TORONTO, ONTARIO - Three Mexican migrant agriculture workers have filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government and an Ontario agriculture operator for breach of contract and damages, after the workers were repatriated without a hearing or any explanation of why they were terminated. It is the first suit of its kind ever brought by migrant workers invoking their rights under Canada's Charter.
On August 30, 2010, Manuel Ruiz Espinoza, Salvador Reta Ruiz and Jose Ruiz Sosa were ordered by their employer — Tigchelaar Berry Farms in Vineland, Ontario — to pack up and leave Canada the next day. The three men were working legally in Canada as migrant agriculture workers under the federal government's Seasonal Agriculture Workers Program (SAWP). Under SAWP, the workers and the farm operator sign a binding contract; including terms that the workers may only be repatriated for "sufficient reason". No reason was ever given by their employer, or by the Mexican or Canadian governments.
Statement of Claim
The three men have now filed an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The suitalleges the breach of the plaintiffs' employment contracts was a violation of their rights under Section 7 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms; including their right be informed of allegations made against them, and the right be provided a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations. The unilateral eviction was also done without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, contrary to Ontario's Employment Standards Act.
"What has happened here is shamefully typical of a federal government system that treats migrant workers who don't have union representation like disposable commodities," says Wayne Hanley, the national president of UFCW Canada, which in association with the Agriculture Workers Alliance operates ten migrant agriculture worker support centres across Canada. "Without cause or a chance to defend themselves, scores of workers are shipped back home each season on a moment's notice, while the federal government turns a blind eye. It's a ruthless system that is meant to keep workers in constant fear and under the thumbs of the agriculture industry," says the UFCW Canada leader.
UFCW Canada is also a member of the Niagara Migrant Workers Interest Group which originally investigated the workers' repatriation. Lawyers Andrew Lokan and Michael Fenrick from the Toronto law firm Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP have partnered with Community Legal Services of Niagara South (CLSNS) to assist with the legal challenge which seeks $25,000 in damages for each of the repatriated workers.
UFCW Canada is Canada's largest private-sector union, with over 250,000 members working primarily in the food industry. For more than two decades the union has led a campaign to defend and uphold the human and labour rights of agriculture workers, and represents a number of agriculture bargaining units with migrant worker members in British Columbia and Quebec.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Three Mexican migrant agriculture workers have filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government and an Ontario agriculture operator for breach of contract and damages, after the workers were repatriated without a hearing or any explanation of why they were terminated. It is the first suit of its kind ever brought by migrant workers invoking their rights under Canada's Charter.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Canada's spy agency CSIS, was so reliant on information obtained through torture that it suggested the whole security certificate regime, used to control suspected terrorists in the country, would fall apart if they couldn't use it.
Canada's spy agency was so reliant on information obtained through torture that it suggested the whole security certificate regime, used to control suspected terrorists in the country, would fall apart if they couldn't use it.
That's the essence of a letter written in 2008 by the former director of CSIS, Jim Judd, obtained by the Montreal Gazette.
It suggests a disturbing acceptance by the national security agency of torture as a legitimate strategy to counter terrorism.
The letter, dated Jan. 15, 2008, was sent from Judd to the minister of public security just as the government was finalizing Bill C-3, legislation to replace the security certificates law which was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in February 2007.
The government had been given a year to come up with new legislation that would respect the charter rights of those targeted by the certificates.
In the letter, Judd urges the minister to fight an amendment to C-3 proposed by Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh that would prohibit CSIS and the courts from using any information obtained from torture or "derivative information" — information initially obtained from torture but subsequently corroborated through legal means.
"This amendment, if interpreted to mean that 'derivative information' is inadmissible, could render unsustainable the current security certificate proceedings," Judd writes. "Even if interpreted more narrowly to exclude only information obtained from sources and foreign agencies who, on the low threshold of "reasonable grounds" may have obtained information by way of torture, the amendment would still significantly hinder the Service's collection and analysis functions."
Despite Judd's opposition, the amended Bill C-3 was adopted in February, 2008. But the letter calls into question CSIS's previous assurances that it did not countenance torture abroad. And observers wonder whether anything has changed in CSIS' approach since C-3 was adopted.
Lawyer Johanne Doyon, who successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the original security certificate law on behalf of Adil Charkaoui, said after C-3 was passed the government immediately issued five new security certificates — including one for Charkaoui. CSIS had not had time to re-analyze the evidence it was presenting, Doyon said.
"The government was well aware before signing the certificates that they were based on information derived from torture," Doyon said. "It's very disturbing — they just closed their eyes and signed."
Charkaoui, a Moroccan citizen who CSIS alleged was an al-Qaida sleeper agent, was facing removal from Canada until the Federal Court struck down a security certificate against him in 2009.
Doyon is now arguing for a stay of proceedings in the case of Mohamed Mahjoub, held on a second certificate since 2000, and for his release from house arrest next week. Mahjoud was detained in June, 2000, accused of being a high-ranking member of an Egyptian terrorist group.
In his case, a federal court judge ruled in June, 2010 that ministers and special advocates for Mahjoub had to sift through the evidence in the Security Intelligence Report and exclude any that might have been obtained through torture. Justice Edmond Blanchard also said the approach taken by CSIS to filter information so as not to use any derived from torture was not effective.
"It's shocking and it's worrisome for society in general," Doyon said. "It's illegitimate, illegal and unconstitutional to (use information derived from torture.) Who in the name of Canada can be above the law this way?
"And it's not just in one case, but in so many, and with Canadian citizens too — Maher Arar for example (who was sent to Syria and tortured with CSIS complicity) Just where will it lead?"
In an email message Friday, a CSIS spokesperson did not address the 2008 letter from the director. But Tahera Mufti said: "We oppose in the strongest possible terms the mistreatment of any individual by any foreign entity for any purpose. We do not condone the use of torture or other unlawful methods in responding to terrorism and other threats to national security." Mufti also said CSIS uses "appropriate caveats or instructions when sharing information" and that its activities are subject to review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has access to all CSIS "foreign arrangement files. "
In the 2008 letter, the CSIS director says part of the difficulty facing the agency lay in not being able to adequately assess which information came from where; foreign agencies do not often divulge the source of their information.
For Judd, the worst-case scenario would be that the federal court, in reviewing a security certificate, asks CSIS to certify that intelligence was gathered without resort to torture, or renders inadmissible "any and all information provided by agencies in countries whose human rights records are in question — of which there are many."
Amnesty International's 2007 State of Human Rights Report, referenced but redacted in Judd's letter, lists 102 countries which that year had cases of torture and ill-treatment by security forces, police and other state authorities, including the United States.
Judd does not express any concern about the reliability of such information, however. Rather, he suggests an alternative amendment to the bill, which would read "the judge may receive into evidence anything — other than a statement obtained under torture — that in the judge's opinion is reliable and appropriate."
Asked to comment Friday on the substance of the letter, Reem Bahdi, a law professor at the University of Windsor, said the more she learns about the practices of national security agencies, the more worried she becomes about the state of national security in Canada.
"The agencies tell us they don't use torture or support torture on the one hand, and on the other hand they appear to be promoting torture — promoting it as a form of information gathering!" Bahdi said. "I worry not only because information derived from torture is not reliable, but also because of the ramifications around the world that this kind of support for torture can have. What's taking place in the Middle East is very interesting — these are repressive societies built on torture and our agencies are helping to legitimize those regimes through their practices, their relationships with the regimes and their justifications."
Bahdi said the prohibition on torture is part of international law, and was part of Canadian law long before the C-3 amendment. But CSIS needs to be held accountable, she said.
"There has to be a cultural shift in CSIS so they take seriously the prohibition on torture and understand it's not there to tie their hands behind their backs so they can't do their work, but to ensure that their work has some integrity . . .
"If torture produced national security, the regimes in the Middle East would be the safest places in the world."
Audrey Macklin, a professor of law and at the School for Public Policy and Governance of the University of Toronto, said it's not surprising CSIS would warn of the end of the security certificates regime, because so many of them depend on information obtained through torture.
"But it's worth asking, why do we have the security certificates? Before 9/11 we didn't have provisions in criminal law addressing anti-terrorism — now we do. If they are good enough for citizens, why not for non-citizens?"
That's the essence of a letter written in 2008 by the former director of CSIS, Jim Judd, obtained by the Montreal Gazette.
It suggests a disturbing acceptance by the national security agency of torture as a legitimate strategy to counter terrorism.
The letter, dated Jan. 15, 2008, was sent from Judd to the minister of public security just as the government was finalizing Bill C-3, legislation to replace the security certificates law which was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in February 2007.
The government had been given a year to come up with new legislation that would respect the charter rights of those targeted by the certificates.
In the letter, Judd urges the minister to fight an amendment to C-3 proposed by Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh that would prohibit CSIS and the courts from using any information obtained from torture or "derivative information" — information initially obtained from torture but subsequently corroborated through legal means.
"This amendment, if interpreted to mean that 'derivative information' is inadmissible, could render unsustainable the current security certificate proceedings," Judd writes. "Even if interpreted more narrowly to exclude only information obtained from sources and foreign agencies who, on the low threshold of "reasonable grounds" may have obtained information by way of torture, the amendment would still significantly hinder the Service's collection and analysis functions."
Despite Judd's opposition, the amended Bill C-3 was adopted in February, 2008. But the letter calls into question CSIS's previous assurances that it did not countenance torture abroad. And observers wonder whether anything has changed in CSIS' approach since C-3 was adopted.
Lawyer Johanne Doyon, who successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the original security certificate law on behalf of Adil Charkaoui, said after C-3 was passed the government immediately issued five new security certificates — including one for Charkaoui. CSIS had not had time to re-analyze the evidence it was presenting, Doyon said.
"The government was well aware before signing the certificates that they were based on information derived from torture," Doyon said. "It's very disturbing — they just closed their eyes and signed."
Charkaoui, a Moroccan citizen who CSIS alleged was an al-Qaida sleeper agent, was facing removal from Canada until the Federal Court struck down a security certificate against him in 2009.
Doyon is now arguing for a stay of proceedings in the case of Mohamed Mahjoub, held on a second certificate since 2000, and for his release from house arrest next week. Mahjoud was detained in June, 2000, accused of being a high-ranking member of an Egyptian terrorist group.
In his case, a federal court judge ruled in June, 2010 that ministers and special advocates for Mahjoub had to sift through the evidence in the Security Intelligence Report and exclude any that might have been obtained through torture. Justice Edmond Blanchard also said the approach taken by CSIS to filter information so as not to use any derived from torture was not effective.
"It's shocking and it's worrisome for society in general," Doyon said. "It's illegitimate, illegal and unconstitutional to (use information derived from torture.) Who in the name of Canada can be above the law this way?
"And it's not just in one case, but in so many, and with Canadian citizens too — Maher Arar for example (who was sent to Syria and tortured with CSIS complicity) Just where will it lead?"
In an email message Friday, a CSIS spokesperson did not address the 2008 letter from the director. But Tahera Mufti said: "We oppose in the strongest possible terms the mistreatment of any individual by any foreign entity for any purpose. We do not condone the use of torture or other unlawful methods in responding to terrorism and other threats to national security." Mufti also said CSIS uses "appropriate caveats or instructions when sharing information" and that its activities are subject to review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has access to all CSIS "foreign arrangement files. "
In the 2008 letter, the CSIS director says part of the difficulty facing the agency lay in not being able to adequately assess which information came from where; foreign agencies do not often divulge the source of their information.
