:
Good morning, everyone.
[Translation]
Welcome to the third meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we are going to study the supplementary estimates (C) 2009-2010: Votes 1c and 5 under “National Defence”, referred to the committee on Wednesday, March 3, 2010.
It is an honour to have with us the Minister of National Defence, the .
[English]
Before starting our session, I will ask all the members to use their time in an efficient manner. I will manage your time very strictly. I want to be fair to each member to be sure that everyone has time to ask their questions. So if you are too long with your questions, members, I will interrupt you and ask you to be more precise.
[Translation]
The same thing goes for the minister.
It is a privilege for us to welcome you here. You have 12 minutes to make your presentation, which I am looking forward to very much. Thank you for being with us and welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and my esteemed colleagues.
This is my seventh appearance before your committee. The first two were as Minister of Foreign Affairs and the subsequent appearances were as Minister of National Defence. It is a pleasure to be back.
This time, I am happy to be accompanied by Mr. Robert Fonberg, Deputy Minister at DND; Mr. William F. Pentney, Associate Deputy Minister at DND; Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff; Mr. Kevin Lindsey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Finance and Corporate Services, at DND; and by Mr. David Jacobson, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, at DND.
I am pleased to be here to talk about the supplementary estimates because I know how important your work is in ensuring that Canadian taxpayers get good value for their money.
A great deal of thought and planning go into preparing our initial yearly funding requirements through the main estimates. However, the world in which the Canadian Forces operate is uncertain and unpredictable. We plan, but we must remain flexible in delivering on our mandate.
National Defence has been extremely busy since supplementary estimates (B) were discussed in December. We have gone about our important duties both at home and abroad. But in addition to those responsibilities, we have also undertaken some special tasks over the last few months. Their costs—and other unforeseen financial requirements—are the subject matter that I am here to discuss with you today.
Let me touch on the highlights.
[English]
As everyone here knows, last month Canada hosted a very successful Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver and Whistler, B.C. People from around the world came to watch competitors and they witnessed the amazing accomplishments of top athletes who performed spectacularly. It was a great source of pride for our country.
What a lot of people wouldn't know and didn't see was how the Canadian Forces worked to support the RCMP, the Vancouver municipal police, and other partners at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels to make sure that everything happened at the Olympics in a safe and secure manner. The cost of the National Defence contributions to security at the Olympics, and at the Paralympics, which are currently under way, requires supplementary estimates of $17.4 million.
Canadians and our guests from many, many countries have also been able to safely enjoy the spectacular Winter Olympics and the Paralympic Games, and they've thanked us for them. In just one reference, NBC's Brian Williams--not the Canadian broadcaster, but an American broadcaster by the same name--said it best when he stated, “Thank you, Canada....For securing this massive event without choking security, and without publicly displaying a single automatic weapon”.
Our Canadian Forces, like our Olympians, train year-round. They spent a great deal of time extensively away from their families in preparation for these games. They wear a Canadian uniform and a flag on their shoulders. They're proud and they're patriotic. Indeed, we have a lot to be proud of when it comes to their extraordinary public service.
This summer as well, Canada will be in the spotlight again as we host two major international conferences, the G8 and G20 summits in Toronto and in Muskoka. As with the Olympics, the Canadian Forces will again be working alongside the RCMP and other government departments and agencies as part of an integrated security unit. The $11.7 million we've requested for this fiscal year will help us prepare for those two summits that take place this summer.
I'd like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Chair and colleagues, by discussing another place near and dear to the hearts of Canadians, and that, of course, is Haiti. As we speak, the Canadian Forces are wrapping up our military contribution to the Government of Canada's whole-of-government response to the earthquake in Haiti. When the earthquake hit, the Government of Canada was ready to respond in record time, as were the Canadian Forces.
Our response was rapid and effective. The day after the quake, we had boots on the ground within 20 hours. Within two weeks, we had a full task force of 2,000 people up and running. It included seven helicopters, two Canadian battleships, a field hospital, firefighters, search and rescue technicians, and, of course, the Disaster Assistance Response Team.
Our forces have performed their mission and are now returning home after setting the stage for our partners in civilian and non-governmental organizations to now take up the task with the long-term reconstruction of Haiti. We are now seeking $62.3 million in supplementary estimates (C) for this unforeseen and un-budgeted event.
In conclusion, the Canadian Forces have demonstrated time and time again their flexibility, versatility, and capability to respond to a whole array of events. In addition to security at the Olympics and Paralympics, and the Haiti mission that we mentioned, of course, we have another major mission in Afghanistan and the train-up for that ongoing responsibility of the important NATO-led, UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan.
What the Canadian Forces do and continue to do is keep Canadians safe and bring credit to our nation through their dedication and resolve and through their skill. The government recognizes them for their excellence, and we are working hard to give them the support and the equipment they need.
At the same time, we plan and we do our very best, our level best, to use taxpayers' dollars responsibly, by careful planning. And with careful planning, as important as it is, we cannot always account for every circumstance. As I mentioned, we need to be flexible enough to make the adjustments so that the Canadian Forces will have the tools and the means they need to do the important work that we ask of them.
