F-35 Controversy – Did Conservative Laurie Hawn Admit To Much Higher Jet Fighter Costs?

I think I have begun to discern the actual truth behind the Harper government's claims about fighter jet costs.

Previously I have written about the confusion surrounding the Conservatives' assertions that they will be buying 65 F-35 jets starting in 2016 for $75 million dollars each. Appearing on Evan Solomon's Power and Politics over a week ago, Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, tenaciously clung to that figure, despite compelling evidence from both the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and the General Accountability Office of the United States that such a low figures bears no resemblance to any reality with which they are acquainted.

Last night, Evan Solomon interviewed U.S defence analyst Winslow Wheeler, who asserted that the true cost per plane is likely to be $150-200 million, and that for $75 million you would not be able to get a jet complete with some key components, such as an engine and a weapons system. When that interview ended, Solomon once more questioned Hawn on his government's continued cost assertions; again Hawn maintained that his $75 million figure is correct. However, two things he said make me think otherwise.

In his previous defence of that figure, he mentioned two or three times that the figure that is really important is the $9 billion for the entire program. He repeated that figure last night several times, saying that it includes the total cost: the F-35s plus all related infrastructure, including flight simulators, etc.

Hawn's bombshell, however, and one that Evan Solomon unfortunately did not pick up on, came when he revealed that the $9 billion contains substantial 'contingency funds,' and it was at this point I realized the Conservatives, in the face of irrefutable evidence that the $75 million figure is sheer fantasy, are trying to change the narrative.

Had Solomon asked for details about the contingency funds within the $9 billion set aside for the program, I suspect that it would have emerged that much of that fund is to cover the much higher costs for the jets that everyone else has been alleging.

By repeating several times that the $9 billion cost of the entire program is 'the important number,' I suspect Hawn and his political masters are anticipating a future narrative; if the press keeps asking questions, the Conservatives will try to rewrite the history of what they have said, and focus instead on that $9 billion as the figure that covers all of their costs, something they will say they have been consistent about. It will be their hope that their misrepresentations about relatively inexpensive jets at $75 million a pop will simply fade away.

If you have time, take a look at the above links to the interviews to see if I might be right.

Harper and Media Control

I have to confess to being deeply disturbed by the implications of sixth estate's post yesterday, suggesting that political interference is resulting in the removal of digital news reports critical of Harper on the campaign trail. If the pattern suggested by the site continues, it becomes even more incumbent upon us to get this message out to as many people as possible, through our blogs, tweets, emails and whatever contacts we may have with local independent media.

Closely related to this concern is another pattern that I have noticed on television recently during political discussion on the CBC, CTV and C-PAC. The common theme emerging from the chatter of pundits is that Harper's tight control and relative inaccessibility to the press is nothing unusual, really only of interest to the reporters themselves whose noses are somewhat 'out of joint' over being put on halters.

I had a little spare time on Friday during which I caught part of a phone-in show on C-PAC, which had journalists Tom Clark and John Ibbitson as guests. The latter offered the opinion that Harper's keeping the press at arm's length is common practice for frontrunners in any election, as that reduces the possibility of unscripted events that could undermine the carefully crafted image Harper is trying to cultivate. Ibbitson said that this is very similar to past campaign tactics employed by Brian Mulroney and Chretien, and that during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama didn't have too many press conferences. In other words, the message the pundits are conveying is, “Nothing to see here. Move along."

From my perspective, the comparison to past practices doesn't hold for one simple reason. Unlike Harper and his operatives, the aforementioned politicos, while hardly saints, did not head governments whose central tenets are absolute control, secrecy, and contempt for the democratic process. The fact that those tenets are the tactical foundation of Harper's campaign for the trust of the Canadian electorate makes it vital to report at every opportunity.

Providing the public with such insight, well-known to those who follow politics, is a duty in a society that supposedly promotes the free and open exchange of information and ideas. To conceal or minimize such facts is a grave disservice to both to democracy in general and to the electorate in particular.

Thomas Walkom on Secret Agendas

Well, back to more serious matters. Thomas Walkom has an interesting column in today's Star suggesting that Harper's talk about conspiratorial coalitions and secret agendas could really prompt people to start thinking about things the Conservative leader has said in the past that suggest a dark future for Canada as we know it.