Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chairman, last August I had a chance to be out at the Edmonton garrison. At that time we did an extensive tour. I took a look at the equipment that was available out there: the Coyote, the LAV III and the Bison. We also had a chance to take a look at the upgraded Leopard C2 tank. I even had a chance to ask a lot of the soldiers out there how they were able to stand up against the Americans in war games and got an extensive briefing on how smoothbore and rifle-bore tanks performed and how our tanks performed against their Abrams.

After all the things I heard, quite frankly I am very confused that we have heard statements like, for instance, how Canadian forces are going to face a mass extinction of capable fighting force within 15 years. I saw a contradiction to that statement out at the Edmonton garrison. I wonder if the minister would clarify that.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the question. I think that it again illustrates how the opposition will say that I spend a lot of time defending all these things, but they always look on the bleak side of things. If the cup is half full, they will say it is half empty. They are not recognizing what the government has done.

There is more to do but the government has done a lot in terms of equipment. In fact, to support what the hon. member just said, let me quote Lieutenant-General Jeffery, commander of the army. He is not here but he has been mentioned often enough. He said in terms of equipment “...I cannot remember a time when we were better off”. He said that on February 22 of this year.

There is a lot of new equipment. Yes, there is stuff that still needs replacing and still needs upgrading. There is no doubt about that, but the government has moved to increase the capital spending budget to be able to provide for the kind of equipment we need and we are going to continue that.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the member across the way who has been talking has been asking about something, and that is what I am going to ask about. There is one thing I want to clarify right off the bat. The way the opposition has gone on about the Sea King helicopters one would think that we are the only country in the world that is using Sea King helicopters. I would like the minister to clarify that.

Also, I was out in Halifax two years ago. I was on HMCS Fredericton . I had an extensive tour of that frigate and I will ask a question about that in a few minutes.

Yes, the frames on the Sea Kings are old, but my understanding is that the mechanics within them have been upgraded. I would like him to clarify that.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

That is quite true, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier we have invested some $75 million in upgrades. We have invested $50 million to upgrade the gearboxes and other components that help ensure the safety and reliability of the Sea King. Another $25 million has also been invested to upgrade the avionics. They are performing exceedingly well in the Arabian Sea from the back of our ships, carrying our--

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

They are 40 years old. They can't fly in that temperature.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of age. If the hon. member knew anything about aircraft, he would know it was not just a question about age. He would know that it is also a question of how well we maintain these aircraft. They are well maintained because we have good people to maintain them.

Out our pilots have said “We would not fly an aircraft that was dangerous”. “We always err on the side of caution”. “I have no concerns”. “I have all the confidence in the world in the aircraft”. “I have no concerns whatever with regard to the maintainability and operability of the Sea King”. “It is quite a robust aircraft”. “It is quite good at what it does”.

These quotes came from pilots. There are some 23 countries that fly the Sea Kings, not just our country.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

They are 40 years old.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

The United States navy took delivery of its Sea Kings. They go from 1960 to 1969, so they have a few years on them as well.

I saw a photograph of the British marines in Afghanistan in the campaign and they were getting out of a Sea King. They bought their Sea Kings as far back as 1969. As I said, 23 countries have them. There are some 600 of them.

We used to see those photographs on the back lawn of the White House with the president of the United States climbing into his Sea King helicopter. We used to see Bill Clinton do that. I have not seen George Bush do it. Since September 11 they do not allow photographs any more. We are not sure if he is still using it, but we have certainly seen many photographs in the past. They had enough confidence in the United States to have their president in a Sea King helicopter.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Will we see a prime minister in a Sea King? When is the Prime Minister going to go up in a Sea King?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

The member likes to talk about the age of the Sea Kings. As I indicated earlier, the B-52 bomber is an example of an aircraft that is still in service in the United States and it is over 40 years of age. It is not a matter of age. It is a matter of how good the aircraft is, how good the frame is and how well it is maintained and upgraded. It is good to note the United States in terms of the Sea Kings or the B-52 because the United States has more money in its military than dozens of other countries combined. The Americans have every capability and opportunity to buy the newest equipment, yet they recognize that a machine that is working well, that is still functioning and can be well maintained is worth keeping in their inventory and they do exactly that.

The hon. member is absolutely right. There are in fact numerous Sea Kings that are still in operation.

We recognize that they are getting to the end of their useful life. It is not so much the question of age. Age is somewhat of a factor but it is mainly the question of their capability. It is time to upgrade that capability. We have modern state of the art frigates. We need to have modern state of the art helicopters on the back because the maritime helicopter on the back of the frigate actually extends the capability of patrol of the frigate some 12 times. For about one-tenth of the cost of the frigate, we get a helicopter that extends its surveillance area some 12 times and that makes a lot of sense. However we have to have the up to date equipment so we are into the procurement process.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Why do you keep changing it?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

We do not change it. The statement of requirements that was adopted by the Canadian forces and submitted to the government was adopted without any change by the government. We are operating on a statement of requirements that the Canadian forces say represents what they need in terms of a maritime helicopter.

We have been moving through the various stages. We have taken the statement of requirements and put it into technical specifications. We have been consulting with the industry because we want to ensure that the industry has every opportunity to bid on this because we want a competition.

We want to get the best possible price. The Conservative government under Brian Mulroney, to which the hon. member belongs to now, wanted to go out and buy a more expensive helicopter than the one we will be buying. The helicopter that party wanted to buy would have not been relevant to what our needs are today. We will get what we need for now and for the future, which better meets the requirements of the Canadian forces.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question about the frigates but I think I will move to the submarines and the purchase of them. I want to know whether one of the modifications will be to change the steering wheel from the right hand side to the left hand side.

I know the United States and the U.K. are very interested in ASW and in training on their nuclear powered submarines once we get our diesel electrics operational because they are quiet. Could the minister indicate whether Britain will move as fast as possible to ensure that we get these submarines in service that are over there along with their own?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the diesel submarines are very quiet. The Upholder class is a state of the art submarine. It is very quiet. Stealth is important in underwater operations. Nuclear submarines are not as quiet or as stealthy as the diesel ones are.

The United States, which has a nuclear fleet, is interested in training with the diesel fleets. The Americans are happy that we are proceeding on this purchase because our navies do work closely together, above and below the surface. We are anxious to get these up and operating. There have been some delays.

It is a very complex piece of equipment. Any time a complex piece of equipment is brought into existence it takes time. It took the Australians 15 years to get theirs into operation. We will get ours into operation in five or six years. They will serve us well for a long period of time. We want to ensure that they are ready to serve this country and that they are ready to perform the kinds of functions that we want them to. We want to ensure that they are safe for our submariners.

[The Deputy Chairman]

It being 11.34 p.m. and pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) all votes are deemed reported. The committee will rise and I will now leave the chair.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11.36 p.m.)