Government Operations Committee on March 22nd, 2022

[MGen Sylvain Ménard]

As I mentioned earlier, the Royal Canadian Air Force is really keen to deliver on its mission set that has been dictated to us by “Strong, Secure, Engaged” in Canada's defence policy, so our goal is to make sure we meet Canada's expectation of its Royal Canadian Air Force.

That said, one of the primary roles for our air force is to be interoperable with NORAD, NATO and Five Eyes partners. That's why we have put that in place in our requirements and we expect that the aircraft we will purchase for the future fighter capability will be interoperable and meet those missions.

Now, if for some reason Canada wants us to evolve or change our role, we will have to look at the requirements at that stage and then we would make an operational deficiency report. We would engage with ADM(Mat) colleagues and then PSPC to find a solution on that front.

From an air force perspective for operational requirements, that is how the air force would select a specific operational requirement that it needs. It's based on what we've been tasked with by our government.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

If nobody else has anything to supplement that with....

I guess the point is that when you're buying the generic equipment, the equipment will be cheaper and will probably come faster than when you're customizing it. I think it's something interesting to look at each and every time.

Can we talk about the process for the fighter jets?

Mr. Page, by the way, it has always been a pleasure to work with you and the department.

How has the risk been mitigated by the type of process we've done, in terms of the lengthy process of vetting suppliers and bringing it down as we have right now?

[Simon Page]

I think we have done this risk mitigation piece that you're talking about in various ways. For me, probably the most prevailing way was the engagement with industry. Right from the start, well before the release of the request for proposal, we had a very rich engagement with the suppliers about Canada's requirements. We engaged them throughout with mandatory and rated requirements.

As I said, we engaged them well before the RFP was released. There was a publishing of the draft RFP, and then eventually also the use of the phased bid compliance process.

Even after the submission of their proposal, we maintained a dialogue with those who submitted bids, to make sure we had a very relevant competition that was, again, conducted in an open, transparent and fair fashion.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

In terms of evaluating the bids right now, in terms of looking at the two suppliers that are left and determining what the next stage will be, if we go with one or if we continue talking to both, would it be true to say that there are people from both departments and possibly another department involved in the process?

For example, Madame Vignola asked a very good question about what the pilots want, but wouldn't the Department of Defence and their wishes be represented at the table in the group of people who are evaluating these bids?

[Simon Page]

The bid evaluation piece was conducted under a very specific and, again, a very rigid governance established only for the evaluation of the proposals. These evaluation teams, multidisciplinary teams, involve members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, members of the materiel group represented by Mr. Crosby, members of ISED and members from my department.

From a process point of view, the entirety of the process was overseen by the defence procurement strategy governance at the ADM and DM level. A very limited number of people would have had access to the entirety of the evaluation and would have known where the entirety of the evaluation was going. We also used a fairness monitor throughout to make sure we were doing the right things, again in an open, fair and transparent manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Page.

We've now finished our third round and we're about to now start our fourth round.

I want to thank the witnesses who are here.

With respect to the time, we're going to one quick, rapid-fire round right now.

I'm going to allow for one question from the NDP and the Bloc and two questions from the Liberals and the Conservatives.

There's a time limit on this, so I will cut you off right at that time.

We'll go with Mr. Johns for one question, please.

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

Okay.

I asked a question earlier about our capability in air defence in the war against climate change.

I think, Mr. Page, you deferred to your other colleagues, whether it be Mr. Crosby or whoever else may answer it.

Right now, Canada has invested $3.4 million in Coulson enterprises, the company I talked about earlier, through the strategic innovation fund, to modify their Boeing 737 plan. It has a dual purpose, both for aerial firefighting and for tanks and passengers.

I asked why Canada is not using the military to support aerial firefighting capabilities. Is this something you're considering or looking at? We know there's a huge gap and there's a need for federal leadership, and you've got a global company like Coulson.

[Simon Page]

In the current defence and marine portfolio, such requirements are not present.

My assessment and my understanding of such requirements is that they are generated at the provincial level. My branch, defence and marine procurement, deals with federal clients, including DND, the Coast Guard, Transport and the RCMP.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mrs. Vignola for one question.

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

Ground-based air defence is expected to include several components which I will not list, but the cost should be between $250 million and $499 million.

First of all, what accounts for this overall gap of $249 million? Secondly, when does the government hope to see this defence commissioned and operational?

[MGen Sylvain Ménard]

I apologize, but I don't know the cost of ground equipment.

Could you clarify your question?

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

When I talk about ground-based air defence, I'm talking about one or more effector platforms, munitions, a sensor suite, fire control software, and an integrated C4ISR networked system, costing between $250 million and $499 million.

Why is there a $249 million difference?

When will this system be purchased and when will it be operational?

[MGen Sylvain Ménard]

Thank you for the clarification.

The ground-based air defence system is the responsibility of the Canadian Army. So as an airman representing the Royal Canadian Air Force, it would be difficult for me to answer that question. I'm sorry.

[Troy Crosby]

Mr. Chair, I think I can help with a quick response there.

The bands of potential build costs are meant to inform where the investment could lie, but until we move further through the process, the exact figures will continue to mature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Crosby.

At some point in time, if you can provide the committee with further answers I'd appreciate that.

We'll now go to Ms. Thompson for two questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Page and Mr. Crosby, I'd like to go back to a comment you made in my last round, which I thought was really quite interesting. You both referenced working collaboratively and working across departments, versus a more siloed approach.

It led me to go back to something that I had been reading in preparation for today. There are observers who believe that defence procurement strategy governance will improve procurement processes in Canada in terms of transparency, accountability and efficiency. Likewise, there are commentators who believe that the processes would be improved in a more centralized defence procurement approach, under a single defence procurement strategy. I believe this was in place in 1969, when we moved to a more open system.

A centralized approach would create a significant shift in the way that procurement defence occurs across Canada, ending five decades of a multidepartment strategy. I'm really interested in both of your thoughts on both sides, the multidepartment strategy and then a more centralized strategy. This is all in a need to look at improvements or more transparency and accountability.

[Simon Page]

Maybe I can start quickly and then give the floor to my colleague, Troy.

Without characterizing it as centralized now, what has been created under the defence procurement strategy and the governance system we have now is very close to a centralized model. The various pillars of defence procurement are properly considered, and there are healthy discussions about the various pillars and how they should be managed as we execute a procurement process. These pillars would be the capability that will come from the client, the performance, the value for money and the economic benefits.

At these governance meetings that we have, we also have central agencies with us that will provide their consideration and their concerns immediately at the outset of a procurement, and then throughout, which also adds to the centralized variable of the model and to its efficiency.

[Troy Crosby]

I would quickly add that we work, as Mr. Page has said, very closely on the more complex, typically high dollar value programs. That said, National Defence has quite a level of delegated authorities. The vast majority of our procurements—the lower dollar value, less complex activities—are managed within the Department of National Defence so that we can concentrate our time and effort with our interdepartmental colleagues, where they have the most value.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you. I apologize, Ms. Thompson, but your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Major-General Ménard, you've been in the Canadian Forces for a very long time and you've come up through several ranks.

As a major-general, do you have any advice for the committee on military procurement projects? I'm not playing politics here, because you've served under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

What advice would you give us, as part of our study, about air capability, but especially about the military procurement process?

[MGen Sylvain Ménard]

Thank you very much for the question.

I want to thank the committee for the work it is doing. When we see what is happening in Europe right now, we are fortunate to have the government structures we do, which demonstrate considerable intellectual rigour.

I am not a procurement expert, and I would prefer not to comment on what could be improved or to give your committee advice. It would make me uncomfortable.

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

Thank you, Major-General Ménard.

The Boeing Super Hornet was removed from the competition. What criteria informed this decision?

[Troy Crosby]

I will defer to Mr. Page, who's leading the process.

[Simon Page]

Thank you for the question.

Without going into detail, I would say that all of the companies involved in the bidding process had to prove that they met established criteria before moving on to the next stages of the process.

Boeing did not meet one of the criteria and that is why they were excluded from the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you very much to the witnesses. We really appreciate your being here.

Mr. Cosby, Mr. Page and Major-General Ménard, thank you to all three of you for bearing with us as we went a little longer than we originally scheduled. We appreciate your attending, as we appreciate it every time you appear before us, so thank you.

I'd also like to thank the interpreters and the technical staff who have been working with us here today and bearing with us as we go, as well as our analyst and our clerk.

I have just one last thing for the committee. I've been asked whether the committee might be interested in doing a tour of Centre Block. If that is the case, please express that to me, and then I will relay that and we'll see if we can arrange it. We would do that as a committee, if you're interested.

With that said, I declare the meeting adjourned.