For Judd, the worst-case scenario would be that the federal court, in reviewing a security certificate, asks CSIS to certify that intelligence was gathered without resort to torture, or renders inadmissible "any and all information provided by agencies in countries whose human rights records are in question — of which there are many."
Amnesty International's 2007 State of Human Rights Report, referenced but redacted in Judd's letter, lists 102 countries which that year had cases of torture and ill-treatment by security forces, police and other state authorities, including the United States.
Judd does not express any concern about the reliability of such information, however. Rather, he suggests an alternative amendment to the bill, which would read "the judge may receive into evidence anything — other than a statement obtained under torture — that in the judge's opinion is reliable and appropriate."
Asked to comment Friday on the substance of the letter, Reem Bahdi, a law professor at the University of Windsor, said the more she learns about the practices of national security agencies, the more worried she becomes about the state of national security in Canada.
"The agencies tell us they don't use torture or support torture on the one hand, and on the other hand they appear to be promoting torture — promoting it as a form of information gathering!" Bahdi said. "I worry not only because information derived from torture is not reliable, but also because of the ramifications around the world that this kind of support for torture can have. What's taking place in the Middle East is very interesting — these are repressive societies built on torture and our agencies are helping to legitimize those regimes through their practices, their relationships with the regimes and their justifications."
Bahdi said the prohibition on torture is part of international law, and was part of Canadian law long before the C-3 amendment. But CSIS needs to be held accountable, she said.
"There has to be a cultural shift in CSIS so they take seriously the prohibition on torture and understand it's not there to tie their hands behind their backs so they can't do their work, but to ensure that their work has some integrity . . .
"If torture produced national security, the regimes in the Middle East would be the safest places in the world."
Audrey Macklin, a professor of law and at the School for Public Policy and Governance of the University of Toronto, said it's not surprising CSIS would warn of the end of the security certificates regime, because so many of them depend on information obtained through torture.
"But it's worth asking, why do we have the security certificates? Before 9/11 we didn't have provisions in criminal law addressing anti-terrorism — now we do. If they are good enough for citizens, why not for non-citizens?"
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Program cost increases and further delays & Concerns over performance and safety of the F35.
Program cost increases and further delays On 21 April 2009, media reports, citing Pentagon sources, said that during 2007 and 2008, computer spies had managed to copy and siphon off several terabytes of data related to the F-35's design and electronics systems, potentially enabling the development of defense systems against the aircraft.[37] However, Lockheed Martin has rejected suggestions that the project has been compromised, saying that it "does not believe any classified information had been stolen".[38]
On 9 November 2009, Ashton Carter, under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, acknowledged that the Pentagon "joint estimate team" (JET) had found possible future cost and schedule overruns in the project and that he would be holding meetings to attempt to avoid these.[39] On 1 February 2010, Gates removed the JSF Program Manager, U.S. Marine Corps Major General David Heinz, and withheld $614 million in payments to Lockheed Martin because of program costs and delays.[40][41]
On 11 March 2010, a report from the Government Accountability Office to United States Senate Committee on Armed Services projected the overall unit cost of an F-35A to be $112M in today's money.[42] In 2010, Pentagon officials disclosed that the F-35 program has exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent.[43] An internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project states that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar". On 24 March, Gates termed the recent cost overruns and delays as "unacceptable" in a testimony before the U.S. Congress. He characterized previous cost and schedule estimates for the project as "overly rosy". However, Gates insisted the F-35 would become "the backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation" and informed the Congress that he had expanded the development period by an additional 13 months and budgeted $3 billion more for the testing program while slowing down production.[44] Lockheed Martin expects to reduce government cost estimates by 20%.[45]
In November 2010 as part of a cost-cutting measure, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggested canceling procurement of the F-35B and halving orders of F-35As and F-35Cs.[46][47][48] At the same time Air Force Magazine reported that "Pentagon officials" are considering canceling the F-35B because its short range means that the bases or ships it operates from will be within range of hostile tactical ballistic missiles.[49] However Lockheed Martin consultant Loren B. Thompson said that this rumor is merely a result of the usual tensions between the US Navy and Marine Corps, and there is no alternative to the F-35B as an AV-8B replacement.[50] He also confirmed that there would be further delays and cost increases in the development process because of technical problems with the aircraft and software, but blamed most of the delays and extra costs on redundant flight test.[51][52]
The Center for Defense Information estimated that the program would be restructured with an additional year of delay and $5 billion in additional costs.[53] On 5 November 2010, the Block 1 software flew for the first time on BF-4 which included information fusion and initial weapons-release capability.[54] As of the end of 2010, only 15% of the software remains to be written, but this includes the most difficult sections such as data fusion.[55] But in 2011 it was revealed that only 50% of the eight million lines of code had actually been written and that it would take another six years and 110 additional software engineers in order to complete the software for this new schedule.[56]
In January 2011 Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed the Pentagon's frustration with the skyrocketing costs of the F-35 program when he said "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint." Focusing his attention on the troubled VTOL F-35B Gates ordered "a two-year probation", saying it "should be canceled" if corrections are unsuccessful.[57] However, Gates has stated his support for the program.[58] Some private analysts, such as Richard Aboulafia, of the Teal Group state that the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit.[57]
Former Pentagon manager Paul Kaminski has said that the lack of a complete test plan has added five years to the JSF program.[59] As of February 2011, the main flaws with the aircraft are engine "screech", transonic wing roll-off and display flaws in the helmet mounted display.[60]
The current schedule has the delivery of basic combat capability aircraft in late 2015, followed by full capability block three software in late 2016.[61] The $56.4 billion development project for the aircraft should be completed in 2018 when the block five configuration is expected to be delivered, several years late and considerably over budget.[62]
In November 2010, the GAO found that "Managing an extensive, still-maturing global network of suppliers adds another layer of complexity to producing aircraft efficiently and on-time" and that "However, due to the extensive amount of testing still to be completed, the program could be required to make alterations to its production processes, changes to its supplier base, and costly retrofits to produced and fielded aircraft, if problems are discovered."[63] A year later, program head Vice Adm. David Venlet confirmed that the concurrency built into the program "was a miscalculation".[64]
Delays in the F-35 program may lead to a "fighter gap" where America and other countries will lack sufficient jet fighters to cover their requirements.[65] Israel may seek to buy second-hand F-15s to cover its gap,[66] while Australia may also seek to buy more American fighters from the USN to cover their own capability gap in the face of F-35 delays.[67]
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) will be determined by software development rather than by hardware production or pilot training.[68]
In May 2011, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer Ashton Carter said that its new $133 million unit price was not affordable.[69]
In 2011 The Economist warned that the F-35 was in danger of slipping into a "death spiral" where increasing per aircraft costs would lead to cuts in number of aircraft ordered which would lead to further cost increases and further order cuts.[70] Later that year four aircraft were cut from the fifth LRIP order to pay for cost overruns.[71]
This was followed by a contract dispute where the Pentagon insisted that Lockheed Martin help cover the costs of fixes to aircraft already produced.[72] Lockheed Martin also objected to cost sharing in the program because even at this late date the remaining development challenges posed an uninsurable unbounded risk that the company could not cover.[73] However the Senate Armed Services Committee strongly backed the Pentagon position.[74]
Also in 2011 a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus was formed by some of the top recipients of Lockheed Martin contributions.[75]
Concerns over performance and safety In 2006 the F-35 was downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", a change former RAAF flight test engineer Peter Goon likened to increasing the radar cross section from a marble to a beach ball.[76]
Andrew Krepinevich has questioned the reliance on "short range" aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 to 'manage' China in a future conflict and has suggested reducing the number of F-35s ordered in favor of a longer range platform like the Next-Generation Bomber, but Michael Wynne, then United States Secretary of the Air Force rejected this plan of action in 2007.[77][78][79] However in 2011, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) pointed to the restructuring of the F-35 program and the return of the bomber project as a sign of their effectiveness, while Rebecca Grant said that the restructuring was a "vote of confidence" in the F-35 and "there is no other stealthy, survivable new fighter program out there".[80] Lockheed has also said that the F-35 is designed to launch internally carried bombs at supersonic speed and internal missiles at maximum supersonic speed.[81]
In 2008 it was reported that RAND Corporation conducted simulated war games in which Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighters apparently defeated the F-35.[82] As a result of these media reports, then Australian defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon requested a formal briefing from the Australian Department of Defence on the simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate and did not actually compare the F-35's flight performance against other aircraft.[83]
The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin added that these simulations did not address air-to-air combat.[84][85] A Lockheed Martin press-release points to USAF simulations regarding the F-35's air-to-air performance against potential adversaries described as "4th generation" fighters, in which it claims the F-35 is "400 percent" more effective. Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".[85] The nature of the simulations, and the terms upon which the "400 percent" figure have been derived remains unclear. Regarding the original plan to fit the F-35 with only two air-to-air missiles, Major Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch is reported to have said that "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."[86] However the Norwegians have been briefed on a plan to equip the F-35 with six AIM-120D missiles by 2019.[87]
Former RAND author John Stillion has written of the F-35A's air-to-air combat performance that it “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run”, but Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has countered that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.[88]
Chen Hu, editor-in-chief of World Military Affairs magazine has said that the F-35 is too costly because it attempts to provide the capabilities needed for all three American services in a common airframe.[89] Dutch news program NOVA show interviewed US defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey who called the F-35 "heavy and sluggish" as well as having a "pitifully small load for all that money", and went on to criticize the value for money of the stealth measures as well as lacking fire safety measures. His final conclusion was that any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s compared to buying into the F-35 program.[90] Lockheed spokesman John Kent has said that the missing fire-suppression systems would have offered "very small" improvements to survivability.[91]
In the context of selling F-35s to Israel to match the F-15s that will be sold to Saudi Arabia, a senior U.S. defense official was quoted as saying that the F-35 will be "the most stealthy, sophisticated and lethal tactical fighter in the sky," and added "Quite simply, the F-15 will be no match for the F-35."[92] After piloting the aircraft, RAF Squadron Leader Steve Long said that, over its existing aircraft, the F-35 will give "the RAF and Navy a quantum leap in airborne capability."[93]
Consultant to Lockheed Martin Loren B. Thompson has said that the "electronic edge F-35 enjoys over every other tactical aircraft in the world may prove to be more important in future missions than maneuverability".[94]
In 2011, Canadian politicians raised the issue of the safety of the F-35's reliance on a single engine (as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure). Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t".[95]
