National Defence Committee on June 13th, 2023

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you to both of you for appearing today.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have two and a half minutes, Ms. Normandin.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Professor Kimball, I'd like to pick up on something you mentioned, which is that contracts should be better designed. For example, there should be better cost-sharing if deadlines are exceeded.

To what extent do certain things get in the way? When it comes to national security and intellectual property, for example, some information is hidden. This gives the impression that companies are being given a certain leverage when negotiating contracts.

Am I wrong, or are there still a number of challenges to better contract drafting?

[Prof. Anessa Kimball]

Generally speaking, issues related to classified information are not expressly part of specifications or the way contracts are drafted. Things can come up once the process is under way. Often, it's part of the contract terms and conditions. It's the next step; it's a bit like implementing the contract.

In terms of the framework and structure of the agreement with the company, nothing in there is classified. That's general information. We can add a host of other clauses designed to protect Canada, but also to share costs in the event of delays or changes.

For example, we know that Canada has changed the requirements for certain programs. So, Canada could agree to assume the costs of any changes it decides to make in the future. It would accept the responsibility, because we know that this delays the R and D process.

So there are ways of making changes and accepting responsibility for them. This doesn't have to become a big media show, but it's about taking responsibility and acting transparently.

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

What I understand is that we should quickly establish guidelines, for example for sharing responsibilities, right from the start of the contract-signing process. I'm thinking in particular of the F‑35 file, where we had the impression that the benefits for Canada and the companies were going to be negotiated later. That could have been negotiated upstream, could it not?

[Prof. Anessa Kimball]

Yes. It's important to at least have some ideas and to establish expectations for sharing the responsibilities. I am currently analyzing a pile of other contracts, and that is what I see very clearly.

Of course, there are strategic reasons why the Americans and others don't want to include such clauses. However, when you sign a contract, you're in a negotiation process. So we have to say that we want this to protect ourselves, and that we won't sign a contract without some protection against certain risks. These are things that are added to contracts in France and England, although it's a little less popular in England than in France. We're seeing this more and more in Australia, too.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes plus 10 seconds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Kimball, we were talking about the 2%. It's that arbitrary number that everybody seems to focus on. However, you mentioned of course that there is that qualitative approach that we don't take. I would really love for you to expand on that, on the issue you brought forward, in terms of women not having the equipment they need, which fits their bodies and protects them adequately. There was a story that just came forward about our troops in Latvia having to buy their own helmets, because they didn't have what was necessary to keep them safe.

Can you expand on, and talk about, how we work that into a qualitative approach on the spending we do?

[Prof. Anessa Kimball]

First, on the helmet story, I think it has been shown that it might not actually have been factually correct when it was released to the media. I'm not sure if that's actually.... Anyway, I would put a question mark next to that.

When it comes to the idea of equipment and the fact that.... I'm not only talking about women but also talking about LGBTQ people. The fact that we want to recruit in our military forces, and we don't give kit...we don't have options for people who are.... I'm somebody who is non-binary, so I would have a huge problem in our military forces, evidently. That alone is a whole other story that I could speak to, because I work a lot with the defence pride network, so I know a bit about what those individuals face in trying just to defend our country.

On the part of the kit that's for women, one thing that's very clear is that this is an industry dominated by men when it comes to everything from prototyping to how we test things. At the latest CANSEC conference, there was one female mannequin out of all the mannequins that were showing defence equipment. I think that says a lot about the sector in general.

I know, for example, there are some countries that are thinking about this and that have put money towards developing resources for women in ways that are much more impressive—for example, Danes. If you're pregnant and you're in the forces, you are not destined to wear a uniform that is one of the ugliest things on the planet and that makes you look like a tent. Some of these things are pretty important when it comes to just creating forces that are representative of society, and there is also this recruitment piece that is extremely important for the future of the forces.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there.

Ms. Kramp-Neuman, you have five minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Lagassé, my first question.... Is it fair to say that DND needs more agility when it comes to Treasury Board regulations and procurement?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Absolutely.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

You spoke of efficiency's being the key and of the lack of continuity to shepherd projects through. Could you elaborate on that point a little?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Well, one of the challenges you have when you're dealing with large projects is that the current posting system places people from operational postings into capability development within the forces. There's nothing wrong with that. On a conceptual level, you're taking people who are just operators, and you're putting them into the development of requirements. However, then, when you add on top of that even the senior levels of the forces that will change rapidly over the life of a project, you can imagine how, as people change, requirements can be rethought. There are different ways of looking at the problem. That, therefore, leads to projects where you basically have turnover within the project when you're trying to get it through.

As much as I respect the philosophy behind the posting system within the military, we have to recognize that that itself can cause delays, because you're changing the people who are effectively responsible for telling you what you need to buy.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Earlier, in an answer to one of my colleagues, you mentioned how we're lagging behind our allies. Could you speak to what we're doing so wrong that other countries are doing so right?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I don't think any country is doing anything so right when it comes to procurement, but at the very least, what they're doing is being far more transparent with their public and their parliaments about why they're doing what they're doing and how they're trying to do it.

As many of you know, the Canadian tradition.... We have a culture of secrecy here, and we have no idea how budgets are spent. Even your work is constantly hampered by a lack of information about budgets.

