National Defence Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce my colleagues.

We have Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister (materiel) from the Department of National Defence, and Bill Pentney, the assistant deputy minister. Of course everyone will know and recognize the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk. We also have the deputy minister, Rob Fonberg; Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau; and Kevin Lindsey, assistant deputy minister, finance and corporate services.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, committee members, and members of our support staff who are with us, thank you for inviting me here to discuss Department of National Defence supplementary estimates this morning.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to explain how the government is investing in our Canadian Forces and supporting the Canadian economy. As you all know very well, we ask a lot of the men and women of the Canadian Forces. Their job is to defend Canada and Canadians, at home and abroad.

In the complex and unpredictable world that we live in, this is a daunting task. But the Canadian Forces perform their duties formidably—with honour and valour. They are one of the finest militaries in the world, the best that Canada has to offer. The least their government can do is provide them with the resources they need to continue to excel in what they do.

Giving our forces the means to do what they do and what we ask of them requires a great deal of investment. This is why the Government of Canada has committed to do this with the Canada First defence strategy. Members of this committee will no doubt be aware of that document.

Over the last year and a half, we've been hard at work implementing the strategy itself, Mr. Chair. Our government's blueprint will allow the military to deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad.

Mr. Chair, I've also observed our military at work in Canada and overseas. It's with great admiration that I see what they're accomplishing today at a human level. It's truly humbling to witness the courage and the dedication of our men and women in uniform. These special individuals in uniform today are meeting incredible challenges wherever they find themselves—in 18 different missions around the world—often at great cost to themselves and to their families. The Canada First defence strategy is a reflection of the government and the country's admiration for the work they do. It's designed to ensure that we are able to maintain this excellence in operations over the long term.

There will always be need for the Canadian Forces and a demand for what they do so well. Over two decades the government will invest, in a balanced way, across the four pillars of military capabilities: personnel, equipment, readiness, and infrastructure. Delivering on such an undertaking demands that we methodically and in a coherent way plan for those inevitabilities.

That's why we developed an investment plan that details the investment that the department will make over the coming five years. It ensures that the timing of major investments corresponds with the availability of funds. Considering the magnitude of financial investments involved, prudent spending is of course critical. When we're dealing with taxpayers' dollars, we are taking all steps to ensure that the money is spent responsibly, accountably, and transparently.

Much of the additional funds requested in the supplementary estimates will allow us to continue to invest in the Canadian Forces in line with the Canada First defence strategy. We have managed the sums previously approved by Parliament well, and we will require $2 million more than we were originally given. The rest of the previously approved sums are being moved into other areas of spending.

A central part of our plan is investing in the most important resource of all; that is, the marvellous people who make up the Canadian Forces—the soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women of the Canadian Forces. The supplementary estimates include $69.5 million to help support those troops directly. This allocation will fund increases in pay and allowances for the Canadian Forces members, in accordance with legislated increase in wage restraint measures in the Expenditure Restraint Act. I think most would agree that the Canadian Forces are compensated well. The personnel pillar of the Canada First defence strategy will also address the need to increase our numbers. We're expanding the Canadian Forces to reach 100,000 members.

Today I am proud to say that we are over the 67,350-person mark—the highest mark in a generation, Mr. Chair. Despite demographic and retention challenges, our recruitment efforts are delivering concrete results. Young men and women everywhere are inspired by the possibilities offered by a career in the Canadian Forces and are showing up at recruiting centres in droves—our largest recruiting drive since the Korean War.

Recruitment is a key element of ensuring that Canada maintains a combat-capable modern military force. There are numerous exciting trades and career opportunities open to Canadians from coast to coast. And here's the bonus: we'll pay for a student's way if they join the Canadian Forces. So we are requesting $3 million to provide additional support to the successful Canadian Forces recruiting campaign. This new funding brings current fiscal year funding up to the same level as the last fiscal year, a total of $10 million.

With respect to infrastructure, Mr. Chair, we have recently also been making significant progress in our efforts to revitalize defence infrastructure across the country. This past year I had the opportunity and honour to travel across the country to announce important investments in infrastructure at bases and wings from Esquimalt, British Columbia, to Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador. These investments will help provide the modern infrastructure that our men and women in uniform deserve. It will help the Canadian Forces personnel to be safe and healthy as they go to work and as they go about their training in the places where they live.

These investments are bringing tens of millions of dollars to local economies across the country, putting people to work while at the same time building a better Canadian Forces for the future. The supplementary estimates will help keep the work moving forward. They include $23 million to fund consolidation of Canadian Forces Station St. John's and several military units in a new facility at Pleasantville, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the estimates, there is also a request for $6.6 million for a new special facility for Communications Security Establishment Canada.

