Monday, April 30, 2012
CCPA And The CBC Give Another Glaring Example Of Trash Journalism
It's gotten so pathetic it's not even funny anymore. The CBC has a headline up stating the Canadian banks received "secret bailouts"(so secret they held a news conference) of $114 billion dollars. Wow. That looks pretty damaging to the government. Problem is it's complete bullshit by a lefty-linked group, another group that can't get over the sore-loser syndrome evident on a daily basis. Watch the video, listen to everything this guy says. Memorize it. Then read the news report below dating as far back as 2008. Note that the government actually made interest on the aquisition of these CMHC mortgages, and the person in the video actually states 3/4 of the way through the funds were never at risk, all were repaid, and in fact the government made a return.
" CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wed. Nov. 12 2008 10:36 PM ET
The federal government is purchasing another $50 billion in residential mortgages to further stabilize the lending industry and encourage lower interest rates, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Wednesday.
The Canadian economy has stalled and is on the brink of a recession. The government hopes that its cash injection will keep consumers spending and keep businesses afloat.
The announcement follows a similar move last month in which Ottawa bought $25 billion in mortgages.
The combined mortgage debt, both purchased through the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC), will bring the maximum value of bought securities to $75 billion.
"At a time of considerable uncertainty in global financial markets, this action will provide Canada's financial institutions with significant and stable access to longer-term funding," Flaherty said at a press conference in Toronto.
"This extension of the program to purchase insured mortgages will further support the availability of credit, which will benefit Canadian households, businesses and the economy.
"In addition, it will earn a modest rate of return for the Government with no additional risk to the taxpayer."
Flaherty said the government "will not allow Canada's financial system, which has been ranked as the soundest in the world, to be put at risk by global events."
Patrick Grady of Global Economics LTD told CTV News, "the banking system would weather this storm whether the government provided assistance or not. But what it would do is cut back on loans it made."
Will the move help average Canadians?
It is hoped that the announcement will be a boon to entrepreneurs like Joseph Saikaley, the owner of an upscale hair salon in Ottawa.
He said despite the economic downtown, business at his salon, Byblos, is booming.
Saikaley says he wants to expand his operation, but can't get a loan from the banks.
"We have been trying to expand for the last few months, even trickling it down to a minor renovation and there is just not one dollar to be given out or lent," he told CTV News.
Flaherty says that the $50 billion in mortgage purchases should allow banks to start lending again with greater ease.
"It is up to private sector lenders to keep on doing their jobs, making loans to credit worthy people and enterprises of all sizes," he said.
But Saikaley isn't hopeful that the banks will start passing on the loans anytime soon.
"Put it in the hands of people that will do something with it, the banks are doing absolutely nothing will it," he said.
Last month, Canada's big banks lowered their prime lending rates following the announcement about the $25 billion buyout.
Not a bailout, gov't says
The Tories have been quick to indicate that the deal to buy mortgages is an asset swap, not a bailout.
The idea is that banks can take good assets, in this case the mortgages, and turn them into cash -- which can then be made available to people seeking mortgages or to small business.
The "high-quality" assets are already guaranteed by the Canadian government, Flaherty said.
"It is an efficient, cost-effective and safe way to support lending in Canada at a time of extraordinary strain in global credit markets," he said.
Despite the global financial crisis, Flaherty said he still expects to report a budget surplus.
"We're still on track for a small, and I emphasize small, surplus in the current fiscal year," he said.
Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada said Wednesday it will inject an added $8 billion into Canada's tight money markets.
The Bank said it plans to introduce a Canadian Dollar Term Loan Facility (TLF) in four auctions of $2 billion each in the coming weeks.
Under the plan, qualifying financial institutions will be able to offer non-mortgage loans as collateral -- meaning they can offer most loans currently on their books.
With a report from CTV's Robert Fife
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/EdmontonHome/20081112/Ottawa_mortgages_081112/#ixzz1tXEYRh4W
Sunday, April 29, 2012
And The 2012 Golden Pacifier Of The Year Award Goes To......
Saturday, April 28, 2012
A History Lesson For Kady O'Malley And the PPG
It seems the parliamentry press gallery are beside themselves, outraged by the fact the PM, in reply to a question in the house of commons about Afghanistan, made note of the fact the NDP never supported the war putting an end to Hitler's reign of terror. In fact many of those in the press gallery rushed to mock the PM, led by Kady O'Malley. Now first off, I think the PM could have chosen his words better, and left the Hitler reference from his answer. On the other hand, I gleefully await the new standard of journalistic integrity Kady and her brethren are now seemimgly claiming should occur.
So here is a little history lesson for those supposedly professional journalists.
1. The NDP evolved from a merger of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF grew from populist, agrarian and socialist roots into a modern socialist party.
2. The Conservative Party of Canada (French: Parti conservateur du Canada), colloquially known as the Tories, is a political party in Canada which was formed by the merger of the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party of Canada) and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in 2003.
So there you have it. Both the now governing Conservative Party of Canada and the NDP were formed as a result of a merger. Now, in keeping with Kady's line of defence about the NDP not even existing at the point in history the PM referred to in his answer, I would like to point out a few things, just to, you know, make sure Kady and her cohorts apply that same rule of journalistic integrity into comments made about the PM and his party. Soooooooooooooooooo:
1. Brian Mulroney was not a PM in the Conservative Party.
2. Mike Harris was not a Conservative Party MP.
3. Preston Manning was not the leader of the Conservative Party.
4. Karlheinz Schreiber did not have any dealings with the Conservative Party.
5. Private members bills that were put forth by the Reform or Alliance Party were made before the Conservative Party existed..
6. Awww, you know, I could go on and on. Suffice to say, I hope all Blogging Tories call out Kady when she tries to infer something sinister about the Conservative Party before they came into existence.
So here is a little history lesson for those supposedly professional journalists.
1. The NDP evolved from a merger of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF grew from populist, agrarian and socialist roots into a modern socialist party.
2. The Conservative Party of Canada (French: Parti conservateur du Canada), colloquially known as the Tories, is a political party in Canada which was formed by the merger of the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party of Canada) and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in 2003.
So there you have it. Both the now governing Conservative Party of Canada and the NDP were formed as a result of a merger. Now, in keeping with Kady's line of defence about the NDP not even existing at the point in history the PM referred to in his answer, I would like to point out a few things, just to, you know, make sure Kady and her cohorts apply that same rule of journalistic integrity into comments made about the PM and his party. Soooooooooooooooooo:
1. Brian Mulroney was not a PM in the Conservative Party.
2. Mike Harris was not a Conservative Party MP.
3. Preston Manning was not the leader of the Conservative Party.
4. Karlheinz Schreiber did not have any dealings with the Conservative Party.
5. Private members bills that were put forth by the Reform or Alliance Party were made before the Conservative Party existed..
6. Awww, you know, I could go on and on. Suffice to say, I hope all Blogging Tories call out Kady when she tries to infer something sinister about the Conservative Party before they came into existence.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Will James Moore Once Again Defend The CBC Over This Crap?
A perfect example of why the cuts to CBC were far short of where they need to be. In what no one could say is not a partisan attack against the PM, CBC gives Canadians a glimpse of paid top-dollar journalism for tabloid worthy news headlines.
In fact, the CBC itself outs itself only two paragraphs after the first, which includes this gem:
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Labour Day-weekend trip to Manhattan last fall, which included coveted tickets to a New York Yankees game and a Broadway show, cost Canadian taxpayers at least $45,000, documents reveal."
And if anyone took the time to read the entire story, they come to this:
"A spokesperson for the prime minister told CBC News that Harper covered the cost of both the flight and accommodations for himself, his daughter and two guests on the flight. He also covered the costs of tickets to the game for himself and his guests.
"Prime Minister Harper makes it a practice of reimbursing the government for personal travel," spokesperson Julie Vaux wrote in an email. "As the prime minister is prohibited from flying commercial for security reasons, he also compensates the government for the cost of an equivalent commercial flight. In this case, he compensated for the flight for himself, his daughter, and guests at the cost of a commercial fare for each."
It's time once again for everyone to start sending complaints to the CBC ombudsman, as well as James Moore, telling him this type of trash journalism should not be paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.
In fact, the CBC itself outs itself only two paragraphs after the first, which includes this gem:
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Labour Day-weekend trip to Manhattan last fall, which included coveted tickets to a New York Yankees game and a Broadway show, cost Canadian taxpayers at least $45,000, documents reveal."
And if anyone took the time to read the entire story, they come to this:
"A spokesperson for the prime minister told CBC News that Harper covered the cost of both the flight and accommodations for himself, his daughter and two guests on the flight. He also covered the costs of tickets to the game for himself and his guests.
"Prime Minister Harper makes it a practice of reimbursing the government for personal travel," spokesperson Julie Vaux wrote in an email. "As the prime minister is prohibited from flying commercial for security reasons, he also compensates the government for the cost of an equivalent commercial flight. In this case, he compensated for the flight for himself, his daughter, and guests at the cost of a commercial fare for each."
It's time once again for everyone to start sending complaints to the CBC ombudsman, as well as James Moore, telling him this type of trash journalism should not be paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Conservative Government Will Be Forced To Change F-35 Costs Again Tommorrow
Looks like the Conservative government will again have to adjust the life-cycle costs of the F-35 purchase. Opposition parties are set to pounce on Defence Minister Peter Mackay over new revelations the government never told Canadains about all the costs associated with the F-35 program.
In another embarrassing example of the government not reporting the numbers accurately, it was learned today by the Canadian Press that the government failed to include the costs of batteries used in television and dvd player remotes used in the training classrooms by DND.
This new revelation will bump the "life-cycle costs" of the F-35 up another $113.69 over the next 30 years. Bob Rae is said to be seething that the government hid the cost of these AA batteries from Canadians, and will again demand the PM resign.
Newly elected NDP leader Thomas Mulclair is rumoured to announce a news conference in the morning, issuing a scathing rebuttal of the government as it turns out the batteries will be purchased by DND outside the province of Quebec, and will claim it is further proof of the PM's divisive style of governing.
Monday, April 9, 2012
A Question For Andrew Coyne....
or any other journalist or opposition member. Can you please give me some examples of previous government announcements of procurements of military equipment where the government tabled the amount including salaries, fuel costs, etc.?
I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but hours of searching the internet has produced a big fat zero. For example, the Chretien government bought submarines from Britain in 1998 at a cost of $750 million, but since then National Defence has pumped over $1 billion into repairing and converting them to Canadian use. I can find news reports of Liberals stating the $750 million cost, but none mentioning the $1 billion in repair and maintenance included at the time of purchase. And that $1.75 billion includes no mention of salaries, fuel costs, etc.
Another example is the gun registry. Liberals told Canadians the cost would be $119 million, but would be reduced to $2 million through registration fees. The actual cost is in excess of $1 billion. And by the way, The RCMP reported the cost of the registry at roughly $87 million a year, not the $4 million Liberals such as Mark Holland liked to recite in the full knowledge that was wrong. So using the same accounting you demand for the F-35 procurement, it can be said that over 20 years the cost of the LGR would be in excess of another billion. Can you please show me anywhere the Chretien government included the extra billions in cost?
Going back even further to the Mulroney government, in 1991 Mulroney announced the purchase of 50 helicopters for $5.8 billion dollars. Now given the long life expectancy of helicopters, which can exceed 30 years, I find it hard to fathom the fact that the $5.8 billion number included salaries, fuel costs, etc., for the next 30 years.
Maybe I'm wrong with all this. Enlighten me.
By the way, by the mid-'90s, the Sea King helicopters had become so worn out that it cost 30 hours labor for every hour of air time. Perhaps I missed it. Can you show me where the Liberal government of the day told Canadians what the cost of flying those copters was?
I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but hours of searching the internet has produced a big fat zero. For example, the Chretien government bought submarines from Britain in 1998 at a cost of $750 million, but since then National Defence has pumped over $1 billion into repairing and converting them to Canadian use. I can find news reports of Liberals stating the $750 million cost, but none mentioning the $1 billion in repair and maintenance included at the time of purchase. And that $1.75 billion includes no mention of salaries, fuel costs, etc.
Another example is the gun registry. Liberals told Canadians the cost would be $119 million, but would be reduced to $2 million through registration fees. The actual cost is in excess of $1 billion. And by the way, The RCMP reported the cost of the registry at roughly $87 million a year, not the $4 million Liberals such as Mark Holland liked to recite in the full knowledge that was wrong. So using the same accounting you demand for the F-35 procurement, it can be said that over 20 years the cost of the LGR would be in excess of another billion. Can you please show me anywhere the Chretien government included the extra billions in cost?
Going back even further to the Mulroney government, in 1991 Mulroney announced the purchase of 50 helicopters for $5.8 billion dollars. Now given the long life expectancy of helicopters, which can exceed 30 years, I find it hard to fathom the fact that the $5.8 billion number included salaries, fuel costs, etc., for the next 30 years.
