‘The whole government should resign’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM - 0 Comments

An excerpt from NDP MP Jack Harris’ scrum with reporters after QP.

Reporter: The Liberals say they want MacKay to resign. Are you there  yet?

Jack Harris: Well, you know, I think there’s a lot of people over on that bench should resign. In fact, the whole government should resign. The responsibility is the Prime Minister’s and the Prime Minister has to take that responsibility. It’s up to him who he decides to put in his cabinet. You know, he’s kept all sorts of people in his cabinet over the last number of years so that’s the Prime Minister’s decision. He’s got to wear it.

Reporter: No, but are you asking for the resignation?

Jack Harris: We would like the government to resign and let’s go to the people and have the people decide whether they’re satisfied that this government knows what it’s doing. They’ve demonstrated their incompetence in a 40-billion-plus project. They want to have a F-35 airplane that they want our children to pay for for the next 35 years. This is totally unacceptable.

Peter MacKay gets an official endorsement

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 12:40 PM - 0 Comments

The Prime Minister’s Office tweets its “full confidence” in the Defence Minister.

Will the seven-point plan be enough to prevent a Russian invasion?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 12:10 PM - 0 Comments

This morning’s QP has just concluded. The F-35 procurement was, predictably, a particular point of opposition concern. Below, a sampling.

Jack Harris. Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives don’t even know how to cancel a project properly. The deliberations of a cabinet committee on operations has been leaked and after years of defending the F-35s in the most insulting way to anybody who commented, the government will now reportedly restart the whole process, as the NDP has demanded for years. This issue has shown the worst of Conservative mismanagement. Will they stop these backroom leaks and share the truth with Canadians and release and table the KPMG report today?

Jacques Gourde. Mr. Speaker, we are determined to continue with our seven-point plan and our exhaustive and transparent process to replace the CF-18s. The government has received the KPMG report and it is examining it. The government will talk about this publicly before the end of this Parliament.

Jack Harris. Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to know the truth and yet the Conservatives have been hiding the truth from Canadians for years. The cabinet leaks are everywhere, the KPMG report is supposedly out, there’s a program here that no one will defend and now costs are estimated to be north of $40 billion. A litany of Conservative failure and mismanagement. When will they come clean, admit their misguided plan has failed and finally agree to have an open and transparent competition? Continue…

On second thought?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM - 0 Comments

The planning and priorities committee of the cabinet is presently meeting on Parliament Hill, apparently to decide the future of the military’s jet fighter procurement.

A little more than two years ago, on November 23, 2010, the Conservatives joined with the Bloc Quebecois to reject the following motion from the Liberals.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s decision to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter jets without holding an open competition will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars at a time of unprecedented deficits and will create fewer jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry than would be guaranteed through an open competition and therefore the House calls on the government to immediately cancel their plan to spend $16 billion through an untendered, uncompetitive process while there is still no penalty to do so and instead commit to holding an open competition to replace the CF-18s based on clear and publicly disclosed foreign and defence policy requirements.

Tony Clement’s response for the government is here. Rona Ambrose’s response is here. Laurie Hawn’s formal response starts here.

What’s going on with the F-35?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM - 0 Comments

Postmedia now reports that a final decision will be made this morning, but there seems general agreement among everyone’s anonymous sources about what that decision will be.

Postmedia.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30 billion, the Harper Conservatives have decided to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

CBC.

The Conservative government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets, but it now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.

The Star.

The federal government is going back to the drawing board in its search for a new fighter jet as it prepares to release a dramatically higher cost estimate to purchase and operate the F-35 … A source said that the F-35 is not out of the running and will be a contender as the government considers alternatives.

Global.

It seems the government’s plagued plan to buy F-35 fighter jets for the military is dead in the water now that the cost is expected to reach close to $50 billion. Global News has learned that an independent audit, commissioned by the Conservatives, came up with cost estimates so high the government decided to begin considering other options for replacing its aging fleet of CF-18s.

Globe.

The Harper government is going shopping for alternatives to the controversial F-35 Lightning fighter jet in the most significant demonstration yet that it is prepared to walk away from its first choice for a new warplane … To demonstrate that they are restarting the procurement process from scratch, Canadian officials will collect information from other plane manufacturers, including U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the Super-Hornet, and the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon. They may also contact Sweden’s Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, and France’s Dassault, maker of the Rafale.

