Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for being here today.
I just returned from a NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, two days ago. I would like to reflect back to you the respect our allies have for the presence and the professionalism of the Canadian contribution to our common defence.
Today we're underscoring the fact that fiscal accountability is part of that professionalism, but make no mistake: that professionalism is recognized on the world stage. I was proud to be a Canadian and to see the Canadian presence there working with our allies on our common defence.
Having said that, I want to echo the Chair's comments and make it crystal clear that this is not just a regular meeting, nor is this just a regular public discussion, and it's not just a regular callback. You are being called back on the carpet because this issue has been going on now for at least 13 years, 12 of which I've been here for, so I know this issue.
I was here in 2012 when we got your first plan. As colleagues have said, one of our problems, and one of the reasons you're being called back on the carpet, is that the plan you gave us in 2013 is different from the plan you gave us in 2016.
Now, you may appreciate that historically, one of the goals of ministries when they are called in for a hearing is “one and done”. If you can get in here and get through the meeting, you're safe, because the committee really doesn't have the means or the ability to follow up on all the details and all the promises, so if you can just get through that meeting, you're good.
Those days are over, and have been for a while now, based on the Gomery inquest. It was this committee that uncovered the sponsorship scandal. One of the recommendations from Justice Gomery was that we increase our analytical abilities and our research abilities, so now we have more analysts than most people do on most committees. That's so that we can follow these kinds of things. Those days of “one and done” are over.
I want you to know we take this very seriously, and I want to get to the crux of the matter.
First of all, I want to point out that in your figure 1, the chart—I'm sure you have copies of the chart you sent us in 2013—what's interesting is that the words at the top of the chart are exactly the same.
It says:
Key Milestones and Deadlines of the Department of National Defence's 2013 Plan to Record and Value its Inventory.
Exactly the same words are at the top of the chart in 2016.
What's interesting and problematic is that it doesn't even use the same words after that. One could make the argument that it was meant to be a con job, which is why my friend was asking about the details of what you're saying.
It's tough enough to understand what some of this stuff means, but when we get a second report under the same heading using a new set of gobbledygook with longer deadlines, then it's easy. You will respect, I'm sure, that we could conclude you came in here with that first plan, and it was one and done. There they go. They got a plan. We put some stuff in there, and that's that. Oh, suddenly they asked us for another one in 2016. Well, we can't send the same thing. That wouldn't look very good, so you made up something new.
This is our problem right now, or at least I'll own my own words: this is my problem right now. Either it was deliberate, which is a huge problem, or you really didn't have a handle on it and you threw something together to get you through, and that's not acceptable either.
So what's the explanation, gentlemen?