A Liberal Air Force Brat’s take on Andrew Leslie’s $72,000 move

If you haven’t heard of this story, you probably stayed off social media over the Family Day long weekend, and deserve congratulations for having something of a life. But long story short, *cough* someone *cough* passed documents to CTV showing that when Lt. General Andrew Leslie retired from the Army, the Department of National Defence paid for him to move to a new home within Ottawa, at a total cost of about $72,000. This was jumped on gleefully by Conservatives and NDPers as an ungrateful soldier gouging the taxpayers, and bemoaned by Liberals as an unfair attack on a decorated military veteran who broke no rules and served his country heroically. The sharp lines are explained by the only reason this is even a story we’re hearing about: some time after his retirement, Leslie became an advisor to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, and will likely seek a Liberal nomination in 2015.

I come at this as a Liberal, obviously, but also as an Air Force brat, whose family was moved at government expense to Summerside, Trenton, Baden in Germany, and finally to Comox. We lived in military housing until our move to Comox, where my parents bought a home, and where my father would retire from the military. In the interests of full disclosure, when returning to Canada from four years in Germany, we took the option of driving from Trenton to Comox over five days, for which an allowance was provided. We had dinner at Pizza Hut at least twice but had the leftovers for breakfast, thus saving two meals. At least one hotel we stayed in had a water slide, and I did partake in the sliding.

So, on to Leslie’s move. First attack point was that it was a move within Ottawa. This is permitted by the rules – on retirement, you’re allowed a final move at government expense within two years, and in can be within the same city. We can debate whether this should be allowed, but let me argue why it should be. When my parents bought their house in Comox (well, Courtenay to be specific) my Dad had less than a week to look for a house, make a choice, sign the paperwork and do the deal. My Mom didn’t even get to see it. Dad got a brief housing leave to fly to BC from Germany to house-hunt; Mom had to stay and make sure my sister and I didn’t burn down our PMQ. Point being, the house you end up in at your last posting may not be ideal. Your partner may not like it. You may not be super keen, having bought it so quickly. You may have bought it closer to the base, but now that you’re retired it’s not an ideal neighbourhood. So those are all reasons why a retirement move within the city may make sense, and be something we should cover.

Now, on to the $72,000. Is that a crazy figure for a move? It could certainly seem so at first blush. Particularly within town. But that’s if you only factor in the costs of a moving truck and packers. The figure also includes real estate fees, commissions, and so forth. Ask anyone who has sold a house; those can add up. When you consider a senior general probably makes a pretty nice salary, and if their spouse does as well, they can probably afford a pretty nice house. With commissions being a percentage, and a million dollar home in Ottawa not being crazy, you get to that $72,000 figure fairly easily. Now, you ask, should commissions and real estate fees for veterans’ moves be covered by DND? A fair debate to have. I say yes, and here’s why. How often do you move and sell your home? Probably not very often. Maybe two or three times in a lifetime? My family moved four times in 12 years, and that’s on the low end of the curve for a military family. And it’s not like you have a lot of choice in the matter – it’s your job. If you get dinged with the real estate fees each time, you’ll quickly go broke. So I’d argue yes, that’s a fair expense to cover for our military members.

Still, how could Leslie let the bill get so high, some ask? Well, he didn’t. The serviceperson isn’t the person who hires the movers and gets the quotes and pays the bills, later seeking reimbursement. All that is handled by DND, who hires a third-party contractor who handles all the arrangements, negotiates prices and pays service providers directly. Leslie would have had little visibility into this. Now, are military moves in general too expensive, and in need of cost control? Quite possibly. The Auditor General has looked into government relocation services, and it has regularly been in the news. I think the program should be examined, not with an eye to cutting services to military members, but to ensuring the system is providing value for money. But that’s not up an individual serviceperson to do, whether it’s a Lt. General like Leslie or a Master Corporal like my father. It’s up to the Minister of National Defence, and the Government of Canada. Until now, they’ve ignored all the warnings about the relocation services system.

Should he not have somehow recognized this could be a political problem down the road though, some have said, and foregone retirement benefits he and every other retiring service member in good standing with enough length of service are entitled to? Well, given that he likely wasn’t contemplating a political career when he was retiring, that would take a remarkable amount of foresight. It would also take an amount of saintliness unknown not just in politics, but in society in general. Should a civil servant, or a union member, forego benefits granted in their employment or bargaining agreements because one day people with axes to grind might try to make them look bad? Or should we perhaps not begrudge people the retirement benefits they’re due in exchange for a career of dedicated service to their employer, whether it’s a business or the people of Canada?

Which brings us to the politics. While the NDP and Conservatives have trained their guns on Leslie, it’s hard not to see this a wider attack on the retirement benefits of all military members. After all, Leslie followed the rules of the program, a program that is available and used by retiring veterans of all ranks. Leslie’s bill is only higher because generals make more -- higher salary, more expensive house, higher commission. And he didn’t hire the contractors – the department did. So unless you’re saying it’s only bad for people that will go on to be Liberals to claim these benefits – which seems too silly to contemplate – it’s hard not to see the attack as against the program itself, a program which benefits all ranks. And I think, given the sacrifices military members make in their careers, it’s a benefit well earned.

And that’s the thing. We wouldn’t be hearing about this, were it not for the fact that Leslie was a Liberal. I have a hard time seeing CTV do a story, and the Conservatives and NDPers fulminating, about military veterans that served their country being greedy by having their moving expenses covered by the government. One also has to wonder how the documents came to CTV. While the Conservative defence minister says it was an Access to Information request (not yet posted on DND’s list of completed ATIP requests), the CTV report simply said “documents obtained by CTV.” When CTV gets docs from ATIP for a story, they so. The wording they used is what they use for documents from sources. Which seems to imply someone else filed the ATIP, if there actually was one. Who exactly is doing opposition research on military veterans? That would be interesting to know.

Anyway, to conclude, and I’ll try to take the partisan hat off as much as possible here. I think Leslie acted within regulations, and I think he has earned the benefits he claimed. While at first blush it could seem politically questionable, anyone who has sold a house knows the math makes sense. I think DND should examine its broad third party relocation services to ensure taxpayers are getting value for money. And I think we shouldn’t begrudge our veterans the services and benefits they’ve earned in a career serving their country, even if they later turn out to be – gasp—a politician.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ministerial responsibility is dead; Peter MacKay hides behind the troops (again)

It was shocking and troubling news when it broke two days ago: the federal government (it's only called the Harper Government when it's doing positive things) announced it would be ending the danger pay allowance for Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

The baffling news from a government supposedly all about the troops (unlike those other commie parties) provoked an immediately negative response, including from comedian and troop supporter (having made several trips to Afghanistan), Rick Mercer:

Harper govt cutting danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan. bit.ly/16O5q1J - its safe now apparently.
— Rick Mercer (@rickmercer) April 9, 2013

Mercer also noted that, while the Harper Government may think things are safe in Afghanistan, the Harper government apparently disagrees:

This bone-headed decision now being a very public relations (not to mention moral) problem, now the Harper Government begins a game of political hot potato. Where does the responsibility reside? If you think the Prime Minister's Office takes responsibility for the actions of the Harper government, think again:

The Harper government has ordered the Department of National Defence to reconsider a plan to reduce danger pay for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ah, so now they're the Harper government again. And this totally isn't their fault; or, at least, not the PMO branch of the Harper government. So, no responsibility from the Prime Minister. How about the Defence Minister; Peter?

