Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #122 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #122 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Fuhr.
Mr. Finn, I just want to go back to a comment you made that you were going to start a new centre of excellence here in Ottawa.
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence
Yes, sir. This is unrelated in the context that it's not just fighters. We have an aerospace engineering test establishment in Cold Lake. It's been there for decades, but the way it operates has changed quite significantly. This is something we've had under way for some time.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence
We are moving it out of Cold Lake.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence
It is part of the process we have gone through.
Just to be clear, sir, we're not pulling everybody out of Cold Lake.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, but you're pulling a centre of excellence out of Cold Lake. I mean, a lot of things have been pulled out of Alberta in the last little while. Any time anything is pulled out of Alberta, whether it's immigration centres or anything....
Let me tell you that Cold Lake is the centre of our air force in Alberta. We recognize it. The community depends on it.
When was that decision made?
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence
It was over a number of years. Gradually it was made and presented to our minister.
What happened over time was that the work done in Cold Lake became increasingly the administrative headquarters for this kind of effort, which is now done around the world. We used to bring the aircraft to Cold Lake and have all the tests and evaluations done there. Now we largely recertify the pilots.
For years and years and years now, we've had, for example, for the Cyclone helicopter, the test pilots and the test team co-located with the suppliers. That's the modern way it's largely done. This kind of recognizes that. Transport Canada and others are doing similar work. This is the trend we've been on. As far as our sustainment initiative, we've had this work under way for a number of years. We've brought it incrementally forward to our minister and have communicated with local MPs, local MLAs, to indicate our intent here.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence
Up in Cold Lake.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC
Thank you very much.
I'd like to continue on with what Mr. Christopherson was talking about in terms of the $1.2 billion.
From the way you explained it, Mr. Finn, I understand that's for the increase in operational serviceability and maintenance costs to maintain the fleet, but that's for the 76 aircraft. Have you included the additional Australian aircraft in that?
Second, because the decision on upgrades hasn't been made, are you also saying that at no point the Department of National Defence costed any of the possible or potential upgrades to the F-18s?
December 3rd, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence
On the first question, as I indicated, the $470 million we've approved for the additional Australian aircraft includes the upgrades, certain interoperability and other aspects that would be included. In the overall $3 billion, and that's where we go from the $1.2 million to the $3 million, it includes bringing in 94 aircraft on an incremental cost perspective all the way to 2032. It's not all of them in 2032, but we have a glide path from 2026 on. That focuses on the interoperability upgrades, the additional maintenance, the spares—all of those aspects.
We've learned over time, as we did “Strong, Secure, Engaged” and as we've seen repeatedly in the budgeting for major capital projects and things of that nature, that early costs lack fidelity. We're not sure what they're doing. They could be made public. People ask about them, and then we find ourselves entrenched in this position where we've come up with a number with really incomplete information.
As with all departments, we now have a chief financial officer model. He is accountable for those numbers. He attests to those numbers. There are certain things we're doing in the incremental upgrades that we cost as they get ready to be approved and go forward, but in the broadest sense, without fully understanding what will be the path forward, whether it will include radars, what it will be, those things have not been costed.
4:50 p.m.
Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC
Again, radars have been costed, but you haven't supplied them. What other combat-capable upgrades that could potentially be deemed necessary has the air force and your department....
I've worked in aerospace equipment program management for many years. I know you do scenarios. What other scenarios have been costed for the CF-18 combat-capable upgrades?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence
We've moved away from that model, that process we used to do within the materiel group of that time, doing scenarios and developing our own costs. We now have the chief financial officer model, and he's responsible for it.
Within “Strong, Secure, Engaged” there are some projects that are listed and costed. Short-range missiles and some other specific things have been looked at, have been prioritized, have been costed and are available in our public investment plan.
4:50 p.m.
Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC
Could I ask you to please table any Department of National Defence combat-capable upgrades to the CF-18s that have been costed, and to also advise this committee if the information has been provided to the government and to the defence or finance committees, because ultimately governments can make informed decisions on what something will cost only if they get that information from the experts.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
Ms. Thomas, it looks as though you're wanting in on this as well—briefly, please.
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence
As we've stated, we have a project under way. Until the chief of defence staff has been briefed and I've been briefed on the cost, the timelines and the expectations of the project, and the chief of defence staff has been able to give military advice to the minister, we won't be talking about these projects publicly. There is a process we have to go through internally before we're public with them.
We have not yet briefed our minister, and I think it is only responsible of us and fair that we brief him before we table things publicly.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I have a point of order.
We do not accept that we cannot have information at committee and at Parliament. It's in the Constitution. I've been through this many times. However, the exception is always security, so what I would ask, Chair, is that you, or this committee as a whole, take whatever steps necessary to find out what process would be acceptable for us to receive the answer.
I want to thank my colleague. She drilled down excellently and took what I was raising even further. But to hear somebody say, for whatever reason—understand the Constitution—that a parliamentary committee cannot be told, “You can't have information”.
Now, since we're dealing with security and defence, this could possibly and may likely be one of those exceptions. In that case, we've put together procedures that both respect the security and the right of this committee, but a unilateral declaration by a deputy or anybody that a parliamentary committee cannot have information is unacceptable. There needs to be one more step to pursue this so that the question, which is entirely legitimate in my opinion, can be answered in a way that respects the security and defence issues but also upholds the right of Parliament to demand any information they so choose.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
You're 100% correct, Mr. Christopherson.
We will hopefully be able to get the answer to that or the reason around your hesitancy. Maybe it means that you're going to tell the minister fairly soon and then we will get the information, but Mr. Christopherson has chaired this committee for a long time and he's correct in all of the parameters around it—unless it is security.
Ms. Alleslev, I think you still have—
4:55 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I ruled that it was a point of order. I accept it as a point of order, but we will get something back in regard to it.
Ms. Alleslev.
4:55 p.m.
Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC
Again, just to be clear, Chair, we're looking for the research and the scenarios, not the project or the recommendation going to the minister. We're looking for the information so that we have an idea of the order of magnitude of what the possible scenarios might be, just so we know whether we're looking at $10 billion or $20 billion on 40-year-old airplanes.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative