:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, I would like to introduce my colleagues.
[English]
We have Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister (materiel) from the Department of National Defence, and Bill Pentney, the assistant deputy minister. Of course everyone will know and recognize the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk. We also have the deputy minister, Rob Fonberg; Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau; and Kevin Lindsey, assistant deputy minister, finance and corporate services.
Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, committee members, and members of our support staff who are with us, thank you for inviting me here to discuss Department of National Defence supplementary estimates this morning.
[Translation]
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to explain how the government is investing in our Canadian Forces and supporting the Canadian economy. As you all know very well, we ask a lot of the men and women of the Canadian Forces. Their job is to defend Canada and Canadians, at home and abroad.
In the complex and unpredictable world that we live in, this is a daunting task. But the Canadian Forces perform their duties formidably—with honour and valour. They are one of the finest militaries in the world, the best that Canada has to offer. The least their government can do is provide them with the resources they need to continue to excel in what they do.
[English]
Giving our forces the means to do what they do and what we ask of them requires a great deal of investment. This is why the Government of Canada has committed to do this with the Canada First defence strategy. Members of this committee will no doubt be aware of that document.
Over the last year and a half, we've been hard at work implementing the strategy itself, Mr. Chair. Our government's blueprint will allow the military to deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad.
Mr. Chair, I've also observed our military at work in Canada and overseas. It's with great admiration that I see what they're accomplishing today at a human level. It's truly humbling to witness the courage and the dedication of our men and women in uniform. These special individuals in uniform today are meeting incredible challenges wherever they find themselves—in 18 different missions around the world—often at great cost to themselves and to their families. The Canada First defence strategy is a reflection of the government and the country's admiration for the work they do. It's designed to ensure that we are able to maintain this excellence in operations over the long term.
There will always be need for the Canadian Forces and a demand for what they do so well. Over two decades the government will invest, in a balanced way, across the four pillars of military capabilities: personnel, equipment, readiness, and infrastructure. Delivering on such an undertaking demands that we methodically and in a coherent way plan for those inevitabilities.
That's why we developed an investment plan that details the investment that the department will make over the coming five years. It ensures that the timing of major investments corresponds with the availability of funds. Considering the magnitude of financial investments involved, prudent spending is of course critical. When we're dealing with taxpayers' dollars, we are taking all steps to ensure that the money is spent responsibly, accountably, and transparently.
Much of the additional funds requested in the supplementary estimates will allow us to continue to invest in the Canadian Forces in line with the Canada First defence strategy. We have managed the sums previously approved by Parliament well, and we will require $2 million more than we were originally given. The rest of the previously approved sums are being moved into other areas of spending.
A central part of our plan is investing in the most important resource of all; that is, the marvellous people who make up the Canadian Forces—the soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women of the Canadian Forces. The supplementary estimates include $69.5 million to help support those troops directly. This allocation will fund increases in pay and allowances for the Canadian Forces members, in accordance with legislated increase in wage restraint measures in the Expenditure Restraint Act. I think most would agree that the Canadian Forces are compensated well. The personnel pillar of the Canada First defence strategy will also address the need to increase our numbers. We're expanding the Canadian Forces to reach 100,000 members.
Today I am proud to say that we are over the 67,350-person mark—the highest mark in a generation, Mr. Chair. Despite demographic and retention challenges, our recruitment efforts are delivering concrete results. Young men and women everywhere are inspired by the possibilities offered by a career in the Canadian Forces and are showing up at recruiting centres in droves—our largest recruiting drive since the Korean War.
Recruitment is a key element of ensuring that Canada maintains a combat-capable modern military force. There are numerous exciting trades and career opportunities open to Canadians from coast to coast. And here's the bonus: we'll pay for a student's way if they join the Canadian Forces. So we are requesting $3 million to provide additional support to the successful Canadian Forces recruiting campaign. This new funding brings current fiscal year funding up to the same level as the last fiscal year, a total of $10 million.
With respect to infrastructure, Mr. Chair, we have recently also been making significant progress in our efforts to revitalize defence infrastructure across the country. This past year I had the opportunity and honour to travel across the country to announce important investments in infrastructure at bases and wings from Esquimalt, British Columbia, to Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador. These investments will help provide the modern infrastructure that our men and women in uniform deserve. It will help the Canadian Forces personnel to be safe and healthy as they go to work and as they go about their training in the places where they live.
