Tag Archives: F-35 Fighters

Roundup: Debates, and a trip to James Bay

Posted on by

So, the federal Liberals had their first leadership debate yesterday, and it was…without a whole lot of sparks or drama. I mean, it wasn’t NDP dull and full of violent agreement, but there weren’t too many fireworks or memorable exchanges. Aaron Wherry liveblogged it here, here is the CBC recap, and Michael Den Tandt gives his thoughts on its tepid nature here. (I wrote up my own thoughts on the debate here).

Jonathan Kay visits several James Bay Cree reservations, including Attawapiskat, and finds that things are not necessarily as bleak as we might otherwise think – though Attawapiskat is noticeably poorer-run than the others. The other conclusion is that those communities that are doing best are doing it outside of the Indian Act system, which is something I’ve heard said about the successful First Nations communities on the West Coast. Nevertheless, Kay’s story is a must read.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sovereignty via subcontract

Posted on by

Buried in last week’s KPMG audit of the F-35 programme was the revelation that the government planned to contract out air-to-air refuelling of the jets, seeing as the systems we have in place are currently incompatible. When this was pointed out two years ago, the government said, “Oh don’t worry, we’ll adapt our systems.” By adapt, apparently they meant subcontract. And nothing says asserting sovereignty over our airspace than getting the Americans or some other private companies to do our air-to-air refuelling for us. Great job, guys!

The Supreme Court handed down a split 4-2-1 decision on witnesses wearing niquabs – basically saying sure, but only some of the time, and here’s some guidelines to think about. Emmett Macfarlane examines the split and comes down on Team Abella – the single dissent that said while we’d like to see more of a person’s face than less, on the whole it’s not as big of a deal as it would be to have people to choose to not testify at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undermining accountability with dollar figures

Posted on by

The government has started attaching dollar figures to who much it costs to answer Order Paper questions – in this case, $1.2 million in a three-month period. Oh noes! Parliament costs money! And really, using this tactic of putting dollar figures on basic accountability is underhanded and violates the very premise of Parliament, which is to hold the government to account by means of controlling supply. To do that, Parliament needs facts and figures, quite simply. And making it seem like a costly imposition for Parliamentarians to exercise their most basic function is, in a word, despicable.

The federal and provincial finance minsters met at Meech Lake yesterday, and while they didn’t come to any consensus over boosting the CPP, they did agree to study it and come up with a report for their meeting in June.

Not that it’s any big surprise, but former assistant deputy minister of procurement at DND, Alan Williams, said the F-35 process as “corrupted” from the beginning, but the main question remains why the cabinet went along unquestioningly when the bureaucrats barrelled ahead with the sole-source contract. Meanwhile, the Americans are already looking at developing a “sixth generation” fighter jet by 2030.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Carney conundrum

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail wrote a story that tried to paint a picture of how Liberals were wooing Mark Carney, and that while he spoke at an exclusive event in Nova Scotia, he spent a few days at Scott Brison’s house with his family. And *gasp!* they both talked about income inequality at one time! Nobody else ever talks about income inequality – never! They must have been in cahoots about getting Carney to run for the party leadership! Never mind that they have a lot of similarities in experience and circles that they both travel in. The problem is that the story is largely sourced by unnamed “officials” and is dependent upon one particular organizer who was trying to get Carney to run and who may have simply been spinning a fabulation that Carney was actually entertaining a bid while he tried to get an organization behind him that was based on a false understanding of how the leadership ballot process was being run. It’s a bunch of random information being strung together with a bunch of supposition that something might have been discussed, because nobody wants to talk about it. And from a journalistic perspective, it reads a lot like rumour being reported as fact – especially with almost nobody going on the record to confirm or deny anything.

Whether the events in the story are true or not is no longer the issue, however. Economist Stephen Gordon worries about the irreparable harm that the Carney story does for the office of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, simply so that some “senior Liberal sources” could try and find some imagined gain.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: One last kick at the F-35s

Posted on by

Admittedly I got to the Senate chamber late (and it was a bit of a miracle that I made it at all this morning), and when I made it, Question Period was already underway. After missing a question on a local Nova Scotia concerns from Senator Mercer, which Senator LeBreton took under advisement, I came in while Senator Dallaire was on his feet, asking about the government’s messaging on the issue of Syria, and Canada’s capacitor for peacekeeping operations considering the ongoing commitments in Afghanistan and the Canadian Forces currently “licking their wounds.” Senator LeBreton, answering for the government as is what happens in the Senate, responded with her usual derision and withering sarcasm, decrying that Dallaire — a decorated retired Lieutenant General — could “insult” the Forces by using the term “licking their wounds,” and then praised the work of John Baird as minister of foreign affairs.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: What about that billion dollar penalty?

