National Defence Committee on March 18th, 2010

[William F. Pentney]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We cannot answer your question because those $2 million were not allocated to the Department of National Defence. As I understand it, the government allocated the amount to Public Works and Government Services Canada to carry out the study, to hold the consultations, and to do the follow-up.

I don't want to avoid the question, mais....

but it is not one we can answer. The question should go to Public Works and Government Services Canada.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you. That is what I will do.

I would like to go back to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am going to quote a part of the minister's speech. I know that I should have asked him the question, but perhaps you can help me. He said this: “We succeeded in keeping costs within what we had previously forecast.” According to an article in Le Devoir dated November 24, 2008, security costs for the Olympics and Paralympics went from $175 million to $500 million. A little less than a month later, La Presse told us that the costs would rise from $700 million to more than $1 billion, especially if the threat level in Canada were to rise.

The Paralympic Games are not over, and you are asking for an increase of a little over $17 million for security in the supplementary estimates. I am not claiming that this is a threat, but there are rumours, and some media are saying that Canada could become a target of terrorism. With this information, and in light of the fact that the Paralympic Games are not yet over, I would like to know if you feel that an amount of $17 million should be enough to cover all the security. I know that you are not the only ones involved, that the RCMP and the local police in British Columbia are also involved. But I would like to know if you feel that other requests will be made so that we can continue to maintain security. We have gone from $175 million to more than $1 billion. There is a discrepancy between the numbers and the minister's statements.

[Robert Fonberg]

Thank you for the question.

To clarify, Mr. Chair, the expected costs for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces for security at the Olympics, estimated almost a full year ago and appropriated, I think, in the supplementary estimates (A), were $212 million. Through the course of last summer, as we completed our planning and realized we would need certain things, such as marine barrier protections for $3 million, our estimate went from $212 million to a total of $229 million. It was not an overrun. It was simply a sharpening of the pencils and finalized planning, and it was complete last fall.

With reference to the $17 million that's here for the department and the Canadian Forces, I understand we probably will not spend all of it. We will probably underspend that, but we will know shortly after the Paralympics. We're very good at forecasting, very good at planning these sorts of things and then actually forecasting the spend.

As for the move from $175 million to $500 million, I think you'd probably want to talk to the overall security coordinator, Ward Elcock, at the Privy Council Office.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Our last participant is Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank you all for coming.

I'm sorry I missed an opportunity to speak to the minister. I was hoping to pass on to him my compliments to your department and to the CF on the work in Haiti in particular. I know that Canadians hold Haiti and Haitians in special affection and have a lot of compassion for what happened there. Obviously there are lots of reasons for that, not the least of which is the respect and esteem that the Governor General of our country has, and the large Haitian community that we have in Canada. We're very delighted that our country and our forces were able to respond so quickly and so effectively.

I would like, Vice-Admiral Rouleau...and you're just the man to do it, being the naval vice-admiral. There was some confusion. I call it that because I don't know the rights of it; I hope you can set us straight, from your point of view, on the role of our ships going to Haiti. There is some question as to whether they were in fact to deliver humanitarian aid or not, and whether they were capable of doing that.

In that context, I'd like to ask you about the joint supply ship, which is the project under way. I would consider it to be, I suppose, from the naval point of view the equivalent of the C-17 in terms of being able to deliver supplies, handle troops, or do other activities.

Would you like to comment as to whether the joint supply ship, if you had one, would have been of use in the Haitian operation, and tell us what this confusion was? There was some media attention, particularly in the Halifax area, about the use of Canadian ships in that mission.

[VAdm Denis Rouleau]

First of all, on the issue of...you can call it possible confusion or not, but ships like the Halifax and the Athabaskan, which sailed for this operation, loaded themselves up to maximum capacity to sustain themselves and sustain efforts ashore. That included equipment for the troops ashore as well as equipment, humanitarian aid, and support that you can bring on board a warship.

If there was any confusion, in fact this has been a practice for this type of naval warship, despite the fact that they're not designed to do this. They actually find places on board those ships where they can store a lot of equipment. They maximized the use of their space to sail down there and operate the way they did there. Not only did they bring the equipment down, but they also brought the crew. The work parties they were bringing ashore were really the big factors.

With regard to the second part of the question, when the minister was here earlier, he brought up that very point. A JSS vessel that can support operations ashore is exactly what would have been thrown into the mix if one had been available. It was what the Americans did when they sent their own troops. That is why, from our perspective, JSS is still a very active project. It is right at the top of our list, and we want to move it forward.

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

Thank you. I'm very glad to hear that.

I have one other question, and perhaps Mr. Fonberg could answer. I'm not going to get into the issue, but our committee is going to be undertaking a study of search and rescue response times.

One of the difficulties I've had over the last six or eight months of trying to research this issue is actually getting information from your department as to such matters as search and rescue operations reports. In fact, when we went to the Library of Parliament to seek some information, we were told that the only way to get this stuff--even to know whether or not there was a list of SAR ops reports, or whether there had even been any done--was to go through ATIP. I think that's rather unnecessary.

We're going to be undertaking this study, and I'm going to ask you for some commitment. We have two analysts here who are going to be doing research for this committee on this issue of search and rescue response times. Can you give us your full commitment and your department's commitment to cooperate fully, without our having to go through questions on the order paper or ATIP requests to get information to allow us to do our study?

[Robert Fonberg]

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, but the only thing I would ask is that I'm not sure exactly what reports we're referring to. We'll certainly go back and look. You'll have our full cooperation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their participation.

Your testimony has been very useful for our committee.

Before we finish, we have to vote on the votes.

I would ask the members to support these motions; that is your privilege.

We will now take a vote on supplementary estimates (C), National Defence, votes 1c and 5c.

NATIONAL DEFENCE Department Vote 1c--Operating expenditures and authority for total commitments, subject to allotment by the Treasury Board..........$114,887,239 Vote 5c--Capital expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $393,200 from Health Vote 45, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2009-10 for the purposes of this Vote..........$110,580,061

(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to)

Shall I report votes 1c and 5c under National Defence to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci bien.

This concludes the third meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Thanks to everyone and good afternoon.

Meeting adjourned.