National Defence Committee on March 21st, 2011

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Perhaps I'll let my colleague respond to the question.

[Kevin Lindsey, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Corporate Services, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bachand, I can assure you that these estimates do not contain a single appropriation or amount associated with the closing of Camp Mirage.

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

Where can I find those amounts? I figured they were supplementary estimates given that there were no plans to shut down Camp Mirage until the dispute with the United Arab Emirates arose.

I thought a supplementary estimate would be necessary to move Camp Mirage. Am I mistaken?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Do you have an answer? Go ahead.

[Kevin Lindsey]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The costs were absorbed under another existing appropriation, Mr. Bachand. The department is not looking for any additional funds for the closing of Camp Mirage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Do you have another question?

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

Yes. I would like you to give me a bit more clarification. Are you telling me that I cannot ask questions about the Grievance Board or the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, either?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Supplementary estimates (B) were voted on in December. Now we are studying the votes in supplementary estimates (C).

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

Since I am not quite ready, I will stop now and resume in the second round. Perhaps Mr. Bouchard would like to continue.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I will continue, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, minister. Thank you for being here. I also want to thank the officials who are here with you.

Minister, since 2006, you and your predecessor have both made numerous announcements involving projects at CFB Bagotville, including the expeditionary squadron, Hangar 2 and the radar system. And yet, very little tangible infrastructure has been put in place.

Are there any estimates for that? Will we see anything tangible happening in the next few months as far as the Bagotville base and your project announcements go?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

As was just mentioned, we have made numerous investments in CFB Bagotville, especially with respect to the new hangars for the fighter aircraft and the other necessary infrastructure, such as base runways.

It is always a matter of setting priorities for all of our bases across the country. Understanding which investments are the most critical to carrying out Canada's defence efforts and to supporting personnel is key. That is our department's priority. That is my personal priority.

We remain on track with the plan I mentioned a little while ago, in other words, the Canada First defence strategy, in order to set our investment priorities.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Minister, I have one other quick question. The strategic—

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You have one minute left to ask your question, but I would ask that you please limit yourself to vote 1c, Mr. Bachand.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Yes, I know. I may go slightly off course, but not much.

The Department of National Defence's strategic review was supposed to be completed by the end of 2010 and then tabled. That is according to emails I saw, and you are well aware of that, I believe. It resulted in a moratorium on the expeditionary squadron in Bagotville.

Has that moratorium been lifted? Has the strategic review been completed?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

There is no moratorium.

The strategic review has occurred, but there's no moratorium. We, as I mentioned, are following the Canada First defence strategy--

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

There was a moratorium before the strategic review was to be submitted.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

If I could finish, we're looking at all of our infrastructure across the country with a mind to determining where we have to make the most important strategic investments. Some of this infrastructure is in excess of 50 or 60 years old.

We've made considerable investments in Bagotville, as you're aware. You've supported those investments--I thank you for that--and we'll continue to ensure that across all of the pillars of defence: the infrastructure, the personnel most importantly, our equipment, and our readiness. So it is a constant balancing act.

We've been fortunate at the Department of National Defence to have received significant government funding, but also to include in the defence strategy an escalator clause that will see our department receive more money in this year's budget than in last year's, and that has been the case since we've taken office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will give the floor to Mr. Allen.

I will just remind you that we are on supplementary estimates (C), on page 37, and we are on votes 1c and 5c.

You have the floor, Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, hopefully I'll be able to keep myself to vote 1c, as you have suggested, but then I am the new guy, so we'll see what we can do.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Let me actually go to vote 1c and talk about an amount of money that went unused--$60,830--and is being returned from Environment Canada to the Department of National Defence as “unused funds for investments in search and rescue coordination initiatives across Canada”.

As you know and are fully aware of, Minister, this committee did undertake a study of search and rescue response times. We do know that search and rescue activities are delivered by a number of different departments. Clearly there is a multitude of folks involved, and we appreciate all of the hard work they do, but ultimately the responsibility does stop with the department.

So in view of the facts of what we've seen, especially on our coasts, when it comes to search and rescue, and the nature of that study, I guess there are three questions that come from the fact that this money went unused. What was the intent for this money that had been transferred to Environment Canada in the first place? Why wasn't the full amount used? How much of the money they received was actually used in the first place? If you could address those questions, I'd appreciate it.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

You're certainly correct in stating that the primary responsibility for search and rescue in Canada does in fact fall to the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. But you're also right in pointing out that in many cases we share those responsibilities and work very closely with other departments.

On this issue of the return of funds for search and rescue purposes, it was in essence a transfer back to the department from the Department of the Environment for unused funds for participation in the search and rescue new initiatives fund. There was an earmarking of funding.

Since 1988 the federal government has been funding search and rescue new initiative funding, which provides this annual funding budget of $8.1 million for new projects, new projects that relate to the national search and rescue program and search and rescue responsibilities managed by the National Search and Rescue Secretariat.

Funding within DND's reference levels--and that is the annual budget with respect to national search and rescue programs, in partnership with all of the participating partners, including Environment Canada--essentially is shared. In some cases, it's shared with provincial and territorial organizations.

In 2007-08, for example, the annual reference level for Environment Canada received $475,000 in search and rescue new initiatives, all of which went to enhance humidity and temperature measurement for weather forecasting. The money we're talking about here was for weather prediction capability. It was used to enhance information and to provide information flow to the departments so they could respond and try to have, as accurately as possible, predictability over weather patterns and therefore determine the type of equipment, and the type of response that we would make, in search and rescue missions.

This transfer of roughly $60,000 represents the unspent portion of the Environment Canada budget that was approved for this project. Due to an economic downturn that severely impacted the aerial mechanical services they were providing, they were unable to produce a full, stand-alone, and low-cost weather-sensing package for small aircraft operating in remote areas. That was the purpose of the project. They were not able to fully deliver it. As a result, they transferred that money back to the Department of National Defence.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I appreciate the fulsomeness of the response, but based on the sensitivity of what this committee heard—I didn't have the opportunity to actually be with them, but I read some of the accounts.... I know, Minister, you are from that part of the world, so I know you have an intimate knowledge about how folks feel about search and rescue on the coast.

We talked to someone at committee who was on the Melina Keith and who recounted what happened to him and two of his fellow sailors who perished at sea. He had intimate knowledge of the ability to find out where people were, and he knew that DFO knew how to find out where they were, but the response time was lacking because the folks who were going to go out didn't know that DFO had the information. This gentleman was in the sea watching his colleagues drown and was asking, where are they?

You look at the fact that this unspent money, which was for search and rescue, goes back, relaying that sensitivity, in the sense that folks are saying wait a minute, if we didn't know about all of the pieces you just articulated, someone could do this, this, and that....

Here we had a gap, where DFO specifically had information about how to find people, but unfortunately SARS didn't have this particular piece of information that would have got them there sooner. We don't know what the outcome would have been. Had it been a half hour sooner or 20 minutes sooner, or even 15 minutes sooner, the outcome could have been different for those two individuals.

When folks are looking at money going back, could we not say we need to redirect it to the appropriate place to make sure that information sharing actually happens, so we don't see those types of tragedies again?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, I think it's fair to say that this particular amount—the transfer that occurred here—was specific to a weather system and the prediction of weather patterns, which was set up in a way to relay information about weather from remote areas of the country.

Mr. Allen, I don't take issue with the fact that our department—and all departments involved in search and rescue—is tasked with a very difficult lifesaving task each and every day. You would be aware that we have the largest coastline, the greatest square kilometres of land responsibility for any search and rescue organization in the world. We respond to thousands of calls of distress, and we save thousands of lives each and every year as a result of the heroic efforts of our SAR techs, pilots, our ground crew—everybody working in concert. There is no question that there is an urgent need for information sharing, an urgent need at all times to relay information as accurately and quickly as possible. That is the goal each and every day.

To be honest with you, this particular transfer of money back to the department is specific to a weather prediction system. It is not simply a matter of transferring it into another area of responsibility in terms of equipment or communications or another area. There is a budget specific to all of those areas and more when it comes to search and rescue. This is simply an amount of funding that lapsed and came back to the department. For that reason, it is not germane to suggest that this money would have saved lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn, and I know that you will be sharing your time with Mr. Braid.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I will be sharing with Mr. Braid.

I thank our witnesses for coming.

First of all, I want to make one point. This always happens, of course—we always get off track—but the meeting was called to discuss supplementary estimates votes 1c and 5c. That's the agenda of the meeting.

I know it's customary to get off track, but I want to remind folks that it does make it difficult sometimes, because people ask questions on areas that aren't on the agenda of the meeting. I would ask people who have questions for the minister to bear that in mind.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to point out to Mr. Hawn that we expected the minister to appear when we were discussing the period covered by supplementary estimates (B), in other words, September to December. But he did not come and meet with us. Is there a way we could ask the minister about the period covered by supplementary estimates (B), given that he did not appear before the committee on that matter?

Normally, he should have come before the committee. Unfortunately, he was too busy.