Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

National Defence—Main Estimates 2006-07

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

Mr. Chair, again, I have little involvement in these except to ensure the military sets a fair requirement and to provide the funding. It matters not to me who bids for it.

If the member wants to find out who bids for it she should go to public works and find out who did it.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, perhaps the Minister of National Defence could answer this question with a simple yes or no.

Did General Dynamics and General Atomics join forces to submit a tender to supply unmanned aircraft, yes or no?

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

Mr. Chair, I am not even aware of a project for unmanned aircraft.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, at one time, all these businesses were clients of the current Minister of National Defence, and they are now at the centre of public contracts with the federal government and the Department of National Defence.

Will the minister not admit that he is in a conflict of interest situation, given his past relationships and his current position? Yes or no?

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

Mr. Chair, I think I have answered this about 20 times in the House. I followed all the rules in the past, I am following them all today and I will follow them all in the future. If the member has any doubts, she should go see the Ethics Commissioner.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine asked me to giver her a warning after five minutes. You have 20 seconds remaining, after which you will likely share the rest of your time with your colleague.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Indeed, Mr. Chair, I would like to share the remainder of my time with my colleague.

The Chief of the Defence Staff publicly stated before a House of Commons committee that he was prepared to use all our military resources to honour Canada's commitment to Afghanistan.

However, the current Minister of National Defence contradicted General Hillier's remarks. Why?

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

Mr. Chair, maybe the translation did not capture the question bit, if it did, the Chief of the Defence Staff and myself are of one mind. As I told the member before, on the recommendation of the military, it recommended the extension to 2009 because it felt it could meet it and that has been confirmed by our evaluations.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to ask the minister why his department, as we understand, is in the process of buying, without any competition I would emphasize, a minimum of 50 trucks at a cost of $150 million. Could he explain to this House why this requirement of the trucks to have a 16-tonne capacity?

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

Mr. Chair, first, I think the hon. member is talking about the heavy trucks. We are trying to get some heavy trucks that have heavy armoured cabs into Afghanistan, and there is a competition. I do not know who is competing but I am told three or four companies are competing for this.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, our understanding is that there is no competition.

Does the minister not realize that the cost to Canadians, because a lack of competition on almost everything the government purchased for the military, would cost us in excess of anywhere between 20% to 30% beyond? The 13 or so billion dollars will cost Canadians an additional $2.5 billion to $3 billion. This is according to Mr. Alan Williams who is currently ADM for acquisition.

Could the minister not open up the process for fair competition?

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

Mr. Chair, the member is alleging that Mr. Williams said that. If he did, that is fine, but there is no proof whatsoever, first, that anything will cost more by one means or another. However, in every process we have followed it has been a competitive process. An ACAN process is a competitive process. An SOIQ is a competitive process. In the heavy trucks, they are in a competitive process. Everyone has followed a competitive process.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, in his opening presentation the minister talked about the Canada first strategy and outlined the strategy for the next 10 years. I do not understand. I want to ask him why he is considering reinventing the wheel. I am glad we have CDS here with us today because I recall in the last mandate this was, in essence, the plan. What is it that will be different over the next 10 years that he could tell us about to start the process all over again? We were led to believe, as a government and as a nation, that we must move forward to support our military.

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

Mr. Chair, I imagine the first thing is money. The previous Liberal government gutted the armed forces and then, at the last moment, it pumped a bit of money into the armed forces but not enough to do the job and not enough to pay for increases that it announced. There was not enough money in the budget to cover what it promised.

Our plan will be financed properly. We will deliver on what we say we will deliver and we will provide a better military capability than the Liberals planned. We will provide the capability that this country needs, both externally and internally.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, with the CDS here I am quite shocked, because I heard the opposite during his presentation of how satisfied and pleased he was.

During the last Parliament, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs was addressing the issue of agent orange. I will not take the time to quote what the minister said at that time but he made a commitment that should his party form government, which it now has, that his government would address this issue.

Is the Conservative government prepared to act on it immediately, not in a year and a half or two as the Minister of Veterans Affairs has said in the papers?

