National Defence Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[John Forster]

Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first item is $8.2 million. It is actually a reprofiling from last year. It is going towards equipment in the new building that we are in the process of occupying. It is related to audiovisual and IT equipment that wasn't ready to be completed last year and was rolled forward to this year as part of our building. So that money was reprofiled from last year to this year.

With regard to the $1.6 million in new funding, CSE's primary mandate in cyber-defence has been to protect the networks of the Government of Canada, and that's been our focus for the last couple of years. As we've all seen over the past recent months, I think, the level of cyber-attacks that we are facing continues to increase. This amount of money here will allow us to put some of our expertise to work with critical infrastructure providers and the private sector, non-government folks, to begin to assist them in strengthening their telecommunication networks against cyber-attacks such as we've seen over the past few months.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to talk a little bit about how DND, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada are working together in the field of search and rescue right now. I talked earlier about the $3.3 million being transferred. What specific search and rescue prevention and coordination initiatives would be covered by the funds transferred to Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency?

Could anybody comment on that; Mr. Lindsey, perhaps?

[Kevin Lindsey]

Mr. Chair, as members will be aware, search and rescue is a partnership among a number of departments and agencies in Canada. This year DND is transferring to Parks Canada funding in the amount of about $336,000 to support an initiative called Coast Smart, which helps Parks Canada help its users manage risks by making them aware of them.

With respect to Fisheries and Oceans, it is piloting thermal-imaging and night-imaging technology on its 47-foot motorboats. We are assisting them in that pilot project. With respect to Environment Canada, we are providing funding that will allow Environment Canada to help train its volunteers in search and rescue.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Mr. Opitz.

Mr. Chisholm, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, DND is requesting $652.2 million in funding to support the sustainment of investments made under the Canada First defence strategy. In DND's report on plans and priorities for 2014-15, it's indicated that DND and the CAF will renew the Canada First defence strategy, and that this revised strategy will build on the successes of the original Canada First defence strategy.

I have a couple of questions. When can we expect the renewed CFDS to be publicly released? Can you explain how the government's deficit reduction action plan has affected the implementation of the strategy? What will be the top priorities of the renewed strategy, and how different will the new strategy be from the original one that was adopted in 2008?

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chairman, as the government did announce in the recent Speech from the Throne, consideration has been given to developing a revised Canada First defence strategy. The department has pulled together some recommendations to the government.

Again, Mr. Chairman, in long-standing tradition, it is a cabinet confidence and I am unable to comment.

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

So you can't tell us when we can expect...? No. Okay.

[Richard Fadden]

I'm sorry.

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

All right. Let me move on to another one.

DND's departmental performance report, tabled on the same day as the supplementary estimates (B) in November of this year, noted that a little more than half, 54.5%, of the Canada First defence strategy projects are on time. When you look at the joint and common support projects, none of them are on schedule despite a target of 85%.

Let me give you an example. The percentage of joint and common support projects on schedule is zero; the percentage of aerospace projects on schedule, 55%; the percentage of land projects on schedule, 43.5%; and the percentage of maritime projects on schedule, 57%.

Mr. Fadden, I wonder if you can explain why we haven't been able to achieve the projected 85% and to what extent the $652 million that DND is requesting will help the government meet its own target with regard to the acquisition of equipment and materiel in accordance with this defence strategy.

[Richard Fadden]

Thank you.

I think in order to understand why we haven't met our target, it's important to understand that DND is one of a significant number of other players that operate on the procurement side. We work with Public Works. Industry Canada has a role. Treasury Board often has a role. Then there is a vast array of private corporations with which we deal, some of which are very efficient and always on time and some of which are not. When you put all this together, we end up with some delays that we would probably prefer not to have.

You will be aware that the government recently enacted the defence procurement strategy. One of the objectives of this strategy is to accelerate our ability to deliver on a variety of these programs. It also commits us to review some of the processes that we have internally and that Public Works has internally. We're hopeful that with a little bit of the passage of time we will be able to report next year, or in subsequent years, a higher percentage than we have been able to this year.

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

Let me just say that I hope so because, listen, I'm from the Dartmouth-Halifax area, and I want this program to work because people are getting increasingly discouraged.

But I'm puzzled, because your department has been in this business for some time. Why would you set a projected completion rate at 85% if there were so many items outside your control? Because what happens is that it's making you look bad, and therefore, people's confidence in your ability to actually produce on time, on schedule, and on budget is compromised, frankly.

[Richard Fadden]

I think a partial answer, Mr. Chairman, is that it is a standard management technique to set objectives that you then prod your people to try to meet. Certainly, my colleagues and I at this table use these objectives in order to poke and prod away at our colleagues in the department and in other departments in order to encourage them to improve.

If we had set a target that was too low, I think it would be much harder to be able to incite people to meet an objective such as the one that we have set. We could have set a different one—there's nothing magical about it—but the objective really is to set it high enough and make people stretch to try to reach it over a number of years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Mr. Fadden. That's time.

Finally, Mr. Norlock, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you to them, Mr. Chair, thank you to the witnesses for being here.

In particular, I believe my questions will go to General Thibault, but someone else who may feel that they're better qualified can answer.

I am a great fan of helicopters. I know that as a result of our Afghanistan experience we learned that transitioning people from one place to another utilizing a helicopter saved us a lot of injuries, as opposed to going over land and the IEDs, so I'd like to talk about helicopters for a minute.

First, of course, we've purchased some EH101s. I think somewhere in the vicinity of 50 were ordered back in the eighties and then cancelled at a cost of $500 million, so not only was that not spent, but the Liberal government of the day spent $500 million to cancel a contract, for which we got zero. Now we're replacing them. We've just purchased some EH101s, and I just wonder what that cost was.

Getting back to the Chinooks, I wonder what locations and why the Chinooks chosen were. I think I gave you a hint there. Where are they being located and how will the upgrades to the aircraft make it suitable for the completion of this sort of mission?

[Lieutenant-General Guy R. Thibault, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. My colleague Admiral Finn might have some additional context for this.

Certainly, our helicopters, our rotary wing assets that we have, are supporting our activities not only for the land force but obviously in the maritime domain. They are essential, in fact, to the operational ends of the Canadian Armed Forces. They give us unique capabilities, whether they be at home or, as we've seen, in places like the Philippines, say, where all these kinds of operations require mobility for the purposes of resupply, for humanitarian relief, really, and for disaster response. Obviously in a domestic context, they're essential to complement our overall search and rescue response, both in our domestic land territory and in the maritime domain.

The Chinooks, of course, are primarily heavy lifters. Not only are they doing heavy lifting for army assets, but we could see them being employed in Canada's north. They obviously could be used for all of our domestic response. Also, in international operations, we would certainly intend on employing them in that context as well.

They've all been consolidated in one garrison in Petawawa, just to the north of here. That was done for economical purposes. When we first thought of acquiring these assets, we thought that maybe we'd have them in two main bases, but we opted for one main base for them, based on the ability to really sustain that fleet and to provide them for all of the operational requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I'd like to turn to my colleague, who can talk a little bit more about the maritime helicopter patrol, as well as what we've done with the EH101s, to give you a little bit of a sense of what we're doing with those assets and how we're bringing on the MHP.

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

Thank you very much for the question.

Of course, we're using the EH101, the Cormorants, in the rotary wing search and rescue role across Canada. It is supplemented by the Bell helicopters, the Griffon helicopters, for search and rescue as well. We have now done a fair amount of work and have updated contracts with Sikorsky for the Cyclone maritime helicopter. We'll start seeing delivery of that with a blocking strategy, as we have done with other aircraft now, with the block 1 aircraft being delivered and starting to see initial operations next summer.

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

For the EH101s, what's going to be our total purchase price for those aircraft, roughly?

You don't have to be exact.

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

The AgustaWestland aircraft, which you called the EH101, of course were acquired some time ago. I don't have the acquisition numbers with us. In fact, we're approaching mid-life on those airframes. They have been the search and rescue aircraft for some time. The ones that are in acquisition right now are the maritime helicopters from Sikorsky, which have a different capability from how we're using the—

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

If I'm not mistaken, it's a version of the EH101, or is it totally different?

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

The Sikorsky is a variant of, I believe, a Black Hawk helicopter, and it's being marinized for being brought to sea. But most important is the level of systems integration, because as we upgrade the frigates and their capability from an anti-submarine warfare perspective, we have to have a capable helicopter that can actually operate in that same domain. There's a very sophisticated combat management system inside the helicopter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Admiral Finn.

That's time, Mr. Norlock.

Thank you to all of our witnesses today.

Now, colleagues, we've heard from the minister, we've heard from officials, and it is time for us to make our opinion to forward to the House.

COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT

Vote 1b—Program expenditures..........$9,856,175

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Vote 1b—Program expenditures..........$2,381,486

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

NATIONAL DEFENCE

Vote 1b—Operating expenditures and authority for total commitments..........$912,672,021

Vote 10b—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$581,066

(Votes 1b and 10b agreed to on division)

Shall the chair report vote 1b under Communications Security Establishment, vote 1b under the Military Police Complaints Commission, and votes 1b and 10b under National Defence to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[An hon. member]

On division

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, colleagues. We will now suspend as the room is cleared before we deal with committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]