Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to welcome the representatives of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries. First of all, let me say that I recognize your great expertise and your vast experience in this field. I have known you for some time, Mr. Page, and I know that you are an excellent representative of this industry. I also used to know Mrs. Thorsteinson in her previous capacity as a public servant, where she was extremely competent. As for you, Mr. Stapley, I wish you great success in your new position. You have just been elected Chairman of the Board of CADSI, an 800-member organization. It is a very intelligent electoral college and your success in becoming primus inter pares of this group is similar to us being selected as MPs in our ridings. So, I take it for granted that you are the best person to do the best work possible.
Everybody agrees-- and MPs too--that the procurement system of the federal government in the defence sector is broken and does not work anymore. I believe that your participation and your report will contribute significantly to solving this problem. You have suggested excellent ideas and I do hope that the government will take this opportunity to act.
I would like to know how your recommendations would change the present process and what the process would be in the new approach that you suggest.
To start with, when we want to purchase tanks, airplanes or ships, National Defence launches the process by defining its specifications or requirements. I suggest that you take notes because I will ask several short questions. First of all, in the present situation, is there not a danger, when drafting specifications, that they will be deliberately drafted in order to get a preferred type of equipment or even a preferred supplier? That is my first question.
Would it not be better to do it like the Americans, on a mission basis? If we need a transport aircraft with a given capacity, for example, and let the best supplier win. The starting point for procurement is DND. It is when Public Works gets involved that problems appear. Once the specifications have been drafted, we ask Public Works Canada to procure the equipment. At that stage, there are two options. One can procure the equipment through letters of intent or through competitive bids, the famous ACANs that, to my mind, are negative. Even the Auditor General said that she does not like ACANs but, sometimes, it is the only solution available because our Canadian industries cannot build everything. We are not like the Americans. I would like to know if you have dealt with this issue in your new approach.
Then, Industry Canada inserts itself in the process with their economic benefits. I agree with your suggestion of creating a single responsibility center. However, would this single responsibility center deal with the whole of the procurement process? In other words, would National Defence have the mandate in the future to draft specifications as well as deal with letters of intent, competitive bids and also economic benefits? Would that be the new structure that you recommend?