National Defence Committee on June 16th, 2023

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

I think the issue of a defence acquisition agency of some form is what you're referring to. That's been discussed for many years as one of the potential ways to deal with the multiple ministries we have that are involved in the business of defence acquisition and procurement.

What I would say, from my experience as the vice chief, is at the officials level, folks are getting on quite well in terms of working in their various interests with respect to defence procurement, whether it be industry, the procurement or defence teamwork. The machinery that's involved in trying to get basic movement in the process is so heavy, and many of the actors are part-time actors. Even in National Defence, the deputy minister of national defence and the Minister of National Defence are big players, but they have big portfolios with lots of other things to do.

I can attest that in my transition, when I was vice chief, between the Conservative and Liberal governments I had four ministers of national defence in my time as vice chief. When you're just trying to bring a minister in to understand what the responsibilities are and how to move this forward, I think this is part of the complexity that we have.

The lack of a dedicated focus on defence procurement is a problem. I think that the focus, as General Leslie inferred, in a crisis is good, but for things that are not in a crisis, the system really is not working, because I think folks are doing a lot of this on the side of their desks.

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

Do you have anything to add?

[Andrew Leslie]

I agree entirely with the good general.

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

Thank you.

You spoke a bit about your time in Afghanistan. You referred to it during this panel. I'm wondering if you can tell us a bit about some of the lessons you learned. You spoke about it with my colleague.

Do you have any advice with any specific examples in terms of procurement? Can you give us a specific example of, say, what the process might have been or how it felt on the ground on the receiving end?

[Andrew Leslie]

Various governments at different times go through different pressures and have different series of foci on the spectrum of activity they're willing to consider, or what they can. What do they have time for?

As defence moves up the priority list, which it should right now, of course, what with Russia, China and a host of other issues that we have to deal with in terms of providing deterrence or operational capability.... This should be a much higher priority than it has been in the past, not only for this government, but for future ones.

In Afghanistan, I was contacted by the chain of command to be told that two prime ministers in particular, Prime Minister Martin and Prime Minister Harper, wanted to know how the defence equipment lists were coming along, and if there was anything or any activity they could help with. That really energizes the system around town. Now, it didn't come directly to me, but it came through the operational chain of command via the minister. All of the appropriate politeness was followed, but, by golly, it sent a signal across town.

If that sort of energy and enthusiasm vis-à-vis acquiring capability to have your troops relatively well-equipped so that they can do the job without a certainty of dying can be replicated, that's excellent. Quite frankly, I would submit that's what we need right now, because the crisis is here.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 15 seconds.

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

I guess I'll start a question, and maybe you can pick it up after.

Right now Ukraine needs a lot of support with equipment and weapons, and the world needs to come together in order to be able to support them, but we've heard from witnesses in past studies that there could be a lack at one point because they're just not being produced at a quick enough rate. We need to be working alongside our partners in order to be able to do this.

What role do you think Canada can play in that, and what role should we be playing?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, I have to leave the answer to that question to be worked in at some other point. I apologize insincerely for the clock running at the time that it runs. It's an insincere apology; it is what it is.

You have five minutes, Madam Normandin.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here. We're glad to have them here.

I have a question for LGen Thibault, but the other two witnesses may answer as well.

When you choose the equipment you acquire, do you try to meet too many criteria at once? For example, do we have to meet the military's needs, consider industrial and technological benefits, and consider many other specifications?

Ultimately, if we need the equipment to meet so many criteria, it may not really meet any of them. Is this what's happening right now in procurement?

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

Thank you for your question.

I think that's a very good point, and the answer is yes. I've often heard that when it comes to determining military requirements, the military is looking for a specific capability. To do so, they provide some guidance on specifications and operational requirements, which I don't agree with. To those needs we add not only the other dimensions of policies that require regional investments, but we're also looking for a return on value. We factor in certain aspects that have nothing to do with the Canadian Armed Forces' military needs when they are preparing for missions.

I think it's a problem. It not only causes delays, but the choices we make and money we spend do not contribute anything to the Armed Forces. As I said earlier, the answer is yes.

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

Thank you.

BGen Côté mentioned that, when there was a request for equipment for the special forces, it was done quickly and linked to armed forces needs.

With respect to the regular forces, do they have a feedback loop effective enough to judge the quality of the equipment received? Does it really meet armed forces needs? Is there still a lot of work to be done in that regard? How can we correct the situation?

I invite you to answer.

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

Would BGen Côté like to answer?

[BGen (Ret'd) Gaston Côté]

There isa system. If it doesn't meet needs, there is a whole system for returning information to correct the equipment's operational deficiencies.

Is there a quick response when these reports are submitted? Not always, because obviously the information the operator provides is always thoroughly analyzed to determine whether there's another solution or another part that could be used. We have to determine whether the part really met standards when we established the contract. All of those opportunities exist in the procurement system.

I remember at one point I was the one who had the highest number of unsatisfactory equipment reports in the entire army. We really need to educate everyone, in all organizations, on the importance of writing these reports. The problem is, if there are delays between report submission and correction, we end up with an internal credibility issue that suggests the system is not working as it should.

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

Thank you very much.

We've heard a number of witnesses talk about risk aversion in military procurement. They're so concerned about ensuring they make the right choice that it takes far too long. Ultimately, they end up with an inadequate product.

Should we run the risk of it not working more often, even if that does happen from time to time? At least we would have been quick and flexible at the acquisition stage.

[Andrew Leslie]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Normandin.

I think the system has spent so long building itself in terms of perfection as to the criteria for equipment that things are delayed. They've been delayed so long that now the crisis is here, so, on the question of prioritization of what you might need or the criteria, some tough calls are going to have to be made, tough, ruthless calls.

One idea that was initiated by a former prime minister was to have a list of 20 to 30 of your top programs publicly available with broad dates. Now, in the last instance I just quoted, it was not publicly available, but the Prime Minister had a list and, as I mentioned, it sent shivers through the system when he asked why things were delayed.

In terms of this specific example of the special forces, the special forces are special by definition and by aptitude and training, but their numbers are relatively small, so they can be a lot nimbler and quicker in terms of their response.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately—

[Andrew Leslie]

I will stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm taking unique joy in cutting off a former colleague.

Madam Mathyssen, you have five minutes, please.

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

He doesn't hide his joy about any of that any time.

General Leslie, you just said that the special forces are smaller in nature, and there's an indication they get what they need because of that inclination. However, I've often heard, because there are fewer women who serve within the military, that it's harder to procure equipment that is based solely on their need, yet that would seem contradictory to what was just said. Can you explain that and how we ensure that we improve that for women specifically?

[Andrew Leslie]

Absolutely, and I'm sorry. I did not mean to infer that the special forces were getting everything they need. It's just that they purchase smaller quantities by definition than the army, navy or air force because of their more modest numbers.

Vis-à-vis the gender issue, that is a problem that has existed far too long within the Canadian forces of buying equipment to suit. From what I've been told, I think some good corrective work is starting to take place, but it's by no means finished. That energy and enthusiasm has to continue.

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

You mentioned peacekeeping and the fact that we've stepped away from that.

All of you, can you talk about the long-term consequences of government decisions to do that?

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

I would say that, if we look at it in terms of Canada's international presence, whether it be in terms of peacekeeping, our response to humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, our current commitments in places like Kuwait or what we're doing, of course, in Ukraine or in support of Ukraine, including the training of Ukrainians for the fight, the question is: Is this important to Canada, yes or no? In terms of our national interest, does the United Nations matter, yes or no?

Canada is a middle power, and we rely on international security and co-operation to be able to have the quality of life that we enjoy here. I think the consequences for not being involved in the United Nations is not having a voice and not being relevant. I think that's the concern we have, largely speaking, about not just the United Nations but even as a founding member of NATO, where Canada really is not stepping up in a way in which I think we should be expected to and not necessarily burden sharing in a way that we ought to. That includes in the international context, I think, in the United Nations. Canada's not back when it comes to the United Nations, for sure.

[Andrew Leslie]

A lot of Canadians believe that we have hundreds and perhaps even thousands of peacekeepers out there working hard, and they're surprised when they're told that right now there are 27. That's often the excuse—not excuse, but rebuttal—to some of the arguments that a variety of folk are making vis-à-vis getting more focus on getting equipment and capabilities into the forces right now. “Well, we don't do that; we're peacekeepers.” Actually, no, we're not. Twenty-seven does not make Canada a blessed nation of over $2 trillion in terms of a economy and 38 million people a peacekeeping nation any more.

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

There was quite the conversation just in terms of the fact that we lack data, that we don't do the collection on procurement, on stats. We've heard this repeatedly in terms of even the armed forces and recruitment of what different jobs there are, how we track that, what's required in terms of health needs, how we track that, the detriment upon soldiers and those who support them. Can you talk about the importance of data collection as we heard from the previous panel? This is for all of you, if I have time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Respond very briefly, please.