National Defence Committee on May 13th, 2015

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

[Inaudible--Editor]...Granatstein op-eds about the Liberal defence record.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm going to talk a bit about military equipment, which is so critical to the safety and well-being of our armed forces members—their ability to train, to be part of operations, and not having aged equipment parked for very expensive maintenance. Unfortunately, the 2008 CFDS, Canada's failed defence strategy, has been a road map to nowhere in terms of equipment for the last number of years.

I just want to note that since the 2007-08 capital budget, the average amount announced as a vote 5 expenditure but not spent—in other words, clawed back—has been $7.2 billion. That is money that Parliament approved but was not spent. That's an average of 23% clawed back. I will just note in comparison that for the 30 years prior to that, the average vote 5 funds left unspent was 2%. That's 23% versus 2%. I would hate to think that this government deliberately failed to provide our troops with the equipment they need, sacrificing them to pay for election tax breaks. Whether it's destroyers, patrol ships, resupply ships, icebreakers, close-combat vehicles, armoured patrol vehicles, drones, CF-18s, or Buffalo and Hercules search and rescue aircraft, most of the major procurement projects have been bungled and not actually delivered.

Minister, which of those replacement programs will actually be initiated this year? That's my first question.

My second question relates to something the minister previously claimed, that the capital equipment budget was reduced by $700 million and that some of that reduction was because the Canadian Armed Forces took early delivery of equipment previously, leading to a reduced need for capital spending.

What equipment was delivered early that would account for your statement?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

You have a minute and a half left, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

The third question is, of the 400 procurement experts whose jobs were cut during the deficit reduction action plan, does the minister plan to build any of these back? Analysts suggest that that's a big bottleneck to actually replacing equipment.

Fourthly, I would like to ask Ms. Bossenmaier how the one third of 1% of the CSE budget allocated to the commissioner's budget compares with the oversight and review functions of our Five Eyes partners? The commissioner's budget is one third of 1% of CSE's budget. Is there a concern that it will limit the commissioner's effectiveness in providing oversight? How does it compare with our Five Eyes partners?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

You have 30 seconds to divide among you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Okay. That's very effective questioning, Mr. Chair.

The member suggested that there has been no equipment obtained, except she forgets the five C-17 Globemasters, the 17 C-130J Hercules tactical aircraft, the 15 CH-147F Chinook helicopters, the modernization of the Hornets, the modernization of the Auroras, the modernization and refit of the Halifax-class frigates, the commencement of the largest shipbuilding program in peacetime history, the upgrades to the light armoured vehicles, the new fleet of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, and precision guided artillery, etc. Compared to the Liberal procurement from 1993 to 2005, a list of which I have right here, Mr. Chairman....

Her leader refers to our CF-18 modernized Hornets as “aging warplanes”. I can tell you that's not how ISIL feels about them right now, Mr. Chairman.

I will say that if the member wants yet again—I know that she has been on this committee for a while—a detailed explanation about how capital spending moves from one year to another based on a number of factors, I'm sure that ADM Finn or other officials would be happy to provide that to her.

None of this is, as she characterizes it, clawed back. She must know by now that that is simply a false assertion. None of it is clawed back. To the contrary, central agencies—Treasury Board and so forth—have thankfully given to the Department of National Defence the ability to profile into future years moneys for the accrual budget that are not actually expended. Would the member have us instead lose the money in a given year if we're not prepared to accept equipment because it's not yet ready? You know, when you're dealing with $110 billion, grosso modo, in the accrual budget over 20 years, it's not all going to be spent in exactly the years that you planned. There are going to be some changes in terms of timing. The member, I think, should....

I'll leave it to Ms. Bossenmaier to respond if she has the time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Again, it is a dangling question, so, Ms. Bossenmaier, a brief answer, please, if you will.

[Greta Bossenmaier, Chief, Communications Security Establishment]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't have the specific data with me on the percentage of the various budgets of the various other organizations and how they attribute that. I can just talk about how we do have an independent commissioner who is focused on the review of all of CSE's activities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

That's a novel way of increasing your time.

Mr. Kenney, you were just asked about the PBO report and its conclusion that the programs were not sustainable with the current amount of money. I know there was an analysis of that, but that's not the only external group that has looked at this.

The recent Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute report by Mr. David Perry suggests, using a similar kind of conclusion reached, that there was a hole in the budget and the forward plans, and that even with the $11.8 billion over 10 years that has been promised starting in 2018, there will be “a sizable fiscal hole” requiring “an adjustment to the current defence plan” by revising the plan “either by increasing funding in the short term or downgrading its expectations” for the future.

Both of these reports indicate that there's a looming problem.

First of all, why has any increase to try to deal with it been put off until 2017-18? Also, are you anticipating the need for decreasing what we expect from our military, or an actual need for greater funds in order to continue with the programs we have?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I have a couple of points, Mr. Chairman.

First of all to the good question, we have not put off increases in the defence budget until 2017. The budget will continue to benefit from the 2% automatic escalator between now and then. It will continue to benefit from the accrual budget that is set is aside, which itself has benefited from the roughly $5 billion Canada First defence strategy baseline increase, which has resulted in the successful acquisition and upgrading of this equipment that I just listed.

Moreover, the PBO report, as mentioned, does not take into account even the 2% escalator, let alone the additional 1% for the full 3% escalator. As Mr. Rochette mentioned, we always have the ability to reallocate resources to where they will be spent most effectively, so that is what we are doing currently in the defence renewal strategy where we are seeking to reallocate roughly $1 billion in spending from low priority to high priority areas—to use the vernacular, from tail to tooth. Those are factors not taken into account by the PBO, or indeed I believe by Mr. Perry.

We believe we can continue to operate one of the highest quality, medium-sized, multi-platform militaries in the world with the kind of reference levels that are presented in budget 2015.

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

Thank you, sir.

One of the problems, though, is that the 2% escalator that's been in place was never met because of the changes that were made to the budget, the recalculations, the contribution to decreasing the deficit, and the freezes that were put in place. That escalator hasn't actually worked now, and there's no indication that it will work in the future.

Mr. Chairman, since I only have another couple of minutes left and I may not get another round, I would like to move:

That the Standing Committee on National Defence invite the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff, and retired Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps as witnesses to appear before the Committee to answer questions about Justice Deschamps' external investigation of sexual misconduct in the military, and the Canadian Armed Forces' response thereto, for two hours, as soon as possible.

That's my motion, sir, and I know we have the consent of the minister to participate in this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

It would seem to be a formality, given that the minister has already agreed, but do we have agreement here?

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

On a point of order, I'd like to see the motion first before we vote on it. Can we continue on with the questioning while that's being circulated, and we'll come back to it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Absolutely, and we'll take the vote.

We will get your motion addressed by the end of this meeting.

You have 45 seconds remaining in your questions, if you choose to use it.

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

I have just a quick question to Madam Bossenmaier, now that we have her here. I note that the budget for CSEC seems to have been decreased substantially this year over last. Under the estimates related to the signals intelligence program there's a reduction of around $110 million and about $90 million in the IT security program.

Does that have anything to do with the buildings, or are these program reductions based on something else?

[Greta Bossenmaier]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

As the minister noted in his opening remarks, the decrease in the CSE budget for this year is related to the one-time delivery cost, if I could call it that, of the new facility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

That's time, Mr. Harris.

Our final questions are from Mr. Norlock.

You have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, in previous questioning my Liberal friend across the way failed to mention a $600 million cheque written by the then Liberal government for the cancellation of the EH-101s, which we now have to buy at about two or three...and you can comment on the real cost of that. Today translated—I am told by military personnel who are now retired, because they don't speak when they're not retired—that would equate to over $1 billion in today's dollars, well in excess....

Of course, one of the great purchases by the previous government for a buck was some submarines that at a great cost now are of benefit to our navy. I wonder if you could comment on how much it cost to refurbish those?

In regard to improvements to the LAVs , the previous Liberal member in my riding talked to my Rotary club about this great deal for us that we know had no safety components, and of course we now have improved LAVs and I know that our government improved their capabilities because of the experience in Afghanistan.

I think one of the benefits to our soldiers was the use of the Chinooks in Afghanistan so they wouldn't have to drive over roads peppered with IEDs. We had to buy back or borrow Chinook helicopters from the Dutch, I believe, that still had Canadian markings on. Now we have of course ordered Chinooks.

All politics are local. At CFB Trenton I was present when the then leader of the opposition, along with Mr. O'Connor, who was your predecessor as Minister of Defence, talked about our strategic and tactical lift, which means a lot to the people of Trenton because to facilitate those two abilities of our air force, we had to begin a huge capital project—and not only at CFB Trenton.

So I wonder if you might like to comment on some of the issues that I have brought up?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair, of course I agree.

What Ms. Murray depicts is not the reality that I encounter when I visit our bases and see the pride of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel in presenting, and talking about, and demonstrating their new equipment.

Just to give you one example, in CFB Trenton, your base, it's one thing to buy the C-17s, and not just four of them, but now a fifth one.... That fifth one, by the way, now means that we'll be able to have three of them operational 90% of the time , meaning that we can respond to multiple crises concurrently rather than getting in queue.

There was a deliberate policy decision of the previous Liberal government, a deliberate decision, not to have strategic airlift. I don't know why. Is it because they didn't actually want to have to say yes when urgent situations arose?

But not only did we acquire four, we acquired a fifth so we can actually have a strong appropriate maintenance rotation cycle. We didn't just acquire the planes. As you know we built an enormous hangar, two cutting edge maintenance hangars, for the C-17s at CFB Trenton.

Just look at the simulation equipment for training our pilots that we've now installed at CFB Trenton. These are very expensive systems that, by the way, are expensive up front but efficient in the long run because it's more efficient to train pilots on simulators than burning aviation fuel.

Wherever I go, whether it's visiting HMCS Chicoutimi, the modernized and refitted Victoria-class submarine in Esquimalt, or HMCS Calgary, or see at Garrison Petawawa the incredibly sophisticated new howitzer artillery pieces they have, everywhere I go I see new kit, highly motivated personnel, and a military that appreciates the fact that the Government of Canada is actually willing to use our military assets appropriately and prudently to protect our security, collective peace, and respond to humanitarian disasters.

I just ask people to compare our ability to respond the Nepalese earthquake versus the gong show of the government response to the tsunami in southeast Asia in 2005. The difference is investments in equipment. Of course, the personnel have always been professional but now they can actually get to where they need to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

That's your time, Mr. Norlock.

On behalf of the committee, Minister Kenney, I'd like to thank you, your officials, and General Thibault for your attendance here this afternoon. As you gather your possessions and papers, the committee will see to our duty of addressing the votes under the main estimates 2015-16.

COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$503,831,701

(Vote 1 agreed to)

MILITARY GRIEVANCES EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$6,143,503

(Vote 1 agreed to)

MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$5,158,208

(Vote 1 agreed to)

OFFICE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT COMMISSIONER

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$1,850,071

(Vote 1 agreed to)

NATIONAL DEFENCE

Vote 1—Operating expenditures...........$13,483,693,376

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$4,020,883,722

Vote 10—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$168,742,820

(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to)

In conclusion, shall the chair report vote 1 under Communications Security Establishment; vote 1 under Military Grievances External Review Committee; vote 1 under Military Police Complaints Commission; vote 1 under Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner; and votes 1, 5, and 10 under National Defence to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you.

Again, to the point order—