Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, off the top, I would like to correct the record. The minister suggested wrongly that the official opposition had rejected the recommendations of a committee report on quality of life. Yes, indeed, we voted against recommendations of the Liberal majority because they were inadequate to address the quality of life issues that were raised by our military men and women and their families. Yes, we issued a minority report calling for increased support above and beyond the recommendations included in the majority report, and we were also seeking to clarify some of the vague recommendations of the majority report.

Having said that, I would like to turn the minister's attention to his introductory remarks in part III of his departmental estimates. On page 2 of those comments, he states that the Canadian forces are acquiring world class equipment such as the Cormorant helicopter and the Coyote light armoured reconnaissance vehicle. When was the Coyote ordered for the Canadian forces?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it became operational in the nineties. I cannot tell the House exactly what the date was. If the hon. member is trying to suggest that maybe the previous government ordered it, I do not know that such is the case. This was not an attempt to say what government had done what, entirely, although most of it was done by our government. It was also an attempt to say that these are the kinds of things we have to serve our needs. In fact, the frigates were also ordered by a previous government but they serve us well. They are modern, state of the art equipment. It is our responsibility and it is on our watch to make sure that we have these kinds of things to be able to do the job, and that is the case.

The hon. member said that his party voted against the quality of life measures because it found them inadequate. I have not heard those members say anything in the House tonight or anything I can remember for a long period of time that has had anything to do with quality of life. They like to talk about the main battle tank, as they are tonight, or certain other things, but they do not focus on the comprehensive picture, including quality of life. They have said nothing about that, and of course as has been pointed out, they voted against that report.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, that is just nonsense. I will not let the minister skate from the implication of my question. He was quite right when he implied that the previous government placed the order for the Coyote light armoured reconnaissance vehicles and yet he is taking credit for it in the introduction to his estimates.

Because there has been no new equipment acquisition under this government or under this minister, he has to reach back 10 years to a previous government, a government whose acquisition policies his party criticized, in order to take credit for any acquisition. It is absolutely absurd.

On page 2, in the third paragraph of the introductory remarks, he says that the government “continues to make strides in its efforts to modernize Canada's national security and defence capabilities”. He then lists eight initiatives launched by his department, but only one of these initiatives involves new equipment. In the second bullet point, he talks about modernized equipment, but again, the Coyote was ordered by a previous government while the Cormorant helicopters and the Victoria class submarines were ordered four years ago. I believe that the aircraft upgrades to the CF-18s and the Auroras have not even begun yet. He could address that. The only new major piece of equipment that is actually entering operational service right now is the LAV III, which we hear a lot about from him.

This is pretty thin gruel, is it not? Is this not the real reason that the minister has to refer to the Coyote and other purchases made several years ago: because there has been virtually no new equipment acquisition under the government?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, that is absolutely false. With respect to the Coyote, it is on the listing as what has happened over the last several years. It does not say that is during our government's time, although 99% of this is during our government's time. The Coyotes have come into operation only in recent years. They may have been ordered by a previous government, but they have come into operation just in the time this government has been in office.

There are many other things there as well, such as the LAV IIIs, the light armoured vehicles. The Americans were so impressed with them they asked to borrow some. After they borrowed a few they decided to buy some, hence we will have more employment and more opportunities for the defence division of General Motors out of London, Ontario. That is because our government decided that these kinds of light armoured vehicles can best meet our needs and others are now following.

About the upgrades, once again the hon. member is wrong, because the upgrades on the CF-18 modernization program have already begun. A billion dollar contract has already been let for this. Modernization does cover more than just brand new. It means upgrades as well. We are not the only ones who do things in that fashion. Let us look at the United States B-52 bomber. The B-52 bomber is over 40 years of age. It is probably actually older than the Sea King but it is still used as part of the U.S. inventory by what is the most modern military in the world. We keep upgrading this kind of equipment and it continues to serve our needs, as we are doing with the CF-18s and also with the Auroras. The clothe the soldier program is also not mentioned there, but we have state of the art clothing and personal equipment for our troops. In fact, other countries are looking to duplicate that.

I think this government has shown itself to be on the leading edge in a lot of these areas of new equipment or modernization of existing equipment.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, it took four minutes of bafflegab to confirm that there has not been one major equipment acquisition under his ministry or this government's tenure with the exception of the LAV III.

