Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is turning out to be quite successful. The NATO flying training provides a multiphase program starting with operations in Moose Jaw. The final operations at stages three and four of the program are in Cold Lake, Alberta.

The first country to sign up was our own. We provided the base for the operations. We decided to do this as a public-private sector partnership. Various industries are involved in the private side of it. It is unique.

We have not had to buy the aircraft. The aircraft, the Raytheon Harvard II and the British Aerospace Hawk are not on the books of the Government of Canada because they were bought by the private sector consortium. That has been of great benefit to us.

We have been able to get the training program by signing up for it without having to put in the capital funds for the equipment. We have the best and most modern equipment and a new building in Moose Jaw, in fact which I opened, for the headquarters of the operation.

A number of countries have signed up. The first one that signed up was Denmark followed by the U.K. That resulted in more and more interest coming all the time. Once we get that critical mass we can move on from there to sign on other countries much easier as the confidence in the program is shown by the initial signers and as they experience going through the courses. We recently had the first graduates of the course.

We have since had Singapore sign on, which is the first non-NATO country. We have opened it to allies in non-NATO countries as well. They are Singapore, Italy and the latest one is Hungary. The chief of the defence staff went over there and that country signed on.

Not only are we beyond the critical mass needed to make it a success, we are now into the stage of ordering more aircraft, except we do not have to order them and we do not have to pay for them. That will be done by the consortium.

It is a great example of a private-public sector partnership. We help to control the training and ensure that a high quality of training is provided by our own personnel. Some of the other countries also provide the personnel for training. It is air force operated in terms of the training programs but all the support, the equipment and the facilities are provided by the private sector.

It is a great success. It is bringing the pilots of these countries to Canada. We have a similar program also that brings pilots from other countries. That is the one in Goose Bay, Labrador for low level flying. All of that provides a service for our partner countries, our allies. It helps increase interoperability. We are all working together, learning from the same basic training manuals and from people who put the programs on.

The private sector partnership is headed by Bombardier which is doing an excellent job in marketing it. It is a big winner.

When I travel to a lot of countries and meet defence ministers they have a number of people from their forces at the table. Invariably I meet somebody who is a trained pilot in Canada and is a friend of Canada's at the same time. There are those benefits as well in having NATO flying training in Canada.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to address this issue today. A moment ago my friend was speaking about CFB Suffield which is in my riding. I know people in my riding would be very upset with me if I did not express their thanks to members of the Canadian military for the fantastic job they have done with limited resources and for what they are doing in Afghanistan. The people across the country need to know that our thoughts and prayers are with their families through a very difficult time.

I want to move on to a very serious subject. It has to do with Challenger jets.

When was the minister first informed that the Government of Canada was going to purchase the new Challenger aircraft?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I appreciate the member's comment about Suffield. I might add that Suffield will take on an increased importance in the issue of chemical and biological threats. It will be the centre for research and development and co-ordination of that effort in Canada. There will be added importance given to the operations of defence research and development out of Suffield.

With respect to the Challengers, that is a government decision and I am part of the government. The Challengers are the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. The purchase was made as an upgrade to the fleet to replace two of the existing Challengers. That is being done to have Challengers with expanded fuel capacity and range of the aircraft. The approval by the government was given on March 24. The receipt of the aircraft was officially on March 28.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, that really was not my question. I was asking the minister when he was first informed that the Government of Canada would purchase the aircraft. Is he saying that he was first informed on March 24?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am saying that I am part of the Government of Canada, I am part of the decision making process and I am the minister who has responsibility for the Challenger fleet. It is not a question of informing me. It is a question of a government decision being carried out. We are all ministers of the same government, those of us who sit in the cabinet. We all bear the same responsibility and we are all part of the decision making process.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, surely the first time the minister heard about it was not around the cabinet table. Clearly there was a point before a cabinet meeting where the minister heard about this from someone. I would like to know who he heard about it from. Was it the Prime Minister? Was it Eddie Goldenberg? Who did he hear about this idea from in the first place?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of a cabinet decision. It is in the cabinet record. We do not talk about the process of cabinet decisions. They are within the confidence of the privy council. That is a tradition of this government and all previous governments. It is part of our system. The government stands and stands for its decision. This is a decision of the Government of Canada.

The member is trying to probe within the decision making process of cabinet. That is a matter that is in the confidence of cabinet.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, my question then is did the chief of the defence staff, the minister or anyone receive a recommendation from officials that the replacement of the existing Challengers was unnecessary? Was any such recommendation made by anyone in the department?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there is a report that has been noted within the department that deals with the Challenger fleet and its capabilities. It talks about its safety and its reliability and affirms that is the case.

