The standoff, which a Conservative MP confirmed along with opposition members of the House Public Accounts Committee, could force a resumption of the inquiry in September, despite the federal government’s desire to shut the hearings down now after hearing only seven hours of witness testimony.
Details of the filibuster are sketchy because of confidentiality provisions that took effect on May 17 when Conservative MP Andrew Saxton (Vancouver North, B.C.) moved the committee into in-camera status to deal with a motion he moved that would have had the committee begin writing a report to the Commons on May 29 from the inquiry into Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s scathing April report on the $25-billion F-35 project.
The committee has held four in-camera meetings since Mr. Saxton moved his closure motion, and as of the latest session on Thursday, the motion had still not passed, with one Conservative telling The Hill Times the opposition has been “doing all the talking.”
NDP MP Malcolm Allen (Welland, Ont.) confirmed after Thursday’s meeting that he is determined the committee will continue meeting until the government agrees to at the least put the deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, Robert Fonberg, forward as a witness to explain a glaring contradiction between his testimony at an earlier meeting and evidence from Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. Ferguson told the committee the government and National Defence had established a total budget of $25-billion as early as 2008 for the acquisition and follow-up maintenance and sustainment of the F-35 fighter jets, none of which have yet been purchased by Canada, even though the government did not announce a decision to buy the jets until July 2010. Mr. Ferguson also said in his report, and at committee testimony, that the government and National Defence withheld $10-billion worth of estimated operating costs during the period, including a report to Parliament shortly before the 2011 federal election.
Mr. Fonberg said Mr. Ferguson was wrong about the 2008 budget and said he did not know where Mr. Ferguson’s estimate came from. Mr. Ferguson responded at a subsequent meeting: “We didn’t do any of our own estimates or analysis. All the numbers included in the (F-35) chapter are numbers we got from National Defence.”
Mr. Allen told The Hill Timesthe contradiction has to be cleared up, and that the NDP has tabled a motion calling on the committee to report to the House a possible contempt of Parliament because of the discrepancy.
“I would hope the government would want Mr. Fonberg to come back and defend himself. I think it’s patently unfair of the government not to allow him to defend himself, come back to the committee and earlier substantiate his earlier testimony or refute it,” Mr. Allen said.
Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-Baie Verte-St. Barbe, Nfld.), a member of the committee, said a motion that the NDP moved in one of the earlier closed-door meetings, calling for more witnesses and report writing to begin on May 31, shows that the NDP was ready to go along with the government plan to end the hearings, although its condition was further witness testimony.
The NDP subsequently withdrew that motion, with the unanimous support of all MPs in a subsequent in-camera meeting, and Mr. Allen insisted the New Democrats had no intention of giving up with more witnesses.
“I made it clear we’re not finished with the F-35 file, I know Gerry wants to suggest we are, we’re not,” Mr. Allen told The Hill Timeson Thursday. “As the official opposition, we believe it is incomplete and there is testimony that needs to be heard and we’re doing our best to continue to explore ways and help the government understand that we ought to have those discussions.”
Mr. Byrne, who at one point also withdrew a sub-amendment of his own on Mr. Saxton’s motion, noted that two of his motions from the beginning of the inquiry also remain on the table. Those motions call for new witnesses from the F-35 project office at National Defence, as well as confidential documents related to the procurement.
Mr. Byrne said testimony from Mr. Fonberg alone will not be enough to determine whether he is in contempt of Parliament.
“I would argue that in order to test Fonberg, to provide an informed report to Parliament about Fonberg’s testimony, we actually have got to hear not only from Fonberg’s superior, the minister [Defence Minister Peter MacKay], but also the chief of defence staff and Fonberg’s subordinates, some of his junior officials,” Mr. Byrne said.
Meanwhile, the powerful Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Senate delivered more bad news for the United States, Canada, and seven other countries that are part of a consortium that has agreed to contribute to the development of the sophisticated F-35, being built by the largest U.S. defence supplier, Lockheed Martin of Fort Worth, Texas.
The committee warned that delays, mushrooming costs for F-35 testing, and development and unexpected problems— including the discovery of a potentially serious fault on a part of the aircraft that is “critical” to its electronic warfare capability—could make the warplane too expensive for the U.S. as well as Canada and the other partners in the project.
The U.S. Armed Services Committee—in a report to the Senate that otherwise authorized $631.4-billion in U.S. defence spending for 2013—was particularly worried about delays in software development and delivery. The F-35 requires an unprecedented 24 million lines of computer codes to run its weaponry and avionics systems.
“The committee is similarly concerned about production quality and whether it is sufficient to ensure the delivery of JSF aircraft to the U.S. and its allies at an affordable price,” the report states.
“The average rate of scrap, rework, and repair at the prime contractor's main manufacturing facility from 2009 through the first 2 months of 2012 gives rise to concern,” it goes on. “Inattention to production quality also appears to have contributed to discovery of a potentially serious issue with an aperture on the aircraft critical to its electronic warfare capability. While the full extent of this problem is presently unknown, it underscores the fact that DOD and the contractor team must rigorously manage production quality.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment