National Defence Committee on Feb. 9th, 2009

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

On the issue of the Chinooks, as a former air force pilot yourself, Mr. Hawn, you'll know that the Chinooks, like our fast planes, like our transport aircraft, play a niche role. These particular aircraft are extremely useful in the transport of both troops and equipment in a theatre of operations. You're correct in saying this would not be solely dedicated to Afghanistan in the future, beyond 2011. These types of aircraft will be very useful in disasters, to move troops quickly in a place such as Haiti, in the aftermath of a hurricane in the Caribbean, or in other theatres of operation that we may find ourselves in, in the future. Being able to transport troops and equipment quickly, efficiently, and safely is absolutely essential to the Canadian Forces.

We are back in business as a result of the purchase of those D models. As to the F models that my friend referred to, that contract, as you know, is still in negotiations, but it's nearing the final stages. That would allow us to have those particular types of aircraft well beyond the expiration of the Afghanistan mission. The intention at this point would be to sell the existing D models and have those costs go towards the future purchase of these new F models.

And yes, clearly, during the time it will take to receive those aircraft, as we have seen with other purchases, including the Cyclones, which will replace the maritime helicopters—the Sea King helicopter replacement project—there may in fact be new technology. There will be in-service support required that will also have benefits to Canada.

Something I really want to emphasize here is that we always try to solicit Canadian companies to bid on these particular contracts. Whenever possible, we'll buy Canadian equipment. The reality is that certain types of equipment are not made in Canada. When that is the case, we have a very strict industrial regional benefits package that requires a non-Canadian company to spend, dollar for dollar, the amount that is awarded in the contract. In the instance of trucks, for example, where the only bidder in a five-month process was a company from outside Canada—a contract worth $274 million—that company will be required to spend $270 million in Canada. They've already identified $84 million or $85 million-plus, which will be spent over the life of the contract.

As regards many of the component parts, our aerospace industry in Canada is thriving. It's one of the bright spots right now in the economy. That is an element of military procurement that we're very aware of, so in those future purchases of Chinooks and other types of military equipment and procurements we are very mindful of the fact that we need to promote Canadian aerospace and other sectors of military procurement.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

My next question is with respect to supplemental estimates. We're getting sort of wrapped around the axle on that a little bit. It's big money, and we understand that, so we should have a clear understanding.

The basic Defence budget refers to the basic mission of the Canadian Forces, which is training, operations, and so on. The Canadian Forces doesn't plan for natural disasters. You don't generally plan for wars; those come up. Those are supplementary missions that come up, which therefore require supplementary funding. That's where supplemental estimates come from.

Is that a fair characterization of the process?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That is correct. I would call it not only supplemental, but incremental. We're talking about additional costs above and beyond what we would pay for salaries, the normal depreciation, the normal purchase of equipment that is essential to the Canadian Forces. When we enter a theatre of operations, when we respond to a hurricane, when there is a natural disaster as we've seen in our own country, those additional costs are what we're talking about here. Things such as health care and the way in which machinery depreciates is often the subject of some dispute.

So when we are talking about the figures here, it's important to delineate—to use the vernacular—what we would have spent in any event had there not been a war or a natural disaster versus what additional costs are associated with that activity.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thirdly—and then I'm going to save some time, I hope, for my colleague Ms. Gallant—we keep talking about this tired old 10:1 ratio of spending in Afghanistan, and I'm frankly a little bit disappointed that the parliamentary budget officer seems to have fallen prey to that same misunderstanding. A dollar of money spent on the military isn't just paying for the military. When a dollar is spent on the military, some of that $10 to $1 is being spent on development and reconstruction, and so on; it just happens to be carried out by men and women in uniform. We consistently make the false argument that we're spending $10 on the military to $1 on construction, when in fact a good chunk of that $10 on the military is in fact reconstruction, development, and so on.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That's absolutely right, Mr. Hawn, and you've been in Kandahar province. You were there as recently as this Christmas. You've seen the schools being built along a stretch of road that is patrolled by Canadian Forces personnel. You've seen the force protection that is necessary to provide for people at the PRT, the work that is being done at the Dahla Dam. All these are inextricable from costs that are assumed by the Canadian Forces, yet they are there solely to protect, in many cases, the efforts of CIDA, the efforts of the RCMP in training, and the efforts, for example, of the transport of humanitarian supplies to villages and to people throughout the countryside.

So there are costs that would be, in a military sense, taken out of our budget but were actually solely devoted to development costs or to the reconstruction of a project, or to the delivery, for example, of immunization of children against polio. We're assuming that cost. It may be identified on a piece of paper as a military expenditure, but it is truly money that is being spent solely for humanitarian purposes. That's an important distinction that has to be made, and it is a false dichotomy to say that 10:1 is being spent on the military, because that just doesn't add up in reality when you see the type of work that Canadian Forces personnel are doing in Afghanistan.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

I will give whatever time I have left to Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

I have two subjects to touch upon. I will ask them both at once so that you can judge your time accordingly.

In a previous appearance before this committee, there was considerable discussion about atomic veterans. I see in the supplementary estimates that almost $10 million has been allocated for atomic veterans.

On Saturday I happened to attend the funeral of Sapper Greenfield, who was, as we know, very heroic, highly skilled, dearly loved, and will be missed, and he died doing what he loved and what he believed in. At that funeral an acquaintance, Ralph Storey, who had worked on the Chalk River cleanup, asked me a few questions: who benefits, how much will they receive, do they have to show a medical condition to qualify, when will the cheques start to flow, and will civilians qualify for this program?

The other issue is that we've also done considerable work in the previous Parliament on the issue of mental health, and we're hoping to get back to work on that. We've heard from a number of witnesses and hope to be able to complete the report in the very near future.

You said it is critical to take care of our own people, and you spoke about visiting the injured with General Natynczyk. What are you and the department doing to take care of our injured soldiers, our airmen, and our sailors?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gallant. I know this is an issue you've closely followed and associated yourself with.

The atomic veterans program is designed specifically to recognize the exceptional service of those veterans, who were not, incidentally, all Canadian Forces personnel. There were civilians, and they will be eligible for this package. The funding that has been set aside, both supplementary estimate amounts that you've mentioned of approximately $10 million and the additional funding to round out the program, is the result of a long-standing issue that was not resolved by previous governments. I'm very proud that we're finally doing something for these atomic veterans.

To date, approximately 300 atomic veterans application packages have been sent out. We have proactively identified individuals who we believe are eligible, and the eligibility criterion here is important. Anyone who was there who was exposed, regardless of medical condition...and this is not exclusive of a medical condition. If there are medical issues related to that exposure, that is separate and that will be dealt with by Veterans Affairs Canada, and that will be dealt with in addition to the $25,000 package that is being presented. What's important to remember here is that we intend to do this as an ex gratia payment in recognition of that exceptional service. So anyone who was there is eligible. I am told that to date we have had 420 phone inquiries, and we have received other inquiries by other means.

As far as their eligibility is concerned, 114 atomic veterans and six non-military personnel have been identified. We hope to see these cheques start to go out. I know there were cheques that went out last Friday, so the delivery of this program has already begun. I would add that if atomic veterans have passed on, consideration can be given to the application of a primary beneficiary or caregiver, so family members are eligible as well.

On the health package, it would take considerable time to go into that detail. I'd be glad to share that with my colleague separately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much. The atomic veterans issue, of course, is important to us all, and we appreciate that, and I think everybody appreciates the fact that the cheques are flowing.

We certainly want to thank you for being here. I understand you got back late yesterday from Europe and made yourself available very quickly to us, and that's appreciated.

I have just one comment, as the chair, before we dismiss you and set up the other panel. I'm keenly supportive of the rehabilitation of the Dahla Dam. I knew some expertise came from the Prairies, from my neck of the woods, to help with that. I live in an area of Canada where irrigation has turned a desert into very productive land. I know the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration had some input into that, and I certainly hope that proceeds and brings a better life to those people there.

