National Defence Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you. You're absolutely right. I think we have made great strides, and I think we're on the right path.

However, given the testimony we've heard from many witnesses, there is still a lot to be done and there are lots of improvements that could be made. I think that our government might be willing to go there in the next budget and, perhaps, in subsequent budgets. I'm wondering what messages we should share to the public to get them on board with this major increase in defence spending. That's where I was going with that question.

[Andrew Leslie]

I would say that leadership is required from the federal government. Prime ministers and cabinet can't always be expected to figure out which way the parade is going and get behind it. They actually have to get in front of this issue.

It's quite true that, in years to come, the Canadian Forces will get better in terms of equipment, but in my opinion NATO doesn't care. We said we'd get to 2% by 2024. We are a long way from that right now. I don't think senior leadership in the United States, both existing and about to be, really cares at all what our excuses might be. They're fairly transactional, and I think they're looking for quick results. That has an impact on trade, and our trade negotiations are coming due now. If you put it in that context, there's a pretty clear message.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there.

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Lagassé, you heard General Leslie's comments in my last intervention. The procurement system at Canada's Department of National Defence is the worst in the world. That's more or less what we've been told.

First, do you share the general's opinion? Second, if you were to make one key recommendation, what would it be? We're no longer just talking about a change in direction; the entire model needs to change, if we're truly in that situation.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

The problem isn't unique to the Department of National Defence. This is a generalized problem in the Canadian government. The government doesn't like risk, and it avoids it at all costs. Why? When mistakes are made, as was the case with ArriveCAN, the entire system blows up. Then they say that we need more regulations, more procedures and more officials to oversee everything.

There's a culture in the Canadian government that leads people to avoid risk at all costs. As the general said, if you want to buy equipment quickly and have capabilities quickly, you have to accept a certain level of risk.

There's a notion that when you fail very quickly, you can fix things right away. That culture doesn't exist in the Canadian government, since they want to avoid risk at all costs, even if they're able to rectify the situation.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

According to one of your recommendations, the government should therefore accept a certain level of risk when it comes to procurement.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

When it comes to military procurement, sir, risk is the only way to survive in today's world.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

You have a minute and a half, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Dr. Lagassé, when you came before the committee last, we were talking about procurement. We talked about sole-sourced contracts and the problems that may exist. During the study, there were many who were concerned about transparency and accountability, so much in that sort of [Inaudible—Editor] about taking risks.

The United States has an accountability office specifically on that. Is that something that Canada needs to do? How does the government reach that accountability level in terms of those big-ticket items?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

In Canada, the accountability problem is not one of more oversight, more bodies that are checking the government. It's one of fundamental transparency. If you want greater accountability in this country, you need greater transparency. As I said the last time I was here, this committee should have clearances to be able to examine all sorts of acquisition requirements—things that are moving forward—in order to be able to do its work.

This is fundamentally the issue. If you want to have greater accountability from government, you have to have greater transparency from government. We not only have the slowest procurement system; we are also one of the least transparent countries out there, particularly among the Five Eyes. The amount of information withheld from you that prevents you from doing your job, from holding the government to account, is astounding.

If we want greater accountability, step one is not more oversight; step one is greater transparency.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Bezan, you have four minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, General and Professor, for joining us here today.

General Leslie, you were a Liberal member of Parliament. Did Prime Minister Trudeau or Minister Sajjan ever come to you for advice on developing things like defence policy?

[Andrew Leslie]

I'll answer the question and put it in context. Prior to the 2015 election, I was the co-chair, along with Marc Garneau, of the Liberal policy platform sessions that focused on defence, security and borders. In that context, I was very pleased to have quite a say and influence on the Liberal defence platform of 2015 and also on veterans policy.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

How much did they consult you on “Strong, Secure, Engaged”?

[Andrew Leslie]

There was some, but a lot of it was based on the work that had gone into defence policy platforms. The tragedy is—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

When it comes down to delivery of what was in there, did they talk to you about how to get things done, how to buy the kit that we need?

[Andrew Leslie]

No, I tried several times, although not necessarily with the Prime Minister, because his interest in defence, as we all know, is not terribly high.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

When we talk about the Prime Minister.... You mentioned the National Defence Act and how the minister is responsible for the leadership and operational direction of the Canadian Armed Forces and serves, at will, the Prime Minister. Was that lack of accountability, that lack of oversight and responsibility, due to the lack of interest by Prime Minister Trudeau?

[Andrew Leslie]

I think it's fairly clear that the willingness of cabinet, until quite recently, to pay attention to the details of defence and to do what the professor suggests—which is to try to reduce the levels of bureaucracy while increasing accountability—essentially has gone nowhere for the last 10 years because of their level of interest in defence and security issues. This is why we're in such.... We're not in big trouble, but it's why we're in such disrepute with our friends and allies in NATO and have increasing disrepute down south. We promised to do something that would involve a commitment of finances, and we have not followed through on that promise, so we're being held to account now.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Professor Lagassé clearly laid out what the government has purchased, which we, as the official opposition, have supported.

With the procurements that have taken place, has there been enough kinetic equipment purchased to ensure we can defend Canada and participate in allied missions as required?

[Andrew Leslie]

Absolutely, categorically no.

The focus has not been on kinetic equipment—things that harm people. Keep in mind that the ultimate role of the Canadian Forces, and the one they prepare for, is engaging in combat and fighting and winning the nation's wars alongside our friends and allies.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

What do we need to buy to ensure we're providing the equipment to protect Canada, as in air defence? What do we need to further complement our efforts in places like Latvia and elsewhere in NATO missions?

[Andrew Leslie]

There is a list longer than my leg—my arm is a bit gibbled right now—that I could easily rattle off.

Simply put, the short-term things that are readily achievable within a matter of months, if we have the will, include long-range precision strike rocket systems for the army, new self-propelled guns, a real air defence system that can reach out and touch past the short-range system we've currently acquired—you need short-range, medium-range and farther-range—more drone capability, command and control architectures, and new naval vessels. A ship contract would be nice. Ammunition for the army would be very nice. Have I mentioned ammunition?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I think I'm running out of time here.

Professor Lagassé, I'm not asking you to respond but rather to provide to the committee in writing how we bring about accountability while speeding up procurement. Transparency comes into that. We need some direction on how to fix a system that's clearly broken and not working.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If you can answer that, we'll monetize it.