Maybe I'm wrong with all this. Enlighten me.
By the way, by the mid-'90s, the Sea King helicopters had become so worn out that it cost 30 hours labor for every hour of air time. Perhaps I missed it. Can you show me where the Liberal government of the day told Canadians what the cost of flying those copters was?
Chretien Liberals Military Procurement Process Makes Conservatives Look Like Saints...
it was the Liberals in 2002 who along with our NATO allies who decided to hold a competion for a next-generation plane at the design stage, rather than a model already in production. The Lockheed-Martin F-35 was the result.
If Ignatieff really intends a different plane be picked, Canada will be out-of-step with all its allies, and as several senior military officers and bureucrats have pointed out, holding a bidding competition where the only acceptable winner is already known looks stupid and wastes a lot of money.
Not that that has stopped the Liberals in the past when dealing with the military. While Ignatieff is well read, he clearly hasn't cracked the spines on too many history books. If he had, he'd know full well his party's past experiences with meddling in military purchases haven't gone well.
Being out of the country the in 1990s, he seems unaware of former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien's experience with the EH-101 helicopter — the military's plan for a replacement for its aging Sea Kings and Labradors — both in service since the 1960s.
After a lengthy procurement search the Tory government of the day picked the British-Italian designed aircraft and committed to buyng 50 of them. Chretien said they were too expensive at $3 billion, and made cancelling the purchase a key plank in his 1993 election campaign. He won and the purchase was cancelled — at a penalty cost of $500 million.
The downside was the military had to make do with the its existing helicopters and within five years Chretien found himself okaying the purchase of 15 of the EH-101 search and rescue versions — redesignated the Cormorant from the Chimo in an attempt to hide the fact this was the same aircraft he'd ruled out a few years earlier.
Meanwhile the militry had begun a new search for a military-use helicopter, and when it looked like the EH-101 would win again, Chretien ordered a change in the criteria that excluded the EH-101 from the competition. A totally untried, and unbuilt, aircraft was picked in 2002 — the Sikorsky S-92, named the Cyclone. Today, Canadian Forces are still awaiting delivery. Four years later, and with the price having soared to an estimated $11 billion for 28 of the helicotters, the first operational models still aren't expected to arrive until 2012.
Helicopters aren't the only skeleton in the Liberal history of 'messing with military pourchases'.
There were the submarines. The navy had been arguing strongly it needed new submarines to replace its Oberon class subs, which had been in service since 1964. New submarines, particularily the nuclear ones the navy had been eyeing in the 1980s, were deemed far too expensive, besides the Cold War had ended, said the Liberals.
When the Liberals announced they'd found four used subs in the British navy yards at a bargain basement price — $1 in exchange for jet fighter training time over Canada's wilderness in Labrador — it sounded like a deal too good to be true. It was.
Changing times ended the flight training need, and the Liberals only belatedly acknowledged the subs had actually cost close to $750 million when the deal was inked in 1998. The cost of the Liberal's $1 deal including purchase price and repairs— an estimated $1.5 billion thus far and rising annually.
More troubling has been the subs' mechanical history. Neither the British Navy, nor Canada's has ever been able to keep all four in service at once — only one is operational at present.
And last on the list, but not least if the Liberals are elected, was the cost-saving plan to replace Canada's 1970s era Leapord I of tanks with Stryer gun platforms, beefed up versions of the wheeled LAV III troop carrier with a mounted cannon.
While used by the U.S. military, the Stryker is not a tank, and thankfully the military was able to talk the new Conservative government out of that in 2006 and instead leased 20 of newer Leopard IIs from Germany for use in Afghanistan, while awaiting delivery of 100 real tanks for its amoured units.
http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3085346&archive=true
p.s. Notice what all those things have in common? None of the prices include the costs of salaries, fuel, etc. Isn't that was this new faux scandal is all about?
If Ignatieff really intends a different plane be picked, Canada will be out-of-step with all its allies, and as several senior military officers and bureucrats have pointed out, holding a bidding competition where the only acceptable winner is already known looks stupid and wastes a lot of money.
Not that that has stopped the Liberals in the past when dealing with the military. While Ignatieff is well read, he clearly hasn't cracked the spines on too many history books. If he had, he'd know full well his party's past experiences with meddling in military purchases haven't gone well.
Being out of the country the in 1990s, he seems unaware of former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien's experience with the EH-101 helicopter — the military's plan for a replacement for its aging Sea Kings and Labradors — both in service since the 1960s.
After a lengthy procurement search the Tory government of the day picked the British-Italian designed aircraft and committed to buyng 50 of them. Chretien said they were too expensive at $3 billion, and made cancelling the purchase a key plank in his 1993 election campaign. He won and the purchase was cancelled — at a penalty cost of $500 million.
The downside was the military had to make do with the its existing helicopters and within five years Chretien found himself okaying the purchase of 15 of the EH-101 search and rescue versions — redesignated the Cormorant from the Chimo in an attempt to hide the fact this was the same aircraft he'd ruled out a few years earlier.
Meanwhile the militry had begun a new search for a military-use helicopter, and when it looked like the EH-101 would win again, Chretien ordered a change in the criteria that excluded the EH-101 from the competition. A totally untried, and unbuilt, aircraft was picked in 2002 — the Sikorsky S-92, named the Cyclone. Today, Canadian Forces are still awaiting delivery. Four years later, and with the price having soared to an estimated $11 billion for 28 of the helicotters, the first operational models still aren't expected to arrive until 2012.
Helicopters aren't the only skeleton in the Liberal history of 'messing with military pourchases'.
There were the submarines. The navy had been arguing strongly it needed new submarines to replace its Oberon class subs, which had been in service since 1964. New submarines, particularily the nuclear ones the navy had been eyeing in the 1980s, were deemed far too expensive, besides the Cold War had ended, said the Liberals.
When the Liberals announced they'd found four used subs in the British navy yards at a bargain basement price — $1 in exchange for jet fighter training time over Canada's wilderness in Labrador — it sounded like a deal too good to be true. It was.
Changing times ended the flight training need, and the Liberals only belatedly acknowledged the subs had actually cost close to $750 million when the deal was inked in 1998. The cost of the Liberal's $1 deal including purchase price and repairs— an estimated $1.5 billion thus far and rising annually.
More troubling has been the subs' mechanical history. Neither the British Navy, nor Canada's has ever been able to keep all four in service at once — only one is operational at present.
And last on the list, but not least if the Liberals are elected, was the cost-saving plan to replace Canada's 1970s era Leapord I of tanks with Stryer gun platforms, beefed up versions of the wheeled LAV III troop carrier with a mounted cannon.
While used by the U.S. military, the Stryker is not a tank, and thankfully the military was able to talk the new Conservative government out of that in 2006 and instead leased 20 of newer Leopard IIs from Germany for use in Afghanistan, while awaiting delivery of 100 real tanks for its amoured units.
http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3085346&archive=true
p.s. Notice what all those things have in common? None of the prices include the costs of salaries, fuel, etc. Isn't that was this new faux scandal is all about?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Rae And Wherry: Seperated At Birth?
Bob Rae is running around calling the PM a liar, stating that there is no contract signed for the F-35 jets, and the PM mislead Canadians by saying there was. Carrying on his argument is Maclean resident nutbar Aaron Wherry, who seems to think he has irrefutable proof that Rae is correct in his assertion the PM lied. So let's take a look at what Wherry thinks is a slam-dunk against the Conservative government:
"Stephen Harper, November 3, 2010. We are going to need to replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and the party opposite knows that. But instead, for the sake of getting the anti-military vote on the left, with the NDP and the Bloc, the Liberals are playing this game. The mistake is theirs. It would be a mistake to rip up this contract for our men and women in uniform as well as the aerospace industry.
Peter MacKay, December 13, 2010. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual contract. What the Canadian government has committed to is a $9 billion contract for the acquisition of 65 fifth generation aircraft.
Stephen Harper, January 14, 2011. “I do find it disappointing, I find it sad, that some in Parliament are backtracking on the F-35 and some are talking openly about cancelling the contract, should they get the chance,” Harper said at the Heroux-Devtek plant in Dorval.
Stephen Harper, today. The government has not signed a contract.
Stephen Harper, today. As I have said repeatedly, we will ensure that when we replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and we have not yet signed a contract in that regard.
Peter MacKay, today. Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, with no contract in place, no money misspent, and now funds frozen, we are injecting more accountability into this process.
Julian Fantino, today. We have not signed a contract to purchase a replacement aircraft.
