[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Buying a French plane, they wouldn't care much, but buying a Russian plane... well, right now, Trump migh just kiss Trudeau.

Seriously, all we're saying is, if the F-35 is a bad plane for Canada, than show us.  Make a real bidding, not a closed one where everyone is forced to keep silence.  Actually, respect your fucking promise.  It was stupid to being with, once the decision had been made, the government should have gone through, unless there was evidence of corruption or any immoral act in the purchase process.

The F-35 isn't finished yet, and yes, there has been problems.  Maybe the Rafale is the best.  Maybe it's another one.  But I want to see the fucking analysis that was made.  Why they arrived at a conclusion that X is better than Y and Z.

Hmmm... seems to me that the Liberals' argument are reasonable and fit the facts fairly well as I understand them from you and BB.

We need a bunch of planes in the medium term to replace our current air fleet. That procurement decision is going to be between the F-35 and other planes of that generation.

However, the F-35 is not going to be ready for however long and in the meantime - by the current gov't's analysis - we need more planes to be able to maintain our commitments in the short term. Thus, they decide to purchase a small number of Super Hornets to tide us over until we can make a decision between the F-35 and competitors at some point in the future.

As with any military procurement decision in Canada, you'll find experts who'll decry it as the stupidest most terrible thing ever that's an insult to our military, and you'll find others who'll proclaim that it's a complete and incompetent waste of money and that we really need this other thing instead. That's par for the course these days - across PC and Liberal gov't's - no matter what decision is made.

Yup, it's definitely true that having the Super Hornets may give Boeing an edge when the fleet replacement decision comes up in the future.

It is also true that we could have a two year procurement comparison period, and that it'd be great to compare the different contenders in detail.

On the other hand, if in the gov't's assessment we need to move on getting at least some new planes now, it seems responsible to actually do so now.

So absent evidence of impeachable ulterior motives (i.e. corruption) I don't see much to the complaints about this decision other than typical partisan posturing and military kvetching.

[Jacob]

The problem with the helicopter purchase was it cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars in cancellation penalties.

I've read that since Canada is a partner in the F-35 program there would be penalties if we withdrew, but I'm not sure of the quantum.

... so if we do as the government proposes (as I understand it from you guys and a brief skimming of news articles) it's nothing like the Sea King situation.

We're buying a small quantity of Super Hornets now. We are not withdrawing from the F-35 program, and once it is ready for production we'll have a proper tendering process, in which potential cancellation fees are considered as well (if we do not get any F-35s), for the broader replacement of our whole fleet.

Yes, the fact that we will (presumably) be operating some Super Hornets at the time we consider replacing our fleet wholesale will most likely be weighed in the decision making process (it would be irresponsible not to, frankly); but we have cancelled no commitments, we are paying no penalties, and we are still a partner in the F-35 program.

At the same time, we'll have better capabilities to meet our commitments until the F-35 comes online (or we select a different plane and that is procured) because we have the Super Hornets.

That doesn't sound like the Sea King situation at all to me.

[Grey Fox]

My opinion on this is well documented. We don't need planes, we need boats.

[viper37]

We need a bunch of planes in the medium term to replace our current air fleet. That procurement decision is going to be between the F-35 and other planes of that generation.

No, we don't need new planes in the short to medium term.  We need planes in the long term, which was Harper's plan.

However, the F-35 is not going to be ready for however long and in the meantime - by the current gov't's analysis - we need more planes to be able to maintain our commitments in the short term. Thus, they decide to purchase a small number of Super Hornets to tide us over until we can make a decision between the F-35 and competitors at some point in the future.

The F-35 will arrive between 2022 and 2025.  The UK and the US get their first squadron sometime around 2018.

As with any military procurement decision in Canada, you'll find experts who'll decry it as the stupidest most terrible thing ever that's an insult to our military, and you'll find others who'll proclaim that it's a complete and incompetent waste of money and that we really need this other thing instead. That's par for the course these days - across PC and Liberal gov't's - no matter what decision is made.

No military experts has decried the F-35 purchase as a waste of money.  Unless you want to bring post-truth in there...

It is also true that we could have a two year procurement comparison period, and that it'd be great to compare the different contenders in detail.

We can't afford to maintain two different fighters.  We're not a military super power, in case you haven't noticed.

On the other hand, if in the gov't's assessment we need to move on getting at least some new planes now, it seems responsible to actually do so now.

Such blind faith in a corrupt government...  You Faith will be rewarded, one day, I guess.

So absent evidence of impeachable ulterior motives (i.e. corruption) I don't see much to the complaints about this decision other than typical partisan posturing and military kvetching.

There is ample evidence that it is a bad decision aimed only at disqualifying the F-35 by giving and undue advantage to Boeing.  The rest is largely irrelevant.  Corruption or incompetence, it's the same problem.

