NDDN Committee Report

This Supplemental Report reflects the views of the Conservative Members of Parliament who serve on the Standing Committee on National Defence (“NDDN”): MP James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman), MP Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke), MP Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge), and MP Dean Allison (Niagara West).

Introduction:

As referenced in the report, the study examined the current state of Canada’s defence procurement systems. The Conservative members of this committee supported and actively participated in the pursuit of this study given how the readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces is impacted by both Canada’s procurement processes and the capabilities of our defence industry. Unfortunately, the complexity of the procurement process, lack of leadership by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and severe delays, have left the Canadian Armed Forces with reduced capabilities, lengthening project timelines and antiquated equipment.

The Canadian Armed Forces are in a period of reconstitution due to the recruitment and retention crisis.[1] Additionally, the global threat environment is increasingly precarious, with ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. General Wayne Eyre, Chief of the Defence Staff, has been clear that the Canadian Armed Forces and our defence industry need to be put onto a war footing.[2][3] All of this makes the Trudeau government’s September 2023 decision to cut a billion dollars a year over the next three years from the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces budget unconscionable.[4][5]

Therefore, Conservatives recommend:

The Government of Canada reverse the defence budget cut announced in September 2023 and instead reallocate funding from the target areas of administration to operations and procurement.

Observations:

During this study, committee heard testimony from witnesses on not having a lead Minister ultimately responsible for defence procurement. Currently, defence procurement falls partially under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of National Defence, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

In our Westminster Parliamentary system, Ministerial responsibility is at the core of departmental management. Cabinet ministers exercise power, are constitutionally responsible for governance and are accountable to Parliament.[6]

Therefore, we recommend:

That the Prime Minister of Canada designate one Minister to be ultimately accountable for all defence procurement.

Additionally, we heard from several witnesses[7], including Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux[8], that clear leadership from the Prime Minister is necessary to ensuring procurement happens as quickly and efficiently as possible. Under previous Prime Ministers, this was done through a group or a task force housed in the Prime Minister’s department, the Privy Council Office. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, this Secretariat or cabinet committee does not exist.[9] This signals to departmental officials that defence procurement is not a priority of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Therefore, we offer our full support to Recommendation 2 in the report.

Strong political leadership is required to depoliticize the procurement process. By ideally achieving multipartisan consensus, but at the very least reaching bipartisan agreement, on the operational requirements and equipment needs for our military. It is imperative to put the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces above partisan politics. But it is equally important to do so without undermining Canadian democratic values. The Official Opposition must be able to hold the Prime Minister and other cabinet members accountable when mistakes are made on procurement.

Therefore, Conservatives strongly disagree with the quote from Procurement Ombudsman, Andrew Jeglic, who called for “segregation between the political arm and the procurement process,” arguing that there should be “no intervention from political actors whatsoever in procurement-related decisions.”[10]

Rather, Conservatives would like to see a bipartisan or multipartisan approach to defence procurement. Some of our Allies, like Australia[11], do this extremely well. This would include coming to a consensus on the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces and what equipment will be procured.

Democratically elected officials are ultimately accountable to the taxpayers. Parliamentarians must remain a part of the procurement process. Unfortunately, as the full report indicates, “most Canadian parliamentarians do not have a high-level security clearance, making it difficult for parliamentarians to do their work concerning defence procurement.”

Several witnesses[12] commented that this limits the ability of Parliamentarians to effectively provide oversight and accountability on national security and national defence issues including defence procurement. Specifically, former Liberal MP and retired Lieutenant General Andrew Leslie, said, “I believe you should have the security clearances required to whatever level you believe to be necessary within common-sense constraints, to have access to the information you need to make informed choices.”[13]  

Therefore, we recommend:

That the Government of Canada grant members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence access to classified defence-related information as part of the committee’s oversight and accountability roles.

Access to relevant classified information would allow for Parliamentarians to better understand the intricacies of a procurement project. This could result in all parties better understanding the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces and putting them above their electoral ambitions.

This was not the case when Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau announced during the 2015 election campaign, “We will not buy the F-35 fighter jet.”[14] Consequently, this lead to a series of costly choices by his government which were not accurately depicted in this report.

In November 2015, the federal government announced its intention to launch an “open and transparent competition” to replace the CF-18s.[15]  At the same time, the federal government sought to undermine the competition after it was informed the F-35 would win as the only 5th generation platform by initiating “the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement arrives.”[16]  The federal government was later forced to abandon that purchase due to legal trade disputes between Boeing and Canadian firm Bombardier.[17]

In December 2017, the government launched a competition to acquire 88 advanced jet fighter aircraft under the Future Fighter Capability Project.[18]  That same month, the government indicated that it would acquire 18 used F/A-18 Hornets from Australia to supplement the CF-18 fleet in the interim to help fill the capability gap pending the delivery of a permanent jet fighter replacement.[19] 

In the Fall 2018 Draft Report of the Auditor General of Canada, the Auditor General gave the opinion that “… [T]he addition of a new fleet of interim aircraft would have made the personnel challenges facing the RCAF worse and would not have ensured that RCAF could meet defence commitments to NORAD and NATO simultaneously. [This decision appears to have been made contrary to the advice of military and departmental experts.]”  The Auditor General went on to add that “In our opinion, the government does not need to spend $470 million to buy used F-18 fighter jets that are as old and have the same combat capability deficiencies as Canada’s current fleet of CF-18s.” In the draft report the Auditor General recommended, “National Defence should not purchase interim aircraft until it implements plans to recruit and train pilots and technicians.”[20]

Ultimately, the Auditor General edited the final version of the report[21] with feedback from the Government of Canada and it did not contain this direction. The federal government bought the Australian F-18s.[22] And, eight years after his original declaration, Justin Trudeau’s government committed to buying Canada the F-35 fighter jets.[23]

Additional Recommendations:

Finally, Conservatives offer these additional recommendations based on testimony in the report by the Standing Committee on National Defence:

That the Government of Canada take concrete steps to reduce risk aversion among procurement officials in order to create the flexibility needed for efficient and timely procurement.

That the Government of Canada sole source well-proven and well-tested off the shelf military products, when there are no comparative or competitive products available.

That the Government of Canada adopt the policy of having only one individual project manager responsible for a procurement project.

That the Government of Canada reduce the number of rules that apply to defence procurement projects characterized by low cost and low complexity.

Conclusion:

In providing our observations and supplementary recommendations, the Conservative committee members would like to thank the House of Commons analysts and clerks for their hard work in adding to the completion of this report. This supplemental report is by no means a way to cast doubt on their work but rather to highlight the shortcoming of the report adopted by a majority of committee members. Despite the committee failing to address many of our observations, we hope that this supplementary report provides the Government of Canada with additional insight and recommendations to improve Canada’s defence procurement processes.

Respectfully,

James Bezan, MP Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman

Cheryl Gallant, MP Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke

Pat Kelly, MP Calgary Rocky Ridge

Dean Allison, MP Niagara West