Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

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

Madam Chairman, I would like to talk about the reserves now. I have heard the minister say all evening that the reserves were important, and that their numbers were growing.

General Jeffery said he was concerned, following the Fraser Recommendations and following the whole restructuring of the reserves. This is being done in phases. Phase I has been completed, but we are waiting for money for phase II.

I would therefore like to know if the minister will free up this money, because it is all well and good to have good intentions, but if the money is not available for phase II, the whole restructuring of the reserves will be jeopardized.

While we are on the topic of the reserves, I have a second question regarding reservists returning to their jobs. Employers are encouraged to free reservists to go into theatres of operations or on exercises. However, they are not guaranteed the same job upon their return.

I know that Bill C-55 contains a number of provisions. However, I wonder if the minister does not think that it would be wise to amend the National Defence Act to require employers to rehire these reservists who have been sent into theatre or on exercises or training for the Canadian army.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, with respect to the reserve restructuring, we will not lose the gains made in phase one. The increase in the number of reservists and the improvements that have been made under phase one will continue on.

The question of phase two is a matter of additional funds. As we go through the defence update, that and a number of other capabilities and issues will have to be dealt with. There are no funds for phase two at this point in time but that will have to be addressed by the fall.

With respect to protection of employees who are reservists, we used to have that kind of protection around the time of the Korean war. It was on the books for a while even though it was not used. It has not been used since then because we have not had any mandatory call outs. Everything has been done on a voluntary basis. It is our feeling that as long as we are asking people to serve on a voluntary basis on things like the ice storm or other kinds of missions that might involve the need to have a lot of reservists come out, no job protection is being proposed.

It has worked in the past. Many employers have been co-operative and have understood the needs and they have given their employees time off.

In Bill C-55 we are saying that given the current climate and concerns about the possibility of terrorism, if there is a compulsory call out of the reservists and they do not have a choice and it is not voluntary, we should protect their jobs. That is what is in Bill C-55. That is an amendment to the National Defence Act.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Chairman, my questions pertain more to Arctic sovereignty and to the northern command. Can the minister explain in detail what exactly is meant by the U.S. northern command and what impact the northern command will have on Canada? Will this result in a large increase in defence spending?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, to take it from the back part first, we do not think it will have a financial impact on us. It might have to some minor degree if we set up a planning cell or something like that to work more with the Americans. However it is their internal command structure.

The Americans have had a series of geographic commands that cover the world, except for North America which includes their own country. They have treated that differently. Now with the increased focus on homeland security, which they were starting to focus a little more on even before September 11 but particularly since September 11, they feel that one of their geographic commands should now cover the continent in which their country is located. It makes sense. They have a southern command which covers everything to the south. They have a Pacific command. The central command in fact which is headquartered in Tampa, Florida is the command that is dealing with Afghanistan.

The Americans have these geographic commands. They have some operational commands as well. They have nine of them and they are adding a tenth one to their system. It is called northern command. It is entirely an internal reorganization of the United States military.

Since the northern command will have as part of its interest the continent in which Canada is located, we are obviously interested in talking with the Americans about what that means. We have particularly focused on Norad because it is a binational command. We want to preserve Norad in that level of importance and we have accomplished that. They have agreed.

We are now going on to discussions to see if there are any other practical ways we might co-operate in terms of the defence of our continent. We approach these kinds of discussions on the basis of what is in our Canadian interests and what we need to do to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

We will look at options, but none of these options will in any way sacrifice our sovereignty or our ability to make our own decisions or to command our own troops. We are not talking about putting any of our troops under any northern command. That is a United States operation entirely, just as no other countries in the other geographic commands are involved. It is the United States' area of interest and entirely relates to its own forces.

The United States has no control over our territory. We govern our own territory. We make our own decisions with respect to our troops and our territory. We will, as I said, continue to look for practical ways of co-operating. That is a matter that should be coming to the cabinet for some decision fairly soon on how we wish to proceed.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Chairman, there was a conference this spring that covered Arctic sovereignty. One of the comments that came out of that conference was it was felt there was not enough surveillance over the Arctic, that we do not have the resources based in the north to react to any threat that would come in through the Arctic.

We hear a lot of talk about our border with the United States but we do not hear very much about the very large open area across the north.

We have seen over the past few years a lot more traffic coming through the Northwest Passage. I was in Cambridge Bay one summer when there was a boat that had come in from Ireland. It made me think that people can come over from whatever country and sail right into our waters. That has brought a lot of questions from people who live in the Arctic.

What are we doing to protect the sovereignty of the north? What are we doing to protect the Canadian waters in the north?

There is only a regional headquarters in Yellowknife. As of today I do not think there is a base in Nunavut.

Are any dollars being put in so that there will be at least some presence in the eastern Arctic? What are we doing to make sure we have the resources to deal with any possible threat coming in through the Arctic?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, that is an excellent question. There is no immediate military threat to Canada in the north. There are a number of security challenges in the region, the increasing accessibility to the region, as the hon. member has pointed out. These all require continued and strengthening vigilance.

We are doing a number of things in that regard in the short run. For example, we are earmarking in this budget some $205,000 to further expand ranger patrols, our fine ranger organization up in the north. They are our eyes and ears in the north. We are increasing the rangers to some 1,300 personnel. We will open an office and post an officer to the office in Iqaluit within the next few months or so, sometime this summer. We will also send a couple of our naval ships up there, one to Iqaluit and the other nearby, to explore the waters in the eastern Arctic.

These are the beginnings of improvement. We are looking for opportunities to provide more training for our Canadian forces personnel in the north. We will have to go beyond these, quite clearly. These are short term steps.

In the longer run, I think we will have to address issues such as the possibility of the Northwest Passage being opened for more shipping. That is a very real possibility. With global warming we are seeing more and more ice free times in the Arctic. Within another 10 to 15 years we could well have ice free conditions for a sufficient length of time to justify the cost of running commercial shipping up there. I think a lot of commercial ships going from northern Europe to Asia would find it a lot less expensive than going down through the Panama Canal. That poses a challenge. We have to get ready for that challenge. That certainly will be part of our ongoing discussions.

We do have an interdepartmental committee, which is actually chaired by a representative of the Canadian forces out of Yellowknife, that is into discussions about what we will do in the future in the Arctic.

Our north warning system covers 47 unmanned radar sites in the north, all of which help to protect. We have some forward operating locations in the north for our CF-18 fighters if any threat comes into that area.

We have a number of things now. We are adding some things in the short term, but in the long run we still have more work to do.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Chairman, we welcome the increased funding for the Canadian rangers. I am sure the other northern members, the member for Yukon and the member for Western Arctic, totally support any increased responsibility given to the Canadian rangers. I truly believe the rangers can assist more, especially in asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic.

The rangers are also very involved with search and rescue operations. That is one aspect where I think we need to see more defence funding put in. Maybe the minister could expand a bit on the role of the Canadian forces and what assistance it gives local search and rescue operations. Unfortunately that is one of the things we have to do year after year living in the climate that we do. It is one area also that affects all communities no matter where they are in the Arctic. We certainly welcome any assistance we can get from the Canadian forces. Could the minister give an indication of any increased funding to assist the communities in that area?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, the Canada search and rescue capability involves a number of agencies in the north including the Canadian forces. In fact we are the lead department in this case. DND co-ordinates search and rescue on behalf of the Government of Canada overall and we use a number of resources, including those from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the RCMP and the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, which involves volunteer civilian aviators.

While we cannot predict the number and types of incidents that may occur, the forces have the capability to respond to a wide range of search and rescue operations across the country including the north. We do have the rangers there and we are putting in additional money to expand that.

I might add that this is the 60th anniversary of the rangers. They go back to the World War II era. They celebrated their 60th anniversary by taking an expedition up to the magnetic north pole. I was very pleased, as was the Prime Minister I am sure, to talk to them by phone on the occasion of their reaching the magnetic north pole.

We also have contingency air plans for any major air disasters and plans for search and rescue. These kinds of possible disasters are always being tested and upgraded ensuring that capabilities exist for us to respond in a proper fashion.

Would I like more money for the north and for the rangers? Yes. Remember the defence updates, and those are some of the issues that we will have to look at.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Chairman, something also very important to the north, the minister mentioned a bit about it earlier, is the DEW line cleanups. This is an unfortunate situation that we have had to live with up in the north, dating back to the days when there were no real regulations on the responsibilities for people to leave the environment clean. We unfortunately have all the sites from the cold war years where communities are faced with trying to clean up very harmful situations.

I know the Department of National Defence has been very vigorous in trying to get to all the sites. Could the minister tell me how many sites there are in the Arctic that need to be cleaned up and whether there is a five year or ten year plan as to the dollars that will be put into the program to clean up the remaining DEW line sites?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I cannot recall the number of sites that are part of the DEW line cleanup program. The sites were of course jointly operated by both Canada and the United States, and we are receiving some $100 million over a 10 year period from the United States to assist in that cleanup operation.

I have been to the north myself for discussions and to sign contracts with respect to the cleanup. We are engaging local companies to provide local employment for the Inuit to be part of the cleanup operations. Not only are we taking our responsibility of the cleanup seriously from an environmental improvement standpoint, but we are also getting money from our partner in those sites, the United States. We are also able to give local people job opportunities and skills development in helping to carry out that work.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Chairman, to go back to the cleanups, I know some of the Inuit organizations are trying to sign multi-year contracts with the Department of National Defence. Is there any possibility of signing multi-year contracts for these cleanups? On a year to year basis, it is very difficult for them to write up proper training programs for people who will be in the program. They are hoping for at least three years for their training programs and cleanup plans.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I will have a look at the concern expressed by the member. We have been spacing these out in terms of capabilities that exist to do the cleanups and also the vision of resources spread out over a period of time.

If we can find some way that is more suitable to the people in the north, then we would certainly be willing to look at that possibility.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Chairman, in the recruitment area, the 1994 white paper calls for Canada to have 60,000 people in the Canadian forces. We always hear from the opposition that the forces are undermanned. What is the minister doing to remedy this situation?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to say, and perhaps the hon. member was not here when I noted this earlier, that we have now regained the position that was our target in our policy, which was 60,000. In fact we are over the 60,000 mark. We are now at 60,484.

I know there are discussions about whether we should go even higher than that. This is part of the considerations that can be made in the context of our defence review update. We are at the target that is part of our current policy. This has helped to provide us with the troops that we need to carry out our missions.

We have a very high percentage of them deployed on overseas operations. We would be one of the highest certainly among the allied countries in that respect.

At the same time, to get to that number, we put in effect a new recruitment program, which helped us to do that. We are changing our incentives and our efforts overall to retain Canadian forces personnel. Our attrition rates are down. That is all part and parcel of why we have been able to get our personnel statistics at a higher level, as we now have them over 60,000.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Chairman, I come from an area with very high unemployment. We have a lot of people leaving school before grade 12. We would certainly love to see recruitment being an option for some of our young people in our area.

I do not know if there is much recruitment going on in my part of the country. I would certainly be interested in hearing what efforts are being made to recruit young people from the north.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, we have been developing a number of outreach programs. We would like the Canadian forces to better reflect the population which exists in Canada today. People in the Alliance will call that social engineering. We think it makes good sense. First, it helps to bring into our fold people with a wide range of interests and expertise from all parts of the population.

Second, it also helps to bring support from all parts of the population for the Canadian forces. We want people of Canada from different parts of the country, from different parts of the socioeconomic framework of Canada and from different ethnic origins. We want all cultural origins to identify with the Canadian forces. We want it to reflect the population that exists in Canada today.

We have started a number of outreach programs. There are aboriginal outreach programs, outreach programs for women and for other target groups as part of our employment equity program.

This outreach is beginning to produce higher numbers. We are sending out more caravan programs with people who are role models in many of these different communities. They can talk with people either in the schools or at community fairs, et cetera. We want to reach out to people to have that kind of employment opportunity.

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

Madam Chairman, before I begin I just want to mention that it is not always easy to sit in one place for five hours. I want to commend General Jeffery and the department officials for being here for the full--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, General Jeffery has been mentioned all night but fortunately for him he has not had to be here. By the way, this is General Macdonald who is sitting here.

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

Madam Chairman, I stand corrected but I did want to compliment them anyway for their silent and dutiful work to House and to the minister.

I want to ask questions regarding the Sea King helicopters, the maritime helicopters, and the concerns that many Canadians have. These concerns have been longstanding for a number of Canadians and for a number of years.

I want to read a quote from Hansard. This is from April 12, 1999. This is a direct quote:

We have here in front of us the Liberal government that cancelled, for purely partisan purposes, a highly needed program, namely the EH-101 helicopter acquisition program. It is the Liberal government that sent Canadians to be taken hostage in the former Yugoslavia. It is the Liberal government that does not put bread on the table of military families.

It is the Liberal government that sends teams on search and rescue missions in Labrador helicopters and, when they do not come back, tries to take benefits away from widows and children.

That is a direct quote from Hansard is by the vice chair of the defence committee, the member for Compton--Stanstead, the gentleman sitting right behind the minister of defence.

I want to know what changes have happened in the armed forces that have made such an easy 180 degree position and principle so easy. Who changed parties?

What assurances did the minister of defence give him that made him change his position so absolutely on the EH-101 when he said some of the most extreme things that could possibly be said in this House on that subject?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, one always knows that in the cut and thrust of debate and question period all sorts of things are said. He would have to answer for himself but I think we responded to those concerns.

Can I take up the member's entire 20 minutes? I could go back and read my whole speech all over again.

Yes, there were cuts to the budget because we had to eliminate the deficit. Everybody had to absorb budget cuts. Unfortunately for the Canadian forces and the department of defence, they were coming on top of budget cuts that were already made by the Tories when they were in office.

However we have turned a corner. For the last four years we have increased the budget by 20%. We have another $5 billion coming over the next five years or $700 million a year as his colleague pointed out earlier. Either way, it is correct. We are investing more.

We have talked about the quality of life measures. We have talked about the upgrades to equipment, the improvements to the training and the educational programs. These are all ingredients that are necessary to give the kind of support we need to give to our forces in what we ask them to do.

We will not ask our forces to go to Afghanistan or Bosnia or anywhere else unless we give them what they need to protect themselves, to reduce the risk factors while they are in that theatre of operation and to do the job.

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

Madam Chairman, the minister might want to start with environment appropriate camouflage.

The minister has repeatedly told the House that he expected the first of the new maritime helicopters in 2005. However we have a February 2001 memo which was passed to the minister by his assistant deputy minister of material which shows that he was told in early 2001 that the delivery date for the new helicopters had slipped to the end of 2006. The memo said “the target date for delivery of the first maritime helicopter has shifted from the end of 2005 to the end of 2006”.

That memo was passed to the minister on March 7, 2001. Did that affect the minister in what he was saying publicly? It did not.

On March 14, in the press, he said “Our aim is 2005”.

In Hansard , on March 16, 2001, he said “I am still hopeful that we could have them by the end of 2005”.

In Hansard , on November 27, 2001, he said “We will be looking to get the replacement for Sea Kings by the end of 2005”.

Why did the minister of defence tell parliament that the date was still 2005 when he knew that was not correct?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, the member said it was my aim. I am an optimist. I am still trying to get the helicopters as quickly as we possibly can.

We are in a process that has been a lot slower than I would have liked. We are also trying to ensure that we retain competition, that we have an understanding by the industry as to what our needs are and our specifications that flow out of those basic needs. This is taking some time to do.

I still stand by what I said, that by the end of the year we would like to have the helicopter named. I will make every effort to achieve that. I believe it is achievable. It will be difficult to make the end of 2005 but I will not change the target until we are near the end of the year, know the helicopter and see what kind of arrangement we can then make with the company with respect to speeding up and gaining some of the lost time. I am not prepared to change my aim at this point in time until I have had that opportunity.

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

Madam Chairman, Canadians take little solace in that answer in the sense that the government announced a pittance in terms of the financial commitment to the armed forces in the December budget. The defence minister could not even protect that part of the budget and prevent the government from buying its new flying palaces, the new Challenger jets, which were totally unnecessary and a bad sense of timing.

Canadians have learned that the Sea King replacement project has been delayed yet again. The pre-qualification letter was to have been released on April 2 but it was postponed. Why? When is it expected that the pre-qualification letter will be issued?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I belive that very soon we will get into the pre-qualification stage but we are still in discussions with the helicopter companies and the industry in an effort to give as many of them as possible an opportunity to bid on this because we want an open bidding process. We want to get a helicopter that meets our needs at the best price.

Let us not just focus on that. Let us focus on the fact that we do have a helicopter that is operating quite well for us. The Sea King helicopter has been upgraded and has been performing exceedingly well. How come members are not talking about how well it is performing in our operations in the Arabian Sea.