So what did I miss? -

So what did I miss?


This was an interesting exchange.

Bob Rae. Mr. Speaker, on the subject of electoral fraud, the Prime Minister, on April 8, 2011, in the middle of the election campaign, talked about the F-35 contract. He said, “the contract we’ve signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs. We’re very confident of our cost estimates”. His ministers are telling us now that there is no contract, that there is no assurance with respect to cost and, in fact, that signing a contract is a matter of if and when. Was the Prime Minister telling the truth when he spoke to the people of Canada on April 8, 2011, about a so-called contract, yes or no?

Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of public record. At the time, I was referring to a memorandum of understanding. It has not been a secret that the government has not signed a contract. The fact is our country does not pay any increase on the development cost. That is the arrangement. It is also a fact that we have provisioned in our budget funds for future aircraft and we are prepared to live within that budget.

This has to do with the “realistic” and “forthright” musings of Julian Fantino.

Murray Brewster astutely noted two weeks ago that the government’s talking points changed. More now from Campbell Clark and Colin Horgan.

And now, turning back to December 13, 2010, a moment in Commons history.

Mr. Ignatieff shook both his hands in Mr. MacKay’s direction, nearly pleading with the Defence Minister. “I defy the Minister of National Defence to tell the Canadian people what this plane will actually cost,” he begged. “No number the government presents on this issue is credible.” As if to taunt the leader of the opposition, the Defence Minister stood to assert the existence of a “contract” that commits Canada to buy 65 new warplanes at a cost of $9-billion.

“You’re making it up!” mocked Ralph Goodale from his frontbench seat. “You have no contract!” And indeed, by at least one report, it will be perhaps three more years before such a binding commitment exists.


So what did I miss?

  1. turning back to December 13, 2001

    Well, that’s a bit awkward, since the Liberals were in power back then… :)

    • The link is to a 2010 post. 

    • Typo. Meant to be 2010.

      • I know; I was just poking fun. Hence the smiley at the end of my comment above :)

        • I am clearly smiley deficient. Also, sarcastically challenged. Can I blame the nice weather and my inability to partake in it?

  2. So either the Minister of National Defence didn’t know the difference between an MoU and a Contract (he’s supposed to be a lawyer), He didn’t actually know what’s going on in one of his most important files (he’s supposed to be a minister) or he was lying to the House.

    Same goes for the Prime Minister – who’s not a lawyer, and wasn’t in the House…but was the Prime Minister, speaking to the electorate.

    • I would actually rather the government were lying than not actually understanding or knowing if they had fixed costs on a multi-billion contract. 

  3. The PM’s right. It hasn’t been a secret that there’s no contract. The Liberals said so a hundred times. 

    • It appears to have been a secret to the MoD. And our truthiness inclined PM wasn’t making such a distinction on the campaign trail. But that’s ok. I’m now inurrred to this Particular Pm having a truth for all seasons.

    • I thought it was still a secret until a Liberal said it in caucus?

    • So what the Liberals said about Stephen Harper is true and what the PM said to the Canadian people is false. 

      If you say so!

  4. The Conservatives are amazing. 
    They accuse critics of not supporting the troops, and being pretty close to treasonous for questioning the governments aircraft policy; then they do a 180, change position completely and carry on like nothing happened. 
    And the media say that’s ok that’s the way things work these days. 
    I think at one time a government would have wear this one for weeks, and be disgraced in the eyes of the media and public, called out as we used to say. Now the drooling lap dogs, which is all of us, just say please can I have some more?

    • I agree the government is often two-faced and spins like crazy, but the bottom line for me is, if they’re woken up to the fact that it might not be wise to proceed with this thing all-in, then I’m quite happy with them doing a 180 degree turn.  I felt the same way about income trusts.

  5. so baird is a liar? not surprising, considering, y’know…..