2100 signed hard copies ofthe COAT petition while over 2600others signed online. The web based pe-tition, complete with pithy commentsby petitioners, can be seen here:prax.ca/view/coat/No-Arms-Shows

7. Stand for Peace against CANSECcoat .ncf .ca /ARMX/cansec/a l l -day-vigil.htm

8. Interfaith Peace Rallycoat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/CANSEC-rally.htm

9. Minutes, Corporate Services Commit-tee, June 2, 2009.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2009/06-02/minutes44.htm

10. Minutes, Corporate Services Commit-tee, June 15, 2009.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2009/06-15/minutes45.htm

11. Richard Sanders, “Ottawa’s MayorO’Brien, Calian Technologies and theCANSEC War-Industry Bazaar: De-mocracy under Attack at Home andAbroad,”

coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/Calian.htm12. Ibid.13. The only Councillors who voted to keep

arms shows off City property were AlexCullen, Clive Doucet, Diane Holmes,Peggy Feltmate and Jacques Legendre.Oddly though, Legendre devoted his en-tire allotted time to criticising the peacemovement and its arguments againstCANSEC and Canada’s arms trade!www.ottawa.ca/online_services/council_vod/20090624/index_en.html

14. Aesop for Children, 1919.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/milowinter/45.htm

15. See Rick O’Connor’s August 19, 2008,memo to City Councillorsottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2008/10-07/ACS2008-BTS-RPM-0040-IPD.htm

16. “Secure Canada 2008” has been can-celled!coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/SecureCanada.htm

17. Vern White, Chief of Police, “ThreatAssessments and Funding of PolicingCosts for Functions, Events and Con-ferences,” Report of the Ottawa PoliceService, June 16, 2008.www.city.ottawa.on.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/opsb/2008/06-23/item5.htm

18. Ralph Erfle, “Review of Overtime,” Ot-tawa Police Service, November 2008.w w w. o t t a w a . c a / c a l e n d a r / o t t a w a /c i t y c o u n c i l / o p s b / 2 0 0 9 / 0 5 - 2 5 /item12att2.htm

19. Ibid.20. Ibid.21. How to Join CADSI

https:/ /www.defenceandsecurity.ca/index.php?action=cms.how_to_join

22. Benefits of Membershiphttps:/ /www.defenceandsecurity.ca/index.php?action=cms.benefits

23. US-UK-Canada Trilateral Symposiumwww.defenceandsecurity.ca/UserFiles/File/2009/US-UK-CAAgenda.pdf

24. CADSI website

Mainstream politiciansMainstream politiciansMainstream politiciansMainstream politiciansMainstream politiciansknow which side theirknow which side theirknow which side theirknow which side theirknow which side theirbread is buttered on, andbread is buttered on, andbread is buttered on, andbread is buttered on, andbread is buttered on, andit is not on the side thatit is not on the side thatit is not on the side thatit is not on the side thatit is not on the side thatfffffaaaaavvvvvourourourourours peaces peaces peaces peaces peace. The. The. The. The. They hay hay hay hay havvvvveeeeeit on good authority fromit on good authority fromit on good authority fromit on good authority fromit on good authority fromthe media, military andthe media, military andthe media, military andthe media, military andthe media, military andcorporate worlds, that warcorporate worlds, that warcorporate worlds, that warcorporate worlds, that warcorporate worlds, that waris good for business. And,is good for business. And,is good for business. And,is good for business. And,is good for business. And,ooooof courf courf courf courf coursesesesese, w, w, w, w, war ar ar ar ar IS IS IS IS IS good fgood fgood fgood fgood forororororbusiness. It is business. It is business. It is business. It is business. It is damneddamneddamneddamneddamnedgood. And therein lies thegood. And therein lies thegood. And therein lies thegood. And therein lies thegood. And therein lies thevery root of the anti-warvery root of the anti-warvery root of the anti-warvery root of the anti-warvery root of the anti-warmovement’s predicament.movement’s predicament.movement’s predicament.movement’s predicament.movement’s predicament.


www.defenceandsecurity.ca/25. CADSI website, “History”

https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/public/index.asp?action=about.background

26. Richard Sanders, “Canadian MilitaryExports to Countries at War, 2003-2005,” June 2009.coat .ncf .ca /ARMX/cansec/expor ts /WarExports.htm

27. Canada / Israel Industry PartneringMission, May 12, 2004.www.nccar.ca/publications/05_10_04_biwk.htmlCanada–U.S. Defence & Security Indus-try Conference, Oct. 30 – Nov.1, 2006.www.defenceandsecurity.ca/public/docs/2006/October/BiNational/WebAgenda.pdfU.S.-UK-Canada Trilateral Sympo-sium, October 2, 2009.www.defenceandsecurity.ca/UserFiles/File/2009/US-UK-CAAgenda.pdf

28. Doing Business with the Departmentof Homeland Security: Answers to Fre-quently asked Questionshttps:/ /www.defenceandsecurity.ca/U s e r F i l e s / F i l e / 2 0 0 8 / D H S J a n 3 0 /DHSFAQs.pdf

29. Archive for March 2009, Veritas, RoyalMilitary College Club of Canada.www.rmcclub.ca/everitaswp/?m=200903

30. Canadian Military Exports, 2003-2005coat .ncf .ca /ARMX/cansec/expor ts /details.htm

31. Simon Doyle, “The Top 100 Lobby-ists,” The Hill Times, February 25, 2008.www.hi l l t imes .ca /h tml / index .php?display=story&full_path=2008/february/25/toplobbyists_2008/&c=2

32. Doyle, op. cit. and “The Top 100 Lob-byists,” The Hill Times, Feb. 16, 2009.www.hilltimes.com/pdf/2009/021609_ht.pdf

33. “Join the ‘Government Ethics Coali-tion’ to help push for stronger lobbyingand ethics rules and ethics enforcementin Canada”www.dwatch.ca/camp/ethicscoal.html

34. CADSI Elects Five New Members toits Board of Directorshttps://www.cdia.ca/index.php?action=news.article&id=112

35. Office of the Commissioner of Lobby-ing of Canada, Active Registration:780113-15125-5https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/publicBasicSearch?

36. Ibid37. DFAIT funds CADSI’s efforts to Pro-

mote the International Arms Tradecoat .ncf .ca /ARMX/cansec/CADSI-DFAIT.htm

38. Disclosure of Grant & ContributionAwards Over $25,000: International Tradew01.international.gc.ca/dg-do/index_it-ci.aspx?lang=eng&p=4&r=17&c=1575

39. Lobbying Act, 1985, c. 44 (4th Supp.),Contents of return,laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/L-12.4/bo-ga:s_5-gb:s_7/20090630

of Lobbying of Canada.https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/publicBasicSearch?

51. Ibid. See other “Communications En-try Summaries” for September 12, 2008to April 22, 2009.

52. Mike Blanchfield, “MacKay touts $60Bfor new military equipment,” CanwestNews Service, May 28, 2009www.ottawacitizen.com/Health/MacKay+touts+military+equipment/1637466/story.html

53. CANSEC in the nation’s capital at theend of Maywww.cansec-ottawa.ca

54. DND memo. CANSEC 2009, March13, 2009.www.defenceandsecurity.ca/UserFiles/File/CANSEC2009/CDSMemo.pdf

55. Richard Sanders, “George Orwell meetsCanada’s General Walt Natynczyk inIraq,” September 2008.coat.ncf.ca/articles/Natynczyk_Iraq.htm

56. Defence Administrative Orders and Di-rectives DAOD 7021-3www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/7000/7021-3-eng.asp

57. DND memo. Op. cit.58. Ibid.59. SADI - Strategic Aerospace and Defence

Initiativei to . ic .gc.ca/eic/s i te/ i to-ot i .nsf /eng/h_00022.html

60. SADI Project Portfolioi to . ic .gc.ca/eic/s i te/ i to-ot i .nsf /eng/h_00025.html

61. The CRV-7 Rocket Weapon Systemwww.magellan.aero/content/objects/CRV7_Rotary_Wing.pdfwww.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/CRV7_Fixed_Wing.pdf

62. Vic Toews, “Government of CanadaInvests in R&D Technology for JointStrike Fighter Program,” Speech, Sep-tember 2, 2008.i to . ic .gc.ca/eic/s i te/ i to-ot i .nsf /eng/00623.html

63. Ibid.64. Ibid.65. Martin Cash, “Fighter contract could

be big: Bristol working on top U.S.forces jet,” Winnipeg Free Press, June10, 2009.www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/f i g h t e r - c o n t r a c t - c o u l d - b e - b i g -47509652.html

66. Glossary, Industrial Technologies Officei to . ic .gc.ca/eic/s i te/ i to-ot i .nsf /eng/h_00010.html

67. Investing in Innovation, 2001 - 2002Year in Review, p.46ito.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ito-oti.nsf/vwapj/s_f174_ic_tpsannua_2001_02_e.pdf/$FILE/s_f174_ic_tpsannua_2001_02_e. pdf

68. “Building the Canadian Military Ma-chine (Literally),” Machine Tools, April2007.machinetools.ca/articles/apr_11.pdf

69. Toews, Op. cit.

40. Lobbying Act, Offences and Punish-mentlaws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/L-12.4/bo-ga:s_14/20090630/en#anchorbo-ga:s_14

41. Janet Thorsteinson, “What is the Priceof RISK?” FrontLine Defence, Sept/Oct2008.www.frontline-canada.com/Defence/pdfs/Thorsteinson_Risk%20Management.pdf

42. Public offices held: Janet Thorsteinsonhttps://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/publicBasicSearch?

43. Acting Appointments in DesignatedPublic Office Holder Positionswww.ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/lobbyist-lobbyiste1.nsf/eng/nx00349.html

44. “Join the ‘Government Ethics Coali-tion,’” Op. cit.www.dwatch.ca/camp/ethicscoal.html

45. About Hill & Knowlton Canadawww.robertssmartcentre.com/english/about/board/

46. Our Historywww.hillandknowlton.ca/index.php/about_us/history.html

47. Hill & Knowlton, A Corporate Profilewww.corporatewatch.org/?lid=380

48. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton,Toxic Sludge Is Good For You. Lies,Damn Lies and the Public Relations In-dustry, 1995. See “Packaging the Emir”www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

49. Search the Registry of LobbyistsChapter 10

50. Communications Log, Four “Commu-nications Entry Summaries” for May27 and 28. Office of the Commissioner


70. Magellan Aerospace Corp. - Detailshttps://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/index.php?action=mbrProfiles.viewProfile&profileID=160

71. Toews, Op. cit.72. Ibid.73. Cash, Op. cit.

www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/fighter-contract-could-be-big-47509652.html

74. Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier,“The U.S. Employment Effects of Mili-tary and Domestic Spending Priorities,”October 2007.www.peri .umass.edu/fi leadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/PERI_IPS_WAND_study.pdf

75. Cash, Op. cit.76. Exhibiting Companies

https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/index.php?action=cansec.exhibitors

77. Esterline CMC Electronics - Detailshttps://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/index.php?action=mbrProfiles.viewProfile&profileID=85

78. Esterline Factswww.esterline.com/profile/factsheet.stm

79. Minister of Industry Announces Sup-port for Aerospace and Defence Project,January 13, 2009.www.ic .gc .ca /e ic / s i t e / i c1 .ns f /eng /04313.html

80. Richard Sanders, “CMC’s GerrySchwartz and Paul Martin’s War Chest,”Press for Conversion!, June 2005.coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/56/Arti-cles/56_40-41.pdf

81. HESEG Boycott Factsheetw w w.ca i aweb .o rg / f i l e s /webs i t e1_HESEG_factsheet_v2.3.pdf

82. Canadian War Industries ExportingParts and/or Services to the USA forthe AH-64 “Apache”coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/AH-64.htm

83. Canadian War Industries exporting Partsand Services to the US for F-15 “Eagle”coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/F-15.htm

84. Canadian War Industries exporting Partsand/or Services to the USA for F-16“Fighting Falcon”coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/F-16.htm

85. UN rights council condemns Israeli of-fensive in Gaza,” AFP, January 12, 2009www.google.com/hostednews/afp/articleALeqM5g5WJYV-fltEjKhSXM_EC2at92HeQ

86. “19th day of continuous IOF attacksacross the Gaza Strip,” Palestinian Cen-tre for Human Rights, January 15, 2009.www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MCOT-7NBKDS?OpenDocument

87. “Minister of Industry Announces Sup-port...,” Op. cit.

88. Ibid.89. COAT Report, Profiting from the

Slaughter of Innocents in Iraq: AnExposé of Canadian War Industries aid-ing & abetting production of major USWeapons Systems in the Iraq Warcoat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/CANSEC

weapons.htm90. Iraq Deaths

www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq91. Exhibiting Companies, Op. cit.92. Historical Dates

www.lansdownepark.ca/history_en.html93. Floor Plan, General Dynamics Hall

www.defenceandsecurity.ca/UserFiles/File/CANSEC2009/Genera l -Dynamics -Canada-Hall.pdf

94. CADSI Board of Directorshttps:/ /www.defenceandsecuri ty.ca/index.php?action=cms.board

95. CADSI Elects Five New Members toits Board of Directors, March 19, 2009.https:/ /www.defenceandsecuri ty.ca/index.php?action=news.article&id=112

96. Table 6A.1. The SIPRI Top 100 arms-producing companies in the world ex-cluding China, 2007a, Military Spend-ing and Armaments, 2008.www.sipri.org/research/armaments/pro-duction/resultoutput/arms_prod_companies

97. News release, “Minister Clement An-nounces Repayable Investment in FlightSimulators,” Industry Canada, March31, 2009.i to . ic .gc.ca/eic/s i te/ i to-ot i .nsf /eng/h_00715.html

98. CAE record, Office of the Commis-sioner of Lobbying of Canada, ActiveRegistration: 778025-5798-8https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/publicBasicSearch?

99. Ibid.100. CAE Annual Report, FY 2009

www.cae.com/en/investors/_pdf/2009/

CAE_Annual_Report_2009.pdf101. Ibid.102. CAE record, Office of the Commis-

sioner of Lobbying of Canada, Op.cit.103. News release, Industry Canada,

March 31, 2009. Op. cit.104. Public Registry Search Results:

Robert Brownhttps://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/publicBasicSearch?

105. Public offices held: ROBERTBROWNhttps://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/publicBasicSearch?

106. News release, “Minister Clement An-nounces Repayable Investment inFlight Simulators,” Industry Canada,March 31, 2009.ito.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ito-oti.nsf/eng/h_00715.html

107. John McCrank, “UPDATE 2-CAE toslash 700 jobs, mainly in Montreal,”Reuters, May 14, 2009.www.reuters.com/article/rbssAerospaceDefense/idUSN1446668420090514

108. Ibid.109. Ibid.110. Polls show that “Opposition [to the

Afghan war] has run from 53 to 58per cent since November [2008].” SeeBarbara Yaffe, “Polls and Afghani-stan,” Vancouver Sun, July 30, 2009.www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=2102ce34-e10a-4064-a373-09e1375225e6

111. Remembering Marioncoat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/63/63_50b.htm


ally handed out billions in grants and unpaid loans to Cana-da’s highly-profitable war industries.5 Under Canada-US tradeagreements, these subsidies are allowed in only two sec-tors—military production and energy. To fuel its many wars,the Pentagon is glad to take advantage of this free and easyaccess to publicly-funded Canadian war industries.

The Canadian government’s eagerness to promoteand support military exports to the US is amply evidencedonline. The very first link on the Canadian government’s“Sell2USGov” web page—called “U.S. Federal Departmentsand Specialized Markets”—is the US “Department of De-fense.” In this and a myriad of other ways, our governmentpromotes exports to all branches of the US military, variousspy agencies, the US Defense Logistics Agency, the USNational Security Agency and US Missile Defense Agency.

Thanks in no small part to the Canadian government’sgenerous support to domestic war industries that are al-ways eager to tap into the US market, Canadian products aredeeply embedded in most major US weapons systems. Ca-nadian technology has therefore played a significant part inall of the wars, invasions, bombing campaigns and regimechanges led by the US.

Between 2003 and 2006, Canada exported $6.9 billionin military goods and services to countries then fighting inAfghanistan, Iraq and/or Haiti. This was 92.7% of Canada’stotal military exports. The US share of Canada’s exports tocountries fighting in these three conflicts was 78%.

This article continues on page 24.

27 Nations not at War

$0.5 Billion

7%

USA

$5.3 Billion

72%

61 other Countries Fighting Wars $1.5 Billion

21%

FFFFFuelling Wuelling Wuelling Wuelling Wuelling Wararararars! s! s! s! s! Canadian Arms ExportCanadian Arms ExportCanadian Arms ExportCanadian Arms ExportCanadian Arms Exports at Ws at Ws at Ws at Ws at WorkorkorkorkorkBy Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition to Oppose theArms Trade

Between 2003 and 2006, Canadian military exports—totalling at least $7.4 billion—were sold to 88 coun-tries. One in particular—the United States—bought

almost three quarters of Canada’s known military exports.During this four-year period (for which the latest data

is available) the US waged wars in both Afghanistan andIraq. In 2004, the US also led the military invasion and occu-pation of Haiti, overthrowing its democracy and helpingenforce an illegal “regime change” that empowered a brutalunelected dictatorship. In each case, the US brought to-gether and led multinational coalitions of armed forces.

To analyse Canada’s role in fuelling wars, it is essen-tial to examine this country’s military exports to the US andto those US-led allies that waged major armed conflicts. WhileCanada’s military exports have always been focused on sup-plying US institutions of war, 55 other countries receivedthese exports between 2003 and 2006 while they deployedtroops and equipment to US-led military conflicts.

When one includes Canadian military exports to coun-tries fighting major armed conflicts1 within their own bor-ders, the total number of recipient governments reaches 62.This means that almost 70% of the countries receiving Ca-nadian military exports, during the period in question, wereengaged in significant armed hostilities.

Even more damning is the fact that Canadian militaryexports to these 62 warring nations accounted for an aston-ishing 93% ($6.8 billion) of the total value of Canada’s knownmilitary exports during those four years. (See pie chart.)

However, in pretended ignorance of this reality, the“export control policy guidelines mandated by Cabinet,” statethat “Canada closely controls the export of military goodsand technology to countries...involved in or under imminentthreat of hostilities.”2 Furthermore, the most recent reporton military exports from the Department of Foreign Affairsand International Trade (DFAIT) begins by proclaiming that:

“A key priority of Canada’s foreign policy is the mainte-nance of peace and security. To this end, the Governmentof Canada strives to ensure that Canadian military ex-ports are not prejudicial to peace, security or stability inany region of the world or within any country.”3

Supplying the US WSupplying the US WSupplying the US WSupplying the US WSupplying the US War Machinear Machinear Machinear Machinear MachineDFAIT’s military export reports have always suffered fromserious flaws. Most significantly, these reports have neverdisclosed any data on Canadian military exports to the US!

As an integral part of the “North American MilitaryIndustrial Base,” Canadian arms manufacturers are so thor-oughly absorbed into the US war economy that the Penta-gon has generally treated our military producers as if theywere domestic US industries. For its part, the Canadian gov-ernment requires military exporters to procure special per-mits for all foreign sales, except those destined for the US!

Coupled with this free flow in weapons-related tech-nology to the US, is the fact that our government has liter-

Recipients of Canada’s Military Exports (2003-2006)

Between 2003 and 2006, 93% of Canada’s knownBetween 2003 and 2006, 93% of Canada’s knownBetween 2003 and 2006, 93% of Canada’s knownBetween 2003 and 2006, 93% of Canada’s knownBetween 2003 and 2006, 93% of Canada’s knownmilitary exports went to 62 countries that hadmilitary exports went to 62 countries that hadmilitary exports went to 62 countries that hadmilitary exports went to 62 countries that hadmilitary exports went to 62 countries that hadtroops fighting in major armed conflicts. Duringtroops fighting in major armed conflicts. Duringtroops fighting in major armed conflicts. Duringtroops fighting in major armed conflicts. Duringtroops fighting in major armed conflicts. Duringthat period, one warring country alone—the US—that period, one warring country alone—the US—that period, one warring country alone—the US—that period, one warring country alone—the US—that period, one warring country alone—the US—purchased almost 3/4 of the products and servicespurchased almost 3/4 of the products and servicespurchased almost 3/4 of the products and servicespurchased almost 3/4 of the products and servicespurchased almost 3/4 of the products and servicesthat were exported by Canadian war industries.that were exported by Canadian war industries.that were exported by Canadian war industries.that were exported by Canadian war industries.that were exported by Canadian war industries.


2003-2005 2006 2003-2006 Afghanistan Iraq HaitiArmenia - 5,265 5,265 PAustralia 271,506,169 51,804,263 323,310,432 P PBelgium 15,770,734 14,463,521 30,234,255 PBosnia Herzegovina - 10,270 10,270 PBrazil 5,806,964 738,800 6,545,764 PChile 3,280,023 5,515,116 8,795,139 PColombia 2,058,303 1,177,088 3,235,391 PCzech Republic 304,961 347,537 652,498 P PDenmark 20,739,314 763,156 21,502,470 P PEstonia 53,976 - 53,976 P PFinland 3,720,711 4,205,082 7,925,793 PFrance 39,776,637 14,575,798 54,352,435 P PGeorgia - 15,442 15,442 P PGermany 30,612,034 15,605,755 46,217,789 PGreece 11,775,423 8,421,944 20,197,367 PHungary - 1,600 1,600 P PIceland 6,602 13,509 20,111 P PIndia 960,793 692,872 1,653,665 P PIndonesia 32,000 115,680 147,680 PIraq 20,188 - 20,188 P PIsrael 4,679,679 994,653 5,674,332 PItaly 32,209,842 7,186,305 39,396,147 P PJapan 19,434,092 9,713,192 29,147,284 P PJordan 405,102 6,580 411,682 P PKorea (South) 82,548,712 18,374,365 100,923,077 P PLatvia 212 846 87,558 300,404 PMalaysia 29,802,290 784,668 30,586,958 PMexico 2,128,564 15,573 2,144,137 PMongolia 1,234 - 1,234 PMorocco 668,493 2,549 671,042 PNetherlands 24,550,126 13,381,503 37,931,629 P PNew Zealand 257,855,517 11,956,408 269,811,925 P PNicaragua 389,052 44,698 433,750 PNigeria 94,800 - 94,800 PNorway 26,716,748 4,678,458 31,395,206 P PPeru 2,715 17,309 20,024 PPhilippines - 22,706 22,706 P PPoland 11,062 20,235 31,297 P PPortugal 605,053 75,465 680,518 P PRomania 1,000 2,142,457 2,143,457 P PRussia 2,915 55,710 58,625 PSerbia & Montenegro 1,412 - 1,412 PSlovakia - 58,5927 58,5927 P PSingapore 31,884,476 2,315,731 34,200,207 PSpain 11,987,704 7,552,848 19,540,552 P P PSri Lanka 28,058 57,412 85,470 P PSweden 22,743,054 12,565,098 35,308,152 PSwitzerland 3,622,996 1,485,486 5,108,482 PThailand 5,800,083 378,335 6,178,418 P PTurkey 2,643,474 5,220,415 7,863,889 PUkraine - - 42,400 PUnited Arab Emir. 5,303,276 4,428,314 9,731,590 PUK 258,210,911 80,151,594 338,362,505 P PUS 4,001,000,000 1,333,000,000 5,334,000,000 P P PTotals 5,219,769,568 1,635,774,250 6,867,786,768 6,768,511,152 6,590,720,895 5,455,009,066 19,316,824US Share of Totals 76.7% 81.5% 77.7% 78.8% 80.9% 97.8% 0%

CountriesTroops Deployed in Major Armed ConflictsCanadian Military Exports

Internal Wars

Canadian Military Exports to Countries withTroops Fighting in Major Armed Conflicts (2003-2006)


Afghan. Iraq Haiti Internal Wars (31 nations) (30 nations) (10 nations) (12 nations)5.33 (79%) 5.33 (81%) 5.33 (97%) 0.00 (0%)1.44 (21%) 1.26 (19%) 0.17 (3%) 0.02 (100%)

Billions

of

Canadian

Dollars

in Military

Exports

76543210

Canadian Military Exports to Countries Fighting inIraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and Internal Wars (2003-2006)

USAOthers at warTotal

Internal CounterinsurInternal CounterinsurInternal CounterinsurInternal CounterinsurInternal Counterinsurgencgencgencgencgency Wy Wy Wy Wy WarararararsssssCanadian war industries also export to governmentsfighting major armed conflicts within their own borders.However, this fuelling of internal counterinsurgency warsis negligible when compared to Canada’s role in equip-ping foreign troops fighting wars outside their borders.

Between 2003 and 2006, 12 governments receivedCanadian military exports while they engaged in majorarmed conflicts within their boundaries: Colombia, In-dia, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Rus-sia, Serbia & Montenegro, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Theseexports totalled a mere $12 million over those four years.This was only about 1/6 of 1% of Canada’s total knownmilitary exports to countries at war during that period.

Among the twelve governments waging “Inter-nal Wars,” four also had some troops deployed to eitherAfghanistan, Iraq and/or Haiti between 2003 and 2006.

Ploughshares: Ploughshares: Ploughshares: Ploughshares: Ploughshares: A very different analysisA very different analysisA very different analysisA very different analysisA very different analysisIn an article called “Fuelling Wars?”, Ernie Regehr, a co-founder and former executive-director of Project Plough-shares, provides a very different analysis from the COATresearch which shows that 93% of Canada’s recent militaryexports went to countries at war. Although using the sameDFAIT data on Canadian exports, Regehr’s article beginswith the encouraging view that: “In contrast to the UnitedStates, Canada largely manages to avoid exporting majorCanadian military commodities directly to countries at war.”

This view is based on an error in defining whichcountries are “at war.” The analysis is correct if one onlycounts countries defined by Ploughshares as those “host-ing” wars, which excludes all countries deploying troops toforeign wars. This approach is found in Ploughshares’ docu-ments like On the Record: An audit of Canada’s report onmilitary exports, 2003-05. It states that in respect to whetherCanada is living up to its promise to control military exportsto “countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostili-ties,” “it is possible to assess the record of Canadian mili-tary exports from 2003 to 2005 against the states affected byarmed conflict as reported in Project Ploughshares’ ArmedConflicts Report during the three-year period.”4

Although these annual Ploughshares’ reports alllist countries “hosting armed conflicts on their territory,”they do not list the many other countries waging major warsoutside their borders. This is what created the unfortunateblind spot used by Regehr to present the opinion that fewCanadian military exports are going “to countries at war.”

In “Fuelling Wars?”, Regehr notes that between 2003and 2005, “Canada sold to 11 of the 28 countries that were atwar according to the Ploughshares annual Armed ConflictsReport.” But, the 28 countries listed by Ploughshares werethose which they said were “hosting” wars. Ploughshares’list did not include the US, UK or dozens of other countriescollectively deploying thousands of troops to foreign wars.

Regehr goes on to say that between 2003 and 2005:“Total Canadian sales (to non-US customers)...reached$1.69 billion, of which $13.6 million went to countries inconflict—in other words, less than 1 percent of Cana-dian military exports went to countries in conflict dur-

Between 2003 and 2006, Canada exported $6.9Between 2003 and 2006, Canada exported $6.9Between 2003 and 2006, Canada exported $6.9Between 2003 and 2006, Canada exported $6.9Between 2003 and 2006, Canada exported $6.9billion in military goods and services to countriesbillion in military goods and services to countriesbillion in military goods and services to countriesbillion in military goods and services to countriesbillion in military goods and services to countriesthat were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Haiti.that were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Haiti.that were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Haiti.that were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Haiti.that were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Haiti.This was 92.7% of Canada’s total military exports.This was 92.7% of Canada’s total military exports.This was 92.7% of Canada’s total military exports.This was 92.7% of Canada’s total military exports.This was 92.7% of Canada’s total military exports.The US share of Canada’s military exports toThe US share of Canada’s military exports toThe US share of Canada’s military exports toThe US share of Canada’s military exports toThe US share of Canada’s military exports tocountries fighting in these three conflicts was 78%.countries fighting in these three conflicts was 78%.countries fighting in these three conflicts was 78%.countries fighting in these three conflicts was 78%.countries fighting in these three conflicts was 78%.

ing those three years... And, as a proportion of total Ca-nadian military exports (including sales to the US), theproportion going to countries in conflict would be lessthat 1/2 of 1 percent (of course, if the US were includedas a country in conflict, re its forces in Iraq, then morethan half of all Canadian exports should be reported asgoing to countries at war).” (Emphasis added)

There should, of course, be no question about in-cluding the US in a list of “countries at war.” Regehr ne-glects to mention any of the dozens of other countries—aided by Canadian technology—that waged war in Iraq.What’s more, he makes no reference to Haiti or Afghanistan.Although the Afghan War has drawn troops from almost allNATO nations, no NATO members appear in his analysisbecause they are not “hosting” wars and are therefore notconsidered “at war” or “in conflict.” By only counting Cana-da’s arms exports to countries “hosting” wars, Regehr con-tends that our government is doing a good job keeping mili-tary products away warring nations. But, as COAT researchshows, 93% of Canada’s military exports between 2003 and2006 were sold to 62 countries (not just the 11 noted byRegehr) that were helping to wage the world’s biggest wars.

RRRRReferefereferefereferencesencesencesencesences1. “Major armed conflict” is where 1000+ are killed per year.2. Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada 2006.

DFAIT, 2009. www.international.gc.ca3. Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada 2003-2005.

DFAIT, 2007. www.international.gc.ca4. Kenneth Epps and Kyle Gossen, On the Record, p.25.

Project Ploughshares, 2009. www.ploughshares.ca5. Richard Sanders, “A Brief Overview of Industry Canada’s Cor-

porate Hand-Outs,” Press for Conversion! Oct. 2003, pp.44-45.coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/52/52-44-45.pdf

USA

USA

USA

6.77 Billion 6.59 Billion 5.50 Billion 0.02 Billion

25November 2009 (Issue # 64) Press for Conversion!Notes: 1. Denotes involvement of the listed corporation’s parent company in CADSI and CANSEC 2. Denotes involvement of a subsidiary company.

1 2 Lockheed Martin Canada Kanata, ON P P P Shipborne command & control, airborne sensors and electronic warfare...2 3 L-3 Communications Ottawa, ON P P P Weapons electronics, warship navigation, aerostructures, laser targetting...3 4 CAE Toronto, ON P P P Simulation technologies for military training, rehearsal, and weapons design.4 1 General Dynamics Manufactures, services and refurbishes numerous land and amphibious

Land Systems-Canada London, ON P P P1 weapons such as tank-like, wheeled armoured vehicles, trucks and jeeps.5 6 Raytheon Canada Ottawa, ON P P P Radar, optical products, avionics, simulators and naval weapons systems.6 7 Meggitt Defence Sys. Cda Medicine Hat, AB P P Target drones for live-fire weapons testing, including for missile defence.7 11 Boeing Canada Winnipeg, MB P P P Aircraft parts, instruments, guided missiles and armaments training devices.8 15 MDA Richmond, BC P P Satellite systems for military and intelligence in tracking and targeting.9 9 Bombardier Dorval, QC P P P Aircraft for specialised military use as well as NATO military flight training10 16 Top Aces Consulting Pointe-Claire, QC P P Training in aggressor fighter & electronic warfare tactics for military pilots.11 5 General Dynamics Canada Nepean, ON P P P Command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance & reconnaissance.12 10 Rheinmetall Canada St-Jean-sur- Missile systems, remotely-operated vehicle-mounted weapons, aerial

Richelieu, QC P P P drones for target acquisition, and sensor/weapons management systems.13 8 Thales Canada St-Laurent, QC P P P Command & control, thermal imaging, multiband radios, modelling/simulation14 27 Cascade Aerospace Abbotsford, BC P P P Military aircraft fleet management, maintenance, refit and support services.15 12 NGRAIN Vancouver, BC P P Interactive 3D graphics, simulation, visualization and training systems.16 17 Esterline-CMC Electronics Kanata, ON P P Military avionics, communications, navigation & enhanced vision systems.17 21 DEW Engineering Ottawa, ON P P P Armour & equipment to refit military vehicles, command posts and shelters.18 - IMP Aerospace Halifax, NS P P Airframe and structural components; electrical and electronic components.19 13 SNC-Lavalin Montreal, QC P P Constructing, maintaining & servicing naval vessels and remote military bases.20 - Victoria Shipyards Victoria, BC P1 Construction, maintenance, repair, conversion, and dry docking of warships21 19 Field Aviation Calgary, AB P Aircraft repair and overhaul, engineering and component manufacturing.22 22 DRS Technologies Canada Ottawa, ON P P P Communications, electro-optics, electronic warfare simulation and training.23 23 Avcorp Industries Richmond, BC P Designs and builds major composite and metallic military aircraft structures.24 - Skylink Aviation Toronto, ON P P Heavy-lift transport planes and helicopters in Asia, Middle East and Africa.25 20 Ultra Electronics Cda Def. Dartmouth, NS P P Military radio communications, electronic warfare and sonar systems.26 - General Dynamics OTS Cda Le Gardeur, QC P P P1 Small to large calibre ammunition, grenades, rockets and pyrotechnics.27 28 Bell Helicopter Textron Cda Mirabel, QC P Builds light-, intermediate- and medium-sized 2- and 4-blade helicopters.28 37 Revision Eyewear Montreal, QC P P P Designs and develops ballistic eyewear for military and tactical clients.29 31 Calian Technologies Kanata, ON P P2 Computer systems, aerospace products, training and simulation services.30 33 MMIST Stittsville, ON P P Unmanned aerial drones for cargo, surveillance, search & rescue and resupply.31 29 Irving Shipbuilding Halifax, NS P2 P2 Designs, engineers, constructs, repairs, overhauls and refits military vessels.32 26 Colt Canada Kitchener, ON P P Military automatic & semiautomatic assault rifles, chain guns and munitions.33 - Acron Capability Eng. Ottawa, ON P P Live, virtual & constructive simulation and modelling for training/rehearsal.34 35 EDS Canada Ottawa, ON P Data technology, cybersecurity, command & control systems, mission planning35 30 Pratt & Whitney Canada Longueuil, QC P P Designs and builds turbo-fan, -prop and -shaft engines for military aircraft.36 25 IBM Canada Ottawa, ON P P P Computer systems, software, storage systems and microelectronics.37 24 Gallium Software Kanata, ON P P Software for mission-critical visual displays used in air and missile defence.38 38 General Kinetics Eng. Brampton, ON P P Suspension systems, shock absorbers & parts for including military vehicles.39 - General Dynamics C4 Sys. Ottawa, QC P P1 P1 Military command & control, secure communications, information systems.40 - ISE Group of Companies Port Coquilam, BC P Remotely-operated underwater vehicles and space-based robotic systems. - 14 Xwave Ottawa, ON P1 P1 P1 Produces real-time software/systems for military training and simulation. - 18 Washington Marine Group N.Vancouver, BC P Designs, constructs, overhauls, repairs, maintians and refurbishes warships. - 32 Rolls Royce Canada Lachine, QC P P P Manufacture, repair, testing and overhaul of engines for military aircraft. - 34 Honeywell Canada Mississauga, ON P P Aerospace electronics like engine and fuel control systems and instruments. - 36 TeraXion Quebec, QC P Optical systems for laser weapons, remote sensing and communications. - 39 EADS Composites Atlantic Lunenberg, NS P1 P1 P Rocket cases, launch tubes, nose cones, drone structures, sonars, aerial targets. - 40 OSI Geospatial Kanata, ON P P Geospatial intelligence software/systems for tactical, strategic operations.

Rank

2008

Top RankingCanadian

War Industry

Location CADSI

CANSECMilitaryExhibition

Exhibitor

2009

Canada’s Top 40 War Industries: Links to CANSEC and the Canadian Assoc. of Defence & Security Industries (CADSI)

Sponsor

Mem

ber

2009

(Source: Canadian DefenceReview magazine)

Military Products and ServicesOntario = 21Quebec = 12BC = 7Nova Scotia = 4Alberta = 2Manitoba = 1


By Richard Sanders, Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose theArms Trade.

Many concerned Canadians watched in horror assome of the world’s deadliest military aircraftattacked the densely populated Palestinian neigh-

bourhoods of Gaza. Shocked by media images, we looked onfrom half a world away, as multi-million dollar warplaneslaunched seemingly endless quantities of munitions againsta besieged people.

Already devastated by the Israeli government’sblockade that imposed a stranglehold on food, medicine andhumanitarian supplies, more than 1,380 Gazans—including431 children—were killed in the late-2008/early-2009 on-slaught. More than 5,300 were injured—more than half be-ing women and children—while 22,000 homes and civic build-ings were totally or partially destroyed.1 Meanwhile, fiveIsraeli citizens were killed by small home-made, Hamas rock-ets fired from Gaza.

Reaction from top Canadian officials, including For-eign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, was swift and un-equivocal. Hamas was condemned for causing the violence.2

Then, on January 12, at the UN Human Rights Council inGeneva, Canada voted against a resolution calling for “ur-gent international action” to halt Israel’s “massive viola-tions” of human rights.3 The sole dissenting vote came fromCanada. This country’s official representative, MariusGrinius, said the UN statement “used unnecessary, unhelp-ful and inflammatory language” and “failed to clearly recog-nize that rocket fire on Israel had led to the current crisis.”4

To many Canadians who observed the bombing ofGaza from the safety of their peaceful homes, the destruc-tion raining down on innocent victims seemed so distant,and so foreign, that it was incomprehensible. How couldanyone accept complicity in such inhumane attacks againstinnocent civilians, including hundreds of children?

But this sense that peaceful Canada is a world apart,utterly separate from Gaza and other war zones, is an con-venient illusion promoted by corporate media that consist-ently ignore this country’s very real role in such atrocities.

One of the ways that Canada is intimately linked towar crimes is through the global arms trade, and the warcrimes against Gaza provide us with a jarring case in point.

Unbeknownst to most Canadians, thousands ofhomegrown military exporters are scattered across this coun-try like so many razor blades hidden in a seemingly whole-some loaf of bread. While most of these companies are basedin Ontario and Quebec—primarily in and around Toronto,Montreal and Ottawa—every province has its share of warmanufacturers. Canada’s military industries provide an in-credibly diverse range of products and services, largely forexport. While some produce complete weapons systems—like small arms, air-to-ground missiles and armoured battlevehicles—most are in the business of making high-tech com-ponents. These essential parts are largely sold to the US

and then assembled there into American weapons systems.Many Canadians proudly see this country as a bastion ofhigh-tech research and development. What remains hiddenis the key role played by this country’s high-tech sector insupplying the components used in many of the world’s mostdestructive weapons.

COCOCOCOCOAAAAAT’T’T’T’T’s Online Rs Online Rs Online Rs Online Rs Online ReporteporteporteporteportIn the wake of the massacre in Gaza, the Coalition to Opposethe Arms Trade (COAT) published a detailed online reportwith 10 data tables listing about 200 Canadian companiesthat equip Israel’s armed forces. This COAT report was theculmination of two months of research.

Canadian MilitCanadian MilitCanadian MilitCanadian MilitCanadian Military Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportary Exportsssss, W, W, W, W, War Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gazar Crimes in Gazaaaaaand the CANSEC Arms Bazand the CANSEC Arms Bazand the CANSEC Arms Bazand the CANSEC Arms Bazand the CANSEC Arms Bazaaraaraaraaraar

F-15

AH-64

At least 50 Canadian warindustries sold hundredsof parts to the US for thesemajor weapons used byIsrael in their attacks onGaza’s densely-populatedurban neighbourhoods.

Half these firms exhi-bited at the CANSEC 2009arms bazaar in Ottawa.

Canada’s direct mili-tary exports to Israel wereat least $5.7 millionbetween 2003 and 2006.

F-16


One set of tables in COAT’s report focuseson fifty Canadian military exporters that providedhundreds of essential parts for US warplanes andattack helicopters used by Israel in the bombing ofGaza. The types of aircraft in question are the F-15“Eagle,” the F-16 “Fighting Falcon” and AH-64 “Apache.”Two-thirds of the 50 Canadian companies that helped manu-facture these US aircraft, are linked to the Canadian Asso-ciation of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). Twodozen of these CADSI members—or their Canadian parentcompanies—showcased military products at CADSI’s armsbazaar in Ottawa, i.e., CANSEC 2009. (See table below.)

COAT’s report also reveals that for many years, theCanadian government has forced taxpayers to invest theirretirement savings in some of the world’s biggest war indus-tries, like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. (See tables on p.39.)These US companies make warplanes and attack helicoptersthat are exported to Israel. Canada Pension Plan (CPP) in-vestments in these two global weapons makers increasedmore than seven fold from $14 million in 2005, to almost $100million in 2006. This upsurge in CPP investments occurred inthe same year that Israel launched its massive bombing cam-paign against Lebanon. (See table on page 28.) That attackkilled about 1,200 people, mostly innocent civilians.

And, what’s more, thanks to generous support from

the Canadian government, this country’s taxpayers have alsohad to hand over about $4 billion to war manufacturers inpublicly-funded “investments” over the past three decades.5

So, not only are thousands of Canadian employees andshareholders contributing to the technology of war, so tooare millions of unwitting taxpayers and CPP contributors.

A recent example of this government largesse wasCanada’s $52.3 million “investment” in CMC, a highly prof-itable war industry that operates in Montreal and Ottawa.The announcement came on January 13, 2009, the day afterCanada stood alone in voting against the aforementionedUN human rights resolution condemning Israel for bombingGaza. On that same day, Israeli forces killed dozens of Gazans,including at least 11 children and three women.6 (For moreon government handouts to CMC, see pp.15-16.)

But CMC is only one among hundreds of Canadianmilitary exporters that are deeply complicit in the productionof major US weapons systems. Many of these so-called “de-fence” industries benefit when targets like Gaza erupt in flamesand US-made weapons need to be replaced or refurbished.

COAT’s report on Canadian military equip-ment used by the Israeli armed forces, also ex-poses that another 140 Canadian military firmshave exported their wares directly to Israel. Fiftyone of these exporters have held membership inthe Canadian Association of Defence and Secu-rity Industries (CADSI). These companies arelisted in a table on p.27 which shows that 37%attended CADSI’s CANSEC war industry bazaarin 2008 and/or 2009. COAT’s online report pro-vides many extra details about these firms, in-cluding their main military products and informa-tion about their participation on CADSI’s Boardof Directors and its various committees.

Other data tables in COAT’s report containinformation on an additional 85 Canadian mili-tary companies that have told Industry Canadathat they are “actively pursuing” exports to Is-rael. More than one third of these have also hadmemberships in CADSI.

CADSI has a history of promoting Canadianmilitary exports to Israel. In 2004, CADSI organ-ised a “Canada/Israel Industry Partnering Mis-sion” to “advance industrial partnerships be-tween Canadian and Israeli companies.” Speak-ers included Canada’s Minister of National De-fence, Israel’s Ambassador to Canada, a repre-sentative of Israel’s Ministry of Defense, and topbureaucrats from various Canadian governmentdepartments. CADSI members then held a seriesof 20-minute, face-to-face “Company One-on-Ones” with seven of Israel’s top weapons manu-facturers, namely, Elbit, Elisra, Israeli Aircraft In-dustries, Israeli Military Industries, Rafael,Simigon and Soltam.7

CANSEC 2009

ABB Analytical P PAcron Capability Engineering P PAlliedSignal Aerospace Canada P P P *Atlantis Systems International P PBAE Systems Canada Inc. P PBombardier Aerospace P PBristol Aerospace Limited P P *CAE Inc. P PCMC Electronics Inc. P P P PDRS Technologies Canada P P P PELCAN Optical Technologies P P P *eNGENUITY Technologies P P P P *General Dynamics Canada P PHaley Industries Ltd. P P P *Honeywell ASCa Inc. P P P PIMP Group Int’l, Aerospace Division P PL-3 Communications - Electronic Sys. P P P P *L-3 Communications - Targa Systems P P P *Luxell Technologies Inc. P PMagellan Aerospace P P P PPresagis P P P PSNC Technologies Inc. P P PVirtual Protoypes P P *

Canadian Exporters at CANSEC 2009helping manufacture US Weapons used to bomb

Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008-2009)Canadian War Industry AH-64 F-15 F-16

* The parent companies of these eight war industries were exhibitors at CANSEC 2009.

See COAT’s detailed online report

“Canadian Military Exports to Israel:War Crimes in Gaza (2008-2009)”

http://COAT.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/Tables.htm


$8 $10 $9 $71 $62 $64 $16

$5 $3 $5 $27 $37 $35 $35$13 $13 $14 $98 $99 $99 $51

ACE Security Laminates PAllen-Vanguard * P P PAlphacasting P P PAlt Software PAmphenol Canada PAnalytic Systems PBell Helicopter Textron Cda. PCelestica P PClermark P P PCMC Electronics P PConsoltex PCurrent Corporation P P PDishon PDRS Technologies Canada P PDuPont Canada PeNGENUITY Technologies PFrontline Robotics PGeneral Kinetics Engineering P PGeneral Starlight P P PGowling Lafleur Henderson PiMPath Networks PITS Electronics P P PK&Y Diamond PKontron Canada PLYRtech PMDA P P PMecachrome Technologies PMeta Vision Systems PMetcalfe & Associates PMPB Technologies PMSE of Canada PMXI Security PNanowave Technologies P PPCI Geomatics PPDI & Harvard UGS PPleora Technologies PPresagis P P PProparms P PPsion Teklogix P PPwM Consulting PQuanser PSecuresearch * PShellcast Foundries P PSogenti PSpectrum Signal Processing P P PTACO Communications P P PTeam Industrial Services PTeraXion PTiger-Vac International PVestshell PWeatherhaven P P PSources: Data on CADSI and CANSEC comes from CADSI’s website.All these companies report in Industry Canada’s online database (“Cana-dian Company Capabilities”) that they have exported directly to Israel.* Company website notes direct exports to Israel’s Police Force.

RRRRReferefereferefereferencesencesencesencesences1. The Palestinian Ministry of Health

estimate of 1,380 Gazans killedduring Israel’s attacks (including431 children) is based on bodycounts from hospitals. Data doesnot include bodies buried in col-lapsed homes and shelters. About4,100 housing units were com-pletely destroyed and 17,000 par-tially damaged. 92 mosques and 29schools/educational establishmentswere partially or completely de-stroyed. Of the 5,380 injuries, 800were women and 1,872 children.Cited in “The Second Coming ofKing Herod,” Ken Coates, TheSpokesmen, #109, 2009.

2. On Jan. 4, Foreign Affairs Min.Cannon demanded a “ceasefire,starting with halting of all rocketattacks on Israel. Canada maintainsthat the rocket attacks are the causeof this crisis.” Cited by Nidal al-Mughrabi, “Israelis storm intoGaza as tanks counter rockets,”Windsor Star, Jan. 5, 2009.www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=9ad0d7bc-4e4d-4595-b611-2ef78b8771b4

Two days later, when 40 Gazan ci-vilians at a UN school were killedby Israeli shells, former newsmanPeter Kent, now Canada’s Minis-ter of State for Foreign Affairs forthe Americas, said Hamas “bearsthe full responsibility for the deep-ening humanitarian tragedy.” He

blamed Hamas citing their “habitof using civilians and civilian infra-structure as shields.” (Althoughthe UN school had not been usedby Hamas fighters.) See CampbellClark, “Ottawa blames Hamas forcivilian deaths at school,” Globe &Mail, Jan. 6, 2009.www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090106.wgaza_canadians07/BNStory/Front

3. “UN rights council condemns Israelioffensive in Gaza,” AFP, Jan. 12,2009.www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar-ticle/ALeqM5g5WJYV-fltEjKhSXM_EC2at92HeQ

4. “Human Rights Council decides todispatch fact-finding mission to in-vestigate violations against Pales-tinians in occupied territory,” Jan.12 2009.www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/47667EA2AA07F253C125753C004DAFB2?opendocument

5. Richard Sanders, “A Brief Over-view of Industry Canada’s Corpo-rate Hand-Outs,” Press for Conver-sion! Oct. 2003.

6. “19th day of continuous IOF at-tacks across Gaza Strip,” Palestin-ian Centre for Human Rights, Jan.15, 2009.www.rel iefweb. int / rw/rwb.nsf /db900SID/MCOT-7NBKDS?OpenDocument

7. “Canada/Israel Industry PartneringMission,” NOWAR list serve.w w w. n o w a r - p a i x . c a / n o w a r /nowar.archive/v01.n564

CANSEC ExhibitorCanadianMilitary Exporters

Canadian Military Firms linked to theCanadian Assoc. of Defence & Security Industries

(CADSI) that report Direct Exports to IsraelCADSI Member

WeaponsSystem

WarIndustry

AH-64F-15

F-16

Boeing

LockheedMartin

Totals

CPP Investments(in millions of Canadian dollars)

CPP Investments in the US Makersof Major Israeli Weapons Systems

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

CurrentFormer 2008 2009


By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition toOppose the Arms Trade

It’s a topsy-turvy world and Ottawa is cer-tainly no exception. This year in the na-tion’s capital, anti-war artwork was banned

on two campuses for supposedly inciting ha-tred. Meanwhile, the City officially unbannedthe hosting of international arms bazaars thatpretend to promote global peace and security.

In February 2009, during the Israeli mili-tary’s bombing of Gaza, administrative authori-ties at Carleton University banned an anti-warposter. The University of Ottawa soon followedsuit. Students who dared post the offendinggraphic on campus to promote a series of lec-tures and public events during “Israeli Apart-heid Week,” were threatened with expulsion.

