Skip to main content

Defence Minister Peter MacKay(left)and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose(right) take part in a news conference on report regarding the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday December 12, 2012.

FRED CHARTRAND/THE CANADIAN PRESS

And then there were two.

After years of everyone from the Prime Minister to rookie Tory backbenchers staunchly and defiantly defending the purchase of the F-35 fighter jet as the only choice for Canada, the task of admitting that maybe it isn't was thrust into the hands of two cabinet ministers.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose were forced for almost an hour Wednesday into singing from the government's new song sheet on the fighter jets.

Story continues below advertisement

They strode smiling into the news conference following the release of an external auditor's report on the F-35, but left clearly spent by the effort.

The KPMG report warned the Lockheed Martin-built jets could cost Canada as much as $45.8-billion over 42 years.

The report said the $9-billion set aside by the Defence Department won't be enough to cover the planned purchase of 65 jets.

So the government has now announced the entire process is under review.

The decision came not only after repeated Conservative defence of the planes and the process, but also after heated attacks on anyone who questioned them.

Mr. MacKay felt the heat Wednesday, the questions prompting him to remove his wire-rimmed glasses, tapping them nervously on the table as he was grilled again and again on how the government chose to handle the file.

Pressed on why the government didn't examine all the available options for the plane to start with, he said that's what the new audit report was meant to do.

Story continues below advertisement

Quizzed on whether the government ended up on the hot seat because they'd dodged revealing the true costs of the plane for as long as possible, Mr. MacKay insisted the acquisition costs of the plane hadn't changed.

Prodded as to whether he personally regretted any of their actions on the file at all, he demurred at first to his standard line of being proud of the work the military does and the importance of the process to them.

Yes, but do you regret what you said, he was asked.

"What's important here is that we act on these recommendations, that we deliver to Canadians the certainty, the surety they require that they're getting the right aircraft for our country for the long term and that we're being responsible with taxpayers' dollars," he said.

And that's the rub for the Conservatives.

They've seen their majority grow in each election by selling their record on fiscal management and responsible spending.

Story continues below advertisement

Last Friday, the prime minister also faced the news media for close to an hour on a major new policy on foreign investment that will likely be a legacy for his government.

Yet, Wednesday's mea culpa begins the Christmas season with no celebrations for the Tories as they defend their actions on the F35 file – and their political credibility as solid fiscal managers.

At the same time as they cut spending and public-sector jobs, they'll be left trying to sell to the public the need to spend billions more on planes than expected.

The opposition called for at least for an immediate apology to Canadians.

"You can't move on, you can't move forward until you've admitted that you've got a problem and that you've made mistakes," said the NDP's Matthew Kellway.

"The minister of national defence and the prime minister himself have had ample opportunity to admit that they've made some very serious mistakes over the last two years, misleading Canadians on the price of this jet, on the delays of the jet, on the technical flaws with the jet and we've heard none of that."

Story continues below advertisement

The Liberals said the very process had been corrupted.

"Canadians were misled. Parliament was misled," interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said.

"That is what makes this such a fiasco."

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter