National Defence Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Boughen.

Now our last member, Mr. Wilfert, has the floor.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Page, I have the greatest respect for your organization. In your report on military procurement, you specifically ask whether the procurement processes are right. You define the right processes as those that are widely seen as transparent and effective.

If the process is not transparent, does that not compromise the end result?

[Timothy I. Page]

That's a question that requires me to anticipate a number of different scenarios.

Transparency is good because it affords industry an opportunity to understand what the government is looking to acquire. The earlier and more transparent they are, the better able Canadian industry is to prepare to compete successfully for procurements when they come to market.

Our focus is on ensuring that Canadian industry has an opportunity to support the Canadian Forces and the Canadian economy. The more transparent the government is around what its intentions are, and the earlier it chooses to engage Canadian industry in understanding how it can participate in Canada's defence procurement priorities, the better.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Your report focuses on the big-picture issues. I interpret that to mean the issues of the right process and transparency.

Do you believe that the process to date is widely seen as being transparent?

[Timothy I. Page]

I think Canadian industry has been aware of opportunities. They've been encouraged to participate in the F-35 program by both Lockheed Martin and the Canadian government. There's more work to be done by both Canadian industry and the Canadian government to ensure that we're maximizing those opportunities. As we've suggested, to do so in the context of a defence industrial strategy would allow industry and government to evaluate how effective they have both been to that end.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, would you elaborate, sir, on what additional work you think needs to be done by government and industry in that regard?

[Timothy I. Page]

I've identified a couple.

I've identified the sustainment model and the plan the government has to sustain the 65 aircraft it intends to purchase, and the role that Canadian industry plays in support of that. We believe it to be extremely important for Canada to have the ability to maintain what it flies, sails, and drives, from a military perspective. So we think there is still business to be done there, and we believe there are opportunities that remain on the table currently in the production phase.

So we would encourage the government to work collaboratively with industry to maximize those opportunities, particularly in the realm of defence electronics, which is, in effect, the crown jewel for our industry for the next 15 to 20 years.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Page, the one thing I want you to come away with is that the official opposition, as I said at the beginning, is strongly in favour of a vibrant aerospace industry in this country. Our concern is whether or not the process to date has in fact been transparent and whether there has been a real competition. Mr. Williams was before us and indicated there really was no real competition. Obviously, he had been in this business a long time.

Some of my friends on the other side may not agree, but the fact is that we are for a strong national defence and we don't take second place to anybody when it comes to that. We don't take second place on the issue of believing that there should be planes that will do the job. Well, I'm still not quite sure why this plane is the plane to do the job, but the fact is that some argue that it is.

We want your industry to be extremely competitive. We want your members to do very well. We just want to make sure, though, that there are the economic guarantees out there, so that at the end of the day no one in this country is shortchanged. Up till now there are questions as to whether or not that is actually taking place, but I don't want any members of your industry to come away with any other thought than that the official opposition, this party, is supportive. I say this because there have of course been some comments made and derision by some suggesting that somehow we are weak on defence. I again remind everyone that it was the Martin government that put $15 billion, the largest amount of money in Canadian history, into national defence.

So we will continue to explore these issues because we believe that at the end of the day it will be good for your members, and, most important, it will be good for Canadian taxpayers.

[Timothy I. Page]

Sir, if I might comment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, okay.

[Timothy I. Page]

The best way, in our view, to ensure that is through your endorsement of the defence industrial strategy. I would add that while you acknowledge that aerospace is part of the defence and security sector, there are a number of industrial capabilities that cross over—though I'm not sure of the right word here—aerospace and land vehicles and soldier systems and naval systems, and many of those are in the defence electronics area. That's why we would encourage the government to look for all opportunities where defence electronics can play a role in the F-35 program, because those will subsequently be applicable to other procurements the government has in its plans for the Canada First defence strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Very good.

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses, Mr. Page and Ms. Thorsteinson, for being here today.

We will now take a five-minute break, and then we will resume the sitting in camera. Thank you.

[The committee continued in camera]