Big Deal For Defence Department

[sneak and peek soldier]

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/02/09/1432637.html

Thu, February 9, 2006
Big deal in defence
By GREG WESTON
(Ottawa Sun columnists - http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Columnists/home.html)
[also found in Toronto Sun website]

Big deal in defence

Among the many political suicide bombs Stephen Harper cleverly planted in his first cabinet, the appointment of former military lobbyist Gordon O'Connor to the pivotal role of defence minister has created a minefield all its own.

At first glance, O'Connor may seem a natural choice to be giving the marching orders at National Defence headquarters.

In a minority government, experience is a definite asset, and as a retired general and the former Conservative defence critic, O'Connor certainly knows his way around both the department and the file. Harper may have also thought he would be sending the military brass and rank-and-file a positive signal by appointing one of their own as political boss.

In opposition, O'Connor was a responsible, hard working, straight-shooter, worthy of a place in the Harper cabinet.

The problem is, he was also a successful military lobbyist, a part of his resume guaranteed to create no end of political and public relations nightmares for himself and for Harper.

Let's start with Harper's core campaign pledge to end what he called the "revolving door" of senior political staff and bureaucrats -- and generals -- who leave government jobs to become high-priced lobbyists to influence their old departments.

That would certainly explain why the new prime minister would instantly make a former defence lobbyist his defence minister, a general who retired to lobby his old department on behalf of military contractors who will now be lobbying him for billions of dollars in giant purchase orders.

The biggest issue that will confront O'Connor in the next year is a plan initiated under the Liberals to all but skip competitive bidding for about $8.5 billion of new aircraft, and simply purchase them in a single package deal. The mega deal, known in the industry as the "four-pack," would include about 20 Chinook helicopters, 15 Italian-made search-and-rescue planes, a dozen Hercules transports, and a couple of giant Russian Antanovs that can move half an army at once.

Proponents of this just-cut-the-cheque approach to government purchasing would argue that open and competitive bidding takes too long, and in the end, the politicians and generals will rig the bids to get the toys they want anyway.

When we first broke the story on this bit of Liberal insanity last September, the then-Conservative defence critic made his views clear: "The problem is once you start abandoning the competitive process," O'Connor told me, "you have no guarantee you're getting the best price. And how do you know you're getting the most effective, efficient piece of equipment?"

Good point, and one that would certainly give O'Connor ample justification for killing the Liberals' mega-buy program now.

There's only one catch: O'Connor comes with lobbying baggage of the ticking variety, set to go off the minute he tries to pull the pin on the bulk purchase.

Virtually all the main aircraft suppliers involved in the proposed purchase are represented by the lobbying firm CFN Consultants, an Ottawa-based arm-twisting shop that has for years been up to its invoices in ex-generals. O'Connor probably knows them all rather well -- they were his direct competitors while he was lobbying for other aircraft companies from his office at Hill and Knowlton, another giant in the influence biz.

How will it look if the new defence minister nixes the $8.5-billion mega-deal that would have made CFN lobbyists rich, and instead opens it to competing bids from his old aircraft clients, a move that would potentially line the pockets of his former lobbying pals at Hill and Knowlton? A review of O'Connor's lobbying records indicates he had dozens of clients vying for defence contracts to supply everything from military planes to parachutes, armoured trucks to garbage pickup.

Shortly after being sworn in as defence minister this week, O'Connor said he no longer has any connection to any company, and that he has no intention of excusing himself from discussions or decisions on anything in his new department.

Asked how he planned to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest, O'Connor snarled: "Just watch me."

He can count on it.

Moderator Edit:
Edited to place text in quote box and to insert correct and full attribution.
Reproduced under the fair dealing exemption of the Copyright Act.

 

[Michael OLeary]

sneak and peak soldier,

Please do not post news articles or columns without proper attribution.  At the least it can appear that you are being careless, at the worst it may be interpreted as outright plagariam.

Thu, February 9, 2006
Big deal in defence
By GREG WESTON
(Ottawa Sun columnists - http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Columnists/home.html)
[also found in Toronto Sun website]

Thu, February 9, 2006
A cabinet minefield?
By GREG WESTON
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/02/09/1432633.html

Apologies to Mr Weston, article reproduced for Army.ca vistors under terms of teh Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright act.

For your future reference, sneak and peek soldier, please review the following:

COPYRIGHT ACT
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html

Exceptions

Fair Dealing

29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright.

R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 29; R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 7; 1994, c. 47, s. 61; 1997, c. 24, s. 18.

29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

    (a) the source; and

    (b) if given in the source, the name of the

        (i) author, in the case of a work,

        (ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,

        (iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or

        (iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

1997, c. 24, s. 18.

29.2 Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

    (a) the source; and

    (b) if given in the source, the name of the

        (i) author, in the case of a work,

        (ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,

        (iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or

        (iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

1997, c. 24, s. 18.

Acts Undertaken without Motive of Gain

29.3 (1) No action referred to in section 29.4, 29.5, 30.2 or 30.21 may be carried out with motive of gain.

(2) An educational institution, library, archive or museum, or person acting under its authority does not have a motive of gain where it or the person acting under its authority, does anything referred to in section 29.4, 29.5, 30.2 or 30.21 and recovers no more than the costs, including overhead costs, associated with doing that act.

1997, c. 24, s. 18.