I don't hate anyone, and I'm certainly not out to fling insults at anyone. But I am passionate about reforming the Liberal Party, and I don't intend to stay quiet when I feel incorrect actions are being taken. Every member is entitled to a say, and every member has both the right and responsibility to speak their mind freely and openly. We have a major reform process ahead of us, and the only way it's going to be successful is if everyone speaks up. Some may call it infighting. I prefer to call it healthy debate, and I think the fact people are passionate and care about the future of our party is a good thing, not a bad sign.

John Biard and Pierre P. have an election rally in Ottawa Saturday. The Conservative candidate in Kingston put up a billboard this week. I'm sure this clearly proves something too, or something.

There is the program, and there is negation. Israel, for example, was not a consortium member. It agreed to buy a smaller number of jets than Canada, and got guarantees of business for Israeli companies at a dollar figure above what the contract value of the jets.

I will stipulate that Canadian companies would get a bigger piece of future F-35 business if we buy the the F-35. I have two points here though. One, there is time to have a competitive process and, if we pick the F-35, let Canadian companies win or bid on that business. Second, if we buy another jet instead of the F-35, that contract will also see lots of business for Canadian companies. So either way, the business will be there for Canadian business.

One of the early criticisms Dominic LeBlanc made about the CPC F-35 policy was failure to secure guarantees for Canadian business. I think Andrew wrote a piece about it a few months back.

Finally, the "competitive bidding process" between Lockheed and Boeing was decided by the US/UK to specifications set by them. Canada has different needs, and should have its own process. Even if your friends like the car you should still shop around, and at least try to get the dealer to come down a bit off sticker.

Actually, he wrote:

"The decision to buy a new fleet of jets, as the Tories like to point out, was made by the previous Liberal government. "

My comment is a valiant attempt to point out the factual inaccuracy of that statement.

We benefited from the program to the tune of hundreds of millions in business for Canadian aerospace companies, creating or sustaining hundreds of jobs.

And I don't know what the best jet is for Canada's needs. That's why I want a competitive tender process. To find out, and to get the best deal possible. It's really pretty simple.

Sore? Don't be silly. But you may want to note that the defence needs of Canada are different than those of the U.S., and therefore the jet that is best to fit American needs might not be the best fit for us.

No, you either misunderstand the program or are being deliberately obtuse. When the Liberals decided to participate in the JSF program, there was no F-35. This was a program to invite aircraft manufacturers to design and submit an aircraft that would be the next-generation fighter aircraft for the two primary program countries, the U.S. and the U.K. Lockheed Martin and Boeing participated, and each built a prototype aircraft to specifications set by the US and UK.

To help defray the cost of this process, other countries were invited to join the program. They could choose certain levels of investment to help fund development and, in exchange, their industry would be able to bid on development contracts. These companies would also gain an inside track on contracts once a model was selected and went into production. It is this development process that the Liberal government joined, and it was under this process that Canadian aerospace companies have won hundreds of millions in JSF-related contracts.

None of that had anything to do with buying F-35s or not. This all began before there ever was an F-35. That is what happened under the Liberal government.

Fast-forward to today. The Conservatives claim that in order to secure additional contracts for F-35 work for Canadian industry, Canada needs to commit to the jets today. They want you to think business already won will disappear if we don't. The latter is untrue, according to anyone who has actually read the JSF program details. All contracts to date were awarded under the earlier industrial process.

Now, would additional contracts and business be open to Canada if they buy these jets? No doubt. But this would be the case no matter what jets we buy. And we don't need to buy now to make sure we get this business. And here's where the two parties diverge. The Conservatives aren't requiring guarantees of a $ figure for Canadian business as part of the purchase process; the Liberals want to make a set commitment of busienss for Canadian industry as party of the competitive contracting process.

"The decision to buy a new fleet of jets, as the Tories like to point out, was made by the previous Liberal government. "

NO. No it was not. The previous Liberal government decided to participate in the JSF project so that Canadian industry could bid on and win contracts under the program. The investment the government paid has been returned in plenty in contract wins by Canadian companies for JSF-related work.

This is completely separate from deciding that the F-35 is the right jet to replace the CF-18s. The previous government did not agree or decide to buy whatever jet would come out of the JSF process. That decision was to be made much later, after the JSF program produced a model (which turned out to be Lockheed's F-35), which would then be evaluated against other aircraft to determine the best for Canada's needs in a competitive process.

The Tories like to claim the Liberals decided to buy these jets. But a simple evaluation of the facts shows this to be a lie, and it should be called out as such rather that portrayed as fact. If you don't believe me, believe Alan Williams, who was ADM at DND at the time and testified about this to the defence committee.

The thing to keep in mind with those numbers is Harper has that 32% all to himself, while Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe and May all fight for that 62%.

The first set of numbers speak to Harper's inability to grow beyond his base and broaden his support to majority levels. The second set of numbers speak to the challenge of coalescing the anti-Harper sentiment, although it shows the opportunity is there.

First, because Conservative ads during the 2006 and 2008 writ periods tended to be less of a one-note attack on their opponents. Harper spent those campaigns seeking to close the deal with a broader electorate, some of it averse to hard partisanship.

I must say the multi-note, broader appeal, softer partisanship nature of this round of 2008 Conservative campaign period ads that got heavy commercial rotation escapes me:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/a...

I think you were on your way to a point, though. Drop the writ and a) there's a campaign spending cap (in and out activities side) and b) the cash-strapped opposition that can't afford to advertise outside a writ WILL be advertising within a writ. That would change the playing field.