National Defence Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

As far as the long term is concerned, Canada has reiterated its promise to have a rapid response force of 200 people, but is giving itself until 2026 to get there.

Is that realistic?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

I think the force you refer to is the quick-reaction force. I think it's important to note that a quick-reaction force.... If you want put 200 troops on the ground, you have to have everything that goes with that to ensure that the force is set up for success, whether it's for intelligence, medical evacuation, sustainment or fires, or to be able to extract. A quick-reaction force is only used when a situation goes downhill, so it has to be prepared to fight.

It's a much larger force total than just 200, so we have to be very judicious about where we would put that type of force and understanding the risks that go along with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I have so many questions.

In terms of that hit on transparency and ensuring that the department is doing the best it can, it was recently reported that the number of “no records exist” responses to access to information requests for the Department of National Defence has doubled in the last eight years. There are a lot of historical cases of mismanagement of the ATIP requests at National Defence, including, of course, the trial of Mark Norman in 2018, where there were intentional circumventions of ATIP.

I'd like to know if we're going to see, or why we haven't seen, more reforms within the ATIP regulations of the department in terms of transparency.

[Bill Matthews]

I have a couple of points here.

I expect that people picture an access to information function where it's one person or one team who has access to all the information. However, the reality is that, when the request comes in, it goes to the ATIP office and it gets dispersed for the people who are relevant to search their own records. The people who work in our ATIP office are effectively just the transmitters of what comes back.

The key for us is to remind people of the obligations to safeguard and protect relevant emails and documentation. I think that it's particularly challenging on the military side because people move around. That hygiene becomes more challenging when people change jobs. It's part of cleaning up, but it takes time and effort. It's a matter of reminding people of the obligation.

At the end of the day, when the search happens, we are reporting what the search found. I acknowledge that there are cases where the records were incomplete.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Ultimately, the defence department has always had a higher level of security. That's always been the case. Therefore, why has that increased—more than doubled—in the last eight years? Are you saying that it's because people move around more?

[Bill Matthews]

No, it may be for a number of factors. I can't give you a really good answer without speculating. ATIP volumes have increased exponentially, so the pressure on the people who do this type of function has certainly gone up. It may be a matter of less time to spend on these things and of feeling rushed.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Should there be more people doing that job? Would that be helpful?

[Bill Matthews]

Life would be easier if there were more people doing that job, but like we've already discussed here today, it becomes a question of where you put your priorities. It's military readiness versus ATIP versus support for families. Those are some very tough discussions that we are having.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Bezan, you have five minutes.

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

I don't think we need a lot of excuses on ATIP. Part of a democracy is transparency, so access to that information and sharing it with Canadians is critically important. I'm hoping that the department and the CAF are addressing this in the most serious manner because the external monitor and others have really been critical of National Defence's getting back on ATIPs, including getting Order Paper questions back to us as parliamentarians. If we're going to have a fully functional democracy, that information is critical.

I'm going to go back to the CANFORGENS memo that both you, Mr. Matthews, and you, General Eyre, put out about expenditure reductions in the department. You're saying that it's a billion dollars. We already know that $2.5 billion lapsed in the budget last year. We know that the government allowed $1.2 billion to lapse in the budget the year before that. Now we're going to cut it back by another billion dollars. The PBO just came out with his report and said that there is too much tail and not enough teeth in the Canadian Armed Forces, and that only 31% of every dollar actually goes into military effect.

What are we going to do to make sure that we have more teeth and less tail and that we keep the sharp end of the stick? You know, when you talk about where our troop numbers are at, you're saying that there are 10,500 in the queue getting trained. We're short just shy of 16,000 members. I'm hearing from reservists that they aren't getting their skills in their trades, that they're not getting trained up fast enough. They're years behind, not months behind.

What's going to give here on a billion dollars this year, and how are we going to deal with the threat environment that we're in if we're going to continue to cut rather than invest in our Canadian Armed Forces?

[Bill Matthews]

I'll start, Mr. Chair. I suspect General Eyre will jump in as well.

The process to identify proposals for spending reductions will lead to, as the chief said, $900 million and change, and ramp up over four years. We have to prioritize those decisions so that they have the smallest impact possible, acknowledging there will be impacts.

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

Is it going to come out of the bureaucracy, or is it going to be coming out of the forces?

[Bill Matthews]

The decisions have not yet been taken, but minimizing the impact on military readiness has to be a driving force behind the decision. That process is still under way, so I can't offer you more there.

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

I sure hope we're not going to hear stories of how we can't afford to put the fuel in the tanks to train our guys in armour, how we're not going to be able to put diesel in the ships that have the navy out there and training, or how we can't afford to do maintenance on our tanks so they're going to continue to sit in the depot with nobody taking a look at them.

I say we have to make sure that we continue to move forward in training and operations and get everybody up to skill.

Talking about cybersecurity and the world that's there...and this is for both Madam Xavier and the CDS, and also DND. When you look at what's happening with the Five Eyes and with AUKUS and that second tier in their development, we know they're looking at AWS for cloud computing and storage, and we know we're looking at more quantum computing. The cybersecurity aspect is critical. Interoperability with our allies—particularly with the Americans but also within Five Eyes—is key.

What are we doing and how are we moving more quickly so that our allies are taking us seriously?

[Caroline Xavier, Chief, Communications Security Establishment]

Thank you for the questions.

I would say the alliance we have with the Five Eyes, especially from the Communications Security Establishment, is rock solid.

Interoperability, from that perspective, is a big part of the foundation of how we work with the Five Eyes. Because we share signals intelligence, for example, it is really important that, when we do that work together, that delay in being able to share data or share intelligence is not the rationale. Interoperability is a very foundational element that we discuss on a regular basis and that we invest in as a Five Eyes member, including in the cloud-based space that you're talking about.

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

I have only about 30 seconds left. I just want to touch on housing, because it has come up a number of times that this is an issue we have to deal with, and I want this committee to deal with it.

I've tabled this motion in the past, so I want to move it right now. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the lack of housing availability on or near bases for Canadian Armed Forces members and the challenges facing members required to move across the country.

That the committee shall hold a minimum of 4 meetings for the duration of the study; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. You time is up.

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

I have a motion on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have a motion on the floor.

I'm assuming you don't want to debate it now.

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

No. I moved it. It's moved. The notice was given last week.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

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

I'll just say this. I know from comments made by witnesses today, including Minister Blair, that housing is an issue they want to address. This is an open-ended, non-prescriptive way to look at housing so that we can actually dive in and have the Canadian Forces housing authority and other potential housing partners talk about how we move forward to address this issue.

I don't see this as being a partisan issue. I see this as one that can help inform the department, as well as us, as parliamentarians, on the best way forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Mr. May.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you.