Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we have put in place peer groups for people to consult with. There are also various professionals within the organization such as social workers, medical people or chaplains. There are a number of elements that come together to help in terms of counselling people and giving them the support they need.

However I am happy to look at any other peer support groups that might be helpful. We are moving in that direction now. We have established those kinds of groups. We are open to the idea and want to continue in that direction.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I will ask a question about privatization and the whole alternate service delivery model.

We are facing unprecedented pressures on our forces. They are understaffed and underfunded for the number of missions the minister is asking them to do. At the same time his priority is to put the provisioning, supply, transportation and warehousing system for all military material into the hands of a British multinational corporation.

One could say the minister is creating a potential military Walkerton. If the minister says we are at war, why is his priority the elimination of properly trained civilian workers so they can be replaced by a low cost bidder from another country?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, in conflict operations where there is high risk we will not send civilian personnel to do the jobs military people have done in the past. I mentioned that we have put people into Bosnia but the risk levels are lower. The Americans have been using this kind of support for some time as well. When certain occupations in the military are stressed it is particularly helpful to be able to give support through private sector personnel. However we would not send that kind of personnel into a place like Afghanistan which is a conflict zone.

The hon. member may also be referring to the Supply Chain Project which is the major alternative service delivery program we are proceeding with at the moment. We talked earlier about scarce resources and the need to use them on core military capabilities. That is what we are trying to do here. We believe we can enhance the performance of our supply chain from beginning to end by putting it together as a comprehensive entity. We can make it a better system all around. It is pretty good in many respects but we can make it better. We think we can save over $70 million a year. We made a business case with respect to that and the auditor general thought we made a good case.

On top of that, the company is a Canadian company. It has foreign ownership but so do a lot of Canadian companies with which we do business. The service provider has committed to making reasonable job offers to 100% of the permanent civilian employees affected by the project. The company is willing to guarantee employment for seven years. It will offer salaries equivalent to or better than what the employees got in the public service. Health, dental, disability and pension arrangements will all be provided.

A year ago when I was talking to the president of the Union of National Defence Employees he thought it was a great idea. He does not seem to think so today but he did at one time. That is because it is fair and reasonable in its treatment of employees. At the same time it will allow the government to save a lot of money and provide for an effective and efficient system. We will be able to put the money we save into our core capabilities to help relieve some of the stresses and pressures we have been talking about.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answer. However I have in front of me a letter from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This is what PSAC has said to me:

As a union, we are opposed to the privatization of Canada's DND Supply Chain. This privatization is not in the interests of our members who will be forced out of the federal public service and into work with a British-based contractor. These workers will suffer reduced benefits and job insecurity.

Our concerns as a union extend beyond the impact on our members. We are concerned about the future security of Canada. We are concerned about escalated costs for lower quality service.

PCAC members are concerned, as am I, about the privatization of our military. It is certainly an issue with the many defence workers who live in my community.

I have a question about the northern command. The minister is answering many of these tonight. We are seeing the development of a northern command. Does the minister plan to hold talks with his U.S. counterparts on the issue of Canada's north and our Arctic sovereignty? How does our Arctic sovereignty, including our sovereignty in the Northwest Passage, relate to the American concept of the North American defence perimeter? What is the government planning to do to ensure our Arctic sovereignty?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we have in the last year entered into an internal exercise with respect to the north that includes a northern operation out of Yellowknife. We have various entities that come under that command throughout the northern areas, such as our Canadian Rangers.

Our Canadian Rangers will be our eyes and ears in the north and in much of the remote areas. We will expand that operation, as we are indeed expanding the junior ranger program which helps young people become involved with something that is very valuable for them in terms of development of life skills.

Those programs will be increased. We will also establish more exercises in the north. We have two naval ships that we will be sending up there this summer as part of an exploration of the passage areas. Ultimately, yes, we will address this question of the Northwest Passage. We are likely to see that passage opening for shipping in a few years with the effects of climate change, perhaps 10 or 15 years. We must be prepared for that possibility and what that means in terms of sovereignty and environmental conditions. These are matters that we are quite cognizant about. We are continuing to address them.

At the present time we are looking at the organizational structure of the northern command and subsequently how it relates to our most northern areas will have to be fully addressed.

[The Chairman]

This concludes the first round of the New Democratic Party. The floor will now be given to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might secure unanimous consent to share my time. If I am granted that unanimous consent then the member for Saint John would speak ahead of me.

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

No means no, Joe.

[The Chairman]

There is no consent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to recall a time when four words managed to break two practices of the House of Commons. I congratulate the very experienced and short lived member for her intervention. I am afraid it does put into context the pretence of her leader to be interested in a parliament that works more effectively.

I welcome the minister to this procedure and may there be many more of them.

I want to begin with northern command. My understanding is that northern command in the United States takes effect on October 1. Is that the minister's understanding of the date? Whatever the date, on the day after that date will there be any change at all in the nature or the mechanisms of Canada's defence relations with the United States of America?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, October 1 is the target date to put it into effect. At this point in time I would have to say no, but there are discussions that are going on at this point in time relevant to how we could find more practical co-operative ways of improving the defence of our people, both in Canada and the United States and our common continent.

In terms of such structures as Norad, which is one of the reasons we entered into discussions with the U.S., it will be in the same position as it is today. It will be a binational command reporting to the governments of the two countries. It will not be changed.

Depending on how these discussions that are currently under way evolve and how they evolve if there is any formal part to them beyond this, that could have some effect on what happens on October 1. As I have indicated, let us not get carried away with what is being talked about here. Let us understand that the northern command is in fact an internal structural entity in the United States forces. It is one of many commands that they have.

We are looking at co-operation which would involve more planning within that context. We are not talking about putting our troops under any other command. We are not talking about assigning some large standing force to it. We are not talking about anything that will affect our sovereignty or our ability to make our own decisions with respect to foreign policy. I think we had better keep this whole thing in context.

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

Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that Canada has not been invited to participate. Is the minister anticipating such an invitation?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

No, Mr. Chairman. It depends what the hon. member means by those words. We have not been invited to participate in the northern command. We have not been invited to become part of the northern command.

I do not anticipate we will ever be asked because that is an internal structure within the United States just as the southern command covers all of South America. Nobody has been asked in South America, or any part of the world, to join that command. The northern and southern commands are internal organizational commands.

When the hon. member asks what we are discussing, we are discussing the possibilities of co-operation. In that respect it could be a relationship but it certainly will not be coming under northern command. No, we are not looking at that at the moment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the minister has just told the House that the department and he are discussing practical ways of co-operation that might take effect. Without asking him to go into any detail, would the minister give us one or two examples of the kinds of practical changes in co-operation that might take effect for Canada after the October 1?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we may develop a planning cell that would rely on shared information about operations on land and sea. Discussions might help organize some exercises that would result in our ships working together out in the maritime operations. Maybe we will work on things that will better co-ordinate protection of our coastlines as a continent.

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

Mr. Chairman, in the discussions within the department, is any consideration being given to the consequences of Canada declining an invitation to participate?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we will only do what is in our interest to do and what is in the interest of the security of Canadians. It must make sense for us. After all, our first concern is the safety and security of Canada and Canadians.

We share a continent with the United States. We are not on an island unto ourselves. One of our missions is to work with the United States in defence of our continent. We already have a great many treaties and memorandums of understanding. If in the post-September 11 framework there were ways that we could enhance that co-operation, then we would like to do that. However, it does not involve setting up a separate command structure or joining a separate command structure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the internal discussions within the Department of National Defence. In those internal discussions which are now going on, is there any consideration being given to the consequences to Canada of declining an invitation to play some more formal role in the northern command?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the right hon. member is assuming that there will be some sort of a formal invitation. We look at all possibilities of the implications of co-operation with the United States. It is not unusual to do. There are only informal discussions going on at this point in time. When we get to a point where the government has a proposal, then the government will make that known and the right hon. member can respond accordingly.

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

Mr. Chairman, in the internal discussions within the Department of National Defence, is there any estimate of the potential cost implications for Canada of the restructuring of the northern command in the United States?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

No, Mr. Chairman. We expect it would be minimal. As I said, it is an internal United States command. Depending on what comes out of the discussions about co-operation we will have to examine the implications in terms of resources. At this point in time they are just informal discussions. There are no proposals and there are no negotiations.

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

Mr. Chairman, is the minister telling the House that his highly qualified officials in the Department of National Defence and members of the military staff are not contemplating possible cost implications for Canada of this major restructuring in the northern command of the United States? Are they contemplating any changes with respect to equipment requirements in Canada? Is the minister telling the House that these things are not being game planned in the Department of National Defence, that people are just waiting for the Americans to invite us or not?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we are not waiting for any invitation. Anything that we will be looking at with respect to co-operation will be all fully costed. However, the northern command, which is an internal United States command, would obviously have implications on our budget, but certainly any decision about co-operation will also require us to cost the impact of any of that.

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

Mr. Chairman, in the event of co-operation, would that be our involvement in northern command? Would that be expressed in the form of a formal agreement between the two countries or would it be conducted informally?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I will not speculate on that because it is still in the early discussion stages. They are just exploratory discussions at this point in time. There is nothing formal to talk about.