Posted on by

With the Commons now risen for the season, the Senate is still hard at work, and they had plenty of questions for the government – especially in the wake of yesterday’s F-35 report being tabled. Liberal senators took it upon themselves to put questions on that report to the government, by way of Senator Marjorie LeBreton, the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Cowan led off, quoting Andrew Coyne’s withering analysis on the F-35s, and he asked what it will take for the government to admit they misled Parliament. Senator LeBreton replied that the “ramblings” of Andrew Coyne mean little to her, and that the government’s assurances on the file have born out — which the Liberal benches found hilarious. She then quoted the false 42-year figure, saying they were the same as the twenty-year figure, and was completely attributable to the time frame. When Cowan pressed about Ambrose’s statements versus those of MacKay, LeBreton got a chance to recite the “no money has been spent” and “Seven-Point Plan™” talking points. Cowan wasn’t about to let go, and pressed on about a statement that MacKay made about how cancelling the F-35s would cost us a billion dollars, and what that actually entailed. LeBreton kept talking around it, despite several back-and-forths. Senator Wallin then stood up to ask a friendly supplemental question to take the heat off, and got LeBreton to quote some KPMG figures.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MPs head home while the F-35 storm rages on

Posted on by

The House has risen, and the MPs are all headed back to their ridings. Not the Senate though – they’re still sitting, and I’ll be heading up their for Senate QP later today.

Okay, so now the big news from yesterday – the KPMG report on the F-35 procurement process. With a cost now pegged at $46 billion over 42 years, the government says that it’s officially pushing the reset button on the process – or is it? The former ADM of procurement at National Defence, Alan Williams, says that it’s meaningless unless the department redraws the Statement of Requirements to make stealth a “rated feature” with a point value rather than a pass/fail and it then goes for open tender. There’s also the problem of attrition and the additional costs of buying replacement aircraft, which is outside of the $9 billion procurement envelope being set. John Geddes rips apart Peter MacKay’s remorseless performance yesterday, and notes that the officials noted that it will be difficult to keep the aerospace contracts for supplying F-35 parts if we don’t end up going with that plane. John Ivison goes through the process and finds that if the Conservatives still end up going with the F-35s, it will look like incompetence. Andrew Coyne takes offence that the government continues to spin the numbers and calls bullshit – it’s not 42 years, but $46 million over 30 years, and that the government tacked on those extra 12 years to cover “development and acquisition,” which costs a few hundred million, but by making it look like a little over a billion dollars a year, the government is trying to make it look more palatable. Paul Wells notes the Conservatives’ tendency toward hubris when they should be listening to their critics, who do have a point. Of course, the US “fiscal cliff” may end up killing the F-35s as it would slash their defence spending.

Continue reading →

QP: Angry questions in advance of the KPMG report

Posted on by

What was likely the final QP of the year was very nearly a full house in the Commons, and saw the arrival of the two new Conservative MPs who recently won the by-elections in Durham and Calgary Centre. Once Erin O’Toole and Joan Crockatt took their seats, Thomas Mulcair started off by reading off demands for amendments to the Investment Canada Act, and intimated that the Prime Minister is scaring off investment. Harper pointed out that the markets responded positively to the decision, and hit back about how the NDP would shut down the oil sands. Mulcair then switched tracks and went after the F-35s, to which Harper shrugged and said that the Auditor General’s report found some problems with cost assumptions, but they had this new process going forward. Bob Rae then got up, and took umbrage with Harper’s characterisation of the the Auditor General’s report, and got into a back-and-forth with Harper about what was in the report.

Continue reading →

QP: New MP, same questions

Posted on by

The calendar running out, and so many things left to bat the government with, it was going to be another fairly testy QP, but before things could get underway, the business or the House paused so that newly elected NDP MP Murray Rankin could be brought into the a chamber to take his seat. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair read off a trio of questions about when the government would be clarifying the Investment Canada Act, per the NDP opposition day motion yesterday which the Conservatives agreed to. Harper responded that they already clarified the rules last Friday when they drew the line in the sand around state-owned enterprises — hence why they voted for said motion. Mulcair carried on, asking a pair of questions on the F-35s, and why there were no regional industrial benefits. Harper assured him of the Seven-Point Plan™, and named several companies in Montreal that are benefitting from subcontracts for the plane’s construction. Bob Rae was up next, and pressed about the cost figures for the F-35 purchase. Harper went back to the Seven-Point Plan™, and reminded Rae that when you keep lengthening the service lifetime that the costs will also keep rising.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Investment rules and an eye on joint ventures

Posted on by

Those new foreign investment rules unveiled by Harper along with the Nexen and Progress Energy decisions will likely have an impact beyond the oil sands – but it’s clear as to how just yet. What it will likely do is involve state-owned enterprises in more joint ventures and having them become minority shareholders to conform to the new rules. Economist Stephen Gordon looks at the economics of investing in the oil sands and why there is a need for foreign investment (and why most of the fears about foreign state-owned enterprises are overblown).

Oh, and those theories that Harper put these markers around state-owned enterprises as a marker for future trade negotiations with China? Paul Wells wonders about the logic of that considering that Canada-China FIPA that’s sitting there, unratified…

On the F-35 file, certain critics say that the promised industrial benefits (currently pegged in the $9 billion range, down from the $12 billion originally stated) aren’t likely to materialise, which is a ticking time bomb for the government. To date those industrial benefits have amounted to less than $500 million.

Continue reading →