Mr. Chair?
Evidence of meeting #22 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reservists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #22 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reservists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
If we do have additional time, could we do an additional round since we are scheduled to sit until 5:30?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
I'll put that to the committee as soon as I have done my little bit.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
I've been sitting here listening and I want to say that I'm highly troubled by this. I find it a huge issue and, quite frankly, the conclusions are unacceptable.
At a time in this country when Canadians have never asked so much of their soldiers and have never felt so proud of them and the job they do--all of them, every soldier in uniform, including the two very senior officers here and the deputy--I'm very disturbed that we would end up treating our soldiers in this fashion.
Vice-Admiral, in your opening remarks, you said: “Reservists are...a vital part of our Canadian Forces, significantly contributing to Canada's success in military operations...In fact, at one point at the height of our operations back in February of 2010, 15,000 of our 27,000 primary reserve members were on full-time service.”
A lot of the successes we've been having around the world have been because of reservists, and I have to say to you, sir, I'm very disappointed that throughout this whole thing there hasn't been a single apology from you or the deputy, who arguably are two the most powerful and influential military people. I believe our reservists are owed an apology for being treated in this fashion.
The auditor outlined this. This is pretty scathing as reports go. I've listened to a lot of reports. The Assistant Auditor General said in his opening statement that, “We found that National Defence did not have adequate planning in place”. Well, next to fighting and training, planning is what Defence does. He continued in the text that, “No senior official was made responsible for coordinating both the policy development and the delivery of the Reserve Force Pension Plan”.
My understanding of the military--though most of my time was in the police--is that you set a goal and then you make sure there is somebody responsible. So I would ask the Vice-Admiral, why wasn't somebody assigned? It has been pointed out by the auditor, one of the main reasons for the problems and the backlog was that a senior person wasn't assigned. So why wasn't someone assigned, sir?
5 p.m.
VAdm Bruce Donaldson
Well, sir, there were personnel assigned. I think that--
5 p.m.
VAdm Bruce Donaldson
No. There were two personnel assigned, and what we learned from this was that in hindsight we agree with the Auditor General: a single person being assigned and a full implementation plan would have significantly prepared us for some of the challenges we encountered. But at the time, sir, what I can say is that we did the best we could under the circumstances and moved out on this new initiative in a way that is respectful of reserves, sir. It is offering reserves a pension plan for which they have been looking for some time.
I would say that, notwithstanding the challenges we have had, we have acted with the best of intentions, understanding the constraints we've been managing and with the interests of reservists at heart. We have set clear priorities to make sure that reservists are not disadvantaged. We have been clear in the management of funds throughout this process. I think the Auditor General would agree that this is a question of the management of the rollout, and we have learned a lot of lessons from that. We--
5 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
No, I accept that you've learned lessons. I just have to express my profound disappointment that the words said about the duty they performed weren't backed up by actions showing that the military really gave a damn about their pensions--and this is for those who came back alive. So this is huge, and I'm greatly disappointed that we have a report like this. It's not consistent with the approach that the military takes towards its soldiers, and that's why it stands out.
The last thing I want to leave here is what I heard--if I heard correctly--on a question of whether you were going to hire people, because your plan, as I'm looking at it, says that the backlog won't be completed until December 31, 2017. The Assistant Auditor General, in his opening remarks, said that some reservists could have to wait for up to seven years from '07. Yet when the question was put on whether you were going to hire people to make this a priority and get it fixed, what I heard was that it's an open question. I would have expected, “Yes, sir, we're going to be hiring people as quickly as we can because we don't treat our reservists that way”.
Why didn't we hear that?
5 p.m.
VAdm Bruce Donaldson
Well, sir, as we hire people to fix this problem, we actually increase the administrative costs of the pensions, and reservists expect us to manage the pension plan responsibly as well. So it is not a question.... Frankly, sir, I ask myself the same question. My preference as vice-chief would be to throw 400 people at this problem and clear that backlog in six months. We cannot actually put 400 people on this without attributing the cost of those 400 people to the pension plan. I think the Auditor General would agree with that estimation.
So, sir, as frustrating as it is, throughout this process we have balanced the increase in personnel devoted to this and--notwithstanding a high attrition rate amongst those analysts--increased the number of analysts and their training to tackle the backlog as best we could. We have tried to communicate to reservists why this is a challenge.
I find it frustrating as well, sir, but to characterize our treatment of this issue as not giving a damn about reservists, frankly, I respectfully disagree, sir. It is--
5 p.m.
VAdm Bruce Donaldson
--because we respect reservists that we undertook this in the first place.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Well, first of all, I believe it was Parliament that undertook the pension. Secondly, I believe I said it looked like that was the case; I didn't say that's what happened. I said that's the impression given. It's about saying how important they are--and we know they're dying for us--and then not making sure that steps are taken at the beginning to have the pension plan in place, as it looked to me—and I stand by that, that it looked like....
5:05 p.m.
VAdm Bruce Donaldson
Mr. Chair, I understand, and I respect and I'm thankful for your concern in this regard.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
I appreciate your comments, too, under difficult circumstances. Nonetheless, I don't think we can send fellow citizens out to put their lives on the line and then not honour them in every way we can, and part of that is making sure they got the pension their Parliament promised them.
5:05 p.m.
VAdm Bruce Donaldson
And I agree, sir.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
All right.
Now, do we wish to go another round? We have 25 minutes left on the clock.
Mr. Byrne, you wanted to make a point earlier, so I will give you the floor.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
No, I realize that you haven't agreed to anything, but Mr. Byrne asked for the floor earlier, prior to my turn, and I'm giving him the floor.