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

Mr. Chair, our government is committed to addressing veterans' problem with agent orange but if the member wants the details he will need to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government has taken measurable steps forward in a number of priority areas since taking office last winter. Introducing the federal accountability act, stronger crime legislation and tax cuts for all Canadians are just a few of the initiatives we have undertaken.

Supporting the Canadian Forces in their current mission and rebuilding and revitalizing our military for the future have also been high on our agenda. Therefore, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee of the whole on the 2006-07 estimates for the Department of National Defence. Indeed, I am pleased to have the privilege to reiterate the government's commitment to our Canadian Forces and our Canada first vision for defence.

There can be no question that the government is absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a military that is modern, effective and capable of defending Canada and Canadians.

To begin with, the government has given our Canadian Forces the attention, the resources and the priority required for them to do their job. The additional funds provided to the forces in budget 2006 will provide them with about $5.3 billion in budgetary funding over five years. It is because these resources are here that they will be able to help ensure that our forces have the ability to assist Canadians, defend Canada and assert our sovereignty.

Look at the equipment purchase decisions the government has made in the last few months. We will be spending $5 billion for strategic and tactical airlift. Our air force has tremendous distances to cover here in Canada and this airlift will strengthen our independent capacity to defend our national sovereignty and security.

When disaster strikes here at home, we cannot rely on other countries to come to our rescue, providing the airlift that we need. The government's commitment to strategic airlift will provide a new capability for our forces, one that could be useful in responding to the natural disasters our country has faced in previous years. This is one capability that will help the Canadian Forces tackle the challenges posed by the vastness of our country, especially in dire situations when time is at a premium.

The government has also committed a further $2 billion to purchasing medium to heavy lift helicopters. These helicopters will give our forces the ability to respond quickly and efficiently to disasters and other emergencies. They will let us move soldiers and equipment in and people out faster than we have ever been able to do before, and all this in the worst scenarios, when roads are gone, power is off or people are trapped.

The government will also purchase 2,300 medium sized logistic trucks for about $1.1 billion. These trucks will provide our forces with the mobility they need, mobility that is being compromised by using the current fleet that is nearly a quarter of a century old.

We have also announced plans to move forward with the joint support ship project. This means we will have these new state of the art, multi-role vessels to help our Navy protect our security on all three of our oceans, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic.

The government has shown its commitment to fulfilling its election promise to put Canada first. These are the first steps in rebuilding the Canadian Forces, which have been underfunded, undermanned and under-equipped for more than a decade.

Since the end of the cold war, and particularly in the modern age of terrorism, we have called on the Canadian Forces to do more with less at an ever increasing pace. At home in the last decade alone, we called on our military repeatedly during disasters: the Saguenay floods of 1996; the Red River floods of 1997; the ice storm of 1998; the crash of Swiss Air Flight 111; the destruction of Hurricane Juan; and the forest fires in British Columbia. In these and many other disasters we have relied on the Canadian Forces. They have always been there for us. The government is there for the Canadian Forces.

Of course natural disasters are not the only role for our forces at home. Since September 11, 2001, it has been obvious to us that Canada cannot assume that we will never be the target of an attack here. Indeed, al-Qaeda has specifically noted that Canada is one of its targets.

The Canadian Forces patrol our skies. They defend our waters. They guard our land. Search and rescue, sovereignty, supporting other departments and agencies, our forces play many varied role here at home. Giving them the proper equipment is just one aspect of the government's commitment to putting Canada first.

Our vision also requires a military with the right structure to focus on Canada. Earlier this year our military turned all domestic operations over to Canada Command. Viewing Canada as a single theatre of operations means that all our military resources can be coordinated in response to any crisis here at home.

No matter where in Canada, the military stands ready to respond when called upon. The mission of Canada Command is no fail. In this light, the Canadian Forces are liaising and exercising with civil authorities and other government departments to plan, prepare and be ready for when the Canadian Forces are needed most by Canadians here at home.

We have also committed to initiating the establishment of territorial battalions near major urban centres. The government intends to ensure that our forces are structured and positioned to respond to our number one security priority, the safety and security of Canadians.