Now pay attention to the dates of those past quotes. Now let's take a look at what was reported by news agencies March 10th,2011, including the CBC:
"In a memorandum of understanding, Canada has committed to buy 65 of the Lockheed Martin planes that are now in development and scheduled to be ready in 2016. Canada joined the JSF program in 1997 and in 2001 Lockheed Martin was chosen as the company that would manufacture the high-tech planes."
So it seems the media also referred to the deal as a memorandum of understanding, something the PM alluded to in QP when asked by Rae about the alleged lie of a contract. But can a MoU be considered a contract?
"In some cases depending on the exact wording, MoUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding.[citation needed] Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). This can include express disclaimers of legal effect, or failure of the MoU to fulfill the elements required for a valid contract (such as lack of consideration in common law jurisdictions)."
That certainly ties in with what the PM has said in the past, that if the agreement was broken (failure) the Canadian jobs created under the F-35 program would be lost. That in itself looks to make the PM's comments consistent.
Of course that in itself wouldn't be enough to convince someone like Wherry that the PM never lied. So one would need irrefutable proof to show that the Liberal Party themselves knew that the agreement was in fact a Memorandum Of Understanding, and consistent in the fact it could be considered a contract.
So without further adieu, I give you the Liberal Parties position also reported on March 10th, 2011, which by the way is dated after the supposed damaging quotes from Wherry: "The Liberals say they would cancel the memorandum of understanding and hold a new competitive bid for the plane contract if they win the next election. The NDP is also opposed to the purchase, and Thursday on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Bloc Québécois defence critic Claude Bachand said his party no longer supports the deal.
So there you have it. The three opposition parties were against the memorandum of understanding, or is it a contract? Seems it's Rae and his party are the ones who are lying.
"Stephen Harper, November 3, 2010. We are going to need to replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and the party opposite knows that. But instead, for the sake of getting the anti-military vote on the left, with the NDP and the Bloc, the Liberals are playing this game. The mistake is theirs. It would be a mistake to rip up this contract for our men and women in uniform as well as the aerospace industry.
Peter MacKay, December 13, 2010. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual contract. What the Canadian government has committed to is a $9 billion contract for the acquisition of 65 fifth generation aircraft.
Stephen Harper, January 14, 2011. “I do find it disappointing, I find it sad, that some in Parliament are backtracking on the F-35 and some are talking openly about cancelling the contract, should they get the chance,” Harper said at the Heroux-Devtek plant in Dorval.
Stephen Harper, today. The government has not signed a contract.
Stephen Harper, today. As I have said repeatedly, we will ensure that when we replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and we have not yet signed a contract in that regard.
Peter MacKay, today. Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, with no contract in place, no money misspent, and now funds frozen, we are injecting more accountability into this process.
Julian Fantino, today. We have not signed a contract to purchase a replacement aircraft.
Now pay attention to the dates of those past quotes. Now let's take a look at what was reported by news agencies March 10th,2011, including the CBC:
"In a memorandum of understanding, Canada has committed to buy 65 of the Lockheed Martin planes that are now in development and scheduled to be ready in 2016. Canada joined the JSF program in 1997 and in 2001 Lockheed Martin was chosen as the company that would manufacture the high-tech planes."
So it seems the media also referred to the deal as a memorandum of understanding, something the PM alluded to in QP when asked by Rae about the alleged lie of a contract. But can a MoU be considered a contract?
"In some cases depending on the exact wording, MoUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding.[citation needed] Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). This can include express disclaimers of legal effect, or failure of the MoU to fulfill the elements required for a valid contract (such as lack of consideration in common law jurisdictions)."
That certainly ties in with what the PM has said in the past, that if the agreement was broken (failure) the Canadian jobs created under the F-35 program would be lost. That in itself looks to make the PM's comments consistent.
Of course that in itself wouldn't be enough to convince someone like Wherry that the PM never lied. So one would need irrefutable proof to show that the Liberal Party themselves knew that the agreement was in fact a Memorandum Of Understanding, and consistent in the fact it could be considered a contract.
So without further adieu, I give you the Liberal Parties position also reported on March 10th, 2011, which by the way is dated after the supposed damaging quotes from Wherry: "The Liberals say they would cancel the memorandum of understanding and hold a new competitive bid for the plane contract if they win the next election. The NDP is also opposed to the purchase, and Thursday on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Bloc Québécois defence critic Claude Bachand said his party no longer supports the deal.
So there you have it. The three opposition parties were against the memorandum of understanding, or is it a contract? Seems it's Rae and his party are the ones who are lying.