They really didn't mean it

Peter MacKay presents his latest bit of bungling.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay's recent written response to questions tabled in Parliament reveal that 2006 federal Conservative promises for 5 Wing Goose Bay are no longer part of the military’s plans.

Prior to the election that brought the Tories to power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to station a new, 650-member rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay, plus a new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) squadron at the base.

Oh yes, the territorial battalion group promised for St. John's? Just kidding. They will be located, according to MacKay, from Vancouver to Halifax, although I wouldn't be setting up bleachers anytime soon for that one either.

Curiously though, MacKay, in attempting to offer yet another excuse for not doing what the Harperites promised to do, (all previous excuses involved Afghanistan and that was the standard excuse for everything that didn't happen CF-wide), shone the light on another program which he has typically covered in mud. JUSTAS.

“As part of the [defence strategy], there will be a surveillance ‘system of systems’ that will be comprised of sensors, unmanned vehicles and satellites that will keep Canada’s maritime approaches safe and secure, including in the Arctic,” MacKay’s response notes.

JUSTAS stands for Joint Unmanned Surveillance Target Acquisition System and just so we're clear here, DND has messed that up nicely. Like every other project the Harper government has gotten their fingers into, it has slid well past the delivery date, has been started and restarted several times and has caused potential suppliers to throw their hands in the air, turning away from the project in frustration.

The Armoured Engineering Vehicle rats nest

I was going to write a longer piece as to why the gluey-looking Armoured Engineering Vehicle/Armoured Recovery Vehicle (AEV/ARV) acquisition may or may not be worth getting one's knickers in a twist over.

Essentially, most people would be concerned over two things: The amount of money going out the door; and, are we hearing the truth from the political headliners. To the former it can be presumed, (if you can work your way through the mess this project has become), that the costs are close to the budget estimates. To the latter, you need ask no further. MacKay is a serial liar and rather than lay out the Force Mobility Enhancement project in clear terms for parliament and the public, he has allowed the whole thing to become a confusing mess. 

We don't call NDHQ The Puzzle Palace for nothing, you know.

The Sixth Estate has done a lot of heavy lifting on this and, in keeping with the spirit of not duplicating a successful effort, that's where you should read more. For what it's worth I agree with the conclusions there. (If you're past or present armoured crew and the terminology used by T6E makes you're stomach tie up in knots, get over it. Most Canadians don't know a RCEME from a tank transporter).

There is another element to this whole thing and it is related to another issue. That is the subject of a future post.

MacKay feeds us another line of bull

This guy really does beat all.

Last October, MacKay told CBC Radio's The House the Libyan mission had cost taxpayers less than $50 million.
"As of Oct. 13, the figures that I've received have us well below that, somewhere under $50 million," MacKay said.
"And that's the all-up costs of the equipment that we have in the theatre, the transportation to get there, those that have been carrying out this critical mission."

Except that he committed the great sin of omission. He knew the estimates were much higher and he withheld the information - intentionally.

Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance said MacKay did not mislead the public and pointed out senior military leaders referenced the figures publicly during Senate committee hearings.

But he concedes the minister would have known the estimated cost at the time and did not speculate on why MacKay chose to go with the lower figures exclusively.

Allow me to speculate for the general.

MacKay is a serial liar. 

Oh, well it's all better then

#F35 #Cdnpoli - 

The Harperistas are changing the name of the procurement secretariat for ... the new national fighter jet, formerly believed to be the F-35.

Public Works and Government Services Minister Rona Ambrose confirmed the name change Wednesday in Halifax. The body is now called the national fighter procurement secretariat, she said, adding the name change signals a change in policy.

"I think it's self-evident that the change in policy is that the government is, as we've indicated, hitting restart with this process," Ambrose said.

"One of the reasons for establishing the secretariat is to ensure that we have independently validated information about everything that we need to consider, including the aircraft, and so that will be part of the mandate for the secretariat."

"They will come back to us once they've done that comprehensive, independently validated work and make a recommendation to the government."

But before the lying bastards got around to doing that, they lied to Canadian voters. 

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says cabinet ultimately signed off on the figures the Defence Department cited publicly for the cost of the F-35 stealth fighter program.

"It ultimately goes to cabinet," MacKay told the Senate defence committee on Monday.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a scathing report on April 3 that was highly critical of the way the F-35 file had been handled, particularly the Defence Department's failure to reveal that the fighter would cost Canada at least $25 billion — $10 billion more than it was reporting to Parliament and the public weeks before the last federal election.

The Conservative government has admitted it was aware of the larger price tag weeks before the last federal election, but MacKay's comments are the first acknowledgment cabinet approved the reporting of a lower figure to Canadians.

So, they have to get caught before they'll do anything honest.

A point. They admit they lied before and I believe they are lying now. 

The AG repeats his points on the F-35

#F35 #Cdnpoli -

Michael Ferguson repeated the points he made in his report to Parliament on the F-35 boondoggle at the public accounts committee and then added this:

So far, the government has talked about a $25-billion cost over the first 20 years of the program, even though the jets are predicted to last 36 years. 

“There were some significant things that were missing from the life-cycle costing in this, for example attrition, for example upgrades, and the fact that these aircraft were going to last for 36 years, not just 20 years,” Mr. Ferguson told MPs. 

“When we raised the issue of life-cycle costing and the fact that it was not complete, I don’t believe that we were nitpicking in any way. We were saying that there were significant elements that were missing,” he said.

What he did make clear, for the record, is that the $25 billion number, the one the Harperistas were not willing to divulge until someone divulged it for them, had made the trip to cabinet. Harper and MacKay were fully aware of it before the last election.

Then there's this little bit of information. 

The September, 2011, briefing note was signed by deputy defence minister Robert Fonberg.

“The purpose of this trip is to demonstrate the government’s commitment to the JSF program, while impressing upon key interlocutors Canadian concerns with cost, production schedules and the need for transparent communication to JSF partner nations,” the note said.

There was enough concern at DND to shove Fantino down to Fort Worth. That must have been illuminating for them since, before that trip, the F-35 fly-away cost had already ballooned. By March of this year the Harper cost per plane (acquisition only) of $75 million was so obsolete to have become a near joke.

It was a typo!

#F35 #Cdnpoli - 

Elmer's little boy is at it again. Peter MacKay has quietly sneaked in an erratum to the Department of National Defence Plans and Priorities report delivered to Parliament a few months ago.(Emphasis mine)

In an “erratum” note, it says the 2011-12 report wrongly described the F-35 purchase as being in “definition” project phase, which generally means an item has already received preliminary approval from Treasury Board, the gatekeeper for federal spending.

That would mean, (and there are a few of us who write here who really know this), that we would have before us, available for perusal, full life cycle costs and full life cycle material management costs. And the trade-off of industrial regional benefits.

But now ... ?

Instead the decision to buy a next-generation fighter is being reclassified as being in “option analysis” phase, which means Ottawa is still determining what it needs in terms of a plane.

Which means working up the LCC and LCMM on not only the F-35, but also any other contender out there, based on a comprehensive Statement of Requirements. As the Auditor-General pointed out, "5th generation fighter", is not an SOR.

This, however, gets even more precious.

In the note, National Defence blames an unknown bureaucrat for the snafu, saying someone made a “typographical error” in the 2011-12 “Report on Plans and Priorities.”

A typographical error? A typographical error?!!

Look at how your fingers would have to be misplaced on your qwerty keyboard, presumably in complete darkness, to make that significant a typo.

Tack on another lie.

Peter MacKay and the revolving money

 #Cdnpoli #F35 -


On Sunday, 15 April, the Department of National Defence sent out a press release which David Pugliese posted.

The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Lead Minister for Search and Rescue, is pleased to announce an $8.1M federal investment in search and rescue prevention and response in Canada.

“Our government understands the importance of investing in new initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of search and rescue in Canada,” said Minister MacKay. “This money will support projects that build search and rescue capacity and strengthens the response of search and rescue.”

In 2012-2013, this new funding will allow for the purchase of life-saving equipment and tools; the development of training standards; collaborative interoperability exercises between the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Coast Guard, Parks Canada, and the over 15,000 specially trained air-ground-marine search and rescue volunteers; the development of outreach prevention and awareness programs to targeted audiences like flight safety for private pilots; the building of search and rescue capacity in the marine environment on the coasts; and the development of virtual trainers for the air and marine search and rescue environments.

All very nice, except for one small problem. This is not new money. This has been around for well over a decade. David Pugliese started to get a raft of emails.

As mentioned, Defence Watch readers took issue with the claim about new funding. They say the funding is awarded each year and has been for more than a decade.

In fact this fund was started back in 1988 and has been allocated annually since then. It also has never really grown from the amount originally set aside. 

Pugliese went to MacKay's office for an explanation and discovered ...

So it isn’t exactly “new” money after all. It’s the same money and each year the list with the $8 million worth of new projects is issued annually.

This is nothing more than MacKay trying to generate some "good" press. Here, however, is the best part.  (Emphasis mine)

That quest is, at times, reaching desperation, sources say. As an example, they point to the March 20^th press release issued by DND, which NDHQ communications specialists are still talking about. That one had Mr. MacKay announcing a contract for $5,943 for a firm to put some barriers up.

This useless boob needs to be taken to lunch. Somebody can clean out his office while he's gone and remove his name from the DND telephone directory before he gets back.

 

Cleared for unrestricted take off - F35 acquisition

#F35 #Cdnpoli -

We've followed this thing from the 1997 entry into the F-35 development through to the Harper Conservative sign on to the 2006 JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development project. 

At that point in late 2006 there was something else occupying the minds of many at NDHQ - Afghanistan. As the war in Afghanistan spun up, so did the problems. Canadian troops, usually in the point position in the Panjwai district were sorely in need of a greater level of support. There was a scramble to get Leopard C2 tanks into theatre along with better artillery. There was a line that moved all through the armed services: "If it isn't about Afghanistan, it isn't worth shit."


General Rick Hillier was making loud noises about helicopters. With no heavy lift helicopter capability Canadian troops were vulnerable as they moved over treacherous ground to complete patrols and sweeps, and to provide sufficient protection to provincial reconstruction teams. Another mad scramble took place and an advance contract award notice (ACAN) was issued for 15 Chinook medium/heavy lift helicopters.

That should have set off alarm bells. The Chinook contract was a mess from the start. Proper planning was sidestepped and statements of requirements were left wanting. Planners ignored the steps required in the DND Project Approval Guide, failed to submit life cycle estimates and, for all intents and purposes, cheated on their homework. Regulations by the dozen were violated. In short, what DND did was go to Boeing and told the supplier, "We'll take fifteen of those. Here, throw on these options", and then fudged the numbers by documenting the basic price of the helicopter without additions. The whole time, there was collusion between DND and PWGS in an attempt to short-circuit the acquisition process. The entire Options Analysis Phase of the project was literally tossed aside.

Earlier the Maritime Shipboard Helicopter project had encountered similar problems. While this was a more mature project and the SOR was reasonably well defined, life cycle costs and in-service support were left undone.

Neither of these projects would surface for the fiascos they were until then-auditor general Shiela Fraser made her report to Parliament in 2010.

The people in the F-35 shop were plugging away well under the radar. However, there was no doubt in the mind of anybody involved that the 2006 MoU was as good as saying the F-35 was a done deal and that would be the next combat aircraft in the RCAF inventory.

In 2008, still without a clear statement of requirements, there was a renewed look at the fighter aircraft on offer. Three were given a solid look: The F-18 Super Hornet; the Typhoon Eurofighter; and the as yet unproven, F-35. All three were compared to a matrix of mandatory performance factors for the next generation fighter. All three met the requirements, even though the F-35 was still under development.

The F-35, untested thought it was, was recommended as the replacement for the F-18s over the other two. The essential reasons given were that it was cheaper, newer, more advanced in the whole and would have a longer service life. None of those reasons were substantiated with any documentation, as the 2012 Auditor General's report lays out.

The RCAF and DND, for their part were convinced that they were in clover as far as the F-35 project went. They, with reasonable confidence, pursued acquisition as though the decision had been made. With the re-election of a Harper minority government in 2008 they felt that, even with the risk of a minority government, they could go for the hardware they wanted and would have little opposition, right up to cabinet level. They felt no need to suddenly start beavering away at a lengthy options analysis when, in their minds anyway, the decision was all but final. True, they had not documented everything required by department regulations, but they had not done it for other projects and these Conservatives didn't seem to mind. It was like Christmas. At least until Shiela Fraser blew the whistle on the two helicopter projects.

Still, as peculiar as the F-35 acquisition appeared, even to those involved in the RCAF, it was thought that the government had approved the way it was going.

