National Defence Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

As I said to Ms. Black, on the so-called search and rescue project...there are a number of things behind the scenes called projects, but until the government authorizes them, they're merely planning documents inside the defence department. These planning documents possibly change on a regular basis.

Until and if you see a search and rescue project, the information you have about aircraft speeds, etc., is merely part of internal planning in the defence department. I think it would be better for you to comment if and when an MC comes out on search and rescue, because right at the moment, that's merely continual re-evaluation inside the department.

From my point of view, it doesn't exist at the moment. It has not come to me; it doesn't exist.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I urge you, sir, to look at that and change that SOR down to back within the functional capabilities to ensure that the plane you purchase is going to be able to do the job, particularly for the contour searches.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

It's the same with all these articles you're seeing in papers about plans, etc. Again, I don't think you've ever seen my signature on these documents, or a date on them. These are documents that keep floating around inside the department.

It's my intention to make sure our air force, army, navy, and special forces are viable. We aren't going to consciously do anything that doesn't make military sense. If you have patience, when the finalized plan comes through, you might see different results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

There's one minute left.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I think, sir, I asked a question on whether you are going to extend the combat mission beyond 2009 in Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Martin, that's not the subject of our study. At the moment, it's procurement. If you have a procurement question, I'm sure the minister would like to respond.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Certainly, Mr. Chair, it has relevance in terms of procurement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Well, we just did a lengthy study on Afghanistan, and the minister appeared then.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I would say that the question is accurate. I understand that the reason we have all this equipment is to help our men and women, especially in the mission. The delivery date is important; if we're focusing on an extension of the mission, it will have an impact also on the overall procurement, so I think that this question is totally accurate. He should address it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Well, the minister can respond if he wishes, but I know what his response will be.

Go ahead, sir.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Afghanistan is our most important commitment at the moment, but it's not our only commitment. We don't buy equipment just for Afghanistan. Otherwise, you'd buy very, very specialized pieces of equipment.

At the moment, we're committed to the end of February 2009. Absolutely no discussion has taken place about what, if anything, will happen beyond February 2009.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We will move over to the government and then back to the Bloc. Mr. Blaney, you have five minutes.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, General Hillier, Mr. Elcock, thank you for coming to discuss defence procurement with us.

I personally benefited from your equipment in Afghanistan. I got into a light armoured vehicle, a LAV-3, made in Canada, as well as into an RG-31 Nyala, made in South Africa. I then understood that there was a trade-off between safety and comfort. The suspension was not very smooth, but lives are saved in that way. I think that it is important to make sure that our soldiers have equipment that works.

Earlier, I heard Mr. Bachand's example. I see that he is using his blackberry. This is a fine example of equipment that leaves no other choice. We need such equipment to communicate on the Hill and there is no vast choice of suppliers. The same applies to defence equipment.

Moreover, Mr. Bachand did not mention the fact that our government had announced its intention to purchase C-17s last spring and when the invitation to tender was published in July, two companies offered their services. The equipment was reviewed by Industry Canada, National Defence and by Public Works and Government Services Canada. Thus, it was a transparent process.

Mr. Minister, my colleague noted that at the beginning of the previous government's mandate, nearly 700 aircraft were in service, whereas now, there are only 290, with varying degrees of service.

Could you tell us how we can avoid this kind of situation in the future—of vulnerability, if not dilapidation of equipment, and what measures you could take to avoid repeating the same situation?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

If you track the numbers of aircraft in the air force over time, you'll see that they've been losing them at a rate of about two a week. That process has basically come to a halt, because we are rebuilding the air force, fleet by fleet by fleet. In the future there will be other announcements for other fleets from the air force.

The air force was underfunded dramatically for quite a while. They dealt with it by reducing their fleets and reducing their activity rates. We are trying to stabilize the air force at this time, just as we're trying to stabilize the army and the navy. It's this 10- or 12- or 13-year funding challenge that the military had. To be fair, the funding challenge started basically back when the Berlin Wall came down and continued through that whole period, but it got really bad in the 1990s, when dramatic things had to be done to save what was left of the armed forces. We're trying to counteract that now, but it's going to take a lot of effort.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I would like to come back to the purchase of the C-17s. Could you tell us about the stages in the Advance Contract Award Notice process so that we can clearly see that the process was open and competitive?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I think I'm going to give you the same answer I gave Ms. Black and Mr. Bachand: that you should be asking this of the public works minister.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Are you done?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay, then we'll move on to Mr. Bouchard and then come back to Ms. Gallant.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Minister, General Hillier, Mr. Deputy Minister, I welcome you.

This is an important and complicated issue. I have a few questions for you and you can answer them once I have put them.

Mr. Minister, you said that the current procurement process was too long and too complicated. You even said that the procurement process could incur 15-year delays, if I understood correctly, between concluding the deal and delivering the equipment. First I would like to know what the new timeframe for procurement is.

On the other hand, you stated that the first stage consisted in defining the requirements. I gather that there is a danger in setting requirements because it could involve targeting or identifying a supplier. How can you reassure taxpayers that they are getting their money's worth?

Moreover, you presented to us a procurement process that, in my opinion, is an emergency equipment procurement process for the Canadian Forces. Is there not some danger in setting the delivery schedule as a priority? Let us consider what is immediately available.

Finally, is this new procurement process similar to what is done in other countries or in other federal departments?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

When DND sets requirements, deadlines are usually set on the state of the equipment or a new requirement that has arisen because of a change in threats, and so you need something to deal with the threats. In most cases you're dealing with equipment that probably has to be replaced and is past its usable life, so you start to set deadlines.

The classic one right now is the Hercules aircraft. A number of them have been used at such a high rate that their life expectancy is only a few years. When you have a situation like that, you have to act as quickly as possible to try to deal with it. For example, one of the points we forgot to make with the C-17 is that the C-17 lifts four times the load of a Hercules. When you start using C-17s, you're taking a lot of the weight off the Hercules fleet so they can be replaced as quickly as possible, but deadlines are basically part of an analysis the military does.

In terms of value for money, if we're buying something essentially off the shelf--that is, we're not building it from the start and all the way through--we know, once the process is completed, what we're going after, and we essentially know what they cost. There's no secret out there in the planet. If you name some large military piece of equipment, whatever it is, within a day or two I can tell you what the price is, because other countries have paid for it. Government records everywhere in the civilized world are public, so you know what they cost, and you know approximately what you're going to get.

The public works minister is going to have to come to you and explain that. We said the other day that we basically obtained the C-17s at an 8% saving. Well, he was basing it on the world price; the prices are out there.

On your question about an emergency acquisition process and buying off the shelf, I didn't quite get the point you were making. What's the question you have?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

It had to do with the delivery schedule and the availability of equipment. Is there not a danger that this might become the high priority criterion for these procurements?