Government Operations Committee on June 21st, 2022

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Commissioner Pelletier of the Coast Guard confirmed that you were right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We will now go to Mr. Kusmierczyk for five minutes.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux, for your testimony today, for providing such excellent responses and for shedding a lot of light on our defence expenditures the last number of years.

Our discussion has delved into the nitty-gritty right from the get-go in our conversations today, but I wanted to pull the microscope lens back a bit and get a bit of context. In the last 30 years, has spending ever been higher on defence in Canada?

[Christopher Penney]

I can certainly speak to that.

It's higher than it has been at any point since 2000. There were some decreases in defence spending during the nineties, with the end of the Cold War, so it's safe to say that in the last 30 years, we're at a higher level, let's say, than at any point previous.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Looking at, for example, the last five years of spending and then projecting out, have we ever had growth in military spending at this rate?

[Christopher Penney]

I don't recall offhand if there's been this rapid an increase. However, again, our numbers are predicated on National Defence being able to spend according to their capital investment plan under “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

There are a lot of assumptions based in those calculations, I'm sure. Again, to reiterate, we've never seen this high a rate of growth in spending increases in the last 30 years. Would you call it ambitious?

[Yves Giroux]

I don't know about the rate of growth itself, but for the level in nominal terms, no, we haven't seen that.

Is it ambitious? I would say it's probably ambitious, given the last couple of years of “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, where the department was not able to spend according to its plan. To see a further increase in capital spending over the next couple of years is certainly ambitious, but we'll see if it proves to be too ambitious.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Perfect.

According to NATO's March 31, 2022, defence expenditure report, 48% of Canada's budgeted NATO contribution is for personnel, 18% is for equipment, 3% is for infrastructure and 30% is for other spending.

What areas of spending could Canada, in your opinion, most readily increase in view of reaching the NATO target? Where do you think we have the most opportunity for growth? Is it in personnel, equipment or infrastructure? I'm curious.

[Yves Giroux]

Personnel is difficult to increase quickly if the way to achieve that is more Canadian Forces personnel. An easy way to increase spending on personnel is to increase the salaries and wages paid to CF personnel, which I'm sure they wouldn't say no to. It would increase the spending, but it wouldn't necessarily increase the capacities of the Canadian Forces.

With equipment, there are constraints related to supply. When it comes to operations, they're constrained by the equipment and the personnel.

One easy way would be to significantly increase veterans' benefits but, again, that would be an increase in spending. I'm not sure it would necessarily be related to a commensurate increase in military capabilities or readiness.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I understand that.

The minister made a $4.9-billion announcement on NORAD spending. Do we have a sense at this point of how that might impact the balance of how much we spend for personnel, equipment and infrastructure?

Do we have a sense from the announcement of how that might change the balance?

[Christopher Penney]

We won't, until we have a breakdown of how the figures are spread out among those categories for the $4.9 billion.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The details simply are not there yet for that spending.

According to an April 2022 NATO Association of Canada paper comparing the value of countries' defence procurement in U.S. dollars, it's not an accurate assessment of capabilities, because it does not account for purchasing power.

Can you tell us how we should think about how purchasing power impacts military preparedness? How are different countries investing in it?

[Yves Giroux]

The purchasing power is the concept that refers to the fact that costs are different in different countries. For example, if we compare Canada, which is a well-developed country, to other countries like India and China where military personnel pay is lower than in Canada, the purchasing power of a U.S. dollar spent in both countries does not buy you the same military capacity. That's probably what is referred to in the study you quoted.

There are also the effectiveness of the spending itself, how well integrated the different branches of the military are and the mix of spending between pensions and benefits, personnel, equipment and infrastructure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk. Thank you, Mr. Giroux.

With that, we are short on time here.

Ms. Vignola has a motion that she has already presented, so before we get to that, I am going to thank Mr. Giroux and Mr. Penney for their attendance once again and for coming to us. We appreciate your being here. I wish you a safe and prosperous summer.

With that, Ms. Vignola, your motion was basically presented last Friday and was given notice. If you would like to read it, then we can move from there.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Mr. Penney.

The motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertakes a study of the expenditure of nearly $100,000 in public funds for the Governor General of Canada for catering services during an eight day tour of the Middle East in March 2022; and that the committee invites the Governor General to appear before the committee for a period of two (2) hours on or before June 23, 2022; that if the Governor General is unable to appear before the committee herself, she appoint a member of her office who shall have the necessary authority to answer the questions of the members of the committee.

I know we cannot summon the Governor General as a witness. It violates protocol, and I understand that very well. That is why the motion refers to an invitation and the possibility that a member of her office appear to explain this expenditure of public funds if the Governor General does not wish to or cannot appear before the committee.

As I recall, we are talking about two lunches and three breakfasts that cost about $80,000. That does not include alcohol, other meals or hotel bills. That is a large amount of money. I know very well we are talking about the Governor General. While people all across Quebec and Canada have to tighten their belts and spend $150 or $200 for two small bags of groceries that are barely enough to feed a family, I find this excessive. We are talking about taxpayers' money. So it would be appropriate to know the reason for these expenditures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

I saw some hands up. I did see Mr. McCauley, Mr. Johns and then Mr. Housefather.

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Ms. Vignola, for this.

I mostly agree with this. I'm just wondering if perhaps I could offer an amendment that we change the date to September 23, because we won't get a meeting in this week, obviously.

I would also delete from the last line, “that if the Governor General is unable to appear before the committee herself, she appoint a member of her office who shall have the necessary authority”. Recognizing that we cannot call the GG, just change it to “ask her office to appear to discuss the expenses”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We have an amendment at this point in time. We're discussing the amendment.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that you had necessarily accepted the motion.

I would like to raise a procedural issue for you to rule on. I'll leave it to your discretion, but I don't think I can do it unless I do it at the earliest opportunity. Certainly, if you agree to an amendment, I can't do that, so I was wondering if you would allow me to do that now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Just wait a minute.

Mr. Housefather, I will allow you to speak to your issue.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to raise the fact that this same motion was brought up at the public accounts committee, and the committee ruled it out of order. In my view, it would be out of order here as well.

It's been made clear from all the different media reports and the response from the Department of National Defence that the Department of National Defence was the one responsible for the catering on the Governor General's plane, that she and her office had nothing whatsoever to do with it and that the decision on catering services was made by the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The national defence committee has the mandate to study all matters pertaining to the Royal Canadian Air Force, which we do not. I think we all agree that this is an excessive catering bill, which I believe was $80,000 as opposed to $100,000, but the appropriate people to ask about this would be the representatives of the Department of National Defence, not the Governor General. As such, Mr. Chair, I would humbly request that you consider that this motion is not appropriate before our committee, that it's appropriate before the defence committee and that it should be ruled out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

In response to you, when we first received the motion, there were some concerns about it when it was read. It is understood, as Ms. Vignola has pointed out, that we can't compel the Governor General to come to committee.

With that said, the Office of the Governor General does fall under the parameters of the committee on government operations and estimates. In fact, we voted on the estimates, and we continue to vote on the estimates on the Office of the Governor General.

Historically, it has happened where the Governor General or the Governor General's office has appeared, granted, in years gone by, but it has appeared before OGGO in the past. After seeing that, I do rule that this motion is in order.