National Defence Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

He's already written—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

—as the colonel of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment, was very positive, and we're very grateful for you and indeed everyone who participates in our reserves. I think you summed it up very well. These are dedicated, very patriotic Canadians, who are prepared to help out their country. What we've announced today and what we have done in the past is a perfect fit, in my opinion, to assist them, because we are indeed very grateful for their contributions.

You pointed out as well that part of the supplementary estimates (B) will ensure that the LAV III upgrade vehicles will remain state of the art. We're installing more armour. We're capitalizing on existing and evolving technology to improve the vehicles' mobility and weapons systems. In my opinion and in the opinion of the armed forces, this will give our men and women in uniform a safer and superior combat vehicle.

I believe, as I testify before you, that these are worthwhile investments, the kinds of investments that we should make. We should never go back to the way some things were sometimes in the past, where we did not maintain that capability, where we did not invest in the equipment or the up-to-date technology. We owe more than that to our men and women in uniform, and we owe it to this country to be able to respond when we are called upon, because we don't know when that's going to take place.

We've discussed a lot about the two operations, Operations Impact and Reassurance, but Canada doesn't stand on the sidelines. That has not been the Canadian tradition, and it's not a Canadian value, so we have to continue to invest in this.

This is why I'm so pleased and proud to be here once again with the supplementary estimates to make sure we maintain that capability for the members of our armed forces.

Thank you for your service in the reserves.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Minister.

We have just a couple of minutes left before the minister is scheduled to leave us.

Mr. Chisholm, I would say that you have two minutes and 30 seconds, please.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I have to tell you that this is the normal process. Government comes before a committee like this, it comes before Parliament, and it gets authority before it goes out and spends money.

You're talking what? Six months? Libya was $150 million. You're talking about $150 million-plus. Why is it that you're expecting us to give you a blank cheque to go out and do...undoubtedly good things, some people would suggest, but why is it that you think it's not your responsibility to be accountable here?

I know that the senior officials in your department can figure out what an estimate is and are able to provide it to members of Parliament. I think it's offensive that you would suggest to us that we don't care about, that Canadians don't care—

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Order.

Mr. Chisholm.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

—about how their money is being spent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Order, Mr. Chisholm.

This committee will be voting on these votes at the end of today's proceedings. A question, please, to the minister.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That's my question. How can you show the kind of contempt you're showing to this committee—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Order. That's unacceptable language.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

—not to bring an estimate forward?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

That's completely unparliamentary language. The minister can choose to answer or not.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I appreciate that you don't support any of the money that we are putting towards our armed forces—

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Mr. Chisholm, order.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Whether that be in the estimates or the main estimates, you're against it all, and that's fair enough. But I think it was important for me to come here for supplementary estimates (B), when we need these funds here, to make sure we have that capability. You can be assured that if you change your mind and you start supporting military expenditures—

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Order.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You can be assured that the hundreds of millions of dollars that are here will go towards joint personnel support units. They will go towards the operational effectiveness of our equipment. This is in addition to the main estimates that you did not support, but again, it was extremely important that we have that to maintain our armed forces.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Minister. I say on behalf of the committee that we appreciate your availability and your appearance before us today. We will suspend very briefly as the minister departs and we'll resume.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, colleagues. We are resuming proceedings.

Our witnesses for the next 40 minutes, because we'll need to vote on the votes before we go into private committee business, are as introduced earlier. We have with us Deputy Minister Richard Fadden; Lieutenant-General Guy Thibault, vice-chief of the defence staff; Rear-Admiral Patrick Finn, chief of staff, materiel group; Kevin Lindsey, assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer; and Jaime Pitfield, assistant deputy minister, infrastructure and environment. As well, from the Communications Security Establishment, we have John Forster, the deputy head and chief.

Because of time constraints, we will make these five-minute rounds, beginning with Mr. Bezan, please.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I'm on a point of order, so don't start the clock yet.

Mr. Chisholm, in the last exchange with the minister, was in violation of Standing Order 18, which clearly says:

No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

Anyway, his language to the minister was offensive and I believe he owes an apology to the minister—and I suggest that he do that at his next opportunity in the House of Commons—for even suggesting any of that language. We are supposed to be conducting ourselves at a higher standard, especially at committee, so I am extremely disappointed.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, on that point of order, he said he was raising a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Are you responding to the point of order, Mr. Chisholm?