Government Operations Committee on March 29th, 2022

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

The first thing is that I wanted to just check in with Mr. Williams here. I don't know if he got all of his final say in or if he had anything else he wanted to say. I think that maybe it was left unsaid from Mr. Housefather's round.

[Alan Williams]

I'm trying to remember the comments from Mr. Housefather. I'll let it be for the moment.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

You took exception, I think, to one of the other witnesses' comments. You said you couldn't let it stand or something like that.

[Alan Williams]

Oh yes, absolutely. It was suggested that somehow my comments are tainted because I'm in a conflict of interest with companies that are interested, in one shape or another, in the CSC program.

That is absolutely and unequivocally not true. I am not working for, paid by or involved with any other company. I purposely made sure, both on this file and on the jet file, to not ever be involved with any of the companies, so that I can voice my views without any conflict of interest or any allegations of such. I just wanted to make that absolutely clear.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay. Thanks.

Mr. Perry, do you want to make any further comments on transparency?

[David Perry]

I do.

To go back to Alan's point about the immense costs of this, whatever the right number is, they are huge, and I think that we have not been well served by the amount and frequency of transparent communication about what's been happening on these shipbuilding projects over the last decade. It has waxed and waned, but I think it's at a bit of a low point right now. We shouldn't be relying on hearings like this as the key mechanism to learn what's happening on an investment of this immense volume of money. I think it's too important to be left to this infrequent series of communications.

A previous minister of PSPC suggested making quarterly shipbuilding reports. I'm sure that will terrify bureaucrats, but given how much money is at stake, I think that kind of attempt will better serve Canadians and make sure that we actually know what's happening, why decisions are being made, where the costs are and when we're going to get ships.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks very much for that, Mr. Perry. I think it would certainly serve parliamentarians and taxpayers very well to have that.

We've discussed some of the other countries that are doing a better job on transparency. Obviously, the Americans do a better job on transparency than we do, and also Australia, and I think you mentioned Switzerland. What are they doing in their procurement process that depoliticizes the purchasing process? It seems to delay and kill projects here.

[David Perry]

I think there are several factors. Transparency is part of that in terms of being able to better explain what's actually happening so that you can have a discussion based on a much larger basis of facts that are available.

Compared to some of your counterparts in other jurisdictions, I would suggest to you that, whatever the political stripe, I don't think our governments do a good enough job of getting enough of that information out consistently. We're investing way too much money to not be clearer with all Canadians, but especially with parliamentarians, about what decisions we're making, why we're making them and what the implications are.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm glad you mentioned that. I remember in this committee, several times, bringing up the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had to go down to the U.S. to meet with the Pentagon to get costing on frigates so they could bring it back here and extrapolate from it for our program, because DND was refusing to release information. Here we have the U.S. being more open on our costs than our own defence department.

Is it a lack of political will? Does it require the new defence minister to say, “Get it together and be transparent”, or are we stuck with red tape in the bureaucracy? Where is this coming from? Is it just baked into our system?

[David Perry]

I think part of it is baked in, and there's not a lot of enthusiasm, I don't think, across the official levels in the public service.... Fundamentally, a lot of this reporting ends up being a lot more work. If you have a choice between actually making decisions and reporting on them, there's an understandable tension between doing the work and telling people what you've done.

I think we can strike a better balance, and I don't think you can expect any change unless it comes from the Prime Minister and the cabinet on down.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It goes back to the original comment about everything being de-risking. With our bureaucrats, I think part of their de-risking is blocking information to parliamentarians and taxpayers.

Thanks very much for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

You have 10 seconds.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I will give my 10 seconds to Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to quickly ask a question that could simply be answered in writing.

The government is announcing investments for infrastructure projects related to fighter jets in Cold Lake and in Bagotvillle. Can those investments be made without the government really knowing what aircraft model will be selected if there is a problem with the F-35s?

Mr. Perry or Mr. Leuprecht could answer the question in writing after the meeting, since we are short on time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

If the witnesses could respond to that in writing, we'd appreciate that. If you need clarification on that question, we'll get it transcribed so you can have that as well.

I will now go to Mr. Jowhari for the last round of questions, for five minutes.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to pick up from where my colleague MP Bains left his conversation.

Mr. Leuprecht, I think you were responding to him when you talked about the customization. You specifically highlighted the fact that the needs of our country and the needs of our fleet are very different from others we are comparing this cost with. Then we went into the interoperability and how important it is that we be able to fit within NATO.

I'd like to go back to you, sir, and ask, with the customization or what's specific or unique to us, what's the impact on the overall costs? How does it fit within that interoperability that's needed within NATO?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I'll give you one example.

Since Canada is far away from other parts of the world, when we send a frigate somewhere, we might need that frigate to be more or less self-sufficient for, say, six months at a time. That has implications for how you set up your ship, as compared, for instance, to French frigates, which are designed to operate independently for a much shorter period of time. These are considerations that will necessarily affect the design of a ship. You might think, for instance, about what radar system you might want to put on a ship, and to what extent you might then deploy that ship to support efforts for missile defence, for instance, by allied countries.

These are all particular considerations that have both military components and political components. That's why I say it is an instrument of foreign policy, and if we don't equip the ships with that in mind, that might mean we might have nice frigates that ultimately cannot perform the requirements that taxpayers and the government of the day might have in terms of deployment expectations.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

The way I take it is that off-the-shelf is a good idea, but when we look at our geographical situation, where we are in the world, what role we want to play and what we need to be able to defend ourselves, some of these customizations and functionalities are justified.

Is that a fair statement?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

We certainly want to make sure we have equipment that delivers for Canada and Canadian interests, in terms of both Canadian industry and national interests abroad. For any military, I think that means it's going to require some customization. In particular for Canada, because our situation is quite different from that of the United States, quite different from that of most of our European allies, and also somewhat different from that of Australia, where I lived for some time, I think it is prudent to make sure we take that into consideration.

The trade-offs are, as Mr. Williams points out, a matter of appropriate oversight throughout the process and, as Mr. Perry points out, appropriate accountability to the taxpayer to ensure we can explain the trade-offs we are making.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I want to close on the topic of interoperability. Can you help us demystify this interoperability when it comes to our ships not only defending us in the North but also being part of NATO?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

That's a good question. Let me provide a simple example to you.

Often what Canada will do is that it may decide to substitute a Canadian frigate for a U.S. frigate in an American aircraft flotilla, for instance. That means the Americans can pull out their frigate and deploy it somewhere on an operation where Canada may decide, for political or other reasons, that it has no interest to deploy a Canadian frigate. It frees up American resources, which then makes Canada a vital partner for the United States in providing for multilateral and allied defence.

Also, the Americans like working with Canada precisely because they can trust Canada, and they can trust Canadian equipment insofar as we are fully operable, especially on the naval side, where this is absolutely vital in terms of maximizing our overall impact. That, of course, also then gets us good visibility in Washington, because if you're able to support the United States in areas that might be of mutual national interest for Canada, that scores us points in Washington. That then allows us to advance other policy files that are of equal importance in our bilateral relationship.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, such as NORAD.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, everybody.

I want to thank the witnesses for bearing with us. We started at 3:48, unfortunately, due to the votes and a few delays, and we know that you were with us even before that time frame when you signed in earlier. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for bearing with us, because we went through a full two hours as well. It's greatly appreciated.

Dr. Leuprecht, Mr. Perry and Mr. Williams, thank you very much for being with us throughout this time frame. As I mentioned earlier, if you have anything that you feel you need to submit in writing, please do so. It would be greatly appreciated.

That said, I would like to thank the interpreters and the technicians for also staying with us as we went through this, as well as our analysts and our clerk for being with us throughout this time.

I declare the meeting adjourned.