National Defence Committee on May 13th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

That's time, Mr. Bezan.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Lieutenant General Thibault, I would like to quickly go back to the case of Major Brauer, which my colleague Mr. Harris mentioned, because I don't quite understand the answer you gave him.

Major Brauer won his grievance and he shouldn't have had to take additional action. He won and he received the support of the Chief of the Defence Staff. Now you are saying that he still has other options for remedies. I don't understand why Major Brauer still needs to fight when he won his grievance. He should not have to take further action or appeal to other authorities. I don't understand why he should still have to fight to obtain the compensation promised to him through this favourable decision.

[LGen Guy R. Thibault]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my answer.

First, I would like to make it clear that our grievance system is not the problem. We are in the process of reviewing the grievances submitted by the members of the Canadian armed forces. In the grievance you are referring to, the Chief of the Defence Staff gave the proper response.

After reviewing the grievance, the Government of Canada confirmed, through the Federal Court, that this situation needed to be addressed specifically. The review was done. In this case, it was the Government of Canada's Treasury Board that did the review. The conclusion was that the market was not depressed where Mr. Brauer's house was. That's all. It was simply a confirmation that there was no basis for reviewing Mr. Brauer's situation. Mr. Brauer made the decision to sell his house and move with his family from Edmonton to Halifax. He now has the possibility of requesting a judicial review.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

This conclusion was revoked by the Federal Court, which reviewed the decision and concluded that this is not the approach that should have been taken. The situation is still quite problematic. My understanding is that the situation is currently in the hands of the government, not in the hands of the Chief of the Defence Staff.

[LGen Guy R. Thibault]

The Treasury Board responded that it needed to conduct an independent review of the situation. That is what it did and this is the outcome.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Since my time is limited, I will quickly move to another issue.

Recently, a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer was published on the fiscal sustainability of Canada's National Defence program. The conclusion of the report reads as follows:

The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates that the current force structure of the Department of National Defence (DND) is unsustainable at current funding levels. To achieve sustainability, it will be necessary to change the force structure, increase the amount of funding allocated to DND, or implement a combination of the two.

The government expenditure plan for next year provides for a reduction of over $700 million in the National Defence budget. How can the Minister expect the Canadian Forces to continue their activities and to properly safeguard Canadian security when they are faced with such a reduction in the budget?

I heard you say earlier that the National Defence budget will be increased, but that will start only in a number of years. In the meantime, how will the Canadian Forces be able to survive—if I may say so—this rather significant reduction in funds?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is a good question, Mr. Chair.

The report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not take into account the automatic increase, the 3% escalator, because it had been set well before the budget was announced. This increase represents almost an additional $12 billion for the Canadian Forces.

I will ask Mr. Rochette to answer in greater detail.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

You are talking about the 3% escalator—I'm not sure what the equivalent term is in French—but that will start in 2017-2018. Until the 3% increase is in effect, what will the Canadian Forces do as their budget is cut?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

The report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer provides forecasts for 10 years, but it does not factor in the automatic 3% increase and the long-term increase of almost $12 billion.

Colonel Rochette, could you elaborate on the issue?

[Col Claude Rochette]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, the study is based on a parametric cost analysis. In short, it is a baseline study of the costs without having the information.

In terms of the study done in this case, the office of the—

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

It is the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

If I may, I would like to add that the office would have benefited from better communication with the Department of National Defence in order to have accurate information.

[Col Claude Rochette]

We see that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did a baseline study by looking at other countries and costs. It factored in an inflation cost per year.

In fact, if you take a close look at the report, you will see that, for the years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, it calculated the expenditures by adding an increase for inflation. It compared the current structure of the Canadian armed forces to the one that was in place in 1994. In so doing, it concluded that the funding was not sufficient. However, if it had concluded that the structure of the forces was similar to1997, it would have drawn a completely different conclusion, meaning that the funding was sufficient.

Another problem is that something else was overlooked.

The minister talked about the cost of the 2% budget increase. In fact, in 2017-2018, it will go up by 1%, but there has been a 2% increase since 2008 already. That is already in effect, but it was not factored in.

