National Defence Committee on March 29th, 2007

[Jack Crisler]

There is.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

So how much would go to Quebec?

[Jack Crisler]

I don't recall the exact number from Quebec, but there are also other requirements to put in specific business and technology areas that reside in Quebec. There may be solutions for those technologies there. We don't know yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Ms. Black.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your presentations today. I want to pick up on what Mr. Coderre was saying about the reporting mechanisms in the U.S. around the C-130J. Certainly the information that Mr. Coyle talked about, this public documentation actually from the Department of Defense in the U.S., has identified problems with the C-130J from their perspective. The General Accounting Office has also identified difficulties with the aircraft. So if I have time I'll come back to that, but I think it's important to have that on the record. I don't think that you in any way have addressed those specific concerns that have been documented.

I'm from British Columbia, and there's the whole issue of search and rescue aircraft there. The Canadian air force is dealing with using very old technology right now in search and rescue across Canada but specifically in my province. I believe it's 40-year-old technology with the Buffalo. I live in an area where there's the Pacific Ocean, there are lakes, there are mountains. There is a real need for search and rescue. We have a fishing industry, we have a logging industry, we have recreation in the province. We attract tourists from all over the world to take advantage of the beautiful part of the country that I was born in, and I'm very concerned about the status of the search and rescue replacement program in Canada. I'm very concerned about it, as are a number of British Columbians.

So I wondered if you could talk today a little bit about why you think the process seems to have been stalled in Canada for new search and rescue aircraft. What has your experience been within Canada with the process for procurement here on search and rescue, and how does that match up with your experiences with other countries around the world?

I also wondered whether you had some comments about the state of the equipment we're using right now in Canada in search and rescue.

[Antonio Rodriguez-Barberan]

I am delighted, Madam. If you'll allow me, I'll start with your last question.

Today, the equipment you are using in Canada is extremely old. You are using platforms, especially with the Buffalos, that are 40 years old. I think it's an objective statement if I say they are very much at the end of their lifespan. Not only that, but the equipment was designed 40 years ago.

As an engineer, I can tell you that there are proven technological solutions and available in Canada as of today, with some of our partners, that are simply not used today. Today you are basically doing what is called visual search. There are search radars, infrared and optical solutions, and quite a lot of new systems. Just as the technology has advanced on the PlayStations for our children, the same and more is happening in this type of search and rescue technology. It is available, it's there, and it's used everywhere in the world. I'm surprised that in one of the most advanced countries in the world this technology is not used to save lives.

Regarding the process, our expectation was very simple. We wanted to have an open and fair competition. That's it. Today, it seems that the program that was a top priority last year is no longer a top priority. It seems that the funding has somehow been delayed for the next years.

As I've told you, I'm a foreigner, so all this information was given to me during the last two days, but it looks like your beautiful British Columbia coast has to wait quite a long time to have a prepared means of search and rescue as plans have been put forward today. I wouldn't like to comment on that, though, as every country fixes its own priorities.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Bertrand, do you have anything to add to that in terms of the process? Why does it seem to take so long to get search and rescue aircraft for Canada?

[J. Richard Bertrand]

The military is the source that has to decide what their statement of requirements is going to be and what they want in terms of the type of aircraft. One of the reasons why we're here today is to say that if there are a number of opportunities that are presented, including a lot of factors, here is an alternative solution that can be delivered very quickly because it's already in operation in a lot of places.

From the perspective of the companies that are here and have that experience, there is an excellent opportunity for them. From the point of view of my own company, we'd just like to see Canadian-manufactured engines on some of these procurement solutions, because they are in other parts of the world.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

We had the Queen of the North go down in British Columbia last year, a large passenger ferry, and we were very fortunate that only two lives were lost. We had a situation in Jervis Inlet last week in which a fishing craft in bad weather hit land. It was fortunate, I suppose, that they hit land and didn't go the other way, or we would have lost more than two people.

It seems to me that in all of the issues of procurement with the Canadian military, perhaps search and rescue is the orphan of the Canadian military. I'm very concerned about that. I think we have an obligation not only to be prepared for overseas missions with the Canadian Forces, but we have an obligation to the people of Canada to provide the kind of safety that we all expect is there. I'm learning it actually isn't there with the technology we're using now.

[J. Richard Bertrand]

We're trying to make sure the orphan gets adopted.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

What is your suggestion for doing that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm afraid we're going to have to move on. Thanks, Ms. Black.

Mr. Blaney, to finish up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the industry representatives. I enjoyed hearing what you had to say and the proactive role that Canadian companies are playing our aerospace industry. I also heard Mr. Coderre's siren song to the industry. I would like to remind him that the witnesses are here to remind us that we have just emerged from a decade of darkness; those very words were spoken by the highest-ranked individual in the Canadian Army, and he was referring to military equipment procurement. I might also remind him that the Liberals have no intention of buying any C-17s; they will be leasing them. Those are facts that must not be forgotten.

I listened to Mr. Bain, who represents the Quebec Aerospace Association. I am aware of your concerns. However, there are a few conflicting statements in your presentation. You talk about competitiveness, but you say that the government should intervene. There is a bit of a contradiction there, and I would like you to explain it to me.

Canada's policy is very clear. Our new government wants every dollar invested in military equipment to stay in Canada. Mr. Bernier, the industry minister, clearly explained to us that all regions will benefit, with hundreds of millions of dollars going to Quebec for the C-17 contract.

On one side, you have the Liberals leasing aircraft while on the other, the Bloc have no procurement plan. The current government is committing to four aircraft, which is a much broader and more global procurement strategy.

I would also like you to tell me about your association's proactive involvement. This morning, for example, the people from Pratt & Whitney, which already belongs to a consortium, suggested a Spanish plane as a solution, and told us that the solution was Canadian. We have to become involved upstream rather than downstream. I remain extremely confident that the C-17 will bring enormous benefits for Quebec.

[Stewart Bain]

First of all, with respect to competition, I understand that at the political and ministry levels, there are many agendas that have to be considered when you're deciding to make a large procurement. The main point of our presentation here today is that when those decisions get made, they should go through a competitive process, because that ensures that the best equipment, that the best value is delivered to our troops.

The other point in our message, which I think you drew a question on, was how we justify the fact that we should have work necessarily associated or apportioned specifically to Quebec. As we tried to explain in our presentation, just as it is with any organization, company, or product, there are strategic advantages and strategic elements that form part of anything you have in industry.

In Canada, it's a fact that the aerospace industry is centred in Quebec. It's a fact that there has been much time, effort, energy, dollars, blood, sweat, and tears to make that a reality. It therefore does not seem like a handout to me to say that's a strategic part of our nation, just as British Columbia is a strategic part of our nation, just as Newfoundland and Labrador and everywhere else have strategic advantages. When Canada stands up and talks about aerospace, we think of Quebec, just like we think about other industries in different areas, without stepping into that pot and trying to identify where they belong.

Aerospace in Canada has a very strong centre in Quebec, and that is something worth defending strategically. Just as you defend things strategically in a military mission and you look for strategic airlift or you look for strategic equipment, you look for where the best elements are. The elements to make the aircraft exist in Quebec. That's something worth considering. It's not something worth leaving out of hand and telling it to defend itself. That's not how you treat your strategic benefit. It's not how you provide incentive to industry.

Industry does not want to know that after we've been nurtured, we're going to be left alone. Madame Black used the expression “orphan”. We don't want the industry in aerospace to be orphaned by not considering the fact that it took many years and much investment to get it to where it is.

On the other side of your question, you also commented on our relationship with the OEMs. Let me take a step back. The AQA represents the SMEs, the small to medium-sized enterprises. Small to medium sized-enterprises, as I put it in our presentation, are family-run businesses. They're mom-and-pop shops. They don't have lobbyists. They don't have high-priced consultants. They don't have heavyweights who can come and knock on your door everyday here on the Hill. They have the Quebec Aerospace Association. What we do is speak on their behalf. When you're considering a military approvisionnement important, we ask that you please include consideration for these organizations that, to much extent, are the dreamers and the backbone of our aerospace industry in Quebec.

I can't think of stronger words than to say we rely on the OEMs to leave that vision. There are very important OEMs in the Quebec region, and we're very proud of that. We just want Canada to consider all the agendas.

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

Our ministers have been very clear on the subject of regional distribution. Do you feel that part of the federal government contracts should be allocated specifically to small- and medium-sized aerospace companies? That could be a committee recommendation, something with which you would agree.

[Stewart Bain]

Absolutely.

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

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Pratt & Whitney is not part of your association.

[Stewart Bain]

No, it isn't an SME.

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

Okay.

Perhaps Mr. Calkins would like to say something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

There are fewer than 30 seconds left, if you have a quick comment; otherwise we'll have to wrap up.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'd just like to thank everybody for coming today.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I thought it was great.

I've been involved in project management in various other aspects of my life, and there are always costs. I think where people are going here in attacking the C-130J is maybe when it was a bleeding-edge aircraft with bleeding-edge technology...and that's ahead of the leading edge.

I would just like a comment from Mr. Simmons on where he thinks the C-130J is now. It seems to be a mainstream piece of operational equipment, which makes good sense from my perspective in what I've seen through project management. Unlike buying submarines that are at the end of their life and trying to retrofit them, which is quite expensive, it seems to me that the C-130J is.... Does Lockheed Martin see it as a mainstream operational piece of equipment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins. We'll have to end on that.

If there is anything you didn't have time to mention today, you can supply it to the clerk, if you wish.

I want to thank this panel, the committee, and the previous panel for keeping us on time.

The meeting is adjourned.