NDDN Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on National Defence
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
Welcome back.
I know that Mr. Bezan has indicated that, out of camera, he wants to move some motions he has tabled.
There's been notice of motion given for a number of motions that I've put forward over the last few months.
On Monday, April 3, I gave notice of the following motion that I'd like to move now:
That the Committee undertake a one meeting study with regards to the National Defence Ombudsman's Report titled The Case for a Permanent and Independent Ombudsman Office in order to analyse the report.
I believe that most of us have met with Mr. Walbourne. He has talked about this report and having legislation come forward in the near future so that he would be more independent and not have his budgets controlled by the Department of National Defence. That would give him the ability to be more like an officer of Parliament, rather than someone who has to report directly to the minister—although he would still have that responsibility. It would actually kind of double-hat him.
I think it's important that we bring him to a committee meeting, that we hear from him, not only to talk about how the legislation could possibly be brought forward, but also to get a better handle on some of the restrictions and interference he has experienced from the department that have impeded his ability to do his work.
I know the ombudsman feels quite strongly about this and has done a lot of very good work in building his case, so I feel the committee should grant him the courtesy of hearing him directly on this. Whatever people think about it, he does great work on our behalf and that of all Canadians, so I would hope that we would at least hear him out.
Right now, it would just be a one-meeting study. I would prefer that it be in public so that he can be heard by everyone. The report is public, so I don't know why we would try to hide in camera on it.
Yes. I move that we amend the motion to specifically say that it is a public meeting, preferably in Centre Block, and televised.
We're now debating the amendment. One public, televised meeting is what's on the table.
Mr. Gerretsen.
There's an amendment on the floor. One public televised meeting is what is being asked for. That's the amendment on the floor for this particular motion. Wherever that goes, we can then go back to what you're discussing.
It used to be that anytime there was a minister or a chief of defence staff or anyone of a high stature, a commissioner, he or she would be the one. Specifically we didn't even have to specially request it. It would be automatically televised. But when we decided our routine orders for this particular committee at the beginning, when it was first set up, that was not included. So now, because it's not happening automatically, we have to specify that it does.
If it's a public meeting and the media want to televise it, the chair has to accommodate. So the media can also—
If it's a public meeting, but not televised, they can make a request. If you remember when we used to be over in East Block, they would sometimes come in and set up their camera behind the chair.
I have two considerations. One is that our agenda is quite full—certainly for the rest of the spring. The second one is that there are probably views on that out there. To add to that through another public meeting may be less productive than to consider at least the possibility of—
Because his views are public and we understand his views, I think there may be more value in having this session in camera. Let's have a robust exchange internally in this committee and ask him those things that we think we should contemplate among ourselves as a committee.
I agree with Sven. Anything that has to do with oversight or with really digging into an issue, unless the objective is to grandstand, I don't see the point in having it televised.
Yes, that's what I said. Unless the objective is to grandstand by making something televised, I don't see the point in necessarily doing it. I would think that if the interest is really to get the ombudsman here so we can ask him questions in a very frank manner, then I don't understand why it needs to be televised.
I would not be supporting this amendment. I would further suggest that the meeting should be in camera.
I think, Mr. Chair, that's unfortunate language to suggest that the defence ombudsman is going to come in here and grandstand.
I would think that when we have the ombudsman here who wants to do what's right for our troops and for the Department of National Defence, I don't think grandstanding would be involved. This is about hearing about his proposition.
I agree. The public should be hearing from him. We should be sitting here and hearing from him and asking him tough questions and getting answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would suggest that this is a public report and that the meeting should be in public. If it is in public, then what's the difference if it's televised or not, because everything will be on the record? People can listen in. This way, if it's televised, it saves the one obstacle of having the media make the request to have their cameras in here or to turn on the cameras in this room.
The thing is that Mr. Walbourne has a proposal that I think we should sincerely hear him out about, and make a determination on. That's why I said we should have one meeting. If we don't agree with it, if we don't think we need to do a report, we can make that determination after we hear from Mr. Walbourne. We can add meetings if we feel they are necessary.
I think if we are serious about having the ombudsman do the job without any impediments to how he goes about his daily business in support of our troops and those who work at the Department of National Defence, it would be irresponsible if we didn't hear from him in a public format.
I agree with James that we should hear from him.
My point on the in camera session wasn't so much about the possibility of grandstanding by any party. It would be unfortunate if that happened. It was more the sense that he may have some things to say that he would be more comfortable saying in camera, that he may not actually say in public, and that this committee could then either contemplate, as you say, in the form of a future report or just take under advisement for its own consideration. The value added may, paradoxically, actually be through an in camera session.
I guess I've always been an advocate of this being done in public and being as accessible as possible, and if it is televised, it's accessible to a lot more people. I think there are only very narrow grounds for our holding in camera meetings, and those are to do our own internal business or if national security is involved. I don't think there's any other reason we would be in camera, and if Mr. Walbourne had material he wanted to deliver in an in camera session, he would have requested that of us.
I met with him, and I don't believe that's the case, and if it comes to our deliberations about what has happened in the study and whether we want to submit recommendations, then normally we go in camera to discuss those. I think we should follow the normal procedures: make the meetings as accessible as possible, and then quite as normally, we would go in camera to discuss what we want to do with that information.
Just for clarification, when we started this discussion, I specifically asked whether this was a study or a briefing, and I asked whether there should be recommendations.
The response Mr. Bezan gave was, “Yes, we might have some recommendations come out of it.” Therefore, it didn't make sense to me to have a meeting that is public in which we're forming these recommendations and we're doing the work of the committee that you're talking about. As far as I am concerned, if we're really interested in getting some good, solid information and asking these questions, then we should have him here, but I don't see the need to have all of this done in a forum that is televised. I don't see the point of it.
I'm not hung up on it being televised, but it has to be public. If it is public, then there's an opportunity that media can televise it as well. I agree with Randall that we should be as transparent and open as possible. This is a public report and it's been out there since April, so there's no reason for us not to discuss it in a public manner.
Now, I'd like to remind committee members that when we do make decisions to draft reports or to make recommendations, we always do that in camera. That is the tradition of how this works, so I would not be interested in seeing us having that discussion in a public meeting. That should be for in camera purposes, but at the very least, let's have this one public meeting with Mr. Walbourne so we can hear from him and then we can determine whether or not it's a study after that fact.
Before that, we should remember that we're considering the wording “one public, televised meeting”.
Cheryl.
If there is going to be a study, then, to address your concern and as Mr. Bezan mentioned, we would have a separate meeting that would be in camera to discuss the report, as we always do. So we're not discussing recommendations publicly; we're hearing the testimony publicly, preferably televised. That used to be the rule, not the exception, and we could go back to having an open and transparent committee.
It sounds as though debate is collapsing.
I'm going to call it. We're on the amended motion of Mr. Bezan for one public televised meeting.
We're voting on Cheryl's amendment to have one public televised meeting on issue moved by Mr. Bezan.
All those in favour? Opposed?
Could we change the word “study” to “briefing”, and then if we're not going to be televised, would we consider doing it in camera?
Are you moving to...
An hon. member: Just move it.
The Chair: Is this a discussion, or do you want to move it?
I'll move it, because I would like to hear from him. If we were to have him here for a one-meeting briefing—
Okay. Mr. Walbourne has made himself available to each one of us for a briefing so we could privately ask questions in our offices. We've already had the briefings. Now we want to have an official, open, public meeting. What is happening in the armed forces that you don't want us and the public to know about concerning the well-being of our military?
I'm not certain why we would change it to “briefing”. “Study” leaves open the option of making recommendations. It doesn't require us to make recommendations. If we change it to a briefing, then we have to go through a lot of rigmarole to make recommendations if we decided we wanted to do that. A study doesn't require recommendations; it just leaves us that as an option that we could consider. If we do it as a briefing, I'm not sure how we would get to any recommendations that we would present to the House. I'm sure we could probably figure out a way to do it, but it would take a lot of juggling of the rules to do that.
I would like to see us leave the option open. We may have something quite non-controversial that we all agree on—that would be a miracle—but we should leave that option open.
Yes, I agree with Randall one hundred per cent: a briefing would close the door, if we decided as a committee to do a report with recommendations. And it would take a majority of the committee to do a report with recommendations. I'm concerned that we'd want to go in camera. I still think this is a public report, from a public office holder whom we want to hear from in a public setting at committee.
Despite what Mark is staying about grandstanding, this is about hearing from Mr. Walbourne on what needs to happen to ensure that he can do his job, as well as his replacements down the road, so they have the independence, the resources, and the ability to do what's right for those who serve us in uniform, as well as those who work in the Department of National Defence.
I wanted to ask a question of the clerk for the benefit of the committee. What other differences are there formally between a briefing and a study in the context of a one-meeting session that would constrain us or empower us to do anything other than just publish the report?
From a procedural standpoint, what the clerk was just saying to me is that whether it's a briefing or a study, assuming that this motion passes, which is for an in camera briefing, we could still do recommendations if we felt like it. The words “study” or “briefing” don't constrain the committee from providing recommendations should we want to do that.
Mr. Chair, that's helpful.
If I could just complete my pitch, I think, in light of what Ms. Gallant mentioned, that he did meet privately with a number if not all of the members of the committee, and chose to do so in private, I think there's a good opportunity now, through an in camera session, to align those private discussions, to listen to each other about what we had learned from him and to make sure that we have an opportunity to ask him those things that he may still want to tell the committee, but not in a public setting.
When I originally asked to be recognized, I was going to say I agreed with Randall about closing the door to the idea of a recommendation. I was going to suggest that we keep the word “study” in, but now I'm hearing that it doesn't matter one way or the other. I think that's a good point.
I don't know if you can do a motion to amend an amendment, but I like keeping the word “study”.
I was just looking at the one meeting. It's not much of a study; it's more of a briefing. If there is no major difference between a study and a briefing, then I would be happy to remove the change.
To go back to Sven's comment about this being briefed in private. Remember that we were briefed before the report was made public. The ombudsman wanted to make sure all of us on the committee from all parties were aware of his report and the recommendations that were in it, as well as the proposed legislation. That's why we received private briefings.
Now is the time to talk about this in a public format. Let's leave it at this: we can take out the term “in camera” and leave it at the discretion of the chair to talk to the ombudsman. If the ombudsman wants to do a public meeting, then let's do the public meeting. If the ombudsman is requesting that we do it in camera, then we'll do it in camera. Let's leave it up to the witness, rather than sitting here debating and playing politics.
There is nothing sensitive that we're going to ask. We're not going to ask about specific cases. If a specific case were to come up, however, we'd do that sort of discussion in camera.
This is not going to be a discussion where we are going clause-by-clause on a report. There is no reason to have this in camera. Now we've gone from an open public meeting, after the military ombudsman has already given his report in public and on television, to a closed-door briefing.
The spectrum that we've gone across in this committee is appalling.
I want to say once again that I think we have a responsibility to do our business in public, unless there are good reasons to be in private such as national security or personal privacy information.
If the witness says he wishes to do this in camera, I would respect that request. He understands very well what things need to be kept in private. I agree with James if he has made that request, but I don't believe he has, and I don't believe he will. If he has, though, we should be in camera. If not, then I would use the test I always use in these situations. How do I stand in front of a microphone and explain to people that we are excluding them from the public's business? In this case I wouldn't have a very good explanation.
I have a final comment before we vote on the amendment. Every time we've had the ombudsman here it has been a public meeting. I just don't understand why we would want to go in camera.
I don't think that what he's suggesting is partisan in any way, shape, or form. This is the system that has been in place for a number of years in several successive governments. He's just looking for a way to improve upon the system, so he can better serve those he's charged with caring for. After all, he's the adjudicator in many different situations with employees, staff, and members who serve this nation.
I think Sven might have covered that when he said that an in camera meeting might lead to other opportunities.
Was this ever considered under the previous government? This is something you guys seem interested in doing and I'm wondering why you didn't do it.
This is all new.
Mr. Walbourne himself served only for a very short period of time under the previous government and has been under the current minister since. This had not come up before, but I can see the merit in what he's suggesting.
Whatever changes are made will affect future governments as well. Essentially, let's hear from him and then decide after that how we will process this information. The way it stands right now, anybody could pick up his document and do it as public or private members' business, as a bill in the House. It's all drafted. It's ready to go.
Is there anything else on this?
We're going to vote on basically adding “in camera” to the amendment. James' motion stands as it is, with “in camera” at the end as the amendment, as proposed by Mr. Fisher.
Okay.
All those in favour of Mr. Bezan's amended motion, which is adding “in camera” to this motion?
In camera.
By a show of hands, all those in favour of the “in camera” amendment? Anybody opposed?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Back to the motion as amended:
That the Committee undertake a one meeting study with regards to the National Defence Ombudsman's Report titled The Case for a Permanent and Independent Ombudsman Office in order to analyze the report in camera.
This motion is back on the table for discussion.
James.
Finally, the NDP has suggested the following process on whether or not a meeting should be in camera. This is for the following purposes, and we'll see whether this falls into the criteria, as eloquently placed by David Christopherson. It says:
That the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes:
(a) to consider wages, salaries and other employee benefits;
(b) to consider contracts and contract negotiations;
(c) to consider labour relations and personnel matters;
(d) to consider a draft report or agenda;
(e) for briefings concerning national or parliamentary security;
(f) to consider matters where privacy or the protection of personal information is required;
(g) when conducting an inquiry pursuant to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment;
(h) to receive legal, administrative or procedural advice from the House of Commons' Administration; and
(i) for any other reason, with the unanimous consent of the Committee.
This was moved at the procedure and House affairs committee. It means that all of the other meetings scheduled by the chair would be public. I thought those are pretty good criteria suggested by the NDP.
I don't think in any way, shape, or form that the amendment forcing the ombudsman, an officer of the Department of National Defence, who reports to the minister and to us as parliamentarians, to meet in camera should ever have been proposed.
Okay.
You also know from having been a chair that the committee is the master of its own destiny. The will of the committee is to have this particular meeting in camera, and that's kind of what's on the table right now. What happens after this meeting is still open for debate. There was a suggestion that this could turn into something else, based on the testimony at the in camera meeting.
Ms. Gallant.
I would like to seek another amendment that we offer to the military ombudsman the option of whether he would prefer to have it in camera. The motion would go forth, at the discretion of the military ombudsman to have it in camera or not.
That was the amendment. It wasn't at the discretion of the military ombudsman. You're concerned that he may be discussing something that—
Just a second. Let's just get everyone's gyros caged here.
We have Mr. Bezan's statement as it stands, and at the end we added “at an in camera briefing”.
As a point of order, we've already made the decision. We've already voted on an amendment that it's going to be in camera. Now you're saying that it's going to be in camera if the ombudsman wants it in camera?
I think the intent is that if we call the ombudsman here, just knowing the guy, he's going to come here. We can call him here because we're the committee. What you're trying to suggest, I think, if I get this right, is that he'll decide whether he wants this in camera or not.
If he says he wants it to be public—
—then we would still have the meeting. He would get the invitation. We would leave the in camera piece at the discretion of the ombudsman, if I have that correct.
Okay, that's what we're voting on.
If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair, based on the advice you received from the clerk, what Ms. Gallant is adding is a qualifier at the end as to whether or not it's in camera.
The problem, as Leona pointed out, is that qualifier is actually whether or not the meeting would take place.
That's not going to work, because “in camera” is already at the end of that sentence, right? What's on the table right now, before your amendment, is as Mr. Bezan's motion now reads in its entirety, with the words “in camera”, then a period, at the end of the sentence.
I thought “in camera” was put up between “one” and “meeting”—“one in camera meeting”. I thought that's the way it was moved by Darren.
It wasn't discussed before today in the amendment. How could “in camera” be anywhere else but after “report”?
I was under the impression that we had inserted “in camera” between “one” and “meeting”, Mr. Chair, but regardless—
I just want to speak to the amendment brought forward by Ms. Gallant. I think we should leave it at the discretion of the ombudsman on whether or not he's to be censored. If we're not going to censor him, and he wants to be in public, then let's allow that to happen.
We're not censoring him. Censoring him would imply that we're not allowing him to speak. He can get up and speak about whatever he wants in public. He can go wherever he wants and say whatever he wants.
To suggest that we're censoring him is—
What I have here is up to the end of the original motion from Mr. Bezan. We take the period away from “report”, add “in camera or in public as determined by the ombudsman”. That's essentially the essence of it. That's what we're voting on.
All in favour of the amendment by Ms. Gallant.
(Motion negatived)
The Chair: We're back to our original motion as amended by the addition of the words “in camera” at the end of the sentence.
Mr. Garrison.
I'm placed in a very awkward position, because as I've said several times already in this meeting, I think this business should be done in public. However, I think it's important that this committee as a group hear from the military ombudsman, so it's difficult for me to determine how to vote on this. It places two principles that I have here in opposition. I will probably therefore vote to support the motion, because I think it's more important that we hear from him than not.
Once again, I think my point is whether this meeting can or will add value beyond what's already in the public realm without going into a second public session. My conclusion is that it probably will, so I would support it.
I echo what Randall just said. It's unfortunate that we're going to be behind closed doors, not be transparent and not allow Canadians to hear what the ombudsman has to say to us or what we have to ask as questions. At the same time, it is important that we hear from him, so I'll be supporting the motion.
If I understand the comments across the way correctly, the military ombudsman can speak in public any time he or she chooses and say whatever he wants, except he cannot speak in public at this committee. That's what I understand.
Thank you.
We're back to the amended motion from Mr. Bezan. Essentially it's the exact same one. At the end I've removed the period and added “in camera.”
All in favour?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
I'll move the next motion that I gave notice of on May 23. It reads:
That the Standing Committee of National Defence (Committee) study the recent fixed wing search and rescue project competition. That the Committee convene a minimum of three panels, and the Committee hear from the following witnesses: Leonardo S.p.A.; Airbus Defence & Space, and PAL Aerospace; Lisa Campbell (ADM Defence and Marine Procurement), and Patrick Finn (ADM Materiel).
Shall I speak to that?
As you know, the contract is tied up in court. There is some concern that the budget envelope as well the request for proposals were not clearly outlined to all participants in the tender process.
I think we should look at that competition and determine, after we hear from these witnesses, whether or not we want to write a report at that time. I think we need to clear the air and allow them to speak to how this procurement took place and why it got caught up in court.
Before I turn it over to Mr. Fisher, if there are proceedings going on, how much are these guys going to be able to talk about it anyways? Are they not just going to show up and say they can't talk about it because it's in some sort of—
I understand that they can easily talk to the issue of request for proposals, and because the budget envelope has been inconsistent, they will be able to mention that. What was in the request for proposals is different from what's tied up in the court.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that while this is well-meaning, we have a crazy packed agenda. We have so much stuff. We have the NATO report coming up. We have peacekeeping. I would suggest, respectfully, that we adjourn debate on this.
All those in favour of adjourning debate on this particular motion by a show of hands?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
On a point of order, now I'm going to have to try to understand what's going on. We can move to table motions. If we adjourn the debate, we go to a vote on the motion, don't we?
It's still dilatory. We voted on it. It's just moving it forward. If it had been voted down, he would have to change the wording, and he could bring it back in a different form later, but the bottom line is that this motion—
In this case this will, in the future, at the committee's discretion, be brought back to the table, and most likely Mr. Bezan will bring that back at a future date.
Ms. Gallant.
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, this specific meeting was organized to discuss these motions. Here we have a meeting especially to discuss these particular motions, and now you're adjourning debate in a meeting we held specifically to discuss these motions.
It's the will of the committee.
The committee decided on this particular motion. There's a whole bunch of them. There was a reason given and there was a dilatory vote. This is the will of the committee. That's the way it works.
Mr. Bezan.
Through you, Mr. Chair, on April 3, here's a motion I gave notice of:
That the Committee call for documents from the Department of National Defence in regard to the 'laundry list' of capital expenditures that will be affected with the reallocation of $8.5 billion dollars in the National Defence budget which the Minister of National Defence referred to during Question Period on the 24th of March, 2017.
For those who don't have one, the staff is handing out the motion. I had a little bit of a different version.
One is a call for documents and one is for a study. They're two separate things. I'll do them one at a time.
Yes, that's fine.
The one he's referring to was just distributed by the staff. The one that was handed to you is a call for documents.
Okay. This one is a call for documents, which is quite different from having a study on this.
During question period on March 24, the minister did refer to a “laundry list” of capital expenditures, of $8.5 billion that was re-profiled, as he calls it, or reallocated. We'd like to know what that's for. Based upon some of the analyses done by experts, including David Perry, they can only account for about $5 billion of it. We aren't sure where all that money was being sent or whether it was an actual cut rather than an investment.
Let's ask the Department of National Defence to produce those documents so we can see the full accounting. Now that the defence policy review is complete and the document is out there, there shouldn't be anything stopping the government from providing us with a fulsome list.
Mr. Chair, it's not so much about the physical documents and in what form they'll be delivered. It's about the information in the documents. The minister was in front of the committee of the whole recently and questions were asked relating to that. There's a record there.
The other thing is that I believe I made a motion earlier this afternoon that the minister would be invited on the 20th. There's an additional opportunity to ask questions of the minister and his accompanying staff on that occasion.
That's why I'm probably not going to move the other motion to do the study, since we are going to have the minister here, but the call for documents does provide us with greater detail on the exact investments.
Some documents, tables, and investments have been outlined in the defence policy, but at the same time, it's not a fulsome list, especially when you look at the $8.5 billion in this past budget 2017 and how not all the money has been accounted for. This is about informing us as committee members. It doesn't require us to undertake a study. It doesn't require us to meet and discuss it. It does require the department to provide us with that information.
Mr. Gerretsen, did you want to speak to this? No.
All right. As moved by Mr. Bezan, all in favour of this motion?
Did you want me to read it again? All in favour by a show of hands?
The next one I would like to move, especially knowing that the days of the independence of our parliamentary budget officer are quickly closing, is a motion that I tabled on December 1, 2016. I first gave oral notice of this motion, and I move it now. It reads as follows:
That the Committee request that the Parliamentary Budget Officer provide the Committee with a general analysis, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after the adoption of this motion, in regards to the decision of the Government of Canada to sole-source the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet for National Defence; that this analysis include, but not be limited to the Department of National Defence's estimates on the cost of the F/A-18 Super Hornet for:
a. Acquisition;
b. Maintenance, training and operations;
c. Lifecycle costs;
d. Associated costs of operating a mixed fleet of fighter jets; and
That the Committee order the Government of Canada to provide the Committee with electronic copies of the following:
1. All documents that outline acquisition costs, lifecycle costs, and operational requirements associated with the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet;
2. All potential industrial losses if the Memorandum of Understanding in regards to Lockheed Martin's F-35 JSF program were to be altered and if industrial benefits were to leave Canada.
I know that you guys would love to support this.
Can we compel the government to do that? Can the committee order the Government of Canada to provide this information?
I notice that we want to “request” something from the PBO but we demand something from the government.
If I understood correctly the answer given in question period today by the parliamentary secretary, the government has not decided yet to buy Super Hornets. He said it's something they're considering. So we seem to have had, from the time this was moved, a change in the government's position from a decision to a consideration. Given that that's the case, I guess I would say that this motion has become premature—which is a very weird of use of tense, since the government hasn't actually made such a decision.
Now, what we've always said is that the thing we're missing here is the list of criteria of what we expect jets to do and what we expect to use them for. Until we have that list of criteria, I'm not sure how any government, whether the previous Conservatives or the Liberals, has made decisions about fighter jets.
I think the committee doesn't need this; I think we need to ask the government to give us a clear statement of what the Royal Canadian Air Force has determined are the capabilities they need in fighter jets. Then the government could go ahead and conduct an open competition based on those criteria. Without those criteria, and given that the government hasn't made a decision, I don't think this motion should go forward.
First of all, on the issue of whether it's an official government position, we have to remember that the Government of Canada did send a letter to the White House administration asking them to make the Super Hornet available for an interim purchase and requesting 18 planes. The government has taken a position.
Now, have the wheels fallen off that request, with the Bombardier-Boeing fight? Maybe, but at the same time they haven't said that they're not buying the Super Hornet, either. The minister has been clear in his interviews, including this past weekend, that they are looking at all the options, but that still includes the Super Hornet.
Because there is the official request from the government to the U.S. administration to clear the path for Canada to acquire 18 Super Hornets, I think this is relevant.
For those of you who are concerned about the wording of this motion, I would just point out that this motion is completely replicated from a motion by Minister Scott Brison. He brought forward this exact motion about F-35s in 2009.
It did pass, because it was a minority government.
I hope everybody would see how well crafted it is, especially since it came from one of your colleagues.
Just briefly to Randall's point.... Again, the minister is available. If there is discussion on the criteria, that can certainly be asked next week.
Okay, but I am asking....
You can ask the minister all you want. We have the minister coming.
This is about, first, the parliamentary budget officer being able to do his work, and getting it done in the next three weeks so that we have a chance to see it. Second, it's about the demand for the production of papers from the government on their own accounting and their own information, and how this is going to impact our budget and impact jobs. I think this is something Canadians are very interested in, regardless of the defence policy.
Right now they're not saying what type of plane it will be, but they are still talking about an interim buy. They are still talking about spending $5 billion to $7 billion on 18 jets, which is pretty pricey.
I think this is a very relevant motion. I would ask that everyone support it, especially since it is crafted by your Treasury Board president—he'd probably support this motion.
[Translation]
In fact, your own defence policy indicates that Canada must acquire sophisticated planes. Since the Super Hornet isn't a sophisticated plane, you've already eliminated it.
Let's move on to the next point.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Bezan for reminding me that I had one motion outstanding, which was asking for a study on the fire at CFAD Bedford. We haven't been able to get to it. Given the workload of the committee and the time that has already passed, I am going to pursue that through other means. I wish to withdraw the motion.
(Motion withdrawn [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'll move my last motion, from November 25:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee conduct a study of the Federally Mandated Carbon Tax and its effects on the Canadian Armed Forces, especially on the budget and spending items; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House of Commons no later than Thursday, April 13, 2017.
I'll speak to that now, or do you want to adjourn debate?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Let me finish first before we start going into this.
Mr. Chair, since I have the floor, I'll just speak on this. Even though in the defence policy book that was tabled this week, they did talk about exempting the fleets of military vehicles, ships, and planes from having to fit under the criteria of carbon emission reduction, it doesn't change the fact that all of our bases, all our planes, all our army equipment, all of our ships—the navy, army, and air force—still all have to pay carbon taxation. Wherever they buy their fuel, those jurisdictions have carbon taxes. Whether it's B.C., whether it's Nova Scotia, whether it's anywhere else across the country, there will be a mandated carbon tax brought into play in each and every one of those jurisdictions.
There is a cost associated with that. Just with some quick numbers, because we did some access to information requests as well as questions on the order paper based upon...and we went province by province right through. I can tell you that based upon the value of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and natural gas that's used for heating buildings as well as propane, especially in some of our remote bases where they use propane to heat buildings, it looks like the navy could be looking at anywhere from $13 to $19 million; the army between $8 and $10 million in extra costs; and the air force between $191 million and $245 million. That is significant, and it all would increase the price of fuel. That in itself could be as high as a $275 million cost to the armed forces, in terms of the difference between what these fuels cost now and what they will cost in the future.
It's $6.5 million—yes, I read that wrong. It's a $6.5 million total cost to the entire Canadian Forces.
It's $60.5 million to the entire Canadian Armed Forces.
I think that's significant. Whether it's carbon tax or it's carbon pricing, it all increases the price of fuel when you actually take actual expenses and add in the carbon tax on top of them.
Is this a study that's strictly aimed, based on your comments, at the cost of hydrocarbons to the armed forces, or is it also aimed at the concept of the green army that the United States is pursuing in trying to reduce the carbon footprint of the armed forces and increase the contributions that the forces could make to mitigation of climate change?
Yes, it's a fiscal thing. Now there's no doubt that when we have the minister here next Tuesday, we can question him about the one core mission that's been added to the Canadian Armed Forces, which is to battle climate change.
I didn't know that we're at war with climate change, but now it's a core mission of our Canadian Armed Forces.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I have been concerned that the budgets allocated to the Canadian Forces by the current and the previous governments that have been below the rate of inflation for operations. So I think there's a legitimate question about the impact on what I would call the budget's carbon price—not carbon tax. I think that is something we should be concerned about, but I'm also concerned about exempting the military from certain aspects of carbon pricing. It seemed to be in the defence review. So I have a somewhat different view.
There's only one planet here. Everybody's on it, including the military. I'm not sure the time we will have with the minister will allow us to fully explore this question. I do think it's an important question. I'll be supporting the motion. I would prefer that it did not say “carbon tax”. I guess I will move an amendment to change it to “carbon price”.
Okay, that's on the table, then.
There's an amendment to the motion to change it to “price on carbon” from “carbon tax”.—
Does anyone want to discuss that?
The amendment, as suggested by Mr. Garrison, is to amend “carbon tax” to “carbon pricing”.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Now we're back to debating the motion.
Leona.
When I was responsible for petroleum, oil, and lubricants contracts, including avgas and just about everything we bought and maintained, there were federal exemptions, so, I'm not certain this actually applies, and I would like to do some more homework. For that reason, I would like to adjourn debate.
Ms. Alleslev mentioned that she wants to do some more homework on this. She is somewhat familiar with it, and she wants some more time to drill into it on her own.
It's a dilatory motion, so that's why we're voting.
All in favour of adjourning debate by a show of hands?
Did we address the other motion from April 3? I'm confused about what happened to that other motion.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer