dr. str angelo vecoat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/64/64_3-21.pdf · or how ottawa learned to stop...

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

dr. str angelo vecoat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/64/64_3-21.pdf · or how ottawa learned to stop...

Documents