Thank you very much for being here.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

I do want to correct that figure. I mistakenly said $25,000. That payment is actually $24,000.

On the Dahla Dam project, as you would know, there are Canadian contractors involved as well, but most importantly, there are significant numbers of Afghans who will receive employment for that project—thousands, in fact, who will be picking up hoes and shovels rather than automatic weapons. The entire Arghandab Valley region that will benefit from this irrigation is in fact one of the greatest potentials we have to bring some commerce and agriculture, with which you're very familiar, to that region of Kandahar province. It is one of the signature projects. I know you have Minister Oda coming to the committee as well, and she can speak in greater detail about that.

In my view, one of the most important contributions we can make is the repair of the Dahla Dam, and I thank those who were involved from other organizations to help identify and put that project forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much, sir. It's good to see you.

We'll suspend briefly while we get the panel changed over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I would ask people to take their seats and we will begin. I know everybody is anxious to ask some questions.

As we get started, I'd ask that the new witnesses who have come forward identify themselves and their position, and possibly the reason they're here.

Go ahead, sir.

[Robert Fonberg, Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence]

It's because we like being here.

In terms of new people at the table, with me today is my colleague Bill Pentney, who is the Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence; and General Semianiw, who is the chief of military personnel, and who in particular, among other things, would pick up a lot of the mental health questions and the personnel questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We appreciate that. I think we've seen most of you here in the past, so it's good to have you back.

We're going to go into a five-minute round. We have 50 minutes, so we'll get 10 spots, hopefully. I'll keep the time very strict. You've all been here to see how it started off, with the presentation given by the minister.

Mr. Wilfert, we're going to turn it over to you to begin.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I assume that for any questions that are not addressed we can get the answers in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Certainly. That's the usual procedure.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I have two questions. First of all, as part of the Canada first defence strategy announced in 2006, the joint support ship program was a priority of the government. Three years later we seem to be back to square one. We wrongly estimated the cost of the ships, resulting obviously in requiring taxpayers to maintain the old ones. Four bidders delivered cost design proposals last year; all were rejected in August, and now the program is further delayed.

What is the current status of the JSS program since the cancellation? When will the supply ships for JSS be built? When will we resume the procurement process for the JSS program, and when will the new requirements be released?

Obviously there are tremendous economic stimulus opportunities both in Newfoundland and in Victoria.

My second question relates to the Canada first strategy, which deals with the priority of protecting the north. We certainly agree with that, for the security and safety of Canadians. It's not simply about Afghanistan but obviously about protecting and supporting Canadians at home. Why not allow an open competition for the Buffalo search and rescue replacement planes? Why not consider Canadian companies such as Viking in British Columbia? I'm not sure what sense it makes to support an Italian firm in the United States. The government has not upheld its buy Canadian policy, in our view, with the recent contract with the American company, Navistar Defense, as an example.

So I'd appreciate answers to those questions, and if we don't get to all of those, obviously, as per our policy, we should get them in writing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have three minutes, whoever wants to respond.

[Robert Fonberg]

I'll ask the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff to speak to the issue of JSS, and I'll come back on the fixed-wing SAR issue, Mr. Chairman.

[Vice-Admiral D. Rouleau, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence]

On the issue of JSS, as we all know, once the two bidders became non-compliant this past fall, there was the requirement that the capability remain extant, and we are now in the process of basically relooking at the options to be able to deliver that capability. The issue is not at all dropped. In fact, it is gaining speed and momentum right now to try to come up with a solution to deliver that capability within the available budget. This is where it's at now, redefining the requirements, and that is progressing very well.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

You say “redefining”. Are there any timelines when we might be able to be brought up to speed on that?

[VAdm D. Rouleau]

I would say JSS will be coming up. By the summer of this year we will have a way ahead as to what are the delivery options, because this is really what we're after right now: how can we deliver, how can we bring about the solution to answering the requirement itself?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I would presume, Mr. Chairman, this committee will be kept up to date. That would be certainly my request.

[VAdm D. Rouleau]

Absolutely.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.