Evidence of meeting #11 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was williams.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
In terms of Canadian procurement, why are we so inefficient compared to other countries?
4:40 p.m.
President, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I think there are a lot of different reasons. There are many aspects of our procurement system that are different.
I think it's difficult to look for examples where we are buying literally the same thing. The F-35 is actually one example where we are, but in a lot of cases even small differences in terms of the specific features you want in a vehicle, aircraft or ship can make it quite different in terms of how you actually go about buying it.
Making those types of international comparisons is pretty tricky without doing a real apples-to-apples comparison.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, Mr. Johns, and thank you, Mr. Perry.
We'll now go to Mr. Lobb for five minutes.
March 29th, 2022 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everybody appearing today and providing some good information.
At our last meeting, I asked one of the members of the panel about a list of different surface-to-air defence systems. I mentioned the Switchblade, the Stinger and the Javelin. The reason why I mentioned those was that you see in the news what the United States is contributing to Ukraine and what they're trying to use in their own defence capabilities. For each one I mentioned, they said that we have zero. I asked if we were buying some for ourselves or to support Ukraine. They said that's a private issue and they couldn't disclose that, which is fine. I guess that's their own prerogative.
What are your thoughts on the ones I've mentioned: the Switchblade, Stinger and Javelin? Would any of those make sense in our own domestic air defence capabilities, or are those just for the U.S. to have?
Mr. Perry or Mr. Williams, whoever wants to, go ahead.
4:45 p.m.
President, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I think we should definitely be looking at upgrading our air defence. I think we're seeing, unfortunately, right now in Ukraine that a modern military needs an ability to defend itself from a wide number of airborne threats, such as drones, missiles and rockets, and that we should be increasing our capacity in that area, because we don't have nearly enough.
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Royal Military College, Queen’s University, As an Individual
We jettisoned systematic air defence in Canada as part of our strategic downsizing, so this is actually a broader conversation about rebuilding air defence for the Canadian Armed Forces. We currently cannot provide for our own systematic air defence for our troops in Latvia.
Certainly, in the current environment, that's a conversation to be had, but that will require significant commitments in terms of staff and some of the resources, and it seems we're having trouble just getting the commitments we've actually made to the Canadian Armed Forces over the line, and we've had those problems for years.
4:45 p.m.
President, Williams Group, As an Individual
I would argue that the lack of a plan, which is what [Technical difficulty—Editor] at the beginning, gets to the main issue. I think [Technical difficulty—Editor] mentioned it too. We do not have....
Can you hear me okay?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Mr. Williams, could you just raise your mike up a little bit?
Let's try it that way.
4:45 p.m.
President, Williams Group, As an Individual
I think your question is not dissimilar to Mr. Jowhari's question last week about the lack of information. The fact is that you do not have the tools you need to show oversight. You ought to be able to go to a plan that shows, from a capital standpoint, what we have and what we plan to get for the next few decades. We ought to have that. Other countries have that. Without that, nobody can do their oversight role appropriately.
If you marry that with performance measures, then you get the other side of the equation: How are things going that are being implemented? In terms of delays and bottlenecks, where are they, and who's the cause? That's the kind of basic information on what we have and what we need that's not available.
If you want to get to the core of the question on why we are so inefficient, that's it. We're the only country that has diffused ministerial accountability. We have no way to measure what we're doing, and we have no plan about what we think we ought to do.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
God bless you, Mr. Williams. I just had the very same conversation with Mr. McCauley last week. I said, “What the hell is the point of all this if every time you ask a question about something...?” I'm not trying to be combative with the government or with anybody who works inside of the military or procurement, but every time you ask them about any of this, they say, “Oh, I can't tell you that. That's secret information.”
Mr. McCauley informed me that in other countries they're quite open about much of this, and you can find it right on their own websites. If there are things that come out of this—and I don't care who the MPs are years from now—that should be one of them. How can you do your job as a member of Parliament on a committee like this when you get stonewalled at every single chance, when they can't even tell you if they're planning on buying a Javelin, a Stinger or a Switchblade? That should just be basic information. The U.S. seems quite prepared to brag about everything they own and where they're going to send it, and we can't even tell anything.