In addition, the administration and managerial decisions have not been taken into account. We often look at the budget available and try to eliminate the less important activities and reinvest in our priorities. In fact, we are now reviewing our activities. However, that is not taken into account. When that happens, we can—

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you.

The time is up.

Mr. Chisu, please, five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask questions.

As a serving military member, and now a veteran, for me the commemoration of military milestones is very important, and I think also to all Canadians.

In the report on plans and priorities for 2015-2016, the DND outlines that it will:

...continue to commemorate significant events in Canada’s history and times of conflict such as the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. We will also plan for future commemorations including the 75th anniversary of the Dieppe Raid and the centennials of the Battles of the Somme and Beaumont-Hamel, Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele.

What is the budget that DND and the Canadian Armed Forces are planning to spend on these and other commemorative events? Could you explain some details of how this money will be spent and what exactly will be the role that DND and the Canadian Armed Forces will be playing in planning and implementing these commemorative events?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I agree that these commemorative exercises are hugely important. I just came from the 70th anniversary commemorations of the liberation of Holland, where I saw tens of thousands of grateful Dutch citizens of all ages and generations waving the Canadian flag and celebrating our country.

Last week I was at the large Nazi transit camp out of which 100,000 Dutch Jews were shipped to places like Auschwitz, and saw Dutch Holocaust survivors thanking a Canadian vet who liberated them from that camp. These are incredibly important teaching moments and, I think, they inspire young people to pursue military service. I think these things matter to recruitment in and morale of our current forces. It's not just about nostalgia; it's actually about the morale of our current forces.

The cost altogether that we are setting aside for these commemorative exercises is $4 million for the last fiscal year and $3 million for this fiscal year, but I believe that Veterans Affairs Canada will also be contributing separately to these items.

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

Thank you very much.

Also in the report on plans and priorities for 2015-2016, you mentioned that National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces will implement the vision of the renewed Canada First defence strategy that builds on the success of the first CFDS published in 2008, while adapting to a new security environment.

Could you explain some details of this? I would appreciate it very much because, as a serving military—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Are you still in the reserves, sir?

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

No, not anymore. I'm too old for that, Minister, but I appreciate it. I enjoyed every minute of service to the country through the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you for your service, Mr. Chisu.

Yes, as you know, in 2008 the government published the Canada First defence strategy, which has been the road map for our capital investments in new equipment and kit for the military, but also the points of strategic emphasis.

Of course, any time you develop a military strategy, it will be affected by unexpected developments. For example, you've already asked me a couple of times about Canada's response as a NATO member to Vladimir Putin's increasing aggression. I don't think we saw that to this extent in 2008. In any event, that's why we believe there is a need to renew the Canada First defence strategy. We will be doing so in due course. If you have ideas that you would like to feed into that, I'd be quite happy to sit down with you and take those ideas on board.

I don't have a date, though; I'm sorry.

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

You mentioned a new vision in terms of unexpected events. I'm thinking about the Arctic and looking at the Russians, who have had massive exercises in the Arctic rebuilding their bases in the Arctic, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Briefly, please.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I would just point out that the CFDS I think was the first published Canadian strategic plan for our military, which did very clearly emphasize the importance of a military presence in the Arctic to protect our sovereignty. One practical way in which we are demonstrating that will be the refuelling station in Nanisivik and of course the AOPS vessels, which will be the first part of our national shipbuilding strategy to come on stream.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

That's time, Mr. Chisu.

Ms. Murray, you have five minutes, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I have four questions, but first I want comment on something the minister said, that supporters of the military would like to see more money, and that's not always possible.

What I would say is that supporters of the military would like to see honesty, and that's been scarce.

For the record, I'll mention the articles of J.L. Granatstein and Roland Paris of the Centre for International Policy Studies on defence spending as a percentage of GDP, which is now lower than at any time during the previous Liberal government years, and in fact lower than it's been since the 1930s.

If the minister has backup for his 0.9% of GDP figure, I would appreciate it if he would table that.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I'd be happy to table it, Mr. Chairman.