Diplomats downplayed F-35 report to allies
Emails reveal attempts to limit damage
OTTAWA — Canadian diplomats and military officers posted abroad were encouraged to downplay a scathing report by the auditor general on the F-35 stealth fighter in discussions with their foreign counterparts last year, emails show.
At one point, they were even instructed to refer to the criticism as a “bureaucratic” issue rather than a substantial problem.
The instructions were part of a broader Defence Department damage-control effort, and represented the second time in as many months that Canadian officials found themselves reassuring jittery international partners that Canada was not walking away from the fighterjet project.
Canada is one of nine countries involved in developing the F-35; the others are the United States, Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Turkey.
Each partner is tightly linked to the others when it comes to the stealth fighter, because any change in the number of aircraft to be bought by one country, or even the timeline for purchasing, has a ripple effect on the rest.
It’s part of the reason Canada hosted a meeting of partner countries at the Canadian Embassy in Washington in February 2012 — at a cost of approximately $40,000 — to confirm that all nine remained committed to the F-35.
The first time Canada sent shock waves through the F-35 partnership came a month after that meeting, when then-associate defence minister Julian Fantino told a parliamentary committee on March 13, 2012: “We have not yet discounted the possibility of backing out of the program.”
“Dan, those are pretty specific words (from Fantino) and are not going unnoticed within the partnership,” National Defence director general Andre Fillion wrote to procurement chief Dan Ross the next day.
Fantino’s comments made international headlines, and prompted Canada’s representative at the F-35 partner office in Washington, Maj. Timothy (Donor) Woods, to send an email to Ottawa reading: “Canada is the predominant story circulating at the JPO (Joint Project Office) again.”
In an attempt to put out the fire, National Defence circulated “lines” inside the department and to international partners that affirmed Canada’s “position has not changed,” that Canada remained “committed to the Joint Strike Fighter Program,” and that “a budget has been allocated.”
On April 3, 2012, Auditor General Michael Ferguson reported that National Defence officials twisted government rules, misled ministers and Parliament, and whitewashed cost overruns and delays in a determined effort to ensure Canada purchased the F-35 stealth fighter jet.
Canadian diplomats and defence attaches abroad wrote to Ottawa that the report was making headlines, with one reporting “a lot of articles on the subject in Norwegian and Dutch papers these days!”
Foreign defence attaches in Washington also emailed the Canadian Embassy seeking answers, with a Dutch Embassy official in Washington writing: “In the Netherlands this report is already used by the factions which are against the F-35.”
In response, National Defence director general Wendy Gilmour sent an email to Canadian diplomats and attaches in Washington, Brussels, London and other cities in which they were told to “emphasize” that the issue was “tied primarily to internal Canadian bureaucratic processes.”
Canadian officials were to assure foreign governments that “we remain part of the JSF Partnership,” though they did acknowledge “specific decisions related to the timetable for the acquisition of Canada’s next generation fighter aircraft will be deferred” until later.
It’s unclear by the emails whether the directions came down from departmental managers or the political level.
However, while the government said it accepted the report, both National Defence and the Public Works department said they disagreed with the auditor general’s findings.
In his own email to “fellow defence attaches,” Canada’s top military officer in Washington, Rear-Admiral Richard Greenwood, noted that Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s report was “largely negative.”
Greenwood drew attention to “key final phrases” in an attached government news release. “Canada remains committed to ensuring that the Royal Canadian Air Force has the aircraft it needs to do the jobs we ask of them,” one read, while the other noted the $435 million in contracts generated for Canadian companies through participation in the F-35 project.
A separate document shows National Defence established a “communications plan” in advance of the auditor general’s report to “counter the negative narrative of the OAG report” by telling its side of the story.
The Conservative government backtracked on its plan to purchase 65 F-35s last year following the auditor general’s report and revelations the aircraft would cost taxpayers more than $45 billion. It ordered bureaucrats to go back to potential competitors with questionnaires about their own fighter aircraft, including capabilities, costs and potential industrial benefits to Canada’s economy.
Officials will put all the options — including the pros and cons of continuing to operate the Royal Canadian Air Force’s aging CF-18 fighters — to cabinet in the fall.