Cost for MacKay to ‘park his posterior’ in F-35 mockup: $47,000

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Cost for MacKay to ‘park his posterior’ in F-35 mockup: $47,000

A 2010 news conference to announce Canada’s plan to buy 65 stealth fighters cost taxpayers more than $47,000, according to documents tabled in Parliament.

The figure was revealed by Defence Minister Peter MacKay in a written response to an opposition question.

Liberal defence critic John McKay wanted details about the event, which saw Mr. MacKay, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Treasury Board President Tony Clement pose with a fake F-35 built by manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

The response shows Lockheed Martin offered up the model and transported it “to Ottawa via flatbed transport truck” at no charge.

Jay Paxton, a spokesman for the defence minister, says almost half of the $47,313 spent by National Defence went to the audio-visual company that helped stage the event.

He says the expense was necessary because the news conference involved a number of national media outlets, as well as more than 100 invited guests.

Ambrose turned aside questions on Monday, saying the event wasn’t something that involved her department.

“I’m not aware of the cost of the actual announcement, but I would ask the Department of National Defence,” Ms. Ambrose said. “I’m not sure what went into the announcements in terms of technical requirements for that day or if there were stakeholders that participated.”

Since coming to power in 2006, the Conservatives have used Parliament’s down time in the summer to focus the spotlight on one – sometimes two – “announceables” related to the Canadian military.
Critics have dismissed them as a publicity stunts designed to limit pointed opposition and public questions.

The news from the July 16, 2010, event was only that the government intended to pursue a deal to purchase the advanced fighter-bomber, not that a contract had been reached. Mr. McKay said he wondered how such news could justify the expense.

The resulting photos and news footage, which showed the minister sitting in the cockpit of the plane, have been resurrected virtually every time the F-35 makes news.

That’s one expensive photo, the Liberals say.

“I think in the military they call it the hero shot,” Mr. McKay said. “This was 47-grand for the minister to park his posterior in the airplane and smile for cameras.”

It came at the same time the Conservatives were taking heat for spending $2-million on a fake lake to serve as a backdrop at the G8/G20 Summit media centre in Toronto.

“If you can go fake lakes and fake airplanes, then the [communications] message becomes everything and in this case with the F-35 the photo-op was the message,” Mr. McKay said.

“It speaks to the larger issue of the absolute cynicism and contempt that this government has for the Parliament of Canada, members of Parliament and the people of Canada.”

Before coming to power, the Conservatives habitually criticized the Liberals under Paul Martin for their “government by photo-op” style.

News of the cost comes as the government is taking fire for attempting to shut down a House of Commons committee investigation into the auditor general’s criticism of the stealth fighter arrangement.

The public accounts committee has heard testimony from Auditor-General Michael Ferguson, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and a parade of senior officials, including the deputy minister of defence and the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

In his April 3 report, Mr. Ferguson tore a strip off National Defence and Public Works, accusing them of hiding the full cost of the multibillion-dollar plan and not following proper procedures.

Behind closed doors, Conservative members of the committee have apparently put forward a motion to begin writing their report, even though Mr. MacKay, Ms. Ambrose and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino have yet to testify.

Cost for MacKay to 'park his posterior' - $47,000 - Globe and Mail
 

MapleDog

Time Out
Jun 1, 2012
1,791
0
36
St Calixte Quebec Canada
As i said in other boards,and commented online,Canada does not need these "stealth" planes,its just in mu opinion a big toy which have not been tested in actual combat.
The reason given "F-18s too old bla bla bla,would have been cheaper to upgrade to less expensive ones,maybe the Super Hornets which are faster than the previous model,plus it got "TWO" engines,not one.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,621
14,563
113
Low Earth Orbit
He says the expense was necessary because the news conference involved a number of national media outlets, as well as more than 100 invited guests.
Disappointed you weren't invited? Me too, I like watching films and long winded speeches while eating pate and cheese spread on those yummy sesame seed thins. The wine is usually boxed crap but hey, it's on the taxpayer.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
As i said in other boards,and commented online,Canada does not need these "stealth" planes,its just in mu opinion a big toy which have not been tested in actual combat.
The reason given "F-18s too old bla bla bla,would have been cheaper to upgrade to less expensive ones,maybe the Super Hornets which are faster than the previous model,plus it got "TWO" engines,not one.

