National Defence Committee on March 23rd, 2022

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you again.

I'm not doing this justice, because I have only 30 seconds left, but could you give us a thumbnail update on women and peace and security, Lieutenant-General Allen, and how it relates to the estimates?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

In the estimates themselves, $4.5 million—if I have the figure right—has been identified for addressing gender-based violence. It has really been around conducting research to prevent the perpetration of sexual misconduct, response options for providing legal assistance to victims of sexual misconduct, and developing.... Part of this money is a separate line item that you'll see in there—not necessarily this one—for developing peer support models. When we're talking about gender-based violence, which I think is the submission, if I'm answering your question correctly, sir, that is what the supplementary estimates submission relates to.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave the answer there.

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Several witnesses have spoken to the magnitude of defence acquisition and procurement issues. It takes a very long time to get access to the equipment the military needs. Canada is known to have a relatively small amount of modern antitank and antiaircraft weaponry, and it has sent what it had to Ukraine, even if that has meant taking from stockpiles in its own units. Officials have always been relatively reassuring. However, whenever they have been asked about Canada's support for NORAD or NATO, for example, they keep repeating that we have allies. Canada really needs to become functional and autonomous one day.

When can we expect the various pieces of equipment we sent to Ukraine from our stockpiles to be replaced?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you for your question.

First, National Defence has given Ukraine equipment that we could part with.

The equipment was effectively spare or surplus, so most of what was provided was equipment that we felt we could do without. There are some exceptions to that. The ammunition stocks will need to be replenished. That work has started, and it is important to replenish those.

We were never in a position where, by donating to Ukraine, we would be leaving the armed forces short. It is a concern, but it's a manageable risk is what I would say.

Second, I will reiterate that our defence policy is spread over 20 years and we are only in year five. As previously mentioned, the procurement process for new fighter jets is under way.

We will start to see new assets like ships and planes as time marches on over the coming years, but SSE, the defence policy, is indeed a 20-year policy, and we are only in year five.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Yesterday at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates meeting, they learned that we still don't know when the CF‑18s will be replaced. Questions were asked about how many hours of maintenance per hour of flight time the new aircraft would require, but they were unable to get an answer.

With that in mind, are you able to give us an update on the CF‑18 replacement process?

Furthermore, does the fact that we don't have adequate equipment to provide threaten NORAD operations? We are a NORAD partner, so doesn't that put us in an awkward situation?

[Bill Matthews]

I will talk about two things.

On the one hand, as we've said before, the process to replace the fighter jets is under way, and we will have news about that in the coming weeks or months.

At the same time, we have ongoing projects to continually upgrade the CF-18. We will be flying those planes for years to come, and it's important that they remain as modern as possible, because they will be a key asset from a NORAD perspective while we wait for the replacement planes to arrive.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I understand what you're saying, but the CF‑18 replacement process began six years ago. It was announced that it would end soon, but we still have no new date. In addition, we're unable to say at this time how many hours of maintenance are required per hour of flight for this aircraft. I just want to make sure that we have the correct information.

[Bill Matthews]

Unfortunately, I can't share that information with you at this time, but I will at a later date.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Speaking of procurement, based on what we've heard from several witnesses who appeared before the committee, the procurement process with local businesses is often very time-consuming. They are often given projects to keep them afloat between major procurement projects.

Given how slow procurement goes with more local businesses, wouldn't it be helpful in some cases to consider ready-made solutions, even if it means going beyond Canada's borders more?

[Bill Matthews]

That's a complicated question.

I would start by saying that the process to replace any type of equipment starts with a requirements definition. What is it that the military needs? Could we do things to speed up that process and identify options? Absolutely.

You'll often hear in public discussions about speeding up procurement, and that could be done as well. There is a desire to engage Canadian industry to the extent possible, because we want economic benefits that spin out of defence procurement. I'm not aware of local suppliers being slower than international ones.

The one thing I would flag for committee members, though, is this notion of off the shelf that often comes up. On big, complicated assets, it doesn't really exist. When you think of ships or planes, you think of the hull and the engines or the hull and the wings, depending on what you're talking about. Where the complications arise is in all the weapons systems that have to go with that. They have to be interoperable with our allies, so a true off-the-shelf solution rarely exists. Where it exists, you can absolutely look at it and it will certainly speed things up.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you to the witnesses.

