National Defence Committee on March 13th, 2012

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and again, thank you, Ministers.

I want to go back to the F-35 issue, which has been batted around here a bit today. I welcome the change in tone, frankly, from “we're going ahead with this”, to kind of an “if and when”. Frankly, I see that as a welcome change in tone.

There's a financing reality that has happened right around the world that changes pretty well everything, and maybe the technological challenges were undersold at the beginning.

You said the likelihood was that no decision—no firm decision, I suppose—will be made until 2013. I'm looking at the mains, and this is a projected budget for 2012-13. My first question is this: is there any financial provision in any of these capital expenditures for that decision, or will that decision actually be then brought forward in a supplementary (C) or (B) or whatever over the course of next year?

The second question is that if in fact a decision is made that this will not meet our operational needs in a timely fashion, what are the alternatives and is there active planning going on with respect to either an alternative, or more binder twine and duct tape for the F-18s? Where are you at with planning? What is the state of planning? I'd be actually rather surprised if you said that no, we haven't actually been looking at an alternative program.

So those are my two questions. Is the financial provision here in the mains or will we see it in a supplementary estimate, and second of all, where is your state of planning with respect to the alternatives?

Thank you.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'm going to let Mr. Fantino answer the bulk of your questions, Mr. McKay, but you will not find moneys specifically allocated to the F-35 here in the mains. This has to do with just the timeframe that we're looking at in terms of purchase acquisition. This is a definition phase, so there is no money to be found specifically in the mains. I think we might involve Mr. Ross in the response to your question about planning.

Mr. Fantino.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

In actual fact, your question is a good one, obviously, and I appreciate it. Certainly, we're looking at all contingencies on all kinds of issues that may or may not play out. We are committed to pursuing the joint strike fighter program as a partner nation and the decision, as you've pointed out, will be made as I indicated.

I will ask Mr. Ross to elaborate further on where we go from here.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Just before we move to Mr. Ross, we'll probably speak to the financial issue.

At what stage is your planning on alternatives?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

It's at the “what if” stage. We're basically doing the research. We're doing the kind of fact-finding that is necessary to help to make the decision. The F-18s are another issue that we hope will continue service. There are things in place that can be done. All these things are part of our discussion—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I appreciate that the F-18s might be your cheap and cheerful alternative, but it might not be your best alternative. Certainly in terms of stealth beats non-stealth every time, presumably, there is also some thinking about whether there is another platform that would suit the needs or bridge the gap.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

I'm waiting to hear back from the experts as to what options will ultimately be available to us. All I can give is an assurance that these things are under consideration, and we'll have to wait and see how things play out in the not-too-distant future. Mr. Ross can elaborate a little bit further.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Just before he does, Mr. McKay, you've made a really important point there: stealth beats non-stealth every time. There's only one stealth aircraft available to Canada, and that's the F-35.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The issue isn't the technological argument. The issue is when, how much—

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

And capability, gaps.... I understand.

Maybe Mr. Ross can speak about the future planning with respect to the arrival date and what our contingency plans include.

[Dan Ross]

Thank you, sir.

We have a small project planning team in place, with staff from my organization and from the chief of the Royal Canadian Air Force, General Deschamps, which is funded by the air force's ongoing operation budget. It is not vote 5, as a normal project, which requires Treasury Board approval to begin definition. We're still in options analysis. We are looking at the implications of a new fighter, from an infrastructure point of view, from a simulator point of view, from a training point of view, etc. We continue to monitor the options available to us around the world. That option analysis commenced in 2005. We really don't see any change in what's available out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

I understand that our last five-minute round is being split between Mr. Opitz and Mr. Chisu.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, stealth beats non-stealth every time, and I certainly will support the survivability of our pilots in the air supremacy over our own land.

Minister, there is a request to transfer to the National Research Council to build an information platform for the Canada online government advanced research and development environment.

Sir, can you please explain this platform and its intended purposes? When do you think you could expect this project to be completed?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I am not a technical expert in such things, but what I can tell you is that this is money that has been set aside specifically for improving the way in which the business of the department is done, as you say. The allotment here will allow the department to take advantage of new advances in technology, new equipment. The type of investment in people and training also goes into the advancement of National Defence's interests in that regard. This was money that was essentially put aside, relating specifically to that project. It's identified here and pulled out as a separate item in the main estimates.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a small question related to my background as an engineer. In the supplementary estimates (C) there is $7,500,000 requested for “Reinvestment of revenues from the sale or transfer of real property”. Are there any plans for these funds? If so, how will they be reinvested in the Department of National Defence? Further to this question, a supplementary one is this. How were the properties selected to be sold and what was the purpose of selling them? Probably the VCDS would be able to answer these questions.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'm sorry. Does the first part of your question refer to the transfer?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

It refers to the $7,500,000 requested for the “Reinvestment of revenues from the sale or transfer of real property”.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

This refers specifically to a property here in Ottawa, as well as a site in Surrey Park. It's a former living accommodation of the Canadian Forces. It wouldn't surprise you. I expect in your military career you've moved around the country and seen that we have military—what they used to call PMQs. These sites are often deemed to be surplus. They will be sold after proper remediation steps are taken to ensure there's no environmental harm.

We have a specific process under the Government of Canada's expenditure management system. We very often involve what is known as Canada Lands in the sale of these properties to see they are given proper market value. In this particular case, we have a site at Rockcliffe and one at Surrey Park. That valuation is noted here in the supplementary estimates (C).

I will allow Vice-Admiral Donaldson to respond to the second part of your question.

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

Thank you, sir.

I think you're talking about the selection of infrastructure for divestment in the department. Is that right?

Level one, which is associate deputy minister or the heads of the army, navy, air force, etc., have a look at the infrastructure related to their portfolios and review it on an ongoing basis to determine if there are aspects that are surplus to their requirements. If there are, then they're put up for sale normally through the Canada Lands Company. There is a provision for bringing the proceeds of the sale back into general revenue. It tends to be placed in areas where maintenance repairs are funded for the remaining infrastructure in the department.

Does that answer your question?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

So it comes back to the National Defence.

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

There are provisions for bringing it back.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

That is the important information that I am asking for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing on the estimates today.

Minister MacKay, Mr. Fantino, Vice-Admiral Donaldson, Mr. King, Mr. Lindsey, and Mr. Ross.

I'm going to let you guys dismiss yourselves from the table.

I will deal with the votes here quickly. We have time.

NATIONAL DEFENCE

Department

Vote 1c--Operating expenditures..........$1

Vote 10c--The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$1

(Votes 1c and 10c agreed to)

Shall I report the supplementary estimates (C) 2011-2012 back to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Now we're on the main estimates.

NATIONAL DEFENCE

National Defence

Vote 1--Operating expenditures..........$14,060,633,000

Vote 5--Capital expenditures..........$4,103,611,000

Vote 10--Grants and contributions..........$265,293,000

Canadian Forces Grievance Board

Vote 15--Program expenditures..........$6,062,000

Communications Security Establishment

Vote 20--Program expenditures..........$356,290,000

Military Police Complaints Commission

Vote 25--Program expenditures..........$4,271,000

Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Vote 30--Program expenditures..........1,971,000

(Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 agreed to)

Shall I report the main estimates 2012-2013 back to the House?