One other point is that you should all have access to classified information to do your jobs. You do not need security clearances within the executive to do so. You are members of Parliament, and you have the privilege of that information. You can be sanctioned by your houses if you choose to use that information inappropriately. It is essential for you to do your work, even when it comes to something like procurement. You should be able to have access to classified information to know exactly where projects are, what they're doing and where the money is being spent. That should be non-negotiable.

I can't believe we're not there yet. Just look at your colleagues in Australia. A publication just came out in February saying that their intelligence committee has to be replicated for defence, because if you're going to do something as serious as AUKUS, you need members such as yourselves to be cleared for and have access to that information.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you for that. Bingo.

Back in 2010, you spoke about the importance of Canada's military capabilities to respond to any given conflict, sort of like an insurance policy. The higher the risk you have, the more you need to contribute to defence numbers.

Given the current state of conflict abroad, do you believe that our current capabilities would allow us to respond as needed if the situation were to escalate?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

It depends on the situation, but generally speaking—the chief of the defence staff has pointed this out—we are very stretched as it is.

Now, there was an ambition within the 2017 policy to have concurrency of operations, for us to be able to do two major operations at once. We are strained to do this. We simply do not have the personnel to do this. Our recruitment and retention numbers are simply not where they need to be to make that possible.

Let's leave aside equipment for a second. If you don't actually have the people to use the equipment over the long term, that equipment is useless. Capability is not simply equipment. Capability is people to use the equipment, people to maintain the equipment, people to prepare to buy future equipment. If we are so solely focused on the hardware, we lose track of the overall picture.

As my colleague, Professor Kimball, pointed out, if we are not making every effort to include everybody who can possibly join the forces and make this a career that they want, we will not be prepared for anything that's going to be thrown at us in the future.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I couldn't agree more. Basically, if we don't have people, the readiness problem completely remains. There's no argument there.

Let's go back to your last answer a few moments ago. I really believe in the importance of Canada's being proactive instead of continuously reacting. Could you answer, with regard to AUKUS, whether we should be a member?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

If I were Australia and the United Kingdom, and Canada said, “I would like to join AUKUS,” I would ask, “What are you bringing to the table?” If you have nothing to offer and you're a smaller member, why should they offer you anything? The United States might be willing to, but why would the Australians or the British give up contracts to Canadian companies? Why?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Kramp-Neuman.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

I want to build on that point, actually. I'm going to ask Dr. Kimball first.

We often hear about the fact that Canada may be lagging behind in this 2% commitment, especially from other NATO countries—rather large NATO countries with huge economic benefit from some of this activity.

What is the trade balance between Canada and other NATO countries with regard to the military industry? Do you have a sense?

[Prof. Anessa Kimball]

Well, of course, there are only about six or eight militaries in NATO that are militaries one would consider to be sufficiently capable—the ones that are looked towards. To this, we would add the Finns and Swedes, who are coming in as other extremely capable militaries. One thing that will be extremely important is going to be.... I think Canada can have a real role in helping integrate these two countries. Much more clearly, Canada should be inviting them to participate in the battle group it leads, for example. This could only help Canada, because we know it already has some pressures there.

Obviously, we're looking to the big three: the French, the Germans and the U.K. Those are all militaries that are a similar size. Where you have similar levels of investment would include militaries like the Dutch and the Spaniards. When you look at NATO, one thing that's extremely clear is this: Canada is the only country that is not a top-five contributor leading a brigade. It's doing something—with a much smaller economy—that is equal to everybody else. When people say Canada is not pulling its weight, that is simply false.

Canada is also the country leading a brigade that has the largest variation in capabilities. If you look at all the other groups, those countries on average have a higher level of capacity. Canada has the most partners, the most languages and the broadest level of capacities to deal with. Frankly, it's putting forth something with a much different set of tools from everybody else and still managing to pull it off.

The question shouldn't be, “Why isn't Canada reaching 2%?” The question should be, “How is Canada doing as well as it's doing at 1.39%?”

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I want to ask you, Doctor, if I have time, to build on that very point.

You have some of these substantive countries limiting their 2% of GDP, which includes military industry. Canada's not benefiting from exporting its military. Can you give us a sense of whether or not we are, effectively, a positive contribution to the cause?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Canada is one of what I would call the “fighting few”. There are many countries—as we saw in Afghanistan—willing to contribute, but they're not necessarily willing to fight, or to fight without caveats. We are willing to do a number of things other members aren't willing to do. We are willing to take risks and take on operations that others aren't. If you look at the current crisis, we helped train the Ukrainian forces that are doing the defence of their country. That was a key contribution we made. None of this is to denigrate what Canada actually does and the amount we place on our forces.

What I will say, though, is this: The Canadian Armed Forces always seem to manage, in spite of how few resources and how little support they get. Eventually, they will snap. There will be a crisis and they will fail. That is the only moment in which real change, perhaps, will finally occur. I don't think many of us appreciate the extent to which the department and the forces go out of their way to avoid failure at all costs, and the strain that puts on people. That can be sustained for only so long, as we're seeing with the procurement system. You can push people only so far before the system starts to eventually collapse.