Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chairman, I am here this evening to discuss the national defence estimates and to answer one of the questions asked by my hon. colleague from Lakeland and that is what have we been doing in the past. It is not just to look forward but also to let us account for what we have done before.

Unlike the bleak picture the opposition paints, much has been accomplished not only in defence as an institution but in the Canadian forces themselves. These accomplishments are due both to the skill and talent of our men and women in uniform and to the government's commitment to reinvest in defence.

It is unfortunate that time and again the opposition members have refused to recognize the significant strides that have been made at defence over the past five years. Regardless of the blind approach they may wish to take, the accomplishments speak for themselves.

In 1998 parliament approved the most sweeping changes ever brought to the National Defence Act since its inception. These changes have served to enhance the transparency of the military justice system.

One must not forget the creation of the military police complaints commission, the CF grievance board, the alternative dispute resolution program and the office of the ombudsman. There is also the expanded role of the national investigation services and the reforms to the office of the provost marshal.

There are reforms covering leadership, training, education, quality of life for CF personnel that has included substantial and often double-digit pay increases, and new family support services such as child care and employment assistance to spouses. There is a new centre for the care and support of injured and retired members of the forces and their families. Over $100 million has been invested in upgrading military housing.

These investments have been enhanced by other programs covering everything from ethics, harassment and gender equality to better management practices within the department.

One must not forget important reforms to the reserves, significant strides in equipment modernization and a 20% increase in the defence budget over the past five years.

I will highlight these last points throughout my presentation. Over 300 specific recommendations by various advisory groups have been implemented, the most extensive reforms in the history of the Canadian forces.

I will briefly review a number of the issues we are addressing at the present time.

I would like to begin with the fight against terrorism.

Since our first deployment last fall, the Canadian forces have made a significant contribution to the coalition's efforts. Over that period we have had eight ships with a ninth on its way and six aircraft operating in the region, along with a battle group and special operation forces on the ground in Afghanistan, totalling more than 2,500 personnel. That is the proof that things are being done.

While there is still work to be done, much has been accomplished in the campaign. The Taliban has retreated. The al-Qaeda is in hiding. We have helped establish an interim authority in Afghanistan. We are preventing terrorists from retaking a hold in that country. We are part of that mission.

National defence of course is contributing to international security in many other places, from Bosnia to Sierra Leone.

Right now, Canadian forces are stationed in 13 operations throughout the world.

Here at home we continue to contribute to the aerospace defence of North America at an increased level.

The contribution the Canadian forces are making to international peace combined with their expanded roles in domestic security have been made possible in large part due to additional funding for defence. With consecutive increases over the last few years, including last fall's budget, spending on defence will go up by more than $5 billion over the next five years.

With this new funding we have been able to make progress in many key areas. Let me give some examples.

We have made sweeping improvements to the quality of life of our military personnel. We have also taken action to improve the leadership, training and professional development opportunities available to our military personnel. We have also ensured that they have the equipment they need to do the job. The Coyote reconnaissance vehicles, the LAV III armoured personnel carriers, the Cormorant search and rescue helicopters are good examples.

The modernization projects continue with a military satellite communications project, improved tactical communications systems, the clothe the soldier project, strategic air to air refuelling, the modernization of the Aurora and the modernization of the CF-18. Each of these projects taken separately represents an investment of more than $100 million and the list goes on.

Modernization is important if we want to provide military personnel with the right equipment, but it is also a means of maintaining interoperability with our allies. Interoperability is another area where we continue to make progress. We only need look at the PPCLI battle group and how well it is working with its American colleagues in Afghanistan. Our ships in the Arabian Sea, as they have on so many occasions, are working so well together in co-operation with our allies.

We have also made strategic investments in domestic security such as through the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, OCIPEP.

Despite these significant accomplishments, we do not intend to rest on our laurels, which is why I have set out five broad priorities that are in this document for the fiscal year. They are: responding to the new security environment; putting our people first; optimizing Canada's defence and security capabilities; maximizing management effectiveness; and enhancing our defence relationships. Let me expand on some of these priorities, starting with the new security environment.

Even though the security environment has been changing steadily over the last decade, September 11 brought some of these changes into sharper focus. These are things such as global terrorism, potential threats to our critical infrastructure, the proliferation of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. In the face of these new realities, defence has to remain innovative and forward looking. This means focusing on the future and investing in the capabilities that are most relevant to the emerging security environment.

As we have talked about here in the last 20 minutes, the last budget devoted an additional $1.2 billion to defence. This was part of the government's overall $7.7 billion investment to ensure the safety and security of Canadians against terrorism.

With that additional funding we are offsetting the costs of Operation Apollo, but we are also enhancing capabilities within the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. We are building on the intelligence gathering capabilities of the Communications Security Establishment. We are increasing the capacity of our commando anti-terrorism unit, JTF2. We are augmenting the Canadian forces' capability to prevent and respond to biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear threats.

Over the long term we are committed to participating in the campaign against terrorism and increasing intelligence activities in this area. We will work to provide national leadership on critical infrastructure protection and emergency management.

The next priority I mention is putting people first. As I indicated when I talked about quality of life initiatives, defence has been focused on putting people first for several years now.

We have made tremendous progress. As I said a few moments ago, we have increased pay and benefits for our military personnel. We have begun reforms. In particular this year we are taking on the project of military health care system reform. We have improved the housing conditions. We have implemented measures to help our members deal with post traumatic stress disorder. We have improved the services to families through our family support centres.

Our investments are not going to stop there. Our people deserve the best because they give their best. There are also practical reasons for putting people first. There is stiff competition in the job market.

Defence has improved its reputation as an employer, but if we want to make sure we attract the people we need, we have to present ourselves as an employer of choice. That means continuing to develop our learning and professional development programs. It means improving how we manage people. It means increasing diversity and promoting a sense of inclusiveness for all of our population to be reflected in the forces. These are the goals we will focus on in putting people first.

Another issue that has a quality of life implication for our military personnel is the Canadian forces high operational tempo over the last decade. That brings me to the next priority, optimizing defence and security capabilities.

Over the past ten years, the operational turnover of the Canadian Armed Forces has accelerated radically.

Despite increased government spending on defence, it continues to pose a challenge to our financial resources. I think it is apparent that we cannot sustain the present mix of capabilities and levels of activity. In other words, we have choices to make. To help ensure we make the right choices, we are working through a defence update. We want to make sure the defence program is based on the new military realities.

One thing we do know is that these realities will not change the three missions currently assigned to the Canadian forces. Protecting Canada and Canadians remains paramount, as does our commitment to helping defend North America in co-operation with the United States. If anything, that has become more important since September 11.

At the same time, Canadians have made clear their desire to continue contributing to international peace and security.

In light of the continued salience of these three missions, it follows that other elements of our policy are also sound, including our membership in Norad and in NATO. It also means that the Canadian forces must be capable of undertaking a full range of domestic, continental and international missions from search and rescue to disaster relief to combat operations. This means we must continue to be a multipurpose, combat capable force.

The challenge lies in making sure that we invest in the right mix of people, equipment and training to accomplish that. I am confident that the defence update, the details of which we are currently firming up, will serve as a compass to guide us in making the right choices for the future and thereby making the most of our defence and security capabilities.

The final priority I want to touch on is enhancing defence relationships. We enjoy an excellent and extensive defence relationship with the United States. Still, we cannot be complacent.

As the House knows, as part of the annual review of the united command plan, the United States has announced the creation of a new command called northern command or Northcom. Obviously the creation of Northcom comes as a direct result of the events of September 11 and the United States' increased focus on homeland security.

While many details are still being worked out, we do know that the area of interest for this U.S. command will be North America, including air, land and sea elements, as well as civil support. The commander has not yet been named but indications are that the commander of Norad will also be named the commander of Northcom. I should note that these will be two separate responsibilities.

The creation of Northcom has given us the opportunity to continue discussing opportunities for co-operation with the United States, discussions that have been underway for some time. Already we patrol our skies and maritime approaches with the United States. Since September 11, we have been looking at ways to see if and how we can do this better.

Officials from the Departments of National Defence and Foreign Affairs have been working closely with their U.S. counterparts to explore practical ways to provide better security to Canadians and to the continent.

While this process is still ongoing, it is already clear that any arrangements we may undertake will in no way compromise Canada's policy independence or our sovereignty, nor involve the integration of our armed forces. We would only enhance co-operation where it results in an improvement in our ability to defend against conventional and asymmetric threats, and where it will help maintain the dynamic and positive relationship that Canada enjoys with the United States, our most important ally economically and militarily.

When it comes to enhancing our security, we are not just looking across the border. We also have to continue to work with our European allies to promote a strong NATO. We cannot forget the importance of certain relationships here at home. In this regard, we will focus on expanding strategic partnerships with other levels of government and with the private sector, particularly in the areas of critical infrastructure protection.

This concludes my review of the priorities for this fiscal year. They are outlined in more detail in part III, “Reports on Plans and Priorities”, of the estimates.

In spite of what has been said by members on the opposite side, we have made significant progress. The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence are preparing to meet the challenges of a new security environment looking at our future needs.

Challenges remain but I am convinced that throughout the changes and reforms we will continue to move ahead in the coming years.

The Canadian forces and the defence family will succeed in fulfilling their role as one of Canada's most vital national institutions.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to tell you that I appreciate the format of the debate this evening. It may be a first, but it is a very interesting approach which should be repeated more often. This sort of confrontation between the minister and the opposition is a way to get things moving.

I will begin by saying that the minister criticized the opposition—he referred not just to the official opposition, but to all the opposition parties—for taking a blind approach. I could politely reply that after what he said, I think he is taking the rose-coloured-glasses approach. I did not hear about any problem at National Defence. I would remind the minister that the very role of the opposition is to try to improve things.

I have a slightly different strategic approach for this kind of debate. I wish to reserve all my tougher questions for the second part. In the first part, I would prefer to point out to the minister the problems as seen by the Bloc Quebecois, and no doubt by many of my opposition colleagues.

As a backdrop, I would say that there is a major problem with the fact that we have been hearing the minister say for quite some time now that he will have to review defence policy, which supposes reviewing foreign affairs policy.

As a backdrop, there is the whole importance of parliament, which has been completely ignored when it comes time to making decisions regarding national defence. Often decisions are made by one person, or an inner cabinet. Parliamentarians are totally excluded from the decision making process. There are numerous examples to prove this, including when troops were sent to Afghanistan. We were told, “Troops will be sent; there will be a take note debate next week. There will not be a vote”. People spoke after the House adjourned at 6.30 p.m. and then that was it, it was over.

I want to point out that this is what is difficult right now, and I want to raise the problems that we have identified.

The fact that we are told that a defence policy will be announced means that all of the decisions made during the last budget, and those that are being made right now, are out of step. One wonders if they will be up to date for very long.

Decisions are being made hastily, and in a piecemeal approach. For example, there is currently a major campaign underway to recruit soldiers for the Canadian army. I think that the campaign may be successful. However, there is no mention about measures taken to retain staff. I have some figures here. Year after year, since 1992-93, the numbers for the Canadian Forces have dropped. We went from 90,000 in 1992-93 to less than 60,000 today, which is below the threshold set out in the 1994 white paper containing the government's commitments. I would like to remind the minister of this.

There are people who enlist and people who leave. In 1992-93, there were 1,300 people who enlisted compared to 5,000 who left; in 1993-94, there were 1,800 people who enlisted, and 5,800 who left. I will jump to more recent figures now. In 1999-2000, there were 2,300 people who enlisted and 3,600 who left. This is a problem. The minister tells us that quality of life has improved in the Canadian army. How does he explain, and I will ask him this specific question later, that though there may be some success when it comes to recruitment, there is an even greater failure when it comes to people leaving the Canadian forces?

Now let us look at the future of the Canadian Forces. What is to become of the space shield? What about NORAD? What about USNORTHCOM? These are all things on which decisions are being made. Decisions such as the one on USNORTHCOM is being made once again without MPs' knowledge. We have no idea what is going on. Question period in the House of Commons is certainly not going to provide us with any information on what exactly is going on. Question period it may be, but most certainly not answer period, as far as any precise answers are concerned. They can answer just about anything they like and often go right off topic.

