National Defence Committee on June 1st, 2009

[Sheila Fraser]

It depends sometimes on timing. Announcements can be made, but have the funds actually been voted? Has the program design been approved? Has the whole procedure of going through Treasury Board actually occurred? There is a fair bit of time and attention required at the front end to make sure that the planning is done well, so that afterwards the program can go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Ms. Gallant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Hawn, if there's any left over.

My goodness, what a change from the decade of darkness when DND didn't have enough money to spend. Now it has more than it can possibly spend.

Ms. Fraser, you mentioned that even if DND had known in March, they may still not have been able to spend the total amount without going over. Can you explain that a little further?

[Sheila Fraser]

I was trying to make the point that when you have a surplus that may go over the amount you're allowed to carry forward, you have to know sufficiently in advance to be able to spend it. To have learned this information in the last month of the year may not have given them the time. If they were going to contract services or do anything, there's a time for process to be able to get the services in and spend the money. They need to know much sooner, before year-end, that they have these kinds of surpluses in order to be able to react and spend the money appropriately. I don't think any of us want to see a kind of year-end blitz of spending.

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

In the past, procurement was conducted through DND. It did its own purchasing. To what extent, if at all, does procurement and even purchasing through Public Works, or through another department, have to do with the complicated nature of spending in such a large department?

[Sheila Fraser]

I don't know that we can respond to that. We haven't really looked at that except for some specific projects. We haven't looked at the relationship between DND and Public Works and how that operates, so I don't think I can....

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

Does this department do significantly more purchasing of equipment to run its department, for example, than another department would?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would think yes. Given the size of the dollars that are going through this department, obviously yes.

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

The hundreds of millions of dollars that weren't spent were not actually lost.

[Sheila Fraser]

No. It would simply have gone into the surplus of the government for that year-end.

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

Right, not like the $40 million that went missing in the sponsorship scandal.

As my last question, you mentioned in paragraph 5.28--

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I think that deserves a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You can ask your question.

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

In paragraph 5.28, on the corporate business plan, you mentioned you had expected National Defence to have had a corporate business plan, etc. Has the department ever had an integrated corporate business plan?

[Sheila Fraser]

I don't know the answer to that. We didn't go back over time. We were auditing at a point in time. That might be something department officials could advise you of.

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

So it's not necessarily that the department has lost its ability or is no longer implementing the practice of having an integrated corporate business plan, but through the transformation of this department and all the different changes that have happened throughout the years, it is something that hasn't been done yet for the first time.

[Sheila Fraser]

It may have been done in the past. I don't know.

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

Thank you.

I'll pass my time to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

I have a quick point, Madam Fraser, on something Mr. Bachand said about foreign affairs policy, military policy, and so on. The length of all of these acquisition programs is very long. In fact, I was part of the F-18 program from start to finish. The SOR/75 was the last aircraft delivery in 1988. It was my squadron that took delivery of that last airplane. It was a huge program--138 airplanes--so it was going to take time.

The other point I really want to make and get your comment on is that there are basic elements that a military needs. Again, this may be outside your lane, but the military needs transports, helicopters of various kinds, fighters, a bunch of different things that we know, regardless of what foreign policy or military policy we have, we're going to need. So let's not delay; let's get on with buying the elements, because we know we're going to need them at some point.

Is that a fair statement?

[Sheila Fraser]

That's correct, and we would certainly expect, when we go through audits of procurement of specific pieces of equipment, that we would see either how it links to the strategy or some rationale that this is needed, and no matter what strategy we have we would require it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser. We have really appreciated your cooperation. My thanks to you and the people who came with you. Good evening to you.

Now we continue with our agenda.

Committee members, I want to let you know that we have another meeting tomorrow at 214 Wellington, from eleven o'clock until one o'clock. We'll have lunch there. It will be pizza or something like that. We need to be at 214 Wellington because it has the technical facilities we require.

You also received a copy of the letter sent to the clerk by people in a firm called ARKTOS. They want to appear to talk to us about their products. They say in the letter that it could be useful for Canada in connection with the study on Canadian sovereignty. I do not know what members think of that.

Mr. Coderre, you have the floor.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have no objection to people who know the Arctic coming to be part of the study.

But if they are trying to sell their products, or to say that they understand the Arctic and have the best amphibious vehicle, I am not sure that it would be useful.

I am looking forward much more to being told when we are going to the Arctic.

Honestly, I do not see the relevance.

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

I think that visits from some companies can be relevant. When the people from MDA came to talk about satellites, it was directly related to our study. But I am of the same opinion as Mr. Coderre.

I would like a guarantee that our trip will take place before the results of the study are tabled in the House. For me, it is closely related to the study. We are saving time, but I would not like us to write the report, to vote on it and table it in the House in a few weeks without having travelled.

I am not one who travels for heck of it, as my mother used to say, but when you are doing a study on the Arctic, you have to see how things are at the moment, even if you have already been there several times. I think it is vital for our study.

Mr. Chair, I would like to know if preparations are still underway for us to be able to make this trip.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, you have the floor.