The F-35 Debacle: Will There Be Fallout?

Not counting this post, in the past year I have written nine times on the F-35 jet controversy. I point this out, not to claim any particular perspicacity on the subject, (many others have written much more and in much greater detail than I have) but only to demonstrate how obvious to anyone with even a modest interest in the issue that the jets were going to cost significantly more than the Harper regime repeatedly claimed they would.

That is why it is so distressing to see the liars who govern Canada try to hide behind the Auditor-General's report which not only stated the obvious, but also, because Auditor Michael Ferguson's access was limited to the bureaucracy, was only able to lay the blame at the feet of the Department of National Defense. While Ferguson hinted that political oversight was lacking, his detailed analysis of the absence of due diligence in the information being supplied to the government, and the fact that no questions were asked, bespeak a gross incompetence that cries out for correction.

Unfortunately, that cry will likely result in no changes at all, partly because of the indifference of a woefully disengaged citizenry, and partly because there is little incentive for Harper to do the right thing. After all, he has a majority government, he is aware of the short attention span of the public, and I suspect that when he convinced Defense Minister Peter McKay to betray the Progressive Conservative Party by merging with the Reform Party, a certain immunity from Cabinet termination or demotion was conferred upon him. How else to explain the fact that his exceptional record of incompetence has gone unsanctioned for so long?

Finally, I watched the At Issues Panel on The National last night, with Andrew Coyne and Bruce Anderson. While both agreed that firings are warranted in this situation, Coyne going so far as to say McKay should be 'wearing' this issue, they both seemed to be giving the government a certain benefit of the doubt over the paucity of accurate information it received from the DND . While one of them suggested there might have been some willful ignorance on the part of Cabinet, there should be no question that government heads need to roll, given the tradition of ministerial responsibility and the fact that so much information was so widely and so publicly available to alert them to problems in the procurement assessment.

Anderson weighed in with the question of whether or not this entire debacle will even register with the larger public. On that gloomy prospect, I will end this post.

UPDATE: If you are interested in further analysis, Bruce Anderson has a piece that just appeared in the Globe in which, among other things, he laments what appears to be the end of ministerial responsibility and accountability.

Socialism and Happiness - A Coincidence?

I don't know what the extreme right-wing will make of this, but the fact that the top five countries on the Happiness Index either have socialism at their core or sufficient elements to ensure the general well-being of their populations should give the rabid advocates of unfettered capitalism some pause. For the record, the happiest countries on earth are:

Denmark

Norway

Finland

The Netherlands

Canada

That bastion of free enterprise, the United States, ranked 11th out of 156 countries. My instinct is to say that Canada should bask in the glow of being fifth, as I suspect that soon, given the agenda of dismantling the underpinnings of our society at the heart of the Harper regime's ideology, we have will have nowhere to go but much further down on the list in future rankings.

Gwynne Dyer on Our Future

I have been writing lately about environmental degradation and the bleak future that seems to await us. On that theme, (and because I have a busy morning ahead of me) I am providing a link to an article by Gwynne Dyer, who argues that because of our huge global population and our interconnectedness, there is only one way to stave off total collapse: using our technological and scientific abilities to radically reduce the pressure we are putting on the earth's natural systems.

Vic Toews In Hospital

This just in from The Star:

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews was rushed to hospital by ambulance Monday morning.

A spokesperson for the minister’s office, Mike Patton, told the Star the minister has been battling a seasonal flu for the past number of weeks, and was take to hospital for observation “as a precaution.”

Patton asked that the media respect Toews’ privacy in the matter.

I trust I am not the only one who sees the irony in this request.

We are All Complicit in Environmental Degradation

Recently I wrote a post about the chilling effect that the federal budget will have on charities, especially those devoted to environmental activism. Unfortunately, I chose to ignore another reality that is equally grim - the fact that all of us (forgive the sweeping generalization) are to blame both for the current dire environmental situation we are in and for the future horrors that will ensue from that complicity.

In today's Star, columnist Christopher Hume reminds us of a few 'inconvenient truths':

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s move to “streamline” the environmental review process and muzzle the environmental movement was deeply disturbing, but Canadians will happily turn the other cheek.

Licking our lips in anticipation of tarsands trillions, Canadians, let alone Canadian politicians, are cheerfully signing up as our corner of the planet is plundered beyond recognition....

We can no longer see beyond the next fix....

As shrill as the deniers might be, we all know that the current path leads to degradation and devastation. Despite mounting evidence, including our own winter that wasn’t, we prefer to keep our collective head buried in the tar sand....

His depressing assessment of our own shortsightedness notwithstanding, I hope you will find time to read Hume's entire piece.

The Departure of Mike Harris

Mike Harris, for whom I have everlasting contempt thanks to his divisive and disastrous time as Ontario's Premier, is leaving his directorship of Magna International under a cloud. I couldn't be happier.

Star Readers' Reactions To OAS Changes

In an earlier post I expressed both my bewilderment and disappointment at the muted 'person-in-the-street' reactions to the the Harper regime's change to Old Age Security that will require people currently under the age of 54 to wait until age 67 to begin receiving their benefits. That I may have been premature in expressing that bewilderment is reflected in some letters in this morning's Toronto Star, which I am taking the liberty of reproducing below. As always, Star readers' messages are both pointed and perspicacious.

Re: Tories add years to working lives, March 30

I “planned” for my retirement. I have been working since I was 17. That was until I became permanently disabled and unable to work five years ago. I receive a Canada Pension Plan Disability pension, which makes up 1/3 of my income, and long-term disability, which makes up 2/3 of my income. As a result of my disability, my income and benefits decreased to about 40 per cent of my pre-disability income.

I now spend thousands of dollars a year on medication and health-care providers delisted by the provincial Liberal government. I can no longer afford to live independently; I had to move in with my parents.

Tell me Mr. Harper, since my long-term disability benefits cease in 13 years at age 65 and my CPP-D decreases, how will I financially survive until the age of 67 when you are taking away OAS and GIS benefits for those two years?

Dawn Wylie, Mississauga

Increasing the eligibility for old age benefits from 65 to 67 is cruel at best. Most Canadians are living on low-wage jobs with no pension plans and struggle to pay the bills, let alone being able to contribute to RRSPs. Making Canadians work longer when some may be in dangerous jobs or have health issues is unfair.

As NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said, Stephen Harper informed Canadians last June that the Conservatives would not touch the pensions of Canadians and they misled us all. Although CPP was not touched, most Canadians rely on the OAS to top up the measly $12,000 a year the CPP pays out.

Jim Flaherty should have tackled the MPPs’ platinum-plated pension plan first and then looked at the OAS. Better yet, MPPs should live on the equivalent of CPP for a month to better understand the struggles of average Canadians.

Avery Thurman, Oshawa

Many Canadians do not understand what the change to the OAS means. It does not affect me now as I am too old but I understand what it means to people on a low income. Many single women and other Canadians who have no company pension to supplement the old age pension depend on the OAS. To take money away from this group of seniors is like taking from the poor. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty should be ashamed. This change is despicable and an eye-opener. It shows me finally what Harper stands for and who he really is.

Elizabeth Richardson, Toronto