National Defence Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, do I still have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, you still have two minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Changing gears somewhat, I note in the supplementary estimates—and I believe the minister touched on this during his presentation as well—a line item of $6.5 million for the Communications Security Establishment. Could you elaborate a little bit on the importance and the purpose of that funding?

[Kevin Lindsey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Finance and Corporate Services, Department of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, as you will know, the Communications Security Establishment is located in dated facilities that really don't accommodate the growth that has been necessary there, given developments. This funding is to do the initial work to assess options for a longer-term accommodation strategy for the CSE.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert. You will be the last member to have the floor.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put some questions on the table and then get an answer back, because I'm sure I won't have enough time.

On the issue of linking the broader national security issues with the need to really build our defence industrial base across the country, again, the Canada First defence strategy seems a bit weak in that area, and I would like more clarification and more information on that.

One issue that has been touched on is the need for a mechanism to review the content on a regular basis within the Canada First strategy. I would like to have that scoped out a little more in terms of changing priorities and changing needs, particularly over a 20-year period, to have a kind of mechanism in place that gives a regular review update to this standing committee.

And the final issue, in my reading of it, is the failure to prioritize any of the initiatives that are in there. For example, we have this issue that the minister touched on, about capability and supply of resources. This is going to be a challenge as we continue to move forward.

Obviously we've seen some projects stall. We've seen setbacks in a number of areas. Announcements don't deliver. Just because we've announced that we're going to have ship X or aircraft X doesn't mean we have it. So it seems to me that there is a need to develop a straightforward procurement approach. Obviously that touches also on other departments, but it is something on which we need to get more information.

I put those three questions out. I don't know if anybody wants to respond in the short time remaining, but I have found in this committee that if you don't put your question out, it might not get answered. So if we could get those answers in writing, I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

[Robert Fonberg]

Mr. Chairman, I will just make two or three really quick comments. One, on the issue of supply, it is a 20-year plan. As to the 2% question on the envelope growth, this is an organization whose funding has grown by over 50% in the last five years. The 2% comes on top of that 50% growth. Going forward, the 2% itself amounts to about $12 billion over that 20-year period.

In the context of a 20-year plan, the government certainly was committed to having the department come back for a review of that plan. It is not a static plan. We don't expect it to survive intact for 20 years. The government will review that plan, I suspect, on a three-year basis, which is about the right kind of time to understand what's going on in terms of changes that are out there.

Lastly, we absolutely have prioritized all our major procurements, based on the lifespan of the existing equipment and the amount of time we expect it to take under contract to get new equipment, so we are moving all that forward, but in a program that is this big with a capital procurement run rate of $5 billion to $6 billion a year, things move by months, and sometimes by a year or two, depending on what the market actually has to provide and what the needs are.

We will actually answer in writing, if the member would like that.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I would appreciate that.

Obviously priorities change, but the question is, when we announce something, there is the perception that we are going to have it. As we know, there have been delays in a number of areas, including the navy high-tech anti-aircraft weapons, as an example, supply ships, and so on. A more rigorous update for this committee would be helpful, because all of us around this table are interested in making sure that our personnel have the equipment they need.

General, this is probably not something we can really get into today. I know it has more to do with veterans, but I am concerned about the issue of when veterans come home, particularly from Afghanistan. There have been issues raised about pensions and payout and whether we are really providing the kind of standard that lives up to what the veterans charter indicated. I don't know if you could briefly comment, but that is obviously something, as we get more veterans coming home, that concerns me and, I am sure, everyone around the table.

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

Mr. Chair, those men and women who are coming home are in uniform. They're my soldiers, sailors, airmen, and airwomen, and we have a responsibility on your behalf to take care of them.

We have learned a tremendous amount over the past three to four years. We're better today than we were a few years ago. Again, we're adapting in terms of caring not only for those individuals but also for their families, and we're recognizing the complexity of things like post-traumatic stress disorder and its effects on the individual and on families. In fact, we have to counsel all of them on how to take care of their physical injuries, and again, a great credit goes to General Semianiw and the Surgeon General regarding how we're doing that and working with Veterans Affairs.

Having said that, I'll let General Semianiw pile in.

[MGen W. Semianiw]

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, the Department of Veterans Affairs, with which we work closely, is actually in the process of looking at the new veterans charter, which came out in 2005-06. At that point in time, the commitment was that it was to be a living charter, which means it would see changes.

Our sense is that there are areas we'd like to see improved on. We're working with that department in concert, going through a number of focus groups, and hopefully we'll see some progress there in the short term.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Hopefully, we'll then get an appropriate update.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Can I ask a second question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, Mr. Bouchard. You have one minute.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I have a short question for the general and the deputy minister. In my region, we are experiencing a major crisis in the forestry sector. The military base in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, the Bagotville base, is an integrated part of the community. I made a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence, and I would like you both to reflect on it as well.

The department has decided to rebuild hangar 2 on the Bagotville base. I suggested that as much wood as possible be used in the construction of the hangar so that the government can lead by example and drive up domestic demand for wood. Do not forget that the forestry sector is important not only to Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, but to Quebec and Canada as a whole.

I would ask you to consider my suggestion that wood be used rather than steel and concrete for rebuilding hangar 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Harris for one minute. As you know, we will have to leave soon for the votes.

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

Thank you.

I have just one question, and it's related to the estimates, so I hope I won't get any objection.

Why didn't you ask for more money for reserves? We've heard it said to this committee by witnesses, and Mr. Hawn suggested it to the witness, that maybe people have gone over their budgets. But we keep hearing stories about training budgets going down. The Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment has been told their training budget is going down. We've heard others saying that their people are being laid off.

Reserves are obviously very important today and will be in the future. Why was there not a request for more money for the reserves and what the reserves are doing? Can you mention that briefly?

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

I would like to ask a favour of Mr. Fonberg. I did not get the opportunity to ask all of my questions. There are four subjects that I would like to raise with you. I think that you are the perfect point person, because you could direct my questions to the appropriate members of your staff.

I have one question regarding the military college; one on the Leopard 2 tanks; one on the lowering of the specifications for search and rescue aircraft; and, one as to whether conclusions have been drawn from the public consultation on maritime policy.

Mr. Fonberg, I will be very grateful if you could submit a written answer to my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

The answers will be sent to you through the clerk.

I am now going to give the floor to the major-general.

If you want to answer the question from Mr. Harris in a minute, we still have a minute.

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

I rely on how the commander of the army balances his budget across the board.

We have seen a tremendous growth of reservists going on full-time duty over the past three to four years while our operational tempo has really increased. Many of our reservists have gone from part-time to full-time duty. In 2003-04 we had in the order of about 3,000 reservists who went on to full-time duty. Today, we're at 8,500 reservists on full-time duty, and this has put a lot of pressure on the reserves--we've heard that--but also on the army and on how it balances its budget across the board.

As well, we're seeing the operational tempo and how the army is mitigating it coming to some level of stability. So again, the commander of the army and his commanders are balancing their budget in terms of their operational pressures and how they actually do things in their regions and who actually does the work now that they're getting into a steady state.

So in this regard, I think we can probably give you a better answer in a written form. But this is really a reflection of the army balancing its budget, and also of the tempo coming to some kind of equilibrium in terms of how we support operations in Afghanistan as well as the training burden.

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

I would like to hear more in a little bit more elaborate written form.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes. Ms. Gallant.

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

I just have one question.

First of all, I understand this is Mr. Lindsey's first time appearing before our committee and I compliment him on the job he has done so far.

But I do have one question. I am not sure if it's for General Natynczyk or Mr. Lindsey, but it is on the question of residuals. At the end of the year, there is a percentage allowed to be carried over to the next fiscal year. My question is whether there has or hasn't been a request to increase that very minuscule amount.