With that, I'll conclude my remarks. Merci. I look forward to your questions.
:
Mr. Dosanjh, to quote yourself with respect to the issue of transfer arrangements, going back to a debate in the House on April 10, 2006, you spoke regarding the 2005 transfer arrangement, which your government put in place. There are in fact 12 members of your government currently who were part of that government when the transfer arrangement in 2005 was first put in place. Your government, of course, was in office for four years when the Afghan mission began.
This is what you had to say about that 2005 transfer arrangement:
I have had an opportunity to look at the agreement. I agree that it is an important agreement and it is one that is quite good in many respects.
You went on to talk about the supervision of the Red Cross, and Red Crescent, society as an independent party, about the fact that it's very important because they can follow the prisoners and ensure that they're treated well and appropriately in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
So I would invite you to do the same; I have in fact looked at many of the documents various times. I've looked at the transfer agreements, both the previous one and the one that our government put in place in May 2007 as a result of inadequacies that were discovered, concerns over monitoring in particular, which you spoke to in the House of Commons.
As well, I would remind you that senior diplomats have also testified, people such as David Mulroney, and members of the military who would have had first-hand knowledge of the conditions then and the ongoing evolution of conditions.
You're right to suggest that there were circumstances in Afghanistan that we were concerned about, both inside and outside prisons, and we've made substantial investments to try to improve the human rights conditions in both environments.
Obviously now we have a more robust agreement that allows for greater access, regular and unannounced visits to prisons. In fact, I think you'll find that there have been over 210 visits, one as recently as 10 days ago, that allowed for Canadian officials from the public safety department or the Department of Foreign Affairs to be inside Afghan detention facilities—an eyes-on, first-hand ability to monitor Canadian-transferred Taliban prisoners. In fact, it's primarily our focus.
Yes, we have received general concerns expressed in reports and through various channels about conditions, but our primary responsibility, I remind you, sir, is prisoners who were captured by Canadian Forces--many in the aftermath of a battle, or tested for explosive residue on their clothing or hands--and then turned over to Afghan officials.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Chairman, I may then ask for these answers in writing, if I could.
Minister, I'll return to the subject I brought up before about the navy. It's been reported that DND is trying to save about $423 million at the end of the month to free up money for equipment purchases. In the meantime it's been reported that the navy has cut training of its reserves and reduced infrastructure maintenance and repairs. The air force has issues as well.
The Canadian navy, it seems to me, is in dire need of support. Over a year ago I asked the vice-admiral about the status of the JSS. He stated at the time that he was redefining the requirements, and that by summer we'd have a new plan. In October I asked again about the status of JSS, and again it was reaffirmed by the admiral that he had consulted the industry and was submitting their returns.
It's now four years later and we still have no word on the status of these ships. This was a priority for the government in 2006. I'd like to know where we are on that.
I'd like to put something else on the table. What is the status of the Arctic offshore patrol ships? This is something you know we've been talking about with regard to Arctic sovereignty. It's my understanding that there's been a scaling back of the capabilities and the numbers, which would obviously be a concern to us.
My final question is whether the JSS are still a priority. This past July we had what we called a shipbuilding summit with industry and discussed the requirements. The JSS are moving in parallel with the results of that summit. In fact, industry has just returned to the four departments that were leading that summit, with returns in mid-September. So this is obviously very fresh. I'd really like to know where we are on this project, because we were supposed to get them in 2012, and now it could be five or six years down the road.
The answers will probably have to be in writing, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to get those questions on the table.
Mr. Wilfert, I can assure you that the navy and shipbuilding projects remain a huge priority for the Department of National Defence. JSS would be at the very top of that list. We saw the utility of having the type of vessel envisioned for our joint supply ship in the use in Haiti, for example, and deployment into the Americas.
We hope that contract will be able to be put out in the very near future. We had envisioned bringing forward an entire strategy, which, as you know, involves not just Canadian Forces ships but also ships that are under the purview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, such as coastal ships and icebreakers. So a package of ships was what we had hoped to bring forward.
As you rightly pointed out, we had discussions this past August with industry, and all departments were there in an unprecedented way. Public Works, Industry Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and our own department met directly with industry to lay out in a very systematic way the number of ships, which can be upwards of 50 ships. The budget within our department is identified. Our money is there.
We also understand--and this will be my last point, Mr. Chair--that there have been problems, as you know, with one of the shipbuilding facilities that would be a primary contractor, a primary bidder, on these projects. The Davie shipyard in Lévis has experienced difficulties. That has also been factored in as we move forward.
I don't know if the vice-chief wants to add anything further, but our intention is to proceed post-haste. Non-compliant bids have come back. That was, I would express to you, the reason for part of the delay. But this is a national shipbuilding program that will affect every shipbuilding facility in the country. There is enough work for shipbuilders, large and small, to bid on and successfully receive contracts in this regard.
:
Sure. Well, they were not suspended or eliminated.
