ALAN WILLIAMS – CDR NEXT QUESTION
WHY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT NEEDS ACCOUNTABILITY
CDR’s Senior Staff Writer, Joetey Attariwala, recently spoke with Alan Williams, former Assistant Deputy Minister of Materiel (ADM Mat) at the Department of National Defence. Williams has a unique perspective and is always candid, so we felt there was no better person to speak with during these uncertain times. Here is that discussion in full.
CDR: Alan, it’s been a year since CDR had the opportunity to speak with you. I expect you will agree with me that the most consequential event that has taken place over these 12 months has been the election of President Trump. You spend your winters in Florida. What has been their reaction to his election down there?
Alan Williams: It’s great to chat with you again, Joetey. Yes, I spend my winters in Palm Beach County which is a heavily leaning Democrat county. Here, a lot of people have changed their standard 4-letter swear words to a 5-letter word beginning with T and ending with a P.
CDR: What do you think motivates President Trump to behave in the manner that he does?
Alan Williams: I certainly don’t have any greater insight into what makes him tick than anyone else. I do think that he has a strong ego and needs to be seen as a winner, as someone who can achieve goals that others couldn’t. I was also intrigued by an article I recently read in the Wall Street Journal that perhaps sheds some additional light on President Trump’s makeup. Apparently, he recently reached out to Speaker Mike Johnson and proposed to exchange a White House portrait of Thomas Jefferson with one of James Polk that was hanging in the US Capital. Johnson agreed. President Polk expanded the US more than any other president. In hearing President Trump’s musing about Canada as a 51st state, about taking over Gaza, about Greenland and Panama, I can’t help but wonder whether President Trump has similar grand ambitions. It might also explain why he seems to align so well with President Putin who I believe also wants to restore the grandeur of the former Soviet Union.
CDR: That’s a very interesting analysis. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with President Trump?
Alan Williams: I think there has to be a 2-pronged approach, which I expect we are currently pursuing — a public one and a behind-the-scenes diplomatic one. Publicly, we need to significantly increase defence spending to a minimum of 2%. Furthermore, this increase cannot be undertaken on an ad hoc basis. It must be based upon new, fully funded foreign affairs and defence policies. Second, we need to begin to diversify our economy so that we are not as dependent on the USA. Third, we need to publicly counter the tariffs he has imposed on us by doing the same on US imports, while recognizing that tariffs will raise our cost of living. But we have no choice. Yet, this is a battle Canada cannot win as Premier Ford recently found out when he tried to be too aggressive by attempting to impose an electricity surcharge on the US and quickly had to back down. That is why the diplomatic channel is so vital.
I expect we are working with Suzie Wiles, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, with Howard Lutnick, his Commerce secretary, Scott Bessent his Treasury secretary, and other officials to determine what would constitute a win for President Trump and how to achieve it. I expect we will be successful.
Finally, the question becomes how much are Canadians willing to pay for their sovereignty and independence? I expect it is quite a lot. Trump and his officials should be so advised.
CANADIAN ELECTION
CDR: Turning now to Canadian politics, have you been surprised at the changing fortunes of our political parties?
Alan Williams: Frankly, I have been shocked. I did not foresee the impact Mark Carney would have on the fortunes of the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. Given the attention given to the Liberal leadership race, I expected a positive bump for the Liberals, but certainly not to the extent that they have wiped out the Conservative lead of over 20 points. Now I know we are conducting this interview in early April and by the time this edition is published a new government may have been elected. I am comfortable knowing that we have two parties with credible leaders that could form our Government. That is crucial to maintaining a viable democracy and ensuring we can hold leaders to account for their actions.
CDR: Whichever party is successful, what do you feel should be its top priorities?
Alan Williams: First, it must address the issues with President Trump. This not only concerns the trade issues but the offensive reference to Canada as a 51st state. Frankly, while we need to become much more independent of the USA, I expect that the election of our new Prime Minister will be the catalyst to reinvigorate and reestablish the close relationship between our leaders and our countries.
