By Vincent J. Curtis
There are very few – if any – angles from which Louise Mercier has yet to view the Canadian defence world. She served in uniform as a reservist both in Ottawa and Victoria. She experienced life as a military spouse and spent many anguished nights as the mother of a combat soldier deployed to Afghanistan. Over the past three decades she has emerged as a driving force within the defence industry culminating with her current post as Senior Vice-President at Rubicon Strategies. In 2014 she was dubbed the ‘WiDS-ard of Ottawa’ by Esprit de Corps magazine for, among many other things, being instrumental in standing up Women in Defence and Security (WiDS) Canada. Mercier has just retired as an executive board member at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, is Past-President of the Navy League of Canada, Chair of CADSI’s Navy Outlook and is on the brink of becoming the Chair of Perley Rideau Veterans Foundation. On June 2nd, Esprit de Corps contributor Vince Curtis had a one-on-one zoom chat with Mercier to discuss her incredible career path.
EdC: What would draw a teenage girl in Ottawa, who had never even seen an ocean, to enlist in the Naval Reserves?
LM: My high school friends who had joined the Naval Reserves, were telling me great stories of their trips to Halifax and Victoria, and going to sea on Gate Vessel Weekends, while my other friends were working at McDonald’s. A trip to the west coast seemed a lot more interesting than slinging fries.
EdC: You obviously enjoyed the experience you had in the reserve force and took a commission in 1986 in the RCN. There were very few women in the ranks at that time, did that add to the personal challenge?
LM: There were more woman than you might think at the time that were in all kinds of trades. Certainly, for the ‘sea-going’ trades and classifications there were fewer women. For the Officer Cadet program each of the 18 Naval Reserve Units were allowed four officer-cadet billets. They were only permitted to select one woman to fulfill one of the four positions. As a result, it became very competitive to get that one female billet. The men didn’t seem to have to go through the same vetting process.
Some of the disparity included the options available to us. Despite learning seamanship and navigation skills, women were still not permitted to be occupied in “combat” roles. So, while the men were planning great trips to the far-east, women were still being blocked from those roles. That would change over time.
EdC: Your second career was in sales that was not industry related.
LM: I had a really great job, at the Halifax Convention & Visitors Bureau, were I helped to sell Halifax as a destination for conferences. Through a series of transitions and moves, I was hired at what is now known as KPMG, and was ultimately hired at Lockheed Martin.
EdC: It was a Lockheed-Martin that you began to bridge your past to your future career?
LM: Yes, that’s right. My “education” in the navy served me well. Understanding the dynamics of sales and marketing was very useful. When I moved to Lockheed I was initially hired into the Information Systems and Services line of business where I learned about defence procurement from the experts and learned the complexities of the procurement system.
EdC: Why were you reluctant to attend your first Women in Defense meeting while you were in the U.S.?
LM: After I left Lockheed to take a more senior role at Gallium, the new job required that I spend a lot of time in Space & Missile Command in Huntsville, Alabama and I was assigned an agent, a Vietnam vet, and a six time purple heart recipient.US ARMY Ranger, Colonel (Ret’d) Bob Wilkie.
He insisted that I attend this “Women in Defence thing.” I had zero interest in attending a gender-based event. I think like many woman who are military or ex-military, I felt that by being involved in gender based activity, I was marginalizing myself. That I couldn’t be in the club if I was “too female”. I thought then that it mattered to be somehow part of the “club”.
The guest speaker that day was a southern lady who told us about being sent to the Middle East as the project-lead for some kind of government project; a difficult situation for a women in the middle east. When she finished the story, we learned after the fact, that she was Senior VP for Test Engineering for Space and Missile Command, and that she was so powerful and effective that she had been hand picked to be sent to the Middle East to be the key negotiator for the U.S. government. That single event changed how I viewed my role as woman in the defence industry, and I knew I wanted to instill this personal courage in other women in the defence sector.
Ultimately, it was so empowering to “see” such a powerful woman who was successful as a professional woman. It made me realize it was better to be a strong woman than a diluted man.
EdC: You’ve been credited by no less than former CDS General Hillier with bringing Women in Defense and Security to Canada in 2005.
LM:
These things don’t happen because of one person.
It was hard slogging setting up Women in Defense and Security in the earliest days. It was General Hillier, Lt General Paddy O’Donnell and Rear-Admiral Bruce Johnston who provided us mentorship and some top cover. It was a tough time. But we linked elbows and just kept going.
The women who joined with me, remain responsible for the success of Women in Defense and Security today. We started off with a $1,500 scholarship and since then, over $100,000 worth of scholarships have been awarded So, the credit for growing Women in Defense and Security belongs to the other women in the early days: Wendy Allerton, Anne Healey, Cheryl Bush and Anne Collins Carol. Now the next generation of woman have stepped forward to voluntarily lead this initiative here in Ottawa and the ladies on the east coast are catching the torch.
Today there are over 2,000 women in Ottawa, in Women in Defense and Security with CADSI leading, supporting and promoting WIDS as it continues to grow.
EdC: As a Defense industry lobbyist you have successfully steered numerous international clients through multi-million, multi-billion-dollar procurement projects. Can you briefly outline the major challenges associated with big ticket procurement projects in Canada?
LM: Military acquisition in the country is a complicated business because there is so much money at stake. In my opinion, it’s unnecessarily complex in the name of oversight. There are in my opinion some key fundamental challenges for industry;
1) The difficulty with the governance model, is that there isn’t a single point of accountability. The accountability is shared between three Ministries, and not one Minister is ultimately responsible for procurement success…. The complexity and cooperation between the three groups at multiple levels and the myriad of reviews is breath-taking and takes a lot of time.
2) The Governments view on risk is a complication. The government doesn’t like to assume the risk to large programs. The challenge is that for government to take limited risk or no risk, means that industry is managing the risk for government.
This doesn’t apply to all acquisitions, but it’s certainly true of the large ticket integration projects and several of the sustainment contracts.
3) The need for a cadre of trained procurement professionals. We still parachute-in operational officers into the requirements teams for 2-3 years who often want to return to their operational postings. It’s not unusual to have 50% turn over in the requirements teams each year. It’s hard to build continuity and deep expertise in such a shifting environment.
4) Export Permits – It’s very difficult to grow and sustain a Canadian defence company if you have a limited Canadian sales funnel and are also subjected to painful backlogs on export permits. It’s difficult for Canadian companies to make money when their sales are limited by slow moving export permits. Reputations are damaged and sales are lost when it takes so long. This discussion brings us full circle back to the single point of accountability if you consider the international sales requirements of multiple ITB obligations.
There are exceptional individuals at the helm, but the antiquated structure competes against the capacity of the people in the system.
EdC: What improvements have you seen in procurement over the last two decades?
LM: There have been a lot of incremental changes over the last 20 years. 1) Accrual accounting is one of them. How the government phases the cost over several years has changed over time. 2) The impact of the new Industrial Technical Benefits approach by Industry Canada. This shift from what was provided in the past IRB submissions (Industrial Regional Benefits) were managed more regionally. With a 100% requirement on major capital programs, ITB’s now need to be part of the overall strategy of a major campaign. This has moved the discussion into the Executive Suite of companies. 3) Another shift we are seeing includes how Canada is rethinking their sustainment efforts. Depending on the outcome, this could have a major impact on the Canadian suppliers. There is quite a bit of debate about how Canada can get best value is likely going to have any influence on future procurements. 4) Lastly, the governments willingness to interface with industry on a more consistent basis. There is a new sense emerging in the last 20 years, that there are benefits from collaboration with industry and leveraging the lessons industry brings from procurements with other governments.
EdC: You were recently appointed the Vice President at Rubicon Strategy. What are your responsibilities there?
LM: Rubicon Strategy is a premier government relations firm with three prongs that are interdependent; government relations, media & digital marketing and defence procurement. “Crossing the Rubicon” has survived to refer to any individual or group that is prepared to irrevocably commit to a course of action that is “all in”. The team is comprised of experienced strategists and campaigners who relish a challenge that others say can’t be done. The defence team is focussed on ensuring that we support our clients with their objectives whether they are about campaign plans, procurement, trade exports or other issues. We have top-notch Defense procurement advisors who are each, subject matter experts.
Ultimately, I’m responsible to help ensure our clients receive the critical advice they require to win programs and become the best possible suppliers to the Canadian government.
EdC: Will you be making any change of course for Rubicon Strategy now that you have their helm on Defense?
LM: Our defence team isn’t a year old yet, so we are definitely in growth mode. We are focussed on working for our clients and helping them carve their own space into the Canadian defence procurement eco-system. I used to work for a company that said, “Show, don’t tell.” I like that mantra.
EdC: Tell us one thing that even those of us in the defense community who know you would still be surprised to learn about Louise Mercier?
LM: I really wanted to be an architect. I had to get my father’s permission to take the course in high school, and he wouldn’t sign off on it. My father did not want me involved in a male-dominated industry.
