National Defence Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

Again, I'm not going to damn the military. I think they are extraordinarily well trained, and I think they do have that strategic, corporal piece of them that we've all read so much about. So yes, they can do those things. They can do them singly or they can do them in conjunction with a variety of other actors. Which makes the most sense in a particular environment is where you do your risk analysis and your overall analysis to determine what it is this local community needs to get itself sorted out, because it should be about that local community.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

And from either one of you--and this is a simple question to which there is no simple answer. From what we know of particular places in the world today, where should we go and where shouldn't we go next?

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

I think Congo is begging for some assistance. I realize what that landscape is. We've been there since 1960. I think places like Timor...to continue capacity-building and strengthening that environment, and keeping our eye on what's going to happen in Sudan with the elections coming up. I think keeping our eye on Somalia and the mess that place is going to be. Even keeping our eye on Kenya, if you look at what happened after the elections, and we realize the fragility of that place....

So I think it's a matter of keeping our eye on things and then doing the risk analysis of where is Canada's rich history and rich ability best used, and then you can make that decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us, Mr. Lord and Ms. Livingstone. It was very useful.

At this point, I am going to suspend our session for three minutes. We will then continue in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We now resume the public session.

We're in public now.

I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll read the motion and then I'll explain it:

That, in light of the recent decision by Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden to scrap half of its fleet of 12 vessels used to patrol the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and then followed by the sudden announcement on May 14, 2010 by General Walter Natynczyk to reverse this decision, the Standing Committee on National Defence invite the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, General Walter Natynczyk, Chief of Defence Staff, and Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden, Chief of the Maritime Staff and Commander of the Navy, to brief the committee on the government's sudden decision to reverse the announced operational cuts to the Navy and the process of determining current and future budget cuts to the Canadian Navy.

I realize that on Thursday we will be meeting in committee of the whole for four hours. It doesn't necessarily mean, however, that we're going to be able to answer these questions. Given that it's the 100th anniversary of the navy, and given the fact that the navy is about 1,000 under strength at the present time, and getting a better understanding of just what has occurred here, given the fact that the admiral obviously copied the CDS back in April—I think it was April 21—this sudden reversal...obviously I welcome the change, but I'm concerned about the process. I think the process is extremely important. Given the sad state of the navy at the present time, the two supply ships being on their last legs, etc., I think we need to have a more in-depth discussion with the three principals involved. I think it would be constructive and helpful if we did this.

I had modified, as the clerk knows, my original motion, taking into account the announcement of May 14. If all our answers are dealt with on Thursday, I don't need to deal with this motion afterwards, but I want it on the record, and I'd like to have it passed so that we can deal with it.

So with great respect, I put it forward and we'll see what happens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn, and after that to Mr. Harris.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We clearly do not support this motion. In the first place, his decision was not to scrap half of the fleet of 12 vessels. That's simply a misstatement of fact and complete rubbish. Secondly, this Minister of National Defence has been before more committees than any other minister of the crown. Thirdly, you have four hours during committee of the whole on Thursday, so question your little socks off on whatever you want to.

In fact, overall budgets to the navy have not been cut; they've been increased substantially. It's a matter of allocation within those budgets that might be at issue, but clearly, notwithstanding Mr. Wilfert's comments, we believe there's a little bit of political mischief in this as well, and we simply do not support this motion.

So we can get it over with quickly or we can get it over with after a long discussion, but we do not support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris.

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

I share Laurie's concern about the use of the word “scrap”, because it was really standing down half of that, but there was also more to it. There were other operational decisions that I think a lot of people across the country found worrisome. But I support the principle of the motion that it does bespeak certain issues within the navy.

As a committee, we just went through the Arctic study and talked about the Arctic patrol and the role of the navy in all of that. So it just came as quite a shock to me to learn that, within the military, at least, the use of the patrol vessels was not considered a priority enough to continue with all of them.

I'd like to hear more about it, frankly, regardless of whatever political mischief Mr. Hawn thinks someone might be up to. This is a very serious issue and the kind of issue that the defence committee should elaborate on. I don't think we're necessarily going to get the kinds of answers that are needed in terms of the committee of the whole. Obviously we can ask questions of the minister at that point, and maybe the officials will be there, too.

Will they be there, Laurie? The deputy minister, CDS—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The CDS, the deputy minister, and associates.

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

Maybe there will be some scope there, but in principle.... For example, we had the chief of recruitment here a few weeks ago, and there was no problem with recruitment and everything was going hunky-dory. Now we find we're short 1,000 people and we can't get enough people into the navy. So I think we do have to probe this a little bit, more than just the kinds of questions that might be asked in the House of Commons.

But I would change the word “scrap”. I'd offer an amendment here. “Stand down”, I guess, is a better term: “stand down half of its fleet of 12 vessels”. I would suggest that change, because I believe Laurie is correct that scrapping is physically dismantling or getting rid of vessels. That wasn't being done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Bachand.

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

I was very surprised by Vice-Admiral McFadden's announcement. What is the problem exactly? That is what I want to know. Is it a personnel issue or a money issue? It is important for us to know, it seems to me. I am anxious to see how “step down” is translated in the proposed amendment.

How did you put it, Mr. Harris?

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

It's “stand down”.

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

It is “supprimer” in French. Later on, I will be able to ask my favourite interpreters how they are going to translate it.

Now I see the connection with the correspondence we have received on the matter. I would like to know if the correspondence will be tabled. There is certainly one letter that applies to the motion before us today. I see the connection. You promised us that you would do it. When are you going to do it?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

That depends on the one you are talking about.

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

It is a request from Amanda Schweitzer, written on May 13.

[The Clerk]

I thought that had already been distributed to the committee. It is possible that I am mistaken. I will check after the meeting and will be in touch with your office.

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

Have you replied already?

[The Clerk]

No, we have not prepared a reply. We did distribute it to the committee.

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

You have not replied?

[The Clerk]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Wilfert is next, and after that, Mr. Hawn.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I would accept Mr. Harris' comment as a friendly amendment, as long as it can be translated appropriately as “stand down”. “Stand down” is fine.

I thank Mr. Hawn for suggesting that I might be involved in some political mischief. I haven't heard that too often from that side, so I appreciate it.

Finally, my socks are not little, believe me.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that I did make the proviso that if all our questions were answered in committee of the whole, that would be fine, but I think we need the assurance to have this on the record. If in fact they were not, this issue needs to be explored in a more wholesome setting, which I think is this committee. It's extremely important for the men and women who serve in the navy, and for Canadians in general.