National Defence Committee on June 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We'll call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 60.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Time flies when you're having fun.

On today's agenda we have two motions to deal with, presented by Mr. Coderre. We'll split them up and deal with them—they were kind of worded as one—as two separate motions. One deals with procurement and one deals with travelling to Afghanistan.

I wish to start with the Afghanistan trip, and then I will give Mr. Coderre an opportunity to speak to this motion. To preface this a bit, I'm under the understanding—and I think others are as well—that the foreign affairs committee will be approaching the liaison committee today to travel to Afghanistan. Veterans Affairs was already approved at the last Liaison Committee meeting to travel to Afghanistan, and now, if this motions passes—and I'm not suggesting it will or will not—we'll be travelling. I think there might be some logistical issues to deal with, as far as DND is concerned, that we might have to delve into a little more.

I'll just preface with that.

Mr. Coderre, it's your motion, and I'll open the discussion with you.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I shall be brief, Mr. Chair.

We must be coherent, and we have accomplished a great deal of work on our Afghanistan mission. For security reasons, the time when that will take place will not be specified, but just between us we know that this fall there will be a trip organized by National Defence. From August on, there will be troops from the Royal 22nd Regiment there. We also think it would be right and appropriate to join our friends from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to go to Afghanistan. There is the whole issue of security, but if it is possible, let us do what we have to, to initiate the process for us to join them in Afghanistan.

Lots of things have occurred in the past ten months. In view of our achievements, notably with regard to the Afghanistan report, I think it is appropriate for us to take action so that we can also go there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay. I just want to mention that we are in open session, and if we get into specific dates—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That's why I didn't say any dates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Yes. And it doesn't mention anything here, and I think that's wise.

Cheryl.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I was just concerned about the issue of going at the same time as other committees.

When we travelled to Kandahar earlier this year, the constraints on the number of people to go were such that not all the committee was able to travel, and even when we did travel, our clerk was left behind at the staging grounds.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, but we have a recommendation. We fixed that problem.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I wouldn't necessarily want us to confine ourselves to having to travel with another committee or group of committees.

Not only that, but, Denis, we know you like to have the stage, and you'd be sharing those sound bites with other critics, so I'm only thinking of you.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm a team player, so you'll give me your time!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Is there anybody else? Well, it seems that discussion has come to a quick end, and we'll ask the question.

All those in favour of this motion would please signify in the usual manner.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That, I will point out, is unanimous.

The next item on the agenda is a motion, another one, from Mr. Coderre, and it states the following:

That the Committee invite Colonel (Retired) Michel Drapeau and representatives of EADS, the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives to appear before completing its report on procurement.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair,

I move the motion.

We have done some pretty exceptional work respecting the policy on the procurement of military equipment. Some events, meanwhile, have meant that we could fine-tune our report before submitting our recommendations. I think that we could do everything the same day. Of course, we do not know whether we will sit next week.

We have completed the report on Afghanistan, and now it is about the policy on the procurement of military equipment. First of all, I think that we must take into consideration the fact that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives this week published a major report on the procurement process pertaining to the mission in Afghanistan. I think that it supported the recommendation in the Afghanistan report and we have always said it was essential and important, insofar as there were specific and immediate equipment procurement needs to be met for the mission, for our troops to have all the tools they need to defend themselves.

This being said, we had some reservations. The mission in Afghanistan was being used to procure other things. It would seem that since then comments have changed politically. Nevertheless we want a report that shows all sides of the picture. The report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, to my mind, is complete and interesting. For the sake of intellectual honesty, we have to look at this side of the picture.

I also think that it is right to be able to add elements from the Rideau Institute and other think tanks. I saw that some retired colonels or generals have often played a role in connection with the Department of National Defence. Even if he and I were not of the same stripe, Colonel Michel Drapeau did a considerable job on many levels. He could come and explain certain elements to us.

There is also the recommendation to create an inspector general’s position within the Department of National Defence. In England, in the U.S. and in many other countries, this inspector general’s function exists. It could protect the politician from the system and the system from the politician. Having

Or it could be a man or a woman in uniform, or a civilian, but somebody with the same judicial power of inquiry and to lay charges, to look at the training, to look at every level. But you would have that function for the sake of the contracts. I believe Canadians are ready for that kind of discussion.

Colonel Drapeau has already suggested this idea. I think that it would be interesting and important to do so.

With regard to the Airbuses, we have always said that as long as the contracts have not been signed... I think that when we had this discussion with the Auditor General, she agreed to audit certain contracts.

The contract for the Lockheed Martin C-130J airlifter has not yet been signed. There are other sorts of contracts. We can talk about the Chinooks. Some people have a hard time accepting the way that was done, saying it was on account of the Afghanistan mission, notably with respect to the contracts without bid. I think it would be appropriate to accept the request by the EADS group and let it make its proposals to us about what it would like to suggest as a convincing alternative to the Hercules aircraft.

We are not experts, that is true. I think that Canadians are entitled to know whether we would save money if there were calls for tenders. Are there other alternatives with regard to equipment? How can we find the best equipment for our troops while showing respect for taxpayers?

We do not want to hold 25 meetings. I think that one two-hour meeting would enable us to hear all these guests. Then we would be prepared to submit our recommendations and have a thorough discussion about how to proceed.

I think that all the committee members have done an excellent job on the procurement policy issue. Obviously when we are talking about billions of dollars, it is important to make sure that we have covered all the angles. The other element is that for most of the equipment, the service life is 15, 20 or 30 years. I think that before signing a contract it is important to see whether we have really done everything to comply with the criteria we have adopted as responsible politicians and to make sure that the troops can get the equipment they need.

Mr. Chair, I am proposing this motion so that we can properly complete our work pertaining to the report on the military equipment procurement policy.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

The motion is moved and open for discussion.

Mr. Del Mastro is first.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I respectfully submit that this process is going in circles as long as you're going to bring in contrasting views on this topic. I understand the panel that has been suggested is going to present contrasting views, which I think will only lead to panels that will bring in views that would counter the views of the panel that's been suggested.

I think a study has been done on procurement, and the report should be completed. We should move on as planned to the study of NORAD, something I know the committee has spoken about in the past and wants to complete a study on.

We can continue to banter around whether we are getting value for money or whether we're actually addressing the needs of the forces, but I think the forces are ultimately going to determine what their needs are, and that's going to drive the procurement. As a committee, we should stand behind their decisions. I think the report that has been worked on does address the fact that we need accountability in the procurement process. Again, we as a group have a feeling that there's nothing wrong with a second study on procurement, but we don't think now is the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead, Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

In response to my colleague from the finance committee, I would say that he seems to speak as if a panel of contrasting views is something negative, as if one would prefer to hear a panel of one single view. It seems to me that procurement is a matter of great importance. These are experts. My colleague has said only a relatively short period. I can't see the downside, myself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Are there other comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have a point in response to John's comment: these guys will not give contrasting views; these guys will give one view.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I thought you said they were contrasting views.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No. I was suggesting that we would need contrasting views, because these guys have an agenda. I know them.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Then I withdraw that comment, but I still think it's a good idea to have them.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

There's nothing wrong with contrasting views, as long as—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

My point is we'd need another panel in that would reflect a more rounded version.