Second, I would like our leader to make Canada relevant again on the world stage. When Justin Trudeau said in his final address as our Prime Minister that the world is looking to see what Canadians will do, I rolled my eyes. If only that were true. Sadly, I don’t think anyone really cares what we do. I believe that to have an impactful foreign policy, you need to have an impactful defence policy and to do that we must fund our fair share. Not only do we not do that, but we make hollow defence program commitments without backing them up with hard dollars. As proof, just look at the recently released defence policy, “Our North Strong and Free”. Nowhere in that document do we see a detailed presentation of the costs to acquire and maintain all of the proposed acquisitions juxtaposed to the approved budgets.
Third, I believe the public service needs to be re-energized. Both Donald Savoie and Michael Wernick have raised concerns within the public service. Donald Savoie has focused on the inadequate delivery of service. Michael Wernick has called for a major overhaul of the public service as many of its structures are no longer fit for purpose. My concern is with the culture within the public service. Over the last 20 years I have noticed a lack of entrepreneurial spirit, and a tendency to be very risk averse. We are attracting “shelf sitters” — employees who simply take up space but add little, if any, value. Furthermore, once hired, these poor performers are virtually impossible to fire. We need to address this conundrum.
The Clerk of the Privy Council’s report on the public service, tabled on August 21, found there were 357,247 federal public servants as of March 2023 — compared to almost 259,000 employees in early 2016. There are now five senior public servants fulfilling the responsibilities that I had as Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM), Supply Operations Service at Public Works and Government Services Canada. Not only does this cost the taxpayer extra millions of dollars but it obfuscates accountability and frankly, removes the challenge that comes from delivering on a complex set of programs. Not much fun in doing one-fifth of the job.
As another example, for over two years I tried to use the Access to Information and Privacy Act [ATIP] to obtain basic cost information from the Department of National Defence [DND] regarding the Canadian Surface Combatants. I failed. As a former ADM at DND, I am fully aware that the information was readily available and that there were no valid reasons for withholding the information. There seems to be a fear within the public service that sharing information with the public will backfire. The opposite is true. Being transparent breeds confidence and goodwill.
RIVER-CLASS DESTROYERS
CDR: In March, the Government brought us up-to-date on the status of the Canadian Surface Combatant program, now called the River-class destroyers. Was that not a step forward in improving the transparency into that program?
Alan Williams: Hardly, it raised more questions than it answered. Three ships are now reported to cost over $22 billion when DND claimed the costs for the 15 ships were to be approximately $60 billion. Why the escalation? Furthermore, no estimates were provided on the costs for the full fleet of 15 destroyers. No hard data was provided to support officials’ claims that future batches will be less costly. I am certain that these cost estimates have been given to ministers, yet the taxpayer is kept in the dark. The costs of this program will eviscerate the capital program, yet no one seems to care.
F-35 REVIEW
CDR: Shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney asked for a review of Canada’s plan to purchase F-35 fighter jets. Do you agree with that and can Canada pivot to another platform?
Alan Williams: I have no doubt that the request rattled members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, but it was a fair and reasonable question to ask. There are a number of concerns that have been recently highlighted including the US control over the F-35 software and the acquisition of helicopters to respond to potential F-35 crashes in the Arctic. In addition, the Block 4 upgrade for the F-35 is far behind schedule.
Somebody said they thought I was anti-F-35, but the only thing I’ve ever been anti about is the process right from the get-go. As a former ADM Mat, I stayed ambivalent about the product. I couldn’t care less, I just wanted to get something that met their needs. So, do I think the F-35 meets Canada’s needs? Absolutely. Do I think it’s the only one that meets our needs? Absolutely not.
I had no doubt that the F-35 would be selected. That’s what the military wanted, the industrial policy was modified so that the F-35 could compete and PSPC unbelievably ruled the Hornet non-compliant. I believe Dassault and the European consortium read these same tea leaves and was a factor in their decision not to submit the Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon respectively as bids in the competition.
I’m glad that Prime Minister Carney ordered a review of the F-35 acquisition. I hope the bureaucrats will provide an unbiased examination of all of the financial and operational impacts. The politicians will have to also consider the political ramifications of spending billions of dollars with an American company.