I have a simple question for the minister. Hopefully we will get a simple answer. How many warships are under construction for the Canadian navy today?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, why does the hon. member ask a question he knows the answer to? There are not any under construction. We have 12 frigates. We have 12 MCDVs. He might need enlightenment. If he does not know that we do not have any under construction I think I had better give him the rest of the answer here. We have the four submarines that will be put into service following the repairs and the training that is being done. We have quite an extensive, modern navy. He can just ask the Americans. They keep inviting us to send the frigates with their state of the art equipment to be part of joint operations--

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, I take it that the answer is zero.

Could the minister tell the committee, apart from the smallest countries in NATO and the landlocked countries, how many other NATO countries have no warships at all under construction?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Hungary, Madam Chairman? I do not know. I have no idea. I think of all the landlocked countries. That is a silly question, because some countries have very small navies and some have large armies. It all varies, depending upon what their particular needs are.

Let me make a comparison which I think has some relevancy. When it comes to spending among the NATO allies, and the hon. member looks very anxious now, we are actually the sixth largest, so there is a fair bit of money that the government is putting into defence expenditures. Although people might cite that Turkey spends 5% of its GDP for defence, it actually spends less money than we do. When it comes to outputs and outcomes, we are unsurpassed by many of these other countries.

We are able to get good results with the taxpayers' money in terms of its investment. The fact that we do not have any new warships under construction is totally irrelevant. We have a very good, modern navy and we will continue to provide--

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, the answer is that every other major NATO country has new vessels under acquisition or under development, and it is relevant for us to compare ourselves. The only standards of measurement we have are comparable countries and comparable militaries in our military alliances.

The minister disingenuously suggests that Canada has the fifth largest defence expenditure in NATO. He knows that in relevant terms we have the second lowest, ahead only of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, at 1.1% of GDP versus the NATO average of 2.1% or 2.2%.

I would like to know how the minister finds any pride when he goes to NATO ministerial meetings defending his government. He knows full well that at NATO, at the OECD and where it matters they look at relative expenditures, relative to a nation's wealth and capacity. When they see this country financing our defence at one-half the NATO average, how does that make him feel at those NATO ministerial meetings?

I have another question. How many fixed wing aircraft, other than the Challengers, do we have on order today?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, again I would reiterate that I do not think these percentages of GDP are good measurements at all. When there is a situation in which the highest percentage of GDP is Turkey at 5% and we are one of the lowest but we actually spend more money than it does, as we buy more equipment and do more things, what is the relevancy of those percentages of GDP figures?

I will say this. The hon. member asked what I say when I go to NATO. Let me quote George Robertson, who happens to be the secretary general of NATO. I hope the hon. member will listen to this. He said that it is not how much you are spending, it is what you are spending on that really matters. It is outputs, not inputs, that matter to me, he said.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, I do not know what kinds of outputs he expects to get from the Challengers except for a more comfy ride next to his friend, the Prime Minister, but I will say he knows full well that Lord Robertson has criticized the defence commitments of many NATO countries and has singled out Canada on more than one occasion.

Of course, just as a hint, he did not answer that question. The answer in terms of fixed wing aircraft acquisitions apart from the Challengers is zero, none, as opposed to virtually every other NATO country.

Again on page 2 of his introductory remarks in the estimates, he highlights the fact that:

--we have committed ourselves to protecting the environment and sustainability through the new Sustainable Development Strategy.

What is the cost of this program to the department?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, there are hundreds upon hundreds of accounts and this will take a totalling of more than one number, but we will provide that number to the hon. member.

I am glad he has raised that because we are attempting to be good stewards of the property. We have more property under the defence department than any other department of the government and a lot of it is environmentally sensitive. We have some areas where there has been some contamination and clean up is necessary. We are proceeding with all of those and taking our responsibilities quite seriously.

I have to go back though to Lord Robertson because the hon. member says that Lord Robertson has been critical of Canada. I would like him to hear what Lord Robertson did say about Canada. He said that whenever Canada was needed Canada was near. He added that he was very proud of Canada and he congratulated the Canadian government and the Canadian people.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, the minister knows how selective he is being in referring to Lord Robertson. I think we all know how he feels when he is at those ministerial meetings next to countries that are expending 2%, 3%, and 4% of their GDP on defence and we are not pulling our share of the freight.

On the question of the environmental sustainability program I take it from his answer that this is government policy. Could the minister tell us exactly how this program contributes to the operational effectiveness of the armed forces?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, there is more to the Canadian forces than the main battle tank even though that party does not seem to think so perhaps.

However I think we do have a responsibility. For example, we have had some contamination problems near our property at Val Cartier. As a result we helped hook up people in the nearby community of Shannon to our clean water system because of trouble they were having from underground contamination emanating from another site. It migrated in through defence property so it was a concern to us.

We have the old DEW line system up north and the contamination there. Earlier construction had PCB in the paint. We are a responsible steward for the environment. We want ensure we clean up these matters. We have focused our attention which is part of our government responsibility to do so. Are not all members concerned about the environment? Do not all departments take responsibility for ensuring that they do their best to clean up the environment? That is what we are doing.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, I take it then from the minister's remarks that he has no idea what he spends on this program and it has nothing to do with operational effectiveness. That really helps to build confidence in the minister. On page 2 of the estimates he says that the government has enhanced investment in education, training and professional development and so on. When did the army last hold a full brigade sized exercise?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, it was several years ago now, but the other side of that coin is when was the last time we deployed a brigade? We have been deploying battalion or battle group size operations and we have had full training for them. When we have deployed any of them they have been ready to go into their mission just as the PPCLI was quite prepared in going into the mission in Afghanistan. We would not send any troops to any theatre of operation, whether combat or peace support, without the proper training, tools and equipment to do the job.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, the answer is 1992, ten years ago. The minister is now talking about enhanced investment in education and it has been a decade since the government took power since we have had a brigade sized exercise.

What were the annual flying hours for the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft in 1993 when the government took office?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, I bet he knows it, so I think he should get up and say it.

We have here the 2002-03 estimates. We have literally hundreds of counts to deal with. If he was seriously sincere in wanting that information he would have asked in advance. We would be happy to bring the books for 1993-94 and all the other years and give him the answer. However he did not give us that courtesy. He is not interested in the answer. He is about to tell us what it is in any event.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I am interested, Madam Chairman. It is important because it is about training. The chief of the air staff has said that it would be unacceptable to reduce the flying time for the Aurora to less than 11,500 hours. It is now down to 8,000 hours per year and it started at 19,200 hours when the government came to power.

For the record, other than the Victoria class submarines, how many warships have been ordered by the government since 1993? We presently have two operational support ships. How many did we have when the government took office? The navy has a plan for a minimum of three and preferably four new operational support ships. How will the government afford this program and where does it stand in the approval process?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, let me see where I can start on the wrong information that the member is giving out. He is living in the past. The government is interested in looking at the future and what our future needs are.

Yes, we do need to look at supply ships. We have three of them that are coming to the end of their life and we do have a project officer who is looking at the replacements of them. However the government is providing what our forces need now and in future. Yes, we have resource challenges. We need to deal with some of these issues in the context of our defence policy update and we will be doing that.

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

Madam Chairman, speaking for this side of the House I want to say how delighted I am to have this opportunity to ask questions on the estimates. This is an important step for parliamentary responsibility. We can see that there has been a tremendous turnout of Liberals on this side of the House to participate in asking these questions.

I propose to ask my questions on the estimates. I do not think this was ever intended to be a general debate on defence policy and so I will confine myself to that type of question.

There is one question I have wanted to ask for a very long time because of the questions in question period and that is with respect to the Challenger. Is it not true that the type of aircraft that the Challenger is is very suitable for conveying units like joint task force 2 to any theatre of operations in the world and that indeed most major military nations, most nations with a sophisticated military, have executive jets like that in their military establishments?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, the member is referring to what we call the white Challengers which are the ones that are used for executive services, for cabinet, the royal family or the Governor General as the case may be. We do have grey Challengers that are part of the military operation and have been used for transport of various kinds over the years. They do have a very functional purpose in terms of military operations. We have two of them by the way.

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

Madam Chairman, one thing I could not quite understand is that there is an expenditure anticipated of $200 million on contributions to the provinces for assistance related to national disasters. That is $50 million less than the preceding year.

I am not quite sure how that money is allocated. Is that money that is budgeted in the event of emergencies? If the emergencies do not occur, does that go into general spending? Perhaps the minister could explain how that money is allocated and used.