Evidence of meeting #66 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was equipment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Do we have people in government who can see a project from beginning to end in the length of time? It's sometimes a decade. How can that be—
President, Williams Group
First of all, the answer to your question is undoubtedly, yes, but there are not enough. That's the problem.
A lot of the work doesn't get done because there aren't enough people to marshal through all the projects. It gets to some of the service contract issues, which David talked about and which we can discuss later on, as an alternative to getting this thing done.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mrs. Gallant.
Mr. May, you have six minutes. You can tell us how garbage management works in your household.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Having two children, I can tell you that even if you do ask one of them, it tends not to get done—
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
—at least not after the first time you ask them.
Gentlemen, first of all, thank you for being here today.
In our last meeting, witnesses emphasized the importance of improving the defence procurement by simplifying the process and streamlining the layers of policy that can impede procurement.
I'll start with Mr. Perry.
Based on your experience, what is the most important lesson that government should learn from discussions to help face the current challenges in simplifying and streamlining that procurement process?
President, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I'd say that one of the big lessons we should learn is that we don't really have any idea of what has worked in the past and what the impact of previous efforts have been. All kinds of changes have been made just in the last decade. There's been the introduction of the defence procurement strategy. There were six or seven initiatives in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.
However, to the point that Alan made, I don't know that anybody has ever collected any data to see whether or not that had any impact, good, bad or otherwise. Reflecting on what's changed, what the impact has been....
I come back to this: A lot of the comments here are not being fully grounded in evidence. Part of fixing this appropriately would be to get a better sense of how the system actually is and is not working and in what places, and trying to actually have tailored responses to address actual problems—not ones that may only be grounded in perception.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Can you give an example of one that's maybe not grounded in perception?
President, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
To keep going with the metaphor about accountability and children taking out the trash, if you don't hold your kids accountable for anything, it doesn't matter whether you have one of them or a lot. I think accountability is a problem more broadly.
There are lots of instances in this very dispersed procurement system where it's hard to see any evidence that people are being held accountable for their share of the work.
As an example, are the different services—army, navy and air force—moving their projects forward in a timely fashion according to the internal military schedules for doing that? Is somebody actually checking and holding them accountable for that performance?
Regarding the ITB proposals that come in for projects, are the service delivery standards for putting those forward being delivered in a timely fashion or are they holding up progress on files?
I don't think there is data to answer those questions.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
You've been nodding your head, Mr. Williams.
Do you have anything else to add?
President, Williams Group
Again, I think it's really important to have one person accountable.
I would note that in 2009, the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, or CADSI, put out a report recommending it. I would remind you that in 2019, the Liberal government's mandate letters asked the two ministers to get this done. It didn't happen. The PBO, Yves Giroux, also said that it's mandatory.
It is mandatory to me. You won't get any information that you're soliciting without it. You won't get savings without it.
The overlap and duplication between these two departments is significant. You're talking about tens of millions of dollars and people that are bottlenecks because they overlap and duplicate functions. Get rid of them.
I have no idea why this isn't done. There is no reason not to do it, other than you don't care. Maybe it's not worth a ton of votes. Maybe most Canadians.... This isn't where you want to spend your efforts. I don't know, but this is a no-brainer to do.
Frankly, I've talked about it for 20 years. Every other country that has a defence department has one minister accountable, whether it's the Secretary of Defense in the U.S., the Secretary of State for Defence in the U.K. or the Minister for Defence in Australia. Everybody has one. Why don't we? It boggles my mind why this action hasn't been taken.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Mr. Perry, you just nodded. You have something to add.
I have another question, so could you keep it to a quick 15 or 20 seconds?
President, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I'll just emphasize a point Alan made.
One of the issues in the defence procurement strategy about a decade ago was transferring contracting authority from PSPC to DND, up to a $5-million threshold. I don't know whether anyone has ever collected evidence to show whether or not that had any beneficial or detrimental impact. We made that change. It took years to implement. What has the impact been?
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Very quickly, we also heard from witnesses that focusing too much on domestic purchasing and procurement can delay or further complicate the procurement process. One witness this week, Professor Lagassé, emphasized the need for Canadian-made defence equipment so we can successfully compete on a global scale.
What are the trade-offs related to domestic procurement, and how should Canada balance domestic procurement with pressing procurement needs?
I only have about a minute, so I'll give you each 30 seconds, if that's okay.
President, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
Briefly, I'll say that, theoretically, there's a trade-off there, but I don't know whether or not that's been established in fact very well.
There was also another witness who talked about a premium being paid for domestic procurements. Again, is there one? Has anyone collected any data? It could be interesting for you to ask officials whether or not they've seen any evidence that there are costs associated with Canada's economic offset regime.
President, Williams Group
One of the recommendations in my book that's still valid today is this: We have no 21st century defence industrial plant. The only thing we do domestically is buy ammunition and build ships, and that's from 40- to 50-year-old policies that have just circulated.
Unless we do this kind of policy, we don't have any information or data of substance to support the kind of industries we think ought to be advanced in Canada. I think we need to have that. Why we don't, I have no idea.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
I'm pretty sure Ms. Mathyssen would disagree that we do something more than build ships and ammunition, but I think I'm out of time, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You are. Thank you, Mr. May.
Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
I'd like to start by asking both witnesses a question.
We talked about the fact that the defence procurement strategy has been around for a long time. I know that some countries have one and are reviewing it.