CDR: The United States controls the F-35 through the Joint Program Office, and the US is principally responsible in developing and issuing updates for the jet, and it also controls the bulk of the supply chain. If the US government chose to limit either of those, that would limit the effectiveness of the jet and ultimately compromise its availability. What are your views about that with respect to Canada being able to have true independence over its F-35 fleet?
Alan Williams: The primary risk to Canada and to the other partners in the program lies in the US’s control over the Mission Data File [MDF]. The MDF software enables the F-35 to identify, locate and counter threats along the electronic spectrum. Constantly updated with the location of hostile radars, the system will devise the stealthiest route to any target. Absent these updates, the F-35 becomes less and less effective. It is a legitimate risk and necessitates goodwill from the Americans, which for the first time is seriously in doubt.
CDR: Can the F-35 contract be cancelled and, if so, what could that cost?
Alan Williams: Any contract can be cancelled, but without seeing the exact terms in the contract it is hard to put a dollar amount to it. You may recall that in the early 1990’s the Chretien Government cancelled the contract for the EH-101 at a cost of $478 million. The existing contract is for 16 F-35’s and there are options other than cancelling it, including having a mixed fleet. The bottom line is that any of the other contenders can each do the job but with various trade-offs. It will certainly be fascinating to see the outcome of this review.
Considering the F-35’s high cost per flying-hour — 6 times that of the Gripen E — coupled with the over-the-top costs of the River-class destroyers, the government should seriously consider a mixed fleet of aircraft.
I should point out that picking an alternative to the F-35 that precludes US intervention is not easy. For example, the Gripen E utilizes a GE F414 engine which is subject to US export controls under its International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR]. Nevertheless, all options need to be explored.
CDR: You mention ITAR which is another level of control that the US has over American military platforms and products that are sold abroad. What are your views on ITAR restrictions, and is it another reason to diversify away from American made products particularly as Canada is under economic attack from them?
Alan Williams: When I was ADM Mat, ITAR restrictions were always a factor that had to be considered and addressed when conducting any acquisition.
With the potential for Trump to exclude Canada from software updates, the risk levels have risen dramatically. Now he can dictate when and how our assets can be used, thereby undermining our sovereignty. Going forward, in any procurement we will need to ensure that we have total control of the software.
NORAD MODERNIZATION
CDR: What do you make of the $6 billion announcement for developing radar technology with Australia without a competition — with money that was already announced for NORAD Modernization — particularly as a Canadian company claims they have technology that could do the same thing?
Alan Williams: Unfortunately, as Canadians, we are not privy to the details and rationale behind this decision. I have to wonder, for example, how was the government able to legally justify bypassing competition? Under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, exceptions to competition are few and they are specified. At first blush, I am not convinced any apply here.
People that know me, know that I am passionate about competing contracts, not just because the law asks us to do so, but because it ensures openness, transparency and fairness in the process, all of which are absent in this example. Instead of proudly announcing the winner of the competition, the Government is now put on the defensive, forced to defend its decision and respond to the valid question you posed- an example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
CDR: Last question — what suggestions do you have to improve defence procurement?
Alan Williams: I know I sound like a broken record but unless and until one minister is held accountable for defence procurement, the procurement process will never be as efficient or as effective as it could be.
Amongst our close allies, Canada stands alone with its system of “dispersed accountability.” In the United States, the Secretary of Defense is accountable for military procurement. In the United Kingdom, this responsibility falls to the UK Secretary of State for Defence. In Australia, defence procurement is under the authority of its Defence Materiel Organization, accountable to the Minister of Defence.
Putting one minister in charge will streamline the process, create savings through the elimination of overhead and duplication of functions and allow for the introduction of system-wide performance measures. As famed management guru Peter Drucker once stated: “Any government, whether that of a company or of a nation, degenerates into mediocrity and malperformance if it is not clearly accountable for results.”
CDR: Thank you.
Joetey Attariwala is CDR’s Senior Staff Writer
