Government Operations Committee on May 6th, 2022

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

That certainly speaks to the retention on the other side.

Could you speak about the challenges that you encountered in those early years? Your program is well established—it's been 10 years. Again, congratulations to you on that. What were the early challenges? Were there barriers that the college had to move through to really bring the program to the place where we see it today?

[Don Bureaux]

The first challenge, I think, was the public narrative of the shipbuilding industry. To say it was a dying industry in Atlantic Canada would be an understatement. It was an industry that people thought that, if they did pursue a career in it, it would be short-lived. It would not be one in which they could spend a long period of time. We had to change that narrative.

The second thing we had to change is that it was seen to be a dirty industry in terms of the work. It was an industry that was at times, perhaps, dangerous. It wasn't a bright and clean work environment. What Irving and other shipbuilding industries have done to model the way is that they've converted the place of work to be a modern, progressive, safe and, quite frankly, inspiring place to work because the nature of the work is so technologically advanced.

The third thing is that we had to make a significant investment in infrastructure. Again, because of the cyclical nature of this industry for many generations in Nova Scotia, it didn't take long for infrastructure to become obsolete. We had to gear up. We had to change the perception of an industry. We had to make sure, as I mentioned earlier, that the workplaces people were going into were welcoming.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I'm curious, coming off that answer, if there's a want. Are you engaged in conversations in other aspects of the sector for similar programs as a recruitment tool for the very real labour shortage?

[Don Bureaux]

That's a great question. The answer is yes, and not only in this sector but in other sectors. As you can well imagine, in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, the forestry sector, for example, is a sector in which we have acute workforce shortages. At the same time, we have too many people sitting on the sidelines. We have people with disabilities, people who have faced barriers but, for an opportunity to access education, they could be successful.

We often refer to education as a set of escalators. You need to move people from this level of skill and knowledge to this level of skill and knowledge. Often the solution, it's thought, is to increase the number of escalators if you want more people up here. The challenge is that many people can't even get on the escalator. There's a front-end gap.

We can provide these kinds of 14-week partner-based programs as a lead-in to the longer programs. It's a proven solution for success.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Bureaux.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Mitchell, there was a reference earlier to submarines. I think I understood that in an ideal world, what I call a unicorn world, we would need submarines within 10 years, because ours are outdated. However, it is unimaginable that Canada will be able to obtain new submarines within 10 years.

Do I have that right?

[Paul Mitchell]

My concern is, if we don't start the process of replacing these submarines in the next two or three years, it will be very challenging to negotiate the complexity of not just the defence procurement process, but also the industrial requirements to come up with a design that will meet Canadian needs. Yes, by 2035, the clock will run out on the ability to replace these vessels.

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

Thank you.

In your opinion, how many ships would Canada need, at the very least, to adequately meet its needs, both territorially and in terms of security?

[Paul Mitchell]

In terms of the absolute minimum just to conduct operations off the east and west coasts, six conventional boats would probably be sufficient. That would enable you to establish an operations cycle on either one. That would enable the continuous presence of a submarine able to deploy to just off our coasts.

If we bring in the Arctic or if we are looking at sending submarines abroad, we would need to double that number because of the transit times to get submarines to and from station.

However, if we were to go to a nuclear option, we could also go back to a six-boat number, simply because the speed with which nuclear boats can travel under water, up to 25 knots or more, means that they can get on station very quickly. To give you an example, it took about 80 days for Chicoutimi to cross over from Esquimalt to Yokosuka in Japan. A nuclear boat could probably do that in under a week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola and Mr. Mitchell.

We'll now go to Mr. Johns for two and half minutes.

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

I'm going to go back to you, Mr. Bureaux.

Mr. Bureaux, regarding the pathways to shipbuilding program, can you cite any comparable programs on the west coast?

[Don Bureaux]

Unfortunately, Mr. Johns, I don't have a specific example. My team would. If there's one that exists, my deans and our curriculum folks would interact with them on a regular basis. I simply don't have those kinds of relationships, but I can find out for you.

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

What could the federal government do to help invest in, support and create an even more robust program than you're delivering right now, which sounds unbelievable, especially targeting students who are from under-represented groups?

How could the federal government best support this? What would be a recommendation to this committee?

[Don Bureaux]

That's a great question. Again, with the federal-provincial kind of jurisdictional responsibility for education, the federal government over the years has been tremendously supportive in two big areas. One is infrastructure.

To provide training in the area of shipbuilding is a very expensive endeavour. The technology changes on a regular basis. We need to keep up to date on that, so infrastructure would be number one.

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

Where is it now? Is it inadequate right now? What level would you say it's at in terms of scoring, if you want to call it that?

[Don Bureaux]

At our institution, I would say it's good. We've had a great run for the past number of years to update our infrastructure. We're in good shape. It is getting shorter and shorter in terms of the runway.

The second area in which we've benefited tremendously is in research. The federal government has a role in funding research. I know that the split has traditionally been low at colleges. For every dollar the federal government invests in research, a very small percentage goes into the applied research at a college. Through that research, it enhances the learning environment.

Those are the two big areas I would say to explore for further options.

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

Okay.

In terms of expanding your program, what are some of the ways in which the federal government could support your program specifically?

[Don Bureaux]

Again, it would be in applied research and the opportunity for students to engage in research in terms of metals, in terms of 3-D printing, in terms of new techniques and in terms of simulation. Those are so critically important to help our students move forward.

For example, it's amazing the technology available right now in welding simulation. At one time, the only option you had to teach a student welding was a very wasteful process. If a mistake was made, the metal was wasted. Now, with the simple push of a button, a simulated weld can occur over and over again.

That would be one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Bureaux and Mr. Johns.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mitchell, the project office for the Victoria-class submarines is made up of several government stakeholders, including stakeholders from the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have a single department managing procurement and defence contracts to deal with the decision-making issues, for example?

[Paul Mitchell]

Thank you.

I'm not a student of procurement or the organization of that procurement, so I don't believe I have the competence to answer that question properly.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Chair, since the beginning of our study on air and naval defence procurement, on several occasions we have received experts who unfortunately did not have the critical information needed to give precise information. That's not necessarily the case with Mr. Mitchell now, but I'm talking about all the witnesses we've had. That's why, a few weeks ago, I tabled the following motion in committee:

That, in the context of its study of air defence procurement projects and its study of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the committee send for, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, a monthly progress report concerning the progress of the maritime and air defence procurement projects including up-to-date acquisition, operating, training and maintenance costs and the progress of the work; that these reports be submitted to the committee on a monthly basis by the 15th of the month from May 2022 to May 2023, inclusively; and that the reports be rendered public and published on the committee’s website.

As I said at the beginning, the members of the committee, especially the opposition members, obviously need information. Since the function of the experts is to analyze what is going on in the Government of Canada in terms of military procurement, and especially since the air and naval defence procurement contracts are the largest contracts in Canadian history, it would be a minimum requirement that we have reports that inform us, at all times, or on a monthly basis, of everything that is going on in that regard.

I would like us to debate my motion and, ideally, to vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus. The motion was tabled in the past. It's now been retabled, so there's opportunity for debate.

I see Mr. McCauley's hand up, followed by Mr. Housefather.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Paul-Hus, for putting it forward. I think we should have had this five years ago, so that we could have stayed on top a bit and not had to wait for annual or biannual reviews.

I'm wondering if Mr. Paul-Hus would be open to maybe a friendly amendment just to make a bit more precise the information that we should be looking for. I want to add, after the first paragraph where he has “concerning the progress of the maritime and air defence procurement projects”, the following more precise words: the combat and non-combat vessel shipbuilding projects contained in the NSS, and the projects described in the section entitled “Royal Canadian Air Force” in chapter 2, “Long-term investments to enhance the Canadian Armed Forces capabilities and capacity to support peace and security”, found in Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

Otherwise, the rest of it is fine.

I just wanted to add that if Mr. Paul-Hus is fine with that, just to make it a bit more precise the information we're looking for, namely the updates on everything in the NSS from the polar icebreaker to Seaspan, etc., to the more precise information on the air force items being purchased under “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

We have an amendment on the floor at this point in time, and I will ask if it's a friendly one.

Mr. Paul-Hus, are you amenable to that amendment?