Well, in his testimony this morning.... If you multiply 65 by $85 million, you don't get $9 billion, you get under $6 billion. And that's the number that's also on that chart, the 5,580 number. And as my friend Mr. Hawn points out, if you divide $9 billion by 65, you get $138 million. So when the Parliamentary Budget Officer came up with his higher number, Minister MacKay said in the House on March 23 that his methodologies were flawed, his findings were flawed, his numbers were completely out of line and they bore no relationship to the numbers of DND. But in fact, with great respect, Mr. Fonberg, they do bear considerable relationship to the numbers you set out, with respect to the total 20-year costs, when the government made its decision in June of 2010.
My question is, why would you not have admitted to that number? Why would the government not have admitted to that number when it was engaging in the debate with the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Rather than attacking the Parliamentary Budget Officer, why would the department not have said, “Well, there are different ways of calculating this actual cost, but yes, it could be somewhere in the $25 billion to $35 billion range, if you include the full life cycle costs over a period of time”. And then if you add the period of time, you might get a different number.
But let's not get away from the fact that when Parliament was in the middle of a critical debate, the Department of National Defence seriously undercut the credibility of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, when for many outside observers you'd say the discrepancies are not in fact that huge. What's huge is the fact that $10 billion went missing when the debate with the Parliamentary Budget Officer started. Who made that decision?