- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics 'Woodstock')

I can't seem to be able to post it to The Recorder???
F-35 jets aren’t a good buy, Edmund Pries, The Recorder, 29 Dec.'10
http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/306568--f-35-jets-aren-t-a-good-buy


"A 2007 study by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) and the Political Economy Research Institute, titled The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities, indicates that for every $1 billion of investment per sector, each sector would create the following number of jobs (Canadian figures would obviously vary, but likely not by much):

• Military/Defence: 8,555

• Health care: 12,883

• Education: 17,687

• Mass transit: 19,795

• Home weatherization/infrastructure construction: 12,804"

These figures are overall, and it is very likely that the 'Military/Defence' jobs has the lowest % that would actually be created in Canada.

Good article.

It really illustrates the hypocrisy, deceit and hyper-partisan nature of Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Jim Flaherty and last but not least, Tony Clement (and all the Con's for that matter).

Harper's argument that it creates jobs was something that was made up after they saw the massive negative reaction to spending $16b (and counting) on F-35's.

The initial reason was a play on national pride, MacKay's 'eye-watering' technology pitch and how we should do Right (not morally anyway) by our military, and hay, they really, really need this 'strike' fighter.

But, once Canadians started contemplating the 'eye-watering' bill, and ask themselves just why in the world Canada would really, really need, or have any need whatsoever for, a strike fighter anyway, Harper and the Con's had to retreat.

This explains why there are no guarantees for Canadians companies to get contracts, as is the norm.

If job creation were their reason for purchasing the 65 F-35's, then it would only have been rational that they would have held out to having the jobs guaranteed.

Why is it that Harper acts 'hard-nosed' when dealing with everyone else, much to the detriment of Canada's Int'l reputation, (e.g., it seems to me Harper argument for playing 'hard-nosed' with the Saudi's over the military base was potential jobs lost, albeit very indirect and speculative) but is a pushover when it comes to the US industrial-military complex.

The Harper 'con' of job loss in that industry and the really, really need of the military has created a sense of entitlement in our military - as though Canadians are there to serve our military and not the military to serve Canada and all Canadians - and that industry, as if there could be no better way to benefit Canada than promote their industry. If they do not get the jobs, it is because Harper did not insist on job creation in Canada, it's just that simple.

"16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets? . . .

Mr. Stephen Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.

Peter MacKay presented the procurement in Parliament as "eye-watering technology"
(and this is in Hansard) . . .

Hey Peter how about the 'eye-watering' costs." (25/08/10, cicblog.com/comments.html)

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html