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?