On 9 November 2009, Ashton Carter, under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, acknowledged that the Pentagon "joint estimate team" (JET) had found possible future cost and schedule overruns in the project and that he would be holding meetings to attempt to avoid these.[39] On 1 February 2010, Gates removed the JSF Program Manager, U.S. Marine Corps Major General David Heinz, and withheld $614 million in payments to Lockheed Martin because of program costs and delays.[40][41]
On 11 March 2010, a report from the Government Accountability Office to United States Senate Committee on Armed Services projected the overall unit cost of an F-35A to be $112M in today's money.[42] In 2010, Pentagon officials disclosed that the F-35 program has exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent.[43] An internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project states that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar". On 24 March, Gates termed the recent cost overruns and delays as "unacceptable" in a testimony before the U.S. Congress. He characterized previous cost and schedule estimates for the project as "overly rosy". However, Gates insisted the F-35 would become "the backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation" and informed the Congress that he had expanded the development period by an additional 13 months and budgeted $3 billion more for the testing program while slowing down production.[44] Lockheed Martin expects to reduce government cost estimates by 20%.[45]
In November 2010 as part of a cost-cutting measure, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggested canceling procurement of the F-35B and halving orders of F-35As and F-35Cs.[46][47][48] At the same time Air Force Magazine reported that "Pentagon officials" are considering canceling the F-35B because its short range means that the bases or ships it operates from will be within range of hostile tactical ballistic missiles.[49] However Lockheed Martin consultant Loren B. Thompson said that this rumor is merely a result of the usual tensions between the US Navy and Marine Corps, and there is no alternative to the F-35B as an AV-8B replacement.[50] He also confirmed that there would be further delays and cost increases in the development process because of technical problems with the aircraft and software, but blamed most of the delays and extra costs on redundant flight test.[51][52]
The Center for Defense Information estimated that the program would be restructured with an additional year of delay and $5 billion in additional costs.[53] On 5 November 2010, the Block 1 software flew for the first time on BF-4 which included information fusion and initial weapons-release capability.[54] As of the end of 2010, only 15% of the software remains to be written, but this includes the most difficult sections such as data fusion.[55] But in 2011 it was revealed that only 50% of the eight million lines of code had actually been written and that it would take another six years and 110 additional software engineers in order to complete the software for this new schedule.[56]
In January 2011 Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed the Pentagon's frustration with the skyrocketing costs of the F-35 program when he said "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint." Focusing his attention on the troubled VTOL F-35B Gates ordered "a two-year probation", saying it "should be canceled" if corrections are unsuccessful.[57] However, Gates has stated his support for the program.[58] Some private analysts, such as Richard Aboulafia, of the Teal Group state that the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit.[57]
Former Pentagon manager Paul Kaminski has said that the lack of a complete test plan has added five years to the JSF program.[59] As of February 2011, the main flaws with the aircraft are engine "screech", transonic wing roll-off and display flaws in the helmet mounted display.[60]
The current schedule has the delivery of basic combat capability aircraft in late 2015, followed by full capability block three software in late 2016.[61] The $56.4 billion development project for the aircraft should be completed in 2018 when the block five configuration is expected to be delivered, several years late and considerably over budget.[62]
In November 2010, the GAO found that "Managing an extensive, still-maturing global network of suppliers adds another layer of complexity to producing aircraft efficiently and on-time" and that "However, due to the extensive amount of testing still to be completed, the program could be required to make alterations to its production processes, changes to its supplier base, and costly retrofits to produced and fielded aircraft, if problems are discovered."[63] A year later, program head Vice Adm. David Venlet confirmed that the concurrency built into the program "was a miscalculation".[64]
Delays in the F-35 program may lead to a "fighter gap" where America and other countries will lack sufficient jet fighters to cover their requirements.[65] Israel may seek to buy second-hand F-15s to cover its gap,[66] while Australia may also seek to buy more American fighters from the USN to cover their own capability gap in the face of F-35 delays.[67]
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) will be determined by software development rather than by hardware production or pilot training.[68]
In May 2011, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer Ashton Carter said that its new $133 million unit price was not affordable.[69]
In 2011 The Economist warned that the F-35 was in danger of slipping into a "death spiral" where increasing per aircraft costs would lead to cuts in number of aircraft ordered which would lead to further cost increases and further order cuts.[70] Later that year four aircraft were cut from the fifth LRIP order to pay for cost overruns.[71]
This was followed by a contract dispute where the Pentagon insisted that Lockheed Martin help cover the costs of fixes to aircraft already produced.[72] Lockheed Martin also objected to cost sharing in the program because even at this late date the remaining development challenges posed an uninsurable unbounded risk that the company could not cover.[73] However the Senate Armed Services Committee strongly backed the Pentagon position.[74]
Also in 2011 a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus was formed by some of the top recipients of Lockheed Martin contributions.[75]
Concerns over performance and safety In 2006 the F-35 was downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", a change former RAAF flight test engineer Peter Goon likened to increasing the radar cross section from a marble to a beach ball.[76]