Staff in Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office said bureaucrats, not politicians, took the initiative to reduce soldiers’ hazard pay.
...
The decision was made by a hardship pay review committee whose members include a Canadian Armed Forces general-rank officer, a representative of the RCMP, and bureaucrats from Treasury Board and National Defence.
...
The Defence Minister has no power to interfere in the decision, officials said.

So, apparently it's not MacKay's responsibility. He's just the Minister of National Defence, after all. And it's not Harper's responsibility, he's just the Prime Minister. No, when the going gets tough, they hide behind the troops.

It's not a new phenomenon for the Harper government:

Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show.

It first emerged in a television report on Sept. 21, 2011, that MacKay’s office ordered a Cormorant helicopter to pick him up from a private lodge on the Gander River in Newfoundland at an estimated cost of $16,000. His destination was the Gander airport, where a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in London, Ont.

The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star.

Perhaps they need a little danger pay at NDHQ as well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

MacKay, Conservatives should wear F-35 boondoggle

The auditor general's report Tuesday on the mismanagement by DND and the government of the F-35 is drawing major attention, and rightly so. But the fact is these revelations have largely been known for some time and all these objections raised previously -- the Conservatives simply elected to ignore them.

I've blogged at length on the F-35 issue in recent years, and raised many of the same concerns, so I won't repeat them at length here.

July 17, 2010: The Conservative $16 billion fighter jet boondoggle
July 30, 2010: The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people
October 14, 2010: Who needs fighters when we can buy Bomarc missiles?
October 19, 2010: All of a sudden we all need the same jet?
January 19, 2011: Shocking fighter jet interoperability! With the Russians!
March 21, 2011: The inter-operable allied air coalition in Libya
March 16, 2012: This is an opportunity to reset the fighter jet procurement process

Basically, the Conservatives continually ignored the warning signs emerging from the U.S. and elsewhere about the viability of the F-35 program. Moreover, while this may end up being the right jet for us, by bypassing a needs assessment they went into this blindly, and by bypassing a competitive tender process they made it impossible for us to get the best possible deal.

The AG's report puts much responsibility at the feet of DND, and rightly so. They wanted the F-35, period, and they did their best to ensure that's what would happen. And the AG's role is to audit departments, not assign political blame. But the blame absolutely must be put at the feet of Defence Minister Peter MacKay and this Conservative government.

Of course bureaucrats are going to try to get their way, and of course the military is going to try to get shiny new toys. It's the job of the minister and the government to provide adult supervision, to weigh the priorities of DND against those of other departments, to put their wish list in the larger context, and balance likes with needs and what's necessary to get the job done. And it's not like this government is in the business of blindly following the advice of the bureaucracy: if that was the case, Munir Sheikh would still be running Statistics Canada.

No, DND and the Conservatives were willing partners here. DND wanted the coolest jet, and the government wanted to be seen as pro-military and take the opportunity to use it as a wedge by labelling any people that raised legitimate concerns anti-military. Which is ironic, with the "support the troops" government now hiding behind DND in the wake of the AG's report.

This whole boondoggle could have been avoided if the government had ever, for five minutes, just stopped demonizing critics and instead listened to and considered their criticisms. The government will act now with the AG tipping its hand. It already has (it received a draft copy some time ago) by signalling it may finally allow a more competitive process, and admitting that, prior to past statements, there's no firm contractual commitment to buy the F-35.

But years will be wasted beginning a process that should have begun years ago, and we'll keep flying CF-18s longer than we would be if the government had put the right process in place from the start. They've wasted time and money on a process they knew was flawed by putting politics ahead of policy, and they've mismanaged what will be the biggest procurement contract in Canadian history. That alone should cost Peter Mackay his job.

There was a time when it would have, but ministerial responsibility is dead in this country. Instead, ministers hide behind  bureaucrats and armed forces members to mask their own incompetence. The true north strong and free, indeed.

P.S. Just to counter one Conservative talking point before it comes to the comments: The previous Liberal government never committed to buying the F-35. It invested in the Joint Strike Fighter program to make development contracts available to the Canadian aerospace industry, and contracts were awarded to Canadian businesses far exceeding that investment. This was an industrial development program only. It developed a prototype, the F-35, based on American specifications and needs. The program included no commitment to purchase the plane that would be developed. The plan was always to develop a list of Canada's needs for a next-generation fighter jet and invite bids through a competitive tender process. It was the Conservatives that decided to forego a competitive tender and buy the F-35s without a full needs assessment or consideration of alternatives.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is an opportunity to reset the fighter jet procurement process

After several years of ignoring opposition warnings about the price, suitability and lack of competitive tender around the F-35 program, the Harper Conservatives are now finally beginning to admit what we’ve all known all along: this purchase isn’t set in stone, the F-35 program has issues, and this may not be the jet for us. (The fact they're about to get slammed by the AG may be a factor.)

After several years of belligerent “you’re with us or you hate the troops” rhetoric and Red Menace propaganda from Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino anytime someone raised very valid questions, we’ve seen a massive climb-down for the government. Of course, they’ll never admit the critics were right all along, and this whole drama points to a serious lack of judgement by the government. Which I suppose is the point the Liberals try to make with this cheeky video.

Frankly, though, I think focusing on the flip-flop aspect is wrong, particularly when they’re finally (maybe) getting it right. Yes, they should have listened to us all along but, frankly, no one cares.

Where I would instead focus is using this as an opportunity to reset the process. Well, not so much reset it since there was no actual needs analysis and procurement process around the F-35 to begin with, so instead let’s argue for an actual process this time.

We need to have a public debate here, and it needs to start with the basic question of what role do we want our military, and fighter jets in particular, to play in Canada and the world in the 21st century. 


Just saying “we want the best of everything” is simplistic and foolish. You don’t buy the most expensive car with all the optional features, you buy the best vehicle you can afford that best fits what you’ll be primarily using it for: a car with good highway mileage if you have a long commute, or an SUV with storage space if you have kids to take to soccer practice.