These investments are bringing tens of millions of dollars to local economies across the country, putting people to work while at the same time building a better Canadian Forces for the future. The supplementary estimates will help keep the work moving forward. They include $23 million to fund consolidation of Canadian Forces Station St. John's and several military units in a new facility at Pleasantville, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the estimates, there is also a request for $6.6 million for a new special facility for Communications Security Establishment Canada.
On the equipment side, again I am very honoured and pleased to tell you that much progress has been made in terms of the Canada First defence strategy's investment in the third pillar, that is, equipment. We are investing roughly $50 billion over 20 years to revitalize core capabilities of equipment for the navy, army, air force, and special forces.
For example, this August a contract was awarded for 15 new Chinook F-model helicopters. This is, of course, in addition to the six Chinook helicopters that our government previously acquired for the Afghanistan mission, as per the recommendations of the independent panel. These aircraft have made an enormous difference for our troops, considerably important in terms of moving them within the theatre of operations in Afghanistan and proving their safety and effectiveness.
Now we're making sure that the Canadian Forces have access to that capability for future operations both at home and abroad with the additional new Chinook helicopters. The new fleet of Chinooks is expected to be delivered by the year 2014.
Last summer, we also moved forward with the family of land combat systems and vehicles projects. This is a $5 billion investment that was announced at CFB Gagetown this summer. It's intended to improve our land forces with the vehicles and to protect the vehicles if they need to respond to a full spectrum of operations. These vehicles will offer survivability, protection, and mobility to our military to operate in any challenging security environment.
The projects include the upgrade of a fleet of light armoured vehicles and the acquisition of three new fleets of land combat vehicles: close combat vehicles; tactical armoured patrol vehicles, or TAPV; and armoured engineering vehicles. The supplementary estimates contain a $24.3 million request to support those projects.
We are also requesting, Mr. Chair, $57.1 million for the urgent upgrade, repair, and overhaul of a number of battle tanks for operations in Afghanistan. This investment will also help to bring some tanks for training standard and provide the Canadian Forces with a sustainable heavy direct-fire capability for future operations.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, we're preparing our military for the 21st century security environment with investments to rebuild and modernize our army, as well as our air force and navy. The Canada First Defence Strategy is good news for the Canadian Forces. It's also good news for Canadians.
The economic activity generated by the investments the government is making in our military is putting people to work in communities across Canada. It's also helping Canadian businesses to become suppliers of choice in national and international markets.
Mr. Chairman, this government is looking to the future. Canadians deserve to be confident that their government is doing what is necessary to safeguard our nation now and for tomorrow. Our requests for additional funding are rooted in ensuring that the Canadian Forces have the capacity to act when called upon.
[English]
Mr. Chair and colleagues, in conclusion, we've made a commitment to rebuild the Canadian Forces into a first-class, modern military for the future. We've demonstrated that commitment over the past months and years, and the Canada First defence strategy is all about keeping Canadians safe at home and abroad, fulfilling our responsibilities to be a reliable partner in continental defence, and ensuring that Canada can offer leadership abroad.
The funding we've requested will allow the Canadian Forces to continue to assume those roles successfully.
I thank you and I look forward to your questions. Merci beaucoup.
:
Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Chair, in response to that question I would suggest that the strategy that went into formulating the Canada First defence strategy occurred over a significant period of time. It perhaps goes back as far as the late 1990s or early 2000, when members of the Canadian Forces, on both the civilian side and the military side, began to assess their equipment, personnel, and infrastructure needs, as well as readiness.
I would have to be honest and say that when the Afghanistan mission shifted in late 2004-05 to a deployment into Kandahar province, the equipment priorities, in particular, changed very rapidly. It became clear to everyone, given the high tempo of operations, that the necessity of protective equipment—that is to say, protective combat vehicles and things such as battle tanks—suddenly appeared on everyone's radar. As well, as a result of the preponderance of IEDs, which I know you're familiar with--members of this committee would understand well that these improvised explosive devices became a deadly weapon of choice for the Taliban in the theatre of operation--there would have been a reassessment at that time to look at how we would up the protection quota. That meant both equipment on the ground and things such as helicopters. It wasn't until, I would say, roughly two years ago that the decision was taken to purchase Chinook heavy- to medium-lift helicopters, which we were able to procure through an accelerated procurement process. We also then made up-armour investments in our existing fleet of Griffon helicopters, which provide escort to those Chinook helicopters in theatre.
I would invite General Natynczyk to contribute here, because as Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, he was very involved in that decision-making process.
In short, the decisions in terms of priority equipment changed as a result of Afghanistan. Investments on bases across the country and investments in personnel were also meant to address certain anomalies that existed at the time. The decision to increase personnel to 100,000 obviously caused investments on the personnel side. On readiness, I just spoke of the capabilities as to protecting people on the ground in Afghanistan.
On the Canada First defence strategy, I'd invite General Natynczyk to comment.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Wilfert.
There is no question that the Department of National Defence is a high-tempo department, particularly the deployment in Afghanistan and other missions that we are currently participating in. There is a current and continued demand for Canadian soldiers because of their capabilities and professionalism.
Clearly deployability is an expensive item. The decision to purchase four C-17 aircraft, for example, allows us to not only deploy soldiers for the purposes of participating in combat missions but also respond to humanitarian missions, such as we saw in the Caribbean, such as we have seen on other occasions where Canadian Forces, along with aid workers, deploy for the purposes of humanitarian relief and assistance in times of natural and sometimes man-made disasters.
We have seen, certainly in recent years, the necessity to purchase specific types of equipment that have great utility. For example, there is the use now by most countries, including Canada, of unmanned aerial vehicles, which are a very high-tech capability that allows us to have vision both day and night. So 24-hour vision on the ground in a theatre of operations like Afghanistan has incredible preventative capability to allow us to detect, for example, the planting of IEDs in the road. It allows us, when combined with other capabilities such as signals intelligence, to interrupt and very often pre-empt those bombs from killing Canadians soldiers or civilians or to detect where they're being made or, in some cases, where the materials are being gathered to allow those insurgents to use that type of explosive device. So that is an example.
Tanks we spoke about earlier. Because of the force of the blast of some of these IEDs, going to a main battle tank...and you can ask General Natynczyk in particular about this. As a former tanker, this is something he's very familiar with—yes, still a tanker.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Hon. Peter MacKay: But these Leopard 2 tanks, which we were able to procure through a very innovative process from the Dutch, gave us a new capability that we hadn't been in possession of for some years.
Other modern land craft are equipped with body armour that again is designed specifically to protect the soldiers who are operating that equipment. Even the body armour itself, which is of a lighter composition that allows for greater mobility, the type of weaponry that is being used in theatre, M-777s, and the type of protective capabilities that we now provide our soldiers were important investments and, as you indicated, came about as a result of the experience in Afghanistan.
But to your question, when those pressures arrive they can clearly cause a change in the type of investment required. Over 20 years, to be frank with you, sir, I expect that there will be other changes and other innovations that may put pressure on the budget of the Department of National Defence. But this Parliament and, I would suspect, all members of this committee would agree that we can't send people into harm's way without proper equipment, without proper protection in particular, and without giving them the best capability to perform this important work that they do for us both at home and abroad.
:
Mr. Chair, I would certainly agree that Parliament plays a very important function with respect to the examination of all items that Parliament chooses to examine. But as far as the Military Police Complaints Commission is concerned, there is a legislated mandate; that is to say, there is set out specifically in legislation the mandate of that body, in the National Defence Act.
I want to come back to a reference that was made by my friend with respect to additional funding. My understanding is that the additional funding came as a result of the decision of the chair to pursue this issue through a public hearing. The public hearing required travel and required committee support, and that was the basis of the additional funding request, and Parliament was asked to approve it.
Concerning the reference to documents and witnesses, again these decisions are made by the arm's-length independent body, the Military Police Complaints Commission. Rulings with respect to what documents they access and what testimony they could give were made by that body and then affirmed by the court, in some cases. These are not made by the political branch of government.
Similarly, decisions about documents that are redacted or documents that would be limited for release are made essentially within departments after review by officials, usually with legal training, and then affirmed by and ultimately decided by a special department within the Department of Justice or of the Attorney General. This again is not a decision made by ministers or by political staff; it is made by professional public servants, with legal advice from the Department of Justice. And it is made, as you know...and this has been a subject of public debate recently. These decisions are made to protect, in many instances, issues that relate to national security, issues that relate to confidential information received from international partners and allies or information from other agencies who specifically request confidentiality, such as the Red Cross, or international bodies, or confidential sources.
So there's a whole array of considerations that go into making those decisions about release of information as it pertains to national security. It's also important to note that the information can, of course, endanger both civilians and soldiers operating outside the country if it is disclosed.
Those are some of the considerations that go into the decisions around the release or the inclusion of documents from a hearing.
:
I was going to add the very same thing.
I would ask Mr. Braid to have some patience until I get to my question, which is quite relevant and very similar to the kinds of things the minister was just talking about, which presumably are on the topic; otherwise you would have ruled him out of order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your understanding.
The document I'm referring to is one written by Mr. Colvin, in consultation with Lieutenant-Colonel Elms and Madam Bloodworth, and sent to a number of people, including a number of addresses in Foreign Affairs as well as military addresses, CEFCOM, etc., and the Privy Council Office. It's on the subject of Afghanistan detainee issues. It refers to memorandums back in July, October, and November of 2006. The entire memorandum is blacked out for two and half pages, so there's absolutely nothing made available. The answer, which is directed to the ambassador, is also blacked out and entirely unavailable to the MPCC, the House of Commons committees, or the House of Commons in general.
Minister, given that one of the questions arising in terms of international human rights law is that the rule expressed yesterday by Colleen Swords and also expressed a little while ago by Brigadier-General Watkin.... The rule of international law is that we aren't to transfer prisoners to a real risk of torture or abusive treatment. That's what Brigadier-General Watkin has said is an expression of international human rights law. The question is very simple. Do you honestly think that either the MPCC or a committee of this House can actually understand what Canadian officials knew about the situation with this kind of evidence, and does this fact, this problem, not support the need for a proper public inquiry with a justice who could sift through this, who would be able to decide what is relevant and what is not? Isn't that a more proper forum for this kind of thing?
We're talking about giving more money to the MPCC, but they can't get the documents. Isn't it more sensible, more realistic, and more open to have a full public inquiry so that this can get off the agenda of the political realm, which it is very much in now, and get to an objective, proper consideration of the relevant issues and not go off on sidetracks?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be pleased to answer Mr. Harris' question. With respect to the MPCC, I'm more than happy to discuss the subject matter.
Referencing December 6, 2006, I was in fact the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, but specifically related to the question of documents, Mr. Harris has in his possession, as others have, documents that have been turned over by the government for the purposes of the other committee and the purposes for which they can be used here as well.
I come back to the point, Mr. Chair and colleagues, that the decisions around redaction--or editing, if you will, because I think a lot of people are perhaps not familiar with the word “redaction”--are not taken by politicians or ministers. Those decisions are taken at an arm's-length level by trained officials with national security clearance, aided by the Attorney General's special department on national security. That is to say that decisions are taken around what information can be made public for the purposes of a parliamentary committee or otherwise, based on national security concerns, to protect individuals, agencies, and countries who have in some instances given us information and, perhaps most importantly, to protect Canadian citizens--soldiers and civilians--who are working in missions like Afghanistan, where they could be put in harm's way. Their lives could literally be at risk if certain information is made public for a nefarious purpose. The Taliban or otherwise, those who would do us harm, having access to that information could endanger their lives, so an arm's-length decision is made with respect to that disclosure.
Coming back to the point of commentary that may have been deemed offensive by my colleague and other references to this, the public commentary that references war crimes or being complicit in cover-ups or being complicit in some sort of torture without proof is offensive to everyone. I heard General Gauthier and others take great offence, great umbrage. These are men with 30-plus years of military service having their careers tarnished, tainted by references to inappropriate, even criminal activity. Surely they would be offended by that, particularly when it's unfounded or without evidence.
Let's talk about facts. Let's come back to evidence. Let's come back to issues that can be proved, issues that can be backed up.
We've heard testimony now before the other committee, Mr. Chair, if you will permit me, from three respected generals in charge of the Afghan mission at the time in question. We've now heard testimony from three high-ranking public servants also tasked at that time with respect to the Afghan mission, none of whom in their testimony referenced being in possession of or being aware of specific torture allegations when it came to Canadian-transferred prisoners or detainees.
So based on that, how would anyone at this committee or anywhere else, knowing full well that we take our advice and see the mission through the lens, through the filter of those individuals...? If they didn't see torture or pass on allegations of torture, how would government officials come to any other conclusion? That's how I would respond to the question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Ms. Gallant. I thank you as well for the long affiliation you've had with CFB Petawawa and the work that I know you've personally undertaken with respect to military families.
I would agree with you that the Canadian Forces have come a long way in the last number of years in efforts made to, shall we say, embrace military families in a more substantive way through programming and recognition at the bases for the need to invest in such things as child care, education in the broad sense, and support for families while soldiers are deployed. This has been a priority of the Chief of the Defence Staff. It has been a priority of the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces. Certainly General Walt Semianiw, who is here with us, bears both the responsibility and much of the credit for those advances.
You also mentioned--and I know the general will forgive me--Leslie Natynczyk. She has now taken on responsibilities, many of them voluntary, with respect to further advances in assisting both military families and those who are returning from deployment with deployment-related injuries, whether psychological or physical. She has taken a specific interest in programs such as the Soldier On program. Such programs are designed to assist those suffering deployment-related injuries and to assist as well in the family-related matters that you mentioned.
We are very much making this a priority in the Canadian Forces. This is very symptomatic of a modern military, a military that recognizes broader responsibilities that go beyond equipment and infrastructure. These concerns are very personal for the members of the Canadian Forces, because they impact directly on their family and their future. I am very proud of the advances that are currently taking place and that have already taken place. Again, it's an example of their professionalism and of the appreciation and affection that Canadians feel for their men and women in uniform.
To come back to the question of scholarships or support for young Canadians who wish to embark on a career with the Canadian Forces, money is available when it comes to education. Whether you're entering the Canadian Forces as a reservist or as a member of the regular force, there are education bursaries, and Royal Military College in Kingston, one of the finest education facilities in Canada, has scholarships to offer. At high school graduations I attended last spring, a number of young Canadians, including some from my riding in Central Nova, were given significant--we're talking tens of thousands of dollars--scholarships for entering the Royal Military College and other university programs that can lead to a career within the military.
Much of that information is available on the Canadian Forces website, and we have individuals now who are going to campuses and community colleges and universities around the country to make that information available.
I'll come back to your last question, Ms. Gallant, about the helicopters. We have purchased used helicopters with heavy lift and medium lift capability, for lack of a better term. They are in good condition and were maintained by the American forces. These Chinook helicopters were made available to us on an urgent basis so that we could get that capability into Afghanistan immediately, and we purchased them. They're there now. We're back in the business of that type of helicopter and have the previous capability that we had going back some years. We have also contracted to purchase 15 new “F” models, a modern version of the same helicopter that will serve us well into the future.
Mr. Bouchard has asked some questions about where they'll be based. The new helicopters that we purchased are piloted by Canadians. It took some time, of course, for the pilots to familiarize themselves with flying that type of aircraft. Some modifications, I believe minor ones, were made.
In order to have that capability, we had to invest. These are not unsophisticated machines. They are not available at your local Canadian Tire. They had to be modernized somewhat for our purposes. I'm not going to single out any other country, but Canada has a very high standard when it comes to maintenance and mechanics. We have people in the Canadian Forces today who are nothing short of magic. Imagine keeping a 45-year-old Sea King helicopter operable and available for missions. The same can be said of the Buffalo and of some of the aging Hercules aircraft that we use on the west coast. Those incremental amounts are meant to help maintain and upgrade certain aging equipment and to make certain modifications to equipment that was recently purchased.
Does that answer your question?
:
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put some questions on the table and then get an answer back, because I'm sure I won't have enough time.
On the issue of linking the broader national security issues with the need to really build our defence industrial base across the country, again, the Canada First defence strategy seems a bit weak in that area, and I would like more clarification and more information on that.
One issue that has been touched on is the need for a mechanism to review the content on a regular basis within the Canada First strategy. I would like to have that scoped out a little more in terms of changing priorities and changing needs, particularly over a 20-year period, to have a kind of mechanism in place that gives a regular review update to this standing committee.
And the final issue, in my reading of it, is the failure to prioritize any of the initiatives that are in there. For example, we have this issue that the minister touched on, about capability and supply of resources. This is going to be a challenge as we continue to move forward.
Obviously we've seen some projects stall. We've seen setbacks in a number of areas. Announcements don't deliver. Just because we've announced that we're going to have ship X or aircraft X doesn't mean we have it. So it seems to me that there is a need to develop a straightforward procurement approach. Obviously that touches also on other departments, but it is something on which we need to get more information.
I put those three questions out. I don't know if anybody wants to respond in the short time remaining, but I have found in this committee that if you don't put your question out, it might not get answered. So if we could get those answers in writing, I would appreciate that.
Thank you.