National Defence Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You really see the coalition being formed here, Mr. Bernier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, yes.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc Mr. Chair, I've already talked to Mr. Bachand and I believe he will agree to a friendly amendment. We agree to his motion. I would simply add this at the end: “...and that the ministers be invited to appear individually for one hour.” I just don't want us to end up having one hour for a panel of three ministers. In our view, it is not desirable. I would like us to be able to invite the ministers individually and give them each one hour. That's the reason behind my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I will also leave this in your hands since I would have also liked to invite the National Research Council of Canada. I believe they could shed some light on some situations. As I understand it, Mr. Bachand is not opposed to that. I am not sure whether we need another friendly amendment or another motion for another meeting. I don't think there would be any controversy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Monsieur Harris, are you a member of the coalition?

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

There may be some coalescing going on, because I think there's a big interest in this search and rescue aircraft project, but it's obvious from looking at the NRC report that a lot of the assumptions built into this whole project have to do with maintaining the status quo in terms of search and rescue response times.

We're undertaking a study of search and rescue response times now, and I think maybe it is a good opportunity to talk to the ministers involved to see what the response of the department is (a) to the report, but also (b) to the fact of the need for a fuller look at search and rescue response times before we actually nail down the SOR. I think that's an issue that's pretty obvious.

I agree with the suggestion of Monsieur LeBlanc—who did not consult with me, for those who are interested. But independently I wanted to add the same point. We should have someone from NRC to talk about that particular report. If that's part of the amendment you're proposing, then I would agree with it.

Looking at the fixed wing, we should hear from the ministers, but we should also hear from one or two authors of that report, because they have some very important observations and critiques with respect to the statement of requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

The friendly amendment asks that the ministers and the National Research Council of Canada be invited to appear individually for one hour. That's fine.

I turn the floor over to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you. As a non-member of the coalition--

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Well, you were on Monday. You were in coalition with the Bloc.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It's called pragmatism.

We have a couple of problems with this. First, all these programs are three-department programs. I know you don't mean it as divide and conquer, but basically the ministers need to appear together, because they all have a particular role to play within that contract. So we wouldn't support having them separately.

The other thing is that I think we're mixing a couple of things here. Claude, I think you're talking about the acquisition program primarily. Is that a fair statement?

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

Yes, to kick off the program.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

And Jack is talking more about response times, the issue off the east coast and so on. I think we're mixing two things here, because the ministers aren't really equipped to talk about response times and things like that. That's more people from the SAR Secretariat or perhaps the NRC folks, to whatever extent they looked at that. I mean, their focus is primarily on the capabilities, the requirement as stated for the airplane, not so much on response times per se. They touched on that, but it was primarily about the aircraft itself. So I think we're mixing a lot of things here.

With regard to the ministers, we wouldn't support them appearing.... Frankly, we don't think it's the right time for them to come. I don't know exactly when it's going to cabinet, but I do believe it's soon, because we're pushing on it, and I'm certainly pushing on it, because it's overdue and we know that.

When the tender goes out, in whatever form it takes, I suggest that's the time to get the ministers in and talk to it, because we're not going to redesign the statement of requirements. That's not our job. It's the military's job to define the statement of requirements, and once that goes out to tender, I would suggest that is the time to get the ministers in and talk about how we are to do this once the responses come back.

I think that's where we could have some input and influence to say how we think we can make sure it's open and transparent and all that kind of stuff--when it's received back. Frankly, to get in at this stage I think is premature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris.

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

To respond to what Laurie has said, the fact of the matter is that the National Research Council challenged the statement of requirements and challenged the assumptions that were included in it.

I think we got a copy of that in late August or early September. It was produced in March, and we haven't seen any reaction from the Ministry of National Defence to that NRC report. It went to NRC because of industry. They said they wanted to have a good look at this and they wanted it sent over so they could have a study. What has been the response to that? We should hear from them.

