Prime Minister Stephen Harper might have accepted the auditor general's scathing criticism of the troubled F-35 fighter jet program, but newly released documents show National Defence and Public Works had deep disagreements with Michael Ferguson's findings.
The final draft of the bombshell report, which accused the departments of hiding the true cost of the multibillion-dollar project and not doing their homework, was the subject of a flurry of letters and protests behind the scenes.
As is standard practice, the auditor general's office shared its report ahead of time with National Defence for review before it was made public - and the department's top bureaucrat fired back.
"While we are generally satisfied with the accuracy of the facts as presented in your report, we disagree with your conclusion that National Defence did not exercise due diligence in managing the replacement for the CF-18s," deputy defence minister Robert Fonberg wrote on Feb. 7, 2012, less than two months before the report was released.
The exchange of letters was obtained by the Opposition New Democrats under the Access to Information Act.
As senior government and military officials pored over every line of the report, the head of the Royal 91原创 Air Force took issue with the absence-of-due-diligence claim, labelling the auditor's finding as a "misleading statement."
When it was tabled in Parliament last April, the auditor general's report caused a political firestorm that burned throughout the spring.
The Conservatives found themselves under attack in the House of Commons and in media reports.
The government took the project away from the Defence Department and gave it to an independent secretariat under the direction of Public Works. It promised more oversight, fresh cost estimates and that it would consider "all options" to replace the CF-18s.
