National Defence Committee on Oct. 7th, 2010

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A short time ago there was an exchange in Winnipeg between a Globe and Mail journalist and the Prime Minister. The question from the Globe and Mail journalist reads:

The former assistant deputy of defence for procurement, testifying before a House of Commons committee, said it is a great mistake to go to a sole-source contract. He said that an open competition would get the best fighter at the lowest price with the most jobs. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is proposing a review of the process, with a possible conversion to an open bid. Would it not be in the best interest for taxpayers to follow Mr. Ignatieff's advice on this?

That was the question.

The Prime Minister's answer reads:

First of all, in terms of the individual that you're talking about, his advice was very different at the time he was actually paid to give it.

Can you comment on that, Mr. Williams?

[Alan Williams]

That's absolutely a lie. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I've never, ever changed my opinion on sole-sourcing, or anything--if he's talking about me. I have no idea what he's referring to. I would defend my integrity totally. I have never changed my views on these things.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

He is talking about you.

[Alan Williams]

Then I have no idea to what he's referring or who gave him what notes to suggest and actually impugn my integrity. But I take great offence at that.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I have another question.

In listening to your testimony, you talked a couple of times in terms of getting the right aircraft and the great cost of any plane, and in fact you better understand what your needs are before you sign the contract and expend that amount of money. You talked about your earlier process. You asked them about the number of planes they would be purchasing and how, if you get a plane that does not meet your priorities, then you're in part wasting some of that huge amount of money. You made that point a couple of times.

One of the things I've seen many times is how in fact it also works the other way around, where you end up using what you have. If you don't set out and clearly, for the public, have that kind of debate on the direction in which you want to go in terms of your foreign policy, you end up using the tools you have. You end up using the technology you have. In fact, it ends up being technology that drives policy, as opposed to policy driving technology, which really creates a huge, immense, ongoing problem.

Do you have a comment on that?

[Alan Williams]

I agree totally. That's what I said.

The first step has to be to make sure that you have a policy framework for the role that we as Canadians see for the Department of National Defence, and then to make sure that all of the equipment we buy, for the army and the navy too, fits into the role that we've articulated. That would seem to me to be a fundamentally important role for this committee: to continue to review and assess and make sure that what we're buying can relate to and fulfill that role. If you don't do that, then in fact you're liable to be found in the corner you've talked about. I think we put the cart before the horse. Absolutely true.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

You have found, in your own experience, that there's a tendency to use the technology you have, whether or not that may be the priority of the moment.

[Alan Williams]

I can't comment on that. Obviously, if you have a piece of equipment, you use that piece of equipment as best you can. Once it's there, it's there.

I am suggesting that when you go about an open, fair, and transparent process, you limit the likelihood of finding yourself buying something that isn't consistent with the role you've foreseen for the forces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I'll give the floor to Mr. Hawn, for five minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

What would happen to existing contracts for Canadian companies if we were to withdraw from the MOU?

[Alan Williams]

I don't think there's any set answer. They would be at risk in terms of moving to the production phase, because that's what section 7.3 says. Whether they would lose it, that's quite possible. Whether they'd be still given attention because they're producing this good or product in such a cost-effective way, that's also possible.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I think it's highly unlikely--and you may disagree just on speculation--that if they are producing whatever for the hundred airplanes they are producing it for now, they will lose access to the global supply chain if we withdraw from the MOU.

[Alan Williams]

Well, that's absolutely not true. I mean, section 7.4--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No?

[Alan Williams]

No. I'm saying it's easy to say something, but the agreement basically says that any country that is participating in this agreement has to ensure, and the contractors have to ensure, that their companies have full access to all contract opportunities. So to suggest that is not the case is saying that somehow they are not going to abide by the terms of the contract, and that's not the case.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The terms of the contract are for a hundred--whatever it is. The terms of the contract are not for 3,000 to 5,000 airplanes.

[Alan Williams]

No. Section 7.4 says that when you're undertaking any future opportunity, every participant's companies have to be provided equal opportunity to compete.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's every participant within the MOU.

[Alan Williams]

That's correct. And by signing--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

If we withdraw from the MOU, we are no longer participating--

[Alan Williams]

But no one is suggesting that you withdraw from the MOU.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well....

[Alan Williams]

No, let's be clear. Not buying the aircraft has nothing to do with withdrawing from the MOU.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Can we do a level-playing-field competition and stay in the MOU between the F-35 and the Super Hornet?

[Alan Williams]

Sure. Why can't we?