We need to decide what role we want our Air Force to play going forward. Do we want to be focused solely on continental air defence and sovereignty? Or do we want the capability to intervene and attack ground targets in a conflict such as Libya?These are the kind of questions we need to answer first, as our needs will dictate the choices we make. If our primary concern is air defence, an air superiority fighter like the new F-15 Silent Eagle may be a better, and more affordable, option. If we want ground attack capability, a multi-role fighter like the F-35 or other options may be a better fit.


Once we've determined what our needs are in a next-generation fighter, we need to design a request for proposals and put it top tender through a competitive bidding process. Get the manufacturers competing to offer us the best deal and best price, and we can pick which is the best deal and best suits our needs. And then insist, as every other country does with major military procurement, that a significant portion of the work and related contracts go to Canadian industry.

All three of these elements -- needs analysis, competitive tender, industrial benefits -- were missing from the initial Conservative process around the F-35. If all options are indeed “on the table” as Fantino has said, then, rather than gotcha videos, we should be demanding these elements form the basis of a re-started procurement process.

Frankly, I think our primary mission needs to be continental air defence and we should consider an air superiority option that can performance that task better than the F-35, and at a fraction of the price. But let’s have that debate and evaluate all the options, instead of simply settling on the coolest-looking toy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Shocking fighter jet interoperability! With the Russians!

The Conservatives, egged on by the defence industry, keep telling us we need to ignore that looming deficit and pressing social needs (such as family home care and pension reform) and instead drop $16 billion we don't have on sole-sourced stealth fighters because:

a) We need to keep ourselves safe from 50 year old turboprop Russian bombers, and

b) Only by buying the same jets that fewer and fewer of our allies are buying can we "interoperate," which is totally important.

Meanwhile, in a land not far far away...

A first-of-its-kind hijacking exercise involving the U.S., Canadian and Russian militaries went so well that a similar drill is planned for 2011, an American officer said.

Jet fighters from Russia and the North American Aerospace Defence Command pursued a small passenger jet playing the role of a hijacked jetliner across the Pacific and back during the August exercise. The aim: To practice handing off responsibility for a hijacked jet between Russia and NORAD, a joint U.S.-Canadian command that for decades devoted its efforts to tracking Soviet forces.

Officers reviewed the exercise in November at NORAD headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. The verdict: It "was pretty much carried on flawlessly," said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Lee Haefner, who was the lead planner.

NORAD and Russian officers will meet in Russia in February to begin planning a second exercise, Haefner said.

But how could this happen, you ask? (Happen again, actually) We're cooperating with the Rushkies? What about their ageing bombers and the red menace that Peter MacKay wants us to be scared of? Haven't they seen Red Dawn?

And we were able to hold this joint exercise with the American and the Russians, even though each country was operating different airplane types? But how could they interoperate, and what not? It's a miracle they didn't all fly into each other with those totally different types of airplanes they were flying. Didn't they know Stephen Harper says that's impossible!

Doesn't this example of a joint military exercise gaming exactly the sort of threat we expect our next-generation fighter interceptors to meet, and done cooperatively with our American allies flying different aircraft, and even with the Russians, pretty much negate the Conservative argument for why we need to drop $16 billion in this uncompetitive, un-tendered F-35 deal?

Only if you want to let facts enter into the debate, I suppose.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Startling fighter jet interoperability

Shocking news last week on the air defence front:

Two Canadian fighter jets intercepted an Emirates Air flight as part of an international response to a terrorist threat against the United States from cargo planes.

No, no, not that part. This part:

“Two CF-18s were in the air already, they were diverted and escorted a commercial civilian airliner through Canadian airspace,” said NORAD spokesman John Cornelio.

“Once they reached American airspace, the Canadians handed over to two U.S. F-15s and they escorted the airliner to JFK (International Airport in New York).”

But hang on a sec. CF-18s and F-15s? I'm pretty sure those are completely different aircraft.

Let's see. Here's an CF-18:

And here's an F-15:

Yep, look like different planes to me. But I'm confused. The Conservative government and their chorus of defence industry "experts" insist a key reason why we need to drop $16 billion on the F-35s without competition or tender is because it's the plane all our friends are buying, and if we don't have the same plane we won't be able to "inter-operate" or join in any reindeer games.

It's a wonder, then, that our CF-18s were able to inter-operate with USAF F-15s last week without flying into each other or anything, and were able to intercept and handle this middling threat to our national security despite not being the same kind of aircraft or having super-cool stealth capability.

It's miracuolus, even. But then again, I'm not a defence "expert."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who needs fighters when we can buy Bomarc missiles?

Bringing the Avro Arrow into a debate on defense issues is like bringing Neville Chamberlain into a debate on appeasement (but without the Nazi reference). Both are too often used references in such debates.

I’m going to bring the Arrow into this F-35-related post however, but only tangentially. Back when production costs were soaring on the Arrow and the government was under pressure to cancel the program in the late 1950s, there was a group of expert opinion that maintained the era of the manned fighter-interceptor was over. That investing millions in jets was silly when they were already obsolete. And besides, the over the pole bomber threat would disappear with the development of the ICBM

The replacement, in their view? Long-range, often nuclear-tipped, surface-to-air missiles. In Canada’s case specifically, the Bomarc. The Eisenhower government pressured John Diefenbaker to scrap the Arrow and buy Bomarcs instead. And if we still needed some interim fighters, he’d be happy to sell us some US-made Voodoos.

In the end, we cancelled the Arrow and bought the Bomarcs, which had all kinds of performance issues and never lived up to their billing. (And, of course, the nuclear warheads for the Bomarc (and later for our fighter air craft) would be a political issue for many years to come.) We eventually scrapped them about 10 years later.

And, of course, we still bought fighter aircraft. Voodoos, Starfighters, Freedom Fighters, Hornets, and now, possibly, the Lightning. Some 50 years later, the fighter-interceptor isn’t any more obsolete in 2010 than it was supposed to be in 1959.

I bring this all up because I had a sense of déjà vu reading this article today about how, once again, the manned interceptor is about to be obsolete. This time instead of the Bomarc, it’s drones:

The government should cancel plans to spend $9 billion on a new fleet of F-35 fighter jets because they are not necessary, defence policy analyst Steven Staples says in a paper published Thursday.

Staples says the government should extend the life of its current fleet of newly refurbished CF-18 fighters by confining them to domestic surveillance and interception roles and consider replacing many of them in the long run with much cheaper pilotless drones.

This argument doesn’t make any more sense now than it did 50 years ago, and there is actually remarkable similarity in the arguments why relying on missiles was wrong then and why relying on drones is wrong now.

Drones do offer some improvements over missiles. You can’t call a missile back, but you can recall a drone. You can probe and identify with a drone; a missile is purely offensive. But the fact is there’s no substitute for having a highly trained pilot in the cockpit, making split-second decisions based on their in the spot observations. You just can’t replicate that over a drone video connection to a controller with a joystick thousands of miles away.

Drones definitely have their uses. Reconnaissance for sure, and even ground attack in high-risk areas. But I have a hard time picturing air-to-air combat with drones. And when it comes to intercepting, identifying and interrogating unknown threats on our borders, I’d feel more comfortable with a person on the spot, in the seat, evaluating the situation.

There is ample debate to be had on whether the F-35 is the right jet for our needs, or whether a more affordable alternative – the Superhornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Silent Eagle, or others – might be a better fit. That’s one reason we need to have an open competitive process.

But as far as I’m concerned, reports of the death of the manned fighter are as premature today as they were 50 years ago.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people

It's amusing to see the Conservatives attempt to spin the routine intercept of ageing Russian turbo-prop bombers by our young-by-comparison CF-18 jets as proof we need to drop $16 billion without tender or a needs analysis to buy F-35s. Because in fact, when you think about it, these intercepts prove a number of cheaper alternatives may do the job just fine.

The intercepts do show we need a fighter capability. That's not really in doubt though, at least not by anyone likely to be governing any time soon, so let's accept that as a given and move on.

First of all, the fact is these intercepts are routine, and have been ably met by our boys in blue with our current CF-18 force. If the Russians were flying circles around us, flying over Glace Bay with impunity while we were able to do nothing but shake our fists at them, maybe the Conservatives would have a point that we need super-expensive stealth fighters to stop them.

But no, the CF-18 did just fine, thanks. Now, we are going to have to replace them. They're approaching end-of-life in the medium term. The incidents the Conservatives trumpet though illustrate that, having met the threat with current-generation technology, any number of next-generation alternatives cheaper to the F-35 could easily meet this same threat: the revamped F/A-18 SuperHornet, for example (The US Navy is buying them). Or the Eurofighter Typhoon (being bought by the Royal Air Force). Or even the next generation of the F-15, the Silent Eagle, a plane purpose-built for this sort of air superiority mission. All would do this mission, and all would do it cheaper than the F-35.

Contrary to the Conservative talking-points, MacKay and company have actually underscored the Liberal position by creating this drama: the F-35 may well be over-qualified to meet our primary threats, we should do a proper competitive analysis to ensure we're finding the right plane to do the job, and we should put it to public tender to make sure we're getting it at the right price.

And by the by, something that hasn't gotten enough notice: the government hasn't signed a contract yet to buy the F-35s, and won't for a few years. Seems that dog and pony show a few weeks ago was just about getting MacKay's picture taken in a fake jet, and doing some PR for the Pentagon. Which means, the next government can put this thing to a proper tendering process without any penalties or problems.

P.S. I found this very amusing, in a death of my profession sort of way:

The TU-95 bomber, known as the Bear, is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and may have been loaded with warheads on this trip. One military analyst tells QMI Agency the Russians have been known to fly with nukes on board just to flex their muscle and prove to the world they are still a powerful country.

Yes, nukes! They might have had nukes! Build a bombshelter in the basement of your condo, Chad and Buffy! We have no information that they did have nukes, but we won't let that stop us from speculating baselessly, because that's what good journalism is all about.

Also, the Bear might have had a cargo of angry, rabid bears. Or cute, cuddly kittens. Or, NUKES! We. Just. Don't. Know.

Fox News North. We speculate, you decide.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative $16 billion fighter jet boondoggle

I should start off by noting that I was an Air Force brat, growing up on Canadian Forces bases in Summerside, Trenton, Baden and Comox. I was also an Air Cadet. I think fighter jets are cool, and the F-35 is a particularly kick-ass jet. The Conservatives, however, are making a boondoggle of replacing the CF-18.

We do definitely need to replace the CF-18, that’s not in doubt for me. I have little time for the argument that we somehow don’t need fighters anymore. If we’re a sovereign country, we do need the tools to protect ourselves, it’s that simple. The question we need to ask ourselves though is, what are the missions we want our air force equipped to handle, and what are the tools they need to fulfill those missions? As I see it, the primary mission is domestic: to patrol and protect our borders, such as intercepting and identifying unknown aircraft approaching our borders, escorting passenger aircraft under suspected terrorist threat, and so on. Secondary would be potential overseas combat missions which, I would agree, are becoming less likely of a threat. With the CF-18 we flew combat missions in the first gulf war and in the former Yugoslavia but, tellingly, not Afghanistan. This raises the question, do we need a ground-attack capability or is air superiority our primary mission?

The key question is to identify the mission, and then determine the best jet to fulfill it. There is some question if the F-35 is a too pricy and over-equipped choice to meet the primary mission I identified above. One oft-heard objection is if we really do need stealth technology for sovereignty patrols. The two most-mentioned alternatives are the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon. I’d reject the Superhornet out of hand. It’s essentially a souped-up version of the F-18 that we already fly. It is a double-engine jet however, a key advantage over the single-engine F-35. Also double-engine is the Typhoon. I don’t really know much about it though. My concern with buying a European aircraft would be what industrial benefits would be available to Canadian industry.

What I’d like to see first is for the government to let us know what the mission is. What is the role that they see Canada’s Air Force playing in the 21^st century? If you really want to build support with the public for the largest procurement project in Canadian history, your argument needs to be more than “it’s the best because we say so, and if you disagree with us you don’t support the troops and are a commie.” Treat us like adults and make an actual argument for why we need these jets. Because I think we do, and the ham-fisted way you’re doing this isn’t helping.

The even larger mistake they’re making here though is to not have a competitive tendering process for this purchase. I mean, to not put a potential $16 billion contract to competitive tender is the height of stupidity. Hell, even when you buy a used car you negotiate a little with the dealer. You say you saw this great car at another dealer for a lower price. You pretend to walk away. You get them to come down off sticker, maybe throw in new seat cushions or something. You don’t just walk into the dealer, say I'm not looking at any other cars, this is the only car and I want, and offer to pay full sticker. It’s madness.

A competitive tender lets you identify and clarify your needs and evaluate the options. It forces the competing companies to actually compete and put together the best bid they can. Sole source it and there’s no competition at all.

And this is more than just buying X fighter jets. With a military procurement of this level, what will set one bid apart from another, and where the competition between bids really comes, is around the industrial benefits. Where biders usually compete the most is around what portion of the contract work will be done in the purchasing country, creating jobs and giving business to local businesses. These contracts can mean a lot of work for Canadian companies. Don’t put it to tender and we’ll see less spinoffs in Canada, less jobs for Canadians.

And then there’s the maintenance contract, which will be worth as much as $7 billion (that’s how we get from $9B for the jets to $16B overall). The government hasn’t even bothered to negotiate that yet. That’s right, they’re buying the jets from Lockheed but they’ll negotiate the contract with Lockheed later. And just what leverage will they have, given that they’re already agreed to buy the jets? Little to none. It will be uphill battle to maximize the Canadian content of that contract. And for those that don’t think fighter maintenance is important, go take a look at the role CF-18 maintenance contracts played in the creation of the Reform Party.

Now, the Conservatives say there has already been a competitive process with the F-35, and the Liberals initiated that process. They’re being deliberately obtuse. The F-35 is the result of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, which saw Boeing and Lockheed-Martin develop prototype aircraft for the next-generation of fighter aircraft, primarily for the U.S. and the British. Canada was one of a number of investing partners, a decision that was made under the Liberals, and the process saw the Lockheed-Martin aircraft selected.

That, however, did not commit industrial investors such as Canada to purchase any aircraft. Canada’s investment in the program secured access to contracts for Canadian aerospace companies, and the industry has reaped many contracts from the investment. But there was no commitment to purchase, no evaluation of this aircraft versus other options as to which will best meet Canada’s defence needs, no comparison for value for dollar, and no competition to provide industrial benefits to Canadian companies in exchange for purchase. To say otherwise is to deliberately mislead, or worse.

I’ve listed a myriad of reasons why it makes good sense to put this contract to competitive tender. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why it needs to be sole-sourced. We have time left in the operational life of the CF-18 to do this thing right, so there seems little need to rush through a $16-billion process. Particularly with the economy and the budget in the state it’s in, if we’re going to do a deal of this magnitude (and I think we do need to) we should be ensuring we’re getting the right aircraft and that we’re delivering maximum benefit to the Canadian economy in terms of jobs and contracts.

Instead, the Conservatives seem determined to rush head-first with their eyes closed into a potential $16 billion boondoggle, at a time when the rest of the country is about to asked to tighten their belts as we enter a time of austerity. Doesn’t seem like a recipe for success.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter MacKay still playing "whose is bigger" with the Soviets, err, Russians

Our defence minister, Peter MacKay, must be an aficionado of Cold War-era movies and Tom Clancy novels, because he still seems keen on playing a game of "whose is bigger?" with the Soviet Union, er, with the Russians:

Federal Defence Minister Peter MacKay has issued a decidedly cool response to the Russian military's planned paratroop drop at the North Pole next spring, suggesting Canadian fighter jets would scramble to "meet" any Russian aircraft "approaching" Canada's airspace. "We're going to protect our sovereign territory," MacKay said Friday in Halifax, a day after a Russian embassy representative tried to play down the parachute mission as a "solely symbolic" event aimed at celebrating the 60th anniversary of a Cold War achievement by two Soviet scientists.

I wonder if Peter is aware of the major Arctic military exercise his own department is planning, some details of which began to be revealed last week:

...but media will “likely” have to leave before the meeting ends to transfer to HMCS Toronto to take part in Operation Nanook, an Arctic sovereignty mission...

A reporter asks for more information on Operation Nanook, and is told that there will be a full briefing by Defence at some point before the trip takes place; Peter MacKay will be there, as will some media who are covering the operation in its entirety — again, betting not ITQ — which means there may be some limits for photo ops – one pool, not two.

I'm sure Peter would love if the Russian defence minister held a presser to insist they'll defend their sovereign territory, and maybe channel Kruschev with a little "we will crush you" rhetoric. Then Peter can invite him to Geneva for talks, and then they can invite Superman to throw all their missiles into the sun.

But it's possible though the Russian defence minister has better things to do than shamelessly pander to a domestic audience with empty saber rattling and statements of the obvious, particularly given neither countries' "sovereign territory" is likely to be impacted by either exercise.

Of course, Peter MacKay is no stranger to the Wag the Dog technique.

Good to know Peter will be on the front-line in person for Operation Nanook, hopefully with a C-7 in hand, defending our sovereigty from those dastardly Russians. I want him on that wall. I need him on that wall.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

General Leslie on Fox News: I'll take the slanders for our young men

As mentioned earlier I attended a Canadian Journalism Foundation-sponsored event tonight where the commander of Canada's Army, Lt. General Andrew Leslie, was the speaker on the role of the media and the military in our democracy. Very informative, interesting event.

Since what I'm sure is on everyone's mind is the Fox News story, I'll jump ahead to that. About mid-way through the Q&A, a reporter from the CTV National News (they were taping, so look for it on the news tonight) asked Leslie for his reaction to the Fox comments, and specifically the slanders on his name. Follows is a rough account of his reply (may not be word for word):

“Did I say I looked forward to these questions?,” he laughed. “We all know the superb quality of the Canadian soldiers who represent us as truly world class, they have a reputation as tough, capable soldiers. We've shed a lot of blood in Afghanistan, and I just wish some of the private citizens – certainly they weren't former soldiers – of some of our neighboring countries and allies were more aware of our contribution … in a very tough fight. (And as for personal attacks on him) if our young men are willing to fight for our country, I'm willing to get slandered for them.”

That last bit earned Leslie his strongest applause of the night from the audience.

So, Fox drama aside, back to the beginning and his speech, which I had to watch from an overflow room via CCTV because I'd arrived 5 minutes late and, although there were still seats and I was pre-registered, the door was shut so CTV could tape. Annoying. (They let us in for the Q&A)

Kvetching aside, I thought Leslie made a very reasoned, thoughtful performance that made an honest effort to make both the Army's case and the case for media oversight of the military. I'll present my bullet-point notes on Leslie's speech and answers, and save my comments for the end.

* Soldiers and the media walk towards the sound of the bullets.

* He's faced some tough media interviewers, but by far the toughest audience he ever faces is his own soldiers. They're professionals and their lives are on the line, they want to know what they need to know, they have tough questions, and they're not afraid to ask them.

*The kinship between Canadians and its military is closer now than it's been in many years.

*Media scrutiny is essential to a successful military, and he welcomes that scrutiny.

*The military needs to be properly equipped to do the jobs its tasked with. And they don't decide the missions, the Canadian people (though their elected representatives and government) do.

*The rapid succession of evolutionary steps armies are taking to respond to the new threat paradigm is unprecedented, with traditional doctrines being re-examined and changed. We're well beyond the Cold War paradigm.

*We've reconfirmed our Army's reputation as one of the best small armies in the world. Yes, the cost is high, but it's an immutable fact that influence in international relations is often exacted by our men and women in uniform.

*We're increasing the Army's intellectual horsepower. We're improving support for families but more has to be done, he's the first to admit that.

*Speaking on Toronto he said we're still sensitive about the snowstorm so we won't talk about that but hey, you called and we came with shovels. This earns a laugh.

*Retention and recruitment is a major challenge. Attrition rates have risen from a traditional five to six per cent to a current nine to 10 per cent. Military has the same demographic challenges as the private sector, and so many soldiers are leaving for jobs on “Civvy Street” is causing him grey hairs. You can't walk off the street and be a regimental Sargent-Major, you need to start at the bottom.

*The Army leadership is obviously biased for our soldiers. But Canadians need to know the unbiased picture, and for that the Army relies on the media. Only with independent media scrutiny can Canadians be sure they're getting the clear picture. So long as it's far and balanced. But we need an engaged citizenry.

