The F-35 fighter jet affair is a scandal that should, by rights, bring down the Harper government. Not only is it huge — in terms of taxpayer dollars, 100 times the size of sponsorship scandal that destroyed the former Liberal government — it is laced through with lies, deceit and ministerial incompetence.
Seduced by the sales pitch of the shiny toy’s American manufacturer, the defence department misled its political masters about the true cost of the 65 F-35s. Even after it knew better, the Harper cabinet used that lowball number — $16 billion — to mislead Parliament and the public.
When Kevin Page, the independent parliamentary budget officer, reported a year ago that the true cost would be at least $29.3 billion, the Conservatives vilified him. They put their figure-fiddlers back to work and came up with new number — $14.7 billion.
Desperate to get the new fighters, the military pulled the wool over the eyes of the cabinet. Desperate to win their majority in last May’s election, the Conservatives could not afford to admit they had been conned. So they hid the truth.
I take a certain grim satisfaction from seeing the F-35 scandal unravelled, thanks to last week’s report by the new auditor general, Michael Ferguson, who has done what his predecessor, Sheila Fraser, did so superbly on the sponsorship file — bared the facts and let the chips fall where they might.
I started writing about the F-35 back in June 2010. I did not know then (as Ferguson informs us now) that the defence department had that same month secretly revised its cost estimate upward, to $25 billion. All I knew in June 2010 was that the government claimed the cost (for hardware, maintenance and training) would be $16 billion; it stuck with that figure, until it lowered it to $14.7 billion for last May’s election.
It didn’t make any sense to me that a government facing a $54-billion deficit would choose to spend $16 billion on a high-tech fighter. As I poked more deeply into the subject and wrote more about it, I discovered some things. There were cheaper, and perhaps better, planes available on the market. The defence department had not invited competing bids or even looked at other aircraft.
Known as a “fifth-generation” fighter, the F-35 was still in the development phase; no one was sure how much it would cost or when Lockheed Martin would deliver it. As an attack aircraft, it seemed singularly inappropriate for Canada’s needs. Its short range and single engine seemed ill-suited for long-distance patrols in the north or along the coasts.
Test reports began to come in indicating performance issues; the aircraft was heavier and slower than anticipated (slower, in fact, than the aging twin-engine CF-18 it was to replace) and its range was even less than advertised. (Competitors called the F-35 a “bomb truck,” which was not a compliment.)
Gradually, other countries that the United States had been counting on to purchase the F-35 began to back away because of cost, delivery and performance issues. This should have been seen as a red flag in Ottawa, but the Conservatives ignored it.
Back on July 19, 2010, I wrote column that posed this question: “Are the heads in the Harper cabinet screwed on tight?” I didn’t attempt to answer the question, but did note that experience elsewhere indicated the final bill for Canada’s F-35s could reach $30 billion or even $40 billion. (This was eight months before Kevin Page came up with his $29.3 billion estimate and about 20 months before Michael Ferguson revealed the government had been sitting on a $25 billion figure.)
Some readers were outraged — by me, not by the government. I was accused of being biased, anti-Conservative, paranoid and a “left-wing nutbar.”
What does the government say now? It says that while it may have invested $500 million in development costs, it has not actually purchased any F-35s. With luck, it never will — not now.
Original Article
Source: guelph mercury
Author: Geoff Stevens
Seduced by the sales pitch of the shiny toy’s American manufacturer, the defence department misled its political masters about the true cost of the 65 F-35s. Even after it knew better, the Harper cabinet used that lowball number — $16 billion — to mislead Parliament and the public.
When Kevin Page, the independent parliamentary budget officer, reported a year ago that the true cost would be at least $29.3 billion, the Conservatives vilified him. They put their figure-fiddlers back to work and came up with new number — $14.7 billion.
Desperate to get the new fighters, the military pulled the wool over the eyes of the cabinet. Desperate to win their majority in last May’s election, the Conservatives could not afford to admit they had been conned. So they hid the truth.
I take a certain grim satisfaction from seeing the F-35 scandal unravelled, thanks to last week’s report by the new auditor general, Michael Ferguson, who has done what his predecessor, Sheila Fraser, did so superbly on the sponsorship file — bared the facts and let the chips fall where they might.
I started writing about the F-35 back in June 2010. I did not know then (as Ferguson informs us now) that the defence department had that same month secretly revised its cost estimate upward, to $25 billion. All I knew in June 2010 was that the government claimed the cost (for hardware, maintenance and training) would be $16 billion; it stuck with that figure, until it lowered it to $14.7 billion for last May’s election.
It didn’t make any sense to me that a government facing a $54-billion deficit would choose to spend $16 billion on a high-tech fighter. As I poked more deeply into the subject and wrote more about it, I discovered some things. There were cheaper, and perhaps better, planes available on the market. The defence department had not invited competing bids or even looked at other aircraft.
Known as a “fifth-generation” fighter, the F-35 was still in the development phase; no one was sure how much it would cost or when Lockheed Martin would deliver it. As an attack aircraft, it seemed singularly inappropriate for Canada’s needs. Its short range and single engine seemed ill-suited for long-distance patrols in the north or along the coasts.
Test reports began to come in indicating performance issues; the aircraft was heavier and slower than anticipated (slower, in fact, than the aging twin-engine CF-18 it was to replace) and its range was even less than advertised. (Competitors called the F-35 a “bomb truck,” which was not a compliment.)
Gradually, other countries that the United States had been counting on to purchase the F-35 began to back away because of cost, delivery and performance issues. This should have been seen as a red flag in Ottawa, but the Conservatives ignored it.
Back on July 19, 2010, I wrote column that posed this question: “Are the heads in the Harper cabinet screwed on tight?” I didn’t attempt to answer the question, but did note that experience elsewhere indicated the final bill for Canada’s F-35s could reach $30 billion or even $40 billion. (This was eight months before Kevin Page came up with his $29.3 billion estimate and about 20 months before Michael Ferguson revealed the government had been sitting on a $25 billion figure.)
Some readers were outraged — by me, not by the government. I was accused of being biased, anti-Conservative, paranoid and a “left-wing nutbar.”
What does the government say now? It says that while it may have invested $500 million in development costs, it has not actually purchased any F-35s. With luck, it never will — not now.
Original Article
Source: guelph mercury
Author: Geoff Stevens
My mother raised 6 children. She taught us that lying was not only a sin, but if you were caught lying, there would be hell to pay, usually involving a wooden paddle. When I became a mom to my own two sons, both in their early thirties now, I taught them that lying was just plain wrong, and that I would always find out eventually. They understood the penality to be paid if they lied to me. Looks to me like the Conservatives were not taught these very basic values. If they did, then their mothers must be pretty upset right about now!
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Francine
Visualising Mackay and a wooden paddle is a strangely satisfying and enjoyable image on my mind right now.
DeleteThanks Francine