On 16 July, 2010, the Harper government announced a soul-source contract with Lockheed Martin to supply 65 F-35A fighters for $16 billion.

That was a lie. There was no contract. But there was pressure from Lockheed Martin.

There was also the same MoU signed in 2006 and updated in December 2009 (considered the 2010 agreement). Despite any other committment, that is the primary document which had Canada tied to the F-35. And while Harper and MacKay were tossing out one set of numbers, the MoU displayed something different.

Canada was still estimating an 80 aircraft acquisition. It was dropped to 65 because of the increasing costs. Further, Canada's contribution to the development had remained the same despite increased development costs. Good deal. But the shrinking acquisition was problematic. A 20 percent slice off the numbers was not supported in any documentation.

And there was still no actual pricetag. At least not one available pubicly. Inside the JSF project office were lodged Canadian participants who had a pretty good reckoning of what the fly-away cost would be.

When Harper refused to provide details of the cost of the F-35 in 2010 there was good reason. The government had substantially low-balled the actual price, left out the life cycle costs and had no material management plan. He faced an election and continued to lie throughout the election campaign. In DND two camps had developed. The larger one was the F-35 adherents; the smaller faction believed a competition would result in competitors to the F-35 offering a much reduced price on the two other possible contenders. MacKay was in possession of that information when he joined in announcing the F-35 as a done deal.

In November 2011 the Standing Committee on Defence heard from another JSF program participant: Norway. Had MPs at that committee been doing anything except collecting a paycheque and building a hefty pension they would have got their calculators out and gone screaming down the corridors. Only one MP knew what questions to ask.

Rear-Admiral Arne Røksund, Head of the Department, Defence Policy and Long-Term Planning, Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Norway, offered some interesting information. NDP MP Christine Moore asked him:

I want to discuss the F-35 aircraft. You said your budget was realistic. What is your budget for procuring the F-35s?

He told her $10 billion for 51 or 52 aircraft and then added this:

The life cycle costs will be, I think, about—this is not public yet, so I have to be careful—$40 billion U.S. over 30 years. So that's life cycle costs over 30 years, all included.

Assuming the admiral was using the NATO standard that life cycle includes initial acquisition of the asset, at the higher number of aircraft that puts the cost of each aircraft at $769,230,769.23.

Norway's schedule for acquisition is virtually identical to Canada's. The cost to participants, according to the MoU and US law, is that each F-35 will be delivered at the same price at that Then Year to all participants. Ready?

Pricetag, based on the due diligence of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, (which had life cycle costs readily available for a realistic 30 years), for 65 aircraft is exactly $50 billion.

So, $25 billion? And that includes life cycle costs? I think not.Try double that.

Fifty Billion, Andrew. Fifty Billion.

MacKay is "Just an optimistic guy"

#F35 #Cdnpoli - 

Sorry, but part 3 of the F-35 fiasco is still in the hopper. And as much as I am not really a Titanic freak, as someone who understands the effects of hydraulics on sinking ships, there is something I really must watch on ... TV. (Now, I just have to figure out how these button festooned thingies work).

In the meantime, you must watch this. MacKay needs to let his wife take him flying. The thinner air might help him with simple arithmetic. 



And, since she closed comments, (to deal with busy things), I will on this occasion only, skip through a place I rarely choose to tread.  

Sandy, you are completely and utterly hilarious. For a while there I thought you were serious. I have to admit, you had me there for a minute.

You see, I was a part of a major naval acquisition. My team was doing the costing of the training centres that would have to be rebuilt, staffed and operated for the projected life cycle of a particular class of ship. When it was completed, my superiors completed a final LCMM on those centres and then it was included in the final price tag for the ships.

Brilliant work though. Keep it up and keep us in stitches.

H/T

The ballooning cost of the F-35 and MacKay's latest lie

#F35 #Cdnpoli -

Yes, I will be producing part 3 of the F-35 series. It likely won't be available until tomorrow evening.

In the meantime, I cannot let this go by. Andrew Coyne is apparently working on the same project and coming up with roughly the same figures I have so far.

In fact it was reported nearly two years ago by The Globe and Mail, in the same June 11, 2010, story that first stamped what is now conceded to be an incomplete accounting on the public mind. Drawing on “secret cabinet documents,” the paper reported that the total cost of the as-yet-unannounced purchase of 65 jets was not $9-billion, as it had earlier reported, but $16-billion, once maintenance costs of $7-billion over 20 years were factored in. However, way at the bottom of the story there appears this note: “In addition, the government is predicting that the operating costs to fly the stealth fighters over two decades will reach $9.6-billion.”

