National Defence Committee on April 15th, 2024

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

Thank you, but my question was more about the next two years.To clarify, I'd like to come back to the CDA Institute report, which talked about Vote 1 and Vote 5. Do we not feel that, for the next two years, we will be taking money from operations and maintenance expenses to support major equipment acquisitions and capacity increases? Isn't that just a transfer between the two votes, ultimately, for the next two years?

[Bill Matthews]

I'd say it's more an exercise in making sure that the money the department spends is better targeted.

It's targeted to the most valuable areas possible in terms of maximizing readiness. When we look at the exercise to reallocate well on onboarding new projects, we want to protect readiness at all costs. Certainly, there are things that get spent on in operational dollars that is critical money to maintain the fleets, etc. We want to protect readiness as we work through the exercise to reduce or reallocate funding, as the government has directed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Normandin.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you.

It was briefly touched on with the minister—actually, not so briefly—in terms of the Arctic infrastructure for dual-use projects. Operation Nanook has regularly used Cambridge Bay as a regional hub in Nunavut. The minister spoke about the paving and expansion of those runways.

When will the government commit to investing in that specific upgrade of the airway, as it's much needed for dual use to ensure that the skyrocketing cost of food in Nunavut is helped by landing larger planes?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I have been stuck in Cambridge Bay as a snowstorm came in. That runway closed down, and I was stuck in a tent—that's another war story.

However, what we're about to embark on as a result of this policy update is a northern-facing strategy. As we take a look at these northern operational support hubs, where do we need to strategically place those so that we can maintain a persistent presence—not a permanent presence but a persistent presence—in the north based on what the threat is and what the activity is that's ongoing?

These northern operational support hubs will consist of improved runways, infrastructure, roads and telecommunications developed in partnership with local communities so that it becomes a win-win, and also in partnership with NORAD. Indeed, we're hosting the commander of NORAD here over the next couple of days to discuss the integration of continental defence, the NORAD enterprise and what we're doing. That work is going to continue over the next little while to determine where those northern operational support hubs are required.

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

One of the pieces that's quite large and that, again, the minister referred to.... The update refers to the importance of rangers. One of the things rangers have been asking for, for quite some time, is an increase to the equipment-usage rate, especially that it be indexed immediately to inflation. These folks are paying out of pocket for equipment—snowmobiles, for example—and they don't receive that reimbursement for into a year after they've purchased it.

When can they expect that increase?

[Bill Matthews]

Maybe I will start, and then I'll see if the chief of the defence staff and Pete want to add anything.

What we have done is adjust the process to make sure that the reimbursements to rangers are happening more quickly, because we do acknowledge that the time delay, the processing time it was taking, was not helpful. There have been changes made to accelerate that process.

In terms of actual changes to the rates of reimbursement, I'm not sure if one of my colleagues has an answer or not.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I just checked my notes, and I have an answer for you.

There's a new non-taxable compensation and benefits instruction to compensate the Canadian Rangers for usage of personally owned equipment that was put in place on August 1 of last year. This provides for the compensation to rangers for the normal wear and tear of their personally owned equipment—think ATVs, snowmobiles, etc.—when participating in military operations, training or exercises.

We're also in the process of streamlining the claims procedure for losses and damages to that same equipment, including a delegation of authority to more rapidly process and approve those claims. The aim is to expedite what they're asking for.

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

We've recently completed a study on the rise of operational deployments. We heard that the majority of CAF deployments are now, of course, being used to fight climate change and climate catastrophes. There wasn't a lot in the defence update that touched on those domestic deployments. There wasn't mention of new initiatives or new training programs or so on, new equipment to combat wildfires in particular.

Can you explain what's being done to fill that gap on the domestic deployments piece?

[Peter Hammerschmidt]

There are no specific initiatives to deal just purely with that role of the Canadian Armed Forces, but as you will have seen in the update, there's a series of initiatives to ensure improvements and increases in the overall readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces. Obviously, for deployments, it takes training, people, infrastructure and equipment. There are major investments that are laid out in the policy to make those investments, to do that maintenance and sustainment of equipment, to increase the size of the forces and to invest in infrastructure across the country to allow the military to be more capable of responding—a general increase in the overall responsiveness of the military, including through new capabilities like the tactical helicopter replacement.

There are a range of initiatives that will address readiness writ large, which will have the consequence of addressing improving the readiness of the CAF to be able to respond to fires and natural disasters.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 20 seconds, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I can bank it again, maybe.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have a savings account going.

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

New Democrats are good at that, and no one seems to acknowledge it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Kelly, you have five minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

This question is probably for Mr. Matthews, although if other witnesses want to chime in, that's fine.

In part III of the policy, in bold at the top of page 19, it says, “We will establish a Canadian Armed Forces Housing Strategy, rehabilitate existing housing and build new housing”. Now, setting aside whether or not establishing this strategy is a new policy—if it is a new policy, that suggests there was no strategy before, which would be troubling—if you go to the index, there's virtually no money in this new policy, zero dollars this year and zero dollars next year, under “Housing for Canadian Armed Forces Personnel”. Under “Maintaining and Renewing National Defence Infrastructure”, there's zero this year and $103 million next year.

How is this an actual policy update when it contains no measurable outcomes and no money, or nominal money, and is just a statement that says there will be a housing strategy? Could you explain how this policy will get our troops lodged? We have personnel in tents. We have a 6,000-unit backlog. We have people leaving the forces because of housing. We have a recruitment and a retention crisis. We are 16,000 personnel short.

I don't see anything in this policy statement that will solve any of that.

[Bill Matthews]

I will start with the housing, but the wrap-up to that question actually touched on some other elements, including recruiting and retention, that I will leave some time for my colleague to maybe touch on.

On the housing front, as the minister had indicated, there's a broader set of issues happening on housing, because there are two solution sets here. One is housing provided by the military for its members. The second is to “live on the economy”, as they say, or house yourself on market economy. There has been a series of compensation measures to reimburse those, depending on the market they are in, who choose to live off base. We're also investing already in rehabilitating existing housing, which in some cases needs a refresh, but we are also building new. The plan is for 650 units over the next five years.

In the strategy, I think the important piece, and General Eyre touched on this, is looking at new ways to possibly partner with others to build housing more rapidly. That's the part that is to come, but there is still continued investment planning.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

So it's not an actual policy. It's an aspiration to some day have a policy.

If I may, I will stop you on that number for new housing: 600 units over five years will not fix the backlog. On the existing budget, the budget for prolonging the life of existing housing—we had testimony on this—would seem to be inadequate. Barracks housing, which Mrs. Gallant talked about, is a separate issue from the rest of the housing that we've talked about, but we've heard of deplorable conditions in some barracks as well as other workspaces in some buildings. I can see the chief of the defence staff nodding on this point.

Where is the actual plan and policy to fix these problems that are driving people out of the forces?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Let me go back to the strategy for a second and to why this is so important. We need this in place so that we have a view on housing that will take us into the future as we bring in the units and the capabilities that we see articulated in this policy.

If we go back in time to the end of the Cold War, when we demolished or sold off thousands of housing units, arguably that was the peace dividend being cashed in, which we have done numerous times over the course of the last 30 years. We have to be thinking ahead on what units we need, what capabilities we need, where new people will be going, on-base and off-base housing, and what incentives and benefits are required for off-base housing as well, to assist members who want to live on the economy. It has to be a holistic strategy from that perspective. That is the long term.

On the short term, I agree with you. We have a short-term housing challenge right now. We need to repair and upgrade single and residential housing units as quickly as possible.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

There are zero dollars in the next two years in this update on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly, for the editorial comments.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

It's true. It's like zero.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Lalonde, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to acknowledge always and thank our men and women in uniform who are serving.

I had the great pleasure this weekend of attending my first ball, which was an event to remember. I want to also commend the entire organization that created this wonderful environment where we recognized four individuals for their service. I want to start by saying that and by thanking you all for being here today.

We know defence spending fell below 1% in 2014. I think the minister made that reference. In 2017, we brought forward a policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, which we call SSE—that's the most common use of it. Now as we are here today, we're talking about an update of the policy, which we're calling “Our North, Strong and Free”.

There was reference made along the way about some of the language of “explore” and “looking at”. Sometimes I feel—and I don't want to undermine the work—that what we aspire to is almost like a shopping list. We want things. We absolutely need to ensure the readiness and preparedness of our forces.

I had the pleasure of touring a few military bases in my role as parliamentary secretary. I certainly appreciate the effort that is made under this current policy because I think it does reflect more than an aspiration, which is where the opposition is trying to steer this conversation. This is more concrete actions, from which we're going to be seeing the benefits.

I want to talk, though, and hear from you about the commitments that were made under our existing policy—the 2017 SSE—as we continue to deliver the equipment and the tools that our CAF members need now, and as we begin, at the same time, to transition into the real work of the new technologies that may be needed.

I would certainly appreciate hearing from all of you today.

[Bill Matthews]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I will start.

Number one, the projects that were already launched under SSE still hold. That work is continuing. On the capital side, just over 50% of those projects are either closed out or are in close-out. We can provide a list of project updates if that's helpful. What I would say from a dollars perspective, though, is that many of the capital projects that are the most expensive ones—think about shipbuilding and about F-35s—come towards the end of the 20-year policy, so those projects continue.

We have in the defence policy update some additional projects that have been added on and funded, and some others where “explore” is the word that has been used. Submarines are a favourite example, but there's also ground-based air defence. The range of possibilities is quite large, so there's some work to do to articulate what is needed and to develop some options. That work will now start in earnest as well.

Pete or General, would you like to add?