I don't think this committee should wait around until decisions have been made and then call on the ministers to tell us what they're doing. This goes back to Mr. Bachand's concern about the work of this committee. We're not just reactionary. We don't just react to what the government does and offer our opinion.

Here's a report that was made available to this committee--at the request of the committee, by the way. It took a long time for us to get it. Now that we have it, I think we have the obligation and certainly the right to question the department, particularly the Department of National Defence, on what's the response to that, and to put our questions and have our say as to what we think.

To wait until after the decision is made and has gone to tender I think would be stupid for this committee to do. We might as well roll up our tents and go home. I think we must hear at least from the Minister of National Defence, and we have to hear that soon. I don't see any reason why we can't hear from all of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, the simple fact is that at this stage the response will be wrapped into the statement of requirements, because that's what the department does. The CF's job is to develop the statement of requirements. We're not going to influence the statement of requirements. It's not our job to write that. We don't have the expertise to write that.

Once the statement of requirements is done, and I don't know what timeframe that will be, between then and going out--however the tendering process is, because there are various ways that could go out, we're not going to rewrite the statement of requirements.

When it goes out, we want to make sure that the process is open and transparent and all the rest of that kind of stuff. I don't think there's any point in belabouring this. There are two things. I think it's premature. The ministers, in our view, need to appear together.

The rest of the committee can vote whichever way they want, but we don't support it as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Bachand.

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

Mr. Chair, I am not a parliamentary secretary, so I don't really know where we are at in the procurement process. My goal is to get the process going, but I want to know where the hold-up is. We have been hearing for six years that we need search and rescue aircraft and that this is crucial. And blah, blah, blah. But not much has been happening.

I met with representatives from the industry and they too think the process is darn slow. I don't want to wait. Perhaps Mr. Hawn knows something I don't. While waiting and after hearing from the industry, I think that, in order to move the matter forward, it is now up to the politicians to come and tell us where the process is at and what is holding things up. Then, it is our responsibility as members of the committee to push this project forward, if everyone agrees.

That is why I would like the ministers to come and meet with us. They could come two at a time and have one hour each. We could perhaps start with the Minister of National Defence and the National Research Council, and finish with the two other ministers. But, in my view, we need to act quickly. I don't want to wait. If the motion is adopted, I expect that the ministers be called, that we can go ahead with the discussion and get an update on the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Obviously anything that happens will be subject to the ministers' availability, as per normal. We know where this is going, so let's not belabour it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Are there other members who would like to speak to the motion introduced by Mr. Bachand and the subamendments?

No?

I will then ask the members to vote on Mr. Harris' subamendment.

Is it a friendly amendment? It is not a friendly amendment, so first I must ask all the members about

and the National Research Council.

We just add “le Centre national de recherches”.

(Amendment agreed to)

It has been approved.

There is the other amendment proposed by Mr. LeBlanc, which asks that the ministers be invited to appear individually for one hour each.

As amended, the amendment reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after the word “Committee”: “, and that the ministers and the National Research Council of Canada be invited to appear before the Committee individually for one hour.”

(Amendment agreed to)

It has been approved.

We are now going to vote on the full motion introduced by Mr. Bachand, as amended:That, following the appearance of the companies regarding search and rescue aircraft, the Committee ask the Ministers of Defence, Industry and Public Works and Government Services to appear to provide an update to the Committee, and that the ministers and the National Research Council of Canada be invited to appear before the Committee individually for one hour.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The motion has been approved by the committee.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Maybe I can clarify something for Mr. Hawn. Before we decide whether to go in camera, I want to be very clear that I want to know about the process for the acquisition of these helicopters and the amount. I'm not interested in any other issue. That's the issue I'm interested in. Any other issues may be on procurement in general, but this motion is purely to deal with the amount and the process for the acquisition, not usage or anything else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Wilfert, do you want our committee to go in camera?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I leave that to Mr. Hawn to respond. That's the intent.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

As long as that is the topic of the discussion, it's fine.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn.