Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today on an important subject that is very dear to my heart. I will make most of my remarks in English, but I'm more than willing to entertain questions in either official language. I believe you have the translation of my document.
Although I am a special adviser to the president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, I appear before you today not in that role but rather in the role of the head of the Canadian delegation to the NATO industry advisory group, which, to save us all a lot of effort—just as with my last name—we'll now call NIAG for the rest of the meeting.
I have with me the deputy head of delegation, Daniel Verreault, who would also like to make some remarks this morning.
I would like to address very briefly four areas: the NATO environment, the role of NIAG, where Canadian industry stands with regard to NATO, and the support we receive from our federal government.
With regard to the NATO environment, this has been a period, over the last 10 years, of great change, great turbulence, and an expanded role for NATO. This has been exacerbated by such things as cybersecurity, international governments joining NATO, and certainly the reinforcement of conventional forces on the eastern flank. There are also political changes, not the least of which is Brexit, which we anticipate will have some significant impact that is as yet unknown.
Let's turn to the NIAG itself. I know that Martin Hill will address this in some detail in a few moments, so I will not dwell on that particularly—except to say that it's 50 years old, which makes me feel aged too. Recently, because of that 50 years, there has been a review conducted of its mandate. It has been reinforced and approved by the Conference of National Armaments Directors, the CNAD. In Canada's case, the national armaments director is Pat Finn. I believe you heard from him already.
Essentially, what came out of that review was a confirmation of the existing role of the NIAG but also an encouragement for NIAG to provide advice to other agencies within NATO, beyond the CNAD itself. That includes the science and technology organization; the NATO parliamentary assembly, where I believe one of your colleagues is at the moment; and an encouragement for the NIAG to reach out to non-traditional industries and to SMEs. So there is an expanded role there.
Where does Canadian industry stand with regard to NATO? First, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge, right off, that Canadian industry does not find it easy to participate in NATO activities. It's a long way away. Proximity matters in this world, so we face a greater challenge than perhaps some of our European counterparts. But knowledge is growing within Canada that we are a member of that industrial club too, and that we have a right to participate. We don't necessarily have a right to win—there's no juste retour within the NATO environment—but we have a right to participate in their procurement activities. One of the things we're trying to do is spread the information to Canadian industry about that.
Speaking of juste retour, I would emphasize also that the NIAG operates in the pre-competitive environment, which I'm sure Martin Hill will expand on. We are not at the point where the NATO supply and procurement agency is buying material; we're at the providing of advice before competition. This is something we encourage not only NATO to do, to seek this advice, but within our own Canadian environment it's something we've asked our Department of National Defence to do. Recent changes in their processes reflect that, too.
Finally, I'd like to address the support that industry gets from government. It's 10 years. A long time ago, one of the previous secretary-generals of NATO said that one year was not a long time in NATO. I suggest that 10 years is not a long time in NATO. It moves with a certain lack of speed. But things have changed in the last 10 years. If I go back and compare that far, we now have a very active national armaments director participating in the meetings in Brussels on a regular basis. We have a Canadian chairperson of the agency board at the NATO procurement and supply agency, and this agency, by the way, is the environment in which Canadian industry does the most business.
There are essentially two agencies that carry out significant procurement within NATO. NSPA is the one where Canadians have had more success, so I understand the importance of having support in that environment. There are NATO technical advisers, and Canada has one and a half. We have one at NSPA, which, given the focus of Canadian industry, is a good place to have it. We also have the half affiliated with NCIA, which carries out the communications-type procurement activities. Those procurements tend to be very large, so Canadian industry—that's a whole different subject—is sometimes overwhelmed by the size of those procurements, but we have had recent successes through MDA, for instance.
Last year we had the NITEC, the NCIA conference, here in Ottawa, the first time that they have ever met in North America. We were very pleased that the Department of National Defence hosted them here. There have been three industry missions supported by National Defence and encouraged by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries to NATO. There will be another one in June of this year.
Most recently, as you know from Minister Sajjan's remarks here on March 20, there has been increased engagement or commitment by the Canadian government to NATO, things like the AWACS, and sometime in the corridor we could talk about the impact of the pullout of the AWACS project. I'm hoping that the effect of rejoining the new AWACS will be as dramatic as our departure was.
I'm grateful for the increased support from National Defence and what we are receiving from the Department of Defence. It is better than it was 10 years ago.
That is much better.
Having said that, I would like to see Canadian industry and the Canadian government more aligned, more affiliated, along the lines that we see between, say, our European counterparts and their countries. They have an open dialogue, a more integrated relationship, and the fact that we do not have as integrated a relationship does put us at a disadvantage within the NATO environment.
To give an example of that, when you belong to a club, when you feel like you belong to a club, you participate more. If you don't participate, you don't feel like you belong to the club. The fact that we are not in great proximity to NATO headquarters, for instance, puts us at that kind of a disadvantage. For at least two years, I have been prattling on within the NIAG environment about the fact that we could do more video conferencing or even phone conferencing so that Canadian companies can participate, and they are improving, but not enough. They're not improving enough because they like to schedule those calls at 8 o'clock in the morning Brussels time. I know our companies are dedicated to participating in that environment, but maybe not that much all the time. That's 2 o'clock in the morning here, or I guess 11 o'clock at night in Vancouver. Maybe companies could just stay up for those calls. I'm not best pleased about that.
We also have other innovations that I'm not going to get into, because I'm conscious that time is clicking on.
I would say that the Canadian government has ambitious goals as it relates to defence and security. It's good to see Canadian industry recognized as a key player in achieving those goals. We are encouraged by the moves to integrate those relationships. In simpler terms, in the words of a little girl I know well, “We'd like more better.” They've got better, and we'd like more better.
Thank you very much.