Jim Travers of the Toronto Star blows it
Big time.
But note this caution about the recent series of stories (such as the one here) by David Pugliese in the CanWest papers, based on a leaked copy of the strategy paper:
Update: First C-17 in August, no details on regional "benefits".
...After previously deciding wisely on equipment that would be useful in fighting wars among the people and foolishly on big-ticket items of dubious value, the defence minister is now potentially in the market for everything from tanks to fighter aircraft and Arctic icebreakers.This appears today in the Ottawa Citzen:
...the Harper government appears to be backing off election promises to build a deep water port in the Arctic and launch a fleet of armed icebreakers.Not buying Navy icebreakers will be the right decision.
Instead, according to the government's Canada First Defence Strategy paper, it will construct a forward operating refuelling and berthing site for navy ships and build six Arctic patrol vessels.
But note this caution about the recent series of stories (such as the one here) by David Pugliese in the CanWest papers, based on a leaked copy of the strategy paper:
Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier also sent out a message yesterday to all units regarding a series of articles that have been in the Citizen this week detailing the Canada First policy.By the way, Mr Travers refers to our "potentially" buying new fighters. Maybe around 2017, that is. He really should do some research.
He said the strategy document is under constant revision and has not yet been approved by the government. News reports based on "previous iterations" of the strategy document are speculative and, "in some cases, inaccurate," according to Gen. Hillier.
Update: First C-17 in August, no details on regional "benefits".
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 10:20 a.m.
2 Comments:
I doubt doing research is Mr. Travers forte.
The Toronto Star belongs to the "Canada should only wear blue berets" crowd. The like to talk about big ticket items and the "billions and billions we're spending on the military. (usually forgetting to mention that most of these contracts refer to the 20 or 25 year life cycle of the equipment).
With Parliament costing Canadians almost 500 million a year to run right now, how many Canadians would think they are getting value for their money when the cost of the "equipment" is 2 billion over 4 years or 15.5 billion over a twenty year life cycle. (not including maintenance handled by Public Works )?
Post a Comment
<< Home