Well, actually, it's about the Duffy Trial

You may have been as confused as I was.

Why, given Harper's known inability to take orders or suffer any form of supervision, would he opt to remain a sitting Member of Parliament, now relegated to the opposition benches.

This is a guy, who during his concession speech, (which was a hastily re-written victory speech), didn't have the conventional decency to state his intentions to his audience before he scampered off the stage. His intention to resign as leader of the Conservative Party came via a statement released by the party president, John Walsh and even it was a rather muddled sounding bit of poli-speak with all the clarity of a cold latte. Conservative MPs have no idea if Harper is their leader.

What did come out was that Harper would continue to sit as an MP. And one doesn't have to dig too deeply to understand why.

The Duffy Trial.

Parliamentary Privilege.

As long as Harper is a Member of Parliament he cannot be compelled to testify as a witness in any civil, criminal or military proceeding. You can bet he'll be hanging onto that seat until the Duffy trial is concluded.

First round for ranging .... Battery! .... SHOOT!!!

Ohhh ... look at this ...



On target. Repeat!!

Stephen Harper would not approve

THIS is what Canadians do.

When someone needs help, real Canadians go out of their way to provide it.

Then we have the Harper party approach to helping others:
First up, James Moore. Your neighbour's kid can starve for all he cares.
Next, the man who prostituted the Progressive Conservative party, Peter "Airshow" MacKay. If you have nothing, he'll take that away from you too.

Can you imagine any one of these self-absorbed, evil, swine considering Anton Gafarov anything but a mortal enemy?

Justin Wadsworth, however, renews your faith in the spirit of Canadian fair play and the belief that a hand up always brings more than the back of the hand.

Well done, Mr. Wadsworth. You do Canadians proud.

Veterans are outraged. Now they need to do what they once did best. Lead. Part 2.

There is a commonly held misconception that all members of Canada's armed services and, by extension, discharged veterans are Conservative supporters. That, of course, is simply not true on more than one plane.

What is true, is that many voted for Harper and his uber-right-wing thugs based on a load of false propaganda, seriously limited information, and for purely selfish reasons, (which is why we all vote in a specific direction). It would not be a stretch to say that most members of the armed services had little use for Chretien and his Liberals long before the general electorate swung away from them. Chretien was viewed, (with good reason), as being anti-armed forces and if you're in the service you're going to fight back with the only tool allowed armed service personnel in a democracy: your big X against the name of someone who isn't going to return a Liberal government. That meant Paul Martin, despite making some immediate and needed course corrections when it came to the Canadian Forces, didn't stand a chance amongst CF voters. But that's more history than an explanation.

The truth is most members of the armed services are pretty apolitical, especially in their early years of service. When a kid joins the service he/she is not politically engaged and definitely doesn't possess a political ideology. Young (put any political party name here) ideologues don't, as a rule, join the armed services, particularly during peacetime. It would interfere with their ability to get inside the political machine. And, although this is likely to create a poo-flinging session, my long association with armed services has taught me that among those few young service members who do have a political view, none of them are conservative of the Harper ilk. That kind of young person avoids military service like a plague, although there is an exception I'll identify later.

Service in the navy, army or air-force is very insular. Long deployments, active service and isolated bases mean limited interaction with the civilian community. A very different lifestyle leads many service personnel to further isolate themselves (and their families) from too much civilian contact. Politics becomes dirty, invasive and unwanted. Politicians are viewed as dirty, invasive and unwanted. A majority of service personnel therefore distrust all politicians. Political interest only arises when it directly affects serving individuals or the organization to which they belong. Thus, political motivation depends on how they view the treatment offered by the gang in place at the time. Disband an airborne regiment, lose the votes of the entire army and likely chase them into the arms of the first party who says we'd never have done that. Cut the defence budget so deeply that there are not enough crews to man ships, lose the votes of the entire navy with the same end result.

Veterans are odd creatures. They have a tendency to take those particular political views and emotions with them on the final walk out the main gate and there is a good chance they'll hang on to them for decades. They maintain an emotional affinity with their former service that most civilians do not fully comprehend. It is born out of the fact that while serving they were a part of more than just an organization. The people they served with were and are a part of a very close-knit family with intentional barriers preventing those who did not serve from ever entering the deep centre of the military psyche. You didn't serve? You don't ever get to be a part of the ethos and no one is ever going to explain it to you.

So, it will likely come as something of a shock when I tell you that in the 1960s prior to Paul Helleyer committing the heinous crime that was Unification, most service personnel found themselves voting Liberal.

You see, Diefenbaker was a tough pill to swallow. He had done little to foster the armed services. Pay was poor and conditions were not improving. Cancellation of the AVRO Arrow iced Dief in the eyes of many service personnel. That and a long held belief that the Liberals were a better option for significant pay raises and an improvement in conditions put them ahead in the minds of people who had endured enough of Diefenbaker's draconian austerity measures, most of which had to do with keeping service personnel impoverished.

There was something else. The Liberals under Louis St. Laurent had engaged in a purpose-bent re-equipment program. Diefenbaker inherited a modernized or modernizing armed forces as a result of the government which preceded his. That fact was not lost on the long service veterans who were starting to leave the service in the 1960s and taking their political affinity for the Liberals with them.

Here, I'll end part 2. Part 3 will be a little longer in coming. 

Veterans are outraged. Now they need to do what they once did best. Lead. Part 1.

There is no doubt Canadian veterans have been treated in the most vile way possible by one of the most ignorant people in the Harper government. Julian Fantino has demonstrated, quite clearly, that he feels a greater duty to his benefactor, Harper, than he does to the armed services veterans his department is mandated to assist. In fact, his recent behaviour demonstrates a total disdain for veterans. He believed he could appear at a time of his choosing and start issuing orders. This to a group who, now no longer in uniform, would loudly tell a serving general where to go if they didn't like what was being said. Fantino forgot, (or perhaps has never understood) who it is he actually works for. Not surprising, actually. Fantino has a long and documented history of being a dangerously stupid person with too much power which he felt was his to abuse and then to attack anyone who shone a light on his activities.

Some people are giving Fantino credit for "sincerely apologizing" to veterans for the spectacle he created. Except that it wasn't a sincere apology and accepting any part of it would be a huge mistake. Professor Stephen Kimber explains why.

Sincerely? In the next breath, Fantino was bitching to his stenographers at the Toronto Sun that the multi-medalled, wheel-chaired vets had been “duped… jacked up” by the union representing public servants who will lose their jobs and who had paid the veterans’ airfare to Ottawa.
When those mindless-dupe vets failed to show Fantino the due deference he required, he told the Sun, “I wasn’t just going to play dead.”

Keeping in mind, of course, that on one of Fantino's previous yap-sessions with those same stenographers he tried to paint himself into the same frame as a combat veteran. That should have told the veterans who attempted to meet with him that such endeavours were likely to fail. Fantino, who does not know how to control his authoritarian impulses, views himself as a hero. A self-styled hero who brooks no protest without his explicit permission.

Fantino clearly does not understand veterans. Worse though, is that he expects veterans to kneel before him and then be grateful for his very existence. His style is to issue orders; not to listen. And he further insults veterans by telling them they have been "duped" by the public service union, PSAC.

Really? Duped by the very union veterans watched like hawks when they were serving? The same union whose collective wage and benefit package formed the basis for the Canadian Forces compensation and benefit negotiations with the Treasury Board? Ya think?!!

