Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

National Defence—Main Estimates 2006-07

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to advise the hon. minister that he has only 20 seconds for a response.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, efforts to sustain and improve the standard of health care provided to CF members at home and abroad are managed under the umbrella project called Rx 2000. It involves mental health care. It also includes a joint mental health care project. It involves both the RCMP and the veterans, along with Canadian Forces.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member for Wascana.

I am going back to the issue of re-roling. The hon. minister is on record as saying at one point that there would be no re-rolling at all. General Hillier is on record as saying that there would be some re-roling. Now the minister has said yes, there will be some re-roling.

I have two basic very brief questions. Would the minister agree that General Hillier and his remarks have changed the minister's mind? Second, has the fact that this rushed extension of the mission for two years was poorly planned placed the military in a situation where they now have to re-role and scramble otherwise to meet the needs of the mission?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is no difference between my interpretation and that of General Hillier. We are of the same mind on these issues.

The extension of the mission was not rushed. It was considered. It was evaluated by all the departments. Advice was given on our capacity to achieve these goals from a military, a development and a diplomatic point of view.

What I have said is that recently I asked the Chief of Defence Staff to try to ensure that people who are in the direct confrontation or combat roles would not go back to Afghanistan a second time. This is a principle that I am trying to achieve. In doing that, the chief has taken that on and is looking at all the ways to achieve that goal.

That was not part of the original goal, but what I am trying to do is reduce the risk on individuals. If people are put in harm's way, I am trying to make sure that they are not put in harm's way within a short period of time.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, the government has taken great pains, in fact, to hide the cost of this war and to hide the truth about this war from Canadians.

The government has stopped lowering the flag on the Peace Tower, tried to ban media from the repatriation ceremonies and is now even refusing to disclose the number of Canadian soldiers who are wounded.

Despite $17 billion in defence purchases, much of which is needed, there is no defence capabilities plan. I am assuming that, one, it is not ready, and two, it will never be made public.

The CIA believes that the success of the international community is now in doubt in Afghanistan. The CIA believes that many Afghans think that, first, police and government are corrupt in Afghanistan, second, not enough reconstruction is being done, and third, not the government or the police or the army can protect the people from the Taliban.

In fact, American officials have given dire warnings about the state of matters in Afghanistan. NATO itself is concerned about its own strategy. One hears this if one is in the U.S. or in Europe. Our government continues to paint a rosy picture. We have lost the war, or almost lost the war, for hearts and minds. Is this not just another example of the government doing blithely as it wishes while keeping the truth from the Canadian people as to what the state of the issues is in Afghanistan itself?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member had a number of questions.

With respect to the wounded, we have not hidden anything. To give numbers as of today, since the beginning of the venture, which, by the way, was started by the Liberal government, there have been 176 wounded soldiers. Of those, 126 have returned to units. We have 50 soldiers remaining who are in various states of medical care and re-evaluation. That is the state of the wounded. I will note not to mix up wounded with injured. If one happens to fall down a ladder, one could be injured. These are wounded soldiers.

With respect to the CIA, I find it incredible that the members opposite are quoting the CIA when every day in the House they talk of George Bush and criticize the Americans. I guess it is convenient to take the American information and advice when they want to, but when they do not want it, they toss it away.

The evaluation we have is not the CIA evaluation. The evaluation is that we are making a success in Afghanistan. If one looks at the entire country of Afghanistan, the 34 provinces, there are about 26 provinces that are relatively benign. There are problems in about six provinces. These six provinces include Kandahar in the south, along with Helmand province and some of the other provinces. This is where the challenge is right now. We are meeting that challenge and development is going ahead in Kandahar province.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, all of us agree that our troops are doing a heroic job, but the minister needs to understand that the reports my colleague was talking about were from the United Kingdom and Washington. Both reports say that we are losing the war.

The Taliban's control has increased, not decreased. Mr. Karzai's government is perceived as being corrupt and he does not have control over his country. Attacks are now happening in the north and the east which were not happening before. There will be war without end until the insurgency is dealt with.

What does the minister propose to do to deal with the insurgency coming from Pakistan?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, there may be reports from the CIA but we have 15 officers inside the Karzai government in Kabul, so we pretty well know what is going on in the government.

With respect to Afghanistan, most of the source of the Taliban comes from the Pashtun tribe. The Pashtun tribe in Afghanistan is in the south and east and numbers about 12.5 million. There are 22 million Pashtun across the border in Pakistan. It is a porous border. There is no documentation because the people in the Pashtun tribes have had rights for centuries to move back and forth to see their family members. It is quite a challenge to control who is coming and going between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We have discussed with the Pakistan government the challenges that we face and the challenges that it faces because it also has to deal with the insurgency. What we have proposed in a modest start to gain confidence is that we have a liaison officer located with the Pakistan 12th corps which is opposite us in the Pakistan area south of Kandahar, and that Pakistan put a liaison officer with us. This would start to build up some kind of liaison with us and pass information to help our situation.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, for the information of the minister, the reports are from the United States and the United Kingdom. One liaison officer is not going to stop this insurgency. For our troops' sake, I ask him to please get it right.