On the equipment side, again I am very honoured and pleased to tell you that much progress has been made in terms of the Canada First defence strategy's investment in the third pillar, that is, equipment. We are investing roughly $50 billion over 20 years to revitalize core capabilities of equipment for the navy, army, air force, and special forces.

For example, this August a contract was awarded for 15 new Chinook F-model helicopters. This is, of course, in addition to the six Chinook helicopters that our government previously acquired for the Afghanistan mission, as per the recommendations of the independent panel. These aircraft have made an enormous difference for our troops, considerably important in terms of moving them within the theatre of operations in Afghanistan and proving their safety and effectiveness.

Now we're making sure that the Canadian Forces have access to that capability for future operations both at home and abroad with the additional new Chinook helicopters. The new fleet of Chinooks is expected to be delivered by the year 2014.

Last summer, we also moved forward with the family of land combat systems and vehicles projects. This is a $5 billion investment that was announced at CFB Gagetown this summer. It's intended to improve our land forces with the vehicles and to protect the vehicles if they need to respond to a full spectrum of operations. These vehicles will offer survivability, protection, and mobility to our military to operate in any challenging security environment.

The projects include the upgrade of a fleet of light armoured vehicles and the acquisition of three new fleets of land combat vehicles: close combat vehicles; tactical armoured patrol vehicles, or TAPV; and armoured engineering vehicles. The supplementary estimates contain a $24.3 million request to support those projects.

We are also requesting, Mr. Chair, $57.1 million for the urgent upgrade, repair, and overhaul of a number of battle tanks for operations in Afghanistan. This investment will also help to bring some tanks for training standard and provide the Canadian Forces with a sustainable heavy direct-fire capability for future operations.

Mr. Chairman, we're preparing our military for the 21st century security environment with investments to rebuild and modernize our army, as well as our air force and navy. The Canada First Defence Strategy is good news for the Canadian Forces. It's also good news for Canadians.

The economic activity generated by the investments the government is making in our military is putting people to work in communities across Canada. It's also helping Canadian businesses to become suppliers of choice in national and international markets.

Mr. Chairman, this government is looking to the future. Canadians deserve to be confident that their government is doing what is necessary to safeguard our nation now and for tomorrow. Our requests for additional funding are rooted in ensuring that the Canadian Forces have the capacity to act when called upon.

Mr. Chair and colleagues, in conclusion, we've made a commitment to rebuild the Canadian Forces into a first-class, modern military for the future. We've demonstrated that commitment over the past months and years, and the Canada First defence strategy is all about keeping Canadians safe at home and abroad, fulfilling our responsibilities to be a reliable partner in continental defence, and ensuring that Canada can offer leadership abroad.

The funding we've requested will allow the Canadian Forces to continue to assume those roles successfully.

I thank you and I look forward to your questions. Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I will give the floor now to the Liberal Party of Canada. I know you will share your time, so it's Mr. Wilfert, and after that it will be Mr. Dosanjh.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

General Natynczyk, it's nice to see you.

Minister, I certainly agree with you. I wouldn't say that we have one of the finest militaries in the world; I would say that we have the best in the world. I've been very impressed with what I have seen and heard over the past number of months.

On the Canada First defence strategy, which we could debate for a long time, I have a question specifically, through you, Mr. Chairman, for the minister.

There doesn't seem to be any obvious strategic framework in terms of identifying or prioritizing the Canadian Forces' contributions to the overall government defence and security objectives. Could you tell me how you go about assessing the actual utility of the forces and, more specifically, assessing the resources needed to respond accordingly?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Chair, in response to that question I would suggest that the strategy that went into formulating the Canada First defence strategy occurred over a significant period of time. It perhaps goes back as far as the late 1990s or early 2000, when members of the Canadian Forces, on both the civilian side and the military side, began to assess their equipment, personnel, and infrastructure needs, as well as readiness.

I would have to be honest and say that when the Afghanistan mission shifted in late 2004-05 to a deployment into Kandahar province, the equipment priorities, in particular, changed very rapidly. It became clear to everyone, given the high tempo of operations, that the necessity of protective equipment—that is to say, protective combat vehicles and things such as battle tanks—suddenly appeared on everyone's radar. As well, as a result of the preponderance of IEDs, which I know you're familiar with--members of this committee would understand well that these improvised explosive devices became a deadly weapon of choice for the Taliban in the theatre of operation--there would have been a reassessment at that time to look at how we would up the protection quota. That meant both equipment on the ground and things such as helicopters. It wasn't until, I would say, roughly two years ago that the decision was taken to purchase Chinook heavy- to medium-lift helicopters, which we were able to procure through an accelerated procurement process. We also then made up-armour investments in our existing fleet of Griffon helicopters, which provide escort to those Chinook helicopters in theatre.

I would invite General Natynczyk to contribute here, because as Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, he was very involved in that decision-making process.