If there's been any "duping" going on it's been by Harper and company, Fantino included. They have made a point of positioning themselves as "friends of the forces" and the "protectors of veterans", all without having done much except make loud noises about it. While the Harperites have been diligent in making certain they applied a nice shiny surface paint job, they have been hacking away at personnel, cutting pay and benefits, cancelling equipment acquisition and fighting against veterans attempting to hang on to disability benefits.

Not to mention the biggest duping of all. Harper, on Sunday, 1 March 2009, on CNN in the U.S., (he never says this kind of thing where a Canadian can get at him), told Fareed Zakaria that the war in Afghanistan was futile. And rather than call the Chief of Defence Staff and require that all Canadian troops be withdrawn to a safe area, he continued to knowingly send Canadian kids to their death. That made them cannon fodder and it highlighted Harper as a dangerous sociopath. Fantino too, is a sociopath but with perhaps a more lingering aroma of corruption.

And here ends part 1. 

Look at what lane closures in New Jersey have just wrought (updated)

Read this very, very closely.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie was ensnared in a billowing political furore on Wednesday when newly released emails connected one of his top aides to a decision to block lanes on the approach to a busy bridge, causing traffic chaos, apparently in an act of revenge against a political enemy.

 So what, you say. Dirty U.S. politics. Meh! Read a little more.

The suggestion that his top staff might have been actively involved in a vindictive move against a Democratic small-town mayor that caused grief for thousands of New Jersey residents could be toxic for the governor, who is trying to position himself ahead of 2016 as a new-look Republican able to reach across the aisle to Democratic and Independent voters. Even more problematic could be evidence, if any emerges, that the governor’s office took part in a cover-up of its involvement.

Christie has consistently denied that his staff had anything to do with the lane closures and the ensuing traffic snarl up, and insisted that the events on the bridge were instigated as part of a traffic study of the flow of vehicles over the bridge.

...

Already two heads have rolled: Wildstein resigned on 6 December and was followed soon after by Bill Baroni, Christie’s appointee as deputy director of the Port Authority, who is also copiously referenced in the new email chain.

Does any of this, any of it at all, sound remotely similar to anything happening in Ottawa? If not, let me provide you with the statement New Jersey governor Chris Christie released this afternoon:

"What I've seen today for the first time is unacceptable. I am outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge. One thing is clear: this type of behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it because the people of New Jersey deserve better. This behavior is not representative of me or my Administration in any way, and people will be held responsible for their actions."

Now, it's starting to sound vaguely like the Harper/Duffy/Wallin/Wright cover-up scandal, $90,000-gate, coming out of every Conservative political baseboard on Parliament Hill. The lack of any form of personal accountability or apology is stunningly familiar.

Lane closures? Not even in the same league, you might say. Fraud, bribery, not to mention voter suppression, would surely be considered a thousand times worse than playing jiggery-pokery with traffic on the George Washington bridge.

You'd be wrong.

The New Jersey "bridge-gate" scandal has just killed Christie's 2016 bid for the Republican nomination for President. He must be in awe of Harper right now.

(If I can get the show opening monologue from tonight's Jon Stewart, Daily Show, in which he shreds Christie, I'll post it here as an update).

Got it! Right here.

Y'know all those "made in BC" jobs Christy Clark promised ...

Well, the actual contract hasn't even been inked yet and Seaspan is looking offshore to fill the positions necessary for the vessels they will (supposedly) build.

Seaspan is a Canadian shipbuilding firm which has recently been given a contract to build 17 ships for the Canadian Navy.
Now they need skilled workers to move to Vancouver and help build the vessels – and they have got their eye on Portsmouth workers.

The real hairball will get coughed up if the Canadian public finally wakes up to the fact that Harper's ship procurement fairy-tale is actually way off the rails, seriously under-funded and probably won't happen in anything like what is being advertised by the Harper Hillbilly Government.

At least, according to Christy Clark, BC is "family friendly" and the unicorns sprinkle sugar everywhere.

Added: To enhance clarity, Portsmouth is in England, Hampshire County, UK. 

Remembering the fallen. Part 2

In part 1 I offered the suggestion that people who were busy, uncomfortable or simply found it inconvenient to attend a Remembrance Day event should do what makes them feel comfortable. Certainly no thinking veteran will find fault in any decision along that line, keeping in mind that any and all are welcome at cenotaphs across the country.

I also included a sketched CV, so I won't bore you with it again.

This year, as in all years since 1919, a particular "class" of person will most certainly attend: politicians. (Please understand that I want to spit when I say or write that word).

The Canadian political class of the 21st century attends Remembrance Day services for one reason: optics. While there may be a numbered few who actually hold attendance at such an event a matter of sincere personal feeling, the majority, a huge majority, do not. They are there to be seen amongst the crowds, near the uniforms and to gain political traction. Too often they are offered a place of prominence or worse, a speaking part.

That has veterans rankled this year like no other year in the past. I have spent the past year communicating with thousands of my fellow veterans. I can count on one hand the number of those veterans who believe the political class of this country has any interest whatsoever in the welfare of veterans. When the question of the duty of the federal government to live up to its obligations to veterans is brought up there is one resounding answer: Failure.

The Harper government, for all its bellicose "support the troops" rhetoric, has been responsible for the worst treatment of veterans in the modern era. Denial of pensions, clawbacks of benefits and the perpetuation of lawsuits to quash legitimate claims by the wounded are just a few of the abuses heaped upon veterans by Stephen Harper and his ministers. Harper has publicly smeared veterans who attempted to voice their complaints, all the while making sure he gets a photo op amongst "the troops". And, if all that didn't make veterans mightily angry, Julian Fantino, the newly-minted minister of veteran's affairs, sealed the deal and generated pure rage when he tried to redefine a veteran to include himself.

Julian Fantino is not a veteran. Stephen Harper, who took it upon himself to lecture reporters on the conditions in the trenches at Vimy Ridge, has not one day of service. But you can make book on the fact that both of them will show up on Remembrance Day expecting a position of prominence and a speaking part.

There are approximately 900,000 living armed service and RCMP veterans in this country, a vast majority of whom find themselves enraged at the actions and words of Harper, Fantino and, to be completely frank, politicians generally. The current Veteran's Charter which is responsible for hacking disability benefits to veterans was introduced by the Liberals, supported by the NDP and implemented by the Harper Conservatives. No party is clean.

So, while I have heard a loud suggestion that politicians should stay away from Remembrance Day ceremonies and I understand the sentiment, I would disagree. No one should be refused attendance.

However, they should take great care as to how they appear. A place at the back of the crowd would be most appropriate but that's not likely. What is not appropriate though is a place in the front or on a podium. Given their abysmal treatment of veterans they would do well to keep a very low profile. If they intend to deliver a wreath they should do so in absolute silence.

And, if they think a speaking part is due them because of their high office they should be aware that a movement is in the works to have groups of angry veterans turn their backs on them.

Right now an elected school board trustee would have a tough time gaining political traction with veterans and it gets worse as one works up the political back-stabbing pole. Given the recent behaviour of prominent politicians most veterans have one wish for the Canadian political class: A plague on all your houses; you have broken faith with us. 




The print version is here.


Thanks to Alison for the video link.

Robocon Guelph - the technical hypothesis

#elxnfraud #Cdnpoli - 

Zorpheous has done a great job of squeezing out the technical aspects of the Guelph Conservative election fraud scandal.

If you haven't read it, go now.

If you're in a rush, here's something very important:

[I]gnoring the other 199 ridings that are being investigated, there is the very important point I made at the beginning of the article.  Someone with Administrative Rights to the CIMS database blanked out the log records which point to the Poutine List pull.  Now I am fairly certain, that no one in their right mind is going to allow people who are under suspicion of being Pierre Poutine or who are even associated the Burke Campaign to be allowed access to the CIMS database in order to prep a copy of the database that is intended to be sent to Elections Canada for this investigation.  So it is obvious that we have a person higher up the CPC food chain actively and knowingly attempting to cover up this crime.