Andrew Krepinevich has questioned the reliance on "short range" aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 to 'manage' China in a future conflict and has suggested reducing the number of F-35s ordered in favor of a longer range platform like the Next-Generation Bomber, but Michael Wynne, then United States Secretary of the Air Force rejected this plan of action in 2007.[77][78][79] However in 2011, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) pointed to the restructuring of the F-35 program and the return of the bomber project as a sign of their effectiveness, while Rebecca Grant said that the restructuring was a "vote of confidence" in the F-35 and "there is no other stealthy, survivable new fighter program out there".[80] Lockheed has also said that the F-35 is designed to launch internally carried bombs at supersonic speed and internal missiles at maximum supersonic speed.[81]
In 2008 it was reported that RAND Corporation conducted simulated war games in which Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighters apparently defeated the F-35.[82] As a result of these media reports, then Australian defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon requested a formal briefing from the Australian Department of Defence on the simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate and did not actually compare the F-35's flight performance against other aircraft.[83]
The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin added that these simulations did not address air-to-air combat.[84][85] A Lockheed Martin press-release points to USAF simulations regarding the F-35's air-to-air performance against potential adversaries described as "4th generation" fighters, in which it claims the F-35 is "400 percent" more effective. Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".[85] The nature of the simulations, and the terms upon which the "400 percent" figure have been derived remains unclear. Regarding the original plan to fit the F-35 with only two air-to-air missiles, Major Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch is reported to have said that "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."[86] However the Norwegians have been briefed on a plan to equip the F-35 with six AIM-120D missiles by 2019.[87]
Former RAND author John Stillion has written of the F-35A's air-to-air combat performance that it “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run”, but Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has countered that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.[88]
Chen Hu, editor-in-chief of World Military Affairs magazine has said that the F-35 is too costly because it attempts to provide the capabilities needed for all three American services in a common airframe.[89] Dutch news program NOVA show interviewed US defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey who called the F-35 "heavy and sluggish" as well as having a "pitifully small load for all that money", and went on to criticize the value for money of the stealth measures as well as lacking fire safety measures. His final conclusion was that any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s compared to buying into the F-35 program.[90] Lockheed spokesman John Kent has said that the missing fire-suppression systems would have offered "very small" improvements to survivability.[91]
In the context of selling F-35s to Israel to match the F-15s that will be sold to Saudi Arabia, a senior U.S. defense official was quoted as saying that the F-35 will be "the most stealthy, sophisticated and lethal tactical fighter in the sky," and added "Quite simply, the F-15 will be no match for the F-35."[92] After piloting the aircraft, RAF Squadron Leader Steve Long said that, over its existing aircraft, the F-35 will give "the RAF and Navy a quantum leap in airborne capability."[93]
Consultant to Lockheed Martin Loren B. Thompson has said that the "electronic edge F-35 enjoys over every other tactical aircraft in the world may prove to be more important in future missions than maneuverability".[94]
In 2011, Canadian politicians raised the issue of the safety of the F-35's reliance on a single engine (as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure). Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t".[95]
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Abousfian Abdelrazik has been removed from a UN Security Council terrorist blacklist. : cleared by CSIS and the RCMP of terrorist allegations.
Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian accused of being an al-Qaeda operative who trained in Afghanistan, has been removed from a UN Security Council terrorist blacklist.
Paul Champ, Abdelrazik's lawyer, says his client was "ecstatic" to hear the news.
The Sudanese-born man, who was arrested but not charged during a 2003 visit to see his mother in Sudan, has already been formally cleared by CSIS and the RCMP of terrorist allegations.
While he was behind bars in Sudan, Abdelrazik's passport expired and he subsequently lived in makeshift quarters at the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum.
In July 2006, the United States branded Abdelrazik a supporter of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and the United Nations subsequently added him to the UN Al-Qaeda Sanctions List.
Abdelrazik has been trying to clear his name since late June 2009, when he returned to Canada.
Paul Champ, Abdelrazik's lawyer, says his client was "ecstatic" to hear the news.
The Sudanese-born man, who was arrested but not charged during a 2003 visit to see his mother in Sudan, has already been formally cleared by CSIS and the RCMP of terrorist allegations.
While he was behind bars in Sudan, Abdelrazik's passport expired and he subsequently lived in makeshift quarters at the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum.
In July 2006, the United States branded Abdelrazik a supporter of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and the United Nations subsequently added him to the UN Al-Qaeda Sanctions List.
Abdelrazik has been trying to clear his name since late June 2009, when he returned to Canada.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Denmark is a big shame. Please share this on, this is serious cruelty.!
Please share this on, this is serious cruelty.
Denmark is a big shame.
The sea... is stained in red and it is not because of the climate effects of nature. It's because of the cruelty of the human beings (civilized human) who kill hundreds of the famous and intelligent Calderon dolphins.
This happens every year in Feroe Island in Denmark . In this slaughter the main participants are young teens.
WHY?
A celebration, to show that they are adults and mature!
In this big celebration, nothing is missing for the fun. Everyone is participating in one way or the other, killing or looking at the cruelty supporting like a spectator
Is it necessary to mention that the dolphin Calderon, like all the other species of dolphins, it's near extinction and they get near men to play and interact.
In a way of PURE friendship.
They don't die instantly; they are cut 1, 2 or 3 times with thick hooks. And at that time the dolphins produce a grim cry like that of a new born child.
But he suffers and there's no compassion while this magnificent creature slowly dies in its own blood
Its enough!
We will publish until this post goes around the world that many more people will know about this shameful Dannish acts.
Take care of the world, it is your home!
SHARE this messages as a sign Against this cruelty
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Canada.
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Canada.