There it was, all this time, hiding in plain sight. The Globe didn’t realize its significance, and neither did anyone else. It’s clear from the story that the number the government was working with internally was $26-billion. Yet $16-billion became the standard figure in public discussion.

Got that? On a cabinet document. That means that the figures were there in front of MacKay and Harper. That was pre-election, pre-signing of the MoU of 2010. In fact the numbers are higher than that as Coyne points out today and which I will clarify when I complete part 3.

As I pointed out previously, after MacKay was interviewed on Question Period yesterday, his claim that life cycle costs are not included in final purchase price is absolutely bogus. In fact, what he is suggesting was done is in direct violation of Treasury Board directives. Coyne makes the same mention in his article. In fact, here is the extract from the Treasury Board Guide to Management: (My emphasis in text)

3. Life-Cycle Materiel Management

Life-cycle materiel management is the effective and efficient management of assets from the identification of requirements to the disposal of the assets. Materiel management strategies must always consider the full life-cycle costs and benefits of the alternatives for meeting program requirements. By using life-cycle costing techniques, departments can evaluate the total costs to the Crown of owning or leasing an asset before it is acquired. This evaluation is accomplished by considering such factors as the current value of the costs of future operation, maintenance, and disposal, in addition to initial and ongoing capital costs. Estimating life-cycle costs also creates standards by which costs can be monitored and controlled after acquisition. By adopting this approach to the management of materiel, departments can ensure that their materiel management and asset management decisions are financially prudent and represent the best value to the Crown.

The departmental planning phase, which includes business planning and budgeting, is the initial process that determines a department's priorities and strategic program objectives. The materiel life-cycle management process is based on these priorities and objectives.

The extended life of materiel assets has important implications for decision makers. For instance, an acquisition decision that is based on the lowest purchase price but that ignores potential operations and maintenance (O&M) costs may result in higher overall costs. Decision making in life-cycle materiel management is an interactive process that considers all four phases of an asset's life cycle. Effective management requires that an appropriate level of management interest and control be maintained through all phases in the materiel asset's life cycle.

The four phases of life-cycle materiel management are as follows:

1. assessing and planning materiel requirements;
2. acquiring materiel resources;
3. operating, using, and maintaining materiel; and
4. disposing of materiel.

Tip:
The life-cycle cost (LCC) of materiel assets can be expressed by the following simple formula: LCC = planning costs + acquisition costs + use and operating costs + disposal costs - residual value.

And there it is. There's even a "tip" for dummies. Take note of the 3rd phase of the LCMM and LCC.

Coyne picked up on one other thing that will be highlighted later: the life cycle cost projection. The life cycle cost projection for the F-35 is set at 20 years. 

Anyone who has ever been in the Canadian Armed Forces would look at that and ask, "What the ...?!!"

The F-18s are entering their 30th year of service. As it stands now those fighters will likely have to fly for at least another five years, and probably more. We do not dispose of fighters at 20 years. And with an 8000 hour estimated flying life, they will probably be operated for over 36 years.

There will be more coming on that in a later post. However, we should get back to Andrew Coyne's breakdown. 

The life-cycle costs of an asset are those it incurs over the whole of its useful life. Yet Defence’s figures are based on an arbitrary 20-year interval, not on the F-35’s actual projected life. The Parliamentary Budget Officer assesses this at 30 years, while the Auditor-General prefers 36 years. Take the midpoint between the two. Prorate the department’s estimate of operating costs over 33 years rather than 20, and you get a figure of, not $16-billion, but at least $26-billion. Add in acquisition costs of at least $9-billion (and probably more like $10- or $11-billion — but that’s another story), plus the two- or three-billion more the Auditor-General says should be included for attrition, upgrades and the like, and you’re looking at a total cost, all in, of something closer to $40-billion.

Not $9-billion. Not $15- or $16-billion. Not $25-billion. Forty-billion dollars. So far.

Yes. That's roughly the same figure I have. And where did the 20 year LCC come from? Lockheed Martin. 

Later.  