As Zorpheous makes clear, the only way to delete the records which have apparently gone "missing" is to deliberately overwrite them and that requires someone with Administrator Privileges.  In a network that is commonly referred to as a superuser and it's a safe bet that the CIMS database didn't extend that flexibility down to the riding level.

If we couldn't say "conspiracy" before, we are certainly getting closer to being able to attach that label now.

Your typical Republican women

The bloggers at DAMMIT JANET! pull another plum out of the pie.

Honest. Go there an follow the link.

Now. It would not be right to go down this path without one of the finest pieces of writing ... ever. My friend and accomplice at The Woodshed discovered it and it is, beyond the shadow of any doubt, excellent.  Here it is.

Dear Tiny White Man In My Underpants,
Hey! How’s it going today? My guess is: verging on ovulation, potentially cyst-y. Ha! No seriously, I’m sorry about the bloating. I know that makes the waistband on my underpants tighter than usual, thus restricting your movement, and I apologize for that. It has to be difficult to get a desk and a lamp and a humidity-resistant Windows machine in there already, without the extra pooch. It’s just that sometimes a girl has to eat a bag of salt n’ vinegar chips entirely on her own, you know? I’m sure you do, because you know everything about girls, and the quirks and intricacies of our ladyparts.
I was wondering how your daily report is coming along? I know you have to send one to the other tiny white men in all the other ladies’ underpants so you can all figure out how best we can manage our squishy parts. And for that, I’m truly grateful. One less thing to worry about, am I right? Now I can concentrate on more important things like polishing this glass ceiling and dreaming about how much I love giving a good BJ.
The thing is, though, before you send off your report I wanted to ask you about what I should do regarding this wonky ovary. Now that you’re an expert on all things Unspeakable and Girly, I have to defer to you, Tiny White Man in My Underpants. This son of a bitch ovary hurts. As you know, the doctor wants me to take these birth control pills, but I’m no fan of pills. I prefer wonky ovaries and getting as many abortions as my federal government punch card allows.
Just kidding!
Really, though, if you won’t write me a permission slip to give to my employer so I can have birth control pills, then I’ll have to use all my Economy Stimulus money on medicine. That means two things will happen: a) My vag will potentially cause the failure of Wall Street, and b) every time I say the word “stimulus” I’ll be sad instead of horny. Either way, bad for white dudes.
So what are we going to do, Tiny White Man in my Underpants? Any big bright ideas on how I can earn some extra bank for my hoohah? Surely that was one of the courses you took when you were learning everything there is to know about bajingos. Because the thing is? My bajingo is here to stay. And it needs constant care and attention, just like a hermit crab, or a dwarf hamster. So please tell me you really do know everything there is to know about lady caves. This lady cave needs cash, big time. For medicine. So it doesn’t explode.
Interestingly enough, that medicine can also prevent it from producing many more ladies with many more bajingos. That means my abortion punch card gets a rest! And everyone saves money! Quite the nice side effect of ovary-explosion-prevention-pills, no?
So type up that report, will ya? And ask your buddies what they think. A consensus needs to be formed before this cyst KABLAMs, ruining both my outfit and yours. I’m not begging you or anything, because I am a grown woman and grown women do not beg, but please? Think of it this way: if my ovary explodes there is going to be at least one very sad man in the world, forced into celibacy while I bleed all over the house. If you can’t give me medicine for my own vagina’s sake—think of the man in my life. Would you deprive him of the sexytime he deserves after working so hard everyday? Of course you wouldn’t. That would break the code of ethics shared by Tiny White Men in Underpants everywhere.
What I’m saying is: if you can’t approve birth control for the sake of bajingo health, then do it for the penises, man.
Do it for the lonely penises.
They will thank you, and so will I.
Your friend and partner,
— Kari 

Flaherty pants on fire

#cdnpoli

Back office, my ass.

 

This is not a "back office" operation. This is a federal laboratory that has evolved since 1916. It's mandate, explained on this page (for as long as it lasts):

The Centre for Plant Health provides testing, virus indexing, therapy, and technology development for viruses and pests of grapevines, treefruits and other crops.

With key research areas of:

• Plant introduction and post-entry quarantine testing of all imported tree fruit, grapes, and woody ornamentals that are not accompanied by an acceptable certificate of good health from the exporting country
• Testing promising selections from Canadian tree fruit and grape breeders to ensure that original releases to industry are free from potential viruses
• Eliminating virus infections from valuable fruit, grape and ornamental clones by heat therapy
• Auditing the reliability of recognized foreign certification programs by testing plant samples from imported commercial shipments for virus infection

It is also the only post-entry quarantine lab in the country for imported plant species. It was tasked with preventing the introduction and spread of plant virus to and to detect forest invasive insect species.

It was the only one in the country.

Gone.

Flaherty and Harper: Taking the "good" out of government.

------
It will be worth watching to see what happens to this facility and the large area of land it occupies. You see, once a very rural stretch of the Saanich Peninsula, the Centre for Plant Health is located in one of the wealthiest sections of Greater Victoria and in the federal riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. It is bounded by expensive homes to the west (Dean Park Estates) and to the south.

Ringing a few bells?

This was the riding of Harper flunky, Gary Lunn, who's 2008 election campaign remains a source of suspicion.

Cleared for unrestricted take off - F35 acquisition

#F35 #Cdnpoli -

We've followed this thing from the 1997 entry into the F-35 development through to the Harper Conservative sign on to the 2006 JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development project. 

At that point in late 2006 there was something else occupying the minds of many at NDHQ - Afghanistan. As the war in Afghanistan spun up, so did the problems. Canadian troops, usually in the point position in the Panjwai district were sorely in need of a greater level of support. There was a scramble to get Leopard C2 tanks into theatre along with better artillery. There was a line that moved all through the armed services: "If it isn't about Afghanistan, it isn't worth shit."


General Rick Hillier was making loud noises about helicopters. With no heavy lift helicopter capability Canadian troops were vulnerable as they moved over treacherous ground to complete patrols and sweeps, and to provide sufficient protection to provincial reconstruction teams. Another mad scramble took place and an advance contract award notice (ACAN) was issued for 15 Chinook medium/heavy lift helicopters.

That should have set off alarm bells. The Chinook contract was a mess from the start. Proper planning was sidestepped and statements of requirements were left wanting. Planners ignored the steps required in the DND Project Approval Guide, failed to submit life cycle estimates and, for all intents and purposes, cheated on their homework. Regulations by the dozen were violated. In short, what DND did was go to Boeing and told the supplier, "We'll take fifteen of those. Here, throw on these options", and then fudged the numbers by documenting the basic price of the helicopter without additions. The whole time, there was collusion between DND and PWGS in an attempt to short-circuit the acquisition process. The entire Options Analysis Phase of the project was literally tossed aside.

Earlier the Maritime Shipboard Helicopter project had encountered similar problems. While this was a more mature project and the SOR was reasonably well defined, life cycle costs and in-service support were left undone.

Neither of these projects would surface for the fiascos they were until then-auditor general Shiela Fraser made her report to Parliament in 2010.

The people in the F-35 shop were plugging away well under the radar. However, there was no doubt in the mind of anybody involved that the 2006 MoU was as good as saying the F-35 was a done deal and that would be the next combat aircraft in the RCAF inventory.

