National Defence Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

There was also a transfer of $1.2 million to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That was to assist in the organization and delivery of the Halifax International Security Forum. This year's forum recently drew to a close. I've heard from others who have attended it that it was a very big success.

Could you please share with us what you think was accomplished at this year's forum? Why is it important that we participate in it and contribute to it?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Sure.

In addition to Parliamentary Secretary Alexander, we had former ministers of defence such as David Collenette and a number of other Canadians, including a lot of members of the Canadian Forces. We had some 50 nations represented there, with 300-plus participants, including a large Senate delegation from the United States. It was an opportunity to speak to and interact with individuals who are decision-makers on some of the most important security matters on the agendas of many countries, including Canada.

The security forum itself provides an opportunity not only to have panel discussions but also to get a lot of bilateral opportunities to speak to these issues and to hear different perspectives from members of the European Union parliament, other defence ministers, and foreign ministers from countries on the Pacific and down into the Americas. We had a minister from Colombia participate this year for the first time.

It was a very successful venture, in my estimation. It has financial implication and benefits with those numbers of people coming into Halifax in what would be considered downtime in terms of tourism, and it highlights Canada's role, the integral role that we play internationally. It allows Canada to put forward our position on important issues, including what's happening in the Middle East, and on issues pertaining to the future of stability in places like Afghanistan, where we have been prominent. It allows us to talk about important issues around humanitarian relief in the Pacific, which was a big subject at the recent Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas in Uruguay.

The Halifax forum has become an event that many leaders in the security area attend each and every year. It's an important opportunity to attract to our shores those decision-makers who gain from having this interaction with Canadians and with Canadian officials from defence and foreign affairs. It's also been able to attract private sector sponsorship, such as MEG Energy and Foreign Affairs magazine, which are participants in this very important forum. It's been compared recently as the Davos of security by prominent publications. I'm very proud of the Halifax International Security Forum and the opportunity it gives our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Your time has expired.

Moving on, Madame Moore, vous avez la parole.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much.

As everybody knows, the main estimates for 2012-13 were tabled last spring. This fall, the Auditor General's report was published, and some sections dealt with the Department of National Defence. We were logically expecting some adjustments to be made under supplementary estimates (B) for 2012-13, since this report had not been published when the main estimates for 2012-13 were tabled.

In his report, the Auditor General states that in several bases, some buildings did not comply with specific standards, namely fire safety standards. He also says that 60% of reviewed sites did not comply. We know that tragedies can happen when these standards are not taken seriously. We are talking about safety standards. It is essential that they be complied with, particularly in military buildings.

The supplementary estimates (B) for 2012-13 do not contain any special funds for emergency updates. Why not?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, this is not part of the supplementary estimates (B) for 2012-13, and my testimony does not cover that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I agree. This is outside the supplementary estimates (B).

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think I am entitled to know why the minister decided not to include this information in the supplementary estimates (B) for 2012-13. It is perfectly logical. He should be able to tell me why he could not include it now or why he saw fit not to include it.

In my opinion, it is quite relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead on this point of order, Mr. Alexander.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Auditor General's report, which my colleague is referring to, was only published very recently. The government's response is part of this report. Of course, the Auditor General presents his report to another committee, and he just did so.

I think the minister is quite right when he says that question is not relevant to our agenda today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I agree with Mr. Alexander on this.

Is this on the same point of order, Mr. Harris?

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

We have the vote 5b on capital expenditure. Whether it goes up or down, it's there in the vote. A request as to why it's not included is....

I think we're splitting hairs to try to find ways that the minister can't answer questions that he is perfectly capable of answering. If he says he didn't see it necessary, he can say that, but I think it's artificial to suggest that something that's mentioned in terms of capital expenditures is okay, but asking why something is not in it is not. Just because something is in it doesn't mean you can only talk about things that are new; you can talk about votes that are here and that haven't been changed and ask why they haven't been.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You are correct, Mr. Harris, that 5b is a vote that deals with capital expenditures, and it shows a decrease of $162 million.

Go ahead, Mr. MacKay.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Perhaps I can assist.

On this particular issue, there was no need to make a request for additional funding. This was, like many other areas of expenditures, something that was absorbed. It was funding directed towards some of the concerns raised by the Auditor General about building safety and improvements around safety.

We have, I should note, a remarkable record because of the commitment of members of the Canadian Forces to address this directly. The short answer is that it was an internal allocation. There was no need to put it in supplementary estimates (B), and that's why it's not found in this particular presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Madame Moore, the floor is yours.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to know the difference between the costs that had already been planned and the costs that were added after the Auditor General's assessment? What is his own evaluation of these costs?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, Mr. Chair, having just said that we didn't dedicate a particular allocation for supplementary estimates (B), I know the member would like to talk about things that are not here, but they're not here because the money was located internally within the department to address this particular matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can carry on, Madame Moore.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to ask another question about the supplementary estimates and the main estimates.

In the Auditor General's report, he says that in several areas like human resources, and realty replacement and repair, objectives set out in the Canada First Defence Strategy, or CFDS, have not been met. They fell short of expectations.

For example, for real estate, the CFDS calls for 8% of the total departmental budget to be spent on real property, over a 20-year period. Yet, in 2010-11, only 3% was spent.

Does this affect in any way the supplementary estimates (B) for 2012-13? How will the minister make sure that the allocated funds will be spent according to the objectives set out in the Canada First Defence Strategy?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

She's partially answered her own question in noting that this is a 20-year plan.

With respect to how much is spent in each budget year, much of this depends on our ability to sign contracts and our ability through Public Works and Government Services, as I mentioned earlier, to put in place the contract to build or refurbish a particular piece of infrastructure on a base. For example, we had an issue at Trenton that required expropriation.

Some of these circumstances are certainly above and beyond the control of moving forward simply on a particular investment. That's why this long-term plan, known as the Canada First defence strategy, puts that money in place over a period of time to allow for the proper allotment of resources for those pillars, which include infrastructure, including making improvements to runways, ports, airfields, and hangers. I think, when you examine many of these projects, you will see that they have proceeded very well.

CFB Borden is one example of where you've seen massive investments that have not only been for the well-being of the Canadian Forces, but have had an incredibly positive impact on the surrounding communities in terms of contractors and suppliers, those who are the direct beneficiaries of those investments in the local economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I gave you an extra minute, Madame Moore, because of the points of order.

We move on to Mr. Chisu.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to inform you that I will share my time with Mr. Norlock.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you very much, team, for showing up to this testimony.

Minister, I note on page 104 from the supplementary estimates (B) that there are funds that appear to be transferred back and forth with Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Many people are unaware that the Department of National Defence actually has employees stationed abroad. Could you please explain to the committee what these transfers are, what kind of DND staff are located abroad, what work they do, and if new positions are being added?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleague, for that question.

The member is right that many Canadians within the Canadian Forces are stationed abroad, many as attachés and many on the ongoing 15 missions that we have in the country—major missions, like the training mission in Afghanistan.

I would take this opportunity, Chair, if you'll permit me, to thank this particular member. I believe he's the only sitting member of Parliament who served in Afghanistan as a reserve.

I know he's also aware that many of the defence liaise within Canadian Forces with members of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As a result of this, we've advised Canadians heads of mission on a lot of the military matters that we're currently undertaking at the Department of National Defence headquarters. All of the issues that have to do with military and security matters are worked on in close concert with the Department of Foreign Affairs, and with other departments on occasion.

Regarding this particular transfer of funds, this is about $400,000 that is being returned to Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in fact, as part of the DND supplementary estimates (A), due to adjustments in positions and the loss of access to a priority vehicle in Buenos Aires. These funds were part of a DND transfer that occurred under supplementary estimates (A) in support of common costs of our diplomatic services abroad.

We often, as I said, work very closely with embassies, with missions around the world, and very often in that support role funds are transferred from time to time to keep the wheels moving at various embassies in the exchange of personnel and equipment used to support our missions abroad.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Minister and officials, thank you very much for attending today.

I'm very proud to represent—actually, fiercely proud to represent—CFB Trenton, one of Canada's busiest wings.

I note in the estimates certain amounts of money allocated for infrastructure—in particular, funding for the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Trenton. I wonder if you could tell us about these funds and the other things the federal government is doing in this area.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock. I know you are indeed a very fierce supporter and defender of all things Trenton, and I thank you for that.

DND, through these supplementary estimates, is receiving funding from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It might sound counterintuitive to some that a base located in central Canada, or “Upper Canada”, as we say down home, would be receiving a transfer from fish, but this is to help with the renovation—you're right—of the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, the JRCC, which is part of a secondary centre located in Belleville, Ontario, and also in your riding, I believe.

This is, I'm told, for such things as wiring and lighting—renovations, essentially, to this particular work station at the site in Belleville. They have a new classroom for the armoury and an expansion of their ops room. These renovations have been deemed necessary to continue their critical support of the Canadian Forces personnel in their work, in decent facilities.

The honourable member would also know that we're building a number of new installations to accommodate our special forces, which will also be located at this site. There's a total of $623 million for projects that have been implemented at the base in Trenton since the year 2006.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Also, Minister, if we have a few more minutes, perhaps you could talk about the allocation of funds for the Canadian Forces Arctic training centre at Resolute Bay in Nunavut, and why that is needed.