Treasury Board President Tony Clement (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.) tabled a new yearly planning report for the F-35 project in the Commons last Tuesday which shows the government expects its first aircraft delivery in 2017, one year later than an initial timetable set last year.
The report was produced despite the government’s earlier claims, following a scathing report on the project from Auditor General Michael Ferguson on April 3, that the F-35 plan wasn’t a done deal and, at one point, suggesting it was even considering other aircraft for replacement of Canada’s aging CF-18 jet fighters.
The annual Department of National Defence report on plans and priorities, including the jet project, was buried in a sheaf of reports Mr. Clement tabled in a virtually vacant House a few seconds after 10 a.m., between Speaker Andrew Scheer’s (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) opening and routine tabling of petitions by backbench MPs.
The report has the same title as the first such report for the project, tabled last June, but contains major changes, including a new acquisition timetable, despite government statements as late as last week that “no decision” has been made to purchase the jets, and expected spending approval from the Treasury Board committee of cabinet by next year.
And—despite a firestorm that engulfed the government following Mr. Ferguson’s April report that DND failed to disclose $10-billion worth of F-35 costs to Parliament prior to the 2011 federal election—a spokesman for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino (Vaughan, Ont.) told The Hill Times last week it is “not correct” to assume from recent ministerial statements that the government intends to hold a new competition to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter jets.
“This is not correct,” Chris McCluskey, Mr. Fantino’s communications director, told The Hill Times in an email when he was asked whether it was correct to conclude whether the government was starting all over, following four hours of questioning Mr. Fantino and Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) underwent during a special session of a Committee of the Whole House of Commons last Wednesday evening, May 9.
While evading direct answers to questions, Mr. Fantino and Mr. MacKay left the impression that, following Mr. Ferguson’s report, the project was not still in the advanced stages that National Defence had claimed as late as last year in a planning report to the Commons.
In response to a question from NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.) at one point in the session, Mr. Fantino said: “I would like to remind the member that no decision has been taken. We are awaiting, as recommended by the auditor general, the response to his concerns with regard to various issues. A secretariat has been put in place to develop independent response and validate those answers. No decision has been taken. I do not know how many more times I have to keep repeating that.
“We have not determined that the F-35 will be the replacement for our aging CF-18s,” Mr. Fantino, who last year took over all National Defence procurement management from Mr. MacKay, said in another response. “Those decisions are not as yet made, and the Member knows that.”
In another exchange, with Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough-Guildwood, Ont.), Mr. Fantino suggested that operational requirements for the CF-18—a critical issue which Mr. Ferguson accused the Public Works Department of failing to scrutinize as the legal procurement authority for the new aircraft—have not yet been developed. National Defence has claimed the operational requirements were established before the federal cabinet decided, sometime prior to July 15, 2010, that Canada would acquire the F-35s.
“At this point in time, we do not have all of the requisite requirements detailed. Those issues will be forthcoming once a definite decision is made. That decision will be forthcoming,” said Mr. Fantino.
Mr. McCluskey, when asked if he could explain the F-35 project planning report Mr. Clement tabled in the Commons, in light of repeated assurances from the government over the past month that no decision has been made to acquire the F-35, stated: “Yes, we’ve been a partner in the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter Program] since 1997.”
Mr. McCluskey also referred a journalist to the so-called “seven-step” plan the government announced as its plan to re-shape the fighter replacement program following Mr. Ferguson’s report.
The main points of the plan include creation of a new secretariat within Public Works, rather than National Defence, to oversee the project under the supervision of a panel of deputy ministers and a freeze on what the government has claimed to be a $9-billion price tag for acquisition of the plane from Lockheed Martin through the U.S. Department of Defence.
“The Department of National Defence will continue to evaluate options to sustain a Canadian Forces fighter capability well into the 21st Century,” said the plan, released the same day Mr. Ferguson tabled his report in April.
That sentence left the impression the government was open to aircraft replacements other than the F-35, now several years behind its original production schedules with costs of both acquisition and lifetime sustainment rising steadily over the past three years. There were jokes about the government’s sincerity in light of the name the government at that time gave the new oversight group—F-35 Secretariat.
The name has since been changed to the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat, required even email signature changes at National Defence media relations offices.
The government and Canadian Forces officials, speaking on background agreements, continue to say Canada would buy the F-35s at peak production levels when costs are lowest through economy of scale.
Former procurement officer Alan Williams, who supervised the Joint Strike Fighter Program as assistant deputy minister of National Defence until 2005 and is a leading opponent of the government’s current plan to acquire the aircraft without competition, says the cost will only continue to rise.
“This is a cost they always try to play, ‘Trust us, the costs are going to go down in the future,’” said Mr. Williams.
The latest U.S. Department of Defence F-35 cost estimate to the U.S. Congress, presented to the Senate and the House of Representatives on March 29, shows that the cost for the Air Force variant of the aircraft that Canada planned to buy is now expected to be a minimum of $86.55-million, compared to the government’s estimate of $75-million only two years ago.
The U.S. Department of Defence estimates the cost of operating and maintaining the F-35 will be 42 per cent higher than current jet fighters, while the Canadian Department of National Defence has insisted those costs will be roughly the same as for the CF-18s.
Following a controversial statement by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page that National Defence had “two sets of books” for the F-35s—one with costs totalling $14.7-billion that was presented to Parliament and the public and the other with costs totalling $25.1-billion that was provided to Cabinet in March 2011—the government response to the controversy acquired a nuance suggesting other aircraft might be considered.
The new tone came also on the same day the Deputy Minister of National Defence, Ron Fonberg, told the House Public Accounts Committee that Cabinet, not National Defence, made the decision to exclude $10-billion in operating and personnel costs along with the figures the government submitted to Parliament and made public.
“What the government has said is that it is responding specifically to the recommendation of the auditor general,” Mr. Harper said that day.
“The government is going beyond those recommendations in ensuring we re-examine all aspects of this to ensure that before we spend any budget, because we have not yet spent any budget on acquisition, we make sure we have all the answers that cabinet requires,” Mr. Harper said.
Mr. MacKay also seemed to go further than before.
“As the Prime Minister has stated, there has been no money spent on acquisition. We will continue, under the guidance of Public Works, to look at this project for the replacement of the aging CF-18s,” Mr. MacKay said in Question Period that day.
“What I have just said is that we will continue to move forward, with the guidance of Public Works, in a comprehensive review of this important procurement. There is a process now in place that will inject greater transparency, greater communications with Parliament and the public, and independent oversight, and this secretariat will provide the answers that are needed by Canada and by the country, to ensure we have the right aircraft at the right price for our country,” said Mr. MacKay.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment