Often in politics the only people who are sure of their position are the ones who have made up their minds before the facts are presented. They don't change their minds, but simply spin their way to their desired conclusion. Cherry pick the juicy - and usually embarrassing - tidbits and bobs your uncle!
The F-35 'situation' (as I know of no other word to describe it without emoting a bias) is a clear example of a muddied issue. Those who listen to the verbal jousting, the dueling spreadsheets, and the gotcha banter between the floor of the Commons and the National Press Club, seek elucidation and get a migraine for their troubles.
So, at the risk of my own tenuous hold on sanity, let's deconstruct this a bit.
1. The F-35 is needed to replace the aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets.
Okay, that should make sense. People who will trade in a car half-way through their lease expect military pilots to go faster than the speed of sound in objects built before some politics professors in Canadian universities were conceived. Drydocked subs and Sea King helicopters that spent more time being rescued than actually doing rescues should have been a big ol' red flag for those whose safety and security depends on the operators of these machines.
2. The F-35 is the best plane for the job.
I am not an aerospace engineer - just a cranky farmer. I did do some rudimentary ground school type training in Air Cadets many moons ago, but that doesn't make me Billy Bishop or Chuck Yeager. I will let you in on a little secret, though. Fully 99.999 percent of the people foaming at the mouth on either side of this issue have no clue either. For all they know, magic pixie dust and the prayers of kindergarteners keep those things afloat. Maybe Tom Cruise used a little of L.Ron Hubbard's 'Dianetics' to get afloat in 'Top Gun'. Again - I don't know, and chances are you don't know either.
The opposition politicians and press believe that Peter MacKay should know. Well, he should probably know more than most, but really? Think about it - if Thomas Mulcair became Prime Minister, and he appointed a Minister of Health, would there be any expectation that said individual could walk into a hospital, scrub down, then remove someone's appendix? Let's face it - half the New Democrats who got elected in Quebec ridings only knew enough 'francais' to say hello, order a beer, or ask where the toilet was.
Ministers have advisors. These advisors have titles. Those titles are given to them because they have lots of letters after their names, or have written books on subjects, or taught on subjects, or all of the above.
Ministers who don't know how aircraft work ask people who have Ph.D's in aeronautical engineering and pilot's licences. If they're smart, they'll follow the advice of those who spent a few years and many sleepless nights trying to sort these things out. If that advice is found lacking, is it the Minister's fault? I don't know. If you go to a doctor and they prescribe the wrong drug to you, is that your fault? Same principle, folks.
3. It's $16 billion...no, it's $25...no, it's $16 billion...no, it's nothing.
Okay, so from what I understand, MacKay's office says the cost of the planes will be $16 billion. Auditors and opposition politicians say it's more like $25 billion. The government counters that since no contract has been signed, no money has actually been spent yet.
Here goes. MacKay is right when he says that $16 billion is the cost. If the F-35 were a used car, that is the number that would be written on the big flourescent piece of cardboard shoved under the windshield. That would be the number on the cheque that DND would cut and give to Lockheed Martin.
So why $25 billion? Well, the astute auditors say that you have to take other things into account. How about maintenance, manpower and equipment over thirty years?
This is technically true, but also a bit of sophistry. Yes, the planes will cost money beyond the sticker price, but - newsflash - so does everything else. Things break and need to get fixed - cars, houses, computers, you name it. Just drive down a city street - look, there's a mechanics garage, and there's a Rona / Home Depot / Lowe's, and over there, there's a guy who can fix a tear in your chesterfield, or patch your driveway, or flat tire. Folks, things break down, and it costs to fix them.
If we are going to say that the government is 'lying by withholding the true cost of the planes', then every real estate agent lies about the cost of a listed property because they didn't include the cost of repairing the roof in 15 years, or replacing a burnt out lightbulb, or the cost of the electricity to run your kids XBox 360. Your car? Well, did they tell you how much the cost of gas, tires, fuel filters, and pinetree air fresheners will be.
If $25 billion is the true price of the F-35's, then the true value of a three bedroom bungalow in Canada is $1.5 million, and you can't buy a Chevy Cruze for less than $75,000.
My confusion, however, is with the PBO - the Parliamentary Budget Office. On this matter, they feel that associated and related costs to the planes should be included. Okay, I'll go with it. If we are going to do that, though, why are we getting up on our hindlegs about moving the age for collecting Old Age Security to 67. The PBO says that OAS itself if financially stable, and that the move is unneccessary. Okay, but the cost of aging also covers healthcare, which is both tenuous and supported by federal dollars. If the cost of jet fuel and pilot's pay will have a knock-on effect on the F-35, wouldn't the ballooning costs of catheters and bedpans not have a similar effect on OAS? Just asking.
The only comment that is dubious is the one where the government says that no money was spent. That is not true. The original project to develop the F-35, then known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), involved seed investments from a number of countries. Canada's contribution to the effort was $200 million. That cheque, however, didn't get signed by Stephen Harper.
That little expenditure was okayed Jean Chretien.
I'm going back to the lake. Life's simpler there, and I'm getting a headache.
No comments:
Post a Comment