The F-18s weren't combat tested when Canada bought them.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
$47,000

There's a child's education for a year more or less. I'm sure some cash-strapped schools on-reserve receiving less per student than their provincial counterparts could have put that money to good use.

Or better yet, a small contribution towards the debt.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,621
14,563
113
Low Earth Orbit
The Feds own some of the tech in that plane. It's like going down to Ford and seeing them unveil a new Mustang. We'll make oodles selling these things.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,621
14,563
113
Low Earth Orbit
A tuck tuck would be great for a golf cart.

 

MapleDog

Time Out
Jun 1, 2012
1,791
0
36
St Calixte Quebec Canada
Which is why we should be replacing our aging fleet with the latest incarnation.
Latest does not mean the most expensive one,and the reason given are kinda silly,when will they be used in air to air combatmwhen most of the time its ground attack at high speed,and the possibilities of friendly fire "again"
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Latest does not mean the most expensive one,and the reason given are kinda silly,when will they be used in air to air combatmwhen most of the time its ground attack at high speed,and the possibilities of friendly fire "again"

Say what Maple? Do you want to clean this up a bit?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Latest does not mean the most expensive one,and the reason given are kinda silly,when will they be used in air to air combatmwhen most of the time its ground attack at high speed,and the possibilities of friendly fire "again"
That's like asking me why I carry a survival kit when I go hunting.

I'm bush savvy, armed, cautious and have thousands of uninjured hours in the bush.

Why the hell would I need a survival kit?
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
8O It would have been worth EVERY dollar if he had pulled the "eject" handle.

:hello1::hello1:

We get to pull the "reject" handle in 3 years......................3 ? :-(
 

BruSan

Electoral Member
Jul 5, 2011
416
0
16
The old hornets gotta go; so what do we replace them with that will do what Canadian requirements dictate?

Consider your answer carefully because the mission requirements are only a part of the equation.

We as Canadians have a history of demanding the very best performance for the best price we can get.

To further confuse the issue we demand the things perform for 40 years or more because we just hate spending money on anything to do with the military preparedness of our country. We will tar and feather any politician who dares to suggest we spend money to provide our military with the top line when we can make do with a Pinto. This kind of thinking has hampered our military since Trudeau's days and quite possibly long before that.

By all means let's cheap out on the planes but demand our young pilots perform miracles when, god forbid, they're confronted by the latest stuff from our adversaries.

I harken back to Beatty's proposal to initiate a nuke sub fleet with the then very unpopular thinking that the far north would be the place to watch in the future. Nobody gave a rat's patoot about that icy place up there. Mmmmm. Perhaps the dude was just too far ahead of his time for us frugal, anal retentive (cheap, tightfisted, small minded) Canadians to absorb.

Just say'n.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
We as Canadians have a history of demanding the very best performance for the best price we can get.
We as Canadians, as in individuals? Or collective through the governing body?

Because I can tell you, the Federal Government has a long history of purchasing inferior products, or lowering requirement standards, so a specific bid will win. All for top dollar.

From the Cormorants, the Iltis, to the Unimog. Our collective military procurement policies are awash with ineptitude, waste and stupidity.
 

BruSan

Electoral Member
Jul 5, 2011
416
0
16
We as Canadians, as in individuals? Or collective through the governing body?

Because I can tell you, the Federal Government has a long history of purchasing inferior products, or lowering requirement standards, so a specific bid will win. All for top dollar.

From the Cormorants, the Iltis, to the Unimog. Our collective military procurement policies are awash with ineptitude, waste and stupidity.


I think your point is well taken and further illustrates the need for the Canadian public to become more proactive and DEMAND better items for procurement and better procurement procedures 'cause the way it's been done up to now, sucks!

Political interference in the manner that happened with Chretien's cancelling and paying a penalty just shows they don't give a flying fig for the welfare of our military people. The fact that 60 year old Sea Kings were and perhaps still are taking to the air should be an outrage beyond reasonable excuses.