The banned art shows a military helicop-ter—labelled “Israel”—firing a missile at a child.The accurately-drawn aircraft is very clearly anAH-64 “Apache” attack gunship of the sametype that was then being used by Israel’s airforce to strike civilian targets in the denselypopulated neighbourhoods of Gaza City.

Meanwhile, quite ironically, after a 20-year City-of-Ottawa ban on facilitating war in-dustry trade shows, Canada’s largest arms exhi-bition—CANSEC—was about to be held at amunicipal facility. COAT research shows thatCANSEC 2009 actually featured at least a dozenCanadian war industries that profited by export-ing parts for the AH-64 attack helicopters. Alsoshowcasing their wares at CANSEC this yearwere a dozen other Canadian war industries thathad sold components for two US warplanes thatwere also used by Israel to strike Gaza. (See thetable on page 26.)

It is beyond question that these threemajor US weapons systems were used by Israelto bomb Gaza. At the time, the massacre in Gazawas reported to have killed at least 1380 people,including more than 430 Gazan children.

Despite this blatant reality, Carleton’s ad-ministration claimed it was Latoff’s artwork—not Israel’s attacks—that deserved condemna-tion. Carleton authorities said the graphic might“incite others to infringe [human] rights” andwas “insensitive to the norms of civil discoursein a free and democratic society.”

The president of Carleton University,Roseanne Runte, said the posters “were deemed...to incite hatred.” However, when 56 Carletonprofessors asked Runte to join them in condemn-ing the human rights violations caused by Isra-el’s bombing of a university in Gaza, she refusedpointblank.

Banning AntiWBanning AntiWBanning AntiWBanning AntiWBanning AntiWar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Shoar Art and UnBanning Arms Showwwwwsssss

This yThis yThis yThis yThis yearearearearear, during the bombing o, during the bombing o, during the bombing o, during the bombing o, during the bombing of Gazf Gazf Gazf Gazf Gaza—while the Citya—while the Citya—while the Citya—while the Citya—while the Cityof Ottawa of Ottawa of Ottawa of Ottawa of Ottawa unununununbanned war industry trade shows onbanned war industry trade shows onbanned war industry trade shows onbanned war industry trade shows onbanned war industry trade shows onmunicipal property—an anti-war graphic was bannedmunicipal property—an anti-war graphic was bannedmunicipal property—an anti-war graphic was bannedmunicipal property—an anti-war graphic was bannedmunicipal property—an anti-war graphic was bannedby two Ottawa universities. The above artwork—by two Ottawa universities. The above artwork—by two Ottawa universities. The above artwork—by two Ottawa universities. The above artwork—by two Ottawa universities. The above artwork—banned at Carleton and the University of Ottawa—banned at Carleton and the University of Ottawa—banned at Carleton and the University of Ottawa—banned at Carleton and the University of Ottawa—banned at Carleton and the University of Ottawa—was created by Carlos Latoff, a Brazilian artist andwas created by Carlos Latoff, a Brazilian artist andwas created by Carlos Latoff, a Brazilian artist andwas created by Carlos Latoff, a Brazilian artist andwas created by Carlos Latoff, a Brazilian artist and

human rights activist.human rights activist.human rights activist.human rights activist.human rights activist.

Another example of hisAnother example of hisAnother example of hisAnother example of hisAnother example of hisexcellent work can be seenexcellent work can be seenexcellent work can be seenexcellent work can be seenexcellent work can be seenon the cover of this issue ofon the cover of this issue ofon the cover of this issue ofon the cover of this issue ofon the cover of this issue ofPress for Conversion!Press for Conversion!Press for Conversion!Press for Conversion!Press for Conversion!

View more of Carlos Latoff’sView more of Carlos Latoff’sView more of Carlos Latoff’sView more of Carlos Latoff’sView more of Carlos Latoff’screations at his website:creations at his website:creations at his website:creations at his website:creations at his website:

latuff2.deviantart.comlatuff2.deviantart.comlatuff2.deviantart.comlatuff2.deviantart.comlatuff2.deviantart.com


By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coa-lition to Oppose the Arms Trade

For three months this year, whilepeace activists were busily cam-paigning to oppose the use of

Ottawa’s publicly-funded municipal fa-cilities for private military arms exhibi-tions, the City’s mayor—LarryO’Brien—was on trial.

The mayor of Canada’s capitalcity remains a board member of CalianTechnologies, a prominent Ottawa-based military industry that he foundedin 1982. The company is a regular ex-hibitor at Ottawa’s annual CANSEC warshow and Mayor O’Brien hasunapologetically flaunted ethicalguidelines by promoting the City’s of-ficial support for the event.

O’Brien is one of those colour-ful corporate-class executives who en-tered the political arena by threateningto run government as if it were his ownprivate business enterprise.

While this apparently is nocrime, attempted bribery and purportedinfluence peddling, are. These chargeswere lodged when a fellow right-wingmayoral candidate, Terry Kilrea, sworein a legal affidavit that O’Brien had of-fered him $30,000 and a plum federal

job on the National Parole Board in ex-change for withdrawing from the may-oral race in 2006.1

Although O’Brien was acquit-ted on August 5,2 Kilrea still maintainsthat he spoke the truth3 and manyOttawans remain very doubtful ofO’Brien’s commitment to the basic prin-cipals of local democracy.

However, there is a far more in-sidious and largely unspoken dimen-sion to this chronicle of O’Brien’s per-ceived willingness to undermine elec-tions. This hidden aspect of the O’Briennarrative, which the corporate news hasnot deigned to report, has to do withhow Canadian military industries—likeO’Brien’s very own Calian Technolo-gies—supply scores of high-tech prod-ucts and services for wars that under-mine democracy in various countriesaround the world.

Like the unseen subsurfacemass of an iceberg, this is the muchlarger yet invisible saga of how Cana-dian military industries profit from thebig business of equipping those whoseprofessional occupation is to wagewar. In practical terms, for Canadianwar industries, this means supplyingwhat some indiscreetly call the “US warmachine.” That’s because about three

quarters of all Made-in-Canada militaryhardware is exported and 80% of thoseexports are sold, without any federalrestrictions, to the United States.

Once south of the border, Ca-nadian technology—much of it in theform of high-tech components—is as-sembled into complete, American weap-ons systems. Although some of thesemajor weapons are then exported toother governments, they are—for themost part—used in whatever war, orwars, the US is then waging. This usu-ally means either some convenient “re-gime change” (to physically topple anunwanted foreign government) or “re-gime maintenance” (to help business-friendly governments retain their irongrip on political power).

Calian is one of these lucrativeCanadian military industries. It suppliessoftware, training, personnel and high-technology components and supportservices to the world’s biggest institu-tions of war. Each of its various sub-sidiaries is deeply ensconced in thebusiness of war. Let’s take a brief lookat a few examples of the Calian con-tracts that have aided and abetted theplanning and waging of large-scalearmed conflicts around the world.

DemocrDemocrDemocrDemocrDemocracacacacacy under Ay under Ay under Ay under Ay under Attttttttttack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abrack at Home and Abroad:oad:oad:oad:oad:OttOttOttOttOttaaaaawwwwwa’a’a’a’a’s Mas Mas Mas Mas Mayyyyyor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Tor O’Brien, Calian Technologies and CANSECechnologies and CANSECechnologies and CANSECechnologies and CANSECechnologies and CANSEC

CADSImember

CANSEC2009Canadian War Industries

helping build B-52s

B-52

Alt SoftwareAlta PrecisionCMC Electronics P PCurtiss-Wright Controls PGeneral Dynamics Cda. P PHeroux Devtek PLynch DynamicsPresagis P PSparton Electronics PTechnologies Harness P


SED SystemsSED Systems is a wholly-owned divi-sion of Calian Technologies, based inSaskatoon, Saskatchewan. It providesground services for various satellitesincluding those used by US intelli-gence and military institutions.

RADARSAT 1 and 2SED has been under contract since 1995to “control and monitor the RADAR-SAT-1” satellite. SED also provides“flight operations services to the RA-DARSAT-2 mission.”4 SED’s pivotalrole in the ongoing operations of thesestate-of -the-art satellites is importantbecause RADARSAT is probablyCanada’s single-most important tech-nological contribution to the militarisa-tion of space and to U.S. warfighting ingeneral. It cost Canadian taxpayersmore than one billion dollars to producethe RADARSAT systems, which arethe world’s most advanced commercialsatellites. However, U.S. military andintelligence agencies are among RA-DARSAT’s top users.

In exchange for launching RA-DARSAT-1 in 1995, the U.S. govern-ment directly controls 15% of this sat-ellite’s total observation time. The Pen-tagon has used RADARSAT-1 data forIntelligence, Surveillance and Recon-naissance operations during the warsagainst Yugoslavia, Afghanistan andIraq. When the Liberal government pri-vatised RADARSAT-1 it was handedover to Vancouver’s MacDonald Det-

twiler and Association (MDA). MDA,which is a regular exhibitor at theCANSEC military trade shows, waswholly owned by Orbital Sciences, aU.S. war industry that manufactures“missile defense” rockets. (Interest-ingly, Liberal-cum-Conservative Cabi-net Minister, David Emerson, was onMDA’s Board of Directors.)

Long before RADARSAT-2’slaunch in 2007, U.S. and NATO warf-ighters used numerous war games topractise using its data to track and tar-get moving, ground vehicles. The abil-ity to exploit this RADARSAT-2 datawas developed by Canada’s Depart-ment of National Defence in collabora-tion with the US Ballistic Missile De-fence Organization. Together they de-veloped detailed plans to use RADAR-SAT-2 data in first-strike attacks dur-ing “Theatre Missile Defense” (TMD)operations. The goal of TMD is not todefend the “homeland” but to protectmissiles, troops and warships that aredeployed to distant war zones. Themany military and intelligence functionsof RADARSAT-1 and -2 are exposed ina detailed, 52-page issue of Press forConversion! called: “Canada’s Role inthe Militarisation of Space: RADAR-SAT - The Warfighters’ Eye in the Skyand its links to ‘Missile Defense.’”5

Manportable Surveillanceand Target Acquisition RadarSED also supplies “various systemsand components” for the so-called“Manportable Surveillance and TargetAcquisition Radar” (MSTAR).This US military system “locatesmoving targets and uniquelyclassifies them as personnel,tracked or wheeled vehicles.”MSTAR is said to have “per-formed admirably in service withU.S. and Allied Forces in Af-ghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans andother locations.” Users of thisweapons targeting system in-clude the U.S. Air Force and theU.S. Army. There are now “morethan 500 MSTAR radars...in serv-ice throughout the world.”6

As during previousyears, SED Systems was an ex-hibitor at the CANSEC 2009 mili-tary trade show in Ottawa thisMay 27 and 28. This landed

Mayor O’Brien in hot water. After go-ing public in a front page newspaperarticle on March 29 to defend the leas-ing of City property to CANSEC,7

O’Brien was accused of blatant con-flict of interest. 8 Because he still sitson the Calian Technologies’ Board ofDirectors, O’Brien stood to personallybenefit financially from the CANSECmilitary trade show because SED wasan exhibitor.9

Calian Technology (US)This branch of Calian Technologiesprides itself on helping to facilitate theexport of US military equipment to for-eign governments around the world. Itdoes this through contracts which pro-vide “Foreign Military Sales manage-ment training in support of the Interna-tional Programs Office of the DefenseLogistics Agency (DLA).” The DLA isthe “logistics combat support agencywhose primary role is to provide sup-plies and services to America’s militaryforces worldwide.”10

But Calian does more than as-sist the US government agency respon-sible for getting war technology intothe hands of a million or more US warf-ighters strategically based around theworld. Calian’s “management support”is specifically designed to help the “in-ternational purchasers of US weaponssystems.”11 Calian contracts include,for example, teaching the DLA’s “For-eign Military Sales managementcourse.”12 This is significant evidenceof Calian Technologies’ integral role insupporting the international arms trade.

SED’s dish forSED’s dish forSED’s dish forSED’s dish forSED’s dish forRADRADRADRADRADARARARARARSSSSSAAAAATTTTT,,,,,

used byused byused byused byused byUS forces inUS forces inUS forces inUS forces inUS forces inAfghanistanAfghanistanAfghanistanAfghanistanAfghanistan

and Iraq.and Iraq.and Iraq.and Iraq.and Iraq.

MSTMSTMSTMSTMSTAR:AR:AR:AR:AR:A USA USA USA USA US

weaponsweaponsweaponsweaponsweaponstargettingtargettingtargettingtargettingtargettingsystemsystemsystemsystemsystemused inused inused inused inused in

AfghanistanAfghanistanAfghanistanAfghanistanAfghanistanand Iraqand Iraqand Iraqand Iraqand Iraq


Australia’s F/A-18 “Hornet”Calian Technology (US) Ltd., has beensupporting the Royal Australian AirForce (RAAF) F/A-18 program since1988. It provides “professional, tech-nical, and administrative support serv-ices” to the RAAF’s Technical LiaisonOffice that “include financial and ad-ministrative support, logistical analy-sis and systems engineering support”for Australia’s fleet of F/A-18s.13

The RAAF has operated its US-made F/A-18s in both the Afghan andIraq wars. The Australian military hasused these fighter/attack warplanes tofulfil various combat roles including theescort of bomber aircraft during bomb-ing sorties, the suppression of enemyair defences, reconnaissance, forwardair control, close and deep air support,and day and night strike missions.

Calian ContentManagement Services

Calian CMS has provided high-technol-ogy software products and services forseveral major US weapons delivery sys-tems, such as the C-130, F-117, MQ-8B,RQ-4, U-214 and F-16.15 These war-planes, and the MQ-8B robotic attackdrone, are outlined on pp.40-48 of thisissue of Press for Conversion!

Business & TechnologyServices Division

In March 2009, Canada’s Departmentof National Defence (DND) renewed amajor contract with Calian’s Businessand Technology Services Division toprovide advanced military training serv-ices. DND is expected to pay out a totalof $200 million to Mayor O’Brien’s mili-tary company. Calian’s role is to createand use high-tech computer-simulatedsynthetic environments to train sol-diers, particularly Canadian warfighterswaging the war in Afghanistan.

Calian’s use of artificial, elec-tronically-created 3-D environmentswill enable Canadian soldiers to prac-tice and rehearse combat tactics thatthey will eventually use on the battle-field in Afghanistan.16 This Calian con-tract is for the continued provision ofTraining and Capability DevelopmentSupport Services with DND’s Directo-rate of Land Synthetic Environments(DLSE). The DLSE is responsible

“to provide demanding and realisticbattle simulation to support collec-tive training [and]...to assist in thedevelopment and validation of com-bat development solutions for theArmy in operations throughout thespectrum of conflict.”17

RRRRReferefereferefereferencesencesencesencesences1. Gary Dimmock, “O’Brien offered cash

if I quit: Kilrea,” Ottawa Citizen, Febru-ary 10, 2007.www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=60cbb55f-0e20-42c2-bb4e-bf05cb4bfa3b&k=11192

2. Daniel Leblanc, “ Ottawa mayor clearedof influence peddling,” Globe and Mail,August 5, 2009.www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-mayor-cleared-of-influence-ped-dling/article1241950/

3. “‘I told the truth’: Kilrea,” CBC News,August 7, 2009.www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/08/07/ottawa-obrien-kilrea-trial.html

4. Satellite Operationswww.sedsystems.ca/satellite_operations

5. Press for Conversion!, March 2006.coat .ncf .ca /our_magazine/ l inks /58/58.html

6. SED Systems signs manufacturing con-tract with U.S. firm, SaskBusiness, No-vember 1, 2003.www.allbusiness.com/north-america/canada-saskatchewan/705137-1.html

7. Andrew Duffy, “Military trade showdraws fire,” Ottawa Citizen, March 29,2009.

8. Jake Rupert, “Mayor called on ethics overshow,” Ottawa Citizen, March 31, 2009.

9. Brendan Kennedy, “Mayor’s companyto exhibit at military trade show,” Ot-tawa Citizen, March 30, 2009.

10. Defense Logistics Agency websitewww.dla.mil

11. Media release, “Calian Awarded Con-tract by US Department of Defense forSecurity Assistance Management Train-ing at the DLA,” April 3, 2001.www.cal ian.com/technology_news/technology_news_2001_04_03.asp

12. Security Assistance/Foreign MilitarySales Management, Commerce BusinessDaily Issue, February 6, 2001.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/2001/02(Febru-ary)/06-Feb-2001/usol001.htm

13. Media release, “Calian’s Divisions SignLong-Term Contracts,” April 13, 2009.

14. Content Management Servicesbts.calian.com/en/about/functional_cap/contentManagement.asp

15. Annual Report 2003.www.calian.com/investment_financials/2003AR_FINAL.pdf

16. Media release, “Calian Advised of Pend-ing 5 Year $100 Million Contract Re-newal with DND,” March 31, 2009.

17. Paul Roman, AEC Presentation SEMWG, September 28, 2000.www.army.forces.gc.ca/tswg/meetings/2000-02_Canada_kingston/Presenta-tions/Ser%2015%20AEC%20Brief.pdf

RAAF F/A-18

Australia’s Fighter/Attackwarplanes, supported by Calian

Technologies since 1988,have been used in both

the Afghan and Iraq wars.