As I said a few moments ago, the reason they were purchased was to upgrade the fleet's capacity in terms of fuel efficiency, fuel capacity and ability to fly non-stop to Europe which is a time saver. It is not a matter of the older ones not being able to perform a function. It is a matter of an upgrade. It was a decision of the government to have that upgrade carried out. It is not adding two aircraft. It is replacing two aircraft with new ones that can go farther and operate more efficiently.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the public is very concerned about the purchase of these Challenger jets. We have a situation where we have 40 year old Sea King helicopters and we have been waiting for a long time for those replacements, yet somehow the department can come up with $100 million within a period of 10 days to purchase the Challenger jets.

I would like to know from the minister specifically how the decision was made to purchase Challenger jets for the convenience of the minister at the expense of Canadian troops who have been waiting for decades for some kind of a replacement for the Sea King helicopters. How can the government justify that change in priorities?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the member is very wrong in how he is characterizing this. It is not at the expense of the Canadian forces. It is not at the expense of the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. This is money that is being reimbursed from the central treasury to the Department of National Defence. it is not money being taken from any project whatsoever.

It does not delay the Sea King procurement one day at all. The $2 billion that is required for the Sea King purchase has already been provided. In no way does it affect that or the purchase of any other equipment whatsoever. The money is all being provided by the central treasury.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, clearly that is an evasive answer. It is a complete red herring.

Unless the defence department all of a sudden has unlimited resources that $100 million comes from some other more worthy project. I can think of a lot of them, whether it is Sea Kings or uniforms or whether it is all kinds of other very necessary equipment that the Canadian forces require right now, especially at a time when we have troops with their lives on the line in Afghanistan. Unless the minister has invented a way to pull $100 million off a money tree somewhere, that money has to come from some other area. There is just no other way of doing it.

Would the minister then tell me, if it did not come from Sea Kings and the purchase was really unplanned until 10 days before it happened, where was that money scheduled to go until it was inevitably spent on those Challenger jets?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it was toward the end of the fiscal year and moneys that are still in the revenue fund at the end of the fiscal year go against the debt.

There was no money that could have been used at that point in time with respect to defence expenditures. There was other money that was allocated toward the end of the fiscal year and was in fact used for defence expenditures. However, it would not have been able to have been used for any other defence expenditures. It would have been required to be used by the end of the fiscal year.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the minister is saying that this is March madness and the government did not plan. Although it has equipment shortfalls in many, many areas what he is telling us is that the government forgot to plan to spend $100 million on things that are necessary like uniforms for instance.

He is saying that is not true, but clearly the government had not properly planned. It knew it had some extra money at the end of the year, but chose not to spend it on things that were essential to the well-being of the Canadian forces, some of whom are in combat situations right now and many of whom are in peacekeeping situations. Instead he said at the end of the year “We have some money laying around so let us spend it on really what amounts to a luxury, Challenger jets”, at a time when it did not need to spend money on them. We know the other ones were perfectly suitable for getting the minister around the country and around the world. Instead the government chose to spend the money on an upgrade, on really what is a luxury.

Again, I argue that if the government had planned properly, that money would have been spent on things that were important like uniforms, communications equipment and the basic necessities our troops so often lack no matter where they go in the world.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, that is simply not true. Money that we were allocated toward the end of the fiscal year was spent just as much as we possibly could on our needs. There were more revenues at the end of the year, as we have heard from the Minister of Finance. This became an opportunity to provide this upgrade in the Challenger fleet, which is not just used for me. The member personalizes it but it is used by the Governor General, the Prime Minister and all ministers in connection with important government travel as part of our job. This was an opportunity to get something that was more cost efficient, that would use less fuel, that would be able to fly non-stop to many destinations and even use shorter runways, which gives us more of an opportunity for a wider range of use in other parts of Canada.

It is not a luxurious aircraft. It is a Canadian aircraft. We should be using Canadian aircraft as our fleet for this kind of travel purpose. It will have the same kind of outfitting as the current Challengers have. It is by no means a luxury at all. It is a more efficient aircraft. It is not adding to the fleet; it is replacing two of the older ones in the fleet.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the minister knows very well that right now Canadian troops do not have adequate ammunition for live fire practice but we are spending $100 million on Challenger jets. He knows we have a $1.3 billion annual deficit in the forces' operations budget but somehow we had $100 million left over at the end of the year. That is simply not believable.

How does the minister square this contradiction? He said that we had $100 million extra but that we have a $1.3 billion deficit in our operations budget. How does he square that?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, within the restrictions of the fiscal policies, this money would not have been used for any defence purpose. There is not one program that is not covered because of this expenditure.

Under the same provisions, toward the end of the year some $300 million was provided for the defence department and was indeed spent.

The question he raised concerning ammunition and uniforms was not correct at all. We have certainly indicated to the Canadian forces that whatever they need they should be able to get. There was a timing issue to the change to the new uniform, in terms of the version that could be used in Afghanistan, just not being ready. It was not a question of resources or of money. It was a question of manufacturing time and being able to get it done.

The uniforms they have in Afghanistan are really quite suitable. In fact if we look at the Americans who wear desert camouflage uniforms, they put equipment and vests over top of them that are of the dark green variety.

Those members are really making a mountain out of a molehill over this. The uniforms that our troops have are modern, up to date and really quite satisfactory.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I could tell the minister that $100 million is not a molehill to Canadians. It is a mountain. I want the minister to understand that we do not accept his Enron accounting explanations.

The truth is that there are lot of good things that could be funded with a $100 million. I could tell the minister about the South Alberta Light Horse in my riding. I have talked to members who were about to get on buses and go for training but they had their training cancelled at the last moment because funds were not available. That is one concrete example but there are many more.

The minister says that the issue of camouflage uniforms is not that big of a deal. He himself says on the one hand that the uniforms they have now are adequate but on the other hand he says that they will apparently now be spending money to buy desert camouflage. Either the uniforms are adequate or they are not. Could the minister explain that?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there are options for different kinds of operations. In some cases it would be suitable to have the desert camouflage. As it has turned out, however, in the operations in Afghanistan they have spent more time in the hills, in the mountains and in areas that are not part of the desert in terms of their operations. Since they do a fair bit of their work at night the uniforms they have turned out to be quite suitable. There may be other circumstances where the desert uniform would become more useful.

Part of the clothe the soldier program is to have the temperate green, which is what they are using now, to have a similar desert camouflage version and to have one that would be used in the Arctic or in other type of mountainous wintry conditions. There would be three sets of uniforms.

The clothe the soldier program, which has been going on for the past few years, is at the stage of providing for those uniforms. They have not been completed yet in terms of their manufacture. As it has turned out, the uniforms they have are quite suitable.

The hon. member is again forgetting that an allocation was made. We looked at all the things we could do with the year end money. The Minister of Finance does not know exactly how much he will have at the end of the year but we spent as much as we possibly could, and $300 million was allocated. It would not have been possible to spend another $100 million by the end of the fiscal year.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the minister's initial explanation about the uniforms which is that they would be primarily worn at night. Sadly, we did not get to hear it again.

I will assert once more that at a time when our troops are in Afghanistan at war Canadians do not believe the best possible use of military spending is on Challenger jets. The auditor general says we have a $5 billion to $6 billion shortfall in our capital account over the next five to ten years. Surely the government could have used the $100 million to start addressing the serious problem in funding for equipment over the next several years.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, it did not come out of the military budget. The defence department has responsibilities for things other than the Canadian forces and the military budget. One of these is the Challenger service provided for members of cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Governor General. This does not come out of any budget for ammunition or uniforms. It does not affect Sea King helicopter replacements or any military program whatsoever. All the money that comes from the departmental budget to make the purchase is reimbursed entirely from the centre.

However there are provisions for spending when we approach the year end for which we must follow the guidelines established by the Department of Finance including those the auditor general feels are necessary for proper accounting procedures.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, does the minister know how many times he used the Challenger in 2001? Does he know he used it more than anyone else?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think so but I have not measured my usage of it versus that of other people.

The hon. member should point out that a lot of people on his side of the House and in his party have used it. I was on a Challenger not too long ago that the opposition leader was on. If members opposite want to say I have been using it what is wrong with me saying the opposition uses it too? The opposition leader has used it.

I do not understand how opposition members can get into this kind of hypocritical direction when they use the Challengers themselves. They have asked for rides on the Challengers. They are there primarily to move government members but when we get an opportunity to have members of the opposition on them we do not mind. We are all trying to serve the people of the country.

Opposition members should be careful where they point their fingers. One thing about pointing a finger is that three fingers point back. That is what is happening over there.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chairman, does the minister realize after having justified spending $100 million on Challengers that 13 of the 22 times he used the Challenger this year it was to go to his own riding? It was not to take people around the country. It was to go to his own riding.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. I take commercial aircraft when I go to my riding. However there are times the Challenger may pick me up in Toronto when I am going on a trip overseas. Quite frequently I might go to Toronto on a weekend on a commercial aircraft but Monday morning I may start a trip to Europe or some such place and the aircraft might come there to pick me up.

I do not think the hon. member is interpreting the information correctly. If I am making a straight trip between Ottawa and my constituency I do not use the Challenger.