*There's been times where the results of your unbiased reporting have caused the Army to feel like it has digested a litre of cod liver oil. But while it tastes horrible, it's good for you in that it causes the Army to identify and ackowledge problems and take corrective action.

*Afghanistan is in some ways like Canada's Vietnam in that it's Canada's first TV war. It's real, and it's in your face. Media are embedded in the field. There's a constant media presence in Kandahar. It's challenging, bit it's been a success. The best PR for the Army is to let soldiers talk to the media, for for the media to see what they do.

*Through the media, Canadians need to see the faces and learn the names and the stories of our fallen. It's important for Canadians to be aware of the consequences when the Army is deployed to dangerous places.

*(Question on peace vs. war, necessity of war, and peacekeeping) We need a multiplicity of ways to deal with global threats. No soldier wants to go to war, but they're willing to go if they're told to by their country, to fight, and do die if necessary for their country. He happens to believe there are certain things worth dying for. There is diplomacy and other tools but when that doesn't work, you turn to the military, and folks in uniform go out and do their jobs and risk their lives in support of our international objectives. Soft power can't be disconnected from hard power, they're intrinsically linked. What's in the colour of a beret? The beret (we're wearing in Afghanistan) may be dull camo (instead of blue) but he still thinks we're doing the work of Pearson.

*(Oversight, can you spread democracy where its not wanted?) He's a strong believer in ministerial and parliamentary oversight. He thinks democracy is worth fighting for, but that's not his decision, that's yours. That's your debate to have.

*(Question, something about Afghanistan and the historical failure of 'scorched earth' approaches) The over application of military force is nit the way to get people onside that want better lives for their sons and daughters. This isn't' the Cold War, the military is now a much more able and sophisticated instrument. Sometimes we do have to fight and kill, that's not the objective but we will, especially if they're truing to get through to the people we're trying to protect. But it's not the objective.

*(Question on what's next, re-equipping the Army, future threats) If it's not complicated and dangerous, why send us? In the future, until more technology emerges, we need to equip our people with more amour and more Kevlar so they're protected when they go out. But once the work really begins when the ramp goes down. Where we go next the solution will not solely rest with the military, they'll go with diplomats and humanitarian groups to build society and the rule of law.

Infantrymen today are akin to the special forces of yesterday. If you want us to have those capabilities it's not a matter of flipping a switch. It takes 20 years to build a battalion commander, 25 years to build a regimental Sargent-Major. You want to think carefully of the consequences of throwing away capabilities an uncertain future may demand.

*(Question on poppy issue in Afghanistan) He's definitely not an expert, but he has yet to see a proposed solution to the poppy issue he could wholeheartedly sign-on to that doesn't raise questions once you consider the second, third, worth order of implications. And it needs to be a solution the Afghans can accept, to what degree can we push our ideals and values onto them?

*(Question, comment on George Galloway banning) No, I will absolutely, categorically, not comment on that. Good try though, and I complement you for it.

*(Same guy, but you think about retired generals speaking at political events, like Rick Hillier to the Conservative-sympathetic Manning Centre) An underlying premise of the democratic model is that, when in uniform, we're completely subordinate by law, practice and tradition to the government of the day. But when we hang-up that uniform we have the democratic right to go to the microphone and speak our minds. And that's a right Hillier spent his career in uniform defending.

*(Globe's Hugh Winsor asks long, and good, question. He says Leslie is very open and candid, and so are the soldiers on the ground, but there's a disconnect in the bureaucracy at DND. During the detainee affair, misinformation was given to the House of Commons and to the media. And after the detainee affair, DND set up a committee to vet and stall any contentious Access to Information request. How, Winsor asked, do you square your desire for openness and media scrutiny with the roadblocking by DND?)

Leslie gave Winsor a sarcastic “thanks Hugh” (apparently they go back a bit) and considered it carefully before answering delicately, noting he has nothing to do with the Access committee and he doesn't run the military end of the Afghan mission, so he's not an expert of the detainee issue.

But he said he thinks DND learned a lot of interesting lessons from the detainee affair, such as the consequences on iterations of working with Afghan military and police, with a nascent judicial system, and with limited oversight of prisons. He said the argument could be made that, with its investigative resources, the media shone a cold, hard light on the issue and now it's being handled much better, so the system works.

My Thoughts

If you're still reading at this point, I'll say I agree with much of what Leslie had to say, and I think he's a strong advocate for the Army and for the soldiers in the field. Obviously he had to be careful in his answers at time, he serves political masters and he needs to operate within their guidelines and desires. And that, frankly, is how it should and needs to be. We don't want soldiers making policy.

Obviously, while Leslie's message on welcoming media scrutiny is a good, appropriate one, there is a strong dose of propaganda to that. And while I think he's sincere, when you ask the media, the public and DND what an appropriate level of such scrutiny would be you're going to get three different answers. And a fourth when you ask the Harper government, and their view is the only one that counts.

So, no matter how genuine he is on it and whether all of DND is on board or not, the message is the right one and it's up to us, the public and the media, to keep the pressure on the military (and the government) to live-up to Leslie's desire for scrutiny.

And to ensure that, when we do ask our military members to saddle-up, it's for the right reasons, and that we've got their backs.

_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Democracy and Journalism: Off to see Lt. General Lesie

Given the controversy in the (progressive, anyway) blogs, eventually the media, and today in the House of Commons (a Conservative backbencher lobbed a QP question to Laurie Hawn, who called for Fox to apologize) over the asinine display of disrespecting our troops by the "comedians" at Fox News (they issued an "apology" today) it's appropriate I'm out the door and on my way downtown for this Canadian Journalism Foundation event:

Democracy and Journalism: The View from the Front
For our second event in the "Democracy and Journalism" series in collaboration with the Munk Centre, we welcome Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Chief of Land Staff of the Canadian Forces, to speak on the relationship between democracy and journalism from a military perspective.

Army chief General Leslie was mocked by name by the morons at Fox News (they found his last name amusing), so I'll let you know if the good general has any thoughts for the people at Fox News. And, of course, watch tonight or tomorrow morning for a full report on the evening's discussion on what promises to be an interesting topic. You can also watch my Twitter feed for some live updates via BlackBerry during the event.

P.S. Here's the QP exchange. Maybe more Conservative bloggers will register their displeasure now that those on high have signaled theirs' (transcript from closed captioning, I haven't time to fancy it up):

>> Mike wallace (c): Thank you, mr. Speaker. Canadians are outraged at the ignorant comments about the canadian military that is running on the fox news show "red eye with greg gutfield." The episode mocks the courageous efforts of canada's brave men and women in afghanistan and is particularly hurtful as canadians mourn the loss of four more soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence tell us what does he think about this appalling episode that belittles the efforts of our canadian military?