[Jacob]

In BC local news the gov't car insurance has come out and said they might have to raise rates a ridiculous amount - in excess of 40% over the next few years. There was a weak attempt to blame drivers of "expensive cars" because they're expensive to repair but a potentially more relevant fact is that the gov't has withdrawn almost $1 billion as "optional excess capital" from the corporation from 2013-2017.

There's an election coming up shortly - I wonder if this will have an impact.

[Jacob]

That's all well and good Viper. Do you have any suggestion why the gov't wants to give Boeing an undue advantage other than "incompetence or corruption"?

[viper37]

That's all well and good Viper. Do you have any suggestion why the gov't wants to give Boeing an undue advantage other than "incompetence or corruption"?

They promised to abandon the F-35 purchase during their campaign.  Right now, they have information in their hands telling them it's the best solution for Canada, and despite the huge costs, it is probably gonna cost less maintenance over time and benefit our industries more than buying the Rafale or any other plane.

So, they need a way to achieve their promise, otherwise they would look like fools.  In 4 years time, it will be either them, picking a CF-18E or another government making another choice they can criticize at will.

They're simply trying to get out of an uncomfortable spot to save their image.  When it's the only thing you have, you try to preserve it, I guess.

[crazy canuck]

In BC local news the gov't car insurance has come out and said they might have to raise rates a ridiculous amount - in excess of 40% over the next few years. There was a weak attempt to blame drivers of "expensive cars" because they're expensive to repair but a potentially more relevant fact is that the gov't has withdrawn almost $1 billion as "optional excess capital" from the corporation from 2013-2017.

There's an election coming up shortly - I wonder if this will have an impact.

I think you missed a decimal point there Jacob.  The increase is 4.9%.  And the increase is mainly because of a dramatic increase in accidents and that increase is likely because of distracted drivers.  We don't know yet what the regulator will actually approve.  The rates are not set by the government.

[Jacob]

I think you missed a decimal point there Jacob.  The increase is 4.9%.  And the increase is mainly because of a dramatic increase in accidents and that increase is likely because of distracted drivers.  We don't know yet what the regulator will actually approve.  The rates are not set by the government.

4.9% next year.  42% over the next five.

http://www.news1130.com/2016/11/23/icbc-floats-possible-42-per-cent-rate-hike/

[HVC]

Links not working on my phone for some reason, but is insurance higher or lower than the Canadian average?

[Jacob]

Links not working on my phone for some reason, but is insurance higher or lower than the Canadian average?

Higher IIRC.

[crazy canuck]

I think you missed a decimal point there Jacob.  The increase is 4.9%.  And the increase is mainly because of a dramatic increase in accidents and that increase is likely because of distracted drivers.  We don't know yet what the regulator will actually approve.  The rates are not set by the government.

4.9% next year.  42% over the next five.

http://www.news1130.com/2016/11/23/icbc-floats-possible-42-per-cent-rate-hike/

That report is incredibly misleading.  Another reason why people need to read newspapers more and depend on internet "news" sites less.  Yes it is a plug to keep Josephus and people like him in business, but someone has to do it. 

In fact those numbers come from a worst case cost projection from ICBC in its application for the current rate hike before the BCUC (the regulator that approves the rate increases).  The worst case scenario was 40%.  The midrange was 25% over the same period and the best case was 16% if the prevention programs ICBC has put in place work as they hope.

[viper37]

Auditor general slams the Federal government.  Predictable.

Full report

Globe&Mail: "Government consistently fails to fix mistakes, Auditor-General says "

Canada's Auditor-General says the federal government must adjust the way it does business after a broad evaluation in which he says departments fail to consider whether their services actually benefit Canadians, cannot stay ahead of emerging trends, and do not correct inadequacies even after they have been pointed out.

In marking the mid-point of his 10-year term, Michael Ferguson used his fall report to take an unusual step back from the assessments of specific programs to point to more systemic problems. Parliament, said Mr. Ferguson, uses his reports to learn about things that have gone wrong but does not ensure that changes are made to set them right.

"What about programs that are managed to accommodate the people running them rather than the people receiving the services?" asked Mr. Ferguson. "I am also talking about problems like regulatory bodies that cannot keep up with the industries they regulate, and public accountability reports that fail to provide a full and clear picture of what is going on..."
[...]

It didn't take them long to make Canada bad again

[Grey Fox]

Them? That's all Harper's fault!

[Barrister]

Links not working on my phone for some reason, but is insurance higher or lower than the Canadian average?

From my experience with Manitoba Public Insurance, the answer is a big "it depends".  If you're in a high risk group, such as a young driver, government-run insurance tends to be a fair bit cheaper.  If you're in a low risk group though private insurance such as Alberta is cheaper.  All because government-run insurance is willing to use one group to subsidize the other, whereas in private insurance each group much stand on its own.