An F-35 Interlude with Peter MacKay

#F35 #cdnpoli

While you wait for the 2nd part of the lies the Harperites told, this should get your blood up.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he was aware two years ago that it would cost closer to $25 billion to buy a new fleet of F-35 stealth fighter jets but insists there was never any intention to mislead the public.
That’s about $10 billion more than the nearly $15 billion the government has maintained would be the price of the 65 radar-evading aircraft.
In explaining the discrepancy during an appearance on CTV’s QuestionPeriod, MacKay said Sunday that it was all a matter of a different interpretation of accounting practices.
He said the higher number takes into account the ongoing cost of pilots’ salaries and other costs associated with operating the current fleet of CF-18 jet fighters.
“Yes, and it was explained to me just that way, that the additional $10 billion was money that you could describe as sunk costs — that is, what we’re paying our personnel, and the fuel that is currently being expended in CF-18s, jet fuel, maintenance costs, what we are currently spending. So not part of a new acquisition,” MacKay said.

Better part yet ...

A senior Defence Department official, who would only speak on condition of anonymity, said Sunday the military didn’t want to include the ongoing operating costs of maintaining a fleet of fighters jets because that would have misled Canadians on the true cost of the new jets.
The official said that would allow Canadian taxpayers “to think we delivered a lot more plane than what we actually are delivering.”
The official said the military’s hand was forced by the auditor general, so now those costs will be included in this and future procurements.
“Governments don’t do this simply so we don’t mislead Canadians. Now we’re being accused of misleading Canadians because we haven’t put that out there,” the official said.
“Any soccer mom in the country knows that their purchase of a mini van does not include gas over 20 years or a salary for driving it.”
MacKay said it has never been the practice to include such things as salaries, fuel costs “or the cost of keeping that existing equipment running” in the price of a new capital procurement.

Oh dear. Somebody has been reading my mail.  Excuse me while I clear this up a little. As anyone who read my previous posting now knows, MacKay and his senior department official are full of shit.

All military capital acquisitions include all costs related to LCC. If you don't, you end up with a nice shiny airplane that never leaves the ground. Further, the estimate DND hung out is chock full of missing life cycle cost items.

They can't stop lying.

They also seem hung up on the "We didn't spend any money yet, so it's all OK" meme.

The Peter Principle . . .

THE WALRUS. AIRSHOW augers-in, as Chuck would say. Worthy of note. Written by Jason Sherman and drawn by David Parkins. Check out the Laughs section.

You'll need more than that

The broad stripes at NDHQ have gone into self-defence mode.

Air force officers recently found themselves in the spotlight after it was revealed they quietly gathered information on Liberal MP Scott Simms, a member of Parliament who criticized the decision by MacKay's office to order up a Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopter to retrieve the minister from a private fishing lodge. That flight cost taxpayers $16,000, according to reports.

But the Defence Department and the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force say there's nothing wrong with providing such information. "We provide information when it is requested of us by anyone requesting it, as long as it is not classified or does not cross the boundaries of protected information," air force commander Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps told senators at a recent meeting.

I would expound greatly on that, but POGGE has said it as well as I could.

Come Fly With Me!

Peter (Airshow) MacKay just keeps on feeding the beast.

Defence Minister Peter Mackay spent $4,752 for two one-way plane tickets to go to the 2010 Grey Cup in Edmonton.

I wonder what retired brown-noser MacKay's office will troop out this time to defend Mr. Indefensible? 

Let's slide these beers outta the way ...

OK, Major. It's just you and me sitting in the mess. No stripes here (which is a good thing for you). You read my last posting. I've read what you have to say.

[Maj] Reid, who was also the commander of the Gander-based helicopter squadron until he retired in October, told iPolitics that the flight was a scheduled training mission intended to have a new flight engineer practice using the Cormorant’s hoist equipment.

“This was a training flight that we were going to participate in,” said Reid, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday. “If the minister was able to slide his way in, in some fashion, that was fine with us.”

Hmmm.

First, we all know how pencil-necked politicians work. If it was a training mission and MacKay was scheduled to observe it in an official capacity there would have been more activity around Gander than an acid spill in a condom factory for at least a week before the flight.

Second, when has MacKay done anything around any piece of military kit without having it and himself photographed from six different angles? Past and recent behaviour shows the guy never met a camera he didn't adore.Where were the platoon of photographers? Hmmm?