My next question is with respect to the extension that took place when the government gave only 48 hours' notice for the extension of the mission. At that time our NATO allies had allegedly made troop commitments.

Will the minister tell the House what countries and how many troops were committed by our NATO allies when the government irresponsibly extended this mission for two years while giving the House only 48 hours to try to find and consider the evidence?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Liberal government gave the military 45 minutes' warning to commit 2,000 troops to Afghanistan. The army commander did not know about it. People down the whole chain of command did not know about it. The Liberal government, centrally the prime minister and the minister of defence of the day, made the arbitrary decision without even considering the problem. At that time the military said it could only handle 500 soldiers and the Liberal government committed 2,000 soldiers. The member should not give me any spiel about warning.

With regard to warning, it was the Liberal government that committed us to the commitment in Kandahar. Most members of the Liberal government, including the hon. member, did not support our troops when the vote came.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, the minister's own troops are saying that development is not getting through to the people. I would like to ask the minister why.

He has a surge capacity of 600 troops. Will he commit to use at least part of those troops toward enforcing and implementing a chapter 7 peacemaking force into Darfur that has been authorized by the UN?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the hon. member asked two questions.

From a DND point of view and from our point of view, our projects are moving ahead. If the member wants to know about the projects from CIDA or foreign affairs or U.S. aid or the Karzai government, he can go to those sources and find the answers.

With respect to Darfur, no organization has ever asked us to contribute anything to Darfur. The member knows from reading the newspapers and staying in touch that the UN is trying to negotiate to take control of Darfur, and it has no intention of asking Canada to send troops. If it asks for any more troops, it will ask countries like Pakistan and African countries to do the job. The UN is quite content to have the African Union look after its own country.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

They can't. They are failing.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

That may be the hon. member's opinion. However, I am saying that we have not been asked.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, I am very interested in and very concerned about the NATO flying training in Canada program at 15 Wing near Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. There are worries that participating countries may be dropping out of the program and new countries are not being recruited to replace them or to expand upon them. I have several questions tonight for the minister.

First, which NATO countries are currently represented at the NFTC program at Moose Jaw?

Second, what is the duration of each of their contracts?

Third, have any of these contracts or will any of these contracts be terminated prematurely?

Fourth, what new prospects are being recruited to fill the vacancies?

Fifth, what would be the effect of a weakened NATO flight training in Canada program on the Canadian Snowbirds? Could the Snowbirds be sustained and remain in Moose Jaw without the NFTC?

Sixth, does the NATO flying training in Canada program continue to this day and going forward to be marketed professionally and aggressively by the Government of Canada, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces and the Bombardier private sector consortium?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is like a telephone book of questions the hon. member has asked. Some of the details I do not have at hand, but I promise to get those details to him.

Our training is very important. Moose Jaw is a very important training establishment for us. It trains our pilots. From our point of view, it will go on. It has a great future. The primary purpose of Moose Jaw is to train Canadian pilots. If we can get other people to come and fly there, that helps to reduce the costs, but Moose Jaw is vital to training Canadian pilots.

With respect to the Snowbirds, they also have a great future. We are now considering a number of options. We are looking at a number of options in the department about the future of the Snowbirds.

With respect to who is there, their termination dates and some of these other questions, I will get back to the member.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, that will be followed with a great deal of interest by the people of Moose Jaw.

I have one other very specific question about the estimates. There is an item that notes a transfer from the Department of Western Economic Diversification to the Department of National Defence. I expect that to be for certain Métis issues associated with the Primrose Lake air weapons range.

Can the minister confirm that the Conservative government is in fact honouring that important commitment to the Métis people made by the former Liberal government in respect of the Primrose Lake air weapons range?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I cannot answer this question at this time. Again, I will get the answer for the hon. member as soon as possible.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, briefly back to the topics raised by my colleagues having to do with the very difficult situation in Afghanistan, can the minister indicate to us specifically what he expects to be the duration of the Canadian rotation in Kandahar? When would he anticipate that the Canadian assignment in Afghanistan would move on to some other theatre in the normal practice of NATO rotations?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, we expect to be in the Kandahar area until the end of February 2009. It depends on what the hon. member means when he referred to rotation. If he is talking about internal rotations, every six months the battle groups change, and that will carry on until the end of February 2009.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Within the country?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, as to whether we are going to rotate within Afghanistan, at the moment we are committed to the Kandahar area to the end of February 2009. The government will consider all other options when that time is reached.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, as the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, it is a pleasure for me to be involved tonight in this discussion on the 2006-07 estimates for the Department of National Defence.