‘Our comprehensive, transparent approach’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 10:43 PM - 0 Comments

A statement issued just now by Rona Ambrose’s office.

The Government has received the report from KPMG and is reviewing it. 

The Government will be providing a comprehensive public update before the House rises.  

We are committed to completing the seven point plan and moving forward with our comprehensive, transparent approach to replacing Canada’s aging CF-18 aircraft.

The F-35: So much for all that?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM - 0 Comments

CTV reports that an independent audit of the proposed F-35 procurement estimates a total price of approximately $40 billion. And Michael Den Tandt reports that the cabinet decided on Tuesday evening to cancel plans to purchase the F-35.

The Prime Minister’s Office tweets that Mr. Den Tandt’s story is “inaccurate on a number of fronts.”

The Commons: Rona Ambrose slips on a fifth generation banana peel

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 7:52 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. The NDP’s Matthew Kellway, blessed of the deadest of pans, seemed typically unimpressed.

“Reset and refresh are the new spin words, Mr. Speaker, but not so long ago the Minister of National Defence was unwavering,” Mr. Kellway recalled. “He stated, ‘This is the right plane, this is the right number, this is the right aircraft for our Canadian forces and Canada.’ Now he has lost that loving feeling.”

The New Democrats chuckled.

Throughout the fall this matter of the F-35 has lingered in the air, not quite at the forefront of the discussion, but not quite forgotten. And in the eight months since the auditor general’s report, the government’s position has not improved. Now, apparently, there are other options to consider. Now, apparently, the phrase “fifth generation” is “not helpful.” And soon, assumedly, there will be confirmation of a decidedly larger price tag for a plane the Conservatives once insisted the country absolutely had to have.

Here Mr. Kellway stood to mock the Defence Minister. Continue…

Canada to talk to allies, competitors in options to replace CF-18s, sources

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press - Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 7:44 AM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – The agency overseeing the replacement of the country’s CF-18s intends to talk to the U.S., Australia and Britain as it conducts a full-fledged options analysis into the future of Canada’s fast fighter fleet, say defence sources.

That review, which will also include consultation with competitors to the oft-maligned F-35 stealth fighter, will get underway soon and could last several months.

In the House of Commons this week, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said that the air force’s statement of requirements — the document that set out what the military says it needs for selected pieces of equipment — will be set aside until an options analysis is completed.

Continue…

Is the Harper government going to consider alternatives to the F-35?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 9:57 AM - 0 Comments

The Canadian Press talked to the commander of the Air Force and came away with the understanding that other options have yet to be considered. National Defence promptly attempts to clarify.

But in a statement released late Monday, the air force said “work continues on the evaluation of options” mandated by the government and that “information shared with a reporter was incorrect.” It insisted work is progressing, without addressing the central question of whether other contenders such as the Super Hornet or the Eurofighter were up for consideration. “The options analysis is a full evaluation of choices, not simply a refresh of the work that was done before,” said the statement. “This detailed evaluation will provide the best available information about the range of choices that could do the job required.”

Yet, when Blondin was asked twice during the interview whether other aircraft had been considered, he replied: “No.” Industry sources say competing contractors have not been asked to provide information.

National Defence says head of air force misspoke on F-35 options

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 6:42 AM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – A statement from National Defence says the head of the air force misspoke when saying the Harper government had yet to direct the air force to look at aircraft other than the contentious F-35 stealth fighter.

The newly appointed commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force said in an interview last week with The Canadian Press that he’s assigned a staff officer to work with a public works agency overseeing the CF-18 replacement program, but a thorough examination of other possible aircraft would require a more detailed study by military planners.

And the order has not yet been given.

“So, I’m waiting to see exactly what is going to be required and we’re going to be supporting whatever kind of information they’d like to have,” said Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin.

The promise to look at “other options” was paramount to the government’s response to auditor general Michael Ferguson, who last spring accused National Defence and Public Works of publicly low-balling the cost of the multibillion-dollar program and not following proper procedures.

But in a statement released late Monday, the air force said “work continues on the evaluation of options” mandated by the government and that “information shared with a reporter was incorrect.”