wikipedia info
The Odette Cancer Centre is a part of the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Location in Toronto
Geography
Location Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Coordinates 43°43′22″N 079°22′23″W / 43.72278°N 79.37306°W / 43.72278; -79.37306Coordinates: 43°43′22″N 079°22′23″W / 43.72278°N 79.37306°W / 43.72278; -79.37306
Organization
Care system Public Medicare (Canada) (OHIP)
Hospital type Teaching
Affiliated university University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine
Services
Emergency department Level I trauma center
Helipad TC LID: CNY8
Beds 1275 (including 500 veteran beds and 74 bassinets)
Speciality Cancer, Cardiovascular and Neurosciences
History
Founded 1948
Links
Website http://www.sunnybrook.ca/
Lists Hospitals in Canada
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, abbreviated SHSC and known simply as Sunnybrook, is an academic health sciences centre located in Toronto, Ontario.[1]
It is the largest trauma centre in Canada and is one of two major trauma centres in Toronto; the other is St. Michael's Hospital. It offers comprehensive care and is a national leader in image-guided therapies. In 2008, Sunnybrook made history when it received an unprecedented $74.6 million dollar research award.[2]
It is one of the fastest growing hospitals in North America, and is the nation's largest maternity hospital with the new Women & Babies Program,[3] which opened on September 12, 2010. Sunnybrook is home to the Edmond Odette Regional Cancer Centre and the Schulich Heart Centre, both national leaders in the respective areas of medicine. As of October 2008, Sunnybrook was named one of Greater Toronto's Top Employers by Mediacorp Canada Inc., which was announced by the Toronto Star newspaper.[4]
The Kilgour Wing (K Wing) is a long-term care centre with the large majority of patients being war veterans. The hospital was a centre used to handle the wounded after World War II.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Areas of focus
2.1 Veterans and Community
2.2 Brain Sciences
2.3 Holland Musculoskeletal Program
2.4 Women and Babies
2.5 Schulich Heart Centre
2.6 Odette Cancer Centre
2.7 Trauma, Emergency and Critical Care
3 Heliport
4 Private, for-profit cancer clinic
5 Holland Musculoskeletal Centre
6 References
7 External links
[edit] HistoryAlice M. Kilgour donated the Sunnybrook Farm to the City of Toronto in memory of her husband, Joseph Kilgour, for use as a public park in 1928. With the consent of the Kilgour heirs, the parkland was transferred to the Government of Canada to build a hospital for veterans. The Sunnybrook Veterans Hospital opened its doors in June 1948. The hospital merged with Women's College Hospital and the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital in June 1998 under the provisions of Bill 51, but Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre was de-amalgamated in April 2006 to create Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the separate Women's College Hospital. Currently, Sunnybrook maintains two campuses, with its main campus (Bayview) on Bayview Avenue in North York, and the satellite Holland Centre (orthopaedic and arthritic care) on Wellesley St. E. SHSC became affiliated with the University of Toronto in 1966.
Areas of focus Veterans and CommunityLocated in the Kilgour Wing it is partnered with Veterans Affairs Canada and has about 500 veterans of WWII and the Korean War. For veterans they provide various types of services such as mental health, cognitive and palliative care which is also provided to the general population[5]
Brain SciencesThey provide care for people with brain related problems including dementia, strokes and mood and anxiety disorders. It is also a research centre looking into areas such as neuropsychology and neurochemistry.[6]
Holland Musculoskeletal ProgramThe program is mainly involved in musculoskeletal injury but are also involved in musculoskeletal education and research.[7]
[edit] Women and BabiesThe program provides gynaecology services and includes a neonatal intensive-care unit. They deliver about 4,000 babies a year, of which 25% are high risk births.[8]
[edit] Schulich Heart CentreThe centre is named for Seymour Schulich a Canadian businessman and philanthropist from Montreal.[9] The centre, as per the name, is a cardiac care clinic and is involved in research, surgery and intervention.[10]
Odette Cancer CentreThe centre is involved in cancer research but also provides education and treatment.[11]
Trauma, Emergency and Critical CareThe hospital provides critical care and provides a consultation service to the Ross Tilley Burn Centre. The emergency department is open 24 hours a day. The trauma centre provides emergency medical services to patients suffering traumatic injuries.[12]
HeliportA helicopter pad (TC LID: CNY8) is located at the east end of the hospital grounds.[13] Sunnybrook handles air ambulance flights with urgent trauma cases from the Greater Toronto Area where an ambulance run is not possible. Only two other hospitals in Toronto have helipads (St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) and Hospital for Sick Children).
Private, for-profit cancer clinicSunnybrook Hospital was the site of Ontario's first private cancer clinic created since the inception of Medicare. The clinic operated after regular working hours at the hospital, and was owned by Dr. Tim McGowan. An investigation by the Auditor General of Ontario revealed that the cost per procedure was $500 greater than in the public sector and that the waiting times did not decrease in the public system as a result of the clinic's creation.[14][15] The clinic operated from 2001 until 2003.
Holland Musculoskeletal CentreThe Holland Centre consists of the Orthopaedic Program located in downtown Toronto; the Holland Centre Campus is located on 43 Wellesley St. East.[16]
The Holland Orthopaedic and Arthritic Centre was initially founded as the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital by Dr. James E. Bateman and Charles S. Wright II in 1955 based on a charter procured by Dr. C. Stewart Wright, an orthopaedic surgeon. It was founded as a specialty hospital for the treatment of patients with orthopaedic ailments. The building it was founded in was a sanitorium and since then it has undergone a series of renovations and additions.
As part of the Ontario initiative to reduce hospital wait-times, the Holland Orthopaedic and Arthritic Centre was named as a centre of excellence in joint replacement.
