'But in terms of our numbers, I've been very clear' - Macleans.ca

‘But in terms of our numbers, I’ve been very clear’


Asked about the price of the F-35, the Prime Minister invokes one of his favourite adjectives.

“Other numbers cited, obviously have to do not just with the acquisition of the F-35 but operations of the F-35,” he said. “There’s more than one number, there’s more than one cost depending on what you’re counting. These things have all been well known for some time. But in terms of our numbers, I’ve been very clear.”

So far as “what you’re counting,” see here, here, herehere and here to understand why the clarity of the Harper government’s accounting is now being questioned.

Colin Horgan keeps the focus on the lifecycle cost (that which the House of Commons demanded more than a year ago).

The PBO wrote in its report that a “rough” cost for the overhaul and upgrade for a single plane was “estimated at US$ 30.38 million +/- US$ 5 million per aircraft,” bringing the total overhaul costs over 30 years to that $3.9 billion. Going off the PBO’s analysis, calculating the costs of the program over 20 years rather than 30 would eliminate having to account for the second predicted overhaul of the fleet (which, according to the graph, would take a few years to complete).

With a 20-year projection, at least half the overhaul costs (those made at, or after, the 20-year mark) are discounted, along with whatever further costs incurred afterward up to (as the AG suggested) 36 years. So, the overall price comes down.


‘But in terms of our numbers, I’ve been very clear’

  1. Clear as mud. 

    Saying something like ‘i’ve been clear’ repeatedly means the person hasn’t been clear at all – it is verbal tic telling us the PM knows perfectly well he is playing silly buggers with F-35 numbers. I wish our msm were less obsequious and asked proper questions occasionally. 

  2. The only thing I find “clear” is that the government has been less than honest with it’s numbers and less than truthful with the Canadian taxpayer.
     I might also add that I am perfectly “clear” on the fact that Peter MacKay is a liar.


  3. It’s completely clear to me. Harper has no inclination whatsoever to be transparent and accountable and is unfit to govern. Unfortunately we will have to wait until this becomes clear to the deluded 37% of voters who think they are getting a conservative government.  

  4. The cons are raising money on their own lack of ethics; I was called on Friday by a woman from “member services ” about my support for Stephen Harper.  She knew my name; however I have never ever ever in my life supported the conservatives, been a member, or gave them one red cent of my money. 

    I just told her I had never supported stephen harper; I wish I had asked how she knew my name and why someone from “member services” was calling a non-member.  Alas, I was not on my toes.

    • Now Pierre Poutine is going to call you.

      • He should think twice: I’ve a strong track record of anhilating poutine. 

  5. Mr. harper then smiled and enjoyed a quiet chuckle at the expense of those foolish enough to vote for him in the previous election. 

  6. They didn’t want to tie the hands of the gov’t 20 years from now. 

    Same argument why they rejected Wheat Board law passed by previous Liberal gov’t about need to consult before making changes.

    • Some folks might not realize you were being sarcastic there.

      • More of a forecast. I beat MacKay’s Communications Director, for the record.