>> The speaker: The honourable parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence.

>> Laurie hawn (c): Well, mR. Speaker, i want to first express our deepest condolences and friends to the family and friends of our soldiers who return to canada today after making the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan. The comments expressed by so-called comedians on fox news are disgraceful, ignorant and insulting to the canadian forces members, our diplomat and the development workers who've died in afghanistan and others who've been injured. Canadians who know of -- and others who know of canada's efforts are not laughinG. Canadian troops have been consistently praised by allied commanders and political leaders for their courage, dedication and professionalism on the battlefield. I would hope these people recognize their remarks were wrong and would move to apologize to the families and friends.

_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Does this have anything to do with the Albanian situation?

In the past, I’ve generally been complementary of the Conservative government’s communications strategies, and particularly their ability to drive the agenda and distract attention away from their weak points. Complementary in a professional sense; it’s still all totally evil and what not.

Trying to reignite the Cold War though to divert attention from the economy? That's just lame, and reeks of lack of imagination. The macho chest-thumping this week from Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper last week was just embarrassing:

Peter MacKay wouldn't say whether he thought the Feb. 18 flight of the two TU-95 Bears, long-range Russian bombers, was designed to create mischief for a Canadian security system already stressed by the presidential visit. But he said the response of Canadian pilots operating under the command of NORAD sent a clear message to Moscow.

"I'm not going to stand here and accuse the Russians of deliberately doing this during the presidential visit, but it was a strong coincidence which we met with the presence ... of F-18 fighter planes and world-class pilots that know their business and send a strong signal that they should back off and stay out of our airspace," he told reporters.

In Moscow, an unnamed government official called MacKay's statement a "farce" and said the Russian government was reacting to Canada's objections with "astonishment," news agency RIA-Novosti reported.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Saskatoon that the incident was a real cause for concern that will not intimidate Canada.

"This government has responded every time the Russians have done that. We will continue to respond. We will defend our airspace."

First of all, the fact that we apparently can’t tell the difference between the turbo-prop TU-95 Bear and the TU-160 Blackjack, a jet bomber, is rather concerning. Yes, they’re both big airplanes, but that’s where the similarities end. They look nothing alike.

Secondly, for those who pay attention to such things, these sorts of flights are routine. They were commonplace up until the fall of the Soviet Union, when they did stop for a time. Under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, however, such flights began again some years ago. The Russians routinely test our air defences, and those of many other neighboring countries. So do the Americans. If we had long-range strategic bombers, I’m sure we would to. It’s what militaries do.

Norad spokesperson Michael Kucharek said it is not atypical to see Russian aircraft engaging in training exercises so close to Canadian airspace.

"This has happened quite often, this is a pattern that we generally see through Russian exercises of this type," he told CTV Newsnet on Friday afternoon.

He estimated that Norad had seen Russian fighters undertaking similar training exercises at least 20 times "over the course of the last couple of years."

Such incidents are commonplace, and are regularly reported on by the media -- usually as little brief items deep in the paper, receiving little notice. Which is why it’s disappointing the media played along with Harper and MacKay to blow this thing up to Defcon-2 to distract attention from other things.

Because I think there’s a few more important stories we should be paying attention to right now. Like the $3 billion slush fund the Conservatives have created for themselves, which they’re insisting have no oversight, accountability, or checks and balances. Or the fact they underestimated the cost of the Afghan War by at least $3.3 billion, and released an estimate that is as much as $7 billion shy of that of their own independent parliamentary budget officer.

Let’s not let Harper and MacKay distract us from the real issues, and their very real failings managing this country and this economy, with fearful tales of the red menance and Cold War rhetoric.

And if the media do want to do some international reporting, I suggest they get serious and look at WHY Russia re-started these sorts of flights under Putin, and the larger trend of how Russia, fueled by oil and energy revenues, is seeking to re-assert its dominance in its former satellite states and on the larger global stage. Mark MacKinnon’s The New Cold War would be a good primer.

However, I’ve seen little interest in such an analytical analysis of what such overflights mean in the larger global picture. Instead, this all just brings another sort of picture to mind…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative fiscal priorities

Remind me again how much the Conservatives felt it was important to save by ending the public financing of political parties? And in the mean time, read this story:

The Conservative government has decided that U. S. aerospace giant Sikorsky will not have to pay $36-million in late penalties even though the maritime helicopter it is building for the Canadian Forces is being delivered two years late.

Oh, and the amount that the government would have saved by axing public political subsidies was $30 million. Apparently sticking a shiv in your political opponents is more important than upholding the contractual obligations of government suppliers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why not a GI bill for Canada?

I was watching CNN last night and they ran a story on the issue of U.S. soldiers coming home for Iraq and becoming saddled down with student loan debt as they attempt to pursue higher education.

It’s long been a recruiting pitch for the U.S. military: serve your country, and then go to university on the government’s dime. However, according to the news reports the finding formulae has become some outdated that the program now barely covers community college tuition, never mind books and other expenses or university tuition, leaving many former soldiers to abandon their educations or become saddled-down with loan debt.

The Senate is trying to resolve the problem, naturally it has become bogged-down in political wrangling and whether benefits should be focused on soldiers that serve their four years and leave or more on career soldiers.

What occurred to me though is that the Liberals should propose a similar program for Canada, I think it would be a real winner. Free college or university education for Canadian soldiers that have served their country for a set period of time. It would be a suitable reward for those that have sacrificed to serve, and the country and the economy would benefit from a more educated workforce.

I think we should give it a try. The only challenge, with Harper and Flaherty having flittered away the surplus, would be finding the funding. Surely though, for something like this, it could be found.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why isn't Harper standing-up for a Canadian soldier?

I don't know how this story has flown under the radar for so long, but it really shouldn't. Last week, the report of a Canadian military inquiry investigating the death of a Canadian peacekeeper, Major Paeta Hess-Von Kruedener, during the summer 2006 Israel/Lebanon war, was released:

In a report released Friday, the board of inquiry into the death of Major Paeta Hess-Von Kruedener said it found no evidence that anyone from the United Nations or Canadian Forces should shoulder any of the blame - that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) as a whole is responsible.

More on the incident itself:

The 43-year-old soldier from Kingston, Ont., and three other peacekeepers under UN command died in the bombing on the night of July 25. Fighting between Israeli and Hezbollah forces had broken out earlier in the month and the UN post, located about 10 kilometres from the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders, was right in the thick of it.

That’s disturbing enough. But more disturbing is the lack of cooperation from the Israeli military with the investigation, and the apparent unwillingness of the Harper government to press them on it:

The report notes that the IDF did not fully co-operate with the Canadian inquiry and denied access to documents and people involved in the event. It suggests that if the board had the access it requested, it might have been able to assign blame to an individual within the IDF.