wikipedia info
The Odette Cancer Centre is a part of the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Location in Toronto
Geography
Location Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Coordinates 43°43′22″N 079°22′23″W / 43.72278°N 79.37306°W / 43.72278; -79.37306Coordinates: 43°43′22″N 079°22′23″W / 43.72278°N 79.37306°W / 43.72278; -79.37306
Organization
Care system Public Medicare (Canada) (OHIP)
Hospital type Teaching
Affiliated university University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine
Services
Emergency department Level I trauma center
Helipad TC LID: CNY8
Beds 1275 (including 500 veteran beds and 74 bassinets)
Speciality Cancer, Cardiovascular and Neurosciences
History
Founded 1948
Links
Website http://www.sunnybrook.ca/
Lists Hospitals in Canada
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, abbreviated SHSC and known simply as Sunnybrook, is an academic health sciences centre located in Toronto, Ontario.[1]
It is the largest trauma centre in Canada and is one of two major trauma centres in Toronto; the other is St. Michael's Hospital. It offers comprehensive care and is a national leader in image-guided therapies. In 2008, Sunnybrook made history when it received an unprecedented $74.6 million dollar research award.[2]
It is one of the fastest growing hospitals in North America, and is the nation's largest maternity hospital with the new Women & Babies Program,[3] which opened on September 12, 2010. Sunnybrook is home to the Edmond Odette Regional Cancer Centre and the Schulich Heart Centre, both national leaders in the respective areas of medicine. As of October 2008, Sunnybrook was named one of Greater Toronto's Top Employers by Mediacorp Canada Inc., which was announced by the Toronto Star newspaper.[4]
The Kilgour Wing (K Wing) is a long-term care centre with the large majority of patients being war veterans. The hospital was a centre used to handle the wounded after World War II.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Areas of focus
2.1 Veterans and Community
2.2 Brain Sciences
2.3 Holland Musculoskeletal Program
2.4 Women and Babies
2.5 Schulich Heart Centre
2.6 Odette Cancer Centre
2.7 Trauma, Emergency and Critical Care
3 Heliport
4 Private, for-profit cancer clinic
5 Holland Musculoskeletal Centre
6 References
7 External links
[edit] HistoryAlice M. Kilgour donated the Sunnybrook Farm to the City of Toronto in memory of her husband, Joseph Kilgour, for use as a public park in 1928. With the consent of the Kilgour heirs, the parkland was transferred to the Government of Canada to build a hospital for veterans. The Sunnybrook Veterans Hospital opened its doors in June 1948. The hospital merged with Women's College Hospital and the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital in June 1998 under the provisions of Bill 51, but Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre was de-amalgamated in April 2006 to create Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the separate Women's College Hospital. Currently, Sunnybrook maintains two campuses, with its main campus (Bayview) on Bayview Avenue in North York, and the satellite Holland Centre (orthopaedic and arthritic care) on Wellesley St. E. SHSC became affiliated with the University of Toronto in 1966.
Areas of focus Veterans and CommunityLocated in the Kilgour Wing it is partnered with Veterans Affairs Canada and has about 500 veterans of WWII and the Korean War. For veterans they provide various types of services such as mental health, cognitive and palliative care which is also provided to the general population[5]
Brain SciencesThey provide care for people with brain related problems including dementia, strokes and mood and anxiety disorders. It is also a research centre looking into areas such as neuropsychology and neurochemistry.[6]
Holland Musculoskeletal ProgramThe program is mainly involved in musculoskeletal injury but are also involved in musculoskeletal education and research.[7]
[edit] Women and BabiesThe program provides gynaecology services and includes a neonatal intensive-care unit. They deliver about 4,000 babies a year, of which 25% are high risk births.[8]
[edit] Schulich Heart CentreThe centre is named for Seymour Schulich a Canadian businessman and philanthropist from Montreal.[9] The centre, as per the name, is a cardiac care clinic and is involved in research, surgery and intervention.[10]
Odette Cancer CentreThe centre is involved in cancer research but also provides education and treatment.[11]
Trauma, Emergency and Critical CareThe hospital provides critical care and provides a consultation service to the Ross Tilley Burn Centre. The emergency department is open 24 hours a day. The trauma centre provides emergency medical services to patients suffering traumatic injuries.[12]
HeliportA helicopter pad (TC LID: CNY8) is located at the east end of the hospital grounds.[13] Sunnybrook handles air ambulance flights with urgent trauma cases from the Greater Toronto Area where an ambulance run is not possible. Only two other hospitals in Toronto have helipads (St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) and Hospital for Sick Children).
Private, for-profit cancer clinicSunnybrook Hospital was the site of Ontario's first private cancer clinic created since the inception of Medicare. The clinic operated after regular working hours at the hospital, and was owned by Dr. Tim McGowan. An investigation by the Auditor General of Ontario revealed that the cost per procedure was $500 greater than in the public sector and that the waiting times did not decrease in the public system as a result of the clinic's creation.[14][15] The clinic operated from 2001 until 2003.
Holland Musculoskeletal CentreThe Holland Centre consists of the Orthopaedic Program located in downtown Toronto; the Holland Centre Campus is located on 43 Wellesley St. East.[16]
The Holland Orthopaedic and Arthritic Centre was initially founded as the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital by Dr. James E. Bateman and Charles S. Wright II in 1955 based on a charter procured by Dr. C. Stewart Wright, an orthopaedic surgeon. It was founded as a specialty hospital for the treatment of patients with orthopaedic ailments. The building it was founded in was a sanitorium and since then it has undergone a series of renovations and additions.
As part of the Ontario initiative to reduce hospital wait-times, the Holland Orthopaedic and Arthritic Centre was named as a centre of excellence in joint replacement.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Recent comments by senior members of Stephen Harper's government reveal a troubling ideological antipathy towards public broadcasting.
Recent comments by senior members of Stephen Harper's government reveal a troubling ideological antipathy towards public broadcasting.
On November 23rd, 2010, Dean Del Mastro, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage mused publicly about killing our public broadcaster by getting "out of the broadcasting business".
Then on February 16, 2011, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was quoted by the Canadian Press as saying “The CBC lies all the time.”
It's widely known that Prime Minister Harper exercises extremely tight control of his government’s messaging. None of his Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or MPs speak out without prior approval from the Prime Minister’s Office.
We recognize the threat posed by Harper could be the most serious peril CBC has ever faced. Now is the time for all of us who love and depend on the CBC to stand up and be counted.
Please sign the petition and help spread the word!
On November 23rd, 2010, Dean Del Mastro, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage mused publicly about killing our public broadcaster by getting "out of the broadcasting business".
Then on February 16, 2011, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was quoted by the Canadian Press as saying “The CBC lies all the time.”
It's widely known that Prime Minister Harper exercises extremely tight control of his government’s messaging. None of his Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or MPs speak out without prior approval from the Prime Minister’s Office.
We recognize the threat posed by Harper could be the most serious peril CBC has ever faced. Now is the time for all of us who love and depend on the CBC to stand up and be counted.
Please sign the petition and help spread the word!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)