- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
LOL = "Laughing Out Loud" (or so I‘m told)
This story has actually had me laughing aloud - a foreign freighter full of Canadian army equipment, bobbing around in the Atlantic for days, refusing to enter port until the bills are paid, all the while with three unarmed Canadian soldiers aboard (ostensibly to safeguard the CF kit ... yet unarmed ...). Good grief!
I‘m curious - if the lien by the shipowner was legal, I wonder what legal basis was used (by DND/DSS) to withhold payment to the contractor? Hmmmm ...
Gee, I wonder if next time, just maybe, somebody might consider contracting shipping of this sort to a more reputable Canadian company ... like, maybe CP ...(since, after all, Canada doesn‘t have a merchant marine any more)?
I‘m curious, also, as to what "value added" benefit the Canadian taxpayers are receiving by having a contractor, and then a sub-contractor, in between DND and the shipowner? Wouldn‘t it have been cheaper for DND to simply deal with the shipowner (especially since the sub-contractor was involved in exactly this sort of imbroglio in 1995?)
Watching this comedy makes me realise just how remarkable it was that the Brits were able to mount and wage the Falklands campaign (somehow, I just can‘t imagine a shipload of Brit equipment or troops going astray in a similar fashion).
Only in Canada, eh? Pity ...
Dileas Gu Brath
M.A. Bossi, Esquire
This story has actually had me laughing aloud - a foreign freighter full of Canadian army equipment, bobbing around in the Atlantic for days, refusing to enter port until the bills are paid, all the while with three unarmed Canadian soldiers aboard (ostensibly to safeguard the CF kit ... yet unarmed ...). Good grief!
I‘m curious - if the lien by the shipowner was legal, I wonder what legal basis was used (by DND/DSS) to withhold payment to the contractor? Hmmmm ...
Gee, I wonder if next time, just maybe, somebody might consider contracting shipping of this sort to a more reputable Canadian company ... like, maybe CP ...(since, after all, Canada doesn‘t have a merchant marine any more)?
I‘m curious, also, as to what "value added" benefit the Canadian taxpayers are receiving by having a contractor, and then a sub-contractor, in between DND and the shipowner? Wouldn‘t it have been cheaper for DND to simply deal with the shipowner (especially since the sub-contractor was involved in exactly this sort of imbroglio in 1995?)
Watching this comedy makes me realise just how remarkable it was that the Brits were able to mount and wage the Falklands campaign (somehow, I just can‘t imagine a shipload of Brit equipment or troops going astray in a similar fashion).
Only in Canada, eh? Pity ...
Dileas Gu Brath
M.A. Bossi, Esquire