An improved structure and new equipment do not fully address the challenges facing Canadian Forces today. Equipment and command structures will not by themselves assure the defence of Canada. We also need sufficient numbers of right people, properly trained and well equipped. The government has committed to increasing the size of our forces. We have provided the resources and the direction to recruit another 13,000 regular forces personnel and another 10,000 reservists.

In the last decade the forces had to respond to ever increasing demands with fewer resources, less money, less personnel, less materiel. The government has provided the most significant investment in the Canadian Forces in recent history. Together the government's investments are a tangible demonstration of our commitment to the men and women in uniform who have dedicated themselves to Canada and to protecting Canadians.

Without more sailors, soldiers, air men and women, our forces will be unable to sustain the growing demands upon them. Budget 2006 provides the resources and the commitment to start growing our forces back to a level that will allow them to get the job done.

The government's Canada first defence strategy is exactly as the title suggests, a strategy that will put Canada first. With new equipment, new structures and more people, our Canadian Forces will be able to defend Canada and Canadians, assert our sovereignty and respond to crises.

The government has met its commitments to the Canadian Forces. Canadians deserve and require a robust military capable of undertaking tasks we ask them to do. Our forces deserve and require stable and sufficient funding so they can achieve success in every operation, whether at home or abroad. Our forces and all Canadians deserve nothing less.

When the Liberal Party formed the government 13 years ago, nobody would have suspected it would do such a mediocre job at supporting our military. I am talking about those who gave their lives for our country, ensuring our security and providing invaluable services to Canadians by protecting our interests here at home and on multilateral operations abroad.

The previous government literally put our military in a corner, making them operate under financial restraints never seen before. Military officers and civilian public servants from National Defence literally had to work magic to ensure the Canadian Forces stayed as relevant as possible in a decade that saw the highest operational tempo since the Korean war.

Apart from cutting budgets, the Liberal government also cancelled contracts that were already signed. Months after its ascension to power, the government decided to cancel the purchase of new Maritime helicopters meant to replace the Sea Kings. These aging Sea Kings are still operating today, but the maintenance costs, with parts and labour, are extremely high compared to their effectiveness.

Moreover, Canadian Forces were so cash-strapped during the Liberal reign that they had to sell their Chinook helicopters to the Dutch, the same ones that are presently in use in Afghanistan. To add insult to injury, we now beg the Dutch to borrow these same helicopters to transport our troops around Kandahar province.

Some could say these were tough times and we had to make sacrifices to address our financial situation. Was it really worth sacrificing such an important aspect as the military forces to make a few bucks?

Let me just highlight a recent example of the insidious behaviour of the Liberals toward our military. No later than last year, while the Liberal Party was still in power, it made a big announcement aimed at strengthening the air capabilities of the Canadian Forces. This air mobility package, as the Liberals called it, was supposed to reinforce our air force. In fact, this package did not include half of what they promised to do in their defence policy statement, leaving the military once again with great promises but nothing to back them up.

In that light, could the minister explain to us what this government, Canada's new government, is doing for our men and women in uniform, particularly with regard to the air capabilities of the Canadian Forces?

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

Mr. Chair, that is a very complex question and it is going to take a moment to respond.

Our strategic airlift capabilities are presently limited. When we purchase the strategic airlift, we will fulfill the requirements of our Canadian Forces for an independent and reliable transport capacity to support our operations. Acquiring strategic airlift will make for more effective deployments within Canada and significantly contribute to our Canada First defence strategy. It will also help fulfill a top NATO requirement and allow Canada to take a leadership role among its allies.

We looked at the aircraft available and we are confident that the C-17 is the only aircraft that meets our minimum acceptable requirements. Negotiations are under way with Boeing to acquire four C-17 Globemaster aircraft and Boeing will be required to invest in Canadian industry in an amount equal to the value of the contract.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

That is the wrong answer.

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

I would encourage the member for Vancouver South to listen. I am in fact giving the correct answer to the correct question.

The current project received approval from Treasury Board on June 22. We should be able to award the contract in the coming months and could receive the first aircraft as early as next summer.