During Mr. Doherty's question time, I believe, Mr. Matthews, you said we would know about the fighter jets in a matter of weeks. Just now, with Madame Normandin, you said months. She also referenced the government operations committee, where they heard “by the end of the year”. It's now weeks or months or by the end of the year.

Could you clarify what you meant? Is it actually weeks when you say weeks?

[Bill Matthews]

Weeks turn into months pretty quickly. It is a process that is being run by the Department of Public Services and Procurement Canada, so whether we're into weeks or slipping into a month or two, I can't really comment at this stage. The process will be done when it is done, and they'll be updating with the next steps at that point.

I can't really be more precise at this stage. I apologize.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In my previous question, which I didn't have a ton of time for, we were talking about the PBO and those increased costs to equipment. You mentioned that the delay in purchasing equipment or what have you would potentially work against us in terms of the scalability of the project.

Were you talking about that in theory, or has that actually happened? If so, where has it happened?

[Bill Matthews]

It hasn't happened yet that I'm aware of on any projects, but I will ask my colleague, Troy, to correct me if I've got that wrong. It's more of a theoretical concern that will eventually begin to impact some of the projects that come online. Inflation is real, so as items move to the right, you will see some erosion there and there are choices to be made.

Troy is shaking his head that there are no real examples yet, so at this stage it's a theoretical discussion.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of that theory, though, what would the percentage of that scalability be? I know you've given the example of buying nine versus 10, but if you could give us something more specific, I would appreciate that expansion.

[Bill Matthews]

It's a difficult one in a theoretical environment, because you could look at just fewer trucks—that's an easy one—or you could look at having the same number of trucks but less capability. My colleague, the vice chief, may offer something here, but that's a trade-off that would be made only with the direction of the experts who understand what the requirements truly are. When you're into army projects versus navy projects versus air force, the army projects tend to be a little more simple in general, and you have more things to play with. If you're looking at a plane or a ship, you see that it's not a decision to go down to fewer ships or planes. The army projects are probably easier examples to get your heads around.

I'll turn to the vice to see if she wants to offer anything here.

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

I would just add to the deputy minister's point that I think when we take a look at what we believe we are going to need to deliver our capabilities in the investment plan, we occasionally see that the requirements we identified as being good to have or that we'd like to have may not be available at a given point in time. They are desirable qualities that we'd like to have, but perhaps they aren't available. So sometimes we will then end up scoping down the size and the cost that's needed to deliver a project, because we have actually settled on a different set of requirements from the ones we may have had initially, in the very early stages.

I just wanted to provide that as an example, in the early stages of a project—before definition and implementation—of where there may be opportunities for some scaling with respect to cost and cost requirements for particular projects.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

We would all understand scaling back in terms of numbers. In terms of operability or capability, my concern, of course, would be in terms of what our incredible men and women in the armed forces can do with that, and their health and safety.

When you're talking about scaling back, could you speak to what that means for the actual work of the Canadian Armed Forces?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Certainly, as we are defining the requirements for capabilities, we're working on a system whereby we have high-level mandatory requirements, which are the mandatory elements of the project that need to be delivered for the capability to be useful to deliver for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and for our outcomes.

Those aren't the types of elements we are talking about compromising on. It might be around additional elements that would make it even more versatile, potentially, but that is where the scalability and therefore the potential for cost adjustment can come in.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. That completes our six-minute round.

Colleagues, again I'm in the same position, which is that we can have 15 and 25 minutes' worth of questions. We have the Deputy Prime Minister of Latvia coming, and that's going to require us to go in camera. As you know, that's a bit of a process in a hybrid committee setting.

I'm going to be my usual arbitrary self and go two minutes, two minutes, one minute, one minute, two minutes, two minutes. That will take us close to the end, and then we'll go from there.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

It's faster to do the full amounts.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, the problem with full minutes is that it will take us to a quarter to six, and we'll cut off the time.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Just one round.