In 2008, still without a clear statement of requirements, there was a renewed look at the fighter aircraft on offer. Three were given a solid look: The F-18 Super Hornet; the Typhoon Eurofighter; and the as yet unproven, F-35. All three were compared to a matrix of mandatory performance factors for the next generation fighter. All three met the requirements, even though the F-35 was still under development.

The F-35, untested thought it was, was recommended as the replacement for the F-18s over the other two. The essential reasons given were that it was cheaper, newer, more advanced in the whole and would have a longer service life. None of those reasons were substantiated with any documentation, as the 2012 Auditor General's report lays out.

The RCAF and DND, for their part were convinced that they were in clover as far as the F-35 project went. They, with reasonable confidence, pursued acquisition as though the decision had been made. With the re-election of a Harper minority government in 2008 they felt that, even with the risk of a minority government, they could go for the hardware they wanted and would have little opposition, right up to cabinet level. They felt no need to suddenly start beavering away at a lengthy options analysis when, in their minds anyway, the decision was all but final. True, they had not documented everything required by department regulations, but they had not done it for other projects and these Conservatives didn't seem to mind. It was like Christmas. At least until Shiela Fraser blew the whistle on the two helicopter projects.

Still, as peculiar as the F-35 acquisition appeared, even to those involved in the RCAF, it was thought that the government had approved the way it was going.

On 16 July, 2010, the Harper government announced a soul-source contract with Lockheed Martin to supply 65 F-35A fighters for $16 billion.

That was a lie. There was no contract. But there was pressure from Lockheed Martin.

There was also the same MoU signed in 2006 and updated in December 2009 (considered the 2010 agreement). Despite any other committment, that is the primary document which had Canada tied to the F-35. And while Harper and MacKay were tossing out one set of numbers, the MoU displayed something different.

Canada was still estimating an 80 aircraft acquisition. It was dropped to 65 because of the increasing costs. Further, Canada's contribution to the development had remained the same despite increased development costs. Good deal. But the shrinking acquisition was problematic. A 20 percent slice off the numbers was not supported in any documentation.

And there was still no actual pricetag. At least not one available pubicly. Inside the JSF project office were lodged Canadian participants who had a pretty good reckoning of what the fly-away cost would be.

When Harper refused to provide details of the cost of the F-35 in 2010 there was good reason. The government had substantially low-balled the actual price, left out the life cycle costs and had no material management plan. He faced an election and continued to lie throughout the election campaign. In DND two camps had developed. The larger one was the F-35 adherents; the smaller faction believed a competition would result in competitors to the F-35 offering a much reduced price on the two other possible contenders. MacKay was in possession of that information when he joined in announcing the F-35 as a done deal.

In November 2011 the Standing Committee on Defence heard from another JSF program participant: Norway. Had MPs at that committee been doing anything except collecting a paycheque and building a hefty pension they would have got their calculators out and gone screaming down the corridors. Only one MP knew what questions to ask.

Rear-Admiral Arne Røksund, Head of the Department, Defence Policy and Long-Term Planning, Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Norway, offered some interesting information. NDP MP Christine Moore asked him:

I want to discuss the F-35 aircraft. You said your budget was realistic. What is your budget for procuring the F-35s?

He told her $10 billion for 51 or 52 aircraft and then added this:

The life cycle costs will be, I think, about—this is not public yet, so I have to be careful—$40 billion U.S. over 30 years. So that's life cycle costs over 30 years, all included.

Assuming the admiral was using the NATO standard that life cycle includes initial acquisition of the asset, at the higher number of aircraft that puts the cost of each aircraft at $769,230,769.23.

Norway's schedule for acquisition is virtually identical to Canada's. The cost to participants, according to the MoU and US law, is that each F-35 will be delivered at the same price at that Then Year to all participants. Ready?

Pricetag, based on the due diligence of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, (which had life cycle costs readily available for a realistic 30 years), for 65 aircraft is exactly $50 billion.

So, $25 billion? And that includes life cycle costs? I think not.Try double that.

Fifty Billion, Andrew. Fifty Billion.

The ballooning cost of the F-35 and MacKay's latest lie

#F35 #Cdnpoli -

Yes, I will be producing part 3 of the F-35 series. It likely won't be available until tomorrow evening.

In the meantime, I cannot let this go by. Andrew Coyne is apparently working on the same project and coming up with roughly the same figures I have so far.

In fact it was reported nearly two years ago by The Globe and Mail, in the same June 11, 2010, story that first stamped what is now conceded to be an incomplete accounting on the public mind. Drawing on “secret cabinet documents,” the paper reported that the total cost of the as-yet-unannounced purchase of 65 jets was not $9-billion, as it had earlier reported, but $16-billion, once maintenance costs of $7-billion over 20 years were factored in. However, way at the bottom of the story there appears this note: “In addition, the government is predicting that the operating costs to fly the stealth fighters over two decades will reach $9.6-billion.”

There it was, all this time, hiding in plain sight. The Globe didn’t realize its significance, and neither did anyone else. It’s clear from the story that the number the government was working with internally was $26-billion. Yet $16-billion became the standard figure in public discussion.

Got that? On a cabinet document. That means that the figures were there in front of MacKay and Harper. That was pre-election, pre-signing of the MoU of 2010. In fact the numbers are higher than that as Coyne points out today and which I will clarify when I complete part 3.

As I pointed out previously, after MacKay was interviewed on Question Period yesterday, his claim that life cycle costs are not included in final purchase price is absolutely bogus. In fact, what he is suggesting was done is in direct violation of Treasury Board directives. Coyne makes the same mention in his article. In fact, here is the extract from the Treasury Board Guide to Management: (My emphasis in text)

3. Life-Cycle Materiel Management

Life-cycle materiel management is the effective and efficient management of assets from the identification of requirements to the disposal of the assets. Materiel management strategies must always consider the full life-cycle costs and benefits of the alternatives for meeting program requirements. By using life-cycle costing techniques, departments can evaluate the total costs to the Crown of owning or leasing an asset before it is acquired. This evaluation is accomplished by considering such factors as the current value of the costs of future operation, maintenance, and disposal, in addition to initial and ongoing capital costs. Estimating life-cycle costs also creates standards by which costs can be monitored and controlled after acquisition. By adopting this approach to the management of materiel, departments can ensure that their materiel management and asset management decisions are financially prudent and represent the best value to the Crown.

The departmental planning phase, which includes business planning and budgeting, is the initial process that determines a department's priorities and strategic program objectives. The materiel life-cycle management process is based on these priorities and objectives.

The extended life of materiel assets has important implications for decision makers. For instance, an acquisition decision that is based on the lowest purchase price but that ignores potential operations and maintenance (O&M) costs may result in higher overall costs. Decision making in life-cycle materiel management is an interactive process that considers all four phases of an asset's life cycle. Effective management requires that an appropriate level of management interest and control be maintained through all phases in the materiel asset's life cycle.

The four phases of life-cycle materiel management are as follows:

1. assessing and planning materiel requirements;
2. acquiring materiel resources;
3. operating, using, and maintaining materiel; and
4. disposing of materiel.

Tip:
The life-cycle cost (LCC) of materiel assets can be expressed by the following simple formula: LCC = planning costs + acquisition costs + use and operating costs + disposal costs - residual value.

And there it is. There's even a "tip" for dummies. Take note of the 3rd phase of the LCMM and LCC.

Coyne picked up on one other thing that will be highlighted later: the life cycle cost projection. The life cycle cost projection for the F-35 is set at 20 years. 

Anyone who has ever been in the Canadian Armed Forces would look at that and ask, "What the ...?!!"

The F-18s are entering their 30th year of service. As it stands now those fighters will likely have to fly for at least another five years, and probably more. We do not dispose of fighters at 20 years. And with an 8000 hour estimated flying life, they will probably be operated for over 36 years.

There will be more coming on that in a later post. However, we should get back to Andrew Coyne's breakdown. 

The life-cycle costs of an asset are those it incurs over the whole of its useful life. Yet Defence’s figures are based on an arbitrary 20-year interval, not on the F-35’s actual projected life. The Parliamentary Budget Officer assesses this at 30 years, while the Auditor-General prefers 36 years. Take the midpoint between the two. Prorate the department’s estimate of operating costs over 33 years rather than 20, and you get a figure of, not $16-billion, but at least $26-billion. Add in acquisition costs of at least $9-billion (and probably more like $10- or $11-billion — but that’s another story), plus the two- or three-billion more the Auditor-General says should be included for attrition, upgrades and the like, and you’re looking at a total cost, all in, of something closer to $40-billion.

Not $9-billion. Not $15- or $16-billion. Not $25-billion. Forty-billion dollars. So far.

Yes. That's roughly the same figure I have. And where did the 20 year LCC come from? Lockheed Martin. 

Later.  

Thundering in on the F-35 Boondoggle - foreword

I've been wading through piles of paper. Some of it is recent correspondence received after the Auditor General's report on the unbelievable mess that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has become. Other material has been out there for a while.

Later on today, (hopefully), we'll examine what the costs were known to be for the F-35 JSF, long before Harper and his minions decided to lie and feed the Canadian public a bill of goods.

First though, lets look at a definition you should have planted in your mind: Life Cycle Cost. (LCC)

The Harperites have been pushing a talking point that the figures they were feeding the Canadian public before, during and after the last election did not include full life cycle costs. From a procurement standpoint, that is simply ludicrous. From my own experience, nobody ever procures capital equipment for the military unless a complete life cycle cost analysis is done and a thorough life cycle cost estimate is produced. The following is from a current publication in use for military project personnel working on LCC for aquisitions:

Life-cycle cost (LCC) can be defined as the total cost to the government of a program over its full life, including costs for research and development; testing; production; facilities; operations; maintenance; personnel; environmental compliance; and disposal.

For a better idea of what all that involves, take a look at this from MTain. (Good idea to read the page on that link. Great comparison on buying a car vs buying a military aircraft)

 

Now, if you want to look at something even more graphic, educational and understandable, go here.  That is using an iceberg, most of which is underwater, to show that the acquisition cost is much less than the overall life cycle cost. 

The Harper talking points that their figures did not include wages, fuel and training are nothing more than the desperate flinging of poo. An equipment acquisition always includes those estimates in the total life cycle cost. That's how you manage your defence budget over the life of your equipment. (Any good fiscal manager knows that, but hey! We're talking about Harper here.)

With that information, it's now time to head on over to The Gazetteer. RossK has put up this morning's interview on CBC The House with the Auditor General and then the weaselly Chris Alexander, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence.

Listen closely because that is your primer for my next post.

Later. 

Finally ... they drop the gloves

The Disaffected Lib wants the Governor General to intervene. He links to the latest offerings by Andrew Coyne and Brian Stewart who lay out exhibits which should horrify any Canadian.

Coyne:

This was, until last year's shipbuilding contract, the largest single purchase in the country's history. And yet it was carried out, as we now learn, without proper documentation, without accurate data, and without any of the normal procurement rules being followed. Defence officials simply decided in advance which aircraft they wanted, and that was that. Guidelines were evaded, Parliament was lied to, and in the end the people of Canada were set to purchase planes that may or may not be able to do the job set out for them, years after they were supposed to be delivered, at twice the promised cost.

But of course it's much worse than that. If department officials played two successive ministers of defence, Gordon O'Connor and Peter MacKay, for fools, the evidence shows they did not have to exert themselves much; if they did not offer evidence to back their claims, whether on performance, costs, or risks, it is because ministers did not think to ask for any. Nor was this negligence confined to the Department of National Defence.

And he concludes with ...

So this is also what comes of Parliament's prerogatives, its powers to hold ministers to account, being ignored or overridden. These aren't procedural niceties, of concern only to constitutional law professors — "process issues," as more than one member of the press gallery sneered at the time. They're the vital bulwarks of self-government, the only means we have of ensuring our wishes are obeyed and our money isn't wasted. Parliament having long ago lost control of the public purse, it was only a matter of time before the government did as well.

It's good of Coyne to finally recognize the clear and present danger to this country's parliamentary democracy. We have been filling these pages with warnings of such impending events for years.

Be careful, Andrew. Someone will accuse you of being "reactionary" or "hyperbolic". And I might point out that the people who accused the writers here of those things have not returned to call us what we actually were: right all along.

Stewart:

The who-knew-what about the real costs of the F-35 fighter jet Canada wants to purchase is worrisome enough. But at the heart of the fiasco is a far more serious concern about what public honesty means to this government.

It's a sad state that few Canadians appear surprised by the auditor general's findings that Parliament was kept in the dark over the real costs of this program and what looks to be a $10-billion overrun.
Many seem to assume that misleading and denying whenever it suits is a government's normal default position. After all, this government seems to have done it for years on Afghanistan and with its other problems in national defence.

In my own attempts to unravel the F-35's real costs I never once met a single soul outside government and knowledgeable about defence purchases who believed the prime minister's promise that the planes could be delivered for a bargain-rate $75 million each.

I never met anyone inside the Canadian military who thought so either.

I'm sure thousands in the aviation industry who follow these programs, especially in the U.S. and Europe, simply assumed Ottawa was dealing in fairy tales for public consumption, from which it refused to budge.

This is why we need to see if this current mess is part of a pattern of official "misstatements" on defence matters. If so, we've got a serious national problem.

Brian Stewart has been on the beat for longer than I can remember. His article should be read in its entirety because he goes on to describe the obsessive secrecy in which the Harperites surround themselves on all things. But the highlight was the continued attempt to suppress information on the Afghanistan adventure.

Unlike Coyne, Stewart never offered us Harper as a "good thing". He just kept chipping away at things that seemed to exist in the strange shadows of the Harper government.

This trend towards denial makes everything about the misstated F-35 billions a deeply serious affair.

We really need to know how deep the deception went in this case. And we ought to be much more curious about what is being carried out in our names under the cloak of secrecy.

Yes, we do.

And we need to know who knew what when back in May of 2011, when thousands of calls went out misdirecting voters to bogus polling stations. 

The rumbling and shaking at 101 Colonel By Drive

I was all prepared to post exactly what I thought about the Auditor General's report with respect to the the procurement of ... any number ... of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. And I was going to conclude that all the fault with the total cluster-fuck that this procurement has become lies in the lap of one person: Peter MacKay.

Then the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen released a salvo fit for a major newspaper. All except for one little problem, but we'll get to that shortly.

It is the Department of National Defence that failed, in the auditor general’s estimation, to exercise due diligence and properly inform Parliament. But it is the minister’s duty to make sure that department does its job, especially when billions are on the line. It’s the minister’s job to ask questions, to be sure of his ground before he stands up and invokes the protection of Canadian troops in the service of his opinion.

It is the minister who is, oh, what’s that old-fashioned word … responsible.

Peter MacKay either didn’t know what his department was up to, or he was complicit in keeping the whole truth from his fellow parliamentarians and from Canadians.

To be fair to MacKay, there are others who ought to be ashamed of themselves. The auditor general’s latest report says the year 2006 “represented the most critical period concerning Canada’s participation in the (Joint Strike Fighter) Program and future acquisition of the F-35.” Gordon O’Connor was the defence minister at that time. That’s when Canada accepted the procurement regime and signed memorandums of understanding with manufacturers Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and GE Rolls-Royce.

The next year, MacKay took over the portfolio, and he has been a staunch defender of the F-35 process since. In 2010, the government announced it was buying the F-35. It was after this announcement that the defence department went through the required process to justify its decision to buy the planes without holding a competition.

And it goes on. This part is particularly delightful. (Empasis mine)

Both MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper were stubbornly insisting, in 2010 and 2011, that this was a done deal and that there was no other good way to replace the CF-18s. They insisted that the costs of the F-35s were known and transparent, and they repeatedly used phrases such as “rip up the contract” or “cancel the contract” to characterize the opposition position.

There was no contract, as Harper and his cabinet — especially beleaguered junior defence minister Julian Fantino, who is taking all the heat off MacKay on this issue — are now eager to emphasize.

The big lie. And, the big tell.

Both MacKay and Harper knew, when they were attempting to smear the opposition as attempting to "deny the troops" necessary equipment, that there was something wrong with their numbers. They had long been alerted to it by both the parliamentary budget officer and by their own technical advisers. Their refusal to provide a comprehensive cost estimate to parliament was unprecedented and telling. The Harper government was held in contempt of parliament because of Harper's propensity to childish temper tantrums whenever the high court of the people held him to account.
 
And the whole time they knew that there was something wrong with their numbers. Had they been in any way confident in the numbers they were spouting publicly, they would have tossed the details on the bar and gloated while the opposition choked on them.

But they didn't do that. They kept hiding behind "contracts" which did not exist, peppered with "we are the only ones who support the troops".

Anybody who has been anywhere near the military procurement game saw this whole process as a little odd. For one thing, this was an unknown platform. Most of us thought this whole thing required a closer look and a huge amount of "requirements" work, and we said so.

That got some hackles up.

The Harper spin machine was hard at work, (because we had questioned His decision), and before we knew it, self-styled "military analysts", (most of whom don't know whether they are punched, bored or blown out with a twin 3 inch 70 naval gun mount), were telling us that this air weapons platform was the neatest thing since the invention of sex.

And, it's what the air force wanted.

Bully for them. Even the adults in the RCAF know that they have to fly and fight what the government provides, whether they want it or not.

Most Canadians can be excused for their erroneous belief that the uniformed Canadian Armed Forces and the civilian Department of National Defence are the same thing. Despite the obvious close relationship, they are separate, as required by law. So take this breakout of responsibilities seriously:

[T]he Department is headed by a Deputy Minister of National Defence, the Department’s senior civil servant, while the Canadian Forces are headed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Canada’s senior serving officer.  Both are responsible to the Minister.

• The Deputy Minister has responsibility for policy, resources, interdepartmental coordination and international defence relations; and
• The Chief of the Defence Staff has responsibility for command, control and administration of the Canadian Forces and military strategy, plans and requirements.

Once, a long time ago, a Chief of the Defence Staff went to the Minister of National Defence and told him that the armed services were in desperate need of more people to meet the requirements of the government's stated defence policy. The MND went to the DM who told him that the budget would not allow any increase in pay, training and support of anything higher than the cabinet approved established strength. The CDS then told the minister that he could no longer generate the forces needed to meet a contingency operation, but thanks for hearing me. The CDS, one of the most highly decorated Canadian combat veterans to have held the position, responded to media, (hoping to be able to report on a pig-fight), "I am a soldier. I salute, turn about and do my best."

I, personally, was young, pissed-off and demoralized by that statement. But I also learned something that day. We in uniform do not decide such things. We use what we are provided. We don't make the final decisions on ships, tanks, aircraft, rifles, ammunition, uniforms, underwear or the quality of issue nylon stockings. All of that is decided by The Department. And The Department is subject to the will of those higher in the food chain.

There has been a generally loud response to the Auditor General's report, much of which aims at unnamed people in the RCAF and the uniformed Canadian Forces. It is suggested that they lied, covered up, fudged numbers and misled an otherwise hapless, albeit incompetent minister.

That would be a great story. Except that they couldn't do it. The lines, as described above, are very clear. The air force can get on their knees and beg for F-35s until the cows come home. They can tell The Department, right up to the minister, that no other airplane will meet their needs. It is not, as I have pointed out, their decision. That rests with the civilian policy and resources shop of The Department.

I was present, way back in time, when the lords of the navy were briefing the Minister of National Defence on the requirement to replace the Oberon-class submarines. The admirals had several options, all of which involved conventionally-powered boats: two off-the-shelf types and one cooperative build-in-Canada model. The minister asked why there was not a nuclear-propelled option. The admirals were shocked but answered that current defence policy did not include the demand for that type of boat, and the uniformed navy felt that nuclear-powered submarines would be politically unacceptable.

The minister answered with, "The politics are not your problem. Come back with a nuclear option."

The admirals were uncomfortable since nuclear propulsion involved a massive shift in focus and, as they pointed out, was outside the limits of the stated defence policy.

I'll let you look up the history but it was a Conservative minister and it sheds a light on the F-35 issue.

The type of equipment the armed services employ is decided by the politicians. The Canadian taxpayer is buying it all. The armed services makes the best use of it, preserves it, become experts with it and hopes for a new model - soon. They don't pick it. They only get to say what they would really, really like.

Remember the Harper line after he formed his first minority government? He was going to streamline military procurement. After his 2nd minority he decided to make it a part of his agenda. The 2008 Speech from the Throne contained this:

Fixing procurement will be a top priority. Simpler and streamlined processes will make it easier for businesses to provide products and services to the government and will deliver better results for Canadians. Military procurement in particular is critical: Canada cannot afford to have cumbersome processes delay the purchase and delivery of equipment needed by our men and women in uniform.

That seems to be a Conservative goddamned mantra.

What Harper pumped out of the mouth of the Governor General can easily be summarized as this: We don't need to put every purchase under a microscope when the answer is obvious. We spend too much time analysing expensive capital military equipment. We already know what we want. We're just going to go out and buy the stuff we want. A competition is a waste of time.

And that is exactly what they did. Harper and MacKay. Who needs a cumbersome competition and assessment process when we have THEM. They are all wise.

The Auditor General did point a finger. He pointed it at the civilian-led policy shop. The policy shop led by Harper and MacKay.

Both should depart without their heads. That, however, is unlikely to happen.

I reckon some poor unsuspecting corporal will have her or his life ruined to preserve the image of Harper infallibility.

The attempt to minimize something massive

Anyway you slice it, the testimony of Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, before the House and Procedural Affairs Committee on 29 March was bombshell stuff.

Overshadowed to some degree by the detail deficient and ideological platitude spouting of Jim Flaherty, what Mayrand had to say carries a level of importance that shouldn't be lost in loudness of a so-called budget from the Harper rodentia. (There will be some comment on that later).

I've already covered, by simply allowing Kady O'Malley to do the heavy lifting, the most serious revelation: the enormous scope of the election fraud which occurred in May 2011. (Keep that link on a separate tab if you want to follow).

It wasn't one riding; it wasn't 23 ridings; it wasn't 37 ridings. It wasn't even the "possible" 100 ridings which many observers (including myself) believed might have been at issue. That latter number would have put us in massive "hijacked" territory and the subverting of one-third of the electoral districts in Canada. It was 200 ridings - two-thirds of the federal electoral districts. 

The next thing that jumped out was the geographic breadth. If the whole effort had been perpetrated in a cluster of ridings in one province it could be attributed to the efforts of one person or perhaps one small group. However, Mayrand made clear just how wide it was: Ten provinces and one territory. The material breadth of the act was nationwide.

The timing and the modus operandi is also important. In almost every case we know of so far, people receiving calls on the day before or the day of the election had been contacted by some element promoting the Conservative Party of Canada. The next call directed them to bogus voting places.

The scope and the timing are more than a little significant. They're huge.

Perhaps it's decades of military training and my experience as a front-line "death technician" that routes my thinking, but I cannot think of any way to pull off a geographically massive, narrowly timed operation without at least four things in place: planning, coordination, deception and delegation1. In a criminal enterprise it is described with one word: conspiracy. 

So, now we come to the evidence of an attempted spin from the likes of Harold Albrecht and Tom Lukiwski. Both of them, after hearing the breadth and scope of complaints being investigated by Mayrand's office suggested that they were not trying to minimize the the importance of the complaints nor the numbers being discussed. (11:53 and 11:55 of Kady's report).

Yes, they were.

The fact that they actually suggested they weren't attempting to do so meant that the questions they were posing would be viewed as an attempt to minimize and then they went on to ask them anyway. Clearly, they were shocked by what they had just heard.

All the signs point to a planned, coordinated and specifically-timed national effort to suppress the opposition vote using illegal means. And to add to the elements required to pull off something as large as this appears to be, the direction of such an effort has to come from well up in the hierarchy of a group. In a disciplined, authoritarian-led organization, independent action over a wide scale usually fails.
---------------------

1 For those so inclined: You can draw some interesting parallels by reading this. I would draw your attention to page 110. The belief that nobody would violate the seeming reverence of an idea, held to be universally sacred, has tripped up more than one strategist.

Harper: The ramming of religious tribalism down your throat

Consider these seven points:

1. Disdain for the environmental movement
2. Distrust of mainstream science in general
3. Distrust of the mainstream media
4. Loyalty to the party
5. Libertarian economics as God's will
6. Misundertandings of divine sovereignty - God won't let us ruin creation
7. Unreconstructed Dominion theology - God calls all humans to subdue and rule creation

If you listen to the Harperites, and Harper himself, on almost any subject, they and he express those seven points, particularly since they formed a majority government. They have neatly avoided any reference to "God", but the underlying message originates with those seven points.

Those seven points were presented by Dr. David Gushee, a renowned ethicist and Holocaust scholar. He was referring to the U.S. Conservative religious resistance to climate change science. He could easily have been describing the Harper regime.

Now go read Andrew Nikiforuk

Almost daily, more evidence surfaces that Canada's government is guided by tribalists averse to scientific reason in favour of Biblical fundamentalism -- or what some call "evangelical religious skepticism."

First came Canada's pull-out of the Kyoto agreement without any rational or achievable national plan to battle carbon pollution.

Next came the hysterical and unprecedented letter by Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver, an investment banker. It branded local environmentalists and First Nations as foreign radicals because they dared to question the economic and environmental impacts of a Chinese-funded pipeline.

It just gets better, so do read the whole article.

Now consider this: If Andrew Nikiforuk's assessment is accurate, it means that Harper is on a crusade.

Religious crusaders believe God is on their side and that whatever they do to promote the will of God, (as they define it amongst themselves), is fully justified. Whether it's medieval massacres of the defenceless or the modern subversion of democratic rights, the end justifies the means. Opposition must be crushed since it is composed wholly of lost non-believers.

So, to what level would a modern-day crusader sink to fulfill God's will and gain power?

A strange scattering of dots (Updated twice)

Updates at the bottom.

Very strange. It all started with a quick search. I was looking for a link between two ridings for not-so-obvious reasons. For the time being, they'll probably remain that way but I'll toss out the items and perhaps the sharper minds of others can make some further connections. (Click on all images to expand)

1. On doing a google search for "Julian Fantino" + "Randy Kamp", this is what appeared before me on hitting one of the top returns.

It took a minute, but I realized I was looking at Randy Kamp's bio on Julian Fantino's webpage. So I tried a few others and apparently didn't hit them quite right. So, I figured I had a choice of digging further into either Fantino's or Kamp's website. I picked Kamp's for a domain search and got this.

Then a domain search on Fantino's page turns up this.

2. The common thread? Backbonetechnology.com. I also have the IP address which is shared by both Conservative MPs, so I decided to do a reverse look up. Got this.

That is a giant bouquet of Harper MPs, from Ben Lobb to Tony Clement, first names being alphabetically significant. There are a few other outfits, unrelated to the Harper mob, sharing the same IP as the who's who of the Conservative party.

But this doesn't tell us much really. It's no big deal. 150 different websites sharing the same IP is common in a large organization. The commonality, however, is backbonetechnology.com, so it was time to have a look. First thing? Do an IP check on the domain.

Huh?!!! bcliberals.com ? That created a WTF moment. At least until I realized that both the shared IP for all those Harper MPs and the IP for the BC Liberals fell within the same NetRange.

3. Time to go look at Backbone technology. Click on PORTFOLIO and quick as a flash ... samples of lots of developed websites including two for the BC Liberals, several for the BC government, two different provincial health authorities, the 2010 Olympics (BC government), and, (I like to think of this as a find), the BC government campaign to convince everyone that the HST was just the peachiest tax you've ever heard of.

These guys are connected and, not to put too fine a point on it, there is a gray area there. Having both the BC Liberal party and the BC government as clients might be viewed as some as being ... well, you can figure it out.

The problem was that there was nothing to indicate they had done anything for the Conservative Party of Canada. Sifting around the site didn't produce much. Stop for a coffee and stare at the home page. They have production in three languages. Only an idiot would hit Greek if he doesn't speak Greek. So I click on Greek. Why not? Hit PORTFOLIO again.

Oh! Would you look at that? Right at the bottom of the page. Find out more.After reading about the client, the solution and the result, in their own words:

Today, Backbone's relationship with the Conservatives is stronger than ever as Expression continues to adapt to the party's needs. Quite simply, Backbone's experience – combined with its Expression platform – has given the Conservative Party of Canada enterprise-level performance that continues to offer a high return on their investment.

Excellent. Glad to hear it. (And it wasn't even in Greek!) Happier than you know because, (assumption), I'm willing to bet a dollar to a hole in a doughnut that there isn't a political party in this country who doesn't demand exclusivity from a contractor. That can come in many ways, from political donations, to service in kind, to a legally bound document which states in many more words, "you won't so much as have coffee with our enemies". (Enemies is a Harper concept transported from his western firewall days which would be viewed as political opponents almost anywhere else).

Which would mean, you don't do business with political parties which don't pass the Harper smell-test. Which means the BC Liberals ... do.

4. Who runs this politically connected outfit? A quick look at the Industry Canada company directory and we get Marc Charalambous. Hey ... I know that name from somewhere.

5. A quick search of the name produces this little gem:

The government office running the province's pro-harmonized sales tax campaign secretly doled out contracts to two Liberal-connected companies and a former aide to the minister who introduced the tax, records show.
...

Internal government guidelines would normally have required those contracts to be awarded via a competitive process because they're valued at $25,000 or more. But the guidelines allow that process to be circumvented - and contracts awarded without public notice - if it would "compromise government confidentiality."
...

$52,746.75 went to Backbone Technology Inc. to develop the province's HST information Website. Backbone has worked for the Liberals since 2001, setting up a private intranet for the party executive, as well as the Liberal Website.

Company president and chief executive officer Marc Charalambous acknowledged those Liberal links, and confirmed that party information director Hoong Neoh provides advice to Backbone on an informal, volunteer basis.

But Mr. Gordon said it was the company's "good reputation" for delivering high-profile government projects on time - including Websites for reviews on health care and postsecondary education - that got it the contract.

"I was called to look at doing this in a short timeline - which is typically the kinds of work we've done for the government. We've done quite a few projects over the last five or six years under such an environment," added Mr. Charalambous.

... (and backtrack)

Campaign Research Inc., which worked on cabinet minister George Abbott's unsuccessful campaign for the Liberal leadership, got the biggest contract - receiving $167,800 for conducting the government's telephone town-hall meetings on the HST.

The company didn't respond Monday to a request for comment. Mr. Gordon said Campaign Research wasn't given that work because of its Liberal connection but rather because it provided the best value out of three quotes privately solicited by the government.

Ummm. First off, what possible "confidentiality" was involved with a referendum on a tax? Secondly, Campaign Research Inc. was not what appeared on the contract. In fact it involved an Ontario numbered company which turned out to be Campaign Research Inc. The BC Government knows which Ontario numbered companies to call for an open street-fight referendum? How very cool.

Have I written down Campaign Research Inc. enough?

This Campaign Research Inc.

Backbone Technologies: Federal Conservative and BC Liberal linked.

Campaign Research Inc.: Federal Conservative and BC Liberal linked.

BC Liberal premier Christy Clark's chief of staff? Posted into Victoria directly from Harper's office: Ken Boessenkool.

BC Liberal premier Christy Clark's director of communications? Posted into Victoria directly from Harper's office: Sara MacIntyre. (Complete with a shitty attitude and 48 cases of chewing gum).

(As an aside, I am fairly confident that there is a Canadian Army general who was probably very relieved to see this pair fly out of Ottawa).

So, I got nuttin'. I went looking for one thing in particular and came up with something completely different. And, yes, it's all been out there in bits and pieces form. I just wonder when the Clark/Campbell crowd will start calling themselves the Harper Government?

Aside from the issue of the BC government under premier "photo op" violating their own tendering rules to accommodate their paranoia, there is nothing to suggest that anyone or anything has committed a legal breach. A bad smell doesn't constitute evidence of anything except ...

That doesn't mean that there isn't more. That's where you come in. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to take those points and see if there is a line going somewhere significant. If it does, credit will be provided in a future post. (And I'll make cookies).

UPDATE: The Gazetteer (working with the inimitable North Van Grumps) has started to stride and pegged the Harper infiltration of the Christy Clark enterprise at before the arrival of the two Ottawa spawns mentioned above. Quick summary: Nina Chiarelli, arrived in Victoria from Ottawa, in June 2011. That was just one month after the 2011 federal election. Chiarelli had been acting communications director for the Harper PMO during the campaign. Chiarelli was, according to the information I just read, still the director of communications for federal Transport, Infrastructure and Communities up to July 2011. It looks like Chiarelli held down both jobs for a short time. Go get more cookie-worthy details at The Gazetteer.

UPDATE II:  Alison weighs in with another revealing find. Dimitri Pantazopoulos, with Reform Party and US Republican baggage, drifted into the Christy Clark/BC Liberal fold in April 2011. RossK has sharpened the focus on the arrival of Chiarelli. 

Keep in mind, despite the fact that this may be the most accidental post I've ever done, that the significance of this Harper infiltration is profound. This is an endeavour to Americanize not the just politics, but the way politics is done in this country. This is the Reform movement at work. From the Ontario PCs, to the Toronto mayor's office, to the Alberta Wild Rose Party, to the BC Liberals, this is an attempt at a Reform power grab. 

Oh yes. Those recent off-writ Harper-style attack ads. NVG has the story.
  

Pull thread to unravel

The Sixth Estate has a very cogent theory on how the voter suppression effort during the last federal election may have unfolded. It's important to read the whole piece but for those of you doing this on the short ...

As April 2011 careened to a close, there were a few pollsters willing to stick their neck out and predict a Conservative majority, but the general consensus was that they would not quite achieve that mark. Moreover it was generally expected, particularly among Conservative ranks, that the NDP and the Liberals would not put up with another Harper minority. Instead they would join forces, and, absurd as it might have sounded even two months  before, the late Jack Layton would be prime minister. Harper’s career would be over. So would those of the coterie of pseudo-intelligent political strategists with which he’s surrounded himself.

So, at some point in that last worrying week of April, the decision was made to order several different units to do what they could to suppress the vote, using tips and tricks they’d picked up from campaign training sessions with American Republicans. We know these sessions happened, we know that these sort of dirty tricks are quite routine fare (for both parties) south of the border, and, in fact, in some states deliberately misdirecting people to bogus polling stations isn’t even against the law.

I’m not sure who these units were. Maybe they were inside the Target Seat Management Unit. Maybe they were in the Conservative Resource Group. Maybe they were just whatever little network of local campaign staffers were personal friends of whichever senior strategist decided to activate Plan B. Whatever it was, they weren’t entirely prepared for it. They had a general idea what to do, but they hadn’t planned it out in advance — again, because if they had, they would have done a better job of it.

From the perspective of the individuals activating the covert op, there would have been no real downside. If they won a majority, they would be able to stonewall Elections Canada from now to judgement day, or at least until the next election. (This was actually happening, until Postmedia broke the story wide open in February and suddenly Elections Canada decided it should be seriously investigating the case after all.) If they lost and the NDP seized power, what would it matter? Their careers would already be over anyways, and the NDP would be too busy enjoying their newfound power to look too carefully into a vote fraud scheme that hadn’t even worked anyways.

That's about the way I would break it out, although I would add a few other features.

There is a reason we do not allow the young lieutenant or brand-new sergeant to plan and execute delicate military operations, especially those which require enduring cover. They always leave stuff out. That's not because they're stupid; it's because they haven't had the sense of invincibility beaten out of them yet. It's one thing to be able to produce a covert action plan; it's quite another to be able to plan it in enough detail to have it executed without leaving evidence behind.

One of the common threads of those whose names keep appearing, (and that is not to say that they are guilty), around the voter suppression issue, is their relative young age. Behaviours involving high-risk, without consideration of possible consequences, tends to fall into the arena of young males. That fits the analysis provided by The Sixth Estate. A quick look at the two outcomes of a covert operation would not reveal the pitfalls to be avoided. The whole thing looks like a very poorly planned operation executed with arrogant invincibility. Not the work of a seasoned campaigner.

There is another dangling thread which may have panicked the Harper campaign. The Christian conservatives, a considerable force in the minority Harper-base, were not happy. They wanted their people elected to a majority Conservative caucus so as to put the squeeze on Harper himself. Some wanted to see themselves in enough control to replace Harper. A minority victory would give them as much ammunition as they needed to turf Harper into the gutter.

Even if a minority showing did not result in an NDP led coalition government, (which I believe would have happened), the Harper faction of the Conservative party would have been toast. In a party with no clear field of succession, the loose fusion of western separatists, Christian conservatives, racists and right-wing authoritarians would have likely collapsed in an all-out pig-fight for the leadership.That aside, again, the only way the Harper loyalists could possibly keep their jobs was to squeeze out a majority to fend off the threats from within their own party.

That brings up something of a post-script. Simon puts the bristles onto Speaker Andrew Scheer and his involvement in the Guelph riding. Far from being non-partisan, Scheer is a member of the faction which would have exiled Harper to the wilderness in another minority government. In a majority however, although wholly unsuited to the position, he becomes the HoC head referee. As much as I believe there is some quid pro quo involved, I also see Harper's Dionysius to Scheer's Damocles.

The literalist, authoritarian, Christian right cannot be discounted as possible players in the whole affair. But that's for another time.