MacKay defends Canadian troops involved in allied Afghan combat posts

By The Canadian Press - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – For the second day in row, Defence Minister Peter MacKay fended off Opposition attacks Tuesday over Canadian troops serving in combat roles with allies in Afghanistan.

Fewer than half a dozen members of the military — most of them with the air force — are part of exchange programs with British, Australian and U.S. forces, all of which are still+ engaged in anti-Taliban operations in Kandahar.

New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris accused MacKay of misleading the House of Commons and the public, which expected no Canadians would be in harm’s way after Canada withdrew from southern Afghanistan last year.

Harris also said the exchange program violates the motion passed by the Commons in 2008, which ordered an end to Canadian combat operations by the end of 2011.

MacKay denied the exchange program contravened the motion and says the participation is part of the country’s broader policy of co-operating with allies.

“This is very much about Canada continuing its long-standing commitment to work with our allies in Afghanistan and around the world,” he said.

As Canadian troops made their exit from Kandahar, the Harper government formulated a strict policy to conform with the wishes of Parliament, but in the spring of 2011, National Defence quietly petitioned for an exemption because several soldiers were slated to serve with the U.S Army.

Documents and briefings obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws show that since the exemption, four Canadian soldiers have fought in Kandahar under the flags of other nations.

But the government made a commitment that no Canadian would be involved in combat, Harris said.

“Why can’t we trust the minister and the prime minister at their word? And why won’t Conservatives respect the motion passed by this House of Commons?” he said during question period.

The last time the program came under scrutiny was during the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which the Chretien government refused to join. It did, however, quietly allow several senior officers to serve with American forces in staff positions.

That list includes the country’s top soldier, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, who is about to retire.

However, an email note from National Defence indicates that the government did exercise its option to hold back some soldiers on secondment from participating in combat operations in Iraq.

Canadian Forces “personnel have not been prevented from receiving training and experience in exchange positions,” spokeswoman Lauri Sullivan wrote.

“With the exception of Iraq, CF members have served on exchange with numerous host nations around the world in recent years.”

Indeed, the briefing material indicates that last year, Canada’s deputy top military commander considered ordering three soldiers seconded to the U.S. in Afghanistan to stay back if the government didn’t approve the exemption.

The March 22, 2011 briefing note to the head of the Canadian Army noted that approving the deployment of one soldier without the new policy in place would run the risk that “he would have to be repatriated mid-tour should it be rejected.”

Harris said the government and the military clearly has the option to hold soldiers back if it chooses to do so.

Not enough military staff to fight PTSD: ombudsman

By The Canadian Press - Monday, September 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – Canada’s military ombudsman says National Defence has not hired enough psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals to deal with a tide of post-traumatic stress cases that is hitting its peak.

Pierre Daigle released a hard-hitting report Monday that challenges many of the reassurances the Harper government has given about the treatment of soldiers returning from the Afghan war.

He says there’s a big gap between what the system is capable of delivering and what it actually does for troops who’ve witnessed horrors overseas, and for their families.

The biggest challenge is the department’s “chronic inability” to staff a system of operational stress injury clinics, which have sprung up on bases across the country.

In some instances, the system is operating with 15 to 22 per cent fewer caregivers than needed.

Daigle says the government’s drive to slash the deficit should not touch military mental-health services.

Using a search-and-rescue helicopter for a fishing trip sends the wrong message

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, July 20, 2012 at 11:24 AM - 0 Comments

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue is upset that a search-and-rescue helicopter was used by members of a squadron to go on a fishing trip.

Labrador MP and provincial cabinet minister Peter Penashue says he’s disappointed that the Department of National Defence permitted a military helicopter to be used for a fishing trip in Labrador. ”I think that it sends the wrong message,” said Penashue. “But at the same time I recognize that we hadn’t put anyone at risk.” “It doesn’t help the image, particularly with what we just went through with search and rescue on Labrador.”

Meanwhile, at the Defence Department

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM - 0 Comments

The Citizen discovers why a military truck procurement was halted at the last minute.

The Defence Department had received government approval in 2009 to move forward with the $430 million purchase of 1,500 off-the-shelf medium-sized trucks. But in subsequent years department and military officials began adding more capabilities to what they wanted in the vehicles, bumping the estimated cost to between $730 million and $800 million. And in an unprecedented move DND officials continued on with the acquisition without going back to Treasury Board for approval to cover the extra $300 million to $370 million in costs, according to industry, military and government representatives. 

When Treasury Board and Conservative government officials discovered what was happening they intervened, shutting down the project last week just minutes before bidding was to close. The decision to take such action was aimed at avoiding another publicly embarrassing military procurement for the Conservatives.

Checking DND’s math

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM - 0 Comments

From QP yesterday, Rona Ambrose explains why new cost estimates for the F-35 won’t be released for awhile yet.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the costing figures are available from the joint strike fighter program in the United States, but what we have said is that we want those figures, that would be cost estimates from the Department of National Defence, to be independently validated. The secretariat has asked for more time to do that. It wants to do this comprehensively. It is also looking at independently validating the cost assumptions that the Department of National Defence is using and meeting the recommendation of the Auditor General.

In other news, it’s now been 50 days since I asked Julian Fantino’s office to account for the auditor general’s suggestion that National Defence already had the numbers for a 36-year lifecycle estimate.

The subjective time limit

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM - 0 Comments

When the Harper government offered its seven-point response to the auditor general’s concerns about the F-35 procurement in April, it included the promise of an update within 60 days.

The Department of National Defence, through the F-35 Secretariat, will provide annual updates to Parliament.  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.

Defence officials met with the JSF program office in early May. But instead of providing new estimates 60 days from then, the “National Fighter Procurement Secretariat” has now decided that new figures will have to wait until the fall.

The Secretariat has recommended that the first annual update be tabled in Parliament during the fall of 2012. Careful consideration has been given to the sequencing of the work required. The update needs to meet three conditions: it needs to be complete, it needs to provide a full project update and it needs to be independently verified. These conditions cannot be satisfactorily met prior to the fall.

Update 3:48pm. Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose responds to my suggestion that the seven-point plan was now a six-and-a-half point plan.

Secretariat will deliver on all 7 points. Want more time to independently validate DND’s numbers

Still waiting

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

A new cost estimate for the F-35 apparently won’t be ready until the fall, in contradiction of point three of the Harper government’s seven-point plan to rectify the procurement.

It’s now been 42 days since I asked Julian Fantino’s office to respond to the auditor general’s suggestion that the defence department already had a 36-year lifecycle costing. Those questions were forwarded to the defence department. I’m still waiting to receive the department’s response.

Protecting the minister

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM - 0 Comments

Laura Payton obtains correspondence related to the Defence Minister’s helicopter ride.

An email from Col. Jeff Tasseron, one of Natynczyk’s senior advisers, describes a phone call he got from MacKay’s chief of staff, John MacDonell, about Reid’s support. Describing the phone call as “odd,” Tasseron says MacDonell wanted to make sure there was no retribution against Reid for defending MacKay. 

“He [MacDonell] also made sure I understood that they were dissatisfied that this individual only came out on his own recognizance, rather than as part of a concerted plan to defend the minister,” Tasseron wrote to Natynczyk. ”He is clearly of the opinion that their own office’s handling of this was fine, and that it has been our lacklustre defence that has been the real problem,” Tasseron said in the email.

See previously: The Department of Peter MacKay Defence

No need to keep studying the F-35?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

The work of the parliamentary committee studying the F-35 procurement is apparently done. At least so far as the Conservative members of the committee are concerned. Here was Conservative MP Andrew Saxton’s explanation yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Auditor General three times: once for the report as a whole, once for the beginning of the chapter, and once at the end of the chapter. We have heard from senior government officials at two different sets of meetings that detailed the government’s response. We have heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer to compare his numbers versus others. The purpose of the committee is to study the Auditor General’s report. We have done that. Let us get on with writing the report.

The public accounts committee met five times to consider the auditor general’s findings, though the first of those meetings was consumed by debating how to proceed with a study. David Pugliese suggests defence officials aren’t pleased with the latest turn of events.

At DND the talk is that the Conservatives have given the opposition MPs another PR windfall on the F-35 file. There has been widespread disbelief that the poor communications strategy has allowed the purchase to become a major political issue. This latest move will not help the situation at all, say NDHQ insiders.

Holding pattern

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM - 0 Comments

On May 1, as previously noted, I sent the following questions to the office of minister of state Julian Fantino.

Last week, the Auditor General suggested that the Department of National Defence possessed a 36-year lifecycle costing for the F-35. See here. Is the auditor general mistaken or does a 36-year lifecycle costing exist? If it does exist, why has it not been made public?

Those questions were then forwarded to the Department of National Defence.

As of this writing, I have yet to receive an answer. As of last Thursday, the defence department was “still working within the approval process” to provide me with a response.

Accounting for the Defence Department

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

The mission in Libya cost significantly more than the Defence Minister once suggested. And the government recently described the purchase of 13 new armoured vehicles as a purchase of transmission parts.

In early April the government awarded a $105-million contract to a German firm, FFG, to build 13 Leopard armoured engineering vehicles for the Canadian Forces. The only information put out by government was a brief and inaccurate notice stating that the company had been awarded a contract to provide “vehicular power transmission components.” The notice also claimed the deal was only for one item. But defence industry sources say the government is misleading the public; the deal is actually for 13 specialized armoured vehicles, and not transmission parts.

In addition, the upcoming issue of the Canadian Naval Review published by Dalhousie University will report that the Defence Department’s Strategic Investment Plan, previously released by the Liberal government, is now considered “a classified document” and cannot be issued to the public. In April, DND informed the Review of the government’s new policy. The investment document outlines a 15-year plan for equipment projects, their budgets and delivery schedules.

In other news, it’s now been nearly 10 days since I asked National Defence for a response to the Auditor General’s suggestion that a 36-year lifecycle costing for the F-35 already exists. As soon as I receive a response, I’ll post it in its entirety.

‘Haven’t made that choice’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM - 0 Comments

Despite various commitments to and demands for a full 36-year lifecycle cost estimate for the F-35, the Globe reports that the Harper government is still debating whether to provide one.

Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s April 3 report noted the full life of the planes was actually 36 years and called on Ottawa to be more forthcoming about costs. The Conservatives in turn pledged to be more open but are still debating whether to provide cost estimates for the full 36-year lifespan of the F-35 Lightning II – or stick to 20 years. Government officials “haven’t made that choice,” a source familiar with deliberations said.

As noted previously, the Auditor General hasn’t just recommended that the government provide a 36-year estimate, he’s said it is his understanding “that National Defence does have the numbers for 36 years.”

Waiting for answers

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

The Globe reports that Defence officials made a trip to Washington last week to research the latest cost estimates for the F-35.

The federal government is working to translate this U.S. data into figures that reflect Canada’s purchase plans and hopes to make these public before Parliament rises in June, sources say … The political pledge made in April was that the Conservatives would provide Canadians with an updated estimate for the per-plane costs of the jets within 60 days of receiving forecast information from the Joint Strike Fighter Program office in the United States.

Still to be explained is the auditor general’s suggestion of two weeks ago that the Department of National Defence “does have the numbers for 36 years” and, if that is the case, why those numbers haven’t been made public. I’ve asked the department to explain and will post the response in its entirety as soon as I receive it.

PBO v. DND

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM - 0 Comments

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page draws a conclusion.

“Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that the Department of National Defence provided the PBO with figures that did not include all operating costs,” Page told members of the public accounts committee. “The PBO understood that it had been provided with full life-cycle costs from DND as required.”

… Page was asked whether he believed the government had withheld information so Canadians would not know the full cost of the aircraft. “Yes,” he replied.

The Deputy Minister of Defence suggested today that Mr. Page did not include operating costs in his report. This seems to be the same issue that resulted in some confusion last month. As noted then, the PBO report on the F-35 does specify operating costs (see page nine).

The opposition must ask better questions about the F-35

By Philippe Lagassé - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM - 0 Comments

Photograph: Office of the Prime Minister of Canada

Philippe Lagassé is assistant professor of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

What did members of Parliament learn from Tuesday’s public accounts committee hearing on the F-35 procurement? Mostly that arguing with senior officials about costs and accounting methods is a frustrating experience, one where the opposition is at a disadvantage. Unless New Democrat and Liberal MPs hone their questions regarding the planned sole-source acquisition of new fighter aircraft, they will find that their ability to hold the government to account over the F-35 will soon dissipate. It is time for the opposition parties to ask better questions about the F-35.

Since the Auditor General’s latest report was tabled in early April, opposition parties and pundits have been fixated on his finding that the government excluded $10 billion in operating, personnel, and contingency costs from the stated price of the F-35 acquisition. Although the government was aware of these estimated life-cycle costs, ministers chose to present only the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment cost when the decision to buy the planes was announced in the summer of 2010. This omission has been upheld as evidence that the Conservative government lied to Parliament and Canadians about the true cost of the planned procurement.

Opposition members hoped that senior executives involved in the F-35 process might be compelled to corroborate this assessment before the public accounts committee. It did not happen.

Continue…

When will the lifecycle cost be explained?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM - 0 Comments

The full lifecycle cost of the F-35 remains elusive.

DND’s deputy minister, Robert Fonberg, said his department is sticking with its estimated cost of $15-billion for the acquisition and the sustainment over 20 years of the F-35 jets. He insisted that long-term operating costs for the jets, which are still eight years away from delivery, will be “firmed up over time,” but will be similar to those for the existing fleet of CF-18s.

He added that his department was not yet in a position to determine the exact cost of the program over its planned 36-year lifespan, saying that using 20-year scenarios is a well-entrenched position at DND and avoids making risky, long-term predictions. “Life-cycle costing is not a simple issue,” Mr. Fonberg said.

Lifecycle costing is what the Department of National Defence agreed to pursue two years ago in response to a previous report of the auditor general. Lifecycle costing is what Treasury Board guidelines seem to require. “All documents that outline … lifecycle costs” is what the House of Commons demanded in November 2010. And an estimate of what the F-35 will cost over a lifespan of 36 years is what the auditor general suggested last week that the Department of National Defence already had.

Here, from that hearing last week and for the record, is the auditor general’s exchange with Chris Alexander, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence.

Chris Alexander: On life cycle, you described the reasons for selecting 36 years as opposed to the DND previous standard of 20 years. Has the Auditor General’s office in previous audits used this longer life-cycle framework, or was this the first time?

Michael Ferguson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The 36 years is not our number, not our estimate of the life cycle. It was in fact National Defence’s estimate of the life cycle. Therefore, by definition to apply life cycle costing we felt that it should include the whole 36 years, since that is the estimated life cycle.

Chris Alexander: So in fact National Defence had two life cycle projections—one for 20 years and one for 36 years?

Michael Ferguson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that National Defence does have the numbers for 36 years, but the numbers that have been brought forward for decision-making purposes, and used for example in response to the parliamentary budget office numbers, were based on 20 of those 36 years.

What did the cabinet know and why was the F-35 allowed to proceed?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

While a number of department officials—including the deputy minister of defence and the assistant deputy minister for materiel—are set to appear before the Public Accounts Committee this morning, Peter MacKay told a Senate committee yesterday that the federal cabinet approved the decision to release a $15-billion projection for the F-35. And John Ivison reports that the “F-35 Secretariat,” created in the wake of the the auditor general’s report, has been renamed.

And on those notes, Philippe Lagasse has more questions.

So, the other question: why did Cabinet allow DND/CF to avoid due diligence and go ahead with a questionable sole-sourced procurement? Cause, it’s worth repeating that the lack of due diligence was at the heart of the AG’s report…and it promises to be a recurring problem.

Interesting to hear that it will no longer be the ‘F-35 Secretariat’. But will DND/CF be told to write a new, more flexible SOR?

And who has the expertise necessary to keep an eye on the CF if theyre told to re-write the statement of requirements?

Will DND begin to exercise a more robust challenge function?

‘You do get the sense there were different books being kept’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 30, 2012 at 9:25 AM - 0 Comments

Kevin Pages throws a quote on the F-35 fire.

Page told host Evan Solomon what bothered his office was that one set of books was available inside DND, while another “for communication purposes” was presented publicly, in which he said the government was “low-balling” the numbers. ”You do get the sense there were different books being kept,” he told Solomon.

Meanwhile, another major defence procurement is being restarted.

In case you misunderstood him the first time

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM - 0 Comments

The Auditor General appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to explain his findings on the F-35 procurement.

“There were some significant things that were missing from the life-cycle costing in this, for example attrition, for example upgrades, and the fact that these aircraft were going to last for 36 years, not just 20 years,” Mr. Ferguson told MPs. “When we raised the issue of life-cycle costing and the fact that it was not complete, I don’t believe that we were nitpicking in any way. We were saying that there were significant elements that were missing,” he said.

From the “who-knew-what-and-when?” file, there is also this.

Ferguson said it was National Defence that estimated the full life-cycle of the F-35s to be 36 years. ”And therefore by definition, to apply lifecycle costing, we felt it should include the whole 36 years since that is the estimated lifecycle,” he said. Ferguson also said the department has an estimate for what it will cost to use the planes for the full 36-year lifespan. ”But numbers brought forward for decision-making purposes and used, for example, in response to the Parliamentary Budget Office numbers were based on 20 of those 36 years,” he said.

After some disagreement over who specifically to invite, the committee has extended invitations to the deputy ministers at public works, defence and industry and the secretary at the treasury board to appear next Tuesday. Those officials can bring along any other officials they wish to be included.

How about that lifecycle cost?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has written to the deputy minister at Defence.

We have received a new request from a parliamentarian under Section 72.9 (d) of the Parliament of Canada Act (Act), requesting the PBO to undertake an update of the life cycle cost estimate of the F-35. Pursuant to the PBO’s statutory authority under Section 79.3 of the Act, I would like to request that DND provide information and documents that provide a full life cycle cost of the F-35 aircraft with life cycle cost being defined in the DND Costing Handbook (Annex I). 

Further we would encourage DND to assume in its analysis, the Average Unit Procurement Cost (AUPC) published by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for the United States Congress. The last published figure for AUPC is $137 million per aircraft for all variants in GAO’s report on March 20, 2012 (Annex II – Table 1, Page 4).

An official with the GAO has priced the model that the Harper government has sought at somewhere between $100 and $115 million.

The Globe notes that the government has officially changed the status of the F-35 procurement.

The Commons: A simple misunderstanding

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair had a simple question. And lest the House fail to appreciate the simplicity, he said so explicitly.

“Mr. Speaker,” the opposition leader prefaced, “I want to ask a very simple question of the Prime Minister.”

Specifically and simply, Mr. Mulcair wanted to know whether Mr. Harper thought it acceptable for a minister to knowingly mislead Parliament in the exercise of its functions.

Mr. Harper seemed to seek a word of clarity from Peter Van Loan before rising. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “I am not certain of the subject of that question, but obviously I expect that ministers tell the truth at all times.”

That much established for the record, Mr. Mulcair moved to his second question. Continue…

The F-35 math gets fuzzier

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

The projected training budget may not be sufficient for the F-35.

About $1.3 billion was set aside for training, simulators and other infrastructure under the Harper government’s proposed $9-billion capital purchase of the radar-evading jets. But documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show air force planners have been concerned about the dollar projection.

That’s because it was calculated for the standard Defence Department estimate of 20 years’ of flying, rather than the lifetime of the aircraft, which is estimated at 36 years … The documents suggest taxpayers might have to shell out more training dollars after the 20-year window ends, and they indicate the investment plan comes up “approximately $2 billion short” of the requirement.

The auditor general projected that over the 36-year lifecycle, an additional 14 F-35s would be required to deal with normal attrition.

National Defence did inform the government of the need to consider the requirement for attrition aircraft at a later date. The cost of replacement aircraft is not included in the life-cycle estimate for this project and will be treated as a separate project in the future.

But in a comment to the Hill Times, Julian Fantino’s office sticks to the $9 billion budget for acquisition. Continue…

Why can’t we have some of those hip new fighter jets?

By Scott Feschuk - Friday, April 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM - 0 Comments

Reuters/Getty Images/Lockheed Martin/Photo Illustration by Taylor Shute

Are you like me? Are you woefully uninformed about this F-35 business that’s been in the news? The topic came up at a dinner party in Ottawa, and I was so ashamed by my lack of knowledge that I snuck away to hide in a washroom. In Winnipeg.

Let’s figure this thing out together.

What exactly is an F-35?

It’s a new fighter jet being manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Its full name is the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning II. We probably shouldn’t be at all concerned that this sounds like something a little boy would name his tricycle.

What’s this got to do with Canada?

Continue…

Spring break is over

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

The House doesn’t reconvene until Monday, but the public accounts committee will meet this afternoon to, presumably, launch its study of the F-35 procurement. The committee won’t hear from witnesses today, but might settle on a list of witnesses it wishes to hear from. The Liberals have identified ten individuals they’d like to hear from:

Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada
Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer
Dan Ross, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel)
LGen J.P.A. Deschamps, Chief of the Air Staff
Michael J. Slack, F-35 Project Manager, Director of Continental Materiel Cooperation
Col D.C. Burt, Director, New Generation Fighter Capability
Tom Ring, Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch
Johanne Provencher, Director General, Defence and Major Projects Directorate
Richard Dicerni, Deputy Minister, Industry
Craig Morris, Deputy Director, F-35 Industrial Participation

For your study, Amy Minsky has assembled some of the paper trail. You can review all of our coverage here.