It insisted work is progressing, without addressing the central question of whether other contenders such as the Super Hornet or the Eurofighter were up for consideration.

“The options analysis is a full evaluation of choices, not simply a refresh of the work that was done before,” said the statement. “This detailed evaluation will provide the best available information about the range of choices that could do the job required.”

Yet, when Blondin was asked twice during the interview whether other aircraft had been considered, he replied: “No.”

Industry sources say competing contractors have not been asked to provide information.

Following the auditor general’s report, the government took responsibility for buying the new fighters away from National Defence and gave it to a secretariat established at public works.

The federal government has invested $335 million in developing the F-35 so far, and the Conservatives had been adamant that the multi-role plane was the best choice. The secretariat has attempted to interpret what the next step might be, said Blondin.

“I know there’s some discussion within the secretariat about what exactly does that mean? Are we looking at options in terms of airplanes? Different airplanes and we’re going to compare them? Are we looking at options in terms of time? Space? And if we don’t have an F-35 solution, then we have Plan B? Or are we looking at options in terms of do we participate still in the development of the F-35, or not?” said Blondin.

“So, they’re not sure.”

New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris was startled by the apparent contradictions and described the statement as “bureaucrat-eze for saying they haven’t looked at any other planes.”

He said the government is clearly trying to “bluff its way through the issue.”

The idea of looking at other aircraft “has not been foreclosed,” said another government source.

Earlier, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, said the phrase “looking at other options” is unequivocal and means at the very least a thorough examination of the potential competitors to the Lockheed Martin-built F-35.

“The F-35 is a textbook case of failure to be good public managers,” Mulcair said.

“It’s a simple question of public administration. There are rules and the rules exist because it’s the best way to give the public best bang for their buck.”

The government “never even defined the product we wanted and we decided it was going to be the F-35 and nothing else,” he added.

In its haste to answer the auditor general last spring, the government initially named its Public Works secretariat the “F-35 secretariat,” a slip Mulcair says that indicates the fix is in.

Another government promise coming out of the bombshell report involved providing an independent cost-estimate for the radar-evading jets and its 25 years of follow-on support and maintenance by early June.

That deadline came and went, and the government only hired an outside auditor at the end of August.

Government officials have suggested the public will get a look at the figures before the end of the year.

RCAF yet to be ordered to look at aircraft options other than F-35

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press - Monday, October 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – More than six months after the auditor general delivered his scathing critique of the F-35 program, the Harper government has yet to direct the air force to look at aircraft other than the contentious stealth fighter.

And the Public Works secretariat overseeing the troubled replacement for the existing CF-18 jet fighter fleet is still attempting to define what the government means when it promised to look at “other options.”

The newly appointed commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force said in an interview with The Canadian Press that he’s assigned a staff officer to work with the secretariat, but a thorough examination of other possible aircraft would require a more detailed study by military planners.

That order has not been given.

“So, I’m waiting to see exactly what is going to be required and we’re going to be supporting whatever kind of information they’d like to have,” said Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin.

The promise to look at “other options” was paramount to the government’s response to auditor general Michael Ferguson, who last spring accused National Defence and Public Works of publicly low-balling the cost of the multibillion-dollar program and not following proper procedures.

The federal government has invested $335 million in developing the F-35 so far, and the Conservatives had been adamant that the multi-role plane was the best choice. The secretariat has attempted to interpret what the next step might be.

“I know there’s some discussion within the secretariat about what exactly does that mean? Are we looking at options in terms of airplanes? Different airplanes and we’re going to compare them? Are we looking at options in terms of time? Space? And if we don’t have an F-35 solution, then we have Plan B? Or are we looking at options in terms of do we participate still in the development of the F-35, or not?” said Blondin.

“So, they’re not sure.”

A senior government official, speaking on background, said the secretariat’s options analysis is almost completed, but wouldn’t say what conclusions have been reached.

The idea of looking at other aircraft “has not been foreclosed,” the source added.

But for critics, such as NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, the phrase “looking at other options” is unequivocal and means — at the very least — a thorough examination of the potential competitors to the Lockheed Martin-built F-35.

“The F-35 is a textbook case of failure to be good public managers,” Mulcair said.

“It’s a simple question of public administration. There are rules and the rules exist because it’s the best way to give the public best bang for their buck.”

