Skip to main content
Start of content;
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 1995

.1553

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order, please.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(d), we shall be considering the Draft Report on Chapters 24 to 27 (National Defence) of the 1994 Report of the Auditor General.

We shall proceed as we normally do. You have received the French and English versions of the Report that is before you as well as six pages of numbered amendments, with paragraphs indicated. We shall begin with page 1, which contains the introduction and background of the Report, i.e. paragraphs 1 to 5 in French and in English. Do you have comments, questions or amendments to suggest?

[English]

Mr. Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Chairman, when were these amendments available?

[Translation]

The Chairman: I received the French version of the amendments today and the English version was translated yesterday afternoon and this morning. We received it today.

[English]

Mr. Shepherd: I just wonder whether in the future it wouldn't be useful to have some kind of system. It's very difficult for our members when these are dropped on them and they have to read them and adjust to them, and it's very difficult to do.

Maybe as a matter of the order of business, if we're going to make amendments, it should be set out that members have them at least one day in advance of the meeting.

.1555

[Translation]

The Chairman: I agree with you entirely, Mr. Shepherd. I've always asked those who are putting forward amendments to send them to us at least three days in advance. I have asked for this on several occasions and it has not been done so far. The committee could adopt a rule stating that it will only consider amendments that are submitted two, three or four days in advance. That would be one solution.

As Chair, I cannot accept or refuse amendments. Indeed, you may propose others during the meeting. I am told that we could pass a rule to that effect. It has not been done up till now, but I have the feeling that people will consider it in future.

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Are we the only ones presenting amendments, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: As far as I can see at this time, yes.

Mr. Laurin: If there are amendments of substance that lead to overly long discussions, we may not finish today. We will stand them till Thursday, and that will give us the time we need to think about them. In my opinion, none of the amendments are of such substance and moment that we could not finish their study today, but if the need arises, we could postpone them till Thursday.

[English]

Mr. Shepherd: No, I wasn't making an issue of it. I was just saying that as a matter of procedure, in the future maybe we should consider some kind of a procedural amendment. We will deal with these today, but I'm just saying that it's very difficult for Committee members to be active in this.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I discussed this with those who proposed the amendments. We are going to make a special effort the next time. The delay may hinge on translation, because the French amendments were ready Friday.

Mr. Laurin: There were certain problems at the translation stage.

The Chairman: That's it. There were certain problems at the translation stage, but corrective measures have been taken. In future, as soon as the French version is available, a few days in advance, the translation should be available 24 hours later. Normally, we could have had the translation yesterday morning. In any case, steps have been taken.

Mr. Laurin: I agree completely, Mr. Chair, especially since we always ask the Clerk for the same thing and our Clerk cannot always do the impossible. Please be assured that if we did not do it sooner, that was due to the impossibility of the task.

The Chairman: Yes, but steps have been taken so that we may have the translation within 24 hours of receiving the amendments. Everyone is acting in good faith and it should not happen again.

Mr. Paradis (Brome - Missisquoi): Mr. Chair, when we talk about amendments, we're talking about fairly important changes to a text submitted to us. Here, I know, we are drafting our report. A draft report has been submitted to us and this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss it.

When we agree on the text of a report, if basic changes modifying our approach are suggested, I believe we can then talk about amendments as such. Here we are talking about a text that has already been approved and that we want to change or improve. If there are fundamental changes proposed, perhaps we can talk about amendments, but I think we are working, rather, on drafting a report.

The Chairman: You are right. We have called these amendments, but we are working on preparing our text.

Mr. Laurin: It is a draft report.

The Chairman: That's right, and we are fine-tuning the text.

Serious efforts are going to be made. As I mentioned, corrective measures have been taken. As soon as the version is ready in one language it will be translated into the other language within a 24-hour period. That should solve the problem. We should have proposed changes in hand a day and a half in advance, but we are aiming for three days.

Are there comments or questions on page 1?

Mr. Laurin: Are we proceeding by paragraph? Will you be putting them to a vote?

The Chairman: I am proceeding page by page. Here I see that we have a proposal on paragraphs 3 and 5. We are going to look at them one at a time.

Mr. Paradis: I have a comment to make, Mr. Chair.

In the introduction, it says that the Department of National Defence has had to contribute its fair share to the government's efforts to reduce federal deficits.

The text talks about $14 billion cuts for the period - everything depends on the way in which figures are presented, sometimes - from 1989 to 1998, which means a period of about ten years.

.1600

Then it says that in the February budget, the government announced that DND's budget would be reduced by $2.8 billion over four years. When you read paragraphs 1 and 2 together, you can see that the total budget of the Department of National Defense was $11.5 billion in 1994-1995 and was reduced to $11.080 billion in 1995-1996. That is a reduction of approximately $500 million, or 4%. That is about what came out of discussions we had here.

If I read paragraphs 1 and 2 together, I have some trouble finding my way around all these figures. Fourteen billion dollars over 10 years, an added $7 billion in cuts over five years, and a reduction of $2.5 billion to the overall envelope. All of that is discussed in the first paragraph.

In the second paragraph, if you exclude the $7.484 billion figure, two important figures remain. Last year's budget was $11.5 billion and this year it will be $11 billion. Thus, there is a reduction of half a billion dollars. I do not know how we could draft those two paragraphs to make things easier for a reader who does not have the benefit of all the explanations we have had around this table. Perhaps we could simplify the data to show that there has been a decrease, perhaps a significant one this year, of half a billion dollars. I am completely lost in all of these billion dollar figures.

The Chairman: I am going to ask the researchers to answer you on that or to simplify the sentence.

[English]

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): We could certainly try to simplify the figures, but I want to reassure the committee that all these figures were taken from the Department of National Defence's 1995 budget impact statement and part III of the estimates. These are the department's own figures.

We could try to see if we could state them more simply, but the idea was to show, first, that the reductions have been considerable and, second, that the budget that has been allocated to the Department remains a fairly large one.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: Thank you. I agree that the departmental budget remains large. Let us look at paragraph 2, as an example. Look at the second sentence, which says, and I quote:

The Chairman: Paragraph 3.

Mr. Laurin: We suggest eliminating paragraph 3 from the working document and replacing it with the text we have distributed, and I quote:

It is a bit more detailed than the proposed text and provides a better explanation as to why the Defence budget has been reduced and why it is normal that that budget is now at this level rather than where it was in the 1980's.

.1605

[English]

Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Chairman, the word usage seems incorrect. They are saying here that the department must reconsider in depth Canada's current commitments, blah, blah, blah, NATO, NORAD. These are political decisions. These belong and rest with the minister, not with the Department. It seems totally inappropriate.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: I have the same reservations concerning that part of the text. I think that these are government's decisions; it is not up to the Department to consider reviewing its alliances with NATO or the UN. The rest of the paragraph may explain things, but the sentence which says: «The Department must reconsider in depth Canada's current commitments to its strategic and political alliances» is clearly political.

Mr. Laurin: Our Committee is political. We are here to make recommendations. We are saying that the Department must reconsider certain things. We're not telling it which direction to take. After its reconsideration, the Department will make decision as to the direction it wants to go in. For the time being, what we're saying to the Minister is that we think that he should reconsider our policies in the area of national defence. We don't specify which ones. We do suggest certain areas for reconsideration. We say that we have to reconsider certain things with regard to NATO, NORAD and the UN and our role and the role of the Armed Forces in that connection. We say that in light of the very different international and national context, we must reconsider things, and it is normal that the Armed Forces would no longer play the same rule as before.

What will the Armed Forces' new role be? You are right on that one. It will be up to the government to determine that, but we suggest that it determine it in light of certain guidelines we mention here. There are probably others, but we have put in a few here, without making choices.

[English]

Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): I agree with the earlier comments that we're getting into the political arena here. These are decisions that should properly be made by the government. I think the way paragraph 3 is worded now alerts the Department to the fact that there are changes coming and that they should be aware of them. So I am quite happy with the wording of paragraph 3. I couldn't support the change that's outlined there.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Amendment defeated

Paragraphs 3 and 4 carried

The Chairman: Paragraph 5.

.1610

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, we suggest that the first sentence of paragraph 5 be replaced with:

In the original paragraph, it says:

I do not think the Committee was convinced about that. We were informed, rather. We noted certain things. We thought the terms used in the first text were too strong.

[English]

Mr. Shepherd: I'm not objecting just for the sake of objecting, but I don't see that this particular sentence is superior. In fact, I think it's inferior to the one that's in there. To my way of thinking, it's more uncertain. It talks about try to resolve, where possible . I think it actually detracts from the authoritative nature of the way the report is written in the first place.

Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I think that first sentence pretty well reflects the feeling I had from sitting in on the meetings, and I think it says it very well. To change it would do a disservice. I think the way it's laid out now it highlights the problem very well, from my point of view.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: I am having trouble with the word convaincu (convincing).

I find the word convincing a bit strong.

The Chairman: This would be comparable to a subamendment to what is being proposed.

[English]

Mr. Paradis: Aware.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Aware , that is conscient .

[English]

Mr. Paradis: And is sincere about addressing them.

[Translation]

Those are two different words.

Mr. Laurin: We must admit that the English translation also seemed very bad to us. It is possible that there may be a nuance of difference between the French text and the English version. The French text makes it obvious that we were not convinced that the people concerned had really understood everything the Auditor General wanted.

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis, you are proposing that we replace the word convaincu (convincing) with another word.

Mr. Laurin: We have changed it by saying:

It says that the Auditor General said that, but we never had the impression that he was convinced.

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis, does that translation suit you? It is like a subamendment. We will consider it as such and vote on the subamendment first, and then on the amendment.

Mr. Paradis: It seems to me that the English version is a better reflection of our experience here, of its reality, than the French version. If my colleague could come up with another word to replace the word convaincu, perhaps the whole matter could be solved.

Mr. O'Neal: Perhaps we could say indiqué.

[English]

The Department told the Committee that it was aware of the problems.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Manifesté une ouverture (displayed a willingness), is more positive.

.1615

You are moving the amendment.

Mr. Laurin: In the English version, it says: The Department displayed a willingness to consider...

In French, I would suggest the following translation: Le ministère démontre une certaine volonté de considérer les problèmes soulevés par le Comité. If willingness corresponds to une certaine volonté de considérer , it has been translated be manifester une ouverture face aux probles soulevés. The English and French versions don't seem that far apart to me.

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis, when you say that it was aware of the problem , that is to be found further on in the text. It's the same thing in English because it says: The Department succeeded in convincing the committee , which translates a réussi à convaincre . We can agree on one thing or the other.

Mr. Laurin feels that there isn't much difference between the texts because he looked at another sentence further along. At the beginning of the text, it says: succeeded in convincing , a réussi à convaincre . So I think we should vote for one or the other. The translation is a good one.

[English]

Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to try a little softening of the wording there. Apparently all members were as convinced as I was that there were other problems, so I was going to suggest had some success , indicating that some were convinced and others were not so well convinced.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chair, the Department's researcher suggested: le ministère a indiqué au Comité qu'il était... The department told the committee that they were perfectly aware... . It's neutral, and it is also true.

Mr. Laurin: Doesn't the translation of the amendment we are putting forward seem more in keeping with the original English text?

Mr. Paradis: It seem I was on the wrong line earlier. The Department succeeded in convincing the Committee... .

I did not have the feeling that anyone succeeded in convincing me. I think that is close to the French translation: a convaincu le Comité . Personally, I find the word convaincu a little strong. That is why I like the researcher's suggestion, which is: le ministère a indiqué au Comité... (The Department told the committee that they were perfectly aware...). It indicated two things: one, that it was aware of the problems, and, two, that it was willing to solve them. The next sentence flows well.

The Chairman: Your amendment goes further. It says: manifeste une ouverture (displays a willingness).

Mr. Paradis: Your amendment is stronger than what I am trying to say. I haven't seen yours.

Mr. Laurin: There are always several ways of interpreting a text, even in French. We simply want to say that it displayed a certain willingness to consider what we were saying. The wording is not all that strong, especially if one considers that people have been asking DND for these things for at least 10 years. With every request, the Department answers Yes, yes , but nothing ever gets done. That is why we are saying that the Department displayed a certain willingness to consider the problems raised. But in my opinion, it did not show - at all - that it was convinced that those things had to change.

.1620

Mr. Laurin: Rather than a convaincu , we will say a indiqué .

The Chairman: Le Ministère a indiqué au Comité qu'il était parfaitement au courant... (The Department told the Committee that they were perfectly aware).

Mr. Laurin: And the English text?

[English]

Mr. Paradis: Told the committee.

The Chairman: Indicated to the -

Mr. Laurin: The department indicated to the committee that it was aware. Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You are withdrawing your motion. The Committee agrees on Mr. Paradis's motion. Its intention is to replace the word convaincu by a indiqué au Comité , indicated .

Amendment carried

Paragraph 5 carried as amended

Paragraph 6 carried

The Chairman: Paragraph 7.

Mr. Laurin: In paragraph 7, we would like to change the last sentence, which says:

We would like to replace those words with the following:

That was raised during the discussion. It is important that the fact be known that we have been asking DND to do that for 10 years and that nothing is ever done. That is why we want to change the thrust of the last sentence somewhat. The text we are proposing seems to reflect what was raised in Committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Have you any comments, Mr. Shepherd?

Mr. Shepherd: I don't have any problems with that amendment.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

I think that we have a consensus on the proposed amendment.

Amendment carried

Paragraph 7 carried as amended

Paragraphs 8 and 9 carried

The Chairman: Paragraph 10.

Mr. Laurin: The third sentence in paragraph 10 reads as follows:

We want to replace that sentence with:

We must not think that the Auditor General's recommendations solve every problem. The Auditor General himself said the same thing. We have to indicate that this is a first step, a starting point, just the beginning of a reorganization.

[English]

Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I think that amendment was written on the assumption that the first amendment was going to pass. Since the first amendment did not pass, I don't think I can support what's said in this amendment.

The first amendment talked about reorganizing NATO, NORAD and the UN, and I detect that in this amendment.

The Chairman: It's related to paragraph 3.

Mr. Harper: Yes, paragraph 3. I can't support the change that's recommended there for paragraph 4.

The Chairman: Okay.

.1625

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: The French sentence ends like this: un excellent point de départ dont le Ministère peut s'inspirer.

That means the Department could choose not to implement those recommendations. It is as though the Auditor had said: You can use this for inspiration. What the Auditor said is stronger than that. He did not suggestion the Department feel inspired. He made recommendations and established steps to be taken as a reaction if the situation was to be corrected.

The French text reads that it is an excellent springboard the Department can use as inspiration.

I think the Auditor wanted to say more than that.

Mr. Paradis: I agree with our colleague that we should strike the words dont le Ministère peut s'inspirer .

The sentence would then read as follows in French:

Mr. Laurin: Taking out the rest of the sentence would be a great improvement, especially as it then says Nous nous attendons à ce que ces recommendations soient appliquées intégralement -

The Chairman: So you are suggesting it be made to read as follows:

Mr. Laurin, do you agree? I think we have a consensus on that. Everyone is in agreement.

The amendment carried

Paragraph 10 as amended carried

The Chairman: I now call paragraph 11.

Mr. Laurin: In paragraph 11, we would like to qualify the Committee's concerns. We suggest: The Committee is seriously concerned instead of The Committee is concerned .

That is the first change. We would then like to add a comma following the words at headquarters and continue:

We would then just continue with the sentence already there:

It is a bit like adding an example to the text to clarify what we mean by concern .

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, one important point that arose out of our discussions is the existence of 300 management committees. If this is not the place to put it in, it will have to be put in somewhere else. We could ask for our colleagues' opinions.

The Chairman: I think it is unanimous.

The amendment carried

Paragraph 11 as amended carried

Paragraphs 12 and 13 carried

The Chairman: I now call paragraph 14.

Mr. Laurin: The last sentence of paragraph 14 reads as follows:

We suggest adding the following:

We think it is fundamental to set a timetable. For years and years we have been asking the Department of Finance to correct certain things, to do certain things, and we have never had results. We would like to see it in writing.

For example, there could be a progress report in September 1995. What point have you reached with your implementation of the Auditor General's recommendations? What are you actually doing? What has been done so far? Has there been any progress? Are you on the right track? We would then have the opportunity to look at it again instead of waiting for another full year only to hear the Auditor General tell us that nothing has been done.

We'd like to see a follow-up to make sure that things are done better. Then we'd like to see a report tabled at each stage. That's one way of ensuring effectiveness. It doesn't add anything to the content.

.1630

Mr. Paradis: I agree with our colleague's objectives, but would the solution be to produce a progress report in September 1995? I'm just asking this for discussion purposes. I added something to the sentence at the end of the same paragraph reading: "and a staff reduction planned for 1996-99". There is something to that effect in the resolution: "and that a staff reduction plan for 1996-99 be submitted within three months".

Mr. Laurin: That doesn't bother me.

Mr. Paradis: But giving a timetable -

Mr. Laurin: Yes. In any case, in our other amendments, you'll see that we'll be suggesting more progress reports. We totally agree with you calling it a reduction plan this time. We want to keep an eye on their work. We want to see where they're at and we want them to feel pressure from parliamentarians to get those things done now.

[English]

Mr. Shepherd: I'd just like to get the comments from the research staff of the witnesses who were here that this is attainable.

Mr. O'Neal: Quite frankly, I don't feel qualified to say whether or not they can attain these. One hopes that they can. They've already made a commitment to close their environmental headquarters; that is, the air, sea and land headquarters.

During the meeting, to the best of my recollection, they said they would reduce their global resources allocated to their headquarters by 50% by 1999. It's up to the committee whether or not they want them to report this September on the progress they're making toward that goal. I'm sure if the committee asks them, they should be able to tell you.

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, I suppose the worst scenario is that they come and say the report is that there's been no progress.

Mr. O'Neal: They've given themselves until 1999 to achieve this.

A voice: Would April 1996 be a better date for this? Then they can report on two or three things at once.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, that is the objective. We're not giving them any timetable here. We're not saying that by September 1995 they will have to have reached such or such a stage. That's not what we're saying. They have every latitude in implementing the recommendations. All we're asking for is that they produce a progress report in September 1995 explaining how far along they are. If nothing has been done, it won't take very long. It will be a very short report. They'll simply tell us: "We haven't started anything yet." If they've attained 10 per cent of the objectives then they'll tell us: We have attained 10% of the objectives. Here's what we have done. That will give us an idea of how far they've got. If we find they're not going fast enough, it will give us the opportunity to remind them of their commitments and perhaps, if need be, give them their own timetable. The amendment we're moving isn't to tell them that in September they will have to have attained this or that part of their objective. It's only a report. They just have to tell us where they are.

[English]

Mr. Harper: I really like the idea of getting to some timeframes, because as we've looked over past audits we've always been told something was going to happen and it never happens because of a lack of a date and a time.

The only problem I have with the motion on the amendment is it just talks about one early review in what is a four-year program. I'd like to suggest an amendment to that amendment. After the words, Department table , I would say an annual progress report starting in September 1995 on reduction of its headquarters staff .

They should know that they're going to have come back annually - whether it's 10% or 20% this year - and we're going to stay with them until 1999 and not let them off the hook with one report in 1995.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Besides the yearly progress report on staff reduction are there any other comments? I think we have a consensus.

[English]

Mr. Harper: I think it supports the original intent. It just puts a little more to it.

.1635

[Translation]

The Chairman: This would be a subamendment to your amendment, Mr. Laurin. We would have yearly progress reports in September 1995, September 1996 and so on.

Mr. Laurin: No, no. We want one in September. If we want others after that, we'll tell them. In any case, we'll be suggesting other reports further on. For example, in paragraph 23, we'll be asking for one in April 1996.

The Chairman: I think we all agreed on the principle. We could consider this as a subamendment if you're willing to include it in your amendment. Mr. Harper suggests we have yearly progress reports, one of them being in September 1995.

Mr. Laurin: I'd hesitate a bit on that one. If we ask for a yearly progress report, then they'll just wonder how many years they've got, to make progress in. We've been asking them for 10 years and nothing's been done yet. If I ask for a progress report this year, in 1996, it will be another progress report and they'll think that they can divide it all up into two, three, four or five stages.

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not mistaken, it's still a plan for 1996-1999, but we're suggesting a report in September 1995, September 1996, September 1997, September 1998 and finally 1999. That's how I understand Mr. Harper's suggestion. It's always between now and 1999, but you're suggesting a progress report for September 1995. Mr. Harper is also suggesting another report next September and then September 1996, 1997, and then until 1999.

Mr. Laurin: I think we might reach an agreement.

The Chairman: You're in agreement. We have a consensus. So we would add:

Committee research staff will rewrite it to indicate that it's a yearly progress report until the ultimate date.

The amendment carried

Paragraph 14 as amended carried

Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 carried

The Chairman: I now call paragraph 18.

Mr. Laurin: We had an amendment to paragraph 18, Mr. Chairman, but I think it's already been corrected. In paragraph 18, there were two wordings at one point. The French read:

However, the text I have in front of me has already been corrected as follows:

The Chairman: The French translation was improved.

Mr. Laurin: So we consider this as settled?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Laurin: Also, in paragraph 18...

[English]

Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): Not in English.

The Clerk of the Committee: We didn't change anything in English. Everybody has the same text in English. What Mr. Laurin was proposing was to change the word...they had fasse instead of produise ou présente, which we corrected from the first draft of the translation. We changed the word fasse to produise de l'information.

The Chairman: It's better French.

The Clerk: We improved the verb in French, but we didn't change the English. If Mr. Laurin is satisfied with the revised French that he has now...we're not changing anything. What he was objecting to was the word fasse in French, which was not very eloquent to start with. It had already been changed, but he hadn't noticed on his revised copy.

[Translation]

Ms Michelle Salvail (Committee Research Staff): Yes, that's it. We would also add complete and detailed .

.1640

The Chairman: We don't have complete and detailed in the English version.

[English]

Mr. Laurin: Complete information.

The Chairman: More complete and more detailed information. Do you agree with that?

Ms Brown: Mr. Chairman, in paragraph 18 I would like to know what my colleagues think of the possibility of changing the words key elements to mandatory elements . It's quite shocking really how they come forward with plans that go through several stages and not one person has thought out how much it might cost to implement those plans. So it would seem to me that if we changed key to mandatory and at the end of that sentence added the words and documents .... In other words, cost and affordability studies are key parts of both the process and the documentation that follows the process. We'd be more assured that they were doing something. I just put it out to see what the others think.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It would be an improvement. We could put obligatoires rather than essentiels ; éléments obligatoires .

Mr. Laurin: That doesn't mean anything in French.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. English, can you repeat your proposal? I'm not clear what that would mean.

Ms Brown: Mandatory would mean they have to include it. Key is soft. Mandatory is very firm.

Mr. English (Kitchener): I guess I just worry about the implication that mandatory....

Ms Brown: I see. It has legislative implications.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: It's already there in French. It says: Qu'ils produisent . That's an order. Should we add It must make cost information in English? I don't know, but I think the French text is already imperitive.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you withdraw your...?

Ms Brown: What did the French have? Instead of key you have essential ?

Mr. Laurin: Yes.

The Chairman: Essential is better in French.

Ms Brown: Essential is fine, Mr. Chairman. It's stronger than key .

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let's see what's being suggested in paragraph 18. You were agreed on présente une information complète et détaillée . I think it was unanimous.

[English]

More complete and detailed information.

[Translation]

In English, we're replacing the word key by essential . In French it was already essentiel . It's the same thing.

The amendment carried

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, we're going to look at the second part of your amendment to paragraph 18.

Mr. Laurin: The second part of the amendment requires a report again. Following the final sentence in paragraph 18, we add:

Once again, Mr. Chairman, you can see what is moving us. We want to have timetables. We want to make sure it's going to be done and that progress will be made. To that effect, we'd like a report by April 1996.

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, there's already a first recommendation. You'd put it after that one, wouldn't you?

Mr. Laurin: Yes.

The Chairman: So that's a second recommendation in paragraph 18.

Mr. Laurin: That's right.

[English]

The Chairman: Any comments?

.1645

Mr. Harper: My problem with that amendment is it assumes there will be a new defence policy. I don't think we're talking about a new defence policy in that paragraph. I think it's out of place.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, are you referring to what the Department has already tabled?

Mr. Laurin: We're talking about defense planning and forces development processes. We asked them for that in the first paragraph. Then we also want to ask that by April 1996 they provide us with the affordability studies of the policies they've come up with.

The Chairman: Maybe it's the wording. The problem is with the expression new defense policy . You would like the Department to table to the Committee the cost information and affordability studies of what's being proposed in the first recommendation.

Mr. Laurin: We can cross out the word new if you want. Maybe they'll come back to us with the old policy, but we'll soon find out whether it's the new one or the old one.

The Chairman: That's the policy enforced at the present time.

Mr. Laurin: Whatever defense policy there might be at that point.

The Chairman: So we'd say:

[English]

Mr. Harper, would you agree

[Translation]

with the following:

[English]

We'll withdraw the word new , Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper: If I were the Minister reading that I'd be confused. It's not very clear. I think, again, that amendment was written with the hope that the first paragraph 3 was going to pass, that we were asking for a new defence policy. We haven't done that, so if you leave it the way it is, even taking the new out of it, I think it will be very confusing to anyone reading it what this Committee is asking for.

The Chairman: So you don't agree with that.

Mr. Harper: No, I don't.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

We're going to vote on the second addition to paragraph 18. I'll read the amendment again. If I've understood you, Mr. Laurin, we're striking the word new .

Mr. Laurin: Yes, because that's not what is important in our amendment.

The Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Laurin: What is important is setting a date, in this case April 1996.

The Chairman: Fine. I'll read it again. We'll tack on a second addition to paragraph 18 reading as follows:

We would strike out the word new.

[English]

Do you have any changes to suggest?

Mr. Shepherd: I have just one, and I'd like to hear what other people on the Committee think of it. I've detected that we're using the word affordability all over the place. I don't know what it means. All things are affordable if you have lots of money. It seems to me the words should be cost benefit . What is the benefit to the taxpayer of implementing these programs? Would that be a more meaningful word description than affordability , or is that an accounting term?

.1650

Mr. O'Neal: To help clarify this, when I wrote this the issue was whether or not the department was determining if the plans it was sketching out or proposing were affordable. They weren't checking ahead of time to see whether or not they could actually afford to undertake these plans.

Mr. Shepherd: Do you mean within the budget constraints they had?

Mr. O'Neal: Yes. It's just a question of estimating whether we can afford to do this if we propose to do such and such a thing. This is the manner in which I use the term affordability study .

Mr. Shepherd: Okay. If it's clear to people on the Committee, that's fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: I'd like a clarification, Mr. Chairman. I want to get a handle on this.

When we say, That the Department of National Defense make cost information... , who is this for?

In the introductory text, it says:

Is is produced for planners or for this Committee? That is what I don't understand.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: Later on the report makes reference to the need for the department to provide the cost information to its managers. If there's no reference to making the information available to this committee, I think you'll see in the second recommendation that follows this one that the committee is asking that the information be made available in public documents such as the estimates or business plans for the department.

Mr. Paradis: So I understand that in the first paragraph it's the production of this information to the managers.

Mr. O'Neal: Yes. They proceed on the basis of this kind of information. Secondly, the committee asks them to make it public so parliamentarians and taxpayers can -

Mr. Harper: Just in the interest of clarity, in rereading it I would like to make a suggested change that the Department table to the Committee by April 1996 its progress in providing the cost information and affordability studies required for defence planning purposes. I think that's what we're getting at here. Are they going to have a cost-benefit analysis so they can make proper decisions? The way it was reading before there was too big an envelope there.

Mr. O'Neal: Perhaps the recommendation that's contained after paragraph 22 might answer that. The recommendation reads, That the Department of National Defence report to the Committee on the progress it has made in providing its managers with the cost information they need by April 1996 .

Mr. Harper: That's what we need. It's in a further paragraph, so I can't support what's here.

[Translation]

M. Laurin: I agree.

The Chairman: It is unanimous.

The amendment was withdrawn

Paragraph 18 as amended carried

Paragraph 19 carried

The Chairman: Let's now go to paragraph 20.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the fifth line; the number 10 must be replaced by the number 12 , because in reality there are 12 projects.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: The Committee should note that in the English version it reads 12. It's a very bad translation.

.1655

[Translation]

The Chairman: The Chairman: Okay, the change has been made.

Paragraph 20 carried

The Chairman: Paragraph 21 now.

Mr. Laurin: Between the sentence ending its activities. and the sentence beginning this loss , we would like to add the following sentence:

We want to add that to give an example of what we mean. These numbers were highlighted in the Auditor General's report. It is not new; it's just a reference to illustrate what we mean.

[English]

The Chairman: Any comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: Where is that? I didn't see it.

Mr. Laurin: In the Auditor General's report.

The amendment carried

Paragraph 21 carried

The Chairman: Let's go to paragraph 22.

Mr. Laurin: In paragraph 22, we want to replace the verb report with present a detailed report .

In French, it says: Que le ministère de la Défense nationale fasse rapport . It would be more elegant to say: présente un rapport détaillé , with emphasis the word détaillé .

[English]

The Chairman: Present a detailed report.

Any comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Will only the French text change?

The Chairman: No, the English text will also be changed.

The amendment carried

Paragraph 22 carried

The Chairman: Let's now move on to paragraph 23.

Mr. Laurin: After the last sentence, we would like to add the following: That the Department table the results of its audits to the Committee by April 1996 .

This is with the same objective in mind, that is, urging the Department to respect its deadlines so that we know where things stand. We're also setting a date. Basically, it refers to the preceding recommendation.

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. The recommendation reads as follows:

Is our colleague talking about the deadlines for providing these means?

Mr. Laurin: That is correct.

Mr. Paradis: We're talking about tracking the results. I'm having trouble understanding the proposed change.

Mr. Laurin: The Auditor General has suggested that the Department develop the means to track the results when it wants to take cost reduction measures. At present, there are no cost reduction measures. so the Auditor General is saying: Develop the means to track the results of the cost reduction initiatives you have adopted. That is perhaps a bit ponderous.

The Chairman: Would you agree to say: That the Department report on the means to track the results ? Is that what you meant?

Mr. Laurin: Yes, that's it. We want it to tell us where things stand.

.1700

The Chairman: A report on developing the means.

Mr. Paradis: If we ask them to develop means, we will want to know what means they have put in place.

The Chairman: A report on the means by April 1996.

Mr. Laurin: The means that they will have put in place should enable them to track whether the objectives or the results to measure the cost reduction initiatives are being achieved.

The Chairman: If I've understood correctly, we are going to reformulate the sentence as requested and we will have consensus on that.

Mr. Paradis: We want to present the means which will make it possible to track the results by April 1996.

[English]

The Chairman: Any other comments?

[Translation]

The amendment carried

Paragraph 23 as amended carried

Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 carried

The Chairman: Let's go to paragraph 27.

Mr. Laurin: The last sentence in the recommendation is this:

We suggest replacing it with:

This is more imperative because the original sentence read: It should explore ways of charging - . It is exploring ways, but if it doesn't find any, at least it would have looked. It doesn't matter. In the second formulation, it would be obligated to find ways.

The Chairman: What you're suggesting is more -

Mr. Laurin: It's not just an exercise; it has to yield results.

The Chairman: Exactly.

[English]

The Chairman: Any comments, Mr. Harper?

Mr. Harper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to recall the discussion we had about that particular item.

I think we're introducing an element here that is not possible. As I recall the conversation, it can't be absolute. There are some problems in doing it and I'm afraid that with the way we've got it worded here, we're not leaving them any out and they must do this. As I recall it, they cannot.

Mr. O'Neal: That's why, when I drafted this recommendation, I included the phrase to the fullest extent possible .

The problem you're referring to is the fact that the base commanders are not responsible for the salaries paid to the personnel working on the base. Those salaries are taken care of centrally by headquarters here in Ottawa. Therefore, it wouldn't be possible to charge all the costs of the resources that are consumed. That is if you consider that the salaries of the personnel are one of the major resources that are consumed. There's only so far they can take it.

Perhaps we could strengthen that recommendation by removing the expression exploring ways and just say should charge to the fullest extent or must charge .

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you agree with that Mr. Laurin?

Mr. Laurin: For us, that is not enough, because we seem to be giving the Department too much leeway. We're telling it ahead of time, Don't worry. We're asking you to do that, but if you can show us that you have explored ways, to the fullest possible extent, that's good enough .

We need more than that. Just saying try to the fullest possible extent is not enough. At any rate, we all know that one can't do the impossible.

The Chairman: OK. I'm going to try to draw a link between what Mr. O'Neal is suggesting and your amendment. You don't agree with, It should explore ways - .

Mr. Laurin: It's a little bit soft. It must explore, to the fullest possible extent - . That's not too much to ask!

Mr. Paradis: That goes with the first sentence which reads as follows:

It is rather soft, in the sense that Mr. Laurin has mentioned.

It says in the second sentence, to the fullest possible extent . I'm having trouble understanding why in the first sentence we say continue to strengthen and improve , and why we are imperative in the second sentence.

.1705

[English]

The Chairman: Any other comments?

Mr. Shepherd: On Mr. Laurin's motion, I think the object of the exercise was to make base commanders responsible for the variable costs under their control. Obviously, we can allocate all kinds of fixed costs that are not under their control, and I think that defeats, to some extent, the whole purpose. The people who are responsible for the base should be responsible for the costs on the base. Clearly, if we're going to allocate headquarters expenses directly to them, they're going to have less incentive to control their costs because we're giving them costs they can't control.

So I think the amendment we originally made, to leave to the fullest extent possible , makes some sense.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: That is what we have been asking for for the past 10 years, and they have always said that it was impossible because they did not control this or that. The only way to make things possible, is to make them accountable for the costs. We are saying, Whether you strengthen your means or not, as part of this effort, you will have to charge the full costs of consuming resources directly to command and base budgets. Don't worry: they will come up with the means.

Someone suggested reformulating the sentence, by replacing the word "should" with the word "must". I will ask Brian to reformulate the sentence.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: It would say, As part of this effort, the Department must charge, to the fullest extent, the full costs of consuming resources directly to command and base budgets.

The Chairman: All those in favour of the sentence as formulated by Brian -

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: What would that be in French?

The Chairman: Il doit à cet égard imputé... .

Mr. Laurin: We're putting the verb in the present tense instead of the conditional.

The Chairman: We're removing the conditional tense.

We are removing explore ways as well as the conditional verb tense.

Mr. Laurin: That was my suggestion.

The amendment carried

Paragraph 27 as amended carried

Paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 carried

The Chairman: Let's now go to paragraph 31.

Mr. Laurin: We would like to add something to the text in paragraph 31. We would like to add another sentence at the end which would read as follows:

[English]

Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, most of what's in that amendment is actually covered after paragraph 35. It deals with all of the paragraphs under military command and control information systems, and the recommendation is that the Department of National Defence proceed immediately to develop and implement command and control information systems that are interoperable. So I think it's covered there. I don't think we need it at this point.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: What other paragraph are you referring to?

The Chairman: Mr. Harper says that what you're proposing is already included in the recommendation for paragraph 35:

.1710

Mr. Laurin: Just a moment, please. I'm not sure that means the same thing.

Paragraph 31 refers to the fact that systems must be inter-operable. You are right to some extent, but paragraphs 31 and 32 to should be read together. Paragraph 32 states:

The Chairman: I discussed this with Brian, and , as I thought, "interopérabilité" does not exist in French. I don't think it exists in English either. The word was made up, and I think we should change it. Brian.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: I wish to assure the Committee that this is not a word that I dreamed up myself. This is a word that was taken from the Auditor General's report and I assumed had some military meaning that was self-evident.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: That's correct, the reference in French should be to "systèmes incompatibles". The Auditor General's information has not been understood. The word we should be using in French is "incompatible".

The Chairman: Brian was saying that "inter-operability" may be an in-house technical military term. I understand it, but the words "compatibility "incompatibility" may be more common.

Mr. Laurin: The Auditor General told us that during the Gulf War, the commander did not know where his soldiers were, because the information system did not enable him to locate them in the field. So it was decided that it was important to have systems that were "compatibles" in French, or inter-operable in English. In our proposed paragraph 32, we mention the example of the Gulf War in the wording we suggest. We would replace all of paragraph 32 with the following:

The Chairman: We will study paragraphs 31 and 32 together so as to better understand them.

[English]

Mr. English: I'm a bit confused at paragraphs 31 to 35. I think I understand what inter-operable means, but in the amendments that have been suggested.... If we can go to 32 as well as 31.... In 32 it says The Gulf War demonstrated the information systems used by the Canadian Forces are not inter-operable . I don't think it was the Gulf War that did that because the Gulf War involved only our air force; it didn't involve army or perhaps naval forces. So I don't think that's factually true.

Secondly, the statement that the commanders at all levels and all armed forces could communicate with one another.... All armed forces is all Canadian Armed Forces, I presume.

The Gulf War statement in number 32 - I can see this in a joint command, as that was supposed to be, but there might be military reasons you don't want to access each other's data at every level. I guess my point is that in a military sense I'm not sure what this means beyond that they should have basically the same command and control systems and that we really can't say much more than that. The Gulf War demonstrated it for different forces involved in the joint operation, I presume, but it didn't prove that Canadian Forces had not inter-operable command and control systems. That makes sense.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, you are entitled to move each of your three amendments to paragraphs 31, 32 and 35.

However, for greater clarity, couldn't we combine your amendments to paragraphs 31, 32 and 35?

.1715

Mr. Laurin: That could be done, but we preferred not to renumber all the paragraphs so as to avoid confusion.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Laurin: So we changed the wording of paragraph 32, but still kept a paragraph 32. I see that in the other paragraphs, the term "interopérable" is still being. It is used in paragraph 34, for example. For consistency, it should be changed everywhere it appears.

The Chairman: We will ask the researchers to substitute a more common word such as "compatibility" or "incompatibility" in the French and English versions.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: The original makes more sense than the proposed amendments in general?

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the words compatibility or incompatibility would be appropriate. Two systems might be incompatible but connected nevertheless. Perhaps we should use the word interconnected.

The Chairman: We will have to ask the researchers to take a closer look at this.

Mr. O'Neal: We could put the word in quotation marks.

The Chairman: Yes, we will ask the researchers to look into this.

Mr. Laurin: We could use the word "interactif".

The Chairman: I'm going to ask the researchers to study this matter. And in any case, given the number of amendments we still have left, I think that we will have to meet again tomorrow. We always send to the members of the Steering Committee, to the representatives of your respective parties, a copy of the report on National Defence before the report is tabled in the House. We will study this more closely before making any suggestions.

Since there's going to be a vote at 5:30 p.m., we will adjourn until tomorrow. We are supposed to be meeting at 5:30 p.m. I suggest that we continue our study tomorrow, but I would like to quickly complete Mr. Laurin's proposals. Are you maintaining your amendments in their present form?

Mr. Laurin: We'll begin with that tomorrow.

The Chairman: All right. Tomorrow we will begin our work with paragraphs 31, 32 and 35. If you wish to combine them, Mr. Laurin, I would ask you to submit your amendment in both languages.

The meeting adjourned.

;