With respect to tactical aircraft, the C-130 is the workhorse of the Canadian Forces. Variants of this aircraft have served the Canadian Forces since the early 1960s. However, Canada's Hercules aircraft has logged more flying hours in total than any other military Hercules operating in the world.

Renewal of the tactical airlift fleet has long been a military priority and a priority for this government. As announced this summer, the estimated total project cost for the acquisition phase is $3.2 billion, including the cost to purchase the aircraft. An additional $1.7 billion has been estimated for 20 years of in-service support.

With respect to medium and heavy lift helicopters, new helicopters are an essential capability for the Canadian Forces. They will help protect Canadians at home by providing a quicker response to emergencies throughout Canada. Operational experience over the last decade, both here at home and in places such as Afghanistan, has taught us that we need medium and heavy lift helicopters capable of carrying equipment and personnel within Canada and in operations overseas.

The government has determined that the Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter is the only known western certified aircraft currently in production able to deliver the capabilities required by the Canadian Forces.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to take a few minutes to outline where Canada stands in terms of peacekeeping. Many Canadians, I suspect, would believe that we are still prominent players in peacekeeping, but this is far from the case.

Having previously ranked among the top 10, Canada now ranks 50th among the 95 countries providing military personnel for UN missions. During the same time period, Canada devoted only $214.2 million, or 3% of spending on international military operations, to UN operations.

There are currently 64,322 military personnel participating in UN missions around the world and only 59 of these military personnel are Canadian. Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan and Uruguay now have far greater troop contributions than many NATO countries. Canada is not alone in having virtually abandoned UN peacekeeping. Most western middle power states now contribute very little to UN missions.

I am wondering if we have now given up on peacekeeping. Could the minister state what the government's position is in regard to this decline in Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping missions?

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

Mr. Chair, we in fact have a considerable amount of troops committed to UN missions. The Afghan mission is a UN mission. It is a UN-mandated mission. There has not been any reduction in the amount of forces or the proportion of forces that we are committing to UN mandated missions.

With respect to the classic peacekeeping missions, there are very few of these left in the world today. It seems that countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria are countries that send a lot of troops to these missions, whereas, as the member opposite said, most European countries, the Americans and our country restrict ourselves to more challenging missions.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think that would be the first time people have said that UN peacekeeping missions are not challenging. I think they have their own challenges that are quite difficult.

In my previous round of questions, I asked about the Excalibur. The minister said that the Canadian Forces have none, but I have here a document that was tabled in the House. I have given it to the minister. It indicates that the Government of Canada spent $5.5 million on these munitions.

Perhaps I could explain to the minister why I am being so persistent on this point. As I said earlier, I have had questions on the order paper. I have questioned the minister in committee. He indicated to me that he would give me the figures.

As the Chief of Defence Staff indicated at a defence committee meeting recently, the Excalibur is a very expensive round. I had assumed that when we bought these rounds, we would have bought the first run, the experimental run of the shells. Back when the first line was proposed in 2002, two Democrats on the U.S. house appropriations committee estimated that it would cost about $222,000 per round. That is a quarter of a million Canadian dollars, so the minister can see why I am being persistent on this point. The rounds could cost less, but the information has not been forthcoming from the minister.

When the Senlis Council came to Ottawa and appeared at our defence committee, its members showed us slides of children living in Kandahar city who were starving and of whole families without food, so now I am asking the minister, is he saying that we do not have these shells, or is he not about to reveal the cost of the shells? Did the government table this information in the House of Commons in error? Is the minister not informed by his own department? What is the cost of each of these shells, please?

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

Mr. Chair, I am advised that if we have the shells, and when we had the shells, they would cost about $150,000 each.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think that indicates we do have the shells. The information was tabled in the House of Commons and I do have the documents here. We spent $5.5 million to get them.

During the last round of questions, the minister gave us the incremental costs of the mission to 2009, but I would like to know what the full cost is to DND. It is something that his department does track. It is published in the report on plans and priorities. I wonder if he could give us that information now. I have a sense that the minister or the department are lowballing the figures and using rather selective accounting. How much exactly are we spending?