Opposition MPs told The Hill Times on Wednesday a paragraph from the ministerial statement, released on Tuesday after Mr. Ferguson tabled a scathing report in Parliament about National Defence mismanagement and possible deception as it steered the F-35 stealth jet program along, is further evidence the majority Conservative government should allow an investigation by the Commons Public Accounts Committee.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.), Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.), Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino (Vaughan, Ont.) and Industry Minister Industry Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L’Érable, Que.) released the statement on Tuesday after Mr. Ferguson lambasted the Defence Department for failing to inform “decision-makers” and even Mr. MacKay about troubles the F-35 project experienced at its Lockheed Martin development centre in the U.S. and the cost those problems were adding to the eventual purchase price of the fighter jets.
Mr. Ferguson reported National Defence knew the F-35s would cost Canada a total of $25-billion for acquiring the fleet of 65 jets and operation and maintenance over 20 years when it told Parliament in March 2011 the cost would be $14.7- billion.
The ministers said the government, in response to the auditor general’s report, is freezing the “funding envelope” for the F-35 project and will transfer its management and oversight from National Defence to a new “F-35 secretariat” within Public Works, with a committee of unspecified deputy ministers to provide oversight.
“The Department of National Defence, through the F-35 Secretariat, will provide annual updates to Parliament,” the ministerial statement also said. “These updates will be tabled within a maximum of 60 days from receipt of annual costing forecasts from the Joint Strike Fighter program office, beginning in 2012.”
The Hill Timessought confirmation from the communications directors for Mr. Fantino and Mr. MacKay at noon on Wednesday that the reference to “annual costing forecasts from the Joint Strike Fighter program office” in the United States meant that Canada and the other countries participating in the project had been receiving annual cost forecasts since they signed a memorandum of understanding to take part in the program in 2006.
But by 6 p.m., neither office had responded to the question.
The Public Affairs Office of the Joint Strike Fighter Program office in the U.S. Defence Department also did not respond to emailed questions about the annual costing forecasts.
The Congressional budget officer in Washington has had access to information about cost escalations for the F-35s through its development and production of prototype aircraft, but the Canadian government has brushed off questions in Parliament that news reports of the new costs sparked over the past two years.
Mr. Ferguson’s report did not mention annual costing forecasts that National Defence may have received from the Joint Strike Fighter Program U.S. headquarters, but it said “…the JSF program has experienced cost increases, schedule delays, and technological difficulties, and has been subject to several major reviews. Officials from National Defence who participated in the senior decision-making committees of the JSF Program were regularly informed of these problems.”
“Yet in briefing materials from 2006 through 2010 that we have reviewed, neither the Minister [Mr. MacKay] nor decision-makers in National Defence and central agencies were kept informed of these problems and the associated risks of relying on the F-35 to replace the CF-18 [Canada’s aging current jet fighter],” the report said department or the project managers in the department had prepared for Cabinet, the statement means low-level military officials deliberately hid the information from senior officers as well as Mr. MacKay and the Cabinet.
“The department did not acknowledge that the decision to purchase the F-35 was well under way four years before it was officially announced [by Mr. MacKay in 2010],” Mr. Ferguson told a news conference after presenting his report to Parliament.
“National Defence … did not provide Parliament with complete cost information or fully-informed decision makers about the risks of this program,” he said. “National Defence did not exercise the diligence that would be expected in managing a $25-billion commitment.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and Mr. MacKay brushed off demands in the Commons that Mr. MacKay resign over the controversy, either because he was aware of the difficulties and rising costs and did not inform Cabinet or because he failed to ensure National Defence provided him with the information he needed to keep the government informed.
Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Nfld.) told The Hill Times the reference to annual costing forecasts from the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter Program office, which includes Canadian defence officials and officials from the other participating countries, suggests the Canadian military in Ottawa was receiving yearly updates.
“The wording of that paragraph does create the impression that this is an existing practice that has not been disclosed and would form part of the failure to disclose to key decision makers,” Mr. Byrne said. “It must be probed further and shows that the Public Affairs Committee must engage in a study of the auditor general’s findings and recommendations.”
New Democrat MP Malcom Allen (Welland, Ont.), also a member of the House Public Accounts Committee, said the government’s response to questions in the Commons on Wednesday, when Mr. Harper, Mr. MacKay and Ms. Ambrose said the government agreed with Mr. Ferguson’s recommendations, means the government should go ahead with an opposition proposal for an in-depth investigation by the Public Accounts Committee.
“If the government is now saying in the House that it agrees with the report, then I think at the very least it wants to investigate what happened,” Mr. Allen said.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment