Government Operations Committee on April 5th, 2022

[Richard Shimooka]

Thank you for the question.

I think that they are trying to some degree, but at the same time, I think the employment opportunities for the Canadian Armed Forces and also the government writ large aren't as well known, especially out on the west coast, because we do not have large government institutions like in Ontario or in other areas.

I think it's an incredibly critical area. This goes back to the nature of warfare that we are now witnessing develop. We see cyber-capabilities, the ability to bring in large amounts of data and sort of fuse it into a usable intelligence picture that we can actually undertake operations with. Those require the really technical abilities of individuals who are sought after by social media companies and by tech companies.

There's a large competition for those recruits who are coming out of those universities. As a result, DND often loses out. If there's a person who's able to do very large data analysis and devise algorithms to put it all together, that person is highly sought after by Facebook. Then there's the Canadian government out there, which cannot offer a salary that's close to what a Facebook engineer can earn. As a result, we often don't get the best and often we don't even get looked at because these people are....

We have to maybe look at what the remuneration is for some of these very specific roles, but also show off some of the benefits of working for the Canadian government. A lot of people do want to work for the government, because they think it's important to protect our country and whatnot.

It's a much larger conversation that obviously we can't get into here, but I think it's really critical.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you for that.

My next question is for Ms. Sloan.

Past procurement problems have fostered distrust, which produces more oversights that then reduce efficiency. You've written that it will be necessary to build trust back up by “accepting a trade-off between risk and results, and by accepting that failure is part of the learning process, not a reason to stop moving forward.”

What would this look like? Do you have any suggestions?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

It would look like less bureaucratic paperwork and fewer levels of check-off in terms of things going through the government system. I think that's what I was referring to. There is such a risk-averse culture, if you like, within the military procurement system in Canada that things just get progressively tied up.

It's more of a bureaucratic paperwork system that needs to be reduced so that we can move forward more quickly on projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

We'll now go to Ms. Vignola for two minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Huebert.

We have talked about the fact that ship prices were skyrocketing. One of the reasons behind that is availability and the increase in the cost of steel.

What could Canada do to become less dependent on fluctuations in the price of steel?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

It's a bit of a silly answer, but it still is true: Expand Baffin Island. Baffin Island has probably one of the world's largest deposits of iron ore. If we were producing it and actually refining it here rather than sending it to the Germans to be refined, that would be one way.

The reality is that we are going to be completely at the control of the international market for steel. We've been that way since the Chinese entered into the market, buying up so much of the steel. I don't know, short of having a national policy of patrolling of resources—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You probably know that, in Quebec, one of the large iron mines also refines that ore. The iron comes from Fermont, but the pellets are produced in Port‑Cartier. Unfortunately, those pellets are essentially exported. We should keep our resources and process them here. That way, we would be less dependent on resources from China, which are a bit less reliable owing to carbon levels.

Have I understood correctly?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

I don't know, given the globalization, our participation in a free trading system particularly for natural resources, how we manage that. Look at the difficulty we had in just trying to deal with the attempt of the Chinese to buy the gold mine in terms of any type of instrumentation that we have.

It is an ongoing problem, but it goes back to something that Elinor was saying, in that the real cost of warships is in terms of the computers and the technical side. The steel tends to be a relatively minimal part of any of the hull that you're going to be buying.

I don't have a good answer for you. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Johns for two minutes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

I want to go back to Mr. Huebert about the lack of system in place here. We talked about maintenance and we clearly know there's a big issue on capacity issues.

B.C. Ferries says this is their top issue, the scarcity of dry dock space. For the ship-breaking, even end of life of vessels, we don't have a plan. Typically Canada ships a lot of our vessels to Bangladesh and other countries to deal with ship-breaking.

We need to be more responsible, whether it be environmentally or on human rights issues. We know when we send those vessels overseas there have been child labour and human rights issues related to that. Also, it's about building capacity. The PBO identified that there could be cost savings if we expand our sector. Other countries have implemented tariffs. Even Canada had one, a 25% tariff on building ferries in Canada, which they removed. That was $118 million a year that could have been invested in supporting our shipyards.

Maybe you could speak a bit about policy, about the need for coordination between departments so that we have a strong sector with skilled workers and reduce costs overall if we want to have a robust shipbuilding sector in years to come.

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

The simple answer is that Canada is a maritime country, but we have what's called seawater blindness. The central agencies, particularly the political elites, do not understand how much of the maritime domain of Canada is actually at the heart of both our security and our prosperity.

It takes a political decision to turn around and come up with a type of creation of an overview. Once again, it could be put under the czar that Elinor talked about. We need to break this political blindness to know how important the oceans and the oceans' resources are to Canada. I'm getting to be old at this, but I'm always shocked at how much Canadians, particularly central Canadians, forget the importance that we have and, therefore, are not willing to engage in the type of study that would establish the type of structure we would then need. The Japanese do it pretty easily. The Americans do it, and the British do it in a much more expanded way. I don't know why we can't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Huebert, and thank you, Mr. Johns.

We'll now go to Mr. Paul-Hus for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank our guests today. I hope they will come back to see us very soon because their knowledge of their files makes them indispensable to all parliamentarians around this table.

I would now like to move the following motion, of which I gave notice last week:

That the committee order the production, by no later then Friday, April 8, 2022, of a copy of all documents, signed or unsigned, related to the negotiation of the coalition agreement between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party, or what the Prime Minister refers to as a “supply and confidence agreement”, including any documents which record or demonstrate an understanding between the parties as to how the coalition commitments will be interpreted, and that the committee report these documents to the House.

I feel an obligation to move my motion given the way the events of March 22 unfolded, when the Prime Minister told Canadians about his alliance with the NDP. That alliance will push the government to engage in expenditures the extent of which we cannot even imagine.

As parliamentarians and members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we have a duty to ensure that government contracts, procurement and expenditures are appropriate. That is part of the committee's mandate. That is why I humbly move this motion, hoping that my colleagues will support it fully.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you for that, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Before we start debate on this issue, when I look at the time frame that we're in right now, I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us. I will dismiss them at this point in time, because we're running out of time.

Thank you, Ms. Sloan, Mr. Huebert and Mr. Shimooka, for attending and for your testimony today. We greatly appreciate it.

With that said, I will dismiss you from the meeting.

I would like to indicate to the committee that, when we receive these motions that have been put before us, I always look at them one by one to make certain they are acceptable or admissible to what we're doing, and I will usually discuss that with the clerk. I will research it myself, after I've talked to speakers and others I know about these issues.

With that said, I've looked at the Standing Orders on this particular motion, and, basically, Standing Order 108(3)(c) sets out the mandate of the government operations and estimates committee, including under subparagraph (i), which I will quote: “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with operational and expenditure plans of the central departments and agencies”.

The Prime Minister's Office is the most powerful of the central agencies and is supported by the Privy Council Office, which is the most powerful central agency within the government. It was suggested throughout by some people whom I discussed this with that it might be a political motion. I would answer that with the press release announcing the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP on March 22, distributed using Government of Canada resources and posted on the Prime Minister's departmental website. If this is a political party matter and not a Government of Canada matter, that announcement and press release would have been posted on the Liberal Party of Canada's website and distributed by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Further, this agreement includes a commitment from the Prime Minister that his office and his government will pursue specific policies and legislation as part of the agreement, which will require management from the Government of Canada to implement, will be part of the operations of central agencies and will require the expenditure of funds to achieve the agreement upon policies.

Subparagraph (vii) of Standing Order 108(3)(c) states, “the review of and report on the process for considering the estimates and supply, including the format and content of all estimates documents”. Whereas this agreement is titled “supply and confidence agreement”, this agreement falls under the business of supply. Therefore, I would consider this under the mandate of the committee for review.

With that said, I will consider this as admissible. At this point, we're open for debate.

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying when I proposed the motion, it seems to me fairly clear that we need to get the documents related to this coalition agreement between the two parties, signed or not. That agreement will significantly impact many upcoming expenditures and the work of parliamentarians and of our committee. I think the exercise to shed light on that is a pretty simple democratic exercise. That is why the motion is not intended to provoke. It is simply intended to obtain information, as is our right.

My respected NDP colleague does not agree with me, but this is an agreement concluded between the the NDP leader and Canada's Prime Minister, who decided to establish a game plan for the coming years. That's their choice, but we just want to know what the state of the negotiations is, what those negotiations covered and what documents have been signed in relation to that supply and confidence agreement. As I said, this is a pretty simple request by the official opposition. I think the Bloc Québécois will also agree in saying that this kind of an agreement must be concluded transparently. That is simply in the interest of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

I see that Mr. Johns' hand is up.

Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

First of all, not to provoke...? This is extremely provoking. It's frivolous. I believe it's outside the scope of this committee, Mr. Chair.

We have been completely transparent. Our agreement is public. Our leader has spoken publicly about it. I think the Conservatives should actually stop playing games. Instead, they should be trying to help people.

What we're doing here is trying to help Canadians. We did that through COVID, the whole time, and that's what this deal is about. It was the Conservatives who complained about an early election, Mr. Chair. They complained every day about an early, unnecessary, unfair election. Now we want to make sure that we have stability to get people the help they need, and if the NDP is the big bad boogeyman because we want to help people get their teeth fixed, so be it.

I'll tell you, children need help. Seniors need help. People living in poverty need their teeth fixed. They need access to medicine. They need a place to live, and we need to truly move forward with reconciliation and climate action. That's what we doing here.

I'm absolutely blown away that we lost an opportunity to ask more questions of witnesses and to do what we're supposed to do here at this committee. It's absolutely appalling that, instead of getting help to Canadians, another motion like this comes forward. It's absolutely disgraceful. I will be voting against this motion. That member can go online and see the agreement himself. It's there. It's public. It's publicly there because we want people to know that we are here to help people, not to play politics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

I see Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also believe that this motion is out of the scope of the committee, but out of respect for the Chair, I did not challenge you on that point. I think we can just defeat this motion.

I do want to say that I have always hoped that this committee would work together in harmony and would work together across party lines.

We have had an opportunity to work together on many important files. I have lost my opportunity to ask questions, as I was meant to do so after Mr. Paul‑Hus.

There was no discussion.... If Mr. Paul-Hus was really trying to get this motion adopted, he has had no discussion with anybody on this side to try to gain support for his motion, to explain to us his motion, and in the end, it's inherently political. Parties in this House negotiate and discuss things with each other all the time on House strategy and many other things. If people want to start going after some documents, others on this committee can start going after a lot of other documents and spend all of our time in frivolous games as opposed to actually moving forward with really important stuff, which, by the way, is the study that you guys put forward on air defence and the national shipbuilding strategy. It wasn't us. We delayed our studies to hear this one.

In any case, I will be voting against. I hope we don't have this happen too many times because I think it will, in the end, create more friction than it's worth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

It's Mr. Kusmierczyk, and then Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to echo the comments that were made by my colleague, as well as my colleague across the table.

We're studying two of the most important defence procurements in our country's history, and the situation that we're seeing unfolding in Ukraine only adds to the urgency of this work. This was a study that we agreed upon. This was put forward by Conservative colleagues because we understood how important the study was. We had today three really important witnesses before us that had incredible, remarkable expertise and experience that they were sharing with this committee, including a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, someone who had spent six years in the Department of Defence and is now an expert in her field. Of course, I'm talking about Professor Sloan. It's concerning to me and it's disappointing that my Conservative colleagues grew bored of their testimony, so much so that we cut their testimony and their appearance before this committee short. That is information that is important in this critical study.

I felt it important to put that on the record. I think it's unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided that they wanted to play games at this incredibly important, pivotal time in terms of defence procurement and in terms of geopolitics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We can play those little games. I personally waited for the end of the meeting to move this motion, and I used my speaking time to do so. Okay, perhaps I used three or four minutes of Mr. Housefather's time. I just want to remind the committee of the premise of that agreement with the NDP.

When this was announced, on March 22, the Prime Minister said there was a problem, that Parliament was operating poorly and that committee is were not working. Yet, as far as I remember, once we returned after the election, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates started by coming up with a work plan. There was no fighting, we cooperated, and everything was going very well.

The political decision is the agreement concluded between the Prime Minister and the NDP leader. That is what is currently causing our committee problems. Before that, everything was going well. We had the same will to advance defence procurement in Canada, among other considerations.

Don't blame us for making this request today because, ultimately, the political game occurred between the Liberal Party leader and the NDP leader. We have not taken part in any political games. I would even say that, in general, we the Conservatives have been pretty cooperative in all House committees. We have been working on advancing Canada's interests.

I think our motion is normal, given the circumstances. As I said, I waited until the end of the meeting to move my motion, so that we would not spend two hours discussing it and miss the opportunity to hear from important witnesses who were here today.

Once again, let's remember the premise of that agreement. The Prime Minister was saying there was a problem with the operations of the House and of the committees, whereas I think we have done our best to work in a spirit of collegiality with everyone.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

We now have Mr. McCauley, followed by Ms. Vignola and then Mr. Johns.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to address a couple of points. Yes, I understand that our NDP and Liberal colleagues disagree with this motion. That's fine. I wish that they would stick to the facts and end the faux outrage. We were at the end of time. We were not going to have any more witnesses. As someone who has had the pleasure of sitting on this committee now for six and a half years, I can state that January 2016 was when I put forward the first motion to study this. To sit and hear my Liberal colleagues go on about, “Oh my God, we're delaying an important study.” For six years and four months, the Liberals have delayed and pushed back this study.

Again, I disagree. We can get on to stuff, vote and get back to work, but let's end the fake outrage and the bending of the truth about some of the stuff that we have been doing here.

Thanks.