Government Operations Committee on March 22nd, 2022

[Troy Crosby]

Mr. Chair, I don't have the breakout numbers by airframe.

We've established a budget for the entire investment. We're on track to deliver the entire requirement within that budget of $393 million, as I say, to include the acquisition and the updates of the aircraft to bring them into the Royal Canadian Air Force's service.

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

Okay.

What's the plan for Arctic air defence? Do we have any equipment currently?

[MGen Sylvain Ménard]

Could I please request a bit more information on the question? What do we mean by Arctic air defence? Do we mean within the NORAD umbrella?

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

I mean for the possible attack from any number of Russian areas, but just the ability for Canada to protect its own Canadian airspace in the Arctic.

[MGen Sylvain Ménard]

For any specific NORAD missions, I would respectfully refer you to the NORAD authorities. In my capacity as the RCAF representative this afternoon, I just want to mention that the Royal Canadian Air Force, of course, generates the personnel to support the NORAD missions, so we train the fighter pilots, the maintainers, all the air personnel, the controllers, and all that. We give them to NORAD, and then they employ those trained personnel for their missions. It would be improper for me to discuss the NORAD capability—

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

I have one last quick question. Has the government asked you to start procuring items such as the Switchblade, the Stinger, the Javelin, etc., not only for our own defence capabilities, but to be able to contribute? I don't want you to say you can't say because of security or secrecy. I'm asking this: Have you, or are you going to?

[Troy Crosby]

Mr. Chair, very quickly, in case I transposed my numbers when I was responding to the earlier question, it's $339 million. I may have said $393 million at some point for the interim fighter capability project investment.

In terms of the question just asked, there are a number of projects in “Strong, Secure, Engaged” to include an anti-tank guided missile project, a ground-based air defence and other investments that will progress in order to deliver required capability to the Canadian Armed Forces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Crosby, as I said earlier, if there is other information that you think you want to add to that, if you could provide that to the clerk, it would be appreciated. Thank you.

We'll now go to Mrs. Thompson for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Mr. Crosby.

On procurement, I want to just zoom in here a bit, just for more clarity. There are significant amounts of money involved here and obviously a very complex procurement process. I absolutely appreciate that in your opening comment you referenced that COVID has added another layer in the last two years, certainly, and the current world reality has made this probably even more urgent.

With that in mind, would you mind speaking about National Defence? When a request is made for new equipment, I'd ask you to break down the steps in the process to ensure that the RFP includes the requirements around transparency, because I'm certainly hearing today and in other sessions that an open and competitive process is sometimes questioned.

[Troy Crosby]

I'll break the process down into two broad steps. The first two deal with identifying a need and then developing the requirements in an options-analysis phase that's led by the sponsoring service, whether that be the RCAF, the navy, the army or the special operations forces. During that phase, the requirement goes through a number of review committees, including the independent review panel for defence acquisition, to ensure that we'll deliver a capability that fits in the overall capability set or requirement of the Canadian Armed Forces in the short and longer term.

Once the project moves into the definition phase, we work closely with our colleagues at PSPC and in other departments to develop the request for proposal to deliver on that requirement. Going back to an earlier question from the committee, we also engage in a very thorough way with Canadian industry participating in these processes, to ensure that the request for proposal is something they can respond to and understand.

Once we've gone through the competitive process and a contract is awarded, again we work closely with our colleagues in other government departments and with industry through the delivery of the equipment and right through the transition to the in-service...in replacing a fleet, perhaps, which includes the training that Major-General Ménard referenced earlier, making sure that a full capability is delivered. It's much more than equipment, as you can appreciate.

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

Just to follow along the same thread, there are timelines. I realize this is so complex that it would probably be challenging to say this takes a year or this takes five years, but I'd like you to speak about the realities or variables that can come up during the process that would affect timelines, and what would be a reasonable timeline.

As well, in closing, I'd like your thoughts on what could be put in place to tighten the process if, indeed, you feel there's even a need to tighten it.

[Troy Crosby]

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I can provide some opening comments. Mr. Page may have something to add here as well.

It would be difficult to provide a generic answer. The procurements we pursue vary greatly in complexity. Some will move quite quickly through the process, and I think we've demonstrated well the ability to accelerate processes where the operational requirement has shown a need, as we've seen through COVID. Also, I mentioned a couple of the “Strong, Secure, Engaged” projects that have progressed well ahead of their originally planned timelines.

In other cases, such as the future fighter capability competitive process, it's very complex. There's a lot there that has to be addressed, and those processes clearly take longer, including through the industry engagement process and the period of time during which they're preparing their proposals.

The strength of the system right now is, as Mr. Page mentioned earlier in his comments, around the close collaboration between the government departments involved. There isn't a day that goes by—seven days a week, I think—that I'm not on the phone with Mr. Page at least once. We work very closely together with our colleagues to address the challenges we have and seek advice from industry where that's appropriate.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Page.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We have five seconds.

Mr. Page, if you have a quick answer, go ahead.

[Simon Page]

Very quickly, Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Crosby described it really well.

We're also keeping in mind today, as we procure materiel and equipment, other considerations such as social procurement, greening and indigenous procurement, as mentioned before.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We'll go to our third round and start with Mr. Paul-Hus for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question will be for Mr. Crosby.

Mr. Crosby, in his recently published report on defence spending, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that last year alone, $1.3 billion had been returned to the state because the money had not been invested in defence procurement.

Could you tell us which projects were not executed due to lack of capacity or time?

[Troy Crosby]

Mr. Chair, the outcomes of last year's progress would be spread across any number of projects. Some of the spending that would have been forecast well in advance of even the last fiscal year would have reflected forecast delivery timelines.

In some cases, COVID and supply chain challenges have really been an impediment to industry. We've seen late deliveries of component parts and of supply that held up their production, and, of course, we pay once we've received materiel, so that is reflected in those lapses.

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

The COVID‑19 pandemic did indeed cause problems, and we understand that this may explain the situation. Earlier you said that, during the pandemic, we saw that the government could be very efficient, that everyone could really buckle down and work faster.

Due to the current conflict in Ukraine, have any ministers asked you to act more quickly to acquire military equipment or to make various purchases of urgently needed equipment?

Have you received any such instructions?

[Troy Crosby]

We are moving forward on our “Strong, Secure, Engaged” investments, and we respond to priorities as they're identified. In this case, if Ukraine has identified any specific requirements, appropriate authorities have taken a look at those, and we've been able to work with them to see what opportunities there are for us to provide support.

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

Let's say that the answer was very political.

The question is simple. Have the procurement officials at the Department of National Defence and Mr. Page at the Department of Public Works and Government Services been instructed to make purchases quickly?

Have you been instructed to expedite procurement processes for the different types of equipment needed to make Canada operational?

We know that Canada is deficient in this regard. Have you received specific instructions, yes or no?

[Troy Crosby]

Mr. Chair, at this point we have no specific activity that we're accelerating, but we are ready to do that as operational requirements might require.

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

Thank you for the answer, Mr. Crosby.

Mr. Page, I'm going to return to the issue of NORAD modernization and the famous contract that was awarded to an Inuit company. Giving $592 million in contracts to an Inuit company isn't an issue. But will this company contribute to modernizing NORAD, or is it simply going to conduct maintenance? We're having trouble getting details on that.

What will be the tangible results of this investment? Is it simply to conduct equipment maintenance? If so, please know that I don't have a problem with that.

In addition, is there any proposal to go further, given the threat emerging right now? This has been an issue for quite some time and I wonder if there are any plans to speed up modernization.

Do you have any comments on that?

[Simon Page]

Thank you very much for your questions, Mr. Paul-Hus.

I will speak to the first part, and then I will turn it over to the Department of National Defence team.

The contract awarded to Nasittuq is for maintenance and in‑service support of the North Warning System. It therefore does not include a modernization component.

For the second part, I will turn the floor over to my colleagues from the Department of Defence.

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

Thank you, Mr. Page.

Did you want to add any details to the second part of my question, Mr. Crosby?