The government “never even defined the product we wanted and we decided it was going to be the F-35 and nothing else,” he added.

In its haste to answer the auditor general last spring, the government initially named its Public Works secretariat the “F-35 secretariat,” a slip Mulcair says that indicates the fix is in.

Another government promise coming out of the bombshell report involved providing an independent cost-estimate for the radar-evading jets and its 25 years of follow-on support and maintenance by early June.

That deadline came and went, and the government only hired an outside auditor at the end of August.

Government officials have suggested the public will get a look at the figures before the end of the year.

The world of spin

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

W5 goes looking for answers on the F-35.

Silence from the Minister of Defence. So we requested interviews with the outgoing and incoming Commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the newly-announced Chief of Defence Staff. No dice. Fine, can we please talk to someone – anyone – at DND about the F-35? Sorry, nobody is available. Please accept formulaic stand-by statement instead.

Meanwhile, the defence minister’s communications director responded that that the F-35 program and the future of Canada’s air force are two very different things, so W5 should contact the Minister of Public Works and the Associate Minister of Defence responsible for procurement. We did. One by one, everyone passed the buck leading us down the dead-end street of refusals and stand-by statements. As luck would have it, W5 had a crew was in Wolfville, NS working on another story, when we learned the Defence Minister was scheduled to speak at an event in the Maritime town of 5,000 people. W5 could not pass up the opportunity to ask Peter MacKay for an interview in person. “These types of tactics are always disappointing and, I believe, below the standards of your program and network,” wrote the minister’s communications director after his boss refused to talk to W5.

W5′s full report is here.

Today in transparency

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM - 0 Comments

The auditor general’s office, in order to fulfill an access to information requests, wants to release emails between the AG’s office and several House of Commons committee clerks, but lawyers for the House of Commons are claiming parliamentary privilege and are seeking a court injunction to prevent the release, but the Conservatives say parliamentary privilege doesn’t apply and would support a motion to waive that privilege, but the Liberals say it’s all the government’s fault.

Update 3:46pm. And it was the NDP that filed the initial access to information request.

The gynecological case for the Avro Arrow

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM - 0 Comments

General Lewis MacKenzie concludes his condemnation of the F-35 and argument for the Avro Arrow thusly.

Critics of this author will opine, “What does a retired Infantry general know about fighter aircraft?” I can only remind them that a significant number of gynaecologists are men and to the best of my knowledge not one of them has ever given birth.

The Prime Minister’s Office says the Arrow won’t fly.

House of Commons takes auditor general to court over access to F-35 information

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM - 0 Comments

The House of Commons is taking auditor general Micheal Ferguson to court in an attempt to stop him from revealing documents relating to his investigation of the F-35 purchase this spring, the Chronicle Herald reports.

After Ferguson’s highly publicized appearance before the public accounts committee—in which he disclosed that the true cost of the F-35 program was almost twice as high as the Harper government had suggested—he received an access to information request in a personal correspondence. After the auditor general had taken the necessary steps and notified five committee clerks, the lawyers representing the House of Commons tried to convince Ferguson to reject the request. When Ferguson did not, the lawyers, in an unprecedented move, sought a court injunction to gag him.

House of Commons lawyers said the documents in question were subject to parliamentary privilege and that “any disclosure of those documents without the express consent of the House of Commons would constitute a breach of that privilege,” according to the House legal filing.

The auditor general’s staff believes the secrecy rules of the House do not extend to their office and that they had not found any exemptions in the Access to Information Act in this particular case.

Enter the Avro?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Maj0r-General Lewis MacKenzie says a new Avro Arrow should be considered, but figures the fix is in for the F-35.

Tom Clark: Do you think the fix is in for the F-35?

General Lewis MacKenzie: I do. I do. I think…I worked in a bureaucracy for a while; only one year here in Ottawa but I know how these things work and when a submission or a request comes in, it goes down to the sharp end, sharp end comments and then it comes back up and you get your answer. This feasibility study was in the hands of the PMO, the Minister of National Defence; General Lawson, congratulations now the CDS when he was deputy commander of NORAD. I kept getting the same feedback. It was like talking points coming back. I’d like somebody outside the military family and those that support the military family from within the government to at least pass judgement on it and give us an opinion.

More from the Globe, Canadian Press and Global.

Better than Congress

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 7, 2012 at 2:51 PM - 0 Comments

Winslow Wheeler, who participated in the NDP’s F-35 hearings last month, finds that MPs exceed his expectations.

My expectations were completely wrong. The differences between Canadian politicians and members of Congress are utterly stunning. Unlike here, oversight in the Canadian Parliament is alive and well. In Canada, I found two political behaviors unheard of in the United States: Opposition politicians actually try to understand the issue they are talking about, and they take offense at being lied to…

Because of their emphasis on oversight and accountability, there is a decent chance the Canadians will resolve their F-35 costs and ethics controversy. In the United States, though, even in a time of fiscal crisis and budget cuts, questionable programs and discredited officials blithely move on — the former with more money, the latter with more authority and status. If the Canadian opposition can both understand and confront the issues surrounding the F-35, why can’t we? We could but it will require a new set of actors in the currently mismanaged Pentagon and the self-obsessed Congress. It would be nice if we could expect something different.

Another one for the F-35 file

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM - 0 Comments

While digging around for something else this week, I happened to come across the following pronouncement from December 2010.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has said if his party forms a government, they would ditch the multibillion-dollar deal and open up a competitive bidding process to find the most cost-effective replacement for the country’s aging CF-18s. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says that would jeopardize the lives of air force personnel and jobs in Canada’s aerospace industry. 

Officials with two European companies told the Commons defence committee this week that their respective companies could provide a plane that would be suitable to Canada’s needs. But MacKay said that is simply not an option. He said the previous Liberal government committed Canada to the Joint Strike Fighter project nearly a decade ago, and the current Conservative government isn’t about to turn back the clock. ”If we don’t buy this aircraft now … it’s like hitting restart,” he said. “We would have to go back, lose our preferred place in the production line. ”We have made our decision. We are firm in pursuing this course of action and purchasing this aircraft, which will accrue maximum benefits to the air force, the aerospace industry and to Canada.”

A few days later, Mr. MacKay was in the House and referred to the existence of an “actual contract.”

Of course, Mr. MacKay’s assertion of a decision and reference to a contract predate this spring, since which the government—in hopes of clearing up any “misunderstanding“—has strived to be quite clear that no decision has been made and no contract has been signed.

The new CDS on the F-35

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM - 0 Comments

As John Geddes notes, Lt.-Gen. Tom Lawson is an avowed fan of the F-35.

He was, for instance, asked about the plane by Conservative MP Ray Boughen during a March 2011 committee hearing.

Everything that the air force has done by way of analysis of all those aircraft available to Canada suggests that there is no comparison.

A month earlier, he’d been in Mississauga to talk up the purchase.

We’re not only defending Canada,” said Major-General Tom Lawson, assistant chief of Canada’s air staff, “we’re also doing that with a partner to the south who expects us to meet our NORAD obligations.” … Buying the fighters will give Canada the best and most inexpensive method of fulfilling its obligations to its military partners, including the United States, said Lawson, a former Commandant at the Royal Military College in Kingston.

There is also what Lt.-Gen. Lawson wrote in the Canadian Military Journal this year. Continue…

‘The Conservative government hasn’t been entirely straight’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, August 27, 2012 at 11:39 AM - 0 Comments

Postmedia picks up on last week’s discussion.

Then this week, Chris Alexander, parliamentary secretary to the defence minister, denied in an interview that the government had ever decided to buy the F-35 — and accused opposition parties of sowing confusion on the issue. This was despite a long public record showing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and several cabinet ministers repeatedly committing to and defending the stealth fighter since 2010.

“Governments do this all the time, and it’s totally understandable that they would try to change the conversation,” said University of Ottawa defence expert Philippe Lagasse, who participated in the NDP’s hearings on the F-35 on Tuesday. “The problem is there’s so much public evidence, that really you’re inviting mockery.”

But while analysts agreed Alexander’s comments were bizarre, they said they serve the purpose of muddying the waters and making it difficult for average Canadians to tell who’s telling the truth. “As a taxpayer, the annoyance is the Conservative government hasn’t been entirely straight,” said Nossal. “Instead what the government has done is kind of spin this in a way that is actually quite confusing to ordinary Canadians.”

Canada’s new top general on the F-35

By John Geddes - Monday, August 27, 2012 at 11:12 AM - 0 Comments

As Canada’s new Chief of Defence Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tom Lawson takes on an massively complex task heading up the Forces just as the government looks to overhaul its “Canada First Defence Strategy.” Yet of all the questions Lawson might be have been asked, one overshadowed all others as his was introduced as CDS by Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Parliament Hill this morning.

Where does the country’s new top soldier—himself a former fighter pilot and, most recently, deputy commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado—stand on the controversial F-35 fighter jet?

Continue…

One of Chris Alexander’s friends has a few things to say

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

As a follow-up on yesterday’s discussion—see here, here and here—of the F-35, what the Harper government once said about its procurement, Chris Alexander’s understanding of the public’s “misunderstanding” and what the Harper government now says about the procurement, here is more of the exchange between Chris Alexander and one of his Facebook friends that occurred yesterday.

Friend. It seems to me that Wherry is addressing the history of the F35 procurement process and communications strategy, not its current iteration as represented by the seven point policy. In this sense, the quotes ARE relevant if we are to properly evaluate your claim that the public somehow “misunderstood” the government’s intentions before April and the AG’s report. Based on the public record of high-level officials, it’s simply incorrect to suggest that the public misunderstood the government’s stated intentions before the release of the Auditor General’s report. Whether the public clearly understands the government’s intentions TODAY, and whether or not the government is communicating them with comparable levels of clarity and directness is another story entirely. In this case, I don’t think it’s fair to malign Macleans and Wherry for providing empirical context to a controversial claim about historical process.

Alexander. No, he’s not: he citing very selective quotes from 2010 and 2011 to imply that we have, in fact, signed, sealed and delivered a contract for new planes. This is entirely false. It is hardly fair to claim you are reporting on government policy (about which I was apparently “confused”) without anywhere citing the principal and most recent statement of that policy.

Friend. Thanks for engaging me thoughtfully on this issue. I understand that no contract has been signed, but I would respectfully argue that this isn’t the question at hand. The quote by you to which Wherry responds directly addresses the public’s historical perception of the process, not the contemporary one. Doesn’t it seem fair to question the reliability of current policy statements by contrasting them with those of the recent past? Should we have simply doubted the statements of the Prime Minister, Mr. Fantino, Mr. MacKay, as well as the official Press Releases when they were being made throughout 2010 and 2011? If they weren’t accurate then, how are we to judge the reliability of similar statements today? Surely you can see how this is problematic. Consistency is a requirement of credibility. Surely there must be accountability where consistency is absent? Is a 7-point policy plan so totalizing as to erase the recent past, rendering it irrelevant and beyond scrutiny?

Of course there is also a relationship between historical perception, and contemporary perception, and the statements on which they are based. It is precisely for this reason that Wherry contests your assertion that the public was “misunderstood” during 2010-2011. In fact, the government made itself perfectly clear. I understand the reason that the government now wishes to take control of the narrative by re-writing this history as one of “misunderstanding.” Such a revision will eliminate the contradiction between historical statements and contemporary policy, and shield the government from the embarrassment of having called an election to avoid disclosing cost estimates, only to have their hand forced by the AG after the fact. However, again with all due respect, such a revision is simply inaccurate.

John Geddes provides more context here.

A bit more on the government’s tone on the F-35

By John Geddes - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM - 0 Comments

AP Photo/U.S. Air Force

There’s been an energetic exchange today between my colleague Aaron Wherry and MP Chris Alexander over the nature of the government’s commitment to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

Alexander takes Wherry to task for offering up a handy compendium of public comments, mostly from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay in 2010 and 2011, in which they clearly describe their government as firmly decided on the F-35.

Speaking in his role as MacKay’s parliamentary secretary, Alexander argues that the proper thing would be to report only on the government’s more recent policy stance, announced on April 3 this year, in which it backed away from all those previous assertions about the absolute necessity of buying F-35s.

Make what you will of this back-and-forth. But I would add that it isn’t just the remarks of top Conservative politicians that have cast the Joint Strike Fighter as a settled and major element of Canadian defence and industrial policy. The F-35 has features prominently in various official federal documents aimed at companies that need to know what’s up with Canada’s procurement policy.

Continue…