Evidence of meeting #27 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was competition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay.
How long does it take to bring a new fighter online from deciding you need one until the first one's in service?
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
It depends on the state, and which one you're buying, and how much lead time you have. I mean, typically we can have a process such that the contract can be signed within a matter of a couple of years from the time, or probably less than that, once the military requirements are met.
So it's a question of the state of those jets. Are they operational jets today? Because if that's the case, maybe we can get them sooner. If they're in the developmental stage, we'll have to wait a few more years.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Right now our plan is to get the first F-35s in 2016, which is well along the road after other people have been flying the airplanes. That would suggest the airplanes would be reasonably operational at that time.
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
Well, I would submit to you that if you go to the latest status of the program, the second phase has now been delayed by four years--2016--so I'm not quite sure that those timeframes are there. But that's--
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
Frankly, I'm trying to understand the point you're trying to make.
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
Okay.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
How long does it take to phase in a new fighter fleet and phase out the old one? It's not there one day and the new ones are there the next day.
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
Yes. Again, I think there are people more competent to answer that than I am, especially--
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
Well, all of our programs, whether we're buying helicopters or what not, require an overlap and a process. Typically, once we do the procurement and we know what product we're getting and when we're getting it, then the people, the air force or whoever, will then use those timeframes to ensure that they're ready from a training and infrastructure standpoint.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I don't know if you've had any experience in that, but is it fair to say that it's probably a period of four or five years, as it was with the CF-18?
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
I can't comment on the CF-18, but I know, for instance, that in the last major briefing I was involved in, when we were talking about the helicopters, both versions.... As I said, in parallel with us doing the competitions, our armed forces knew exactly when they were coming in, and were planning in parallel to make sure that there was enough training and infrastructure time available for the training.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Absolutely. So starting the acquisition process years before the need date is necessary.
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
Absolutely.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'd like to read you a quote from the Peterborough Examiner of February 2, 2002, with regard to the JSF project:
The aim of the project is to produce affordable, high-tech jet fighters to fill a variety of roles. ... ''This is an important agreement for both the Department of National Defence and Canadian industry,'' said Alan Williams, the assistant deputy minister for material who represented Canada at the signing. He added the project ''will enhance interoperability with U.S. and allied forces, and will provide opportunities for Canadian industry to participate in this cutting-edge aerospace project.''
If the aim is to give us interoperability with U.S. and allied forces, that kind of implies that we're going to buy the airplane.
4:15 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
No, it doesn't. Basically what I was saying was that this was a great program to be part of. It benefited National Defence in many ways, and there were other benefits. We were learning a great deal about autonomic logistics, about composite frames, about the ways you can manufacture and develop things better, have the better systems. All of that was great for us. At National Defence we were learning all about it. At the same time, interoperability was obviously a factor.
Let me talk in terms of interoperability. I'm sorry about this, but I'll use a car analogy again. If you are travelling from Ottawa to Calgary with ten of your friends in ten different cars, you all don't have to travel in a Ford in order to communicate. It's not the frame that determines interoperability.
You know, it's good that many of our allies would have the same frame and the same product--absolutely--but we operate today with many allies, with many frames. We're totally interoperable with NATO dealing with 16 standards and everything else like that. Many of our allies after this won't have this one, and a lot of our allies that buy this have others as well.
So it's not the frame that determines interoperability, it's the systems inside. And while buying this jet may be the best for Canada and may ensure that interoperability is enhanced, all I'm saying is that if it is, let's go through the front door as opposed to the back door in getting it.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I will get to more on that later. I will be back, Mr. Williams.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Williams, I'm not an expert in aviation and national defence, but like you, I think that to be sure that a plane is able to meet Canadian requirements and that we know how much it should cost, we have to have a transparent, clear and detailed bidding process.
One thing I don't understand. In your notes, you say that ministers came forward and talked about the program, and said there had been a competition and we didn't need a second competition. But you also write that the competition that was held had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we're talking about here this afternoon, or in other words, the purchase of these planes. That is what your notes say.
If you would, I'd like you to explain what you mean there. What sort of competition were these ministers referring to, and what sort of competition should there have been, to get a response to a bid solicitation that was not issued?
4:20 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
The result announced October 7, 2001, followed a process of about five or six years, which emanated from within the Pentagon, to develop a program that kept costs down and looked for a replacement for the next generation aircraft. The U.S. had a lot of programs under way at the time, and they finally decided that they would try to establish a program—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Williams, I'm going to interrupt you. You have about two and a half minutes to answer my question. Make it quick.
4:20 p.m.
former Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, As an Individual
Okay.
The basic answer is that the U.S. worked for four or five years trying to get commonality of requirements between its navy, air force, and marines. They produced three different varieties of this with their operational requirements and with the U.K.'s input, because they're a level-one partner. We stood by the side as observers. They picked the one to best meet their needs, and that's great.
What we have to do is what we've talked about here. We have to define our requirements. What does Canada need? What's our role? Our role is not the same as the United States' or the U.K.'s. We're unique in our demographics and in our use of troops. We have to take that statement of requirements. We have to then work with industry, develop the contractual specifications, hold a competition, and say that these are our requirements as proposed by our military; they are sacrosanct, and you have to deliver on them. We will now get bids in, do the evaluations, as I've said—
