Debates of May 16th, 2016

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, aid to civil authority is one of those core mandates of the defence department which, once something happens we want them there, but the rest of the time they are not as visible, if you will, as expeditionary missions and things of that nature.

In light of the call-out of the military to Fort McMurray, I wonder whether the minister could comment on two things: one, the aid to civil authority which is a core mission; and two, the role of reservists in aid to civil authority.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, one of our fundamental responsibilities in the military is the security of Canadians, whether that is directly from a counterterrorism role, to domestic operations, whether the threat may be from floods or from fires. The military is well suited for this and as part of the defence review we will be looking at ways to improve our response as we move forward. I was very pleased with the work that was done in Fort McMurray in response. I recently visited our troops to thank them for that.

Our reserves play a critical role in this. The various reserve brigades across Canada have the territory of battalion groups and within that they have various companies that can respond to these efforts. They have the ability to respond and they work alongside the regular force members on numerous occasions. We will make sure that they also have the right capabilities as we move to the future.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister will know that after an intense election and after an intense debate here, the mission in the Middle East has been refocused since the debate was concluded on March 8. I wonder whether the hon. minister can give the committee an update on what has happened since March 8.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have been working diligently to get the right forces into theatre. We put our intelligence capability into theatre. I was speaking with the deputy commander of the coalition just last week in Germany, and he was extremely happy about that. Our coalition partners are extremely happy with the intelligence capability. They are also very happy with our force flow that will be coming into the area to train the right ethnic mix of Iraqi security forces. This is a critical point. This is not about training Iraqi security forces; it is about taking responsibility to train the right group to take the right city. I would be happy to explain that at a later time.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Chair, would the minister explain what he was just about to explain?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, what I was going to explain and also answer the hon. member across the floor is understanding conflict. We have developed some great lessons. What we discuss now are the complexities of the conflict and the sectarian violence that has happened. What we are doing now is making sure that we are taking responsibility for the north to be able to train the right forces for the eventual defeat of ISIL as our coalition partners take the responsibility for other ethnic groups.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, I am going to start with a brief statement and then go to questions for the minister.

I want to start, like all members of Parliament, by thanking the Canadian Forces for the job they do every day in keeping us safe, and also the civilian employees who often get left out of these debates but who make the functioning of the forces possible, and of course, the families of both, who make all of this possible with the sacrifices they make.

I also want to thank the minister for his initiatives in reaching out to members across the aisle and making himself accessible and the bases accessible. It is a refreshing change in the new Parliament and I thank him personally for doing so.

There are some other things I might not thank him for. The government appears to be continuing with some of the things that the Conservatives did. The main theme is asking the Canadian military to do more with less. We know that the dollars provided in the budget actually are not increases. They do not come near keeping pace with the inflation rate in military expenditures, and we know that there are going to have to be some cuts made somewhere in the Canadian military. I guess we will see those later.

Of most concern to me is the reprofiling, as the government likes to call it, whether it was a Conservative government or a Liberal government, of the capital expenditures. We are now to the place where $10.4 billion in expenditures have been put off beyond the next election.

Is the Minister of National Defence convinced that we have enough life left in our F-18s, our frigates, and our long-range patrol aircraft to keep the Canadian military fully functional while we wait for these important procurement decisions to be made and while we look for the money, since it has been put off to an indefinite future?

The classic way to extend the life of military equipment is to reduce the hours. Are we facing an air force that is going to have to reduce its flying hours and a navy that is going to have to reduce its time at sea because of these delays in procurement?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, there are significant challenges that we face in terms of capability now. The joint supply ships are going to be coming online. We have a capability gap right now in how we supply our navy. That is one of the reasons we moved very quickly with the interim AOR and getting that announced very quickly.

We have challenges that are coming up, but I can assure the member that our government is committed to making sure that we move very quickly to replace our F-18s. Also, we are committed to the national shipbuilding strategy, so that we can bring our ships online as quickly as possible.

The defence review will give us a great opportunity to look at any other potential challenges we might face. The member should rest assured that our government is committed to ensuring that our men and women have the right capabilities and my immediate goal is to alleviate some of these capability gaps.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, that leads to my next question. The biggest surprise for me in the defence review was the fact that it puts on the table another potential decision that requires both operating money and capital money at a time when both are very scarce. That is reopening the question of participation in the U.S. missile defence scheme, I guess I will call it.

Given the pressing need for capital and operating expenditures from ships to jets, to new trucks, to north warning, all of these things we need to do, why would the government put on the table another very expensive capital and operating project?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, it is important as part of the defence review that we have as wide a discussion as possible. There are many discussions we will have as part of the defence review and ballistic missile defence is one of them. It is important for Canadians to understand all aspects of the threats that we face. It is important that we look at all factors and potential capabilities that are out there.

No decision has been made. That is what the defence review is about. We will have a thorough discussion down the road and we will make a decision accordingly.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, if we listen carefully to the minister and Liberal members on the defence committee, the government seems very enthusiastic about getting to yes on this question, so I will ask again. Why would we reopen this question when the defence committee heard very clearly in Colorado Springs that there has been no request from the United States for Canada to join the ballistic missile defence system?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, one of the reasons it was very important for the defence committee to go to NORAD was for them to have the same information that I have. As defence minister, I look at all of the threats out there and we need to look at all of the capabilities. It is important for us to have this discussion and that is what we will do. We will have a discussion and we will make a decision down the road.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, when the defence committee was down at NORAD headquarters, we were briefed on the meagre success rate, I would call it, of the U.S. missile defence system. It is public knowledge that only four of its eight tests were successful, and in those tests it actually knew where the missiles were coming from and what trajectory they were on and it still only managed to hit 50%.

We are looking at participating in something that might cost us an enormous amount of money, and we are investing really in a system that clearly does not work.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, I am happy to have those kinds of discussions in a more closed forum, so we can discuss some of the sensitive information. That is what this is about. It is about making sure that we do have the information.

The committee's visit to NORAD was so that all members could have the information that I also receive as well.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, we have heard repeatedly in committee from both military witnesses and civilian experts that Canada faces no imminent threat from ballistic missiles. It seems to me that, when we have many other major questions that we need to be discussing, this is some kind of diversion for us to spend a lot of our efforts on the defence review, on something that addresses a threat that does not really exist to Canada at this time.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, we do face threats. We just heard on the news about the sabre-rattling from North Korea. That is a significant threat.

As time goes on, technology does get easier. As part of the defence review, we are not just looking at it now. We are looking at where technology can take us 10 to 20 years from now. This is one of the reasons why we need to have a thorough discussion as part of the defence review.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, there is a bigger concern for me, apart from the specifics of a non-working, very expensive system in which Canada would have no voice in its command, and that is the impact it would have on the larger arms race around the world. It is certainly true that building bigger and better BMD systems can only lead other nations like Russia and China to try to increase their offensive capabilities. Canada, by even opening this door, provides some leverage for those who would like to get into a large arms race.

So, again, has the minister really considered the impact of opening this door in terms of Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence? Would it not have been better to consider whether we could not do something multilaterally to try to reduce this arms race rather than promote it?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, we are having the discussions. For example, in NATO we are talking about deterrents. We are looking at NORAD modernization, updating our radar. There are many aspects. This is just one discussion. I am happy to discuss BMD, but what I am really looking forward to is actually having a discussion with some of the experts on this. I want feedback.

We are looking at many different aspects from an Arctic perspective, not just from a defence perspective. Our government is going to do far more up in the north. Replacing our fighters will be part of this, and our frigates.

There are many aspects when we look at the defence of Canada. It is far more than just DND.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, when the defence committee was in discussions with NATO commander Admiral Gortney, who was the commander until last Friday, he took a lot of us by surprise by suggesting that NORAD was working on a proposal that would see folding sea, maritime, and land defence into the NATO command and establishing a joint command for the defence of North America.

I asked him very clearly if this was unclassified, if I was able to make this public, and he said yes. He said that the proposal will come forward to the Permanent Joint Board on Defence at its next meeting.

Given that one of the options in that proposal being considered is to turn over the defence of Canada to a U.S. command, will the minister assure us now that he will not take part in any such plan to turn over Canada's sovereignty and its defence to an American general?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, Canada will always maintain its sovereignty. Within our context with NORAD, this is a unique relationship that we have. It is the only one of its kind in the world. It is a binational command. We should be proud of the fact that we do have this.

I was fortunate to attend the change of command ceremony when the first female combat commander took command, General Lori Robinson.

Canadians can be extremely proud of our relationship in NORAD, because it is a unique relationship and one that is not replicated anywhere else in the world.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, I thank the minister for that answer. I still remain concerned that there seems to be more cheerleading in the discussion on ballistic missile defence on the other side, but that I guess remains to be seen.

I want to turn to some issues that come up frequently in my riding with regard to defence. One of those is the rollover of civilian contracts. Up till 2011, there was a practice with civilian employees that, if they were in a temporary contract for three years, they could be rolled over into a permanent position after that time. The Conservatives stopped that practice as a cost-saving measure. I do not think they really considered the negative impacts in terms of morale, staff relations, staff retention, or the fact that any savings they got were at the expense of families by taking away security of employment for those families.

Therefore, my question for the minister is this. Will he look at reversing that policy and returning to the policy where, if people have been in something called a temporary position for a number of years, we finally admit that it is a permanent position and give those employees the security they need?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, we have started converting three-year terms to full time. However, when it comes to looking at the overall, as the member said, we have to look at the efficiency of the Canadian Armed Forces. As part of the defence review, we will be discussing how service is best delivered.

We need to be cognizant that, at the end of the day, significant cuts have been made to our support in the past. We need to have the right balance, because we can have the best teeth in the world, in a manner of speaking, but we need to make sure that the support is also there for our men and women. We are going to be looking quite aggressively at the support mechanism for the Canadian Armed Forces as well.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, that raises the next question I have for the minister, and that is regarding support service contracts. Under the Conservatives, we saw a tendency to privatize more and more of what one might call the maintenance functions of essential services within the Canadian military. That was quite often done without considering its impact on the safety of those workers involved in the workplace, but also the safety and security of Canada as we bring more and more private contractors on to our bases.

Others, like the U.K., went way down this road and now they are spending billions of dollars to roll this back, as they found it did not actually save them money, and it did cause those health and safety problems, as well as security problems, on the bases.

Therefore, as we are acquiring lots of new equipment, there is work that sometimes euphemistically is called warranty work, which is really maintenance work. I would like an assurance from the minister that he will make sure that Canadian Forces keep our own independent ability to maintain that new equipment we buy, so that we remain independent of any company that might go bankrupt or have other priorities. We really can repair our own ships and our own planes and keep the Canadian Forces working with our own Canadian Forces employees.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, the member raised some good points. We do need to ensure that our planes and all our equipment are maintained. However, at this time it would be premature for me to make any commitments. As part of the defence review, we will be looking at many different aspects of service delivery.

However, rest assured that this is something I am spending a considerable amount of effort on, making sure that the support mechanisms are there for all our equipment. I think we can all agree that it should be done in a manner that makes sure our men and women have the right capabilities; and this capability they use has to be maintained. It has to be done in an efficient manner that is also not as costly, because any dollars we put to this is money that is taken away from their wellness or their training.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Chair, I thought I might take a crack at military economics 101, which might be close to the most boring speech ever delivered on the floor of the House of Commons, ever. My hon. colleagues are already agreeing that this might be a boring speech, so I will not be offended, Madam Chair, if you nod off.

However, Madam Chair, before you do hit the snooze button, I would just remind you that over the last six months we have had a very busy minister, a very busy department, and a very active re-engagement with the world. We have refocused our mission on ISIL. We have processed well over 25,000 refugees, in which the Department of National Defence played a significant role. We have launched a consultation on defence policy review for the first time in 20 years. We have provided assistance with the wildfires in Alberta. All of these, in and of themselves, would be significant undertakings, but they were all done by our very capable minister and our very capable department simultaneously.

The first thing we notice when we look at the budget of the Department of National Defence is its size. It is $18.6 billion, which accounts about 6.6% of the entire federal government's revenues, 1% of our national GDP. It sounds like a lot of money, but that is only because it is. Some have described it as a small province. It has its own health care system; it has its own justice system; it has its own unique language; and it has its own culture. In fact, the budget for the Department of National Defence is larger than all of the provinces except four in our country.

Canadians expect a lot from their military; we are just not overly fond of paying for it. However, like any good restaurant meal, somebody has to pick up the cheque. So for $18 billion to $20 billion, we expect a navy, an army, an air force, cybersecurity, assistance to civil authority; we expect the defence of Canadian sovereignty; we expect a North American defence; and we expect participation in expeditionary missions as they arise from time to time; and may I say, a whole lot more.

With more than 90,000 regular forces members and reservists, and another 20,000 civilians, the military could be considered one of the largest companies in Canada. Given all we expect of our men and women, it is essential that they have the resources they need to do the job. That is why this government has maintained the military's budget and will honour all planned budget increases.

Our military seeks to recruit and retain the best people for the job from the beginning of their career to the end of it. Personnel accounts for $7.5 billion of the $13.5 billion in vote 1 under the main estimates, which is what we are talking about tonight—the main estimates. Overall, this is 40% of the entire National Defence budget. Personnel costs account for 40%. Most of it is salaries and other benefits, which are competitive with other western militaries. In fact, Canadian privates and corporals are now among the highest paid in the world, which we should view as a source of pride. It is good business sense. If our men and women can afford to raise a family on a corporal's salary, the military stands a good chance of keeping them around for a long career.

The Canadian Armed Forces also maintains a world-class health care system, education and training, and the exercises to keep members' skills up to date so that they are ready to deliver on any mission they are asked to perform.

Operating expenditures also include some 10,000 contracts for replenishment, maintenance, and upgrading of the military's equipment and facilities. This amounts to $6.2 billion this year alone, and it is included in vote 1. These things run from rifles, pistols, ammunition, uniforms, rations, specialized equipment, and literally, with 10,000 contracts, it goes on and on.

The department also maintains in its infrastructure the bases, wings, and stations where all the work takes place. There are approximately 21,000 buildings covering 2.2 million hectares that the military manages as its collective footprint, which is one-third the size of New Brunswick. All told, personnel costs, small contracts, and maintenance account for $13.8 billion, or 74% of the department's budget, which is all in vote 1.

The next vote is vote 5, which is $3.4 billion in capital expenditures. This is where it gets tricky, because $3.4 billion sounds like a lot of money, but when we are trying to replace jets, ships, labs, helicopters, it does not take too much time to burn through it. If $3.4 billion in cash was the only money that was available to the military, we would be finished by the end of April. This is where the magic of accrual accounting comes in.

If members will notice, the capital expenditures are reduced by $625 million this year. This is largely attributable to several projects winding down from last year's budgetary levels. Infrastructure is down $200 million, land combat vehicles, down $188 million, and the maritime helicopter project is down $172 million.

Some people get bent out of shape when money is not being spent on much-needed equipment. However, when we think about it, would we spend money if there were no helicopters being delivered this year, after having received eight last year? Therefore, not receiving helicopters does not mean that the money will not be spent this year, but for the purposes of these estimates, at this time, in this fiscal year, that is the explanation for that sum of money.

Last year, we received eight helicopters, and this year we may get more, but we do not actually know. However, we are projecting, for the purposes of the estimates, that we will not get any. The plan is still moving forward to replace the Sea King, and the same with the family of land combat vehicles. Most of the work has been done on the $500 million project, so $188 million comes out of those estimates.

If members are not asleep yet, let us move on to another favourite subject called “lapsed spending”. There are good lapses and bad lapses, and occasionally we will all lapse. However, it starts off as money set aside by Parliament in previous years and voted on, just as we are doing tonight.

DND gives its best estimate of capital needs. Parliament says okay, and then there is an accounting at the end of the year. Therefore, in fiscal year 2015-16, DND could not spend all of the money allocated to it. At this point, Treasury Board says that it wants the money back, and then there are some negotiations. Out of the $1.4 billion that was being lapsed, if you will, from the previous government, we have been able to reprofile all of that money, except for $71 million.

I should be speeding up this snoozefest, but I want to get through to the $3.7 billion. My honourable colleagues on the opposite side wish to describe that as a cut, when in fact it is far from a cut. It is actually a reprofiling, because of projects that have not been able to be secured in this fiscal year and future fiscal years. They include the Arctic offshore patrol ship, which is $173 million, and the CF-18 replacement, which is $109 million. It does not make a lot of sense to spend money when the platform for the replacement jet has not been picked. However, I can go on about the maritime helicopter delays, the Halifax-class modernization. Therefore, with that $3.7 billion, those five projects alone account for about $1.1 billion.

I see, Madam Chair, that you are hitting the snooze button. I am regretting that because I am sure you want to get into the joys of lapsing.