Manufacturing Dissent

It's hard to recall a previous government that has been beset at every turn by accusations of failing to discharge their obligations to the country, of failing to live up to their promises, of disinterest in complying with standards that they themselves held to be obligatory for a responsible government. Despite which, can anyone claim with a straight face that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not the very image of responsive rectitude?

He came to power by cleverly integrating the flaccid Progressive Conservative Party with that of the steadily-emerging Reform Party, a move that consolidated both into a position of prominence rather than have each compete with one another for visibility.  The liberals within society, along with those who considered themselves social 'progressives', shuddered at the prospect of another Conservative party in power.

Memories of Brian Mulroney's time in office do not conjure up warm feelings of trust and confidence.  For that matter, nor does the memory of Jean Chretien's prolonged stay at 24 Sussex Drive.  Neither quite represented the best that Canada had on offer.  On the other hand, they gained their prominence because they touted themselves as the best that Canada could hope for.

And when it came time for Stephen Harper to demonstrate his vision of a Canada to face the 21st Century he managed to live down the dire warning of his 'secret agenda', governing calmly and confidently, making decisions in good measure to the benefit of the country as a whole.  When his party managed to convert two minority governments into a majority they still did not wreak havoc on the Canadian compact.

Moderate, intelligent governance is what we voted for, and that is precisely what we have got, for the present.  But shrill accusations of malfeasance and suspicions of this government throwing our values to the wolves of high capital emanating from sources in the U.S., draining Canada of its resources and future, combined with conspiracy theories on issues such as the environment and ultra-funding the military, persist.

Canadians know as well as people from most countries of the world that all those other countries are not interested in disarming, in setting aside differences, in overlooking the nuisances of political and partisan altercations, to live in harmony.  In the real world sometimes violently unexpected attacks come out of the void.   In the real world, countries view their obligation to act in concert in response to grave aggravations leading to war, as a necessity.

In that world where the unexpected happens, where countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and their ilk spring surprises of horrific effect on their neighbours, impacting hugely on a larger geographic scale, preparation to respond is a key ingredient to longevity and the sustaining of a peaceful atmosphere at home.  Those countries that are armed and at the ready can respond.

And if we train our young men and women as professionals in the field of military response, we also must provide them with the equipment that is required to ensure their capability to respond effectively.  The journalists and armchair military experts, the opposition parties and those nursing a grudge against the current residents of the PMO shriek their dissent at expenditures required to outfit the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Doing things on the cheap doesn't always work out too well.  Great Britain offered Canada a smoking deal on used submarines, and Canada's Navy responded with trust and alacrity.  In the process, tossing millions into the trashbin, for the procurement of vessels that, held in drydock and never adequately cared for, simply deteriorated, costing Canadians even more millions in retrofit and repairs, without the use of the ships themselves.

Costing for major pieces of needed equipment has, it was explained, generally followed a certain protocol.  And, it makes sense, in the manner in which the explanation set out the protocol. "If you want to cost a new acquisition, you typically don't include what it costs to operate.  Maybe you should do that, but that's not normally reported", explained a former Defence Department official long involved in overseeing military purchases.

"In presenting costs to government decision makers and to Parliament, National Defence estimated life-cycle costs over 20 years.  This practice understates operating, personnel, and sustainment costs, as well as some capital costs, because the time period is shorter than the aircraft's estimated life expectancy", argued Auditor General Michael Ferguson.

Point taken, apparently.  The government has much on its mind and on its decision-making agenda.  It has little stomach for one hysterical, manufactured critique after another of its purported lack of skills and/or deliberate manipulations geared to extending its shelf life.  It plans to take these criticisms by the auditor general under advisement, and changes will henceforth be forthcoming.

Yet, the explanation rendered before a parliamentary committee in December 2010 with respect to a question about military helicopters, delivered by Dan Ross, in charge of military procurement, is telling enough:

 "We all drive cars, but no one here can tell me what the price of gas is going to be next week.  To predict what it's going to be 30 years from now - or the cost of aluminum, repairs, and repair and overhaul - is a very difficult business."