Considering this would have been MacKay playing with the troops again, a prime photo op, well .... I'm calling bullshit.

Drink your suds, sport. I'm not finished.

We've had the Flop

Now the Turn.

Next ... the River.

And at the Showdown, MacKay buggers off from the table as fast as his burning knickers will allow.

A sudden change of plans that will see Defence Minister Peter MacKay representing Canada at a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels this week instead of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has left opposition parties crying foul.

Baird's attendance at the high-level conference had been confirmed late last week, and the foreign affairs minister has been touring Europe since Monday. He was to attend the NATO meeting on Thursday, then travel to The Hague on Friday for a conference on Internet freedom, before returning home.

But the government announced Wednesday morning that MacKay, who has been under fire for his use of a military helicopter last year, would be going to Brussels instead while Canadian Ambassador to the Netherlands James Lambert will attend the Internet meeting.

Only a cheater runs that fast.
--------------

For those unfamiliar with the terms above, go here.

--------------
Kenny Rogers has some advice for you MacKay. So far you've proven you're really, really bad at this game.

Clearly MacKay doesn't understand SAR ...

Nor does he understand the definition of "tasking" when it comes to Search and Rescue assets.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says it's not true that a search and rescue helicopter was retasked to pick him up at a fishing resort and drop him off at a Gander, Nfld., airport in 2010.

The helicopter, a CH-149 Cormorant based in Gander, was a primary SAR aircraft and its crew was on 30 minutes notice for Search and Rescue tasking. If they were taken away from their primary role of being prepared to launch, on 30 minutes notice, on any mission assigned by Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax, the role of that aircraft and crew was changed from "primary" SAR aircraft to "multi-tasked" SAR aircraft ... at the very least. There is every possibility that the aircraft was dropped in status to "secondary" SAR aircraft.
A primary SAR resource has no other purpose than to be prepared to deploy for SAR. If it is deployed for any other purpose it is no longer a primary SAR resource and it must be relegated to either "multi-tasked" or "secondary". That, no matter how you decided to cut it, is re-tasking.

A SAR mission coordinator at JRCC would have difficulty using an aircraft already under a different mission order since there would be a requirement to clear the aircraft from its operational commander to divert and then, with some additional difficulty, compensate for the differing time to arrive on-scene and the reduced endurance due to fuel consumed, flight time already burned off and the need to discharge the passenger prior to continuing on an operational mission.

Strangely, MacKay should be acutely aware of those conditions. He is, after all, the LMSAR - the Lead Minister for Search and Rescue and responsible for the National Search and Rescue Secretariat.

Either he's too dumb to hold such a position or he has yet to tell us the truth.

MacKay and your tax dollars

He can't seem to control himself. And he has a difficult time with the truth. MacKay on 22 September this year:

"I was in fact in Gander in July of 2010 on a personal visit with friends that I paid for. Three days into the visit I participated in a search and rescue demonstration with 103 squadron 9 Wing Gander. I shortened my stay by a day to take part in that demonstration," he said.

Nice try, I suppose, but even an ordinary seaman would have called "bullshit" on that one.

There is an RCAF colonel who knew that MacKay was trying to use a critical search and rescue asset as his personal air taxi to a fishing lodge.

"So, when the guy who's fishing at the fishing hole next to the minister sees the big yellow helicopter arrive and decides to use his cell phone to video the minister getting on board and post it on YouTube, who will be answering the mail on that one :)," wrote Col. Bruce Ploughman, director of Canada Combined Aerospace Operations Centre at 1 Canadian Air Division headquarters in Winnipeg, adding a typographical symbol for a happy face at the end.

"If we are tasked to do this we of course will comply — given the potential for negative press though, I would likely recommend against it, especially in view of the fact that the Air Force receives (or at least used to) regular ATIs specifically targetting travel on CF aircraft by ministers," continued Ploughman...

Colonels ain't what they used to be. He should have just pointed out that politicians flying into fishing lodges on SAR aircraft is blatant misuse of equipment. Period.

Better yet, MacKay's office should have known better than to have even broached the idea. But then ... MacKay is a Harper Conservative. Perks and privilege on your dime is just fine by them.

Simon gives you light-hearted version.

While we're at it:

Take a look at this heap of manure. Jay Paxton at MacKay's office had this to offer:

“After cancelling previous efforts to demonstrate their search-and-rescue capabilities to Minister MacKay over the course of three years, the opportunity for a search-and-rescue demonstration finally presented itself in July of 2010,” Jay Paxton told media. “As such, Minister MacKay cut his personal trip to the area short to participate in this Cormorant exercise.”

Really?!

That would suggest that MacKay had never been in a Cormorant SAR helicopter before.

Well, go up into that same article and you'll see that not only has he been a passenger in a SAR Cormorant before but he used one a year previously to go to the same fishing area.

At one point, while military officials were debating whether the helicopter could land at Burnt Rattle or whether MacKay would need to be winched up, Allen indicated this wasn’t the first time the minister had been in a Cormorant in the area.

“I am told by the (minister’s) staff that last year the (minister) was flying near this location, and the pilot landed there (at a spot near the shore, perhaps a short distance away),” he wrote. “That being said, apparently that pilot has now been posted from Gander to Comox, so he is no longer at your (squadron), so he can’t pinpoint the location.”

Airshow augers in . . .

ACCORDING TO THE TORONTO STAR'S Allan Woods:

OTTAWA—Scrapping a plan to purchase American fighter jets risks leaving the Canadian Air Force grounded in 2020, the defence minister says.

Peter MacKay says opposition to the purchase of 65 F-35 jets, which are experiencing delays and cost overruns, could result in an “operational gap” when the current fleet of fighter jets are pulled from service because there is no guarantee a replacement could be found on time.

"because there is no guarantee a replacement could be found on time" Gee — if we offered coin of the realm to Russia, I wonder how fast we could get a bunch of Sukhois?

Before you head out shopping today ...

Pig-in-a-Poke

And, if you're thinking of doing some seasonal shopping, in most places across the country you'll want to do it today and not leave it until tomorrow. The weather, in many places, is going to deteriorate, later in the day.

The west coast can expect a 995 millibar Low to move into Vancouver Island (and eventually the mainland) by mid-afternoon bringing heavy rain to the entire coast. The Fraser Valley will experience a severe drenching by Sunday.
Alberta will be clear, although temperatures are going to drop rapidly by Sunday. Same goes for southern Saskatchewan, although, according to the crystal ball, there will be blowing snow on Sunday and wind-chills in the -30+ range. (That's "stay-in-bed" weather).
Winnipeg will experience a normal day with wind-chill in the -30+ range, a bit of snow and then experience a sudden temperature drop by Sunday.
London, Ontario will have a clear day which will then turn messy on Sunday. As the temperature drops the east winds kick in, more snow is in your future.
Southern Quebec may have a problem. Today will be relatively clear, but as the winds rise and the temperature drops there is a very good chance of a minor ice-storm in around the Montreal area by Sunday.
The Maritimes will have some flurries or mixed rain and snow today. Overnight, however, the temperature will drop, winds will rise and everything will get icy.
St. John's Newfoundland will be positively balmy today. The daytime high will be -3 but it will be sunny and calm. By Sunday, expect the winds to rise, but then the temperature will too.

So, pretty much a normal winter weekend across the country with today being the better of the two days. Go shopping today and then button up tomorrow.

When you come back from your day at the bazaars, sit back and do a little reading. I know! Go take a look at Impolitical and then Far and Wide. That will warm you up. They will send you off to read David Pugliese which will cause your body temperature to rise even more.

You will then realize that all that comparison shopping you did, that concern for the effect of Christmas on your credit cards, the attempt to get just the right item for the very best price is how every purchase should be made, including those made by the Harper government.

Oh yes, for those special people who actually check out consumer reviews on big-ticket items before making a purchase, good on you. That's the way to make a proper assessment of expensive items. It means the item has to be on the market and available. Of course, you'll also be checking out the "return policy" of any place you shop.

Strangely, the Department of National Defence had pretty much the same policy when it came to buying military aircraft: Buy no aircraft which is not in operational use by an allied air force.

And then Harper hillbillies came to power. They look at the glossy brochure, check out the colours on the box and then blow the limit on your national credit card. They don't believe in smart shopping when it's them spending your money.


Cautionary note: Readers are advised not to make decisions based on the weather forecasting above. Despite the use of very accurate models from various sources, you should always refer to the official forecast issued by Environment Canada for your area. 

And for those who thought the weather was the most interesting part of this post ... check out Moderate Man.