This is the kind of thing that makes us wonder why parliament has no influence any more. Why are we, parliamentarians, who are elected just as democratically as the minister, being kept in the dark? Why is it always a small group that makes decisions with a major impact on the government and the Canadian Forces?

Going off to war is something significant; the sons and daughters of Canada and Quebec are going off to battle. It might be worthwhile allowing us in the opposition to have some say in this as well.

Then there are the military operations. Nowadays, as soon as there is an international conflict somewhere, troops are dispatched. How many? They are the ones to decide all that.

We have no say on it at all. We are informed that 2,000 will be going off to Bosnia, that the PPCLI, close to 1,500 strong with all the support staff, is heading to Afghanistan. As I have already said, this is all done on a piecemeal basis. We realize that this is beginning to be hard—very hard even—on the troops, because of the rotations.

The other day, I was talking with a soldier who is on his seventh. This is the seventh time he has been away from home for periods of four, five, six months, maybe more, whereas in his 20 years in the military, that soldier's father was away only twice on a tour of duty.

We can see therefore that it is growing and that, unfortunately planning is at a minimum. A conflict arises, the Prime Minister says “We will send some people”. We send some people, and things like what is happening now occur.

On the east coast or on the west coast, a supply ship—there are only two of them in Canada, one for the west coast and one for the east coast—left for Afghanistan with the navy. So, which of the two coasts was not protected? Some things cannot be explained. Decisions are taken piecemeal. This will have to be examined at some point.

Now, let us consider a number of things to do with the modernization of equipment and materiel, more specifically with strategic navy transportation.

At the moment, we have no planes—or practically none—capable of transporting our troops where we want. In the case of Afghanistan, it was the Americans with their C-17s that made 68 trips to transport Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Canada is supposed to have rented these planes.

Now, there are more and more discussions on purchasing. Will this be part of the new defence policy? Is this directly in line with the policy to be issued in the next few months, we hope? It is important to taxpayers.

I still react like a taxpayer. They will be paying perhaps $1.6 billion, because this is the amount set out in the government's priorities plan. This is $1.6 billion to purchase, perhaps, strategic air transportation, perhaps. Is this what we need? Not a lot of questions are being asked. It is another piecemeal effort. And no one knows what will be in the next policy.

The same thing is true in the case of naval transportation. When we send troops, oftentimes, when there is no emergency, all the equipment and materiel to follow can be loaded on ship. It might arrive a week or a few days later, but that does not matter. It can be loaded onto a ship. Now the government wants to buy other ships. This means another investment of some $1.6 billion.

Do we really need this in the current context, given that a policy will be issued soon? The government is buying piecemeal, something that costs Canadian taxpayers a lot, but it is still piecemeal.

As for the submarines, I hope the minister is going to take off his rose coloured glasses, for there is nothing rosy about the submarine situation. Four submarines were bought for $800 million. Only two have already arrived and the other two are still in England. One of the two was in dry dock at Halifax for a year, and when it was launched it nearly sank. Is that normal?

Do we need submarines? Is it for Canadian sovereignty? We will likely find out in the next DND policy or the next foreign affairs policy.

In the meantime, we keep on doing things on a piecemeal basis and the taxpayer ends up paying $800 million for submarines, not to mention repair costs. We do not know yet what they will be.

When this kind of equipment and materiel is involved, skilled labour is required. So a bill of millions can be run up in pretty short order. This is one more example of piecemeal decision making.

Then there are the Sea Kings. For years we have been told how important it is to get replacements, and now we learn that they may be forthcoming in 2005. It may even be more like 2010. In the meantime, these aircraft have exceeded their life expectancy. Really now, and yet they tell us they are still very safe. Mind you, they are still looking through those rose-coloured glasses, of course.

But when 30 hours of maintenance are necessary for one hour of flight time, one wonders about the reliability of these helicopters. There is no doubt that they are operating in an environment where it is easier for them.

