Rebuilding Canada's current fleet of Hercules aircraft has also been proposed.  This is from the Canadian  American  Strategic  Review site which is hosted by Simon Fraser University, it appears.

Without details being released, it is difficult to assess SAI's proposal. DND would be less than keen to put more money into 40-year airframes. ....  SAI  had also promised earlier delivery than was possible with either the C-130J or the yet-to-be-flown A400M.

Our neighbour to the south might make it possible to move up in the waiting line for the new Super Hercules.  There are a number of planes on order for various countries and for the American military.  Since our need is urgent Lockheed-Martin could be persuaded to allow planes going to the US military to be delivered to us instead.  I am of the opinion that should Canada decide to pull out of Afghanistan that little perk might dry up as a consequence.  I am certainly not saying we should stay just to get new planes.

That's all very interesting, willy - but what is your point ?  More to the point how does it relate to 'progressive politics' ?

The former Liberal government of Paul Martin started the ball rolling on the replacement of our Hercules fleet.  Now in opposition they are not as gung ho about it.

The fact is that Paul Martin's defence policies in 2005 and Conservative policies today are almost identical. Both parties agreed during the last election on the urgent requirement to rebuild the basic capabilities of the Canadian Forces before they fail completely. They both pointed to the existing Hercules fleet as a first priority .....   They both acknowledged that the current defence- procurement process is unreliable and could not produce a replacement for the Hercules in time to forestall the loss of our lift capability entirely.

My point is - what is the role of the opposition ?  Is it their task simply to live up to their title and oppose anything the governing side proposes ?  There is some logic in that.  If the opposition points out the shortcomings and possible pitfalls in a government plan it gives the government the knowledge and opportunity to correct the course of action that all taxpayers will ultimately have to fund ( heck of a theory ).  Should there be any difference because the action relates to military spending ?  The government is tasked with running the country and anticipating it's needs - to coin a phrase " getting it done ".  The opposition plays a valuable balancing role, they are not simply the government in waiting, IMO.  The opposition would not get any brownie points from the government or the media if, when in opposition, they agreed with the course of action that they proposed when in power.  They would, however, be doing the right thing.  And doing the right thing will not necessarily get you votes.

Related to this ThursdayNext, in August of last year, diaried the issue of military procurement - Troubling issue: Defense contracts

It is a view of the bigger picture.

Canadian Military Journal
had an opinion ( pdf ) on aircraft replacement in the winter of 2005 - 2006

Given our track record, most would probably wager that we will fly the CC-130Hs to exhaustion and then not replace them with anything.

I don't believe the deal is all tied up. This CTV article from October 2006 speculates it will be signed in the fall of 2007.  I believe the deal is awaiting Cabinet approval.  It has some points as to why the deal could be opposed.  A little bit of conflict of interest in both the Lockheed and Airbus connections.

Underneath the billion-dollar battle between Lockheed and Airbus is a tangled web of professional and personal relationships in Ottawa's political and lobbyist community.

For example, before he became Canada's top soldier, Hillier was on the staff of General Patrick O'Donnell. O'Donnell retired to head up a consultancy, CFN Consultants, and is now the registered lobbyist for Lockheed Martin. The firm Hill and Knowlton is the registered lobbyist for Airbus. It's chief executive is Michael Coates, who worked on the last two Conservative election campaigns, including coaching Prime Minister Harper for the leaders' debates. Gordon O'Connor, before entering politics, worked as a lobbyist at Hill and Knowlton and one of his clients was Airbus.

On the surface politics looks less than perfect, underneath ......