Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, the money is an estimate. It is hard to estimate natural disasters. We do not know when they are coming or the degree of severity. Who would have predicted in advance the ice storm when it happened, the Saguenay or Red River floods, to provide those kinds of estimates? However if any of these funds for the disaster or financial assistance arrangements are not used they go back to the central treasury.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

In that context, Madam Chairman, we have increased spending by about $6 million on the contributions to provinces and municipalities under the Emergency Preparedness Act. Could the minister explain why that increase and whether there has been some change of policy in that particular area?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, we did increase it as part of the $1.2 billion. It went to the defence budget. Some of that went to the office of critical infrastructure, protection and emergency preparedness. Of those provisions there was a $10 million increase over two years for equipment purchases for first responders with respect to chemical and biological response systems. The JEPP program is a contributory program by us and by the provinces and much of the programming is done at the local level by first responders.

We have also provided for $20 million over five years for the development of a national heavy urban search and rescue capability. This again is through the JEPP program. Quite obviously with the events of September 11, there is concern about any major disaster in an urban area, whether it is man-made or a natural disaster, which could involve heavy urban search and rescue operations. While we had already been doing some work in that area before, we have accelerated it quite substantially post-September 11.

Those are two areas where money that is flowing through will go to the first responders level. There will be other programs as well, for example, training programs where we work with the first responder community, which is largely at the local level, municipal or other local entity and agency, to increase the capacity to deal with either natural or man-made disasters.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to elaborate a little bit on the first responder situation. We had firefighters who did a lobbying tour here just a week ago in which they complained that firefighters in their community were not being property instructed or given the opportunity to acquire the equipment for response in the event of a chemical or biological terrorist attack.

Who is actually responsible for managing that program? Is it the office of critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness or Emergency Preparedness Canada? Does the minister see that program being developed all across the country?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, it is managed in co-operation with the provinces. We look to lever the money that is provided by the federal government with additional contributions coming either from the provincial or local level. It is provided through the office of critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness, OCIPEP.

OCIPEP took on all of the responsibilities that Emergency Preparedness Canada had and has added this component of critical infrastructure. It is also looking not only at natural disasters but at man-made terrorist type attacks, both in the physical form and in the cyber form as well. A key part of what it will do in future will be to work with the first responder community. This is an indication of where the priority is in terms of dealing with those kinds of disasters.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Chairman, one of the reasons for my question about the natural disasters and the amount of money that is allocated there is I am afraid the amount of money that is allocated for OCIPEP is not enough to advance the program really rapidly. Does the minister have flexibility within his budget to transfer the money that may be unspent on a natural disaster to something like OCIPEP?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I am trying to get the new figure with respect to the increase for the OCIPEP budget this year.

Apparently not. We do not have the authority to transfer other funds. As I have indicated, we have a challenge in meeting all of our needs with the funding levels that we have now.

I wanted to give a number but it includes another account so I will not give it. We have increased a substantial portion of the funding. The OCIPEP budget was part of the $1.2 billion that was allotted in the December budget.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

On another theme entirely, Madam Chairman, we heard some talk earlier about Canada's battle tank. I noticed that in the estimates there seems to be a significant increase in planned spending on short range anti-armour weapons. Does this represent a fundamental change in defence policy?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, it is just a standard extension of what we normally do, the general tells me.

We do not have every kit or piece of equipment. However, we want to make sure that our troops have the appropriate protection when they go into harm's way, that we give them what they need in terms of their own personal protection and weaponry and that we have available what would be necessary to protect them in case of attack. That is a very fundamental part of the reason we pick certain pieces of equipment. That is something we have done for a number of years.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

On a somewhat more delicate topic, Madam Chairman, I notice under the heading of large major capital projects there is one listed called the submarine capability life extension project. Would the minister care to comment on what that is all about?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, we are thinking ahead beyond getting the submarines fixed now.

Much ado is being made about very little in terms of the repairs that are necessary. Yes, there is some work which has to be done. As I said before, it is like buying a car. If there are some problems under the hood, they get fixed but the car is not turfed out as useless because that is not the case. The submarines will provide excellent service for us. They are a good bargain. We will do the repairs. What we can claim under warranty we will claim under warranty. I think I will leave it at that. They are a good buy.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Chairman, apparently another area of significant increased spending by defence is on information technology security. I notice, for example, that the government is going to spend more money on infrastructure protection and Canada public key infrastructure. A lot of people watching will not realize that public key has to do with the most sophisticated new cryptology that is available worldwide.

Would the minister perhaps give us a general observation on the way he thinks Canada is going now on communications security?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, it is important that we have appropriate protection for our systems. These kinds of investments will help do that.

Certainly there is an increasing growth in asymmetric threats, the possibility of attacks, cyber attacks. We have seen the kind of damage hackers can do. At the same time it is an area that could be used in a more organized way by terrorist organizations. We cannot rule that out.

We have to make sure we provide proper protection, proper encryption and whatever else we need for protection of our systems. We added money to the last budget, which is here in the estimates, that will help protect our information systems.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Chairman, one thing in the estimates that really disappointed me is that there is no increase in spending for the air cadet, army cadet and navy league programs. Each one of those programs is still fixed at $250,000. They are simply wonderful programs in our community.

Can the minister comment on the rationale behind that? Perhaps he could give us some assurance that in the budgets to come he might consider adding money to those very valuable programs.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, the grants to the leagues who are our partners have not increased for some time. We have increased our funding for our support, as the defence department support, for cadet programs.

The budget cuts of course were put on all government departments and programs in order to eliminate the deficit. After those budget cuts stopped, the very first increase was some $27 million for cadet and junior ranger programs.

We have been able to improve a lot of the infrastructure. I have been to Borden and have seen over two or three years the improvements in the infrastructure there. I have gone to numerous other cadet camps and seen the kind of increases. We are now sending more cadets and junior rangers to summer camp programs. This is a great opportunity for them. It is a great opportunity to see the country, to be in contact with Canadians from other parts of the country.

Programs like that help in their youth development. They help to bring the country together with greater understanding of different people throughout Canada. They have been a great and very worthwhile investment. Certainly if I could, I would love to put more resources into programs like that .

I would love more resources for a number of other areas as well. As we go through the defence policy update let us look at all these different issues and the kinds of resources we could use to improve upon them.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Chairman, that inevitably leads to the next question and that would be about the reserves.

There are increasing demands on the Canadian forces. Does the minister see an increased role for the reserve? Does he have any particular plans with the reserve in the context of what happened on September 11 and the new demands on the Canadian forces?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, this area has been a particularly tough challenge. We have a very strong reserve community support system. We have honorary colonels and we have regimental support units. The reserve units can be found in towns and cities throughout the country. For most people in Canada, the local armoury and the local units they have come to know are their contact with the Canadian forces.

We are below the strength that is in the white paper for our level of reserve members. In the current land force reserve restructuring, we are talking about the militia, the army in this context. We are attempting to increase those numbers. We have already reached the first phase increase. We were at 13,500. We said we wanted to get up to 15,500. We are either at or near that at the moment.

We also are looking at how to speed up recruitment. One of the things we have heard from the reserve community is the concern about how long it takes to become a reservist once a person signs up. We are about to get a breakthrough in that area and should be able to speed it up. We should be able to look at additional equipment and roles and things like that. Much of that will come in phase two. We committed to phase one some $758 million last fiscal year and there is $833 million for the current fiscal year. We have increased our allocation for the reserves.

We have a project office headed by a major general who is carrying out the land force reserve restructuring that the government has adopted. The government believes the reserves have an important role to play, whether it is the army, the navy or the air force. While much of our restructuring and focus at this point in time is on the army component of the reserves, they are all an important part of the Canadian forces operations.

We are now seeing increasing numbers go to our peace support operations. I believe we are up to 15% now. We are looking at sending a whole company size unit into one of our peace support operations, all reservists. This will be the first time we have done that. We are providing some of the additional resources they need in order to move up and take a bigger role in terms of our total force operations.

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

Madam Chairman, tonight's debate was a broad one covering all of the military issues. However, there has been one question that I have been aching to ask since the beginning of the evening. I would like to hear what the minister has to say on this.

Naturally, we realize that we have to send our troops into theatres of operations, on peace missions, and so on. There are 2,000 Canadian soldiers in Bosnia and 1,500 in Afghanistan. Today, I believe that Canadians and Quebecers are also asking this same question.

Earlier, the minister mentioned the case of emergencies and natural disasters that had occurred and during which the military was sent in to provide relief for the civilian population. We think of the flooding in Manitoba and in the Saguenay. In my riding, there was the terrible ice storm.

Today, given our international commitments and the different tasks currently assigned to the military, Canadians and Quebecers wonder, if a major disaster were to occur somewhere in Canada or Quebec, would the Canadian Forces still have the ability to provide relief to civilian populations?

I think that people understand the importance of troops going abroad to resolve international issues. Left unresolved, these will wind up on our doorstep someday. However, when they see part of our forces outside of the country, people wonder “If something were to happen at home, would we be able to get relief from the Canadian army?” I would like the minister to tell us not only whether we still have the necessary flexibility for this, but also how he decides on all of this before sending troops into theatre abroad? Does he believe that we now have the resources required to cover the type of disaster that I just mentioned?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, as I have said earlier tonight, the mission of the Canadian forces is: first, to protect Canada and Canadians; second, to work with the United States in the defence of our continent; and third, to contribute to international peace and security.

We have an obligation to ensure we have the resources we need if we face any kind of disaster, natural or man made. One of the best illustrations of how we have been able to do this is the turn of the millennium when we were concerned about Y2K. At the time we had over 4,000 troops abroad, similar to what we have now. Yet between regulars and reservists we were able to pull together some 25,000 troops on standby in case we ran into difficulties with Y2K.

In 1998 during the ice storm we had almost 3,000 troops abroad, yet we were able to put 18,000 troops on the streets in our communities in Quebec and Ontario. We brought them in from different parts of the country. It is all part of the planning we do to ensure there is covering off for any units that are away.

We have a coming challenge with respect to Kananaskis where we would operate in a support role with the RCMP. Again, all these things must be taken into consideration when we plan overseas missions because we have the responsibility to protect Canada and Canadians and will continue to make sure we have the resources necessary to do that.

This is also a case where reservists become important. They are all over the country. During the ice storm people from reserve communities across Canada along with the regulars came into Ontario and Quebec to serve the needs of people in those communities. At the same time we had a substantial contribution abroad in peace support operations.

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

Madam Chairman, I would like to discuss an issue that is somewhat more specific. I am referring to what is called an ABM.

What happens, for example, in the case of an atomic, biological or chemical attack? To my knowledge, the budget increase or the votes are earmarked for the military base in Suffield. In my opinion, this poses a problem.

If I am not mistaken, this is where the expertise for this type of attack is concentrated. This is far from Canada's major urban centres. I am not saying it is in the far north, but it is far from Montreal and Vancouver.

We know that, for this type of attack, quick action is critical. I would like to know if the government has a plan in case of an ABM attack on Montreal, for example. Who would be called in first? Would it be the fire department, until the personnel from Suffield arrives? I want to know what rescue operations are planned in the event of an atomic, biological or chemical attack.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, a number of entities would become involved. What is important is that there is a co-ordination effort. The co-ordination effort in the past was called Emergency Preparedness Canada. It is now the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. It has a control centre and a crisis centre. It has a wide range of contacts with provincial counterparts. It has federal counterparts in different parts of the country. It has regional contacts which in turn have provincial contacts which in turn have local first responders. A wide network of people from the government and volunteer sectors is involved in the various emergency programs that can come together during a crisis.

We saw this during the ice storm. The Canadian forces played a support role but the initial role came from the people in emergency response organizations. It starts from the bottom up. It starts with emergency response teams at the local level through to the provincial level. The provincial level then calls in the federal level. In turn we were asked to bring in the Canadian forces in a support role during the ice storm. It was all put through a co-ordinated system.

The ice storm showed that the system was well tested. We also had it up and ready to go for Y2K. Thank goodness we never needed to use it, but on New Year's Eve 2000 I visited some of the control centres and saw the elaborate preparations for any problems that might have occurred. We can be quite pleased with the basic infrastructure we have. However post-September 11 we need to go further, certainly with respect to chemical and biological concerns.

We have put more money into increasing our operations. We have a small unit headquartered in Borden, Ontario which by and large has been a training unit. It will now be enhanced in terms of its capabilities. The unit works with the RCMP. It is both an RCMP and a military effort. As the hon. member pointed out, there will be a focus on Suffield in terms of research, development and co-ordination to deal with the possibility of chemical or biological attack. A lot of movement is being made in the whole area. The budget contained moneys to help strengthen this. It also contained moneys to strengthen our anti-terrorism commando force the JTF2. Various other areas were promised increased funds in the estimates to help make Canadians more safe and secure.

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

Madam Chairman, the American model is special in that almost every member of the U.S. congress has something relating to the military in his or her riding. This acts as a way to redistribute wealth in Washington.

I have a question regarding the supply system. We know that, last year, Tibbett & Britten was awarded the initial contracts to change the supply system, but many people are concerned about this and wonder if the effectiveness will remain unaltered and, more importantly, if the number of jobs will remain the same.

It appears that, under the agreements that it has with the government, Tibbett & Britten is prepared to protect people's jobs for seven years. However, I received representations from the union. I was told that discussions are currently under way between the government and Tibbett & Britten, but that the union is kept away from these discussions.

Would it be possible to foster greater union involvement, so that people can closely follow what is going on and so as to ensure that economic spinoffs will be spread across the country, as was the case in the past?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I am surprised at what the hon. member said about union involvement in the discussions. They have been involved. There have been various meetings, town halls and seminars and the unions have been involved.

The president of the Union of National Defence Employees came to see me last year. He thought it was terrific. He said alternate service delivery had come a long way. Why did he think that? It was because the company offered employment for 100% of the current employees. It offered them a seven year guarantee at equal or better salaries than they have now, plus a wide range of benefits. It is a win-win situation. It means savings for the government and a more comprehensive and cost effective program all around.

Tibbet & Britten has established a Canadian company. It would be employing Canadian people, and 100% of existing employees is not something we see too often. However the union has been involved in discussions on the matter.

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

Madam Chairman, I would now like to ask a question concerning parliament's participation in the decision making.

During my visit to the U.S. Central Command in Tampa Bay, I was surprised to take part in classified briefings on the main forces present in Afghanistan. Quite frankly, we were told the number of members of the Canadian special forces, where they were and where they were going to be in the next few days.

I would like the minister to explain his approach to me. I think that the department is supposed to have security clearances. I would like him to tell me from what level to what level and why there is no liaison committee to provide MPs with more information on what the army is doing. When it comes down to it, what we would like to have is a kind of liaison committee between DND and parliament. I would like the minister to explain to me the security levels in his department, and whether there is not some possibility of a little more flexibility.

Let DND be like the Americans and show some trust to parliamentarians, briefing them with classified information. We are responsible people, and not going to leak it onto page one of the newspapers. We are going to follow the briefings, and that will give us a very good idea of how to react to a crisis like the one in Afghanistan.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I do not know what they told the hon. member but we try to give as much information as we can. However we must bear in mind that there are personal security and operational security considerations. We will not give information about JTF2. I do not think anyone would expect us to give information that would risk its members' lives or the success of its mission.

As I was saying the other day, we would not even talk about the battle group mission we just completed called Operation Torii. That would telegraph in advance what we were going to do. The more people we tell the more risk that it will get out to the enemy. The old saying is that loose lips sink ships. We do not want to do that. We do not want to risk the mission. We do not want to risk the security of any of our people involved. If word got out to the enemy in advance it could be in a stronger position when engaging our personnel. The enemy could also flee the area which would diminish the mission.

It is important to keep such information to a minimum number of people. That has been our policy and it is the best one to follow. However whenever possible we will provide as much information as we can to keep parliamentarians informed. I have always indicated a willingness to appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to talk about our operations. I will do so as much as I am able without risking personal or operational security.