Enough about—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Five minutes go by very quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Lobb.
We will now go to Ms. Thompson, for five minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
I don't know if I'll be quite as colourful, but I would like to begin by noting that, certainly, the multidepartmental approach to procurement has been in place for a long time, I think over 50 years, so it's quite an ingrained system.
With that in mind, Mr. Williams, you have many ideas on defence procurement and how it can be improved. I'm interested to know if these discussions and suggestions were part of your work when you were an employee of the public service.
4:50 p.m.
President, Williams Group, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
Yes, they were. As you're aware, I had a book published on defence procurement, A View from the Inside, and I've been arguing for the last 15 years like a broken record that ministerial accountability will always lead to inefficiency, lack of information and lack of monitoring. I don't know why we haven't fixed it. Maybe it's not a government priority, but until it is fixed, we're all going to be suffering from a lack of information as we try to improve the process.
To me, it's not nuclear science; it's basic procurement. Without a forward-looking plan, without performance measures and without being able to hold one minister accountable, don't expect improvements.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
How have you worked with government to put these ideas forward since you left the public service?
4:50 p.m.
President, Williams Group, As an Individual
Well, I'm here today. I've been at standing committees over a number of years. I talk with ministers. I write about this. I talk about this ad nauseam to people, frankly. Some agree with me; some don't. As I said in my opening comments, it was encouraging to see the government say, “Yes, that's a good idea” in 2019, but apparently in 2021 it's not a good idea anymore.
I certainly have no idea why in this one area of the federal budget you can't hold one minister accountable for performance.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Though there's much to do, do you feel that defence procurement has been moving in the right direction?
4:50 p.m.
President, Williams Group, As an Individual
No, it has not. In fact, in an answer to a previous question, I said that when I was there with my colleagues—not just me—we reduced the time frame by 40%. Five years later, it was in excess of what it had been. The process can work as long as you have people who know and understand and who are committed to getting it through the system, but you shouldn't be depending totally on that. You should have clear accountability.
Instead of simplifying accountability, we put in place all of these oversight committees, everyone checking everybody else until no one is accountable for anything. That's how you get sloppy. If you want results, hold one person accountable, measure them, and if they're not good, change them. It's not all that complicated. That's how the real world works; it works everywhere, except, frankly, in defence procurement.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Let me ask you, then, based on your conversation.... To shift from the system that's been in place for a long time—and I'm not saying that we shouldn't move from it, but what I am saying is to move to something more centralized—what is it specifically in the process that needs to be put in place to ensure that we don't move from one system that can become quite complex to another that has its own challenges, based on a more defined process?
4:50 p.m.
President, Williams Group, As an Individual
In fact, in my book, I lay it all out. The legislative changes are minimal. This thing could be done easily within a one-year period of time.
It's not a question of centralization. It's simply saying that from now on, one organization, with one minister, is going to handle defence procurement. Take the resources from PSPC and the resources from DND and put them together. You'll save time. You'll save money. Hold that one minister accountable for getting results.
As I said in my opening comment, that's how the rest of the world does it. It's not complicated. It's simplifying things, and that's how you get results. Hold that one minister to account. It's very simple.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
I have to ask you this, though. Ministers are not.... There is an election cycle, so by the very nature of political systems, people shift. Wouldn't having narrower organizational movements and structures create a complication?
4:55 p.m.
President, Williams Group, As an Individual
Throughout our history in the federal government, we've merged different departments easily enough. It's not the first time and it won't be the last, so to do it isn't a complication.
I will say, though, that in departments it could be perceived as a win-lose, so my comment has always been that unless the Prime Minister orders it to be done, it won't be done. Staff in PSPC, I'm sure, would much rather go to air shows in Le Bourget or Farnborough than worry about buying furniture for the Crown.
People enjoy this, and I understand that. One minister may seem to be losing if they're not part of the big billion-dollar announcement. I understand that, so I don't think it's going to happen from the bottom up. I think the Prime Minister has to order it if it's ever going to be done.