By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coa-lition to Oppose the Arms Trade.

In late September-early October of2008, an arms bazaar called “SecureCanada”—backed largely by the

US government and top American weap-ons industries—was scheduled to takeplace in Ottawa. It was supposed toheld at the City’s prime publicly-fundedmunicipal facility, namely the Lans-downe Park fairgrounds.

However, “Secure Canada” wascancelled by organizers who blamed—in part—the heightened security coststhat they deemed necessary to protecttheir arms show from anti-war protest-ers. Blame also fell on the federal elec-tion. When the election was called thegovernment clamped down on the par-ticipation by bureaucrats, politicians,military personnel and all other federalemployees in any events that mightprove to be controversial.

The Coalition to Oppose theArms Trade (COAT), which brought“Secure Canada” to public attentionand worked for months to oppose it,can certainly take some credit for mak-ing this event controversial. “SecureCanada” was particularly controversialbecause it would have been the firstarms show hosted on City propertysince a military exhibition called ARMXwas held at the City of Ottawa’sLansdowne Park facility in 1989. It wasCOAT’s public campaign againstARMX ‘89 that led Ottawa Council toeffectively ban all arms bazaars on mu-nicipal property for the next 20 years.

As COAT research has re-vealed, “Secure Canada” was also con-troversial because it was so heavilybacked by the US embassy in Ottawa,US government agencies, US war-re-lated industries and US-led businessassociations that represent America’smilitary-industrial complex. These were,quite ironically, the main forces behindthe “Secure Canada” war show.

Organized by a formerOrganized by a formerOrganized by a formerOrganized by a formerOrganized by a formerUS Embassy EmployeeUS Embassy EmployeeUS Embassy EmployeeUS Embassy EmployeeUS Embassy Employee

The key organizer of the “SecureCanada 2008” military trade show wasRick Tachuk. Now vice chair of theOntario Chapter of the American Cham-

ber of Commerce in Canada (AmChanCanada), he has had extensive work ex-perience with the US government andUS business associations. For in-stance, Tachuk was an employee of theAmerican embassy in Ottawa between2000 and 2001. At that time, he waslisted as the contact person for the USembassy in a document for the Interna-tional Masters of Business Administra-tion Internship Program at the Univer-sity of Ottawa. Tachuk’s phone and faxnumbers, listed in this document, matchthose used by the US Embassy when itwas located right across the street fromthe Parliament Buildings in Ottawa.1

When AmCham Canada openeda chapter in the National Capital Re-gion, Tachuk was its leading light. Tocelebrate this initiative there was “aninaugural reception hosted by U.S. Am-bassador to Canada, David H.Wilkins.”An announcement for this US embassyevent said Tachuk had “over 20 years[of] direct experience in U.S.-Canadacross-border trade and investment.”2

In 2000, Tachuk was an analystfor the US Department of Commerce. Inthat capacity he prepared a report onCanada’s “Aerospace/Defense Indus-tries” for a “Country Commercial Guide”of the US & Foreign Commercial Serv-ice and US Department of State.3

US Links to the Three ArmsUS Links to the Three ArmsUS Links to the Three ArmsUS Links to the Three ArmsUS Links to the Three Armsof “Secure Canada”of “Secure Canada”of “Secure Canada”of “Secure Canada”of “Secure Canada”

The “Secure Canada” military tradeshow was comprised of three main com-ponents. The organization of each ofthese segments was spearheaded byeither the US government or by a Ca-nadian branch operation of US-basedmilitary-industry organization.

(1) Secure Canada & the WorldThis segment of the “Secure Canada”show was touted by organizers as

“the ideal opportunity for securityprofessionals to network and expe-rience the latest products and tech-nologies focused on the growingneeds of government public safety,security and defense agencies andprivate sector customers.”

In total there was space for 39booths for “displays by internationalparticipants.” Two foreign govern-ments—the US and Britain—spon-sored “pavilions” for exhibits by someof their top weapons producers. Thelargest pavilion was for the “U.S. Em-bassy Defense & Security Exhibition.”It was hosted by the US CommercialService4—the promotion unit of the USgovernment’s International Trade Ad-ministration. AmCham Canada noted inits promotions that the US Embassy

“Secure Canada”: The Demise of a US Arms Bazaar in Ottawa

The so-called “Secure Canada” military trade show wasThe so-called “Secure Canada” military trade show wasThe so-called “Secure Canada” military trade show wasThe so-called “Secure Canada” military trade show wasThe so-called “Secure Canada” military trade show wasbackbackbackbackbacked bed bed bed bed by the US embassy the US embassy the US embassy the US embassy the US embassyyyyy, US go, US go, US go, US go, US govvvvvernment agenciesernment agenciesernment agenciesernment agenciesernment agencies, US, US, US, US, USwar industr ies and US-led business associat ionswar industr ies and US-led business associat ionswar industr ies and US-led business associat ionswar industr ies and US-led business associat ionswar industr ies and US-led business associat ionsrepresenting the military-industrial complex. And, its keyrepresenting the military-industrial complex. And, its keyrepresenting the military-industrial complex. And, its keyrepresenting the military-industrial complex. And, its keyrepresenting the military-industrial complex. And, its keyorganizer used to work at the US embassy in Ottawa.organizer used to work at the US embassy in Ottawa.organizer used to work at the US embassy in Ottawa.organizer used to work at the US embassy in Ottawa.organizer used to work at the US embassy in Ottawa.


trade show would include displaybooths for “over 30 U.S. suppliers ofsecurity solutions and services.”5

“Secure Canada & the World”was also to include the “UK Trade andInvestment Pavilion.” It was

“organized in cooperation with theBritish High Commission in Ottawa[to]...showcase the products and ca-pabilities of leading UK securitycompanies. In addition to companyexhibits, the Pavilion will also anchora matchmaking program...that willput together UK, Canadian and 3rd

country firms interested in partneringopportunities in Canada andabroad.”6

Whether the dozens of Ameri-can and British manufacturers of mili-tary and police hardware who were plan-ning to descend on Ottawa could evercreate a “secure Canada,” or a secureworld, is highly dubious. We can how-ever be certain that these war indus-tries intended to make off with as largea share of Canada’s burgeoning mili-tary budget as they could. They cer-tainly wanted to secure what they per-ceived as their fair share of the globalmarket in weapons sales.

(2) TechNet North 2008The second component of “SecureCanada 2008” was organized by theCanadian chapter, and particularly theOttawa subchapter, of a US-dominatedinternational war-industry associationcalled the Armed Forces Communica-tions and Electronics Association In-ternational (AFCEA International).

“Founded in 1946, AFCEA’s rootstrace back to the American Civil War.Today, AFCEA serves as a bridgebetween government requirementsand industry capabilities, represent-ing the top government, industry,and military professionals in thefields of information technology,communications, and intelligence.”7

Although the AFCEA has 140chapters and subchapters in 34 coun-tries, more than half of these are locatedin the US.8 The AFCEA’s global head-quarters—based in Fairfax, Virginia—is just half an hour’s drive from down-town Washington, DC.

With the theme of TechNetNorth 2008 set to be “National Securityin a Coalition Environment,” the Cana-

dian government gladly promoted theevent saying it was going to bring “to-gether the players, the issues and thetechnologies that facilitate Canadianand international cooperation in de-fence, public safety and security.”9

Its organizers were hopeful thatthey could attract “more than 100 ex-hibitors from North American Industryto show their latest developments inC4ISR solutions.”10 C4ISR stands for“Command, Control, Communications,Computers, Intelligence, Surveillanceand Reconnaissance.” TechNet North2008 was advertised on an official Cityof Ottawa website as “Canada’s Pre-mier C4ISR Exhibition and ProfessionalDevelopment Conference.”11

(3) Unmanned SystemsCanada Expo 2008This third arm of “Secure Canada 2008”was plugged as “Canada’s premierevent focusing on the national and in-ternational ground, air and maritimeunmanned systems marketplace.”12 Itwas also hyped as “Canada’s NationalShowcase for Unmanned SystemsTechnologies.”13 Although air-, land-and sea-based drones are all of terrify-ing importance to the waging of mod-ern warfare, the most significant amongthese systems are Uninhabited AerialVehicles (UAV). UAVs are being reliedupon more and more for “intelligence,surveillance and reconnaissance” ac-tivities, often to locate targets for laterdestruction by air-launched bombs andmissiles. However, UAVs in themselvesare being increasingly used as weap-

ons delivery systems. A case in pointis the aptly-named “Predator” built byUS war industry giant, General Atom-ics. This weapons manufacturer was themain corporate sponsor of the“Unmanned Systems Canada Expo” of“Secure Canada 2008.”

This exposition was organizedby the Canadian chapter of an interna-tional organization dominated by vari-ous American war industries and USgovernment institutions of war. With“members from government organiza-tions, industry and academia,”14 the As-sociation for Unmanned Vehicle Sys-tems International (AUVSI) bills itself

as “the world’s largest and oldest non-profit organization dedicated to serv-ing and promoting the global unmannedsystems industry.”15 Although AUVSIhas more than 1,400 corporate membersand organizations in 50 countries, mostof these are located stateside. Its Ex-ecutive Committee are also based in theUS and its Board Members represent awho’s who of government and busi-ness entities at the centre of the USmilitary-industrial complex.16 Based inArlington, Virginia, AUVSI’s headquar-

The “Predator” drone—shown firing a “Hellfire” missile—The “Predator” drone—shown firing a “Hellfire” missile—The “Predator” drone—shown firing a “Hellfire” missile—The “Predator” drone—shown firing a “Hellfire” missile—The “Predator” drone—shown firing a “Hellfire” missile—is a remote-controlled aerial vehicle manufactured byis a remote-controlled aerial vehicle manufactured byis a remote-controlled aerial vehicle manufactured byis a remote-controlled aerial vehicle manufactured byis a remote-controlled aerial vehicle manufactured by

US wUS wUS wUS wUS weapons-industry behemoth Genereapons-industry behemoth Genereapons-industry behemoth Genereapons-industry behemoth Genereapons-industry behemoth General Aal Aal Aal Aal Atttttomicsomicsomicsomicsomics.....This company was the main corporate sponsor of theThis company was the main corporate sponsor of theThis company was the main corporate sponsor of theThis company was the main corporate sponsor of theThis company was the main corporate sponsor of the

“Unmanned Systems Canada Expo” of “Secure Canada.”“Unmanned Systems Canada Expo” of “Secure Canada.”“Unmanned Systems Canada Expo” of “Secure Canada.”“Unmanned Systems Canada Expo” of “Secure Canada.”“Unmanned Systems Canada Expo” of “Secure Canada.”

In the mid1990s, AUVSI Canada’scurrent executive director, AnneHealey, spied on COAT for herdad, a Vice-Admiral-cum-warindustry lobbyiest. She went onto become general manager of theassociation organizing CANSEC.


ters is located just across the river fromdowntown Washington, DC.

AUVSI Canada’s executive di-rector is Anne Healey, former generalmanager of the Canadian Defence In-dustries Association. This businessorganization has now transmogrifiedinto the Canadian Association of De-fence and Security Industries, which—among other pro-war business activi-ties—organises the CANSEC arms ba-zaar in Ottawa. (See pp.10-12.)

Ms. Healey is the daughter ofEd Healey, a Canadian Vice-Admiralwho went through the revolving doorfrom Canada’s Navy into the federalgovernment. He served as the Assist-ant Deputy Minister of Defence(Materiel)17 and then became the pro-gram manager overseeing the acquisi-tion of Canada’s multi-billion dollar warfrigates.18 When he left that top gov-ernment posting in 1989, he “went di-rectly” to work as the top lobbyist for aconsulting firm called

“CFN where he is alleged to haveused his past ties and continued ac-cess to National Defence Headquar-ters to lobby senior officials and re-cruit new members to his com-pany.”19

Healeys at that time was COAT’s cam-paign to oppose military industry tradeshows in Ottawa, particularly CANSEC.

Fifteen years later, in the Springof 2009, Ms. Healey attended the Cityof Ottawa’s Corporate Services Com-mittee. She was among a very small mi-nority that actually spoke in favour ofCANSEC. As someone directly in-volved in the business of representingand promoting industries that manufac-ture military drones, Ms. Healey spokeagainst the City’s longstanding ban onhosting arms shows and encouragedCouncillors to welcome the CANSECarms bazaar at municipal facilities.

The US Sponsors ofThe US Sponsors ofThe US Sponsors ofThe US Sponsors ofThe US Sponsors of“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”

Arms show “sponsors” are generallylarge exhibitors that have paid thou-sands of extra dollars to have theirnames promoted in various ways at theevent as well as in pre- and post-eventpromotional materials. Six of the ninesponsors of “Secure Canada 2008” wereUS government and corporate entities:

n The Commercial Service of the USGovernment

n The National Defense IndustrialAssociation (This group—repre-senting 1,375 corporations and47,000 individuals—is America’slargest war industry lobby group.)

n Three major US corporations:• General Atomics• General Dynamics• Sun Microsystems

n AMCHAM Canada (The AmericanChamber of Commerce in Canada)

As unethical as such alleged behav-iour appears, it was apparently perfectlylegal at the time. However, such con-flict of interest is now illegal under theregulations established by Canada’sOffice of the Commissioner of Lobby-ing. CFN Consulting now fronts fordozens of war-related industries.20

In the mid-1990s, at the direc-tion of her father, Anne Healey attendedCOAT meetings and reported back tohim with information about our anti-warefforts. Of particular interest to the

References1. IMBA Internship Program, University

of Ottawa, 2001-2002.www.admin.uot tawa.ca/PDF/IMBA2002.pdf

2. Ontario Chapter Launches NationalCapital Region, November 27, 2007.www.zoominfo.com/people/Tachuk_Rick_270898338.aspx

3. International Market Research Reportsstrategis.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/imr-ri3.nsf/eng/gr-85359.html

4. Website, International Trade Admin.www.trade.gov/cs/

5. Secure Canada 2008www.amchamcanada.ca/ index.php?action=eventdetailspage&eventid=99

6. The “Secure Canada” website is nownow-defunctw w w. s e c u r e c a n . c a / s e c u r e _ c a n a d a_ a n d _ t h e _ w o r l d / U K _ t r a d e _ a n d _investment.php

7. Navy League, Associationswww.navyleague. info/associat ions/veteranorgs.html

8. What is AFCEA?www.afcea.org/documents/whatis.pdf

9. Public Works and Government ServicesCanada, Newsletter - Summer 2008.ssi-iss.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/dmc-cgd/publications/blltns-news/ete-summer-2008-eng.html

10. “TechNet North 2008 returns to Ot-tawa,” The AFCEAN, Winter 2008.afceaottawa.ca/view_doc_by_id.php?id=220&inpage=true

11. Website of Ottawa Centre for Researchand Innovationwww.ottawaclusters.com/_news/news_44.php

12. Tradeshows (Archive)auvac.org/events/tradeshows.php? past=1

13. Unmanned Systems Canada Expo 2008Secure Canada 200874.125.47.132/search?q=cache:sWNEW12MEHgJ:www.smooz.com

14. AUVSI website www.auvsi.org/15. About AUVSI-Canada

www.auvs i -canada .org / index .php?action=cms.mission

16. AUVSI Board Memberswww.auvsi.org/about/board.cfm

17. Murray Dobbin, The politics of KimCampbell: from school trustee to PrimeMinister, 1993, p.108.

18. Barney Danson and Curtis Fahey, NotBad for a Sergeant: The Memoirs ofBarney Danson, 2002.

19. Darcy Knoll, “Purchasing power: aninside look at defence procurement,”Esprit de Corps, January 2006.

20. CFN website, “Our Clients”www.cfnconsultants.com/clients.shtml

Most of the officialMost of the officialMost of the officialMost of the officialMost of the officialsponsors of thesponsors of thesponsors of thesponsors of thesponsors of the

“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”“Secure Canada”arms trade showarms trade showarms trade showarms trade showarms trade show

were large entitieswere large entitieswere large entitieswere large entitieswere large entitiesintimitely tied to theintimitely tied to theintimitely tied to theintimitely tied to theintimitely tied to the

manufacture andmanufacture andmanufacture andmanufacture andmanufacture andpromotion of USpromotion of USpromotion of USpromotion of USpromotion of US

weapons systems.weapons systems.weapons systems.weapons systems.weapons systems.


Location

Canadian War Industry

ABB Analytical Quebec, QC P P F-15Acron Capability Engineering Inc. Ottawa, ON P P P A-10, AH-1, C-130, F-14, RQ-1, F-16, LAVAcroturn Industries Inc. Brampton, ON C-17, F-16Active Gear Company of Canada Concord, ON P LAV, UH-60Advanced Composite Structures Winnipeg, MB C-130, P-3Advanced Micro Devices Thornhill, ON AH-64Aero Stock Inc. Toronto, ON * E-3, E-8, KC-135, RC-135AeroTek Manufacturing Ltd Whitby, ON P C-130, C-17, F-16, F/A-18Aircraft Appliances and Equipment Brampton, ON C-130, F/A-18, UH-60Alt Software Inc. Toronto, ON * AC-130, AH-64, B-52, C-130, F-15, F/A-18, LynxAlta Precision Inc. Anjou, QC B-1, B-2, B-52, C-17, C-130, F-15, F-16, F/A-18Array Systems Computing Inc. North York, ON P MR2, P-3Atlantis Systems International Inc. Brampton, ON P P P C-130, F-15, F/A-18Avcorp Industries Inc. Delta, BC P C-130, CH-47, F-15, F/A-18BAE Systems Canada Inc Ottawa, ON P P P AH-64Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Mirabel, QC P Bell 407Bristol Aerospace Limited Winnipeg, MB P1 P P1 AH-1W, AH-65, F/A-18, M1, UH-1, UH-60CableTest Systems Inc. Markham, ON C-17, F-16CAE Inc St. Laurent, QC P P P A-10, AH-1, AH-64, AV-8, C-130, CH-46, CH-47,

CH-53, E-3, EA-6B, EC-130, F/A-18, Lynx,MH-47, MH-60, P-3, RQ-1, UH-1, UH-60

Calian Technologies Ltd. Ottawa, ON P P P2 C-5, C-130, F-16, F/A-18, F-117, MQ-8B, RQ-4, U2Cam-Tag Industries Inc. Gloucester, ON F-15, F-16, F/A-18Cascade Aerospace Inc. Abbotsford, BC P P P C-130CaseBank Technologies Inc Mississauga, ON P P C-130C-CORE St. John's, NF P P P F/A-18Cercast Inc. Laval, QC AH-64, C-17, F/A-18CHC Composites Inc. Richmond, BC P CH-47, MH-60, UH-60CHC Helicopter Corp. Richmond, BC CH-47CMC Electronics Inc. Kanata, ON P P P A-10, AC-130, AH-1, AT-6, AV-8, B-1, B-52, C-5,

C-130, C-17, CH-47, CH-53, E-2, EA-6B, F/A-18,F-14, F-15, F-16, KC-135, Lynx, M-1, M109,MC-130, P-3, S-3, UH-1, UH-60

Colt Canada Kitchener, ON P P P C7, C8Dart Aerospace Limited Hawkesbury, ON AH-1, UH-1DRS Flight Safety & Communications Carleton Place, ON P1 P P1 C-130, E-3, F/A-18, M-109DRS Technologies Canada Carleton Place, ON P P P AH-64, F/A-18, F-15, F-16, M1, M2/M3, P-3DY 4 Systems Inc. Kanata, ON P1 EA-6B, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-117, P-3, RQ-1Edgewater Computer Systems Inc Kanata, ON * C-17, C-130, F-15, F-16, F/A-18EDS Canada Inc. Ottawa, ON P P AV-8, C-130, CH-46, GR-4, LynxELCAN Optical Technologies Midland, ON P1 P P1 BGM-109, F/A-18, F-15, F-16, LAV, M1, M2/M3

Canadian Associationof Defence & Security

Industries (CADSI)

CADSIMember

2009

100 Canadian War Industries Exporting Parts &/or Servicesfor Weapons Systems used in Iraq, and other Wars

CANSECExhibitor

2008 2009

Canadian Parts/Services Exportedfor these Weapons Systems

(See pages 40-48 for details.)


Canadian War Industry

EMS SATCOM Kanata, ON P AC-130, C-17, C-130, CH-47, E-3, E-8, HH-60,MH-53, MH-60, RC-135, UH-60

eNGENUITY Technologies Montreal, QC * A-10, AH-64, B-2, C-130, F-15, F-16, MH-60GasTOPS Ltd. Gloucester, ON P P F/A-18Genaire Ltd Niagara- P C-130, C-17

on-the-Lake, ONGeneral Dynamics Canada Ltd. Nepean, ON P P P AH-64, BGM-109, B-52, KC-130, LAV, M1,

M109, M2/M3, MQ-1, MR2, P-3, UH-60Geometrix Limited Victoria, BC F-16, LAVGoodrich Aerospace Canada Ltd. Burlington, ON A-10, C-5, C-17, CH-47Haley Industries Limited Haley Station, ON P1 P P1 B-1, F/A-18, F-15, F-16Heroux Devtek Inc. Kitchener, ON P A-10, B-1, B-2, B-52, C-5, C-17, C130, CH-53, E-3,

F-15, F-16, F/A-18, KC-10, KC-135, P-3, RQ-4Highland Integrated Etobicoke, ON P C-130, M109, UH-60Surveillance SystemsHoneywell ASCa Inc. Mississauga, ON P1 P P1 AH-64, CH-47, CH-53, E-2, F-14, F-15, F-16,

F/A-18, M1, P-3, UH-1, UH-60Hypernetics Limited Arnprior, ON * A-10, AH-1, AV-8, B-1, B-2, C-130, F-14, F-16,

F/A-18, F-117, GR-4, RQ-4, UH-60IMP Group International Inc. Halifax, NS P P P CH-53, F-16, F/A-18, P-3Interfast Inc. Etobicoke, ON C-17, F-15, F/A-18Intergraph Canada Ltd. Calgary, AB P A-10International Submarine Engineering Port Coquitlam, BC P F-15, F-16L-3 Communications - CMRO Mississauga, ON P1 P P1 C-130, C-17, F/a-18, P-3, UH-60L-3 Communications - Etobicoke, ON P1 P P1 A-10, AC-130, AH-64, AV-8, BGM-109, C-130,Electronic Systems C-5, C-17, E-3, EA-6B, F/A-18, F-14, F-15,

F-16, KC-135, LAV, M1, M2/M3L-3 Communications - MAS Mirabel, Quebec P1 P P1 F/A-18L-3 Communications - Spar Aerospace Edmonton, AB P1 P P1 C-130, E-2, F/A-18, UH-1L-3 Communications - Nepean, ON P1 P P1 A-10, AH-1, B-2, C-130, CH-53, F-15, F-16,Targa Systems GR-4, P-3, UH-1, UH-60L-3 Communications - WESCAM Burlington, ON P1 P P1 AH-1, AT-6, C-130, HC-130, Lynx, MC-130,

MR2, P-3, RQ-1Luxell Technologies Inc. Mississauga, ON P P CH-47, F/A-18, F-16, Lynx, P-3Lynch Dynamics Inc. Mississauga, ON A-10, B-52, C-5, C-17, C-130, F-14, F-15, F-16,

F/A-18, F-117, P-3Magellan Aerospace Corporation Mississauga, ON P P P AH-64, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, GR7, UH-60Martec Ltd Halifax, NS P P P C-130Menasco Canada Ltd Mississauga, ON F-16Merrill Engineering Ltd Delta, BC AV-8, UH-60Messier-Dowty Ajax, ON AV-8, C-130, F-16, F/A-18Metal Improvement Company LLC Brampton, ON P1 C-17, C-130, F-14, F-16, F/A-18MHD International Aviation Parts St. Bruno, QC P P P C-130, E-3, KC-135MXI Technologies Gloucester, ON P F/A-18Nav-Aids Ltd. St. Laurent, QC AH-1, AH-64, C-130, CH-47, CH-53, F-15, F-16,

Lynx, P-3, UH-1, UH-60

Location


Industries (CADSI)

CADSIMember

CANSECExhibitor

2008 2009


(See pages 40-48 for details.)


CANSECExhibitor

Location


(See pages 40-48 for details.)Canadian War Industry

Navhouse Corporation Bolton, ON A-10, AV-8B, C-130, E-2, EA-6B, F-14, F-15,F-16, F/A-18, HH-60, KC-10, P-3, S-3

NGRAIN Corporation Vancouver, BC P P P C-130, CH-47, KC-135, P-3Northstar Aerospace (Canada) Inc. Toronto, ON * AH-64, CH-47, F-16, UH-60Novatronics Inc. Stratford, ON * F-14, F/A-18ODIM Spectrum Ltd. Peterborough, ON P MH-60Plexsys International Canada, Inc Orleans, ON P P E-3Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Longueuil, QC P P P AT-6, C-130, RC-12, UH-1Presagis Montreal, QC P P P AH-64, B-1, B-2, B-52, C-130, CH-47, E-2,

F/A-18, F-15, F-16, F-117Professional Machine Service Markham, ON A-10, UH-60Raytheon Canada Limited Calgary, AB P P P C-130, F/A-18Rohde & Schwarz Canada Inc. Ottawa, ON P P P E-2Rolls Royce Canada Lachine, Quebec P P P AV-8Schaeffler Canada Stratford, ON P P CH-53, E-3, F-14, F-16, P-3SEI Industries Inc. Delta, BC P P CH-46, CH-47, UH-1, UH-60Simex Defence Inc. Pointe-Claire, QC P P C-130, CH-47, F/A-18, M1, M2/M3, UH-1Simgraph Inc. Laval, QC P C-130SNC Technologies Inc. Le Gardeur, QC P P1 P1 F-15, F-16Solectron Technical Centre Kanata, ON * F-16Sparton Electronics London, ON P B-52, C-5, C-130, F-15, F-16, F/A-18Standard Aero Ltd Winnipeg, MB P C-130, P-3StockerYale Canada Inc. Dollard-des- AH-64

Ormeaux, QCTechnologies Harness Scanner St.-Hubert, QC P B-52, C-17, C-130, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-117, P-3Tecnickrome Aeronautique Inc Montreal, QC F-16TSL Aerospace Technologies Ltd. Caledon Vill., ON P P P C-130, C-17, CH-47, KC-135, UH-60Tulmar Safety Systems Inc. Hawkesbury, ON P P P LynxVac Aero International Inc. Oakville, ON C-130, C-17, F-15, F-16, F/A-18Vector Aerospace Corporation Toronto, ON P P C-130, CH-47, LynxW.R. Davis Engineering Ltd. Ottawa, ON * CH-47, CN-235, UH-1West Heights Manufacturing Kitchener, ON P1 AV-8, P-3Wiebel Aerospace (1995) Inc Summerside, PEI P1 EA-6B, F-14, F-15, F/A-18xwave, A Division of Bell Aliant Brampton, ON P1 P P1 C-130, E-3

Endnotes1. The company listed is owned by a corporation with membership in CADSI.2. Calian subsidiary SED Systems was an exhibitor at CANSEC in 2008 and 2009.* Known membership in CADSI prior to 2009.


Industries (CADSI)CADSI

Member2009 2008 2009

For details on the exact parts/services exportedby these Canadian war industries for

major weapons systems, see COAT’s report:

“Profiting from theSlaughter of Innocents in Iraq.”

http://COAT.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/topCANSEC.htm

WWWWWararararars Mean Business!s Mean Business!s Mean Business!s Mean Business!s Mean Business!Many of Canada’s

war industries arepublicly traded onthe stock market.Divestment is animportant way towithdraw publicconsent and sup-

port from the unethi-cal business of war.


AgustaWestland(owned byFinmeccanica) 9 Italy 2 LynxBAE Systems 2 UK 1 AV-8, M2/M3,

M109, MR2Boeing 3 USA 1 AH-64, B-1, B-52,

C-17, CH-46, CH-47,E-3, F-15, F/A-18,KC-10, KC-135,MH-47, RC-135

EADS 7 France 10 CN-235Lockheed 1 USA 3 AC-130, C-5, C-130,Martin EC-130, F-16, F-117,

M-270, MC-130,P-3, S-3, U-2

Northrop 4 USA 5 B-2, E-2, E-3, E-8,Grumman EA-6B, F-14,

MQ-8B, RQ-4Raytheon 6 USA 2 BGM-109Sikorsky CH-53, HH-60,(owned by MH-53, MH-60,United Tech.) 10 USA 3 UH-60Total 27

1 Lockheed Martin USA 92.5 5 27 37 34 3 2 BAE Systems UK 95 2 24 13 0 0 3 Boeing USA 48 9 71 62 64 1 4 Northrop Grumman USA 77 5 44 41 40 5 5 General Dynamics USA 79 3 25 27 55 0 6 Raytheon USA 93 4 20 21 37 2 7 EADS Nether. 21.3 7 26 16 2 10 8 L-3 Communications USA 81 2 5 3 17 0 9 Finmeccanica Italy 53.6 5 18 21 17 2 10 United Technol. USA 16 8 56 53 57 3 13 ITT USA 46.7 2 9 10 9 5 14 KBR USA 68.2 0 0 0 0 2 15 Honeywell USA 14.5 1 34 31 45 4 17 Rolls-Royce UK 29.6 1 8 13 0 0 18 General Electric USA 26.8 323 364 318 347 4 19 Navistar USA 3.6 0 0 0 0 10 21 Computer Sciences USA 24.2 11 21 18 13 15 23 Textron USA 17.8 1 10 5 12 0 26 Mitsubishi Heavy Japan 1 90 21 44 28 29 33 Harris USA 39.1 0 0 0 0 5 34 Rockwell Collins USA 50.5 2 10 9 8 1 38 Dassault Aviation France 43 3 0 0 0 0 46 Babcock

International Grp. UK 57.7 0 0 0 2 0 49 Mitsubishi Electric Japan 2.4 16 14 47 34 24 50 Kawasaki Heavy Japan 6 0 5 10 6 7 54 Singapore Tech.

Engineering Singapore 33 1 0 0 0 0 58 NEC Japan 1.6 9 15 19 23 18 61 Fluor USA 3.9 0 0 0 14 2 62 Jacobs Engineering USA 6.9 0 0 0 0 3 71 Samsung Techwich S. Korea 35.2 0 0 0 5 3 79 CAE Canada 42.6 NA 46 68 52 24 94 Korea Aerospace S. Korea 61.4 61 0 0 0 0 95 Fujitsu Japan 0.9 17 26 29 6 16 97 Hyundai S. Korea 21.6 2 66 51 83 59 98 Accenture USA 14.2 2 27 41 41 44

CPP annual totals (in millions of Cdn $) 592 992 939 1051 301

World’s TopRanking

War IndustriesCountry

Revenuefrom

Military(%) 20

05

2009

2008

2006

2007

RANK

CPP Investments(in millions of Cdn $)2

008

PrimeContractors

CPP Invests in Prime Contractorsof Weapons Systems used in Iraq,

containing Canadian Parts

C P P2008

(millionsof

Cdn $)

MajorWeaponsSystems

(see pages 40-48)

CPP Investments in the World’s Top War Industries

Over the past five years, the government-appointed andmandated Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)has used the retirement savings of Canadians to buy shares

in many of the world’s top weapons manufacturers. As the tablebelow indicates, CPP investments grew from about $600 million in2005 to a 2008 peak of over $1 billion in firms ranked by DefenseNews magazine as the globe’s top 100 military manufacturers.

Due to a sell-off in shares, the value of CPP holdings inthese top war industries was down 70% from 2008’s $1 billionpeak to about $300 million in March, 2009. This returns the CPP’sinvestments in these particular war industry to 2003 levels whenits shares in these firms were valued at $235 million.

In 2003, the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)published extensive details about CPP investments in hundreds ofCanadian and foreign military industries. In October of that year,

Press for Conversion! (issue #52) called “Operation EmbeddedComplicity: Canada, Playing our Part in the Business of War,” wasused to launch a COAT campaign. Through that effort, COATawakened many thousands of Canadians to many disturbing factsabout how their pension money was being invested. COAT wasfirst among several Canadian organisations to highlight CPP in-vestments in corporations that aversely effect peace, the environ-ment, human rights and health.

Understandably—from the CPPIB’s strictly profit-ori-ented perspective—the bigger the global weapons industry, themore attractive it looks as an investment. Therefore, the higher awar industry’s revenue from military production, the higher thechances that CPP money will flow to that corporation. For in-stance, over the past five years the CPP has invested in:

• 100% of world’s top 10 war industries.• 87% of world’s top 15 war industries.• 72% of world’s top 25 war industries.• 50% of world’s top 50 war industries.• 35% of world’s top 100 war industries.Among the world’s “top ten” war industries are eight compa-nies (see below) that were the prime contractors for 80% ofall the weapons systems shown on pages 40 to 48 of thisissue of Press for Conversion! All of the weapons systemslisted in this issue have two things in common:(1) Canadian military industries exported major parts and/

or services that were used in their manufacture, and(2) they have been deployed in major numerous armed con-

flicts, including the current war in Iraq since 2003.

CPP Investments in Top 100 Global Weapons Makers

Sources:“Defense News Top 100 for 2008,” Defense News.Public Equity Holdings, CPP Investment Board website.

RANK2009

COUNTRY


A-10 “ThunderboltThunderboltThunderboltThunderboltThunderbolt”

This US attack warplane was designedaround the “Avenger,” one of theworld’s most powerful aircraft cannons.It fires 3,900 shells per minute of radio-active Depleted Uranium munitions.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1991,1990s), Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Af-ghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq(2003-present)

AC-130 “SpectrSpectrSpectrSpectrSpectreeeee” CPP RRRRR

These modified US C-130 cargo planesare the most heavily-armed “gunships”in existence. They circle their targetsand “saturate” them with cannon fire.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1962-1975), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989),Iraq (1990-1991), Somalia (1992-1994),Yugoslavia (1990s), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

AH-1 “CobraCobraCobraCobraCobra”

Also known as the Bell 209, this wasthe prime attack helicopter of the USArmy and retains that role with the USMarines. It is also used by Israel, Paki-stan, Thailand, Turkey and others.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1967-1975), Lebanon (since mid1970s), Gre-nada (1983), Panama (1989), Iraq (1990-1991), Somalia (1992-1994), Haiti (1994)and Yugoslavia (1999).

AH-64 “ApacheApacheApacheApacheApache” CPP RRRRR

The U.S. Army’s advanced attack heli-copter destroys, disrupts and delaysduring day, night or in adverse weather.It is used by Egypt, Kuwait, Israel, SaudiArabia, the UAE, UK and others.

Combat record includes: Panama (1989-1990), Lebanon (1990s, 2006), Iraq(1991), Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Pales-tine (2000), Afghanistan (2001-present),Iraq (2003-present), Gaza (2008-2009).

AT-6B “TTTTTeeeeexxxxxan IIan IIan IIan IIan II”

This armed version of the T-6B has beenused for weapons training and “lightattack” counter-insurgency (COIN)warfare roles. The Iraqi Air Force is re-ceiving at least 36 AT-6Bs for COIN war.

AV-8 “HarrierHarrierHarrierHarrierHarrier” CPP R

Like a helicopter, this subsonic attack/fighter “jump jet” can take off and landvertically and typically operates fromwar ships. It provides the US Marineswith offensive air support.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1991),Somalia (1992-1994), Yugoslavia (1990s,1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) andIraq (2003-present).

GR4 “TTTTTornadoornadoornadoornadoornado”

This combat aircraft was developed bythe UK, Germany and Italy. It has withlong-range, high-speed strike capabili-ties and fulfills all-weather, day-and-night tactical reconnaissance tasks.

Combat record includes: Afghanistan(2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

GR7 “Harrier II”Harrier II”Harrier II”Harrier II”Harrier II”

Britain’s second generation vertical/short takeoff and landing jet aircraft isused in attack roles and can operatefrom small aircraft carriers.

Combat record includes: Yugoslavia(1990s), Afghanistan (2001-present)and Iraq (2003-present),

“LLLLLynxynxynxynxynx” CPP R

This UK-built attack/utility helicopter,used by over a dozen nations, fulfilsanti-armour, as well as search and res-cue and anti-submarine warfare roles.

Combat record includes: Falklands(1982) and Iraq (1991, 2003-present).

WWWWWeapons with Canadian Peapons with Canadian Peapons with Canadian Peapons with Canadian Peapons with Canadian Partartartartartsssss, used in Ir, used in Ir, used in Ir, used in Ir, used in Iraq & other Waq & other Waq & other Waq & other Waq & other WarararararsssssAttack Aircraft

100 Canadian industries involved in providing parts & services for these war technologies, are listed on pp.36-39.For hundreds of Canadian parts provided, see COAT’s report: http://COAT.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/CANSECweapons.htm


Cargo/Transport

Bell 407

This Canadian-built transport helicop-ter is used by corporations, police andfor air ambulance services. It is built byBell Helicopters at Mirabel, QC. Doz-ens are being “militarized” by the USArmy for export to the Iraqi Air Force.

C-5 “Galaxy” CPP R

These military transport planes providestrategic intercontinental cargo serv-ices for the US Air Force. As one of theworld’s largest warplanes, it carriestroops and weapons systems, includ-ing tanks and various aircraft.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1970-1972), Israel (1973), Iraq (1991), Yugo-slavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

C-130 “Hercules” CPP R

With over 20 million flight hours, this isthe main transport for US troops, weap-ons and tanks into war zones. Somevariants sprayed Agent Orange whileothers have dropped the world’s larg-est conventional weapons (BLU-82).

B-1 “Bone” CPP R

This supersonic US Air Force intercon-tinental, “stealth” warplane was devel-oped as a strategic nuclear bomber forthe Strategic Air Command between1986 and 1992. It was converted to con-ventional weapons use between 1993and 1997.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1990s),Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

B-2 “Spirit” CPP R

Costing $2.1 billion each, this intercon-tinental strategic heavy bomber—which uses stealth technology to evaderadar—is probably the most expensiveweapons system ever produced. De-veloped for Cold War nuclear bombingroles, these weapons systems are nowtasked to wage both conventional andnuclear bombing roles.

Combat record includes: Yugoslavia(1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) andIraq (2003-present).

BombersB-52 “Stratofortress” CPP R

Built to carry nuclear weapons duringthe Cold War, the B-52 has been thebackbone of the US Air Force’s nuclearforces for more than five decades. Serv-ing within the Strategic Air Commanduntil 1992, it was then absorbed intoAir Combat Command. It is a long-range, subsonic, jet-powered heavybomber that can fly 9000 miles withoutrefuelling. It was used to drop 40 per-cent of all the bombs used against Iraqin 1991.

Combat record includes: Cuba (1962),Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1962-1975),Korea (1976), Iraq (1990s), Yugoslavia(1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) andIraq (2003-present).

F-117 “Night Hawk” CPP R

This a wedge-shaped aircraft was for-merly operated by the US Air Force. Itused a variety of “stealth” features tomake it virtually undetectable by radar.Although inaccurately designated a“fighter” or “F” series warplane, it wasactually a ground-attack bomber war-plane that carried up to 5,000 poundsof ordnance, including laser-guided andpenetration bombs. It was retired in2008.

Combat record includes: Panama (1989),Iraq (1991, 1990s), Yugoslavia (1999),Afghanistan (2001-2008) and Iraq(2003-2008).



Combat record includes: Lebanon(1958), Congo (1960-1961, 1964-1965),Dominican Republic (1965), Vietnam(1962-1975), Korea (1968-1969), Cambo-dia (1970), Israel (1973), Korea (1976),Zaire (1978), Iran (1980), Grenada (1983),Panama (1989), Iraq (1991), Somalia(1991-1992), Angola (1992), Sierra Leone(1992), Somalia (1992-1994), Haiti (1994-1995), Rwanda (1994-1996), Yugoslavia(1990s, 1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

C-17 “Globemaster” CPP R

This heavy-lift US transport rapidly de-ploys combat units and sustains themwith weapons and supplies. It is alsooperated by Australia, Canada and theUK. NATO, Qatar, and the UAE haveplaced orders for C-17s.

Combat record includes: Afghanistan(2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

CH-46 “Sea Knight” CPP R

Since 1964, this Assault Support heli-copter has been used by the US Navyand Marine Corps to move combattroops, weapons and supplies to war.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1966-1975), Iran-Iraq (1980-1988), Falklands(1982), Iraq (1990-1991), Yugoslavia(1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) andIraq (2003-present).

CH-47 “Chinook” CPP R

This US assault troop carrier has beenused for artillery placement and battle-field supply since the early 1960s. It hasbeen sold to at least 16 nations; includ-ing Argentina, Iran and the UK.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1962-1975), Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Falk-lands War (1982), Iraq (1990-1991), Yu-goslavia (1998), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

CH-53 “Sea Stallion” CPP R

This heavy-lift, US assault/transporthelicopter is used for “Special Opera-tions” not only by the US, but by Is-rael, Germany, Mexico and others.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1962-1975), Egypt (1969), Lebanon (1973+),Iran (1980), Afghanistan (2001-present),Iraq (2003-present) and Lebanon (2006)

CN-235 CPP R

Developed by Spain and Indonesia.Other military users include Chile, Co-lombia, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Jordan,Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama,South Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Af-rica, Thailand, Turkey and the US,which uses it for CIA renditions.

Combat record includes: Yugoslavia(1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) andIraq (2003-present)

KC-10 “Extender” CPP R

This tanker was in service with US Stra-tegic Air Command between 1981 and1992. It was responsible for the air re-fuelling of US nuclear bombers, recon-naissance aircraft and command postwarplanes. The US Air Force now hasfive hundred KC-10s in service to re-fuel its bombers and fighter aircraft.KC-10s are also used by the Nether-lands Air Force.

Combat record includes: Libya (1986),Iraq (1990-1991), Yugoslavia (1999), Af-ghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq(2003-present)

KC-135 “Stratotanker” CPP R

This US air-to-air tanker conducts mid-flight refuelling operations for Air Force,Navy and Marine Corp aircraft. Since1957, it has brought far-flung militarytargets into reach and allowed fighterand bomber warplanes to spend manyadditional hours at the battlefront. Ithas been exported to France, Singaporeand Turkey.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1965-1972), Libya (1986), Iraq (1991), Yugo-slavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).



E-2 “Hawkeye” CPP R

This US Navy tactical Airborne EarlyWarning and Control aircraft is the"eyes of the fleet." It is a carrier-basedaircraft that carries out surface surveil-lance, directs fighter planes flying com-bat missions and provides battle man-agement for ground attack. It also pro-vides datalink and communication re-lay for land and naval forces. It is oper-ated by Egypt, France, Israel, Japan,Mexico, Singapore and Taiwan.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1962-1975), Libya (1986), Iraq (1991, 1990s),Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan(2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present)

E-3 “Sentry” CPP R

This US Air Force Airborne Warningand Control System warplane is distin-guished by a disc-shaped radome aboveits fuselage. It provides surveillance,command, control and communicationsservices that are essential for US warf-ighters. It is also used by the armedforces of France, Japan, NATO, SaudiArabia and the UK.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1990-1991), Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Af-ghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq(2003-present).

E-8 “Joint STARS” CPP R

The Joint Surveillance Target AttackRadar System is a US Air Force battlemanagement, and command and con-trol platform. It uses advanced radarsystems to carry out ground surveil-lance in support of targeting and at-tack operations to delay, disrupt anddestroy enemy forces.

Combat record includes: Yugoslavia(1990s, 1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

EC-130“Commando Solo” CPPR

This US Air Force warplane is a broad-cast station that conducts “psychologi-cal operations” using AM, FM, HF, TVbands and military communicationschannels. It can preempt and replaceany country’s regular radio and TV pro-grams. Its therefore targets civilians andtroops alike. It is also a battlefield com-mand and control centre and a commu-nications jamming platform.

Combat record includes: Grenada(1983), Iraq (1991), Panama (1989-1990),Haiti (1994-1995), Yugoslavia (1999),Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq(2003-present).

EA-6B “Prowler”

This US Navy warplane is an electroniccommand and control centre that pro-vides electronic data links and commu-nications. However, it is also armed toattack ground targets. Its electronicwarfare functions include monitoringthe electromagnetic spectrum and pro-tecting fighter warplanes, bombers andwarships by jamming radar and com-munications.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1962-1975), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Iran(1987-1989), Iraq (1991), Yugoslavia(1990s, 1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

Electronic Warfare



F-14 “Tomcat” CPP R

This US Navy carrier-based air superi-ority fighter is also a tactical reconnais-sance platform and long range intercep-tor. It is designed primarily to protectUS warships by attacking enemy air-craft but it can also launch weapons tostrike ground targets. It was retired fromUS forces in 2006, but is still used byIran which purchased these warplanesduring the US-backed Shah’s regime.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1974-1975), Cambodia (1975), Laos (1977),Iraq-Iran (1980s), Libya (1980s), Leba-non (1982-1983), Grenada (1983),Panama (1989-1990), Iraq (1991, 1990s),Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan(2001-2006) and Iraq (2003-2006).

F-15 “Eagle” CPP R

This tactical, US Air Force fighter planewas designed for aerial combat. It usesits extreme manoeuvrability, accelera-tion, range, electronic systems and awide range of weapons to attack en-emy aircraft as well as targets on theground. One variant, the F-15E, hasbeen tasked to deliver nuclear weap-ons. It is also used by the air forces ofIsrael, Japan and Saudi Arabia.

Combat record includes: Syria/Lebanon(1973, 1979-1981), Libya (1983), Iraq(1984), Tunisia (1985), Iraq (1991,1990s), Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Af-ghanistan (2001-present), Iraq (2003-present), Lebanon (2006) and Gaza(2008-2009).

F-16 “Fighting Falcon”CPP R

This multi-role, high-performancefighter warplane is used by the US AirForce for air-to-air combat and groundattack. It has been exported to 24 coun-tries including Chile, Egypt, Jordan, In-donesia, Israel, Pakistan, Taiwan, SouthKorea, Turkey and Venezuela.

Combat record includes: Lebanon(1981-1983), Iraq (1991, 1990s), Yugo-slavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan (2001-2003), Iraq (2003-present), Lebanon(2006) and Gaza (2008-2009).

F/A-18 “Hornet” CPP R

This fighter/attack warplane is used bythe US Navy, Air Force and Marines. Itcan operate from US aircraft carriers andland bases. F/A-18s conduct such com-bat roles as escorting bomber aircraft,suppressing enemy air defences, andconducting reconnaissance and strikemissions. Canada is the largest foreignoperator of these warplanes, but theyare also used by Australia, Finland, Ku-wait, Malaysia, Spain and Switzerland.

Combat record includes: Libya (1986),Iraq (1991, 1990s), Yugoslavia (1990s,1999), Afghanistan (2001-present) andIraq (2003-present).

Fighters


BOMBIESBOMBIESBOMBIESBOMBIESBOMBIESONONONONON

BOBOBOBOBOARDARDARDARDARD

Weapons:Canadian Complicity

Canadian military exporters havesupplied hundreds of partsand services for major weap-

ons systems that have been used inIraq, and many other wars. (These arethe weapons outlined, pp.40-48.)Eighty percent of the weapons systemsare made by prime contractors that theCanada Pension Plan is now invest-ments in. These major weapons sys-tems are designed to deliver a wide va-riety of bombs, missiles and other mu-nitions. Below is a partial list showingfour of the many kinds of munitionsonboard these weapons systems:APL AntiPersonnel LandminesCB Cluster BombsDU Depleted UraniumNucl. Nuclear bombsThe 22 military aircraft and land sys-tems listed below are equipped to “de-liver” at least the following munitions.

Weapons APL CB Nucl. DUA-10 P P PAC-130 PAH-1 PAH-64 PAV-8 P P PB-1 P PB-2 P P P PB-52 P P PBGM-109 P PF-14 P PF-15 P P PF-16 P PF-117 PF/A-18 P PGR-4 PGR-7 P PLynx P PM-1 PM2/M3 PM-109 PM-270 PUH-60 P


LAV

Thousands of Light Armoured Vehicles(LAVs) have been built by General Dy-namics Canada in London, Ontario.(Formerly called General MotorsCanada (Diesel Division). These ar-moured personnel carriers are equippedwith chain guns, machine guns and/orStinger missiles. LAVs are designed toquickly move troops into battle zones,whether in cities or open areas. TheseCanadian battle vehicles are used bythe armed forces of Australia, Canada,Saudi Arabia and the US.

Combat record includes: Somalia (1993),Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq(2003-present).

M1 “Abrams”

This main battle tank used by the USArmy and Marine Corps is well armed,heavily armoured and highly mobile. Itsmain purpose is to destroy opposingarmies and particularly their armouredvehicles and tanks. Equipped with threemachine guns and a main gun that firesa variety of high explosive, white phos-phorus and an antipersonnel (multipleflechette) rounds. It is used by Egypt,Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Australia.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1991,2003-present).

M109 “Paladin” CPP R

This US-made weapon is America’smost advanced self-propelled 155 mmhowitzer. With a crew of six, travellingat 35 mph, it fires 4 rounds per minuteto ranges of 30 kms. Also used byCanada (until 2005), Egypt, Israel,Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, SaudiArabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, theUK and several other NATO countries.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1965-1975), Egypt (1973), Lebanon (1982),Iran-Iraq (1980s), Iraq (1991), Yugosla-via (1990s, 1999), Iraq (2003-present)and Lebanon (2006).

M2/M3 CPP R“Bradley Fighting Vehicle”

This US armoured, tracked infantryfighting vehicle transports troops andis also a sophisticated weapons plat-form with tremendous firepower that isused to destroy tanks, vehicles andother targets. Equipped with a 25 mmcannon, TOW missiles, plus a chaingun and a coaxial machine gun. It isalso operated by Saudi Arabia.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1991,2003-present).

M-270 CPP R

This tracked, self-propelled weaponsystem with origins in the US fires sur-face-to-surface artillery rockets and mis-siles, including antipersonnel clusterbombs. With a maximum speed of 64km/hour, and a maximum range of 435km, it provides what the military calls a“shoot and scoot” capability. It has alsobeen sold to Bahrain, Denmark, Egypt,Finland, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy,Japan, Netherlands, Norway, South Ko-rea, Turkey, and the UK.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1990-1991, 2003-present) and Afghanistan(2007-present)

Land Vehicles and Artillery

For the Canadian industries involved in providing parts and/or services for the above technologies, see pp.36-39.For hundreds of Canadian parts provided, see COAT’s report: http://COAT.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/CANSECweapons.htm

NOW


PatrolP-3 “Orion” CPP R

This long-range, maritime patrol aircraftof the US Navy, conducts anti-surfacewarfare and anti-submarine warfare. Itsduties include Command, Control,Communications, Computers and Intel-ligence, as well as Surveillance and Re-connaissance (C4ISR) responsibilities.It is operated by about 20 military forcesincluding those in Argentina, Australia,Brazil, Canada, Germany, Greece, Iran,Pakistan, Spain and Taiwan.

Combat record includes: Cuba (1962),Vietnam (1964-1975), Cambodia (1975),Rwanda (1994-1996), Iraq (1990-1991),Somalia (1992-1994), Yugoslavia (1990s,1999), Liberia (1996), Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

MR2 “Nimrod” CPP R

Britain’s primary maritime patrol aircraftconducts communications, surveil-lance, reconnaissance, anti-submarinewarfare as well as search and rescueoperations. Its large weapons bay de-ploys torpedoes, mines, bombs, anti-ship and air-to-air missiles.

Combat record includes: Falklands(1982), Iraq (1990-1991), Yugoslavia(1990s, 1999), Afghanistan (2001-present), Iraq (2003-present) and Leba-non (2006).

HH-60 “Pave Hawk” CPP R

Its primary mission is to deploy US“special operations” troops. It alsosupports ground-combat as well assearch and rescue operations.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1990-1991), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan(2001-present), Iraq (2003-present).

MC-130“Combat Talon” CPP R

This US aircraft transports andresupplies clandestine “special opera-tions” forces, supports psychological-operations and conducts air refuelling.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1966-1975), Iran (1979), Egypt (1980), Grenada(1983), Panama (1989-1990), Iraq (1991),Afghanistan (2001-present), Iraq (2003-present)

MH-47 “Chinook” CPP R

This US utility/attack helicopter quicklymoves troops and artillery and resup-plies them with munitions. Sold to 16nations, including Iran in the 1970s, thelargest users are the US and UK.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1965-1975), Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Falk-lands (1982), Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq(1990-1991), Afghanistan (2001-present)and Iraq (2003-present).

MH-53 “Pave Low” CPP R

This long-range, US heavy-lift “SpecialOperations Helicopter” was designedfor combat search and rescue flightsand was finally retired in 2008.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1965-1975), Iran (1979), Grenada (1983),Panama (1989-1990), Iraq (1990-1991),Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan(2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present).

Special Operations

MH-60 “Sea hawk” CPP R This variation of the UH-60 “Black-hawk” is a US Air Force transport heli-copter that has been modified to pro-vide the infiltration and exfiltration oftroops for “special operations warfare”as well as combat search and rescue. Itcan use Hellfire missiles, automaticcannons, Hydra rockets and gatlingguns. Thailand has become the first in-ternational customer of the MH-60.



RC-12 “Huron”

This U.S. Army intelligence-gatheringaircraft with an emphasis on “DeepBattle” and “Follow-on Forces Attacksupport.” It is an electronic snooper,collecting radio signals for identifica-tion, classification and targeting.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1990-1991), Afghanistan (2001-present) andIraq (2003-present).

RC-135 “Rivet Joint” CPP R

This US Air Force reconnaissance air-craft collects electromagnetic signalsfor battlefield and national-level intelli-gence consumers. These aircraft par-ticipated in every major armed conflictinvolving US assets since 1961.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1965-1975), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986),Panama (1989-1990), Yugoslavia (1990s,1999), Iraq (1990-1991, 2003), Afghani-stan (2001-present).

RQ-4 “Global Hawk” CPP R

This high-altitude US drone using Syn-thetic Aperture Radar and Electro-Op-tical/Infrared imagery carries a ton ofimaging technology and photographstargets with one foot of resolution from200 kilometres away.

Combat record includes: Afghanistan(2001-present), Pakistan (2002-present),and Iraq (2003-present).

S-3 “Viking” CPP R

This US carrier-based, Navy jet—origi-nally used for anti-submarine warfare—shifted to anti-ship and ground attack,over-the-horizon targeting, and aircraftrefuelling duties but was retired in 2009.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1991),Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan(2001-2009), Iraq (2003-present)

Reconnaissance


U-2 “Dragon Lady” CPP R

This very high-altitude US Air Forcespy plane was originally operated bythe CIA. It has conducted day andnight surveillance/tactical reconnais-sance missions for over five decades.

Combat record includes: Egypt (1956),Lebanon (1958), USSR (1960), Cuba(1962), Vietnam (1962-1975), Iraq (1991,1990s), Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Af-ghanistan (2001-2003) and Iraq (2003-present).

about CANSECAs a representative of a country torn apartby decades of war, occupation and bombs,I join the inspiring protest of peace-lovingpeople of Ottawa against hosting weaponsshows. I strongly support the initiative ofCoalition to Oppose the Arms Trade againstarms and for a peaceful world.

Being from a country devastated by war,we know very well the awful consequencesof arms and ammunition produced bycountries like Canada.

The people of Canada should not allowtheir soil to be used to display any hatedweapons used against the poor people ofAfghanistan, Iraq and other countries.

It is so sad that many components in war-planes distributing deadly weapons usedagainst our people are produced in Canadaand displayed at Ottawa weapons shows.

I call on peace and justice-loving peoplein Ottawa to raise their voices to stop theuse of their city to display death machines

killing poor people in my country. Please express your solidarity with my suffer-ing and crying people, by saying NO to the show of weapons which drive bil-lions of dollars into the pockets of a few people at the expense of blood, tearsand suffering of the people of Afghanistan and other conflict zones.

I pay tribute to all people who raise their voice against the display of weap-ons and express the thanks of my people for caring about their life and miseries.

With due respect, Malalai Joya http://www.malalaijoya.com

On May 21, 2007, Joya wasbanned from Afghan parlia-ment for criticising its rule bywarlords. The very next day,Canadian Prime MinsterStephen Harper was in Kabulpraising Afghan “democracy.”

A Letter from Afghan MP, Malalai JoMalalai JoMalalai JoMalalai JoMalalai Joyyyyya,a,a,a,a,


UH-1 “Huey” or “Iroquois”

This utility/combat helicopter has beenused by all branches of the US militaryand has provided command and con-trol functions, troop transport, weap-ons coordination, assault support andreconnaissance for “special opera-tions.” Used by 75 countries, includ-ing Canada, it has seen countless wars,and conducted “counter-insurgency”and terror campaigns by Afghanistan,Argentina, Burma, Colombia, El Salva-dor, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia,Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Morocco, Pa-kistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Rho-desia, South Vietnam and Turkey.

Combat record includes: Vietnam (1962-1975), Israel/Egypt/Syria (1970, 1973),Rhodesia (1979), El Salvador (1979-1992), Argentina (1982), Iraq (1990-1991), Israel (1968-2002), Afghanistan(2001-present), Iraq (2003-present) andLebanon (2007).

UH-60 “Black Hawk” CPP R

This US Army helicopter carries 11 com-bat-loaded, assault troops and canmove a 105mm howitzer. Modified ver-sions operate as command and control,electronic warfare and “special opera-tions” platforms. It is used by abouttwo dozen countries that have de-ployed them in various wars includingColombia, Israel, Mexico and Turkey.

Combat record includes: Grenada(1983), Colombia (1987-present),Panama (1989-1990), Iraq (1991, 1990s),Somalia (1992-1994), Yugoslavia (1990s,1999), Lebanon (1996), Afghanistan(2001- 2003) and Iraq (2003-present).

Utility WeaponsC7 rifle

This Colt Canada variation of theAmerican M16 can be fired in eithersemi-automatic or automatic mode. It isthe weapon of choice used by Canadaand various NATO forces, includingBritain’s Special Forces. Canada do-nated thousands of C7s and ammuni-tion to the Afghanistan Army.

Combat record includes: Somalia (1993),Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan(2001-present), Haiti (2003) and Iraq(2003-present).

C8 carbine

This weapon—manufactured by ColtCanada—is a lighter, compact versionof the C7 which provides for more rapidtarget acquisition. Its size makes iteasier to handle in close-quarter com-bat situations like urban or jungle war-fare, or when shooting from vehicles.

Combat record includes: Somalia (1993),Yugoslavia (1990s, 1999), Afghanistan(2001-present), Haiti (2003) and Iraq(2003-present).

BGM-109 “Tomahawk” CPP R

This US Navy subsonic, jet-powered,land-attack cruise missile is a medium-to long-range, low-altitude weapon

launched from submarines. Formerlytasked to deliver nuclear weapons itnow carries conventional warheads andis also used by the UK and Spain.

Combat record includes: Iraq (1991,1990s), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999),Afghanistan (1998, 2001-present) andIraq (2003-present).

MQ-1 “Predator”

This remotely-piloted drone of the USAir Force and CIA, conducts low-alti-tude, photographic and electronic re-connaissance missions to locate tar-gets. It also used to fire AGM-114 “Hell-fire” missiles for use in assassinations.

Combat record includes: Yugoslavia(1990s, 1999), Afghanistan (2001-present), Yemen (2002), Iraq (2003-present) and Pakistan (2004-present).

MQ-8B “Fire Scout” CPP R

This drone will launch from US Navywarships for reconnaissance, surveil-lance and target acquisition in Iraq. Itcan fire “Hellfire” missiles, “ViperStrike” weapons and the “AdvancedPrecision Kill Weapon System.”



Coalition toOppose theArmsTrade

P.S. I hope you’ll find this issue of COAT’s publication tobe interesting and useful. If so, PLEASE ordersome extra copies and make a donation to helpCOAT’s ongoing work. Thanks very much.

COAT, 541 McLeod St., Ottawa ON K1R 5R2 http://COAT.ncf.ca

Dear friends and subscribers, November 11, 2009

In July of 2008, when I first learned from online military sources that organizers of Canadian war bazaars hadtheir sights set on returning to Ottawa municipal property for the first time in 20 years, I starting spreading theword to raise awareness and stir up opposition. The struggle since then has been the latest chapter in adecades-long effort to oppose Canada’s role in the international weapons trade.

When I started COAT in 1989, the goal was to counter what was then Canada’s largest arms bazaar,ARMX. A major success of that first COAT campaign was Ottawa Council’s landmark decision to ban allmilitary trade shows from City property! That historic ban—the only such resolution I’ve ever heard of, any-where in the world—kept these war spectacles off city property in our nation’s capital for two full decades!

Although ARMX was soon defunct, it was replaced in the mid-1990s by an equally-offensive event calledCANSEC, which was held at an Ontario government facility called the Ottawa Congress Centre.

Because of COAT’s history, the return of arms exhibitions to Ottawa property was something I tookpersonally. Working for COAT, I took on the task of alerting activists across Canada and sparked local meetingsto organize strategies and public events. I worked overtime producing the basic campaign materials that wereused to protest “Secure Canada,” a new US-led military trade show that got its foot in the door of Ottawafacilities. When that event was eventually cancelled in late 2008, many activists felt encouraged.

However, in January 2009, during Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, I set aside an almost completed issueof Press for Conversion! to begin extensive new research into Canada’s military exports to Israel. Much ofthat work focused on revealing the names and products of many Canadian war industries supplying Israel thatwere soon to be exhibiting their wares at the CANSEC arms bazaar in May 2009.

COAT’s contribution to the broadly-based campaign against Canada’s largest weapons exhibitionincluded doing the research, writing and layout of campaign materials such as posters, flyers and fact sheets. Iwrote numerous articles for local and national publications, and produced reports compiling data on CANSECexhibitors and their part in building dozens of major weapons systems. COAT’s online petition againstCANSEC was signed by thousands, and our email list was used to inform thousands more across Canada.COAT’s website became the online centre for a widespread grassroots effort against Ottawa’s arms bazaars.

Unfortunately however, because I poured myself completely into this work against CANSEC, Press forConversion! temporarily fell by the wayside. Although the peace movement’s antiCANSEC efforts concludedin June—when Ottawa Council voted overwhelmingly to reverse its 20-year stand against military trade events—I continued throughout the summer to research CANSEC and to put together this issue of COAT’s magazine.

I hope you will find this issue to be a useful resource for challenging Canada’s multibillion dollar role infuelling horrendous wars like the ones that are still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For half my life now, I’ve been working full-time to oppose war and to expose those who profit from it. Ithasn’t been easy, financially, emotionally, or in any other way. Your support is very much appreciated.

COAT needs your continued help and assistance. Please subscribe or renew your subscription to Pressfor Conversion! Tell others about this work and, if you can afford it, please make a donation to COAT.

Cheers!

Richard SandersCoordinator, COATEditor, Press for Conversion!

Bri

an G

able

, Glo

be a

nd M

ail.

The long-defunct ARMX was re-placed by an equally-offensive armsshow called CANSEC. It is organizedby an 800-member organization ofwar-related exporters euphemisti-cally called the Canadian Associationof Defence and Security Industries.

This year, the 20-year ban onhosting arms shows was overturnedby Ottawa Council which opened itsarms to welcome CANSEC into thesame publicly-funded, municipal fa-cility that had hosted ARMX in 1989.Shame on Ottawa Council!Shame on Ottawa Council!Shame on Ottawa Council!Shame on Ottawa Council!Shame on Ottawa Council!

CANSEC will be back in Otta-wa’s downtown fairgroundsat Lansdowne Park, June 2-3, 2010. Hope to see youthere at the gates of CANSEC!

Where have all theWhere have all theWhere have all theWhere have all theWhere have all thecartoons gone?cartoons gone?cartoons gone?cartoons gone?cartoons gone?

These two anti-arms trade cartoonsappeared in mainstream corporatenewspapers in 1989. They lam-pooned war industries and theARMX weapons bazaar in particular.ARMX was the Government of Cana-da’s own military trade show that hadbeen privatised for $1 in 1987.

These cartoons were promptedby a groundswell of peace effortsagainst Canada’s largest arms exportevent of that time. The oppositionto ARMX—initiated by the Coalitionto Oppose the Arms Trade—led to theCity of Ottawa’s official ban on leas-ing municipal property to all such warindustry extravaganzas.

~1 year ~2 years(3 issues) (6 issues)

Regular (in Canada) $25 q $45 qStudents/unemployed $20 q $36 qU.S. subscribers US$30 q US$55 qOther foreign US$40 q US$70 q

Name.............................................................................................................

Address................................................................................................

Town/City..............................Prov./State.......Postal Code......................

Sure, I/we will subscribe, renew or donate!

Donations: $25 q $50 q $75 q $100 q $250 q other $...........qMake cheque to COAT and mail to: 541 McLeod St., Ottawa ON K1R 5R2

Subscriptions: Extra Copies:Number Price

1 $8q5 $25q10 $40q25 $85q

54545454541 McL1 McL1 McL1 McL1 McLeod St.eod St.eod St.eod St.eod St.Ottawa OntarioOttawa OntarioOttawa OntarioOttawa OntarioOttawa OntarioK1R 5R2 CanadaK1R 5R2 CanadaK1R 5R2 CanadaK1R 5R2 CanadaK1R 5R2 Canada

[email protected]://COAT.ncf.ca

613-231-3076

CCCCC oa l i t ion to

OOOOO ppose the

AAAAA rmsTTTTT rade

Van

ce R

odew

alt,

Cal

gary

Her

ald.

Documents

for Conversion! - COATcoat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/64/64-all.pdf · Or How Ottawa Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb In 2009, for the first time in two decades, a weapons