In short, the decisions in terms of priority equipment changed as a result of Afghanistan. Investments on bases across the country and investments in personnel were also meant to address certain anomalies that existed at the time. The decision to increase personnel to 100,000 obviously caused investments on the personnel side. On readiness, I just spoke of the capabilities as to protecting people on the ground in Afghanistan.

On the Canada First defence strategy, I'd invite General Natynczyk to comment.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, because General Natynczyk will be here for the next round, I would ask to give my colleague a chance, but I'll come back to that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I will give the floor to Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

Minister, I have some questions for you with respect to the testimony we heard yesterday at the other committee.

We heard testimony from Ms. Garwood-Filbert, who agreed that she was present at a particular facility in Afghanistan in Kandahar and identified three detainees who made allegations of abuse.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we are here to discuss the estimates. That's what the minister is here for. He'll be at the Afghanistan committee next week.

I believe that Mr. Dosanjh is talking about a time in 2006 when the minister was not, in fact, the Minister of Defence; he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He's here as the Minister of National Defence to discuss issues related to his ministry, not what happened when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

On the point of order, Mr. Harris.

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

This is an estimates committee. We know that the Afghanistan committee is looking at a particular matter. But with the exception of the possibility that he's talking about another ministry that this minister was in that time, I think it's open to this committee to ask the minister about anything that is relevant to his department.

I think it's arbitrary. The chair cannot say that he can't talk about this because another committee is discussing it. I believe the point of order is not right. This is an estimates committee, and it's a free-flowing chance to discuss things with the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Ms. Gallant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To this point of order, I believe this committee did pass a motion that we would reserve the topic of Afghanistan detainees for the special Afghan minister, but further to that, Ms. Swords did say that publicizing the direction given, or alleged to have been given, could end the access to prisoners by the International Committee of the Red Cross, so the whole public discussion of the Red Cross communiqués could actually end up resulting in prisoners being abused without the proper monitoring by the Red Cross being in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, my understanding of the parliamentary tradition you mentioned is that when the minister is there, if there is anything even remotely relating to his current responsibilities, one is allowed to ask questions. I would just say to my colleagues on the other side that in fact we're doing this in full view of the cameras. If you have anything to hide, you should prevent me from asking questions. If you have nothing to hide, you should allow me to ask questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

There is absolutely nothing to hide. The point of this meeting is to talk to the Minister of National Defence as the Minister of National Defence on the subject of the estimates. This committee already agreed that issues concerning the Afghan mission, whether they be detainees or anything else, would be handled by the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, of which most people here are members.

Mr. Chair, what Mr. Dosanjh is getting into is an area that was under the minister's purview as Minister of Foreign Affairs, not as Minister of National Defence. He is not here testifying as the former Minister of Foreign Affairs; he is here testifying as the current Minister of National Defence.

I would leave it to your judgment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Bachand.

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

Mr. Chairman, in my great wisdom and given the fact that I have a great deal of seniority on this committee, I would invite my colleague to stick to the supplementary estimates. Isn't that a good point?

In the supplementary estimates, $721,000 are earmarked for the Military Police Complaints Commission. I would therefore invite my colleague to raise this issue with the minister. If he wants to stray from the subject, we will let him do so, but we have questions to ask. Personally, I would like to ask some questions about the Military Police Complaints Commission. I will certainly make that connection, but that falls within the discussion we must have with the minister.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's a good point because it is in the supplementary estimates.

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

Exactly. It's already in the supplementary estimates.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

But not in the 2010 estimates.

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

Yes, it is in the supplementary estimates.

Is that acceptable, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak to the point of order? No.

In that case, I would like to remind committee members of what is contained on page 108 of the manual entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

The questions and discussions at these meetings are generally wide-ranging, although the rule of relevancy does apply.

Is the question before me relevant? To assess the relevance of questions, subsection 101(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons indicates the following:

(2) Speeches in committees of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.

It also says that the chair must show great flexibility as to the nature of the questions which can be asked in the course of deliberations.

Any issue which has to do with the supplementary estimates we are studying would normally be relevant. I would therefore invite Mr. Dosanjh to ask his question, but, as Mr. Bachand put it so well, to establish a connection with the supplementary estimates, so that we can get on with our work. I would invite him to be a little more specific and to word his question so as to establish a connection with the supplementary estimates we are studying today.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a lot of respect for you. I disagree with your ruling. I am not challenging it. This is, in fact, an effort to prevent us asking wide-ranging questions on the minister's current responsibilities. Just because he wasn't the Minister of National Defence then doesn't mean that he's not responsible for answering even historical questions on what may have happened and what he has learned about the positions. Therefore, if your ruling is that I can't ask the question that I was beginning to pose, I shall ask no questions.

Thank you. I will allow my colleague to take the balance of my time.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

All right, given that—