National Defence committee  It could take a long time to answer all that. Right off the top, Canada invested in R and D in WESCAM and invested in our Dorval division, which was CAE at the time, to develop the integrated platform management system. Those two systems are globally accepted as world-leader capabilities.

National Defence committee  I think the U.S. has better capability. It's recognized, if that's what you're getting at, in terms of our own domestic industry providing that kind of capability. I think there's a balance. If Canada—

National Defence committee  No, I don't think that's a risk, but I think there's a better opportunity to work with the U.S. and increase our own domestic business capabilities by being a better supplier in that value chain. That's a government-to-government discussion that says, “We're going to spend this much money on over-the-horizon radar and we want to align with the solution you choose, but we want you to invest, with that large solution the U.S. companies are going to bring, in the Canadian supply chain.”

National Defence committee  I just want to address one thing we talked about, the F-35. That is a game-changer in terms of security. In terms of C4ISR, interoperability and JADC2, that is an enabler. I think this is the right time for industry and government to sit down and map that out carefully. It took the Australians six years to get the infrastructure and security requirements in place to accept the first F-35.

National Defence committee  I've often heard the example of the Halifax-class frigate program. It was probably the best developed and run program, and that was because industry and government engaged throughout the entire process. I think there's a fear to engage industry and work with it too often. If you bring enough industry captains to the table to have a transparent discussion up front before a competition, you can get a lot of the clear requirements from the art of the possible of what's out there.

National Defence committee  In my remarks, I talked about avoiding developmental programs. Often they will make a competition by introducing a program that is more developmental than, perhaps, another program, not understanding what risks and costs would be associated with it. They end up choosing, perhaps, a program that requires more development after the fact and does not deliver.

National Defence committee  I think we need to align our solutions with our allies more. The first one I would look to is the United States, and I would get into its developmental programs. It has very iterative processes that it has started to put in place in terms of radio capability and software development.

National Defence committee  I think they need to sit down with industry and identify the requirements they actually need to operate in a theatre and to look for off-the-shelf solutions. A lot of the other countries have already solved that problem. For example, the U.K. has moved quickly on procuring some of those tactical radios.

National Defence committee  I'd like to address the ITB question a little bit, because I wrestle with that all the time. The problem with procurement is predictability and scope. If I go to my CEO and say, “You need to invest x million dollars in this country to start developing assembly lines for night vision equipment or radios”, he's going to ask, “What program am I supporting?

National Defence committee  It is my belief that it does, yes.

National Defence committee  I can give you an example. The tactical radios that we're exporting into Ukraine are better than what the current Canadian army is using in their vehicles, to the point where I think it starts to put our Canadian soldiers at risk in terms of their operational capability. I can't speak to exactly that, but that's my understanding.

National Defence committee  Thank you. In my experience, even in working with L3Harris, I know that we've deployed the CC-150 Polaris into Kuwait, and it has operated out of Iraq with civilians supporting that capability for four years. Having deployed in fighters around the world, I have not seen a conflict where we couldn't have technicians on the ground supporting those capabilities, like in Aviano or in Kuwait or in other places.

National Defence committee  If I understood your question correctly, I would say that research and development…. Could you repeat your question, please?

National Defence committee  That's not necessarily the case. I think industry and government need to work together more. The government is currently investing in research and development in a number of areas that aren't necessarily advantageous for the industry. I think it's losing a bit of money because other countries are doing exactly the same research and are further ahead than Canada.

National Defence committee  Yes, it's possible.