National Defence Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I'm sorry. Can you repeat?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I move that we ask Mr. Alan Williams to testify on Thursday for a two-hour session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

And what about Mr. Ross and Mr. Watt?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That's up to somebody else to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, Mr. Chairman, he has a motion. We're not going to roll over on this motion. It makes no sense. If we are dealing with procurement processes in the Canadian Forces, it makes no sense to not have, at the same time as somebody who has opinions—and they're his, and that's fine, and he may have written a book, and that's fine.... I've read his book. It's interesting. It makes no sense to not have the current person in charge of that job here at the same time, so that what one said and what the other said is fresh in everybody's minds. The committee can decide who's right and who's wrong. That's fine.

I suspect we will probably wind up having differing opinions, which is to be expected. It makes no sense to us not to do that at the same time—an hour with the old guy, an hour with the current guy—and then move on.

To give one man a bully pulpit for two hours...? I'm sorry, that is playing a game, and it's very clear that this is what's happening here. We just cannot support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Ms. Gallant.

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

Further to discussion on the motion, it would be helpful if we could have both of them on the same day, because I would like to have some of the questions that come around asked with the current updating. If we wait a week or two weeks or two months, we'll have forgotten what we discussed. We want to get to the basis of fact. It could be that there's not a conflict, but just an update of explanation that would be helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on September 15 there was ample opportunity, I thought, for Mr. Ross to make whatever presentation. It was not the decision of even the committee; it was the government. The Department of National Defence came. They had four witnesses. There would have been, I think, ample opportunity then for Mr. Ross to speak, but they obviously chose not to. Then somebody obviously agreed to this agenda that we have in front of us, which had the former head of the air force as well as Mr. Williams for Thursday, and then there was a change.

Again, there are no games being played. That six-hour meeting that we had was the opportunity for them to speak, and I would have been quite happy just to have heard from him, but I was given four witnesses. We're not precluding his coming back—absolutely not—but I think in fairness that we need to hear the other witnesses. Then, at the end, if there's a desire to hear him again, fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn, and after that, Mr. Braid.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, again I go back to the point that Mr. Ross was here earlier as part of a larger panel. The issue here that we apparently want to get to now is specifically the procurement process. Mr. Williams' experience is valid, but it's dated. The world has changed. It makes perfect sense to have Mr. Ross on the same day, who can explain to us what is current in the world today with respect to MOUs, with respect to how contracts are awarded, that sort of thing. It makes perfect sense to do that.

What I would suggest, and we'd certainly be willing to do it, is if you want to do an hour and a half with Mr. Williams and an hour and a half with Mr. Ross, that would be fine with us. We're certainly prepared to sit here for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

In terms of this whole business of Mr. Williams and Mr. Ross, I would like to point out that during our discussion the other day, it was Ms. Findley who suggested that it would be most appropriate to have both Mr. Ross and Mr. Williams at the same time.

That is correct, Monsieur Bachand.

And it makes good sense. Her argument was that if we're hearing from one, we should be able to hear from the other one at the same time, so we can actually get the correct information that might be available to us and hear both sides of the story, rather than having one individual for two hours.

If you have Mr. Williams for two hours...we did not have Mr. Ross for two hours. To have them coming at separate times does not make any sense at all. If you have a logical mind about this whole thing, you should be able to see that there are huge benefits in having both individuals at the same time providing information and having the opportunity to speak to each other's comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Bachand.

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague's suggestion. Let me explain. I think we want to avoid any major confrontation from happening at this table. The issue of procurement is a very complex one. In my view, it is not a good idea to sit two opponents down together and let them put on their boxing gloves, and to tell them “Let the better man win”. First, this would not make a good impression on the public. Second, it's already very complicated and we would not be able to follow their arguments.

Personally, I would prefer to hear from Mr. Williams first. There is nothing preventing me from wanting to hear from Mr. Ross, as well, but at another meeting. If you think that Mr. Ross will appear here, at a second meeting, without having read what Mr. Williams said, then you are living on Mars. Mr. Ross will read every word uttered by Mr. Williams. What will probably happen is that, when he appears at a subsequent meeting, he will demolish Mr. Williams' arguments. At least there will be no cacophony, that is, one will not be constantly interrupting the other, and that kind of thing.

I admire you very much, Mr. Chairman. However, even with your considerable talent, you would be hard pressed to keep those two combattants apart.

In the Canadian Armed Forces, it is often said that when two opponents hate each other to death, they have to be kept apart from their adversary by at least one sword's length. If we are to maintain this distance, we need to invite them to separate meetings. In my view, this represents an acceptable distance of one sabre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand. I would like to point out that each witness will have one hour to testify. Mr. Williams will appear for one hour and leave before Mr. Ross arrives. This might also keep them at one sabre's distance from each other, like you just said.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I was intrigued by Mr. Payne's comment that rather than have them one after the other, if you have them at the same time.... In other words, if they both presented and then had questions at some later point, that might be interesting. But this notion of one coming in, then the other one does the clean-up--basically he will clean up--I don't think that would be appropriate. If they were both sitting there together, one after the other, giving their presentations, then the committee asked questions for two hours, that could be interesting.

Again, I would humbly suggest that it's a bit odd that we had him already. But that was a choice the government made; it wasn't our choice.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That was the committee's choice.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

No. We said he could come, and we wanted to have all these witnesses, but they weren't our witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Monsieur Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The witnesses were the committee's choice. I don't suggest that we have them there side by side either. It's not within the Canadian Forces that they're two sword lengths apart; it's in the House of Commons that we're two sword lengths apart. And these are pretty short sword lengths right now.

It is illogical, if you were going to drill down into a specific issue. There's no question that Mr. Williams has experience. There's no question it's dated by at least five years. There's no question that Mr. Ross' experience is much more current.

When Mr. Williams was ADM Materiel, the procurement world was different. There were many more companies out there. The consolidation of companies, not just in the aerospace sector but in the business world in general, has resulted in the fact that there are now only two aircraft companies, for example, in the U.S. that manufacture fighters: Boeing and Lockheed Martin. That's how we wound up with those two companies having a competition.

The U.S. and the eight other partners in the MOU--because Canada did have input into that--made that collective decision. There's no question that the U.S. was the biggest partner in it, but every country had input into that.

It defies common sense that you wouldn't have both of those people at the end of the table, not at the same time but back to back, so you can compare whatever information each one of them gives you and make your own decision on what you think is valid and what you think is not.

It makes no sense whatsoever to have somebody whose information and experience is dated, to say the least, who is not familiar with what has gone on in the world of acquisition within the CF, or, more broadly speaking, across the business world. It makes no sense to have that and not have, relatively speaking, at the same time, an equally fulsome discussion on that topic alone with the man currently responsible for that who has current experience and is dealing with the world as it exists today with respect to acquisition. It has changed across the board.

Sole sourcing is a perfectly legitimate tool for the Government of Canada. It's been used by Mr. Williams as well--and we don't need to talk about how many times. But it's a perfectly acceptable method of contracting when there's only one source of supply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You're very welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I understand your point.

Mr. Harris, can you repeat your motion?