National Defence Committee on May 13th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Let the minister answer the question.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Mr. Norlock.

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

What we do in committee is very similar to a court of law. You get to dictate the question; you don't get to dictate the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Minister Kenney, your answer, please.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chair, as I was saying, the report of Madame Justice Deschamps was commissioned by the Chief of the Defence staff, by the military, not by the minister—neither me nor my predecessor—and orders that are issued by the military are ordered by the military, not by the minister.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I want to also point out that while the Prime Minister in question period today said that this was a letter, it in fact does have the weight of an order. It was implied by the Prime Minister and the minister that this was two months ago and therefore that it was not germane.

I will bring to the minister's attention the April 30 action plan addressing the Deschamps report. It says on page 1 that the strategic response team on sexual misconduct—that's the team that would be an internal response—was stood up under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff's initiating directive of February 25. In fact, this report that was launched two weeks ago was based on the initiating directive, contrary to what both the minister and the Prime Minister said.

I would ask the minister, has he commanded or ordered the Chief of the Defence Staff to rescind this directive that is the basis of the minister's, the government's, response to the Deschamps report on sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, has the clerk received and distributed the CDS statement?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Yes, she has.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I think that answers all of Ms. Murray's questions.

The Chief of the Defence staff says that the “planning assumptions”—to which Ms. Murray refers—“should in no way be viewed as restrictions or orders for [Major-General Whitecross] to ignore the recommendations of the final report. Any such suggestion is quite simply false.”

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the member is not impugning the integrity of the Chief of the Defence Staff.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

WelI, I will bring to the minister's attention the fact that the Chief of the Defence Staff's statement that was just circulated continues to use the words “accept in principle”, and uses as an example the kind of research that he will doing, the U.S. model, which includes accountability staying within the U.S. armed forces. So he is referring exactly to the concern that we have, and it is not clear.

I am trying to clear up the confusion, and I have to say that the minister has just extended it. I will ask another set of questions around the budget.

Minister, in the budget you announced this escalator of 3% as long-term, stable, predictable funding. That would be comical if it wasn't so disappointing and disrespectful of the Canadian Armed Forces, given what happened to the last supposed stable predictable escalator of 2%. In fact, there's been over $5 billion of cuts to that announced funding, and there's been over $10 billion in clawbacks.

Even if we ignore that fact, this announcement of a 3% annual escalator will further reduce the department's share of annual GDP to 0.89%, the lowest level since the 1930s.

I would like to ask the minister how he reconciles this with his government's commitments to NATO allies to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP, when his plan further decreases it? Even if he were to implement it, his last escalator lasted for two years and then became a de-escalator.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Well, Mr. Chair, I regret to inform the committee that virtually every one of Ms. Murray's statements were false or misleading.

First of all, it was not the Chief of the Defence Staff who referred to the United States as a model to implement. Rather, he said that:

There has been much discussion on the issue of Madame Deschamps' recommendation to establish a 'Centre of Accountability'.... Her report suggested that we examine models for this such as those used by the militaries of Australia, France or the United States.

Indeed it was Madame Deschamps' report which evoked—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

No, excuse me, it's in the statement by the Chief of Defence Staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Order.

Your time has expired, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That's simply false.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

We should look to the United States as a potential model. Mr. Chair, with respect to spending. In point of fact, under the previous Liberal government defence spending's share of GDP reached a low of 0.9% after massive cuts. Between 1993 and 2005, the previous Liberal government did not procure or even attempt to procure—with the exception of the failed maritime helicopter procurement—a single major piece of military equipment, Mr. Chair, and that's what we are trying to correct.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Can the minister table that 0.9% figure?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Ms. Murray, your time has expired.

Thank you.

We now move into the second round of questions.

Mr. Williamson, please, for five minutes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and ministers, it's good to see you and your colleagues here today.

Turning to an investment, Minister Kenney, could you talk a little about the shipbuilding procurement plan on the east coast? In your opening remarks you mentioned that the Royal Canadian Navy is undergoing a significant fleet modernization. I'd like to hear how this large project is proceeding. You can comment on the impact that these modernization projects and the national shipbuilding program are having on the industry on the west and east coasts.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Williamson, as you know this is the largest peacetime shipbuilding program in the history of the Canadian military, with some $36 billion committed through our accrual budget to acquire a new fleet of very modern service combatant ships to replace our Halifax-class frigates, as well as the Arctic offshore patrol ships, the new joint supply ships, and other vessels. I'm pleased to say we're moving forward on all fronts. I understand that Irving shipyard in Halifax is getting close to being prepared to cut steel later this year on the hulls for the Arctic offshore patrol ships, so we'll see tangible progress.

I think some people would ask, “Why can't we get all these ships right away?” There's a reason for that. When you're dealing with a procurement this large, you want to stage it intelligently over time so you don't end up ramping up a huge capacity in the shipbuilding industry just to see it crash back down. We want to spread this out intelligently over time, manage the costs, and maintain the capability. The plan is that as soon as the AOPs—our Arctic offshore patrol ships—are finished out of the Irving shipyard, the yards will then be able to move forward to begin production of the new service combatant vessels. In the meantime out in the Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver, we're working closely with that shipyard on the icebreakers. With the supply ships, which are scheduled to come on line in 2019, we and Public Works are working very closely with the vendors. I hope that answers your question.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

I'm just curious, after hearing Ms. Murray's remarks, how you square the comments that we hear from the Liberal opposition about their time in office versus our time now when we have the shipbuilding strategy, as well as the five C-17s, which are able to airlift men and women around the world on a moment's notice—as we saw recently with Nepal, and before that in the Philippines, and before that in Tahiti in a crisis—and these record investments? Is this the result of making the right decisions? What's going on that we're able to do this at a time of broad budget restraint throughout the Government of Canada? We're seeing these investments being made, and as you've said we've tabled a balanced budget this year going forward.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I think we have to put this in perspective. Most of our major allies like the United Kingdom and the United States, for example, and even France, are absorbing deep cuts to their military budgets. To be clear, they started with larger militaries because of their traditional roles in this respect, but the United States is looking at a sequestration of upwards of $40 billion out of its defence budget in this fiscal year. The United Kingdom has seen enormous cuts to their military budget, while in Canada we've been going in the other direction. That's simply because we prioritized this at a time of economic uncertainty and fiscal restraint. I think it reflects the fact that this government has made defence a priority. Now it's true, Mr. Chair, that supporters of the military would love to see increases in resources by orders of magnitude, but I think they're realistic in understanding scarce resources, and that relatively speaking the military budget has been maintained or increased slightly as a share of overall government spending since 2006.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Do I have 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

You have 30 seconds.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Actually, I have a small pitch to make for future planning. When I was first elected there was a program for members of Parliament where, over the course of the summer, they could go out for a week with either the air force, the army, or the navy. As a result of the budget restraints, that program was done away with. I would encourage you to consider reinstating that in the years ahead, now that we're moving forward.