Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Monday, April 09, 2012

Cabinet ‘maintained fiction’ on F-35s’ true $25-billion price tag, knew it could cost election

The government “maintained the fiction” that the F-35s purchase was at least $10-billion less than its real cost throughout last May’s election “come hell or high water” because they knew it could cost them the election, say opposition MPs.

Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough-Guildwood, Ont.) told The Hill Times last Thursday—after Auditor General Michael Ferguson confirmed Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his Cabinet knew before the federal election last year the forecast cost of the F-35 stealth jet was $10-billion higher than what the government claimed publicly—that the minority Conservative government of the day knew it could not afford to disclose the true cost of the program before or during the election caused by a contempt of Parliament vote on March 25, 2011.

“They stayed with their number through the election, come hell or high water, because they didn’t want to be faced with questions about why they hadn’t revealed that number prior to the election. They had to maintain the fiction through the entire election period,” Mr. McKay told The Hill Times.

“If you go through the sequence of events, even in 2010 they had to know. If you didn’t know you were actually dead under a rock. Then the Parliamentary Budget Officer comes out in 2011 and says, ‘$10-billion out, easily $10-billion out’ and they demonized the PBO and said [to themselves] ‘We’re prepared to risk this.’ They can never, under any circumstances, at that point when the PBO comes out or when the motion for contempt comes up, or the call for the election, or during the election, ever say one word about it,” Mr. McKay said.

Mr. Ferguson disclosed in his report to Parliament on the F-35 project last week that the Department of National Defence had been aware since June, 2010, that the forecast cost of the entire project, including acquisition, operation and maintenance of the 65 jets had mushroomed to at least $25.1-billion.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page previously estimated the F-35 procurement would ultimately cost $29-billion. In response to that report last March, the Department of National Defence informed Parliament the cost would be $14.7-billion over its lifetime. In its response to Mr. Page, the department omitted $5.3-billion worth of personnel, operating and maintenance lifetime fleet costs.

The government has promised it will not continue with a plan to begin acquiring the jets by 2017 until DND comes up with accurate cost projections and a new secretariat overseen by deputy ministers from other departments is set up to manage the project to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 Hornet fighter planes.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) said in Question Period last Thursday that the government is “going many steps further” than what the AG recommends in his report. “The member knows full well that the Auditor General made one recommendation and that is that the Department of National Defence refine their cost estimates for the F-35 and table those in Parliament,” she said, responding to a question from NDP MP Christine Moore (Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Que.). “We want accountability, transparency and value for tax dollars. We will ensure that this is managed through an independent process outside of the Department of National Defence through a secretariat set up to manage the replacement of the CF-18 going forward. We have frozen the funding. I am glad to hear that the Auditor General said today that the government is moving in the right direction.”

In his spring report, Mr. Ferguson, whom Mr. Harper appointed as auditor general last November, harshly criticized National Defence for its management of the program and its failure to release the true costs. He did not specifically say Cabinet was aware of the cost figures that were being hidden.

At the Public Accounts Committee last Thursday, however, after a question from Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Nfld.) that was sparked by a Hill Times report, the auditor general confirmed National Defence at the time would have had cost forecasts in past years. The government has now promised it will provide them to Parliament as the project to replace the CF-18s continues.

In a scrum after his committee appearance, Mr. Ferguson told reporters that the “executive” —Cabinet—would have been aware in March, 2011, of the $25.1-billion cost.

“I can’t speak to sort of an exact date [but] at the point in time to respond to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s number, yes, it’s my understanding that the government had that number. That was their internal estimate, and they should have used that as the opportunity to come forward with the full cost information,” Mr. Ferguson said in response to questions. “How often they were coming forward or if they were the exact ones that you are referring to I can’t say, but we did see times throughout this process where information was coming forward from that program, with cost estimates.”

When pressed about Mr. Ferguson’s use of the word ‘government,’ he replied: “Certainly I think it would have been known all the way through the decision process within government.  It would have been primarily members of the executive, yes.”

On April 26, 2011, less than a week before the May 2 general election, Mr. Harper again insisted the government’s public estimate of the F-35 cost was accurate, despite reports from the U.S. that just the original purchase price had increased by $1.6-billion for all 65 planes.

“On the cost of the F-35, you heard me say many times before, many of these reports that you are citing are comparing apples to oranges,” Mr. Harper told reporters at the time. “Our [DND] experts have put out their detailed figures, and everything we’ve seen is within those figures and their contingencies, the contingencies that have been allowed.”

The opposition parties defeated Mr. Harper’s minority government last  year on a Liberal motion that endorsed a finding by the Procedure and House Affairs Committee that the Conservative government was in contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose internal estimates of the costs that would be incurred by a series of government crime and penal bills that experts said would sharply increase Canada’s prison population. The Liberal Party had also promised to vote against the federal budget over planned corporate tax cuts and the F-35s. Then-NDP leader Jack Layton had also promised to vote against the budget, as had the Bloc Québécois.

The issue of Cabinet knowing the full cost of the F-35s but hid it from Parliament dominated Question Period last Thursday.

“The auditor general suggested this morning that Conservative ministers knew they were low-balling the cost estimates in response to the PBO’s report and we want to know when they knew that information, when they knew that the PBO’s estimates were accurate. It is clear that they knew before the last election and failed to tell Canadians the truth,” said NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.). “Conservatives used to say that they stood for ministerial responsibility but not a single minister has stood up to say this happened under his or her watch. No minister has ever said this is his or her responsibility. Will no minister ever stand up and take responsibility for this fiasco?”

In a related twist on the F-35 controversy last week, interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Ont.) accused the government of breaching MPs’ privilege by claiming the government supported the conclusions found in Mr. Ferguson’s report.

The report itself stated that National Defence and the Public Works Department—in positions that would have been endorsed by Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) and Ms. Ambrose—did not agree with two of Mr. Ferguson’s conclusions about their actions.

Mr. Rae accused the government of attempting to mislead Parliament over its position.

Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.) said last week that his party would continue to press the government on this issue.

“I think people are not yet fully aware of just how serious that auditor general’s report is. It’s extremely serious because what it says is that essentially there was absolutely no transparency on this, the biggest military program ever in the history of this country and what it is also clearly demonstrating is that the ministers responsible for it were derelict in their duties,” he told The Hill Times. “And by the way, nothing will happen to the minister of National Defence, nothing will happen to the minister of Public Works, who failed, failed very badly in their accountability to the Canadian people and Parliament. We can bring out all the quotes on where they misled Parliament. We’re going to continue on this one.”

Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz

No comments:

Post a Comment