Debates of May 17th, 2007

National Defence—Main Estimates 2007-08

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the minister misunderstood my question.

The comments in the past were that they were outdated, worn out and endangering the lives of our men and women, no matter the use to which they were put.

My question is very simple. Why were they dangerous to our men and women then and why are they not now?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, now I understand the thrust of his question. We are talking about the wear and tear and the age of the Hercules fleet. In fact, three aircraft have already been taken off line. They are beyond use. We will continue to take them off line until we get the replacements.

There are about nine or ten younger Hercs that have a lot of hours left in them, but there are about 20 Hercs that are reaching the end of their life.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will move on to my other question. It has to do with the mission overall with respect to the caveats. I am glad that the general is here.

We know very well that a year or so ago we extended our mission to 2009. I believe it was in May when there was a vote taken in the chamber.

We know that these things are planned on a long term basis. Can the minister today commit at least to give notice to our NATO partners, given that we are committed to a certain date, so that they can plan ahead? We know that NATO, of course, often does plan ahead. NATO does not make decisions overnight.

Can the minister assure us that this discussion will unfold with NATO?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, it happens that this is the first anniversary. May 17 last year we extended the mission to February 2009. The cabinet has not met to discuss this topic. I do not believe it will meet to discuss it, perhaps until next year sometime, at which time whatever comes out of that, if there is a desire to change the mission, Parliament will be informed and it will be discussed in Parliament.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, can the minister assure the House that should that discussion unfold and should Canadians be asked to extend the mission, before the government commits to extend the mission, as we are faced with the so-called caveats today around the table, he will demand that these caveats be lifted and not restrict other members of NATO in their participation? Can he assure us that these caveats will be lifted?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can assure the members opposite that if there is any significant change to the commitment in Afghanistan, Parliament will be informed and consulted.

With respect to caveats, we are working on a continuous basis to have caveats removed. Considerable numbers of them have been removed. There are still some remaining, but we are confident that over time all caveats will be removed.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to go on to the ITAR program which is the program that allows Canadian workers to participate in repair, maintenance and so on of our equipment. We know there is a blockage in terms of Canadians who were born outside the country with dual citizenship. Could the minister give us an update as to what is happening with that file?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, a partial initial agreement has been made between the defence department, DND, and the state department in the United States. The essence of the agreement is that they will accept any defence employee who gets the required security clearance to operate on American equipment. That is the short version.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The last question I have, Mr. Chair, has to do with a most recent event and that is when the wife of the Leader of the Opposition wanted to visit CFB Wainwright in Alberta. I am not saying it is accurate, but rumour has it that through DND, instructions were given that for Ms. Krieber, who is a former professor and is well acquainted with what she wanted to do, there would be no media, no publicity and basically to visit the families. I am not saying that the minister had instructed specifically but certain instructions were given.

Can he assure us when an individual or individuals who meet the qualifications and have a significant role to play that such a request will not be denied in the future?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I understand it, Professor Krieber is a professor at DND and that was the issue. I had no involvement in this at all. It was a decision by a base commander who has the right. If his base is too busy, he does not have to accept the DND professor, no matter who they are.

If Ms. Krieber came as the wife of the Leader of the Opposition, that would be a different matter. If she is coming in a political role, then my office would be advised of any politician showing up on a base. However, as a professor, which is my understanding of the arrangement that she was going under, it is strictly up to the military. I had no involvement.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will move on to the next round. The hon. Minister of National Defence will have a 15 minute slot now.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, as Minister of National Defence, I am responsible for a very big institution.

Canadians entrust us with billions of dollars of public funds, fully expecting that we will invest them wisely with the best interests of Canada at heart.

I am proud to say this evening that this government is doing exactly that. We have been an effective steward of public funds investing in the right things with the right results for Canadians. We have been an efficient steward of public funds making sure that with every investment we are getting the best bang for our buck.

As indicated in the main estimates for national defence, the 2007-08 program amounts to some $16.9 billion. The department employs thousands of military members and civilian public servants.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have a strong presence throughout this country, from Alert in the north, to St. John's in the east, to Comox in the west.

These thousands of men and women, military and civilian, are fulfilling a critical national responsibility. They are defending Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests. Whether their job is financial accounting in National Defence headquarters, servicing aircraft in Bagotville or patrolling the grounds of Kandahar province, each of these individuals plays an important role in our defence team. This government is doing its utmost to support them.

Our first priority goes without saying. We want the Canadian Forces to achieve success in every operation we ask them to undertake. Providing for the defence of Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests is a no-fail mission. This past year has highlighted why we need our Canadian Forces now as much as ever.

The mission in Afghanistan has been making the most headlines but do not forget the helping hand our forces gave to Canadians trapped in Lebanon last summer, or the 8,000 search and rescue missions our air force undertook, saving some 1,000 lives, or the thousands of kilometres that our Canadian Rangers patrolled in the north, or the assistance our military men and women are prepared to give right now in the event that flooding occurs in British Columbia, should that assistance be requested.

The Canadians in Lebanon and the families in the Fraser Valley know that success in operations is paramount. That is why supporting operations is a priority for this government, whether it means putting tanks into theatre in Kandahar or supporting Arctic sovereignty patrols.

Having said that, we cannot realistically expect the Canadian Forces to maintain this high operational tempo at their current capacity. The downsizing and downgrading that the Canadian Forces suffered through the 1990s has left them with formidable challenges in human resources, in equipment and in infrastructure.

The fact is that we do not have enough men and women in uniform. They must manage with some equipment that is old and out of date, and some parts of their physical infrastructure are in need of repairs, or no longer meet current needs.

The Canadian Forces need the right people, equipment and infrastructure to achieve success in operations, not only today but also in the years to come. That is why the rebuilding of these core capacities of the Canadian Forces is critical for the defence of Canada and our national interests.

This government will continue growing the regular and reserve forces, and I am pleased with the progress that the Canadian Forces recruiting group has already been able to make. The number of applications for enrollment in the Canadian Forces is already up 25% from this time last year, and the recruiting group has been working hard to streamline the recruiting process to better serve applicants. As it now stands, 21% of new applicants are being enrolled within one week and another 32% within one month.

This government is also making significant headway in the area of equipment. In fact, under this government the budget for capital projects has now increased to 21% of the overall departmental program.

We are going forward with a number of procurement projects, including strategic and tactical medium to heavy lift helicopters, joint support ships, medium sized logistics trucks, and main battle tanks.

Our airmen and airwomen based in Trenton will see the impact of these major projects firsthand when the first of our C-17 strategic lift aircraft rolls onto the tarmac this summer.

Equipping the Canadian Forces is not only about buying the right things, it is also about acquiring them in a timely and cost effective manner. The fact that there will be a C-17 Globemaster in Trenton by this summer, just over a year after I made the initial announcement, is a testament to the progress that this government has made in modernizing defence procurement in Canada.

Our Canadian Forces should not and, in many cases, cannot wait 15 years to see a procurement project come to fruition. That is why, under the leadership of this government, the Department of National Defence is pursuing a number of procurement reform initiatives. In the future I do not want the C-17 example to be an anomaly. I want that kind of rapid procurement to be the norm, while also maintaining transparency and competitiveness through our procurement process.

This government is also improving the infrastructure of the Canadian Forces. For example, before Christmas this government announced that the existing oil and electric heating systems in military housing at CFB Gagetown will be converted to natural gas. Last month I had the pleasure of announcing the consolidation of Canadian Forces Station St. John's into a brand new modern facility in Pleasantville by 2013.

Just recently my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced that we will be upgrading the facilities at 12 Wing Shearwater to accommodate the new helicopter fleet it will be getting in two year's time.

Those are only a few of the recent initiatives this government has taken to ensure that the Canadian Forces have the living and working conditions they need here in Canada. These projects are for the Canadian Forces today and tomorrow.

When we consider the uncertain security climate these days, there is no doubt that the Canadian Forces will be needed for many years to come.

That is why implementing this government's Canada First defence strategy is another one of our priorities right now and it will make sure that the Canadian Forces are well positioned for the long term.

The initiatives I have already outlined, such as the major procurement projects, have been part of implementing the Canada first defence strategy, but there is more work to be done. The department plans to move forward on several new initiatives this year. These include improving national surveillance, increasing the military's presence at home and enhancing the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to emergencies on Canadian soil, rebuilding and strengthening our military across all services so that they are well placed to respond to future defence needs is a large effort.

The government's approach balances operations, expansion and transformation efforts in a measured and steady fashion to ensure success in operations, to ensure steady expansion and to ensure continued capability renewal. We cannot move forward too fast because then we would be neglecting the needs of today. This government is committed to implementing the Canada first defence strategy but at a steady rate that does not stretch the Canadian Forces too thin and undermine their current operations.

This government is acting as a responsible steward of public funds in defence. As members examine the cost estimates for defence in 2007-08, when they see a line item like the repair of roads at 4 Wing Cold Lake, they must remember that all these investments, both large and small, contribute to the broader goal of defending Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests. This is a complex and challenging job.

Fortunately, we have an extremely professional and competent team of Canadians, made up of soldiers and civilians who are prepared to work as long as it takes, and do everything possible to fulfil this country's defence mission. Sometimes they are far from their families. Sometimes they put their lives at risk, and sometimes they make the ultimate sacrifice.

The least we can do as a government and as parliamentarians is to ensure our Canadian Forces have the right resources at the right time to do their jobs. I am proud to be part of a government that is doing exactly that.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chair, our Canadian military has been neglected for a long time. The previous Liberal government irresponsibly allowed the state of our Canadian Forces to decline during its 13 year tenure.

The Liberals left our military's resources and equipment in an inadequate state for our men and women in uniform. It has been left to our Conservative government to correct this problem. As the member of Parliament with CFB Moose Jaw in my riding, this issue is obviously of great concern to me.

It is unfortunate but it is not difficult to come up with an example of deteriorating equipment in the Canadian Forces. We only need to look at the fleet of Hercules aircraft. They are aging rapidly and in urgent need of replacement. Canada's Hercules fleet has logged more flying hours than any other military Hercules fleet in the world. It is considered the workhorse of the Canadian Forces and they have been operating effectively for decades.

However, some of these planes, which have been in service since the early 1960s, will be grounded by the end of 2010. The tactical airlift capability must be replaced.

It is not only the air force that has been damaged by years of neglect. In my riding, the Saskatchewan Dragoons want to know about the tanks, the trucks and the ships. We should not forget that those are aging too. The fleet of Leopard 1 tanks are over 30 years old. We are in a situation now where the support and spare parts that are required to maintain these tanks will soon be obsolete. The tanks must be replaced.

The medium size logistics trucks for the army were fielded in the early 1980s. That was 20 years ago. This fleet needs to be replaced as soon as possible given its age and increasing maintenance problems. The trucks must be replaced.

Let us talk about the navy's replenishment ships. The HMCS Protecteur and the HMCS Preserver have done an exceptional job for the Canadian Forces but they are now over 35 years old and have become difficult and costly to maintain. The ships must be replaced.

We must also remember that this House voted on the mission in Afghanistan and committed our troops until February 2009. We cannot set them up for failure by neglecting their equipment needs. It is our obligation to provide them with the tools that they need to be successful. It would be irresponsible to send them into harm's way without agreeing to give them what they need and everything that they require.

The government needs to ensure that the Canadian Forces are well-equipped, whether or not Canada stays in Afghanistan longer than 2009. Without proper equipment, the Canadian Forces cannot accomplish their tasks at home or abroad.

The Canadian Forces need to be self-reliant. It is the only way we can be more secure at home and have a greater impact abroad. The Canadian Forces have been underfunded, understaffed and underequipped for far too long.

I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence or his parliamentary secretary for an update on the government's commitment to rebuilding the Canadian Forces.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, it has been said many times in the House that this new government is committed to rebuilding the Canadian Forces. By fixing, transforming, expanding and properly equipping our military, we will build a Canadian Forces that can effectively do the jobs that Canadians expect of them here at home and on the world stage.

We have worked hard over this past year to deliver on that promise. The government is doing its utmost to provide the tools our men and women in uniform need to succeed.

I think we can all agree that investment in the Canadian Forces is long overdue. Because of years of significant under-investment, we have a huge replacement backlog. Aircraft, trucks, ships and other important military hardware that should have been replaced years ago are still in operation.

Last June, the government outlined its plans to purchase joint support ships, strategic and tactical airlift, medium to heavy lift helicopters and trucks for our men and women in uniform. Almost one year later, we are making progress with these important projects.

The recent signing of the contract for the purchase of C-17s is a bold step toward providing the Canadian Forces with the equipment they need, when they need it. In the coming months, the first of these aircraft will arrive in Canada and the Canadian Forces will take delivery on the first of many new and urgently needed resources.

Acquiring strategic airlift will make for more effective deployments within Canada and significantly contribute to our “Canada First” strategy. It will also fulfill a top NATO requirement and show that Canada is taking leadership among our allies.

Finally, our forces will have the rapid, reliable and flexible capability to move troops and equipment quickly over long distances. We will ensure that Canada's military maintains a vital ability to respond to domestic emergencies and international crises.

Gone are the days when we had to rely solely on chartered strategic airlift. Our own planes will guarantee that during a crisis, the Canadian Forces will have the tools they need to respond.

This government is also in the process of replacing the aging Hercules fleet. This is integral to ensuring that critical resupply missions—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The time has expired for this time slot. We will have to move on.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank the minister for being here. Nonetheless, I intend to be fairly hard on him with respect to the Conservative government’s current defence policy. I think it is the role of the opposition to do this, and it is also the role of the opposition to stand up for taxpayers. So when it comes to Afghanistan and everything that follows—the purchase of military equipment—there has been a flagrant lack of control within the Department of National Defence. We have already been told that military spending, to the end of the mission, will be nearly $5 billion, not counting equipment.

We have before us at present a list of military equipment totalling $21 billion. And here is where the problem lies. Earlier today, the minister said in his speech that Canadians have confidence in him. I think that if Canadians and Quebeckers knew that there is a bill for $21 billion attached to the bill for $5 billion, they would react very strongly. As well, when I have finished my 15-minute speech and my questions, I do not believe that my support from colleagues in the Conservative Party will have risen at all.

In my opinion, buying this much equipment, for $21 billion, with no military capacity plan, is an absolute nonsense. It is outside the control of this House and the control of the public. I have some huge examples of this. I will not go back to the strategic airlift question, because the contract has already been signed. But I will come back to tactical airlift. The last time we talked about this, we asked questions and I am pleased to see that General Hillier is here. The last time, I told the media in Quebec that I had the impression that the entire matter of military procurement was in the hands of what I call the old boys.

These people I call the old boys are consultants. Look at the case of CFN, which includes Paddy O'Donnell—I believe Mr. Hillier was chief of staff for Paddy O'Donnell—and General MacDonald, who was formerly chief of staff of the air force. All these people are now part of CFN, and more specifically are lobbyists for the company. They are being paid by the taxpayers. I have an example here.

Listen carefully. For the Hercules 130, these are the prices paid for each plane. Remember that we are buying 17 of them. The prices paid in the United States are as follows: the air force reserve, $44 million; the air national guard, $52 million; marine corps, $57 million; coast guard, $59 million; department of defence, $63 million; USA 95: $33 million; USA 98, $49 million; USA 2000, $61 million; and it goes on like that. The price is between $40 and $60 million.

Do you know how much Canadian taxpayers will pay for the Hercules, probably thanks to CFN? They will have to pay $188 million per plane. So if we were to pay the average of what was paid by other countries—Italy, Australia and the United States armed forces—we would probably save $1.5 billion. I did the calculation. The overpayment will be $88 million for each of the 17 planes, for a total of $1.5 billion.

Can the minister confirm that he has completely lost control of his department and that he is no longer the one making decisions about military procurement? It is the chief of staff. There are big lobbyists whose ultimate concern is their companies’ interests, and they are making off with the pot, with the chocolate bar, and it is the taxpayers who are left holding the bill. Can the Minister confirm that he has lost control of his department?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, first, there are some facts that are incorrect. The member has quoted a number of facts.

My belief at the moment is the capital cost for a C-130J, which is quite a different aircraft from all the earlier models, is about $85 million Canadian. It is not the number the member quoted.

With respect to the integrity of the Chief of the Defence Staff, he is not influenced in any way by any lobbyists. We have a very rigorous system in the defence department, in public works and in the industry department. The basic requirement is made by the military. It does not say it wants Hercules aircraft or C-17s or anything. It defines in functional terms what it wants. Then teams get together to identify what equipment is available on the planet that could satisfy that. It happened in the medium transport requirement that the C-130 met the requirement.

The member's number are wrong. It is $85 million Canadian.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say a few words now about the Chinook helicopters. The Chinook is the famous heavy lift transport helicopter for which we are paying $4.7 billion, I believe. I have two things to say about this.

First, what the government wants to acquire is the F series Chinook. There are almost no defences on this type of helicopter. The new generation of Chinooks, the G series, is currently being used by the U.S. special forces. These helicopters are not for sale. The F series does not have what is called a defensive package. This means that when the helicopter arrives, it will be rather vulnerable to combatants on the ground and will have almost no equipment to defend it. The government is not saying anything, but there are supposed to be escort helicopters that accompany these helicopters in theatres of operations.

I think it is important for Canadians to know this. In other words, the price that is quoted does not include the package to defend this helicopter in theatres of operations. It must be escorted by other helicopters. Does this mean that the government will be buying other helicopters? Does it mean that the government will insist that the Americans provide us with the G series? What is certain is that the price that was quoted does not include the defensive package I was talking about.

There is a problem, therefore, with the escorts for these helicopters. There is another problem with the delivery date. They have been saying since the beginning that these military purchases are for Afghanistan. However, the delivery date for these helicopters is 2012. Our engagement in Afghanistan should be normally be over by then, unless the government decides to extend the mission. That may be what it intends to do.

There are two technical questions that arise therefore. How does the minister explain the fact that the F series, which is not equipped with a defensive package, will have to be escorted by other helicopters? How does he explain the fact that the delivery date does not coincide with our mission in Afghanistan, which is supposed to end in February 2009?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, first, the amounts of money the member keeps quoting are 20 year costs. For example, the $4.7 billion for Chinook helicopters works out to something like $200 million a year. These are 20 year costs. Not one year costs. We do not want the public to think we are paying these huge amounts of money in one year. It is the service for 20 years.

Second, the cost estimates we have for this include all the add-ons, including all the safety packages about which the member is talking. They are inside that money and we intend to acquire them.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say a few words now about search and rescue aircraft.

The Bloc Québécois would be disappointed to learn that the only military equipment currently really devoted to search and rescue and Canada’s internal policies is being asked to pay the price of all the government’s other purchases. It seems, though, that the government is currently tempted to postpone this program until later because the financial commitments are just too great and they may not be able to pay for this plane.

I heard the minister and the Prime Minister say during the election campaign that this type of plane was absolutely essential for the people of Canada and that the government would purchase it. Now, though, they are saying that the program will be delayed and we may even have to work on the old Buffalos to extend their lifetime, which in my view is already over.

Could the minister tell us what the latest developments are in regard to search and rescue aircraft? It seems to me that this would be a more justifiable expense. It would not necessarily be just for Afghanistan but for Canadians and Quebeckers too, who occasionally need to be searched for and rescued.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, to clarify a point, the major equipment we are buying is not only for Afghanistan. As I tried to say, this major equipment is for the 20 year future of the armed forces.

With respect to the search and rescue, the defence department spends about $600 million a year on search and rescue because it is a no-fail mission for us. We have to ensure that we offer the best possible search and rescue service to Canadians. At the moment, we have a mixed fleet of Cormorant helicopters and Hercules and Buffalo aircraft employed on search and rescue.

The air force is looking at options and it is up to the air force to come up with recommendations. The air force is looking at options for the future of the fleet. However, at the moment, the fleet is capable. It is doing its job properly.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to go back to tactical aircraft.

I have just gone over the numbers again. Correct me if I have the wrong figures, but the total cost of the project is $4.9 billion, $3.2 billion of which is the cost of acquiring the equipment. Unless I am mistaken or my calculator is wrong, $3.2 billion divided by 17 airplanes means that each one costs $188 million.

Why does the minister insist on telling me that each one costs $108 million when each one really costs $188 million? That is the number I am getting. I do not want to repeat all of the figures given earlier, but according to those numbers, the acquisition cost of each aircraft varies from $44 million to $71 million, and depending on those who procured them before us, we will be paying three or four times the actual cost of the planes. That does not make sense.

I would like the minister to go over this again. There are the support costs, but those are separate. The cost to acquire the 17 aircraft is $3.2 billion. I agree with him that we will not be paying for that in cash tomorrow morning. The cost will be accounted over the lifetime of the planes, which will be used again elsewhere. For now though, that is the price we will be paying and it looks to me as though it is three or four times higher than what other suppliers were paid.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, we are paying the world price for these aircraft and not a penny more. When we start looking at the costs, and I do not have them all at the top of my head at the moment, we have to look at what kinds of training devices they need, how many spare parts to buy, what kind of personnel training system to set up, and how many bases we are on. It begins by applying all those costs, but the basic cost of the machine is $85 million Canadian.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to discuss one last file with the minister, that of the multi-mission effects vehicles (MMEV). That file was also part of the army's plans, but suddenly disappeared. We know these vehicles can control the entire airspace of a theatre of operations. At one point in time, the army seemed very interested in acquiring these vehicles. The only fault I see with this file thus far is that it was announced by the Liberals. Perhaps that is why this government said they were not good vehicles.

I would like someone to tell me where we are with this file. I know these vehicles are going to be used during the Vancouver Olympic Games. However, at the present time, we have no counter-attack measures to stop a missile headed towards soldiers in the field.

Does the government still intend to equip our soldiers with a vehicle that will protect the airspace surrounding a field of operations?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite is mixing up two different pieces of equipment. They may look the same, but they are different.

One is ADATS. It is an air defence anti-tank system, which we currently have right now and which is serviced by Oerlikon. The second is MMEV, which will take ADATS and morph it into another system.

At the moment, I am waiting for a recommendation. I have not received a recommendation from the Canadian Forces on what they want to do with MMEV, if they want to proceed with it. That is where it stands at the moment. For now we have ADATS and we are using it.