Blowing up F-35 deal would cause collateral damage, Tories say
The economic and diplomatic strings attached to Ottawa’s multi-billion dollar deal to buy the F-35 stealth fighters would make it extremely painful — if not impossible — for a future government to unravel or cut, senior Conservatives insisted Wednesday.
Gotta love the can't do attitude. That is the western spirit. Better not let a Sutter hear you say that.
But it isn't their fault.
“I don’t understand why the Opposition is playing political games with this,” Harper said at an aerospace announcement in Montreal.
“It was the Liberal government that in 2002 committed Canada to the development of this aircraft.”
Too bad they didn't the same respect for the Liberal Legacy with regards the Kelowna Accord, the surplus etc., etc., etc. But the jets will help us defend our sovereignty!. You mean sort of like this defence of the sole source nature of the contract?
But Jay Paxton, a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, argued that a competition was already run — by the Americans.
But this article is puzzling in other ways. The Stenographer attending the Harper propaganda conference wrote:
When Chrétien cancelled the $4.8-billion replacement for the air force’s geriatric Sea Kings in 1994, he ripped up one contract with European Helicopter Industries Ltd, an Anglo-Italian consortium. It cost taxpayers $500 million in cancellation fees.
Tearing up — or putting on hold — the F-35 Lightning II plan would be far more costly.
This Speaker of Pillow Talk to Power presented the following evidence of the costs involved:
It could endanger Canadian defence contractors, who’ve already won $375 (how is this directly lost to the government? - CV) million worth of work on the planes, anger allied nations already committed to buying the planes and waste hundreds of millions of dollars under existing agreements signed as far back as 1997.
...
In Ottawa’s case, that’s amounted to US $160 million, which allows Canadian companies access to bid on contacts associated with the project. Think of it as the federal government paying the cover charge to get into a club.
Between now and 2051, the federal government is committed to spending an additional US $551 million in order to remain part of the club.
So all the evidence that was actually presented is that the government would lose the tax revenue on $375 million. The $160 million in development fees allowed us to bid on the contracts, so we lose those how? The future commitments allow us to bid on contracts that would presumably net Canada more than that. In what way is this impacted by cancelling the deal? Evidence please. In any event, there have been no examples provided to support the statement that the penalties would be higher than the EH-101 cancellation. Sadly the Sun and National Post aren't the only organizations prone to regurgitating the garbage provided by the government.
Posts
2 comments:
Imagine for a moment that the next fight acquisition went out to tender and because of a competitive process we ended up saving two billion dollars over the life of the aircraft. The last time I check cons were supposed to worship capitalism and competitiveness.
Of course we won’t know without a competition but that $160 million could be inconsequential.
The only military to ever have violated our arctic waters is the US (USCG Polar Sea 1985). So, I am interested in how people view the fact that the US is the main supplier for our fighter fleet, our transport fleet, our SAR Fleet, our maritime patrol fleet, our tactical helicopter fleet and being the main supplier have control over the spares that keep our military functioning. How exactly is having the US control our military spares helping to protect our Sovereignty?
Excellent points.
Post a Comment