Government Operations Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

I come from a riding that represents CFB Gagetown, so this is a particularly important conversation for my constituents and for Canada.

Ms. Gregory, you mentioned that the P-8 shares extensive commonality with the Boeing 737, which has support infrastructure around the globe.

In your opinion, would this commonality in spares and in training for air crews and maintainers reduce costs and potentially also enable military operations to leverage support throughout the world?

[Mary Gregory]

Thank you so much for the question.

I can't speak to the degree to which the military training would be comparable to civilian training.

Nancy, I don't know if you can answer that.

I think that Boeing, like others, has worldwide capabilities.

[Nancy Tremblay]

Thank you very much for the question.

The military training is very different from typical civilian airline training. It would have to be developed specifically for the purpose of military operations. The missions that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces do are much different from what you would see on a 737.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Madam Tremblay, I understand that the range, speed and endurance of the P-8 make it an ideal platform for monitoring Canada's northern and maritime approaches. Could you speak to that specifically?

[Nancy Tremblay]

Yes, in fact the endurance and the long range that the Royal Canadian Air Force has requested as a requirement for this aircraft would be met by the P-8.

Canada is a big country, so the RCAF wants to be in a position to be able to do the surveillance missions, intelligence missions, and command and control missions definitely within Canada. As well, the Canadian Armed Forces are often called upon to interact with allies abroad. The Indo-Pacific region is one of them. The P-8 would meet the range requested by the RCAF.

[Bill Matthews]

Can I add one thing, Mr. Chair, just to be clear?

This applies to planes and ships. We are loading them up with more things all the time. Weight is important and weight obviously impacts range.

The P-8 does indeed meet the RCAF's requirement for range. The range is not as good as the CP-140, largely because of its weight, but the P-8 is capable of air-to-air refuelling, so it meets the range requirements of the RCAF. It is able to refuel in the air, which allows it to stay in theatre longer.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Excellent.

Mr. Matthews, what limitations do the Canadian Armed Forces currently face, especially relative to allies, by still using the CP-140?

[Bill Matthews]

On the limitations, we are upgrading the CP-140 to mitigate some of those, but it is becoming a less relevant asset more and more quickly. It is currently not able to self-defend. That is an important aspect in the current environment.

We have plans to fix that, but the less relevant it becomes, the more challenges it has in communicating with allies and the more difficult it is to deploy. While we plan to fly it until 2030, I think we can forecast that the relevance of that asset will decrease as time goes on.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

In line with that question, would Canada's aviation infrastructure need to be modernized or expanded to accommodate the P-8A?

[Bill Matthews]

I'm not sure how to answer that. You have to develop a sustainment strategy for any new asset you bring on board. You have to have a sustainment strategy for your old assets, which becomes a problem.

From an infrastructure perspective, I'm not aware of anything overly special here, but I'm going to turn to Nancy.

[Nancy Tremblay]

The infrastructure requirements need to be further refined once we have finalized the decision as to which aircraft will replace the CP-140. Obviously, we would need to have the infrastructure ready to be able to operate and maintain the aircraft and train the aircrew and the maintainers.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Just quickly to end, are you aware of any problems with the operation of the P-8A Poseidon? Anyone can answer.

[Bill Matthews]

You may be aware of some of the work done by the U.S. Senate, I believe, looking at the availability of the P-8. They had some challenges early on with making sure they had the sustainment of parts necessary to keep it in the air as often as desired. The U.S. Navy has actually fixed that problem, so they are at 80% or above right now.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Block, you have five minutes, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on the questioning of my colleague Mr. Genuis and get back to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ruling and the impact that it has had on the reputation, I guess, of Public Services and Procurement and the concerns that raises with regard to future procurement.

I guess what I want to be clear on is that with regard to the study we're having right now, we are simply trying to identify some procedural discrepancies and processes around large procurement projects. How can we be sure that PSPC is up to the task of replacing the Auroras if they continually bungle up procurement projects like the one indicated in the ruling by the CITT?

[Simon Page]

On part one, the CITT, I think I'll go back to my previous comment. Every defence and marine procurement, once detailed from a requirements point of view, is fairly massive. There are many technical requirements. Many of them are mandatory. Some of them are desirable. There are different assessments and different criteria. Sometimes the interpretation of a criterion can differ from one party to another.

I think we are doing really well. We don't do this job alone. Technical requirements are evaluated with the client department. In the CITT case here, for the Terry Fox vessel life extension, the Canadian Coast Guard is with us. They are the technical authority for the procurement. We're there from a process point of view and for good stewardship of the solicitation. ISED is also in the room to make sure we respect any Canadian economic benefits we may have associated with a project.

We take this job very seriously. We're laser-focused every time there's a bid evaluation. In many cases, we have fairness monitors. In many cases, we have software to assist us in determining the compliance and the winning bidder.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

As a follow-up question, how much did this process with the CITT cost Canadian taxpayers?

[Simon Page]

That has yet to be determined. If you're asking for our own efforts in government, I don't have that figure yet. The CITT is now asking us to negotiate compensation. We are in the process of doing that. I don't have the exact figure at this moment.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

As my last question, can you tell me how many other CITT disputes there may be in regard to procurement with PSPC?

[Simon Page]

I don't have that number. What I can share is that over two and a half years with PSPC in defence and marine procurement, this was my second case at the tribunal.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you giving up your minute and a half?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I would just make the observation that there are several time and capability constraints, I think, that must be satisfied in the replacement of any military procurement, the Auroras notwithstanding. I guess I would say that if it isn't done right, it will cost Canadians a whole lot more than it already has and open up another capability gap in our Canadian Armed Forces.

I would end with that observation. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sousa, you have five minutes, please.