Evidence of meeting #58 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Okay. That's helpful. It's not in the supplementary estimates at this time.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Okay. That was confusing me. I couldn't find it in the main body of the supplementary estimates.
The second question has to do with General Leslie's report. It's a substantial report. It's a way forward. I've heard all kinds of commentary on the report by various people, both knowledgeable and otherwise.
We have yet to hear the minister's response to this report. Could you tell us why the minister has yet to respond to this report?
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Well, the reality is that this was a report that I and the Chief of the Defence Staff requested. Some 43 recommendations came forward from this team of individuals, led by General Leslie. We've acted on a lot of these recommendations. We've acted on recommendations that came from many other sources as well.
Transformation, as you know, will be part of the refresh of the Canada First defence strategy. It will be part of the effort to reflect the new fiscal climate we're operating under. We have the end to the combat mission, which I referred to earlier. We have the necessity to adjust a number of our projects due to delays. The maritime helicopter program is one that comes to mind. I believe you're familiar with that one.
About two-thirds of these overall recommendations have been already implemented, in part or in whole. It's part of defence renewal. As you would expect, it's part of an overall effort to continue to make prudent and proper investments across all of the pillars.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
If everything you say is true, and I'm not about to dispute it, why wouldn't you set it out for members of the public and the military? Why wouldn't you say “This was General Leslie's report in July 2011. We are now in November 2012. These are the things that we've acted on as recommendations from General Leslie. These are in the works, and these we're not going to do.”
What is the issue there? Why wouldn't there be some formal response, a tabling of a response to General Leslie?
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
There was no request to do so. This was one of a number of sources that we examined when it came to the issue of transformation. This was not a report that was tabled by an ombudsman or a commissioner or an outside source. This was something that was done internally, at the request of the previous Chief of the Defence Staff and myself, to get at the issues of improving efficiencies.
The defence team looked at that particular document, as we looked at a number of other sources, to maximize efficiencies. There was really no need to produce a report in response to the report. We're here to answer questions, as we do in the House of Commons and as we regularly do before committees. This is all about coordinating our efforts to continue to make proper investments for the Canadian Forces, and also to answer the mail with respect to efficiencies and to respect taxpayers' funds in what is a very large budget.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
You realize that it's virtually impossible for any member of the public, no matter how well informed and no matter whether he or she is or is not a member of Parliament, to actually see how you're doing on General Leslie's recommendations. The fact that you and the CDS actually requested the report, the fact that General Leslie worked on it for—
Conservative
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
On a point of order, Mr.Chairman, this is the third question about General Leslie's report. Supplementary estimates (B) do not represent a response to that report, or even mention that report, and that is the subject of our hearing today and the minister's appearance.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Earlier Minister MacKay did reference General Leslie's report in response to Mr. Harris, so it is now part of the testimony and can be discussed.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Once it's in, it's in. I'm sure that over time Mr. Alexander will learn that, as a member of this committee.
My final question has to do with page 154, going back to another issue as to $30.5 billion. That's in the budget and is committed. What I'm curious about is the $11.6 billion for what looks like future commitments. What does that mean?
November 27th, 2012 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It's page 154, vote 1b. Are there pension commitments in there? Are there procurement commitments in there? I don't understand.
Conservative
MGen Robert Bertrand
Included in those future-year commitments would be operating and capital budget commitments, or A-base commitments, as we call them. We have multi-year contracting in the department for a number of items and we do multi-year commitments of funds. This vote wording gives the department authority to do multi-year commitments.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Do those multi-year commitments include procurement commitments?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
They don't.
What about things like fixing bases, real estate, and that kind of thing? Would that be included in your $11 billion?
MGen Robert Bertrand
If we have a multi-year plan with multi-year commitments of funds in our financial system, it would be included in there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We're going to our five-minute round. We'll lead off with Mr. Opitz. I'm going to be very judicious to try to get as many members in as possible.
You have five minutes, Mr. Opitz.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. General Poulter, it's good to see you again.
Minister, many Canadians across Canada are understandably concerned about the effects of environmental contamination, as you know. I note in the supplementary estimates that there are funds transferred to Indian Affairs and Northern Development. These are to pay for the costs required for the clearance, remediation, and transfer of the former Camp Ipperwash to the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation.
Sir, can you expand on this transfer and can you discuss more generally the view of the Department of National Defence on the cleanup of these contaminated sites?
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Opitz. I want to take the opportunity to thank you for your service. I know you've served on a number of bases, both as reserve and regular force and outside our country. I appreciate that service.
There is money allocated here, a transfer to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada of approximately $580,000 to pay for costs associated with that former Canadian Forces site for clearance and remediation.
This is in keeping with the Department of National Defence's ongoing efforts around the safety and the cleanup of legacy sites. We have a large footprint in the country, as you would know. There are a number of locations where there were environmental problems. There were hazardous sites or former training bases that often had unexploded ordnance. This is a very costly but very important undertaking. About $60 million was spent on site cleanup in the past year alone.
At Ipperwash we're working with the aboriginal affairs department and others, including Environment Canada, to clean up the former Camp Ipperwash at the Kettle and Stony Creek Point First Nation reserve. In addition to this transfer, we're also trying to find a way to implement an investigation agreement and coordinate the provision of property maintenance services and pay for the costs associated with managing and administering some of the fiscal transfer agreements.
This is the first part of a transfer that will see more money flow, in the amount of $1.9 million, over the next three years. This is, again, part of that legacy attachment to this particular site and our necessary commitment to continue with the cleanup of that site and our overall commitment to the stewardship of the environment.