Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for taking part in our hearing.
I feel like I am reliving a bad episode from my days as an infantry officer. When we received new equipment, we wondered why we were being sent this type of totally obsolete, useless and ineffectual equipment. As a politician now, I hope to be able to affect certain things and bring about some changes.
Before the holidays, I was at a conference in Istanbul. The Secretary General of NATO said that budgets indeed have to be increased, but that the most important thing was to spend more wisely. His message was addressed to all of the countries present. Just spending more and more money is not necessarily the best way to proceed. We have to spend it better.
A document was also produced. I don't know if you consulted it, but I would imagine you did. It was produced by the navy and is entitled “Leadmark 2050”. It is a 75-page document presenting the overall vision of the Royal Canadian Navy up to 2050.
In a context where we know that we have to spend smarter, navy people are in the best position to know what the navy needs, because they have the information and they know how things work.
I want to understand what the procurement-process-related issues are. We are aware of the needs currently. We have a naval strategy that allows us to conduct good negotiations with shipyards, and in principle to avoid having politics involved in the choice of shipyard. Then there are the last elements, such as funding and the final decision to do or not do something. We know that the navy knows how things work. The shipyards have said to us that the strategy only concerns acquisition, and not the strategic side of things necessarily.
In your opinion, where is the basic problem? Is it a political one, or something else?