I'm glad you asked this question, because reservists are an integral part of the Canadian Forces. They do spectacular work, and most, as you know, have other full-time positions and work in our communities in many different capacities. They're your neighbours, your hockey coaches, your teachers, and your firefighters. They are an integral part of Canadian Forces operations and plans. In some cases, on deployments such as Haiti and Afghanistan, 20% to 30% of the participants come from the reserves.
That being said, as you would expect, commensurate with the tempo of operations, we invest in and train up reservists to fit the need. So when the tempo is high, we need more reservists. When things start to slow down, that also impacts on the number of reservists and the training hours.
As well, adjustments are based on the number of regular forces that we have available. We're in a period of growth and expansion right now in the Canadian Forces. As part of the Canada First defence strategy, we have committed to bringing our entire force to 100,000--with 30,000 reservists and 70,000 regular forces.
I'm pleased to tell this committee--and I know you'd be interested in knowing--we've had a record year in terms of recruiting and retention. That is to say, because of the level of commitment and interest in the Canadian Forces right now--and there is a formula that's applied--attrition is down, retention is up, and record numbers are coming into the forces. This impacts very much on the number of reservists and the budgets committed for training. All of this is calculated by our senior officials within the Canadian Forces to meet the needs.
For your interest, colleagues, we've grown by 2,000 this year alone. That is, our force numbers have actually gone up by 2,000, which is a record year for us.
I want to be very clear that there is no impact on training when it comes to reserves that are deploying into Afghanistan. They receive the same training as regular forces because we expect the same of them when they're in the theatre of operations.
There is, from time to time, impact when financial implications arise, as they do in every budget year. Every effort has been made to ensure that our soldiers' preparation, training, and participation in operations are not affected in that regard. So I can assure you our reservists remain an integral part of all of this planning. Their service to country is remarkable and admirable, and we support them in every way.
:
Thank you for appearing before the committee, Mr. Minister.
I have a question about the tanks we bought from the Netherlands. We bought 100 tanks to use in Afghanistan. We borrowed 20 tanks from Germany for a time as we made modifications to the ones that we bought from the Netherlands.
At the moment, 20 of them are having the modifications done in Germany by a German firm that was given a non-tendered contract. They will be ready in 2012, but we have to give them back to Germany since the ones that Germany lent us are no longer operational.
The others are stored in 25 warehouses in Montreal, or are still in the Netherlands. They will have the modifications done later. Apparently, there will be a tender. Remember, Germany has a head start since they will already have modified the first 20 when they submit their bid.
Does it seem like a good idea to you that we bought those hundred tanks that were supposed to serve in Afghanistan, but that will not be ready until 2015?
:
You know, I heard similar statements made about the replacement of the Sea King program, which as you know is still awaiting the final delivery of aircraft. It has a lot to do with industry's ability to respond and manufacture these aircraft. You can't go out and get helicopters or ships at the local Canadian Tire store.
As you know, these contracts are very complex. The on-board equipment has actually changed in some instances between the time the procurement process has begun and the time of the delivery. We have numerous examples of procurement strategies that have taken an exponential amount of time.
In an ideal world I'd love to be able to go out to buy these aircraft and get them quickly. I think we need them. I will express to you my personal frustration that the process has been sidelined at times.
We've also faced the reality that this involves more than just one department, as you can appreciate. DND does not go out and negotiate the contract for equipment. That is left to the Department of Public Works. Industry Canada, obviously, has the most direct interface with the industries that are involved in the building of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft.
There's always the backdrop that we want to maximize the benefits to Canadian industry and the very complex but important element of industrial regional benefits. That is to say that when a large contract is awarded, if it is not to a Canadian company, we must consider how we spread the wealth, if you will, to benefit all regions of the country in the procurement, construction, building, and delivery of contracts.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister, Admiral Rouleau, and officials for coming here today. It's an important opportunity for this committee to get some further understanding in regard to the supplementary estimates.
First of all, I just want to touch a bit on Haiti, Minister. In particular, I want to tell everybody here how proud I was as a Canadian in terms of our response to the devastating earthquake in Haiti. I'd like to thank our Canadian Forces and you, Minister, for that.
In terms of that, there certainly is a fairly large expenditure of some $62 million in response to the Haiti earthquake. I'm wondering if you can outline where those funds went. Certainly, if Admiral Rouleau wants to add anything, that would be quite fine.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Payne.
Like you, I felt an extreme surge of pride when I saw the work that was being done. I had the extreme pleasure of visiting Haiti just two weeks ago, and saw first-hand the type of extraordinary work that the men and women in uniform are doing there. They're doing it, as you know, in conjunction with other departments—with CIDA, of course, and Foreign Affairs—but the enablers in this mission, let's be clear, were the Canadian Forces. They arrived there within 20 hours and there was a reconnaissance team on the ground.
I can't be any more stark than to say that they saved lives. The medical staff who were there set up a hospital. They treated in the past month over 20,000 people, some of them for grievous injuries. They delivered babies. They continue to treat injured people in the aftermath of that terribly devastating earthquake.
They also took part in other life-saving activities. They provided close to three million litres of water during the time they were there. That's more than an Olympic-sized swimming pool of water--clean, potable water.
Obviously in the early days they helped to pull people from the wreckage and to locate people who were under crushed buildings. What struck me when travelling around places such as Jacmel, Leogane, and the capital, Port-au-Prince, was that it was as if a giant had stepped on those communities. The buildings were crushed. They were pancaked because of the inadequacy of the cement and the structural durability of many of those buildings. Some grievous injuries resulted.
Canadian Forces were able to get there quickly, in large part because of the C-17 aircraft that our government purchased. The utility of that aircraft was on full display. We were able to move in equipment and personnel very quickly to have maximum effect.
With the able assistance of personnel aboard the HMCS Halifax and HMCS Athabaskan, we were able to be there quickly to provide life-saving equipment and life-saving personnel to that country at its most dire time.
We have a long-standing history and we'll be there for a long time into the future, but the Canadian Forces, in my view, performed brilliantly, in record time. While we're drawing down now, as I mentioned, we are handing off and transitioning to other agencies, including CIDA, but non-governmental agencies as well.
The other extraordinary part of this story is the interoperability that was demonstrated, our ability to work with the international community. We had a small number of personnel in Haiti prior to this disaster, through MINUSTAH, the UN mission to Haiti. We've doubled our complement there. That will remain as a permanent fixture. We'll have more Canadian Forces personnel in the aftermath of this disaster.
But your point is well made. They rolled out very quickly, and they had an immediate impact. As well, because of their language skills and their cultural understanding of Haiti, as many had been there before—many of the members of the Royal 22e Régiment from CFB Valcartier had previous experience—they interacted in a way that was compassionate, that was polite. They asked first how they could help. That went a long way.
We worked closely with the needs as identified by the Haitian government, and I think the Prime Minister and the President of Haiti...in my discussions with them and with other officials there, have nothing but admiration, respect, and gratitude for what Canada was able to contribute in this whole-of-government mission.
Perhaps I'll just ask the admiral to speak briefly to the role of the navy, because the navy really, in my view, was one of the biggest moving parts in our ability to respond to Haiti.
:
It was roughly 2,000 during the entire course of the mission. We're down to roughly 236, I believe. We've been gradually drawing down. That's as of today.
The two ships have now returned to port, and the remaining members of the team continue to hand off various responsibilities. One of the last things I would say is that the Canadian Forces were involved in the building of shelters and latrines because of the concerns about sanitation. That was one of the last things they were doing as they were leaving. They were handing that off to private, or I should say non-governmental, organizations. With the rainy season coming, shelter will be one of the bigger challenges the country will face.
There was an urgent need. They were building, in some cases, the framing for 15 houses a day, which was an impressive effort. It was a Herculean effort on the part of many.
From my perspective, they were doing this above and beyond the expectations, because they felt such a connection to the people there. They really wanted to see Haiti given the restart that we all know it deserves. Canadians responded brilliantly, as you know, as far as personal donations are concerned.
Some of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and women were reaching into their own pockets and contributing money. That was on top of having brought things like children's clothes, diapers, and things they were able to gather up before they left the port of Halifax. There are also some heartwarming stories of Canadian Forces personnel who were returning to Haiti. They left there in childhood, having been adopted by Canadian families. Some of them—I've heard stories—are in the process of adopting Haitian children themselves.
Mr. MacKay, Vice-Admiral Rouleau, gentlemen, thank you very much, all of you, for being here today. I would also thank CF members for their work in Haiti, and, being a B.C. MP, for your exceptional work in Vancouver during the Olympics.
I'm going to just make a couple of comments, Minister, and then I'll pose the questions. If you would be kind enough to respond in writing, that would be fantastic.
With respect to Haiti, I think it would be great if Canada took the advantage and actually advanced an international 911 response system so as to avoid the logistical disaster that always happens post-problem, whether it's a tsunami or Haiti, and so on. It would be a great initiative to have that integrated system to respond logistically to disasters.
My first question is with respect to the future of the JSS and the fixed-wing search and rescue. We know that this is core for the operational abilities of our Canadian Forces. When can we expect the request for proposals to be submitted, and when do you expect this to be completed?
Secondly, do you have a long-term procurement strategy for CF assets? If you do, could we see it? If you don't, when will such a procurement strategy be released so that we don't have this ebb and flow that takes place with respect to the procurement of assets? Then the members can have the surety that they are going to get them when they want to get them.
In the main estimates of 2010-11, there is a $3-billion request for equipment for acquisitions. What equipment is this for?
The last two questions are with respect to the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police. How many members have currently been trained and are functional today? What are the end targets? Has anything been done to resolve the challenges within the Afghan National Army and the police, which largely has a non-Pashtun dominated leadership, which is causing structural problems within both of those institutions in Afghanistan?
Finally, how many of the new Leopard tanks that have been purchased are deployed, and how many are sitting in Canada?
Sorry for the lengthy list. I'd appreciate sometime in the future receiving answers to those.
Thanks very much.
:
I'll try to respond to a few of them quickly.
