Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Nfld.) told The Hill Times on Tuesday the government is attempting to “whitewash” the report from the Public Accounts Committee, after Conservative MPs last month ended an NDP filibuster on the panel to send it into in camera sessions to prepare findings after rejecting opposition calls for more witnesses.
The committee, which heard only eight hours of testimony on the planned $25-billion F-35 acquisition before Parliament’s summer recess, has held four in camera meetings since Oct. 2 to hammer out a report, with another session scheduled for Thursday.
But Mr. Byrne and NDP MP Malcolm Allen (Welland, Ont.) indicated government MPs, not the opposition, are causing the delay as both sides go over a draft report that was prepared with the assistance of independent analysts from the Library of Parliament and Commons committee staff.
“I’m fighting every change and every attempt at whitewashing that entire affair, tooth and nail,” Mr. Byrne said, without disclosing exact details of what is going on behind closed doors. “Any issue which is in the least bit controversial or that could be perceived by someone at some point in time as presenting a bit of criticism or rebuke to any actions of the government, it is getting whitewashed.”
Mr. Byrne said Conservative MPs are violating past practices of the Public Accounts Committee, one of three so-called accountability commons of the House that are chaired by the Official Opposition, and remain intent on challenging one of the crucial aspects of Mr. Ferguson’s report concerning full lifecycle cost estimates for the F-35.
Mr. Ferguson, as well as Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, have insisted the cost estimates should include support, operating and maintenance costs over the life of the aircraft. Mr. Page last year included costs over 30 years, and Mr. Ferguson called for at least 35 years.
The government did not include $10-billion in operating costs when it told Parliament last year a fleet of 65 F-35s, which are still in production development and testing stages, would cost a total of $14.7-billion over 20 years. Mr. Ferguson pegged the total bill at $25-billion over 20 years for acquisition, maintenance and operations.
“Language has been subject to some pretty intense debate and some sparring at times, but at the end of the day nobody ever took a report from the auditor general, that was quite scathing about the actions and decision making of the government of Canada, and actually reinvented as if the government was doing the best job anybody could ask for,” Mr. Byrne said.
Mr. Allen was less specific about what has been taking place behind closed doors, but made it clear the government is behind the delays.
He pointed out that the ranking government MP on the committee, B.C. Conservative MP Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, B.C.) told the Commons last June the committee would be “seized” with the F-35 study until it presents a report to the House.
“To use the government’s own terms and Mr. Saxton’s own terms, he said the committee would be seized with the F-35 until it considered [Mr. Ferguson’s April report] up to and including the writing of its final report,” Mr. Allen told The Hill Times. “We’re still seized. We’re seized until it’s done. That’s their decision. As he said in the House under questioning, the committee would be seized, and so far I’m still seized,” he said.
Mr. Saxton returned a note The Hill Times sent to him in the Commons requesting an interview, but replied through a House page that he was unavailable.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) told the Commons on Tuesday the government remains committed—as it stated in a response to Mr. Ferguson’s report—to considering all aircraft options to replace Canada’s aging F-18 fighter jets.
NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.) asked specifically whether the government is considering alternative aircraft.
Ms. Ambrose said a new secretariat established within her department to supervise an acquisition “is in place to ensure due diligence in the replacement of our CF-18s [and] to ensure that all of the steps taken in this acquisition are independently validated. Part of that is the costs, of course, which the auditor general recommended, but the other is to also look at a full range of options to replace the CF-18, so the answer is yes.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: TIM NAUMETZ
No comments:
Post a Comment