National Defence Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I think that's not only in order but that the motion should be supported by all of us. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has far more resources than any individual member of Parliament has and is much more able to mine through all of this stuff and actually come up with a view and serious questions to be asked of any minister, any department, not the least of which is this department and this minister.

I must admit I am heartily fed up with the government's attitude towards officers of Parliament and the unwillingness to share information and slapping cabinet confidentiality on each and every thing that moves, so I would support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, this is the last question.

Do you have a comment, Mr. Harris?

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

The purpose of this motion, I think, speaks for itself. If you listened to what happened here today, you know it's difficult just finding out answers to questions, such as the simple one as to how much was changed as a result of the Auditor General's report. We know it's buried in the numbers there somewhere, but the difficulty in knowing what's going on is evident from the problems we have and the problems the Parliamentary Budget Officer has.

We're just seeking to assist the Parliamentary Budget Officer in doing his job, which is essentially to flesh out these things. As Mr. McKay pointed out, there are difficulties following the numbers around. It's one of the criticisms made of our system of government and our financial control, or our lack of parliamentary oversight of finances. It's particularly important in defence, where the issues are so important not only to our forces and our forces' members but also to the safety and defence of the country. I think it's important that people have this information so that they can participate meaningfully in the debate.

I would hope that all members here would support this motion in the interest of transparency.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to interrupt.

We do have a time limit on the agenda here. The minister is to be here until 4:30. We're past this time, so I'm going to suspend this meeting to allow the minister to leave and to reshuffle the witnesses at the end of the table.

Minister MacKay, thank you for coming in and sharing your testimony with us on the supplementary estimates (B).

With that, our meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting back to order.

Before I call the question on the motion, I'll read it out one more time so that everybody is clear on the motion that has been moved by Mr. Harris. It reads: That the Committee formally ask the Minister of National Defence to undertake to the Committee to release information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has requested on the cuts in his department, both to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and to this Committee.

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

Could we have a recorded vote, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

A recorded vote has been requested.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

With that, we will continue with our questioning of the departmental officials.

Mr. Strahl, you have the floor.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We have certainly heard in this committee during our previous studies that threats to our national security are evolving, especially in the realm of cybersecurity, communications, and information technology. We've learned at previous meetings that our government has made Communications Security Establishment Canada a separate agency.

Why are there funds in the estimates for this agency, and how do you see the transfer of these funds helping to protect Canadians from those emerging and changing threats?

[John Forster, Chief, Communications Security Establishment]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Last November the Communications Security Establishment was made a stand-alone agency. It was formerly part of the Department of National Defence. The amount of $10 million in these supplementary estimates (B) is a completion of the transfer of resources from DND to CSEC. It's no new money; it was formerly part of the budget of defence and is now with CSEC.

With respect to the other part of your question on cybersecurity, as you may know, the government has tabled a cyberstrategy. CSEC plays an important role in that strategy, and the government announced money in budgets 2011 and 2012. Our role is very much to help protect government networks from cyberthreats and attacks in systems. We also work closely with Shared Services Canada to strengthen government systems, and with Public Safety Canada and the private sector to better prepare Canada for and defend Canada from foreign cyberthreats.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much.

Since Mr. Kellway's established that the CFDS is on the table, I'll ask a question there.

It does outline that starting in 2015, 15 ships to replace Canada's destroyers and frigates will be purchased: “These new ships will ensure that the military can continue to monitor and defend Canadian waters and make significant contributions to our international naval operations.”

What is DND doing to meet its CFDS commitments regarding the Royal Canadian Navy surface combatants?

[Rear-Admiral Patrick Finn, Chief of Staff, Materiel Group, Department of National Defence]

Thank you very much for the question, sir.

The Canadian surface combatant project now finds itself in definition, which is the phase at which we started the consultation with industry. That process was just launched in the middle of November with a public meeting. We've gone out to industry to talk to them about how we would go about doing this acquisition.

These are very complex acquisitions, virtually our most complex project, both in the context of cost and the solution we're trying to develop. We know we can't do this without the involvement of industry, so we've stepped out with industry to pursue that issue.

At the same time, to meet that commitment, we're modernizing other parts of the fleet, such as the Halifax-class ships, to ensure they can also continue to serve into the next decade.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have two minutes left.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I understand also that funding has been sought for the force mobility enhancement project. What does this project entail? How much will it cost? What do you expect the life cycle to be for this new equipment?

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

Again, thank you very much for the question, sir.

The force mobility enhancement project is a series of vehicles based on a main battle tank chassis. Basically, they are armoured combat vehicles for combat engineers. They're used for various purposes, in some cases as support vehicles for the main battle tanks. They can be used for other areas, such as clearing mines or clearing mined areas.

The product itself will be executed in two phases. The first phase has been approved. This year we're looking for $36.5 million in-year. It's approximately $300 million to pursue the actual vehicle acquisition. There's a follow-on phase that is still being developed, which involves all of the associated equipment to do the tasks I've just described.

I'm sorry that I don't know the exact life cycle of these vehicles, but that is currently what we have under way, sir.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Okay, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have one minute.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Could you also explain how the tactical armoured patrol vehicles that the government is talking about purchasing will better support our Canadian army members? Are our allies also purchasing something similar? Would we expect this new equipment to be interoperable with that of our allies?

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

Again, sir, thank you very much for the question.

Many lessons learned in Afghanistan are now being applied. This is a vehicle, as the minister indicated, that will be used for reconnaissance and for a degree of transportation. It's a very high level of protection in a relatively light vehicle. This is not a main battle tank or a LAV III troop transport. It's something a bit lighter than that, but still with a very high degree of protection and mobility.

This vehicle is the one that was selected through a competitive process, coming out of a company called Textron, which has actually deployed this vehicle with a number of other countries, notably the United States. We are acquiring 500 vehicles of a worldwide fleet at this point of some 3,500, with others, I understand, who are also interested in the vehicle.

From that perspective alone, we'll have interoperability of an international fleet. Of course, from a broader perspective of interoperability around communications, we would equally have the appropriate communications to be able to operate with our closest allies, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. Time has expired.

Monsieur Brahmi is next.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we look at the department's operational spending between 2011-12 and 2012-13, we see a decrease of more than $1.125 billion. You certainly know that, in my riding, where there is not only a military base but also a military college, budget cuts do raise a lot of concerns. I know that a number of members of the Canadian Forces have received a letter.

In the present estimates, how many jobs have been cut at DND? Is it more or is it less than what had been planned in the main estimates for 2012-13?

[Matthew King, Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence, Department of National Defence]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if I could make two or three quick contextual points and then get to the answer.

I just want to point out that between 2005 and 2011 the number of civilians at DND increased by 30%, or 5,000 people, and not without reason. It was attributable to significant growth in budget over that time period, but civilians were also hired to backfill reserves, who were backfilling regular force folks, who were now engaged in the war effort. That 5,000, that 30% increase, is a key point.

As the minister noted when he was here, as part of the broader government exercise to balance the budget, DND has played a role. We're in a position now, as was noted earlier, where we're adapting to a lower operational tempo. This gives us an opportunity to rethink where we are in terms of civilian staffing.

As some on the committee may know, the implementation of the deficit reduction action plan will take place over a three-year period, and we're halfway through year one of that three-year plan.

We weren't expected to provide FTE savings in the current fiscal year; rather, we would do it over the last two years of implementation. However, we have begun the process so that we won't have to load the entire effort onto the back end .

We've done this by limiting new hires to areas where there were health and occupational safety requirements. We've been very clear on making sure that we continue to bring folks into those occupations. We've taken a pause on staffing vacant positions, just to get ready.

We're ahead of the game, ahead of where we should be for this year. The balance of the FTE reductions will take place next year and the year after that, Mr. Chairman.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Do you have any figures on costs reductions? Are there any updates on these reductions? How many people are affected today, compared with what had been planned initially?

[Matthew King]

Thank you very much for this question, Mr. Chair.

I believe that on November 16 the President of the Treasury Board put out an update on where the government as a whole was on FTE reductions. As part of that release, the president identified that 1,621 full-time positions from DND would be part of our contribution to this broader reduction exercise.

As I said earlier, we didn't really have to make any cuts this year. The workforce adjustment directive is such that it takes anywhere from 12 months to 16 months to run its course, so I believe most departments were fairly prudent about first-year estimates.

As I said earlier, we have begun to take some steps. We're fortunate to have a fairly significant attrition rate at DND; we've tried to capture some of that. I couldn't be entirely precise, but I would estimate that we're probably down by 400 people as a result of DRAP, with the balance of the 1,621 to be implemented over the next two years.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Can you give us figures on cuts affecting the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, compared with the main estimates?