On the long-term procurement strategy, we have the broad-brush strokes of the Canada First defence strategy that talks about building all the pillars of the Canadian Forces. This includes investments in equipment, the infrastructure where we house the equipment and where members train, and, most importantly, personnel issues.
Within that strategy you will find dedicated finances for procurement. That includes the refurbishment of all of the major platforms such as shipbuilding, JSS, but also all surface combatants with respect to ice-breaking capability and offshore patrol. Those are not directly under our purview, but they obviously impact Canada's overall shipbuilding strategy.
On the air force, priority funding has been earmarked for replacement of CF-18s and our fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. We have procured the C-130 replacement contracts now for our Hercules aircraft--so the next generation of that transport capability. We've already purchased and received the C-17s, the heavy transports. We bought used Chinook aircraft that are currently operating in Afghanistan. That was part of the independent recommendations of the panel. We are also purchasing new Chinooks, the F model, for post-Afghanistan operations.
On the family of land combat vehicles, that was a $5-billion procurement. We're working through that, but that money has been set aside specifically for land combat capability. There have already been numerous announcements about patrol vehicles, tanks, and trucks, and there'll be more on the infrastructure on several of our bases across the country.
The frigate life extension program for the existing frigates is well under way. You'll find much of that within the Canada First defence strategy, but we can provide you greater details on the dollar amounts and timeframes.
On the training of Afghanistan soldiers, we have been major participants in that from the earliest days through what are called OMLTs and POMLTs--the operational mentoring teams. We've had dedicated efforts in that regard.
On decisions of leadership within the Afghan National Army, I'm not going to dispute what you've said about some of their challenges. However, I would indicate quite clearly, Mr. Martin, that this is a sovereign country. When it comes to the decisions of the leadership, who is in the chain of command, and what cultural or language background they have, we can give advice, NATO can give advice--and they often do--but these are really sovereign decisions, just as they would be in other government departments within Afghanistan.
The numbers are very ambitious. They're in excess of 300,000, I believe, when it comes to the combined security forces of army and police. That was outlined in General McChrystal's report last fall. We set targets and have met and exceeded targets when it comes to the training of a kandak or battalion. But again, we are somewhat beholden to the ability of the Afghan army to provide us with soldiers to train. A big problem that I'm sure you're aware of is literacy levels. It's not enough to simply identify an individual as somebody you're taking into your security forces, but basic literacy skills are often an impediment to the accelerated training pace that we're trying to achieve.
Clearly the end goal here is to turn over security responsibility to Afghans. That has been a primary goal throughout our time on this mission. All countries, all NATO participants--the 60-plus when you include outside countries such as Australia and New Zealand--recognize that we want to enable those Afghan forces to do what our soldiers do and provide the security to propel the Taliban from entering the country, and provide security around the communities that we are currently tasked to protect.
I would very quickly, with the indulgence of the committee, like to share an anecdote.
Some constituents in my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, a group of 10 people from a church, were in Haiti. They arrived about a week before the earthquake. Obviously, when they went to the country, they had no idea what was in store for them as the earthquake unfolded. With the assistance of Foreign Affairs officials and Canadian Forces personnel, they were successfully evacuated out of Haiti. I know that they are eternally grateful, so, on their behalf, I thank you.
Moving on to the upcoming G-8 and G-20, I note in the supplementary estimates (C) that there's $11.7 million devoted to security operations and policing for the upcoming G8 and the G20. Could you please--through you, Mr. Chair--elaborate on what the role of the Canadian Forces will be in terms of providing security at those two important international meetings, and perhaps explain what some of those expenses are, and what the money will be used for.
:
Thank you for the question.
Mr. Chair, the role of the Canadian Forces in G8 and G20 will derive from the model that was used for the Olympics. The RCMP will have the lead as the lead federal police force. As chair of the G8 and the G20, Canada has an obligation to provide those international leaders with adequate security protection. That's something we take very seriously.
The Canadian Forces will be in support for G8 as they were for the Olympics. I would say the Mounties and the other police forces get the glory role and more visibility. The Canadian Forces will be in the bush around the site, providing perimeter security.
There will be about 2,500, give or take, Canadian Forces personnel deployed. Their role is largely perimeter security, providing the kinds of capabilities that the army, through the reservists and the regular force members, can provide.
Second will be air security. We're part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, so through NORAD, which is a joint command, we will provide air security to create a bubble over that event, and we will provide certain specialized capabilities. In particular I'd note chemical, biological, and radiological. If there were ever to be such an event, the Canadian Forces have unique and specialized capabilities, which is part of a whole-of-government plan. We would deploy first into that zone.
So we'll be, again, in a supporting role. It will be largely hidden. They promise me that where the mosquitoes are, that's where the army will go. It will be to provide both personnel to provide that perimeter security and some specialized capabilities, in the air and on the land, to provide whatever security is necessary.
:
Thank you for the question.
I might actually just turn to Mr. Jacobson on the question of project managers in particular.
The CADSI report, as I read it, has really three critical recommendations in it. One is around this notion I think you've just raised of a defence industrial policy. The second one is really around streamlining the existing process, given the variety and number of players in the process. The third one, which I think is certainly beyond my pay grade, is the question of machinery and the issue of a single cabinet-level person. I'm sure you're very familiar with the report.
On the question of the industrial policy, I think that CADSI, and we've worked with them very closely, has identified a huge opportunity. The Canada First defence strategy lays out probably about $240 billion worth of procurement over the next 20 years.
Somebody earlier asked the question about the clarity of the forward investment trajectory. Our ability to lay out with greater certainty and clarity what procurements are coming at what time; our ability to work with early-stage Canadian companies in the R and D and the S and T areas that will allow them to get ready for larger procurements as they come up for bidding three, four, and five years out; our ability to partner with others in supply chain opportunities--we've looked at all of that quite closely. I think we're ready to start having a very serious, deliberate discussion about a kind of defence industrial policy.
It doesn't always have the greatest ring to it, a defence industrial policy, but it's fundamentally about an opportunity to strengthen the Canadian supply base. We're fully on board with CADSI around that issue. To be honest, I think we can take their issue a little bit further.
On the question of streamlining--and then I'll turn to Jake Jacobson quickly on the issue of project managers, because it's an important question--it's a complex process. I accept that. I think we all accept it's a complex process. The accountabilities are the accountabilities. In my two and a half years on the job, I haven't seen anything that I would kind of call turf in any way. We have exceptionally strong relationships with our Public Works colleagues, with our Treasury Board colleagues.
You know, sometimes it's a little bit hard; the Privy Council Office has a lot of stuff flowing through it into the decision-making process. Sometimes it's a little bit hard to get their attention, but we get their attention when we need it. But I wouldn't say that we have had anything held up around something called turf.
There are a lot of questions out there. These are big projects for Canada. These are often projects where you're procuring stuff that has a life of 20 years, or 30 or 40 years. I think if we miss by a year in order to get it right, that's probably a year's worth of thinking and designing that's worth that particular time.
On machinery, there are different models. In fact, Jake's predecessor as the ADM Materiel has written a book on machinery options, always the purview of the Prime Minister. I think every model out there has its benefits and its costs. We work with what we have, and I would say we probably do an exceptionally good job.
Jake, I don't know if you want to say something about project managers.
:
Yes, please. Thank you, Deputy.
Mr. Chair, you've heard the expression that it takes 20 years to develop a 20-year sergeant, and the same is true for project managers. We've made some great strides. That said, we've made some great strides in the last three years in particular in improving the capacity of not just our project managers but also of our engineering and procurement officers. In fact, in the last couple of years we've increased the number of engineers by about 57% and the number of procurement officials by over 50%.
On the issue of project managers themselves, we've been working to identify the competencies they need. What knowledge set do they need? What kind of experience should they develop through the course of their careers? What kind of management and leadership abilities should we develop?
We establish those competencies and apply the learning and training strategies. Also, because not everybody makes a great project manager, succession management is quite active within the group; we identify those people with the right kinds of aptitudes and background, and we develop those people fully. We can develop people from the $10 million projects through to the $50 million projects to the $100 million projects and the $1 billion projects. It's a very good question.
I am sorry, but we will need about 25 minutes to answer the questions.
[English]
I think there are two aspects to the question: first is the coming home, and second is once you are home.
Mr. Chair, just let me again ensure that committee members know that we have many programs, many policies, many structures in place to ensure that prior to being deployed, men and women in uniform actually are screened--I use the word in a positive way--to ensure they are fit to be deployed.
That's done in a number of different ways, both from a military training sense and from a people sense to ensure they're healthy and they're fit, as well as to sit down with their families to ensure their families are prepared for that time, because it is tough on families. We know that much. You and I have talked about that. So that does happen.
They actually also have some degree of psychological screening before they go in. Once they are in theatre, what has been added is mental health teams that are now in theatre to support them. And again, they do their work, they come home on their leave for a couple of weeks, they head back into theatre, and then the time comes for them to come back. I think that's where the question actually really begins.
Prior to coming back, the screening actually begins once again in a very intensive sense. The chain of command and the medical teams actually ensure that those who have had challenges in whatever way, be it physically or mentally throughout that deployment, are actually screened, and that it is noted. The key is to ensure there is a link between when that soldier, sailor, airman, or airwoman leaves that operation and is actually back home. You are moving back to someone who owns you differently from when you are in theatre. So there is a possibility that someone perhaps could fall through the cracks. We've talked about that in the past.
To ensure that doesn't happen, medical records are updated in theatre and they actually come back to Canada, back to that soldier's location. Let's say perchance it is in Petawawa. They would actually come back to Petawawa, and what happens from a mental health point of view is that mental health screening does occur once they are back home.
Secondly, we have added this. Prior to getting back on the ground in Canada, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and airwomen, as part of the Afghanistan mission on the ground, actually go back and do a third location decompression in Cyprus, where they go through a number of briefings, with presentations on family reunions. It is a challenge coming back. You still think you're in control when you're overseas, but you're really not. It's your spouse at home who is really in charge.
So what does it really mean coming back? We never did this in the past, but we knew we had to do that, so that's in place now.
When you're back on ground, we have psychological screening. The chain of command actually works with you.
The other thing we have added is this. To all of our general practitioners across the Canadian Forces, we've demanded of them and hold them responsible and accountable now to actually do psychological questioning whenever anybody comes in. So perchance if I were in Petawawa and I'm not feeling good when I wake up one Sunday, it actually would go to my medical clinic in Petawawa. My doctor would then determine what it is, whether it is a physical or mental health issue, and focus on the mental health issue because I think that's where the question really comes from. I could then be referred to either the OSI clinic that we just put in recently across the country--we've added a number of operational stress injury clinics for PTSD--or be given any other type of support.
Once it is determined that you need a certain level of support, you are then moved on to the JPSUs or IPSCs. The JPSUs and IPSCs, I'm proud to say, are the only units in the Canadian Forces whose sole task is to look after injured and ill men and women in uniform. That's all they do. They work. We have members from the Department of Veterans Affairs in the JPSUs and IPSCs and we also have return-to-work coordinators. We have teams that will actually help soldiers if they want to improve during that rehabilitation time, recovery time. For their education, be it college or university, we're about to put in a small university component into that program. They actually stay in the JPSU until they get to that point medically where they can head back to the unit or we have to determine what else happens with them.
Clearly I would expect all Canadians would expect men and women in uniform--Haiti is a great example--to be prepared to deploy when they are asked to deploy. That becomes a fundamental issue. But at the same time we must ensure that we as a leadership, we as Canadians, this nation, provide a support to the men and women who have given so much for the nation. So the JPSUs were put in place for that. You've seen it. You've been to it. I went there with you to take a look at it not too long ago. It looks after them and it provides a whole suite. For example, it touched on the educational support that they need, be it college or university.
Secondly, we actually are partnering with industry. For example, TD Bank has come to us and offered us many positions for injured soldiers. They have gone off and worked with them.
I'll end at that. I think that answers your question.
:
The strategic review is part of the Treasury Board's expenditure management system. Every fourth year, every department of government and agency is going to have to go through a strategic review. We are coming up to 2010-11, which will be the fourth round. At the end of this round, all departments will have gone through a strategic review.
We have not been formally officially notified by Treasury Board via the Prime Minister and cabinet that we're going to be in this round, although we've anticipated that. We're such a large, complex department that we actually started getting ready for this probably eight or nine months ago. So we built a team inside the organization.
The purpose of the review is to basically go through 100% of our spending programatically and ensure that we can answer a number of key questions, including that every dollar we're spending is aligned to the government's highest priorities and that every dollar is actually achieving value for money, is being spent effectively and efficiently.
The government in the context of strategic reviews has asked every department to identify the lowest 5% of their program spending. Every department that has gone through the process up to now has done that. We are just completing the 100% review of our programs, and we will start an exercise, probably over the next couple of weeks, to look at what is the bottom 5%.
The way the process runs, we will have a preliminary report to the Treasury Board, probably in mid-June if the process stays true to what it has been in the past, and a final report to Treasury Board in agreement on what that 5% is next fall. That's the timeline. That's comprehensive. We have a significant team looking at this stuff, and when it comes right down to it, having been in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board and PCO, it's fair for departments to have to look through and identify. Everybody has a bottom 5% of what they are doing. Everybody has an interest in that 5%, but everybody has a bottom 5%. Collectively with our political masters, obviously we have to come to that conclusion.
:
About two years ago we established a director of rehabilitation at Canadian Forces, realizing the challenge, tying into what the associate had said, that the IED is the weapon of choice and the result of that is many men and women in uniform who actually end up losing a limb. That happens throughout the world. It is not just focused on Afghanistan.
We realized that and we established a director of rehabilitation. We then went out and partnered with seven different civilian rehabilitation centres across the country. Those centres are civilian, so we didn't have to build them; they're already there. We actually put our rehabilitation military specialists into them when soldiers come back and need them. Secondly, we provide funds, if they need it, to be able to provide that additional support when they are in there.
On the Shilo case, again, the next step was what happens when they're actually in that recovery phase. We want to use sports to enable their recovery. That's the simple logic, to go across the country now in some simple area, such as ensuring that even the lockers are big enough so that our men and women in uniform who need a little bit more space can actually go in there to do the training they need, and other areas. So yes, it is the model we are looking at to go across the country as part of our health and fitness strategy that was announced about a year and a half ago. It's all dovetailed in.
As you saw, the minister was at Soldier On, at the Paralympics, where we had a military contingent, which again speaks to our support for men and women in uniform when they go through those tough times.
[English]
To address the first question, I'll use my experience.
When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2005 as the commander of the Canadian contingent, from February until August, all the doctors on my mission we actually put into emergency, into ERs, just before our deployment to ensure that their skills were, at that point in time, adequate for addressing issues from a medical point of view.
That has continued all the way up to today and will continue in the future. We also do training in Wainwright.
For the individual, which I think is what you are getting at, it's resilience training.
:
Agreed, and the issue comes back to....
I would throw this out: the jury is still out on what type of resilience training one should do to ensure one would be prepared. This much we do know. Do we need some form of resilience training? Yes. We're actually looking at it right now. We are doing some form of it already. Over the last year, we've implemented some form of it.
But from an institutionalizing point of view, we're still looking at it, because it's not as simple from a practitioner's point of view that doing this would actually end up dropping the amount of trauma you're going to see. We do that as part of training to ensure that our training is as realistic as possible, which it is if you go to Wainwright. I think that's one aspect of it.
But the tougher side of combat is someone getting injured or killed.
Hon. Keith Martin: That's right.
MGen W. Semianiw: That's what you're speaking to. We have done some form of resiliency training, but we're looking at it from an institutional point of view for what we do CF-wide.
On the second one--
The Chair: Briefly, please.
MGen W. Semianiw: Okay.
On the second one, I'm more than happy to sit down to talk to them. At least seven or eight different universities have come to us wanting to partner with us on research, to pass on information.
Finally, I'd only throw out to you that there's a danger in using the Bagotville model across the country. Remember: standardization is the death of innovation. The secret of our success in the last couple of years has been allowing local commanders to innovate to meet their needs.
I hear you, and I think there's some sense to it, but the only danger is to say that the Bagotville model will work in Trenton. I think there's a danger in going that way, but we have been practising this, and moving best practices across the country, particularly on the family side, which we did at the summit and we continue to do.
:
Thank you. I wanted to share my time with Mr. Bachand, but since he has slipped away, I will keep going.
It may be a little persistent on my part, but I would like to come back to the Manège militaire business. There is still something I do not understand.
In the text, we can see that $2 million over two years are set aside. But according to the information that I have been able to see, the Manège militaire study has already been done, the report has already been submitted and the public consultation has already taken place. In the budget, which is for two years, there is a figure of a million dollars. So there is a million dollars left, and everything seems to have been done. Only the internal analysis is left.
I would first like to know what is going to be done with the million dollars left over, why the million dollars is not still being used and whether anything else is intended. Second, is this the same $2 million in two different budgets? From what I understand, it is $2 million over two years. I assume that the two amounts are the same: $2 million. Whatever the case may be, a million dollars has still not been used.
:
Thank you for the question.
To clarify, Mr. Chair, the expected costs for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces for security at the Olympics, estimated almost a full year ago and appropriated, I think, in the supplementary estimates (A), were $212 million. Through the course of last summer, as we completed our planning and realized we would need certain things, such as marine barrier protections for $3 million, our estimate went from $212 million to a total of $229 million. It was not an overrun. It was simply a sharpening of the pencils and finalized planning, and it was complete last fall.
With reference to the $17 million that's here for the department and the Canadian Forces, I understand we probably will not spend all of it. We will probably underspend that, but we will know shortly after the Paralympics. We're very good at forecasting, very good at planning these sorts of things and then actually forecasting the spend.
As for the move from $175 million to $500 million, I think you'd probably want to talk to the overall security coordinator, Ward Elcock, at the Privy Council Office.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank you all for coming.
I'm sorry I missed an opportunity to speak to the minister. I was hoping to pass on to him my compliments to your department and to the CF on the work in Haiti in particular. I know that Canadians hold Haiti and Haitians in special affection and have a lot of compassion for what happened there. Obviously there are lots of reasons for that, not the least of which is the respect and esteem that the Governor General of our country has, and the large Haitian community that we have in Canada. We're very delighted that our country and our forces were able to respond so quickly and so effectively.
I would like, Vice-Admiral Rouleau...and you're just the man to do it, being the naval vice-admiral. There was some confusion. I call it that because I don't know the rights of it; I hope you can set us straight, from your point of view, on the role of our ships going to Haiti. There is some question as to whether they were in fact to deliver humanitarian aid or not, and whether they were capable of doing that.
In that context, I'd like to ask you about the joint supply ship, which is the project under way. I would consider it to be, I suppose, from the naval point of view the equivalent of the C-17 in terms of being able to deliver supplies, handle troops, or do other activities.
Would you like to comment as to whether the joint supply ship, if you had one, would have been of use in the Haitian operation, and tell us what this confusion was? There was some media attention, particularly in the Halifax area, about the use of Canadian ships in that mission.
:
I would like to thank all the witnesses for their participation.
Your testimony has been very useful for our committee.
Before we finish, we have to vote on the votes.
[English]
I would ask the members to support these motions; that is your privilege.
We will now take a vote on supplementary estimates (C), National Defence, votes 1c and 5c.
Vote 1c--Operating expenditures and authority for total commitments, subject to allotment by the Treasury Board..........$114,887,239
Vote 5c--Capital expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $393,200 from Health Vote 45, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2009-10 for the purposes of this Vote..........$110,580,061
(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to)
The Chair: Shall I report votes 1c and 5c under National Defence to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Merci bien.
[Translation]
This concludes the third meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Thanks to everyone and good afternoon.
Meeting adjourned.