National Defence Committee on Feb. 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That ends the second round. As the committee wants, we will go back to the order from the top, and that will be the official opposition, the Bloc, and then the New Democratic Party, and that will take us to the end. I need two minutes at the end of the committee to deal with the motions on the estimates.

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously the special standing committee on Afghanistan will be struck very shortly.

A deficiency that comes from both Foreign Affairs and CIDA, and also from Defence, is the nature of the briefings that we get. I have to say that being a privy councillor is very nice on my stationery, but it apparently doesn't do me any good after I'm no longer in the government. One of the concerns I have is the nature of the briefings we get, particularly on Afghanistan. Yes, there are many good things going on there; there is no question about it. I certainly agree. But there are also areas of deficiency and areas of concern that we have in the official opposition, and in order to get those briefings, we're going to have to look very carefully, Mr. Chairman, either in this committee or the special Afghanistan committee, at the nature of the information we get, because clearly we cannot do our job if we don't have the real facts.

You're asking for $441 million more, and much of this is covering Afghanistan. It started with a leap of faith--lately we're not very good at leaping--to give it support. I want to support the men and women. I've been to Afghanistan on two occasions, and I can certainly say that we have no question about providing the right tools for the job. But the minister talks about a whole-of-government reconstruction, and I keep hearing about whole of government, and yet I also hear from CIDA and from Foreign Affairs and from Defence that they're not working as collaboratively as they should be.

For my own edification and for members of the committee, Deputy Minister, you might indicate to us the nature of this whole-of-government approach in terms of what actually goes on mechanically to assist in making sure that everybody is on the same page. Certainly both here and in Kandahar I've heard nothing but people being off the page, and I would like to be somewhat reassured—and I may take this up with you privately later, obviously—as to how that actually, in your estimation, is working. Are there areas you feel could be improved that would help this committee?

[Robert Fonberg]

It's a great question.

I was with the minister in Munich on the weekend. We had a number of bilaterals with the Americans, the Poles, the Germans, the Bulgarians, and other people. The interesting thing is that whole of government makes a lot of sense. It's easy to write down on a piece of paper but hard to execute. As much as we kind of struggle ourselves with understanding why it's not easier to make it work, the reality is that we are light years ahead of all of our Afghanistan partners that I have come across. Vice-President Biden was there. General Jim Jones, the new national security advisor, was also there and talked about how the National Security Council is remaking itself to deal with whole of government.

While we have an Afghanistan task force--the Privy Council Office--we have had growing pains. I think you'll see, in the quarterly report that's expected to be tabled toward the end of this month or perhaps a little sooner, just how much progress we really are making. The reality is that a year ago this was probably as much rhetoric as it was substance, but today this is considerably more substance than rhetoric. In a situation where you're trying to fight a war and create space for your diplomatic community and your development community, is it difficult to do the things they need done to turn this into a sustainable effort? Absolutely. It's extremely difficult. But I was astonished, and I kept saying to the minister, let's talk to them about how we're actually doing this in Canada, because we are way ahead of where any of those folks are.

The Americans have a phenomenal story about whole of government in RC-East. I was there last spring. It turns out that the whole of government is the military: “It's okay, thanks, we'll do it all here. We're good. We'll do that whole-of-government thing”. “And I always have a policy adviser beside me”, says the colonel. They're pretty impressive, but by and large it's military.

Somebody talked earlier about the role the military plays. It's not just the fight; there's a lot of reconstruction as well up there in RC-East, Bagram and those places. The military is doing a lot of that reconstruction effort, but it's a whole-of-government story told by only one partner, and there's only one partner at the table. I think the Americans will really want to change that. We have a number of meetings scheduled with them, and I think they'll really want to hear how we actually do that.

So we not only have nothing to be ashamed of in how we do this; we are way ahead of all the allies I've spoken to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bachand is next, and then Mr. Harris.

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

I'm going to ask General Semianiw a question about the Collège militaire royal in Saint-Jean.

The college was shut down in 1995, but it has just been reopened. We were delighted to see the college reopen. What's more, the two ministers who were responsible for the reopening were in Saint-Jean that day. However, the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean was not re-established at the same level as it was at when it was shut down.

I would just like to remind you that the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean was opened in 1952 and the objective was to help francophone soldiers gain entry to the Canadian armed forces. When the college was re-established last summer, it had 200 officer cadets enrolled in a qualifying year, first year or second year, which meant that the institution had the status of a college. It was given a budget of approximately $12 million per year.

We would like to see the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean become a prestigious institution once again, return to the status it enjoyed when it was founded and the status it developed until 1995. It must become a full-fledged university with a budget of $25 million, which would mean enrolment of approximately 400 officer cadets.

I've discussed this with the minister on a few occasions. He said that they were kind of taking it one step at a time. How do you see the college regaining its previous status? The Conservative government has recognized Quebec as a nation, so perhaps they should re-establish the military college with the same status it enjoyed when it was shut down. Personally, I think that would encourage francophones to join the Canadian armed forces.

What are your plans in this regard?

[MGen Walter Semianiw]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The plan at the time of the opening was very, very clear—I was at the opening—both by the two respective ministers and myself. From a Canadian Forces point of view, the intent was to provide another opportunity for francophone students to be able to study near their homes and remain in Quebec.

I'm not privy to any discussions at this point in time to turn the college into a degree-granting institution. I would submit that's a great question that should be posed in Parliament to the government, because at this point in time, from a military perspective, we're not examining the aspect of taking the college and moving it to a degree-granting institution. Everything is possible, but at this point in time no decision has been made nor direction given to turn it into a degree-granting institution. I'll wait for the minister to provide me that direction when the time comes.

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

If I've understood what you've said, General Samianiw, you need the green light from the politicians to start working on this. You cannot go in the other direction. Could the military recommend to the minister that the college be re-open, and then it would be his decision, or are you waiting until the minister tells you that he has decided to re-open the institution completely and asks you to prepare plans for doing so? Which one of the two scenarios is possible? Could it be both? Can't the military leaders recommend this to the minister, telling him that in their opinion, re-establishing the college as it was before will ensure that additional francophone officers join the Canadian Forces, and that this is important? Can you take this initiative or do you absolutely have to wait until the minister gives you an order to make this happen?

[MGen Walter Semianiw]

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you're aware that at the end of the day I don't move on my own. I have to make recommendations to the minister and others, who then provide that direction.

Clearly we had an intent with the college. I believe what happened just last year with the students who were there was a great success story. We opened up the college and turned it into being able to provide CEGEP....

In this case it was a matter of ensuring that the students

can get their CEGEP actually close to home.

Right now, from a student point of view, from a purely numbers point of view, there is no reason to open up another college, because the addition of the students we have at the CEGEP now, coming out of RMC in Saint-Jean, does meet our requirement, which was our challenge, our need--to have more students coming out of Quebec.

Moving it to the next level, there would need to be a demand. Money would have to budgeted for that, because I'm sure, as you're aware, Mr. Chairman, it's something that could not happen without additional funding provided. But again, we have looked at it. We took this step to open up the college, from a CEGEP point of view, and at this point in time we are not examining whether or not we should move ahead. Not that it's impossible, I would agree, Mr. Chairman. Things can be done in any order. One goes after three and before two many times in what we do, so I'll wait and see, once I'm provided that direction, where I go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harris, you have a few minutes to wrap up.

Welcome to the committee.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very happy to be here.

I have a few specific questions.

Mr. Chairman, there's a lot of interest in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the joint supply ships contract, because one of the preferred bidders, after a very lengthy process, was the Marystown shipyard, along with the Victoria yard.

Vice-Admiral Rouleau suggested that the bidders had become non-compliant. What we heard in our province was that the amount of money that was on offer to do the job was not upgraded. Based on the fact of the length of the bidding process and the qualification process, costs had gone up in the meantime and the budgeting amounts didn't meet that.

Is there a plan to go back to these preferred bidders, who had qualified after a lengthy process, to see if there's some way of doing it with them? Or are you going to start from scratch now and go through another lengthy process to get these ships built? I understand everything's agreed to that we need.

[VAdm D. Rouleau]

In fact, when the two bidders were found non-complaint--i.e., to meet the desired requirements within the budget that was allocated--it seized that process that was happening at the time. That has now been regenerated, and based on the requirements and the current look at what options we have to deliver that capability, the same thing will happen now and we'll reinitiate the requirement for bids.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

And it could take another three or four years to get to the point at which it ended in August.

[VAdm D. Rouleau]

The actual requirements.... We will have the way ahead by this summer. In fact, all of this is linked to the current or upcoming discussion on shipbuilding policy and ways ahead within Canada as a whole.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Can I move to one other point on a totally different topic?

I'm advised that a few days ago the Military Police Complaints Commission made a recommendation that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association be given standing and funding for the Afghanistan public interest investigation. This is related, of course, to the treatment of detainees who have been handed over by Canadian Forces and allegations of mistreatment and allegations of torture. The very specific question I have is whether DND will go along with the recommendation to provide standing and funding for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in this process.

[William F. Pentney]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The government will examine the recommendation of the MPCC, but I have to say that the whole purpose of the establishment of the complaints commission was that it itself should be able to carry forward these cases. We shouldn't have to rely on individuals or organizations to bring the cases forward. The MPCC was established to conduct a full, fair, impartial, and thorough inquiry. The government, as has been indicated, has attempted to cooperate with that inquiry, and certainly DND has provided access to documents or witnesses. But the request from MPCC is under consideration now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

That's very good, gentlemen.

I just have some business on the estimates to clean up at the end of the meeting, but I want to thank you all very much for your contribution. You answered the questions very well, and I think the committee appreciates that. So thank you all very much.

Committee, at the beginning of the meeting, I called vote 1b for the National Defence supplementary estimates. Are you ready to proceed on this?

NATIONAL DEFENCE

Department Vote 1b--Operating expenditures and authority for total commitments.........$452,399,359

Military Police Complaints Commission Vote 20b--Program expenditures..........$1,203,831

(Votes 1b and 20b agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Shall the chair report votes 1b and 20b under National Defence to the House of Commons?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

This meeting is now adjourned.