But in difficult situations, how do they perform? Why was the replacement contract for the Sea Kings split in two, as though the government wanted to further delay the possibility of rapidly purchasing new equipment?

So a lot of questions come to mind. We also have questions about our international operations, about USNORTHCOM and the space shield.

By agreeing to the space shield, are we agreeing to abandon the ABM treaty? Is that it? This is the direction the Americans are headed in. They have clearly said that the ABM treaty was finished as far as they were concerned. We have not heard much from the Prime Minister on this. Foreign affairs policy should enlighten us on this and national defence policy should flow from it accordingly.

I have a lot of questions to ask. With respect to the reserve force, General Jeffery told us that there was a second phase of restructuring for the ground reserve force. He is not sure that he will have the money needed. It is not certain that these people can be kept. Right now, the reserve is an important component. Canada has approximately 14,000 people in the ground reserve, and the general would like to see this increase to 18,000. If this is to happen, it will take money that is not available right now.

So we can obtain information and ask questions. We are not wearing rose-coloured glasses. People may say that we are exaggerating, that we are taking a blind approach. Is what I have just said true or not? Will the minister tell us whether he is going to present his defence policy as soon as possible? Those are perhaps the questions I wanted to ask him.

I will come back to the tougher questions later in this debate. For now, I am asking the minister to tell us when we will have the defence policy. Does the minister have to wait for the new foreign affairs policy before he can present his policy? When might we have both policies?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have to answer these 101 questions?

[The Chairman]

Let us just let the minister begin. We have approximately eight minutes left in this round. I would hope we would still get in a few more questions.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I will refer to the last question, if I can back it up from there. It is my aim to have this defence policy update done by this fall. However, if we take the old business about the cup being half full or half empty, the member has certainly given the half empty portion of it. I would like to give the half full portion of it. In fact, it is not only half full; it is more than half full.

Let me start with the whole question of how many people we have in the military. He says we have gone down below the 60,000 level. In fact, yes, we did go down at one point, but at this time we have 60,484 people in our regular forces operations. We are back up to strength.

He worried a bit about attrition, but our attrition rates are down almost 20%. We are beginning to retain people, more than ever before. In fact, we have one of the lowest attrition rates of any among our allies. Traditional attrition rates have been 7.5% to 8% but now are down to 6.3%, which is, as I said, a 20% reduction.

Aside from retaining more of the people in the forces, we are also into a three year recruitment program. This year we set a target of 10,000, which is considerably more than what we had last year, and we have met the 10,000. I will say that we have more than enough reserves. We have made about 85% of our target on the regulars, but there are certain occupations where we still have a challenge to meet. There are certain professional groups, such as engineers, doctors, pilots and technicians of various different groups, where we still have a challenge. The auditor general pointed that out and we quite agree. Steps are being taken to recruit those people. We can do some of that training ourselves, but we are also going to community colleges, to areas where people have graduated from these courses, and we are trying to bring them into the forces. In some cases bonuses are being offered.

There is a wide variety of instruments that we are using to recruit into the Canadian forces. We want to make the Canadian forces an employer of choice. I think we are on the right track in what we have been able to accomplish to this point. We have our numbers back up to over 60,000.

On the northern command, it is an internal United States reorganization. The Americans have not invited Canada to join it per se. They have been communicating with us at the table about how we can work in a co-operative way, because northern command is an internal command that will be concerned with the whole of North America. That is their area of interest. They have other commands that cover other parts of the world in terms of their areas of interest. No other military belongs to those commands. For example, southern command governs all of South America but South American countries do not belong to it.

However, we do have a very close relationship with the United States and we want to work in a co-operative way, so we have been exploring ways in which we might do that. At the same time, we entered into these discussions because we wanted to ensure that the one binational command we have, NORAD, was not subordinated to the northern command, and it will not be. It will be out there distinctively as a binational command. It will be on a parallel with the northern command as the two areas of responsibility of one person. Right now the commander of NORAD also has the space command, so double-hatting in the American context is quite normal. This person will be double-hatted with those two commands.

