Government Operations Committee on April 26th, 2010

[William F. Pentney]

I'd like to add that the reservists who will be leaving for Afghanistan soon are just as well trained as the other military personnel. There are reservists in Canada who have been given extra training in preparation for these missions, just as the members of the regular forces have. So this is an adjustment within the group, it is not an overall cut.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Fine. Let's move on to your 2012-2013 budget. You said that there will be a $525 million increase followed by a $1 billion increase. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Pentney, you said that the budget will continue to increase but not as quickly as planned. Is that—

[William F. Pentney]

Yes, exactly. It is a decrease in the increase.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

And after 2012-2013, there will be an annual budget increase of $1 billion. Is that correct? There will be an increase of $1 billion per year after 2010-2013?

[William F. Pentney]

We will maintain a budget increase of 2%. It's complicated. Perhaps Mr. Lindsey can explain. In our budget document, you can see a chart that indicates that there will be a decrease in the annual increase of 2%. However, we will subsequently continue to increase our budget by 2% each year.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

To your knowledge, Mr. Pentney, is the defence department the only department that has permission to increase its expenditures over the coming years?

[William F. Pentney]

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs may also see increases because of the government's policies or strategies.

The difference is that in our case, we're not dealing with a legislative program, such as employment insurance, for example. We're talking about an operational budget. We are practically the only ones in that situation.

I believe that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs may also receive an increase to support first nations.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

You said that this increase in funding will take place in the context of your strategic review. Has that review been completed?

[William F. Pentney]

Unfortunately, no, but we are working on it.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Once that review is completed, the way in which this is going to happen will be clearer, won't it?

[William F. Pentney]

We have to submit a plan to cabinet if adjustments are going to be made to the Canada First Defence Strategy.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

My next question is a very important one for me. In terms of equipment procurement, research and rescue planes, supply boats and ocean patrol vessels in the Arctic have been mentioned. Will these budget cuts have any impact on future military equipment procurement?

[William F. Pentney]

It's difficult to know. We want to preserve the heart of the Canada First Defence Strategy. Furthermore, equipment recapitalization is essential. I believe our rescue vessels and planes are quite old.

Therefore, we need to continue but will the details remain the same? I think we need to finish the study.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Are you talking about the strategic study?

[William F. Pentney]

Yes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Bruinooge, you have an eight-minute round.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses coming before us today. Your testimony has been well received thus far, and I know that the work your department does--and of course the Canadian military does--is very substantial for Canada.

I just wanted to go over a few items that were raised in your presentation. I want to talk a bit about how you referred in part to the pledge stability and predictable defence funding that is planned for over the next 20 years as part of some of the announcements that our government has made in recent years. I guess maybe you could give us some testimony as to how that is beneficial to the military in terms of being able to operate in this modern world that we have, with all the challenges that you face. Perhaps you could also give some evidence as to how your opinion has been formed on that matter. For instance, the opposite of that would be a lack of stable projections, instability, unpredictable cuts, etc.

Perhaps you could give us some measure as to why that is so important to not only this department but to the Canadian military and its ability to operate in the global environment.

[William F. Pentney]

Mr. Chairman, I'll just lead off and then the vice-chief will pick up on it.

This is a long-term business, and the capabilities of which Canadians are so proud, which we see on display in Afghanistan and in Haiti--and less on display during the Olympics, but they were there in the background during the Olympics--are not capabilities that were bought at Canadian Tire or Wal-Mart last week.

You don't grow a long-term military capability in equipment, personnel, command and control, and all that needs to come together at the moment to deliver the results and express the values of which Canadians are so proud, in a short-term way.

So the long-term planning horizon for us, like other departments of defence or militaries, is really absolutely vital. That's because we're making investments now that are going to shape the future of the Canadian Forces, and what Canadians can expect the forces to do for the next 10, 15, or 20 years. Today we're the beneficiaries of the decisions that were made 10 or 20 years ago--or in some cases 30 or 40 years ago, unfortunately--in terms of some of the equipment and the capabilities we're using today.

The vice-chief can elaborate.

[VAdm Denis Rouleau]

Not that much more can be said. What we have in terms of capability planning is called the strategic capability road map. You may have heard of it. It looks at what we have right now, from a capability perspective, and when we're going to need to start replacing equipment in order to maintain that capability for the government.

We can basically superimpose that road map over the 20-year funding we have planned right now. We have this 20-year look as to what we have, what we want to have, and when we're going to be able to do things. In some cases we've already started investing in this.

It's probably the first time I've seen it being done that way. It has a dynamic element--some of those elements will change--but we have a plan to go to. We have a long-term goal, given the life expectancy of the equipment, including the funding that will be required to make that work.

For us, it's a phenomenal tool. In fact we are one of four departments that submitted our investment plan to Treasury Board. Only four departments are part of the pilot project to do just that, to give visibility as to how we intend to spend our money. It is useful for Treasury Board, and it is ten times as useful for us to make our plan and to look 20 years down the line.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Could I get you to elucidate on that philosophy in a more finite way?

I want to bring up an example of the very unfortunate tsunami of Boxing Day 2004. Clearly many people in the world were very affected by that. Could you describe how the Canadian military was able to support the recovery efforts with that unfortunate disaster, compared with the change in equipment, etc., that you were able to deliver on for the most recent disaster in Haiti? Could you compare those two situations?

[VAdm Denis Rouleau]

In these two cases it was the ability to deploy by ourselves, to be able to bring to bear the equipment and the soldiers we needed to put on the ground.

In the example you were mentioning with the tsunami, that was the pre-C-17 era. We did not have the Globemasters to be able to move our equipment as fast as we did for Haiti.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

How did you get your forces to Thailand and Indonesia? What means did you use to get them there?

[VAdm Denis Rouleau]

If we had to send people there, we would either borrow from the U.S. forces, or go into a contract with commercial air that would bring our equipment to wherever we needed it.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Do you recall how long that took after the tsunami?