The board also couldn't resolve the unanswered question of why Israeli air force jets continued their attacks despite warnings that UN personnel were in the area.

I’m not going to buy into the theory floated by some, including the widow and Kofi Annan, that the UN outpost was deliberately target. That’s hard to believe. I don’t think the IDF had any nefarious intent, but clearly there was a breakdown of communications, and it had deadly consequences.

The report found no failure of communication on the UN side and said the IDF "has failed to explain why the attack was not halted."

According to the board's evidence, there was enough time for the information to get to the appropriate IDF authorities and "had the IDF side of the liaison network been functioning effectively, the incident could have been prevented."

This matter has not been resolved satisfactorily. Stephen Harper needs to telephone the Israeli Prime Minister immediately, and demand full cooperation from the IDF so the truth in this matter can be known. Major Hess-Von Kruedener deserves that much.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A trip down Hercules procurement memory lane

Last week, Peter McKay took us on a trip down memory lane when he engaged in a spirited round of Liberal bashing to explain a delay in the delivery of the choppers (Sea King replacements) the previous Liberal government (finally) ordered for the military.

Now, regular readers know I’ve never been a defender of the poor record of past Liberal governments on defence spending -- frankly, that whole helicopter cancellation thing was pathetic -- and I'm not keen on the job Denis Coderre is doing for us as critic either...but also pathetic was MacKay’s over-reaching and unnecessary politicization last week. A manufacturer’s delay is a manufacturer’s delay, not a chance for grandstanding.

Since he likes trips down memory lane though, with his announcement last week of the C-130J Hercules contract I thought it might be interesting to take a more recent, and slightly more relevant, trip into the past.

You may not recall this, but the Liberals actually tried to buy these planes, these C-130Js, over two years ago. Yes, two years ago. Back in the fall of 2005. Then defence minister Bill Graham wanted to fast track the purchase, as the military needed these planes tout de suite. The money was allocated. The ball was rolling.

Feds announce $4.6-billion plan to buy new military transport planes
Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, November 22, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government has announced that it will go ahead with a plan to buy about $4.6 billion worth of military transport aircraft.

And then along came Conservative defence critic (and former lobbyist) Gordon O’Connor. Not so fast, said O’Connor. There’s no rush. Let’s take our time. No more billion dollar boondoggles. And what about Airbus, he said (he used to lobby for Airbus). Let them bid too; you can’t rig this process to favour Lockheed.

The Conservative defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor, says he's concerned the government is rushing the process unnecessarily and has made the requirements "so precise only one solution's possible."

"They're basically saying that these are needed tomorrow morning for Afghanistan and that's not true."

“I don't think having a legitimate competition . . . would add much time to this process."

O’Connor and his old lobbyist buddies were able to kick up enough dirt that the government backed down, delaying the procurement until after the election.

A few months later the Conservatives form a minority, and one year after scuttling the initial attempted purchase, in November of 2006 they announce, surprise surprise, they’re going to go with the Herc after all:

The Conservative government has quietly named Lockheed Martin's C-130J aircraft as the winner of a $4.9-billion bid to replace the military's aging Hercules transport planes.

The U.S. aerospace giant was informed of the government's decision on Monday, although there has been no official government announcement about the selection of the C-130J for the project.

Despite the government secrecy, the choice of the C-130J as the military's new tactical transport aircraft doesn't come as a surprise to those in the aerospace industry. Although the Conservative government maintained that the competition was open to all bidders and fair, the project requirements automatically eliminated the European-built A400M aircraft, the main competition to the C-130J.

Hey, wait; isn’t that the same plane the Liberals wanted to buy one year earlier, you ask? And making sure the project requirements favoured the Herc; isn’t that what O’Connor accused the Liberals of doing, and didn’t he say that was bad? Yes to both questions.

And now, more than a year after the Conservatives selected the C-130J, and more than TWO years after they helped scuttle a Liberal attempt to buy the C-130J, they finally sign a contract to buy…the C-130J.

The air force's long-awaited purchase of the Super-Hercules cargo plane became a reality Wednesday as the Conservative government formally signed a contract with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.

The purchase of 17 C-130J planes is worth $1.4 billion, with delivery of the first aircraft in the winter of 2010.

So, in essence, we’ve come around full circle. If O’Connor and the Conservatives hadn’t of taken us on this two-year magical mystery tour, one wonders if the air force would be getting their planes ‘round about now, or, at least, some time before 2010? I wouldn’t be surprised.

It’s no wonder Peter McKay didn’t mention this little historical story…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

McGuinty stands up for the troops, and their families

I'm really pleased to read about this move from the McGuinty Liberal government. This is going beyond saying you support the troops, this is actually doing it. Hopefully this will spur similar legislation across the country. Kudos too to the opposition parties for giving unanimous consent.

Ontario extends health care for military families
The Canadian Press
December 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM EST

Toronto — Ontario is poised to become the first province to ensure that out-of-town military families get immediate access to free health care.

Premier Dalton McGuinty introduced the legislation today, earning unanimous consent from the opposition parties.

The bill also legislates job security for reservists when they're called to duty.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You can't eat a red shirt, even if it is Friday

Perhaps someone can explain this math to me, as I’m totally confused.

How does Exhibit A:

The federal government is heading for a record tax haul and another huge surplus, revealing Friday it has accumulated a $9.3-billion surplus in the first six months of the fiscal year.

Plus Exhibit B:

"Our troops get the strength they need for the hard, dangerous work we ask them to do from the support they get back home," Harper said in a brief speech to open a fundraiser for the base's family resource centre.

"So, my job, and our government's job, is to support the families just as much as we support the troops."

Possibly equal Exhibit C:

The federal government is about to stop its practice of giving extra money to Canadian soldiers posted to some of the country's most expensive cities.

Since June 2000, almost half of Canada's soldiers have been receiving a bump in their monthly salary -- the posting's living differential -- for living and working in cities with a high cost of living.

However, the Tory government will put a halt to the payments for soldiers in places such as Toronto and Ottawa.

More than 28,000 Canadian soldiers living in major urban centres currently qualify for the cost-of-living allowance.

In Toronto, soldiers would lose more than $1,200 a month, according to figures from 2004.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

General Hillier out, General that Harper likes in?

According to CTV news, the Conservative government plans to replace General Rick Hillier as chief of defence staff when his term expires in February, because he's outshining his political masters and he made Gordon O'Connor look like a doofus.

Now don't get me wrong. I won't be sad to see Hillier go. Indeed, I think it's probably a good idea. And this detainee document cover-up scandal won't be going away either.

But what I wanted to mention was this line from the CP piece, where they speculate on possible successors to Hillier as CDS. I'm not sure if I'm amused, or concern. I'm thinking a little of both actually.

CTV says potential successors include Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson and Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, although insiders say Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk is likely to get the top job because the prime minister likes him.

Surely the most important qualification, no?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers