National Defence Committee on Oct. 7th, 2010

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

So we're participants in the program right now, and we have all the benefits of being participants—

[Alan Williams]

Correct.

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

—and that will continue. What happens if we don't buy planes? Do we still have the benefits of being participants?

[Alan Williams]

Yes. There are also the commitments. We're paying half a billion dollars on this, and those commitments continue. If we decide not to buy, there is potentially an implication--not a good one--for our industry. As we've said all along, their ability to normally be given the right to continue to bid on the thousands might not be there any more. Of course, it might not be there even if we decide to buy them, but people can argue either side on that point.

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

But by not buying the planes, you're not precluded from bidding on the entire program?

[Alan Williams]

That is correct. In fact, section 7.4 demands of all parties, from an integrity standpoint, to make sure that all qualified companies from any participant country have a fair chance at any of these.

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

Okay. You've been involved in this program for some time, and I see from your book that your assessment is that we've been doing very well so far by being participants in the MOU.

[Alan Williams]

Absolutely.

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

And we'll continue to do so, presumably, by paying our share and reaping the benefits.

[Alan Williams]

And even potentially buying these things.

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

And potentially buying them. And your suggestion is that a competition is not precluded by our still remaining a participant in the program.

Well, that's very helpful, Mr. Williams. That's not the impression we've been given by the government, in terms of how the MOU operates. Or perhaps they're suggesting that the opposition wants to cancel the MOU. I've never heard anybody suggest that.

I'm very interested in Mr. Hawn's comments about the fifth-generation fighter. As ADM Matériel, if someone came to you, Mr. Williams, and said we want to procure something called the fifth-generation fighter jet, would that be enough? Would you have to be told anything else? Is that like saying I want to buy sports cars?

[Alan Williams]

There is a fairly rigorous process within the department. These things don't happen overnight, and typically the requirements that are prepared by the military go through a fairly rigorous challenge function—or should—by their colleagues and by the civilian side.

Certainly when I was there, my effort was always to make sure that at the end of the day anything we put out could pass what we called the “Globe and Mail test”: does this make sense; can the minister be embarrassed; can we be criticized for excluding competition? I guess the perfect case is the fixed-wing—

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

We've heard the military tell us publicly and before our committee that this is the best plane, this is the only plane. This is all we have so far.

The Auditor General did a study last year of urgent procurements for Afghanistan. There's no suggestion that they didn't have urgent procurements, but apparently, according to the Auditor General, for the LAV, the light armoured vehicles with the remote weapons system, National Defence told the ministers that the vehicle was the best option to replace the inadequately protected G Wagon and Bison vehicles. But then internal documents indicated that the LAVs were not one of the preferred options and that the project was in fact to build a better LAV.

So if all someone is saying is that “this is the best”, how can we assess that as a committee, without having either a statement of requirements other than some...? And I don't distrust military people because they're military people. I would want to hear, if someone says they think it's the best, why: tell us why and show us the statement of requirements. We know that for the statement of requirements, for example, for the fixed-wing aircraft, we had a 55-page critique of it by the NRC.

It seems to me that this plane was chosen and then the specs were written to support it. That's my guess and my judgment.

Are we in danger of having the same thing happen here—“we like this plane, we want a fifth-generation plane”—and that's enough?

[Alan Williams]

Let me make this one point. I've made it before, but maybe not as clearly as—

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Go ahead, but make it short.

[Alan Williams]

I think it's very important to keep accountabilities clear. The military defines requirements, and the civilians are the ones who act in.... These include the deputy minister, the minister, the ADM Materiel. The civilian side has to be able to take those requirements, challenge them effectively, make sure there is nothing untoward, and make sure before it goes public that everything is in fact scrutinized and makes sense and is reasonable. That's how you protect the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

You talked about the side door, Mr. Williams. The next-generation fighter capability program has been very open and transparent. It's been part of the Canada First defence strategy since 2008. The program obviously has been around since 1997. The MOU has been on the website since 2007. It's out there.

The thing that concerns me is, frankly, a Sea King story: 17 years, $600 million a year, and we still don't have an airplane. The cost and the implications of that situation were bad. But I would suggest to you that the cost to our industry, the cost to our reputation, the cost of not having a piece of equipment that we will fly until 2050 and beyond, the implications of going back on this—withdrawing from the MOU—would be catastrophic to Canadian industry and to our capacity to fulfill our military obligations for the next 30 to 40 years.

[Alan Williams]

I'm not saying that.

First of all, I agree with you in terms of the internal delays in giving us the go-ahead to replace the Sea King. I thought that was totally unconscionable, frankly. But I'm not suggesting what you're suggesting. I'm simply saying there is nothing to stop us tomorrow from doing an open and fair competition and knowing within a year whether this is in fact the best aircraft.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I think, when we hear from other witnesses, we will hear a different viewpoint of the MOU and what is currently in the MOU.

[Alan Williams]

All I know is I'm pointing at specific clauses. If they have different views, let them point to the clauses that contradict this, yes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Do you think the people like Michael Slack and all the people in Industry, Public Works, and DND, who have been examining this at a highly classified level that we just don't have access to, are lacking in intelligence and integrity? You are not saying that.

[Alan Williams]

Absolutely not, to the contrary.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You do imply--and you stop short of saying it, but it's in your written statement--you basically imply that the government is likely or possibly guilty of engaging in fraud and bribery and behind the scenes deals.

[Alan Williams]

No. I was very clear with my words. What I said was--