Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Moving forward, I guess it's already been explained that the department has a number of standing orders or offers with certain companies to provide equipment of different types. Of course, in the world, especially in the world of the military, things can change overnight.

What work is being done in terms of ensuring that we are looking towards what might be necessary down the road in terms of replacement? I'm thinking that as new technologies are developed, obviously there's a requirement for replacement because there are better things out there, but also because we're competing against somebody else who might have access to better and improved technologies.

I'm wondering what information is collected by your department with regard to that aspect.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Once again, there's time for just a brief response, please, Mr. Ross.

[Dan Ross]

Briefly, a huge amount of effort is done on that, both by our force development people, chief of force development, and our research and development people, Defence Research and Development Canada. Dr. Walker's organization is constantly tracking technology change. The operational commanders have a formal lessons-learned feedback process to the strategic joint staff. Our measures for counter-IED are effective today and not tomorrow, which we change. The requirement staffs for the environmental chiefs of staff--the army, navy, and air force--work on that every day, working with my technical engineers and so on. It is very extensive.

Whether we have the money and time to change it quickly is another question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

On the agenda is the motion that was put before the committee. It is actually on the agenda. There are only 15 minutes remaining. We've had three full rounds. Typically it's your practice to have the three full rounds, and then if we have another item on the agenda, proceed to that item.

All parties have had opportunities to ask a lot of questions, three full rounds. My suggestion would be that we actually move to the other item that is duly on the agenda.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I accept your point of order as a legitimate point of order, but at this particular point we have witnesses here from defence procurement, which is undoubtedly one of the most serious priorities for our government. We're spending billions and billions of dollars, and I really don't think that we should shortchange the witnesses and/or our members if they have further questions. If they don't have further questions, then we will still get to your issue before this meeting is over.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

You have two more individuals on the list; there will be less than five minutes left.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You're wasting your own valuable time, Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

We should seek the consensus of the committee. Everyone has had a lot of opportunities to ask questions here. This is an item on the agenda.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It is my understanding that the chair has the discretion to decide whether or not we are going to hear from our witnesses and/or bring forth representations.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'll challenge the chair then, which is a non-debatable motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes, Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In fact, I only have one question for our guests.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

When we get to you, then you'll have that option.

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to follow up on a couple of the questions I started on, because I don't think we had adequate time to get the question answered totally.

I think the whole issue of moving from a culture of technical specifications to performance specifications is a great one. I'm just wondering if I could ask Madame Saint Pierre if it's possible that this shift in moving from technical specifications to performance standards could be used in other departments in their procurement activity in order to speed up the process. It would also reduce the number of times that the specifications are so technically rigid that they unintentionally eliminate some of the people who would be in line to qualify as tenderers for the materiel.

This is a bit out of the defence strategy, but I think it's part of the ongoing study that our committee is doing.

[Liliane Saint Pierre]

Mr. Chair, I'm quite pleased to actually receive that question. It is quite clear that as part of our ongoing process to improve procurement we want to piggyback on the best practices. Defence is quite an important field. In the area of the evolution of information technology systems, there's quite a movement to move toward the performance.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

Back to the safety question, again, as it relates to our men and women in uniform, I think all of us around this table are very much aware that a large majority of the deaths that have occurred, unfortunately, in Afghanistan have occurred because of IEDs and so on, as opposed to active combat. So whether we're looking at procuring a vehicle with metre-thick steel or medium-lift helicopters.... I'm wondering if maybe Mr. Williston, or one of you, could expand on how the procurement of medium-lift helicopters would in fact make huge strides in improving the safety of our men and women in uniform.

[Terry Williston]

I agree with you, certainly. But I really wouldn't want to comment on the capability aspect or the requirement aspect. I would pass that off to Mr. Ross.

[Dan Ross]

Thank you. I'll briefly respond to that.

Just as a point of clarification, we don't need any vehicles that are a metre thick. We use technology to beat the rocket-propelled grenade threat.

The ability to pick up our personnel and equipment by helicopter and move them to a forward-operating base, instead of traversing the routes, is hugely important. That includes rations and spare parts and so on. We continually have to move personnel on those convoys for rotation, for rest, for medical purposes, and so on. The helicopters, we believe, both a chartered solution initially, and a Chinook solution, will reduce the risk to our soldiers significantly.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I think this is an important point. I think many Canadians are unaware that if we actually had that medium-lift capability to transport equipment and/or personnel by air, as opposed to using these dangerous roads, a number of those deaths that have occurred could potentially have been avoided.

I have one final question as it relates to procurement. At different times the issue of whether procurement should be totally assigned to DND or whether we should continue this dual process comes up. Canada is one of the few countries where this separation still exists. The United States and the United Kingdom both do their own military procurement.

I'm just wondering what your opinion is on the matter of whether a single agency handling defence procurement would lead to a simpler process and a clearer line of ministerial responsibility.

[Dan Ross]

Our sense is that the single entity is not required. The team we have is effective. These are separate, complex skill sets. The expertise resident in Industry Canada, Public Works, and National Defence is complementary. Clearly, the system is not broken and is working well.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We'll go to Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like you to provide us with a written response.

As far as my colleague's question on the acquisition process for new search and rescue planes is concerned, the newspaper Le Devoir, among others, is reporting that the documents and the requirements have already been identified and that the obstacle is a political one.

Given that we are aware of the 12 basic steps in procurement, can you tell us where the problem is and when the procurement process was launched? When were these planes to be delivered, according to the need that was identified? I would like to know when you believe these planes will be delivered.

After that, I would simply like to make a comment. My riding has in the past provided and continues to provide the material, goods and services for National Defence. However, the suppliers currently agree that there has been a decrease, an erosion to their access to National Defence contracts.

Could you also provide us in writing with an overview of the development of contracts with National Defence over the last five years?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Ms. Saint Pierre.