A few years ago the company I worked for decided to explore extending one of its brands into the healthy snack market. We got together with a couple of partners, invested some money, and began to develop a prototype of the product. After a few months, there was a sample snack product produced, and we evaluated our position.
And we walked away from the product.
There was nothing wrong with the snack, it was tasty and our market research showed that it would have a niche popularity. But we decided that the product was too far removed from our existing brand and demographic, and wouldn’t allow us to leverage our marketing or sales channels effectively. So we left the product to our partners and walked away.
The Chretien Government invested in a program, with our allies, to develop a new fighter jet. The resulting aircraft, the F-35, is a state-of-the-art fighter that is absolutely one of the coolest, most expensive toys I have ever seen. It may well be the best aircraft we could possible get to protect Canada’s sovereignty for the next 30 years or so.
But I don’t know that for sure. And I would argue that neither does Peter McKay, Rona Ambrose or Tony Clement. They don’t know, because they have never gone through the process of determining whether or not this new fighter is appropriate for the missions it will fly. Some would argue that they haven’t even properly defined what those missions might be. There are a few competing jets that might be more appropriate for our needs out there, but the Conservatives have refused to allow those companies to bid on this contract.
Our investment in the F-35 was an investment in the future. We got together with our allies and tried to jointly develop the best fighter jet we could for our needs. But times have changed since the mid-90s, and so have the needs of our military. What is wrong with spending the relatively short amount of time required to ensure that the F-35 is indeed the best jet for our needs?
Using the investment Chretien made as the excuse for the sole source contract is just ridiculous. Just like my company and the snack product, you have to be willing to walk away from a product that doesn’t meet the needs of your organization, no matter how much money you have invested in it. It is simply irresponsible on the part of the government to continue down a path without periodically checking the suitability of the destination.
