Evidence of meeting #37 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was boeing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
As minister responsible for Montreal, you're now against Bombardier? That's good to know.
9:20 a.m.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Where were you when the nuclear submarines were bought from the English through sole sourcing?
9:20 a.m.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Where were you when the Hercules were bought, the—
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Are you trying to tell me, Minister, that as minister responsible for Montreal you're against Bombardier?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
You think it's unacceptable that we should give Canadian businesses a helping hand.
That's good to know.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Mr. Coderre, your time is up, please.
That ends the second round. To start the third round, we're going to have to keep to schedule in order to get through this. We'll take the extra minute that was just included there to start the third round with the official opposition, then the government, and then the Bloc. So the official opposition has the floor. It starts the third round. That's the way it's been set up for questions.
Go ahead. Your time's starting.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Yes, it's important. I find that a tad sad, that you're minister responsible for making sure... You talked about transparency, openness and competition, and the Chief of the Defence Staff at the Department of Defence said:
“I've traced the lines in the sand. This is what I want, and this is what I get, no matter what.”
Isn't your role also to play devil's advocate? We're not here to ask questions about an airplane that might look good on paper and yet in five years' time... When you embark upon the certification process, when you make a purchase of this type, it's not just for two years, it's for 20. So why aren't the appropriate questions being asked, given that?
Secondly, do you think after having the same plane for 50 years that the best way—and I don't favour one company over another, but I think it's important to ask this sort of question—to choose a new one is to deal with the same company? You have the option of buying a plane, you want to update. Doesn't it spring to mind that you should perhaps continue to do business with the same company given that you had the plane for 40 or 50 years? Or do you want there to be another pitch made and, regardless of the lines in the sand, do you want to ensure that there's real competition between companies and that we get our money's worth?
9:25 a.m.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
To answer the first part of your question, the criteria developed by the Department of Defence are discussed at the interdepartmental committee. We discussed this earlier, perhaps you remember, Mr. Williston referred to it. Representatives from Public Works and Government Services Canada and from Treasury Board are involved in these discussions. There's a dialogue about the criteria. Perhaps you don't like the standards they've come up with, and I respect your opinion. But they reassure me, Mr. Coderre, because independent of my role and of partisanship I'm reassured to see that there are men and women who aren't politicians and who care about these criteria and want a sensible procurement plan.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
You just contradicted yourself. It is indeed very partisan and political, because the person who was dead set on the C-17s was certainly not Gen. Hillier, because when this plan was brought forward he was clear that it was the tacticals that people wanted changed. The Air Force said it preferred to have six C-17s and to keep the Hercules. And now there is talk of changing the Buffalos after they had a look at the new motors, but it was never a matter of having C-17s and tacticals: it was either one or the other. Your colleague and friend Minister O'Connor wanted these big flying boats, and it was part of your election platform. He said they were needed. So it's very partisan.
What's more, I would remind you that Minister O'Connor has the final say as the minister responsible for procurement in this area. He's the one looking at the criteria and the one with the authority. So don't come and tell me that is not partisan.
9:25 a.m.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Coderre, saying that we want either strategic aircraft or tactical aircraft is a bit of a generalization. You're telling me that Mr. O'Connor and other politicians chose an aircraft manufactured by one company or another, which isn't accurate. Saying that is quite inappropriate and you know full well that I am right. Let me bring you back to the discussion at hand.
Some people who are independent of the political sphere have discussed these criteria and once they were developed, you still say that it was sole sourcing. That's not true, and you know it.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
At one time—and Mr. Williston was perhaps there back then—the military wanted accessibility. If we didn't want to do business with the Europeans, we could have entered into an agreement with Boeing and said that because it was an American company located across the border, we could rent aircraft at the end of their production cycle when we needed them. I don't know if we'll ever know if political agreements were entered into.
At any rate, the Chief of the Defence Staff said that he was reluctant to put anything at all on paper. The only competition, over the past six years—and this was part of the army's strategic plan—was between two companies: Airbus and Boeing. Don't try and tell me that the Chief of the Defence Staff didn't choose the aircraft. So on the one hand, he didn't want to put anything down on paper, and on the other hand, he decided to buy aircraft off the shelf, Boeing C-17s. We don't have a handle on our backs minister, we're not suitcases. The C-17s were wanted. You and your government wanted to make sure you had strategic aircraft, and that's fine. It was your political choice, and you'll live with the consequences. The fact remains that we wanted Boeing aircraft.
9:25 a.m.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
I don't know if you asked a question, but I listened to you.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
We're out of time for that round.
Mr. Blaney, and then Mr. Crête.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me.
Minister, having listened to the witnesses, it has become clear that the C-17 purchase was not only strategic but also played a transitional role by replacing the Hercules tactical aircraft which are now outdated. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years the military air fleet has been drastically cut; one might even say that it is vulnerable.
My question is quite straightforward, and you've already broached it. Are we getting a good deal by purchasing these C-17s? You've made comparisons. I'd like to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that the purchase of C-17s is a good deal for the country. It's been demonstrated that from a tactical standpoint, the practice of leasing makes us dependant on foreign powers, and that in a crisis situation, it may be impossible for us to get our hands on any planes. Nevertheless, from a financial standpoint, because at the end of the day we're talking about taxpayers' money, is this a good deal?
9:30 a.m.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Yes it is, it's a good deal for both taxpayers and the Canadian Forces. After the Department of National Defence worked out what it needed and discussed this with Treasury Board and my department, it was decided that there was probably only one manufacturer. So we had talks with Boeing and purchased the aircraft. We still issued an award notice. According to our sources, we got one of the best prices per aircraft in constant dollars ever paid for this type of plane. Canadian taxpayers will be getting their money's worth. So it's a good deal. I can understand that you may disagree with the choice of aircraft; I respect other people's opinions. However, given how useful this aircraft is and as it meets all the criteria developed by the Department of National Defence, we and Mr. Williston's team have gone and got ourselves a very good deal.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
In any case, we clearly saw that the C-17 was the only plane that can transport two light armoured vehicles and is a notch above all other aircraft available on the market, in terms of capacity.
The volume of purchases by Public Works and Government Services amounts to $7 billion a year. Taking into account the new purchases that are planned, by how much will that amount increase?
9:30 a.m.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
That was the volume for fiscal year 2005-2006. Of course, the procurement program announced last summer will lead to an increase in that amount and, consequently, the total amount of federal government procurement and the share allocated to defence spending will also increase, given that this program will have a quite significant impact over the next few years. I do not have the exact figures with me.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative