Committee Liveblog: The Auditor General returns to the F-35 inquiry at Public Accounts

And we're off! The chair -- David Christopherson, still wielding the gavel despite the near-fisticuffs that broke out during the last public meeting -- reminds us all that Ferguson is back before the committee for a third time, luckily now "in the pink of health" and ready to share his thoughts on both the F-35 procurement process and the main estimates.


With that, he cedes the floor to the witness, who dutifully reads his opening statement into the record -- I'll spare you the scrupulous chronicling of every word thereof, as I have posted the full text below. What strikes me as new, or, at least, newly emphasized in today's remarks: he does acknowledge that, while his office "believes in and supports life-cycle costing," it is not, in fact, required by the Office of the Auditor General (although these costs *are* required by both Treasury Board and National Defence).

He does, however, maintain that Defence "did not include some significant cost elements in its estimate," which are, of course, included in his report.

He's also concerned that the suggestion that full costs -- personnel, operating and maintenance -- are "not important" because, as goes the rationale for that position, they'd rack upregardless of what plane was ultimately chosen to replace the F-18s.

The AG finally tosses Saxton a bone, albeit not a meaty one -- he thinks keeping Parliament informed of the cost and process, via regular reports to the House, is a good idea; most crucial, however, would be the "clear understanding of purpose" on the part of those making the decisions. (He says that every time, doesn't he?)

Daryl Kramp returns to the line of inquiry launched by Saxton during his opening round -- namely, the challenge of a procurement process with its roots in the development phase. Kramp wonders if there are "other applications" to the "lessons learned" from this audit, and Ferguson assures him that there are several, in fact. "It would have been important to lay out right up front what the ground rules would be," he notes -- this was, after all, fated to be a very different process than your typical procurement initiative. Also, risk management. Kramp has better luck in his effort to get Ferguson to sign off on a pull-quote ready statement, but runs off the rails when he turns it into an attack on those within the precinct who don't want to see Canada get shiny new fighter jets *at all*. The AG, not surprisingly, stays far away from the more shamelessly partisan talking points, and reiterates what he sees as the main point of his report.

Back to the government side, where Bev Shipley will, once again and seemingly forever, try and fail to get the AG to Say The Magic Words: "No money was spent." As is always the case, the AG declines to do so; according to his findings, "significant" money has, in fact, been spent. It just hasn't actually resulted in Canada being handed the keys to our very own fighter jet fleet.

Hey, look who's back from the convalescent wing of Newfoundland and Labrador: Gerry Byrne, fully -- or, at least, satisfactorily, one assumes -- recovered from a nasty bout of pneumonia, and making up for lost time by questioning Ferguson on Fonberg's claims on those life cycle costs. Has Canada been made aware of the fact that the final costs may not be "a direct one to one ratio" with the CF-18s? This results in a lengthy side consultation between witness in staff, who concurs that there have been studies on this subject in the US that have indicated the cost may be higher; those, the AG says, are questions that *should* be asked, although it's entirely possible that Defence has a "perfectly good" answer for how those additional costs would be offset. Oh, if there's one thing of which I don't think many of us have any remaining doubt, it's that Defence *always* has an answer.

Sometimes, I wonder whether Joyce Bateman is starting to chafe under the pressure of her apparent role as Deeply Enthusiastic Newbie. She's clearly not quite as -- breathlessly amnesiacal as her questions would suggest. (Seriously, she's asking the AG what his recommendation was, for all the world as though she's never actually bothered to crack open the report currently under review, and attempting to charm him into providing *his* take on the F35 Damage Control Action! Plan (now with *seven points*!).

She then shifts back to those industrial benefits, which may or may not exist, but sadly, runs out of time before she can point out that so many of those benefits can't be made public for national security reasons.

After a mesmerizingly meandering preamble picking up on Bateman's curtailed line of questioning on industrial benefits, Jay Aspin eventually -- and I do mean eventually -- rather cautiously offers Ferguson the opportunity to echo his serene confidence that the F-35-related largesse will soon blanket the country. Not surprisingly, the AG does not, although he does praise the efforts by the departments to bring Canadian companies to the table.

I know it's hopelessly old-fashioned of me, but I think it's shockingly unparliamentary for MPs to leave the room for mid-meeting hallway scrums especially when it involves missing the witness's opening statement, during which Ferguson -- for indeed, it is (still) he -- will run down his office's operating costs and budgetary requirements. (Don't forget the full life-cycle costing!)