We are also looking at ways in which we can co-operate more with them. We are not talking about taking our military and putting it under their military. We are not going to assign major forces to this northern command. We are virtually talking about planning the kinds of operations in regard to how we might work together in the future, in no way affecting our sovereignty.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will take this opportunity to probe a little deeper. According to the minister, would our participation in the American space shield mean the end of the ABM treaty?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

No, because it appears that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is about to come to an end. The United States is one of the two partners to that treaty, with Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, and gave six months' notice in the latter part of last year, which I believe means that in one more month the United States will be out of the ABM treaty and that is the end of the treaty.

However, the president of Russia and the president of the United States have had discussions to try to bring about lowering of nuclear weaponry. Meanwhile, the United States, in terms of what we call a shield, continues to explore missile defence. It is a totally defensive weapon. It is non-nuclear weaponry, but it is designed as a missile defence system that will protect at least the United States.

We have not yet been asked to participate. As we have said on many occasions, we continue to monitor that situation. We have somebody in their office of ballistic missile defence to gather information and get a better understanding of where it is proceeding, but it has not made any final decisions about it at this point. Subsequently, though, Canada indeed will have to address that issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, the minister has confirmed that there are discussions, and probably negotiations regarding USNORTHCOM. Has he given any thought to how he wants to involve parliament in the USNORTHCOM issue?

Is the minister ready to make a statement soon in the House so that the opposition parties can respond and get an idea as to where the government is heading as far as this concept of USNORTHCOM is concerned?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

There are no negotiations. There are informal discussions going on. There are no decisions that have been made, and subsequently, yes, we will want to make sure that the House is aware of what the government will propose and it can then respond to that.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser, with the consent of the House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I understood that if there were to be any sharing of time unanimous consent would need to be granted.

[The Chairman]

As a matter of fact, the Chair was just going to remind members that to be able to split time in this format, the hon. member for Dartmouth, in this case, would have to seek consent of the House.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I would ask consent of the House to split my time with the member for Palliser.

[The Chairman]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we might have an indication as to whether the intervention by the hon. member is in her personal capacity or on behalf of her party.

[The Chairman]

I do not believe we are getting into any points of order. I believe this is getting into somewhat of a debate, but the right hon. member's turn will come very shortly.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use my time tonight, however long it is, to make comments and ask questions based on my own experience as the member of parliament for Dartmouth and as the representative of thousands of military personnel and their families.

I have enormous respect for the military and their commitment to this great country. It is in that spirit that I will ask the minister to address some central planning and priority issues which will have a profound effect on my constituents.

I would like to start by talking about the fact we are all aware of: our military resources are overstretched and our missions are under-resourced. In the national defence 2002-03 estimates report, the government stated that the pace of operations from the late 1990s has taken its toll and has stretched the Canadian forces, the department, and the men and women who wear the uniform.

As well as Senate committee reports, a Canadian security and military preparedness report released in February of this year reported that there are 105 military occupations, with 43 of these occupations considered to be “stressed”. This means that the status of these occupations is considered to be red, with indications that its trained effective strength is 90% or less and that it may not recover within two years.

I would like to ask the minister how the government intends to continue its high level of overseas commitment given its resources in these estimates. Even with the government's “aggressive” recruitment strategies, how can this situation be remedied before there are increased deployments for our already overtaxed and overburdened military personnel?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is an excellent question. As I indicated in my previous comments, overall recruitment and retention has improved. There are certain categories in which we are short. The people in those categories are in a somewhat stressed position with respect to our various operations, but we are focusing on those 43 categories to be able to increase the numbers.

Meanwhile we have been doing a study on operational tempo to determine alternate strategies. Such strategies would involve cutbacks in some operations if need be because we want to ensure that in dealing with quality of life issues we bear in mind the stress many of these people are going through in making their contributions. We are trying to find the right balance. We want to be able to make our contributions but at the same time deal with the stress factors until we can get our numbers higher in the 43 categories.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that families in my riding are painfully aware of the lack of resources and the fact that soldiers are constantly redeployed almost as soon as they get off the ships. It is painful to watch at the family resources centre as families deal with yet another deployment.

I will talk about the government's failure to safely equip our forces. In the conclusion of the national defence 2002-03 estimates the government states:

Over the past few years, Defence has pursued a deliberate strategy to position Canada’sdefence and security establishment for the future, focussing on ways to reinvest in itspeople, and to modernize, revitalize, and enhance the operational effectiveness of theCanadian Forces.

I guess this refers to upgrading the CF18s, the Aurora and the Coyote. However the replacement of the Sea King continues to be delayed. Other members here are passionate about the issue as well. How can the government claim to be working to enhance and modernize the armed forces when for close to 10 years the Maritime Helicopter Project has been stalled? The service personnel of 12 Wing Shearwater continue to operate and maintain the Sea Kings which are flying accidents waiting to happen.

When will the government replace the Sea King? How many more soldiers do we need to lose in these helicopters before the government gets the message that they are death traps?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the matter raised previously, in some cases we use the private sector to complement our own resources. We have been doing this in Bosnia for some of our stretched occupations. We have been able to provide private sector support services in Bosnia for things like cooking and cleaning. That is a further response to the previous question.

Regarding the current question, in the last year we have added $40 million in equipment purchases. We are increasing the percentage with respect to capital. With respect to the Sea Kings, as I said before, our people will not be flying anything that is not safe. We have put some $75 million into improving and upgrading the avionics and other parts of the Sea King. It has been performing exceedingly well. We have quite a number of them in the Arabian Sea. They have been performing exceeding well there because they are kept in good condition. We would not allow our people to fly anything that was unsafe.

However we need to get on with replacing them. We need new equipment with new capabilities for modern needs. As I indicated before, the process is in place and moving along. Yes, I wish it was faster but by the end of the year we will be in a position to name the helicopter that will replace the Sea King.

We are trying to make sure the process is conducted fairly and that we can keep it competitive. We have gone through various discussions with the proponents as to the technical specifications that flow out of the statement of requirements. They have been continually asking us for information about them and this takes time. However I think we would all agree we want to be fair to all the competitors so we can get the best helicopter to replace the Sea King. Meanwhile the Sea King will continue to do terrific service for us.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I will ask the minister about wounded peacekeepers and people returning from fronts with various disorders.

There has been strong testimony at the standing committee about the denial of proper assessment and treatment to personnel suffering from gulf war syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder or exposure to depleted uranium while serving in the Gulf War, Kosovo or now Afghanistan. It is clearly not a figment of the imagination when these people come home and are exceedingly ill almost as soon as they return. There are major health care issues we must deal with once they arrive back in Canada.

Can the minister tell us what resources are being allocated to preserve the health of our troops suffering from these conditions not only in the field but when they come back? What methods does the minister see for compensating soldiers and their families if they are exposed to depleted uranium or suffer from other debilitating conditions acquired in the line of duty?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, we are going through reforms to our health care system. We have put a number of operational centres in place to deal with trauma and stress and the ailments of people who served during the gulf war.

The ombudsman recently issued a report about PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. He made a number of recommendations which have been accepted by the forces and are in the process of being implemented. There are a multitude of ways in which we are improving health care services. We have established a centre for the injured and their families jointly with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The question of depleted uranium has seen considerable study. The difficulty is that the medical or scientific evidence has not indicated that any of our people have been adversely affected by it. Tests have been provided by the Department of National Defence. We have paid for tests to be done by independent parties. The relationship between service in the gulf or any other venue and depleted uranium is yet to be established but it still causes us considerable concern. We will continue to examine and study it. We will keep an open mind about it as we do for other ailments our people have.

Our people have experienced many different physical and psychological ailments and combinations of illnesses. The bottom line is that we want to look after these people. We want to do our best. It may be difficult in terms of scientific evidence to prove whether the ailments are related to depleted uranium, toxic substances or whatever, but if our people are sick we want to look after them. That is what we are endeavouring to do with these various changes and reforms.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, in every other area we try to get consumer groups and stakeholders involved in policies and planning for the future. To give confidence to returning peacekeepers and their families would the minister consider a consultation group of peacekeepers and active military personnel to oversee the decision making process regarding issues such as DU, post-traumatic stress disorder and all the ailments visiting people when they arrive home?