Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Chairman, the minister says they are performing well but nobody believes that. There are 40 hours of maintenance for one hour in the air. Is that what the minister considers performing well? Those are the defence department's own numbers. According to Jane's Defence Weekly the date for ordering the basic aircraft has slipped to at least March 2003. Is that accurate? If so, are we now actually looking at a delivery even further past 2006?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I have heard enough of this. It is actually 30 hours, not 40 hours, but the member left out some words, person hours. That means that if a crew of 30 people did a little maintenance work and they spent one hour, that is 30 hours. In the formula the air force talks about it is person hours. It is a misleading kind of statement.

These helicopters are kept in good shape by crews who know how to do that. The age of the helicopters is not the big factor at all. It is how well they are kept. They have performed well. They have been operating in some 23 countries, including the United States. Yes, the president of the United States used to have one. I do not know if he still does. We are not told anymore because of security reasons. The past president of the United States was going around in one, and maybe the current president is as well.

Being 35 years or 40 years of age is not a factor. It is how well they are maintained, how much is invested in them to upgrade them and keep them safe to fly, and to be able to perform the mission. They are being kept in that condition and they have performed well during our mission in the Arabian Sea.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Chairman, can the minister tell Canadians how many aircraft his department anticipates it will be ordering and will it commit to a minimum of 28 aircraft?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, that is what we are ordering. We have indicated to the industry that we need 28. We have rationalized it fully. It is 28 that we are seeking in this procurement process.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Chairman, could the minister please tell Canadians when the Sea King replacement project office opened?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, it was in the 1990s. Department officials will probably indicate it was an earlier time because they will tie it to the earlier project. However, the earlier project was one that was unsuitable for current day needs so we cancelled that project. We will now get a helicopter that is more suited to current and future needs. We will save over $1 billion in the procurement process from what it would have been under the old Conservative EH-101 proposal.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell the House and Canadians whether he has any idea exactly how much money has been spent on the project? The answer to the question of when the project started is 1981. Can the minister tell Canadians how much money has been spent--

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I was not around in 1981.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The minister did not know the answer to the last question. It is not Trivial Pursuit. He did not know the answer. It has been around for 21 years. Can the minister tell Canadians how much money the government has spent in 21 years trying to replace Sea Kings that it has not managed to get its head around yet?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, 1981 takes us back to a previous project and another government. It was not the right project for the Canadian forces so we cancelled it. Our 1994 white paper policy indicated that replacement of the Sea Kings was one of four major projects. We proceeded on the search and rescue first. We replaced the Labradors and the submarines. We purchased the light armoured vehicle, the LAV III, and we entered into the replacement of the Sea Kings. Of course we did the upgrade of the Sea Kings so they could continue to operate while we have gone through this process.

In terms of the government and this project it is not the same project started in 1981. It had a different kind of mission purpose and a different statement of requirements from today. It was started by the government in the mid 1990s.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the point is still the same. As early as 1981 the Sea King helicopters were slated for replacement and a process was put in place to do that. It has now been 21 years and over $1 billion has been spent. The government still has not managed to figure out how to do it and what it will do and in what order.

How can the minister sit here and say after all the politics that were played over the EH-101 versus Sea King debate, which was not really a debate but a slapfest that happened, that the Sea King procurement process, which has taken 21 years and over $1 billion, is something about which he can feel pride?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I did not raise the word pride but I am proud of the fact that we are able to keep aircraft, whether it is the Sea Kings or any of our other aircraft, in good operating condition. That is because we have the right people to be able to do that. If they get the right training and equipment they will be able to do their jobs. We have some very good crews that help keep our aircraft serving useful purposes and doing so in a safe fashion.

What we are also getting in the maritime helicopter program to replace the Sea Kings is something that is more relevant to our needs today and in the future than what would have been the case if we had bought the previous purchase that the Conservative government wanted to do. Not only would that not be as appropriate for today but it would cost us a lot more money. We will save a billion dollars. We will save the taxpayers a substantial amount of money and get something that is more relevant to our current and future needs.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chairman, on page 42 of Part III there is a reference to the Hercules replacement acquisition, but there is nothing in the estimates on requiring strategic airlift in that regard. Will the minister tell us what percentage of Canada's equipment sent to Afghanistan has been airlifted by the U.S. forces?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Probably no more than what we have airlifted for them, Mr. Chairman. That would take the hon. member by surprise, but he has perhaps forgotten that we have three Hercules aircraft and an airbus that have been ferrying a lot of people, equipment and supplies back and forth. There have been a lot of Americans on our airbus over that period of time. We have been sharing the responsibility.

Yes, they gave us the transport to get our battle group over there, but we have been doing a lot of transport within the general area for them. That is what coalition efforts are all about. We each bring different resources into the effort which complement each other and provide for a team function to get the job done.

In terms of whether we will require a strategic lift, yes, it is a priority area for us to look at. We have not determined what we will do yet. We are looking at different options at this point in time. We have a project office set up which shows that we are serious in proceeding with the issue of strategic lift. As that office completes its work and we get through further stages in this policy update we will look at our options in terms of further strengthening our strategic lift capacity.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chairman, a strategic airlift has been a priority for the armed forces since Paul Hellyer's 1964 white paper, but nothing has been done. Canada is not like every other country. We are the second largest in the world in terms of land mass. We have small forces and we need strategic airlift more than ever before. We had to rely on U.S. airlift to get our equipment into Afghanistan. We needed the U.S. airlift to respond to both the Manitoba floods and the ice storm here in the Ottawa valley in 1998. Those are facts. What will the minister do to address this serious problem?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we received some help during the ice storm and during natural disasters here. The hon. member may not remember Hurricane Andrew in the United States. We helped the United States at that time. That is part of what we do. We help and assist each other. We do have a number of capabilities that can be quite helpful to our friends when they need that kind of assistance.

After I told the House about all the lifting we had done for the Americans in the theatre of operation, the hon. member is missing the point. He also misses the point when he forgets that there are only two countries that have this kind of strategic lift in the NATO family and that is the U.K., which only recently acquired it I might add, and the United States.

How did all the other countries like Germany, France and Italy get into Afghanistan and the other places where they had operations? They were renting this and that and getting the job done. I would not place too much emphasis on the fact that we did not have it in this case. We recognize that it is an important function to look at for future needs. We have a project office that is looking at various options.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chairman, 19 of our 32 C-130 Hercules transport aircraft are more than 35 years old. Four are about 30 years old. Is the minister worried, like many Canadians who have loved ones in the armed forces are worried, about the safety and serious accident potential of these aircraft because they are so old?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we do not allow any aircraft to fly unless it is safe to fly. We have an excellent record of maintenance and ensuring that they are safe to fly. As part of our examination of strategic lift capability we will be looking at what the relevance of that program is to the lift program that is provided through our Hercules. There is no doubt we must look at the replacement or upgrading of those Hercules before long. That again will be part of the options we will be looking at.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I too would like to start off by complimenting the research people, but I would also like to compliment the minister. He is doing an outstanding job tonight.

When I was part of SCONDVA, I had the opportunity to visit our troops in the Balkans. I got to see firsthand the great work that our Canadian forces personnel are doing and how they are appreciated by the common people over there, whether they are building schools or organizing Christmas parties for kids to help them cope.

I would like to ask the minister to comment on what he has seen and heard when he has visited our troops overseas.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have been fortunate to have been able to visit our troops overseas on a number of occasions. When I did, I found people who, first of all, were very professional. In Afghanistan recently I met with the American commander of the brigade there and he was very impressed with their professionalism, maturity and experience. One could readily see that and one could readily see the respect that the Americans have.

I have heard that before, too. In the Kosovo air campaign, I remember Lieutenant-General Short of the United States telling me that he considered the Canadians to be “first teamers”, and indeed they were. They were in there performing more missions than would have been our normal share given the number of aircraft, personnel and pilots we had.

Our people are quite professional and quite dedicated to the work. They are well trained for the work and they carry out their duties demonstrating that everywhere they are. I have certainly found that in my visits first and foremost.

I have also found people who are proud to fly the Canadian flag and proud to be a part of this country's service and who show that when they speak to many of the people in the local communities. In Bosnia I have been out on some of the patrols they do in local communities. They are proud to be Canadian and to demonstrate that Canadians care about the people, that we are not there to bring them any harm. We are there to help create conditions for peace and security, conditions in which they can help to rebuild their society and establish for themselves employment opportunities and the necessities of life for them and their families.

Canadians even help in a very direct way. Our troops become involved in certain projects. I have seen places in Bosnia where they have helped to build a schoolyard or a school or other facilities that are to the benefit of the local community. In many of these cases they got some funding from CIDA, for example. With that funding they helped to buy the supplies that were necessary. In one case, they were rebuilding a local school.

They buy those supplies locally so that they are helping the local economy. At the same time, they help engage local services, the plumbers or electricians or people in the community who have those kinds of skills. There again they are investing in the local community and helping to create employment opportunities. When it comes to helping provide the labour for the project, they chip in and do a lot of it themselves. They do it in their spare time. They do not get an awful lot of spare time. They are working very long hours every day, but what spare time they get they like to volunteer to help the local community.

What does that all result in? I think that results in a lot of goodwill for this country. People in many of the places our troops have been have been proud to be associated with the Canadian troops. They found them very friendly and very helpful. We want to be able to continue to make that kind of contribution to international peace and security.

Yes, at times we have to use the hard edge, as they say, in terms of having the kind of weaponry to ensure that threats diminish, that the troops are able to establish a stable and secure environment, but they do so in a Canadian way that I think brings a lot of credit to them and a lot of credit to the country.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chairman, as members know, a Coyote reconnaissance vehicle was involved in rescuing downed American pilots in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. I wonder if the minister could tell us why Canadians were called in to do this very dangerous job.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, admittedly it partly has to do with who is on duty at a given time, because other countries are also quite capable in terms of these kinds of missions. The Canadians have that kind of capability and the Americans and other militaries have that type of confidence in the Canadians, which is vitally important. They know that the Canadians can perform a mission well, whether it is a search and rescue operation or whatever the mission may be.

We already have had a couple of operations where not only have Canadians been involved, they have been the leaders. We just completed an operation in the Tora Bora mountain area. Some Americans and some Afghans were also involved, but most of the troops were Canadians and led by Canadians.

That goes back to the comment I made in the first place: that I met with the American commander in Kandahar and he has confidence in the ability of the Canadians. He knows they are dedicated and he trusts them to be able to do an effective job. If we can rescue people as part of that, then we are quite happy to do so.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned before, when I was on SCONDVA the minister asked us to do a study on quality of life. I have a few questions for the minister on the quality of life report.

As the member for Whitby--Ajax mentioned, we did travel to a number of Canadian forces bases all over Canada and in Europe. One night we were in Edmonton, where approximately 3,000 or 4,000 people were waiting for us in a gymnasium, if I remember correctly. This one gentleman from Suffield, Alberta got up to speak. He wanted to tell us how flat the land was around Suffield, so he used an example. He said that in Suffield people can watch a dog run away from home for two days. The point is that anybody at those meetings could get up and talk about whatever they wanted to.

While we were travelling around we heard quite a bit of talk about the Canadian Forces Housing Agency. First, I would like to ask the minister if he remembers what the budget was before the report and where we are at now. Second, during some of these meetings it was mentioned that there might be partnerships with private enterprises to run the Canadian forces housing agency. I wonder if any thought has been given to that.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member has mentioned the quality of life report again, because he deserves a great deal of credit for how this has all turned out, for the production of that report and for the many measures that have been put into effect. He was chairman of the committee at the time. He was a good chair. It is too bad that party voted against the report. It is too bad those members do not spend more time focusing on it.

The quality of life report is an indication of the government's commitment to improve the quality of life for our personnel. There are many measures we have taken. We have completed 68 out of the 89 recommendations. There are others that are in the stream. Members look for evidence of what we have done to help the Canadian forces and that is certainly very strong evidence, but we are not stopping there. We know that there are other things to do. We know we need other resources, for more equipment, for training and education and many other things. It takes all of these things to make the military a success, but I think we have had the right priority in starting with the strong measures that we put into effect with respect to pay, benefits, health, housing, et cetera, which are all part of the quality of life report. The hon. member deserves a lot of credit for that.

With regard to the amount of money that has gone into the upgrade of the housing, I cannot tell him offhand where the start is and where the finish is, but I can tell him what is in between and it is $186 million, which over five years is helping to provide for a lot of upgrades. There were a lot of horror stories at the time that he was in Edmonton and in other places. He heard from people who were in some of these accommodations with flooded basements and all sorts of drafty conditions, conditions that were very unsuitable for families. However, $186 million has helped to correct a lot of that.

Most of the people who work for the Canadian forces live in the market economy and live in housing that is not part of the military operations. About 70% is in that category now but certainly for the 30% who still do live on bases, who live in our quarters, there has been substantial improvement. I am not saying that it is all done yet. There still is more work to be done but we have come a long way. We have come a long way in all the quality of life measures.

On the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, we have looked at different possibilities of how to structure it in a way such that it could buy and sell land and by doing that be able to work out the economics of its portfolio without being a further burden on the tax base, while being able to provide for the needs of the Canadian forces housing. That, I think, is moving along the progression of a special operating agency. I think some of those elements will be given to the agency but I cannot say specifically at this time just how many of them. However, it is able to advance its program and get the job done and that is important.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have just one last question and it is with regard to the NATO flying school. When we were in Moose Jaw, we visited the flight school. There were a few countries that had signed up. I want to ask the minister how we are doing with the flying school. Have any more countries signed up?