Evidence of meeting #77 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tool.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Do you know if the United Kingdom has a similar process?
4:45 p.m.
Advisor-Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It does not exist as far as I know.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you for coming, Mr. Giroux.
I would also like to thank the members of your team who are here today, Mr. Penney and Mr. Solomon.
I'd like to ask a few questions about some of your answers.
To begin, am I correct in saying that you copied an American tool to build your Canadian tool?
4:45 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We used the American classification to determine what was direct, indirect and overhead. We did indeed draw upon what the United States had done to draw up our classification system and build our tool.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Okay.
I'm going to return to one of these questions.
As you mentioned, there are 21 capabilities that are being used in these tools. One of my colleagues did mention that the Canadian Forces intelligence command was not considered. I think, this week particularly, we saw its importance within the framework of what's happening internationally.
Is there a reason we did not use this part of this tool?
4:45 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It was considered, but we have some limitations when it comes to using information for public consumption and it's classified. It was considered, but we understand that DND was not very comfortable with our disclosing that level of detailed information.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I appreciate that answer, actually.
Very quickly, we've been asking a lot of questions. This is new. It's a new tool. You were mentioning that it is popular. I'm just wondering if that was something that parliamentarians asked you to initiate, or senators or DND itself?
What are the target audiences and the intended outcomes? I would really like to know that.
Also, regarding the maintenance of the tool, who's going to do this?
4:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It's something that was not specifically asked for. I don't remember one parliamentarian asking me to develop this specific tool, but it's something that was of keen interest to many parliamentarians in both chambers: “What would it cost to increase this, decrease that, modify this or add that many CF personnel in this area?” It's the result of many questions that were asked of my office and my predecessors over the years. That's the genesis of this report.
It's intended for parliamentarians, like all that we do, first and foremost—MPs and senators and those who are courageous enough to support them—but also for Canadians. What we do is always available to the public, but, first and foremost, it's for parliamentarians.
The cost to maintain it should be minimal because our office runs a lean operation. As I mentioned before, the cost to maintain it, aside from hosting it on our website, is updating it, which should be done with existing resources in our office.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I'm just curious. Quickly, because of my time, is there flexibility in adjusting based on information that people or other parliamentarians may want to have available in that way? Is there flexibility within this tool to modify it?
4:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We always aim to provide parliamentarians with information and analysis that is useful for them but also accurate. If there are suggestions from parliamentarians, we are very happy to take that into consideration and adjust as necessary to meet their needs.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
That's great. I am going to ask, just in case, if one of my colleagues wants to ask anything. Are we good?
Then, can I continue?
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I understand that your model factored in data from the past six years. I would imagine that's because you wanted to be up‑to‑date and represent what's happening now.
Could you tell us more about having taken attrition in the forces into account. We know that this can have an impact on certain contracts for various reasons, such as subcontracts being required for maintenance.
I'd like to know the extent to which going back as far as six years might muddy the waters. But then attrition may not really be having an impact on the situation, because it's not that recent.
I'd like to hear your general view of this.
4:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Your question is really about the accuracy of the model. We use historical data, of course. We go back six years, as you mentioned, to keep it current. That means it reflects the status of the Canadian Armed Forces over these past six years.
Does attrition muddy the waters? I would say no, not really. As I mentioned, the model is based on recent years, and there are plans to use it to project the situation into the next few years.
We don't expect any major reversal in terms of attrition in the Canadian Armed Forces over such a short period. That's why I'm suggesting that the model be used for short-term rather than long-term forecasts.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
For comparison purposes, given that the exercise was carried out with a view to developing a model, would it be relevant to go back in time to see what the various ratios were 10, 15 or 20 years ago? That might provide a basis for comparison with today's numbers. Would it be possible to do this without spending too much time and energy on it?
4:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It would certainly be possible, but I'm sure my colleagues to the left and right of me would, if I said I was going to do that, either fight me or quickly leave the room.
An undertaking like that would be very onerous in terms of time and resources.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Canadian Armed Forces has its own unique national health care jurisdiction. I'm aware that this committee just completed a study that I think is going to include a lot of different recommendations on how to improve and expand the coverage for CAF personnel and their families. A model like this could be really helpful to understanding the impact of the different recommendations to the Canadian Forces health services and other aspects of the military health care system.
I guess what I would like to know is how the model could be used for studying reforms to health care in the Canadian Armed Forces. I know that in some areas we are dealing with structural deficits, especially in some professions like mental health care providers. These would be personnel on the base, but it could also be the infrastructure used to support them. Again, does this factor into the personnel costs and so on? Can you delve into that for me, please?
4:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
The model is intended to look at what happens to the number of personnel, as well as the expenditures, if you change some of the military capabilities. If the government is looking at changing the system or the delivery system or model, or the package of health care coverage for CAF personnel, then the model is not the appropriate tool to look at that and consider the best approach. It's intended to focus on changes to military capabilities, as opposed to being used for accessory or indirect costs such as health care for Canadian Armed Forces personnel.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
If you are a service member.... My father used to be a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. He was a base doctor. Of course, we have many nurses who serve in the forces as well, and sometimes you have mental health care providers who are civilian employees of DND. Are they all considered to be in the indirect category in support of direct action?
4:55 p.m.
Advisor-Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
There would be some in the indirect category but also in overhead.
