National Defence Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I offer an insincere apology for that.

Okay. We can continue on the debate. Ms. Lalonde had the floor.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much.

My perspective has been that we are interfering with the experts. As we heard through Mr. Page, a large procurement needs a certain expertise from certain individuals who will carry it forward. The procurement process is unique in Canada.

I'll wait to bring my amendment, Mr. Chair. I'm still reflecting on the motion and also on the proposed amendment by my colleague, Mr. Bezan.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Lambropoulos would be next, except that apparently your headset is not acceptable, so I'm sorry not to be able to hear what you have to say.

Mr. Fillmore was next.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Would it work if I said it in both languages and asked the interpreters not to interpret—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No. Unfortunately we're pretty hamstrung on this. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's a fascinating discussion. My analysis concludes that an accelerated timeline introduces bias into the process. We've heard from a number of witnesses throughout this study on the importance of depoliticizing processes, and I worry that this is actually that—politicizing a process.

I'm going to propose a subamendment to Mr. Bezan's amendment that eliminates the final line that he added, which is, “and that the competition be done on an accelerated timeline for competition and delivery of the new Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft;” so it eliminates the part about the accelerated timeline.

We can work on the wording of that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I would just say this, Mr. Chair. If he wants to eliminate the addition of that amendment, just vote against it. You can't necessarily change the intent or the substance of a motion or an amendment to a motion.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

If I may, Mr. Chair, there's much value in the other parts of the proposed amendment, calling for an open and transparent process, a competitive process. I'm all for that. That is in fact a depoliticizing process. Of course, the addition of an accelerated timeline introduces bias.

I would like to support the first half but not the second half. Therefore, the subamendment is proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Only one amendment and one subamendment may be considered at one time.

It is in order.

We have Ms. Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

The first part of my intervention will probably resolve the issue.

In the case of the first two proposed amendments, I would consider them friendly amendments, since they deal more with the form than the substance. The first suggestion is that the replacement of the CP‑140 Aurora be discussed. Yes, there was a typo there. It would also be a matter of changing the English version so that the term “appel d'offres” is instead translated as “request for proposals”. If these amendments can be considered friendly amendments and can resolve the issue for this part of the motion, so much the better.

As for the proposed amendment to the second part of the motion, I would like to ask Mr. Bezan a question for clarification.

As I understand it, he is proposing that this be done in accordance with the accelerated schedule for open competition and the delivery of the new Canadian multi-mission aircraft. We know that, in the original request for information, which was completed by Bombardier and 22 other companies, the deadline was for a first delivery in 2040. What is currently on the government website is a first delivery in 2023. If what is currently on the government website is considered to be an accelerated timeline, then I have no problem with this amendment, since it refers to what is already public and is already a prerequisite in the procurement process for the replacement of the CP‑140 Aurora.

So, if I'm told that this is indeed the intent behind the amendment, I have no problem with it, but I would like that clarification first.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Let me clarify, if I may, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before you do, just so we all know what we're talking about here, Ms. Normandin is accepting the minor amendments that Mr. Bezan put forward, but is asking for clarification on “and that the competition be done on an accelerated timeline for competition and delivery of the new Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft”.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Ms. Normandin is asking for clarification on the accelerated timeline. My concern on this is that things have changed within the RCAF based upon statements made by Mr. Crosby and Mr. Page on Tuesday.

Then, on top of that, when I reiterated the concern to Mr. Martel, I asked, “Would Bombardier be able to meet that expedited timeline to replace the Auroras?”

To quote him completely, he said, “I have to admit that the timeline remains a bit unclear.” That's because there's a lack of transparency. He said:

We heard things two weeks ago at a different committee, and again today. Based on the timeline that is still posted on the PSPC website, we can meet those timelines. That requires the first airplane to be delivered in 2032 and the remaining by 2035. We could do that. Actually, there's plenty of time in front of us. We're in 2023. There's apparently a process that could take place with a selection in 2027. Hopefully, we can expedite that and do even better.

Bombardier is saying they can meet it. We know that one of the arguments behind doing the sole source of Boeing's P-8 is that they can deliver on an expedited timeline as well.

If both manufacturers, who are the only ones, most likely, who are going to bid through an open competition, say they can do it on an expedited timeline, then accelerating the competition, selection and delivery should not be an issue.

I'm not putting any dates on that, but based upon the fact that the dates that are currently on the PSPC website are stipulated and aren't being followed anyway, based upon testimony from Mr. Page and Mr. Crosby and, along with the testimony we heard, then we might as well just say, okay, let's have some transparency here. Let them figure out what the timeline is, as long as it's faster than what's currently posted.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for the clarification.

So my understanding is that the amendment doesn't refer to the schedule, which is now public. In that case, I will vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. It's all one or the other.

First of all, is there any further debate on either Mr. Fillmore's subamendment or Mr. Bezan's amendment or on the main motion? Is there any further debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if Ms. Normandin would help us understand. If my subamendment were to pass, would she then support the amendment?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

As I understand it, I considered your subamendment a friendly amendment, it was accepted from the outset, and all that remained was to debate the last part of Mr. Bezan's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate? We're already getting into the time of the witnesses.

I'm trying to get clarity. The order of precedence would be Mr. Fillmore first, up or down, then it would be Mr. Bezan's amendment, up or down, and then....

Can you, just for the sake of clarity, repeat your amendment so that we all know what we're voting on?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

With the subamendment in place, the amendment would read as follows:

That, considering the joint statement of the respective Premiers of Quebec and Ontario dated November 7, 2023 concerning the public procurement of the CP-140 Aurora replacement by the federal government, the Committee is of the opinion that the government must proceed by way of an open competition—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

What I read into the record was “request for proposals”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's fine. I missed that.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I would accept what Mr. Bezan is saying on that point.

Before “before awarding any procurement”—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Add “request for proposals”.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I beg your pardon. I don't have it in front of me, so I'm trying to remember what it is. It's “before awarding any procurement contract” for this “new Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft”.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

You're just taking out “competition and delivery”.