These estimates reflect many of the important initiatives this government has put forward since it took office a few months ago. Much has been accomplished since that time.

We have introduced a universal child care benefit for every child under six and have helped 1.4 million families make ends meet. Tax cuts and debt payments have helped to keep the economy strong. The introduction of the federal accountability act is part of our effort to clean up our political system. We strengthened crime legislation by tackling gun, gang and drug crime. We have taken concrete steps to advance Canadian interests on the international stage and to rebuild the Canadian Forces.

During the last election, this government promised to rebuild and revitalize the Canadian Forces. In just nine months in office we have already announced a number of important initiatives aimed at doing just that.

One of our big announcements was on recruitment. We plan to expand the regular forces to 75,000 and the reserves to 35,000. But we know that even if we meet 100% of these recruitment goals, our new recruits will not be effective if we do not equip them. So we made some major procurement announcements as well.

In June the Minister of National Defence announced plans to acquire tactical and strategic airlift, joint support ships, medium sized logistics trucks, and medium to heavy lift helicopters. This government recognizes that these are big ticket items, but they are crucial for the Canadian Forces to do their jobs more effectively.

These projects will help the Canadian Forces in their current missions both in Canada and around the world, and will allow the Canadian Forces to meet the challenges they will face in decades to come. Moreover, they will provide positive spinoffs for Canada's defence industry and the Canadian economy.

I would like to now go into these procurement projects in some detail to make it clear why they are necessary. Allow me to begin with the strategic and tactical airlift.

As my hon. colleagues can appreciate, our troops are expected to deploy within Canada, North America and around the world. When they deploy, they often have to move large numbers of troops and heavy equipment. The only Canadian Forces aircraft that can transport large numbers of troops and equipment over long distances is our CC-150 Polaris aircraft. However, this plane's capabilities have proven to be limited. It cannot move heavier vehicles or large cargo; it cannot defend itself against surface to air missiles; and it cannot operate from unpaved airfields. To make up for this capability gap, we have frequently had to charter commercial planes or catch rides with our American ally.

Canada is a sovereign country. It cannot remain dependent upon the goodwill and capacity of others whenever we want to get troops or equipment to theatres of operation. When I say theatres of operation, I do not just mean abroad. Due to the overwhelming size of Canada's territory, the Canadian Forces need a strategic airlift capability to serve our own country.

To address this crucial need, the Canadian Forces will acquire four C-17 Globemaster aircraft. These new acquisitions will enhance the Canadian Forces' ability to deploy on missions. They will be timely, dependable and they will be ours. But that is not enough. I now want to turn to our decision to invest in new Hercules aircraft.

As many of my colleagues are aware, our fleet of Hercules tactical airlift aircraft is now getting old. I can speak from personal experience. I spent three days on a Hercules on a resupply mission from Trenton to Alert. The plane I was on had been re-winged. It had 40,000 hours on it. It was well past its due date and that was a number of years ago. In fact, our fleet has logged more flying hours than any other military Hercules fleet in the world.

The Hercules are essential as they support our forces involved in combat operations. They provide in-theatre support that is essential for missions such as the current one in Afghanistan. We need to replace the old Hercules now or we could lose our tactical airlift capability by 2010, a short three years away.

I would now like to turn to another key purchase, the purchase of 16 Chinook medium to heavy lift helicopters. Our recent operational experience at home and abroad has also underscored the vital need for such helicopters. In theatres abroad the new helicopter will allow us to support our troops as they operate in increasingly dangerous environments. For example, the ability to move personnel and equipment by air quickly has become a key requirement for us in Afghanistan, as ground transportation, as we have seen, has proven to be very dangerous for our troops.

At home, the new helicopters will allow the Canadian Forces to reach remote and isolated locations. They will provide better support to first responders in disaster situations. They will also help out troops in the field when ground transportation is difficult and access to airfields is impossible.

Aircraft and helicopters do not solve all the equipment needs of the Canadian Forces. They have requirements on the ground too.

Our existing medium size trucks are nearing the end of their service life and are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. We had to move on this project immediately. The government plans to acquire medium sized logistics trucks. They will be used for training and to transport the troops and supplies necessary to conduct operations. Because these trucks will be able to handle pallets that are standard with our allies, they will increase the interoperability of the Canadian Forces.

Finally, the government has announced plans to purchase three joint supply ships. These state of the art vessels will be used to refuel and resupply other ships at sea. They will provide support for ship borne helicopters. They will be able to transport large quantities of equipment and transfer it to shore. The capacity to provide support to forces deployed ashore will improve the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.

These ships will provide the navy with a three-ocean capacity and the global reach necessary for a transformed Canadian Forces.

All of this new equipment will enhance the ability of the Canadian Forces to deliver success in operations in Canada, in North America and around the world. The forces will be better prepared to face the evolving security environment and to meet the challenges of decades to come. These investments will not only build long term capacity for the Canadian Forces, they will also provide positive spin-offs for the Canadian economy.

Under the industrial and regional benefits policy, contractors are required to invest an amount equal to the value of the contract into the Canadian economy. Canadians can be reassured that each dollar spent on this new equipment will be matched by spending right here in Canada.

Canadians also stand to benefit through in-service support contracts, which will bring jobs and investment to Canadian industry.

The Conservative Party is delivering on its election promise to rebuild the Canadian Forces. The procurement plans I discussed tonight will allow the Canadian Forces to better serve and better defend Canadians.

These are the right acquisitions for the Canadian Forces and for all Canadians. This government is proud of the work done by our men and women in uniform. It is committed to giving them the tools they need to do their job safely and effectively.

The new government is getting things done for taxpayers and families. The government is making sure that Canada is united and secure. It is ensuring that our streets are safe and that those in need get a helping hand. It is ensuring that Canada remains prosperous and secure.

Rebuilding the Canadian Forces is an important part of this effort.

I have a few questions for the parliamentary secretary.

We have heard time and again from a variety of sources about the problems associated with procurement process within the Department of National Defence. Under years of Liberal leadership, the process continued to be complex, lengthy and overly bureaucratic.

The new government will not stand for this. We are committed to giving our troops the equipment they need in a timely manner, while maintaining a fair, open and transparent procurement system.

Over the past five years, the government has produced three large reports that deal with the issue of procurement for military services and equipment. These reports have all suggested that buying equipment for the Canadian military takes too long and costs too much.

One of the biggest problems with the procurement system is the fact that it takes the government over 15 years to get a piece of equipment into service after the government has made the decision to buy it. This means that what the Liberal government did not do in 1991 is hurting the military today.

It is clear that our current situation is a legacy of previous Liberal governments. After continuous cuts to the defence budget throughout the 1990s, the department could not afford to buy the equipment that was necessary to sustain military operations. Worse than that, they were not capable of making timely decisions when the money was available. After years and years of neglect, the military has been forced to operate aging and technologically irrelevant equipment.

Our men and women in uniform should be commended for performing complex operations throughout the 1990s with equipment that was less than suitable.

The new government will not allow our military to suffer like that. Therefore, the government is committed to protecting the rights of Canadians to have access to fair, open and transparent competition for contracts. It is also committed to respect Canadian obligations under international trade agreements that are vital to the competitiveness of Canadian industry abroad.

How does the parliamentary secretary intend to uphold these commitments while providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment they need to get the job done? Could he update the House and all Canadians on how the Department of National Defence has reformed the procurement process for military equipment and services?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, we are committed to making the business of military procurement faster and more cost efficient. This will ensure that Canadian taxpayers get the most for their money and that our men and women in uniform get the equipment that they need to do their jobs properly.

We are absolutely committed to implementing a number of significant initiatives to improve and expedite the defence procurement process. For example, we will try to procure tried and tested off-the-shelf equipment as much as possible. A good example of this is Nyala. The Nyala provides high levels of protection for Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan. These new vehicles are effective in providing protection against attacks from a variety of explosives and mines that have proven their worth many times on operations and patrols in Afghanistan.

We are also changing how we define what needs to be purchased. We are working to minimize detailed and lengthy technical specifications and instead define high level performance requirements for industry to satisfy. For example, the statement of interest and qualifications, or SOIQ, for strategic lift was only two pages long. Further, we are improving how projects are contracted. We have initiated a new process that involves bundling multiple requirements into a few contracts in an effort to streamline the process.

We are working with four other ministers to reform the defence procurement process in a way that will improve and expedite the acquisition of new equipment for Canadian Forces. We expect these initiatives to cut the time to award a contract by over 40%. In fact, the government has already announced intent and is proceeding with the negotiations for two major equipment acquisitions.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, the previous government was quite content to let the equipment used by our military men and women in uniform deteriorate. A perfect example of this is the medium logistics trucks for the army. These trucks were first purchased in 1982. That makes the truck fleet 24 years old.

I see that in the main estimates there was only a meagre $26 million allocated to the medium logistics trucks. Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what course of action he has taken with this project and also with the heavy truck fleet?