Government Operations Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the presentations. I appreciate that my colleagues around the table have asked you a number of questions that are all relevant and important. We all want to make certain that the process is proper and secure and that it captures the essence of trying to also build our homegrown talent, enable some of our own suppliers to succeed in the process and provide some sovereignty and protection of Canadian defence measures, including the patents and initiatives that we hold dear. I appreciate the concern that we foster that process.

Mr. Page, you mentioned that we haven't made a decision as of yet. We're still going through that procedure to determine it and to ensure that it's being done. Today I had a meeting with a former brigadier-general who flew these aircraft. He flew for us during his day. He mentioned how critically important it is for us to ensure that the process is done appropriately to have the benefit of having the right aircraft necessary to go forward, and that it is proven, and not necessarily at a concept stage, that in the Arctic and so forth it is able to perform well. He mentioned that this is a long process. It's not something you do quickly.

You have reaffirmed that in your discussions. Can you elaborate a little bit further in terms of that integrity? What are the preferences in your process relative to our homegrown talent—it doesn't include just one supplier, but the many that we have—and then the proven capability by which to proceed forward? I guess I'm trying to reintroduce, or advise this committee on, the difference between the RFP and the RFI enabling this and why it takes so long.

I don't know which of you, Mr. Page or Mr. Matthews, wishes to proceed here.

[Simon Page]

Thank you for the question.

For this procurement here, we have not released a request for proposal. We had the request for information. We had some results and a good analysis on that, with some very specific conclusions that were also supported by, as I mentioned earlier, a third party assessment. Then we needed more information from the one solution that delivered on all HLMRs at the current time. As I mentioned earlier, that triggered the government-to-government engagement that we have right now with U.S. government foreign military sales through the letter of request.

We have received more information. I would not characterize this process so far as having taken a lot of time. I think we have actually met each one of the milestones fairly swiftly, fairly effectively and with the right information.

Before I turn it back to Mr. Matthews, in our branch we take very seriously our job of balancing all the pillars of defence procurement. We have the performance/capability pillar. In this case here, the availability is also a huge component of that performance piece. Then there's the cost and the value for money. Sometimes we think that the cost is simply the price of the aircraft, but it's a lot more than that when you're purchasing a capability. We're also taking that into consideration. The third key pillar is the one that ISED is responsible for, the economic benefits.

We have a lot of information on the table. We still have not made our decision. We're debating it with a good degree of granularity.

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, Simon wrapped up where I was going to jump in. How are we doing on time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa has another minute.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Matthews, you can take it up. Explain to us how important the work is that you're doing to safeguard our troops and our country relative to the purchase we're making today, because it's a long-term purchase.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Now you have 35 seconds.

[Bill Matthews]

Okay.

I think we're getting a good airing of the issues and the trade-offs around this decision, which is yet to be taken. From a defence perspective, we will always prioritize capability for the armed forces first. I think what you have here is an interesting discussion about the risks around developmental projects. Developmental projects can be great, because they spur innovation. They also come with schedule and cost risks, and are not guaranteed to succeed.

Then you have Simon and his department—they've already weighed in on this—who are making sure that you have a proper procurement process and that you follow that aspect.

I think those are the key issues we're facing here. Obviously, from a defence perspective, the air force—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Matthews, but that was our 25 seconds.

It's Ms. Vignola for two and a half minutes and then Mr. Johns for two and a half minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Page or Mr. Matthews, was the “off-the-shelf” feature specifically stated in the original request for information?

You can quickly answer yes, no or maybe.

[Simon Page]

Thank you for this question.

I'll look into it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[Simon Page]

The analysis of the responses we received allowed us to know whether they were off-the-shelf military products or not, but I don't know if those specific terms were used.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

All right.

If this was not in the initial request for information, is it possible that one or more companies did not specify this in their response and, as a result, were left out of the analysis?

[Simon Page]

I don't think that was the case, quite frankly, because our client department, which is the technical authority, and we are aware of the aircraft that exist in the multi-mission aircraft sector. We also have the opportunity to provide information to companies if things are not clear.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

How can you convince me that Canadians' and Quebeckers' money is better invested by not going to tender and that it's better for pilot safety? How can you convince me that not considering all bids is the best way to get the best price?

[Simon Page]

Thank you for the question.

Ultimately, the decision whether or not to issue calls for tender has not yet been made. A decision still needs to be made about the process. Secondly, as I mentioned before, it should be noted that the only aircraft that met...

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

[Inaudible] have something else that's already ready.

[Simon Page]

This is the information we have and analyze.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Johns, go ahead for two and a half minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Page, we understand that other countries are seeking alternatives to the P-8 due to acquisition and operating costs. Have you spoken to your South Korean counterparts to understand why they're thinking of buying another multi-mission fleet to replace their remaining P-3Cs and P-3CKs rather than buying more P-8s?

[Simon Page]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I have not.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

You know, Canada has spoken to other countries, such as France, as to why they're electing to develop their own solution and not purchase the P-8. Why is France not as concerned about interchangeability as Canada is? Why is France more supportive of their local aerospace industry than Canada is of our own aerospace industry?

[Simon Page]

Thanks for the question.

Usually the country-to-country discussions are more with the Department of National Defence. It's not that I want to shy away from the question, but I have not engaged with any other countries on this procurement.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'll go back to the environmental concerns. We understand that the P-8 will be supported by the U.S. Navy only until 2048 and that the navy will start sunsetting the P-8 in the late 2030s—just six years after Canada achieves initial operating capability.

What is DND's long-term sustainment plan for the fleet after the U.S. Navy divestment?