Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

National Defence—Main Estimates 2006-07

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of National Defence has about 30 seconds to reply.

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

Mr. Chair, according to the Afghan compact, the goal in Afghanistan is to have the army at 70,000 and the police at 62,000 by 2010-11. That is for the whole country. The conditions are different in different parts of the country.

One of the challenges with the police is that not enough attention was put on them a few years ago. The army is two years ahead of the police right now. There has to be a much more intense effort to get the police trained and supported.

Another thing is that the army is paid centrally. They get paid. The police are paid through the different provinces and somehow, something sometimes happens to the money.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, the so-called competition for the procurement of tactical airlift has published a set of requirements which heavily favours Lockheed Martin's Hercules C-130J over all other competitors.

Can the minister tell us what is the average price of a C-130J?

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

Mr. Chair, I do not have that number immediately at my fingertips. I will get it to the member as quickly as possible.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister's estimates say that he is asking for $3.2 billion as the total cost of this tactical purchase for the acquisition of 17 aircraft. Whatever model the minister buys, simple math tells us this gives him a budget of $188 million per plane. Something does not add up when we know that the Italians bought these planes at $65 million per plane. Even if the minister added two years of training, support and spare parts or even if he threw in the cost of managing the project, the accounting would still be an insult to Canadian taxpayers at $188 million per plane instead of $65 million.

Will the minister promise right now that he will go back to his officials and redo his homework on the cost of this multi-billion dollar project?

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

Mr. Chair, the price that the member opposite is quoting is yes, $3.2 billion. That also represents 20 years of support. That is 20 years, not 2 years.

The member asked me about the price of a C-130J. I said I would get it for her. Mixed in that number is 20 years of support.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have been quite aware of the fact that Canadian youth are not rushing to fill all the spots that the new government wants to have in the armed forces and therefore, it is upping its recruitment tactics, calling it Operation Connection.

Apparently according to the CDS, the number is going from 300 recruiters to 30,000 recruiters and then eventually to 80,000 recruiters, touching every community in Canada. I understand the need for recruitment. I am wondering what the department has budgeted for that operation.

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

Mr. Chair, I will have to get the number on recruiting costs. However, what the member is representing is the intention that all members of the armed forces will encourage people to join the armed forces. When they go to their town, when they go to their families, they will encourage people. There are 64,000 regulars and 23,000 reservists, for a total of 87,000. The allusion was to 80,000. It was an idea that the people who are in the armed forces love the life of the armed forces, think it is a great career and would go out and encourage other people to join. They are not formal recruiters.

The recruiters are smaller in number, in the hundreds, but I will get the member the number on recruiting costs.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I am not sure that the parents in Canada will be completely thrilled with the tactic that has been suggested to all these new recruiters which is, “Telephone your children's schools and ask if you or your unit could go there to recruit”.

It seems to me that parents--

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry, but I have to go back to the minister so we can move on to the next speaker. The hon. Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Chair, I do not know what the allusion is. I do not know where these comments are coming from.

Our intention is to recruit into the armed forces, to increase the regulars by 13,000 and the reservists by 10,000. We believe it is quite achievable because a military career is a very good career for anybody in this country.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I can only echo the minister's remarks about the military being a great career. I enjoyed it immensely for 30 years.

I rise today to speak on the 2006-07 main estimates. These estimates reflect many of the important initiatives the government has put forward since it took office a few months ago. Much has been accomplished in that time.

Some 1.4 million families are receiving a universal child care benefit for every child under six. We are also working with partners across the country to find ways to create real, flexible child care spaces. We have also cut the GST by 1%. This has provided real tax relief that is noticeable every time Canadians make a purchase.

The introduction of the federal accountability act was part of our effort to clean up government and politics, so that all Canadians can be proud of their political system. We have increased Canada's involvement in international affairs and promoted Canada's interests in the world. We have taken concrete steps to protect Canada's sovereignty and rebuild the Canadian Forces. The government has a vision for Canada.

We envision a prosperous and secure Canada that is united at home and respected abroad, a country with safe streets and secure borders, a Canada that is a leader rather than a follower on the international stage. Since taking office, we have been working hard to turn that vision into a reality.

Earlier in the debate my hon. colleagues on this side of the House spoke about various initiatives that support the Canadian Forces in their work. They talked about equipment procurement and recruitment, for example. I will focus on the support we are giving to our mission in Afghanistan. Success in operations is the primary goal that drives all the work of the Canadian Forces and when we speak about supporting our Canadian Forces, it means creating the conditions for achieving that success.

This evening, I would like to focus on specific measures adopted by the government to support our mission in Afghanistan. At present, this issue is a priority, and I believe that it is worthwhile taking a closer look.

To successfully carry out their mission, Canadian soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan need more time and more resources. I will talk about two initiatives that we have taken to meet these needs: extending our mission in Afghanistan and reinforcing the Canadian Forces serving in that country.

As my hon. colleagues will recall, on May 17, 2006 this House voted to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan by 24 months beginning in February 2007. We recognized together that this mission serves the interests of Canada. It ensures that Afghanistan will never again become a haven for international terrorism. In other words, we are there to help protect Canadians from future terrorist threats.

We also acknowledge the value and the importance of contributing to the efforts of our partners and allies. Perhaps most importantly, we are helping the legitimate government of Afghanistan build a secure, stable and prosperous society. Canada is leading NATO and international efforts in Afghanistan and we should all be proud.

We did not extend this mission without an end goal in mind. We have clearly defined what constitutes success in this mission. This two year commitment will help the Afghanistan National Security Forces become operationally effective, so that they can take control of security in their own country. It will facilitate a smooth political transition when the current mandate of Afghanistan's presidency ends in 2009. It will help the government of Afghanistan implement key initiatives set out in the Afghanistan compact in areas such as transitional justice and disarming illegal armed groups.

The reality is that the Canadian Forces operating in that country face considerable dangers. We know that we cannot create a zero risk environment in Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces and their partners from civilian departments and agencies need not only time but also tangible resources to conduct their efforts as safely and effectively as possible.

The government is doing everything it can to minimize risks and to ensure that the Canadian Forces have the resources they need. This requires regular re-evaluation of the conditions on the ground and the tasks at hand.

The Minister of National Defence went to Afghanistan this fall. He talked to the troops, to military commanders, and to Brigadier General David Fraser, then commander of task force Afghanistan. He asked him how we could support them better. Considering the current realities on the ground, Brigadier General Fraser and Lieutenant General Michel Gauthier, Commander of the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, specifically asked both the Minister of National Defence and General Hillier for additional equipment and more personnel.

In addition to an infantry company, the government has enhanced the Canadian Forces task force with a tank squadron and an anti-mortar capability. The provision of these enhancements will protect all Canadians, not just military personnel operating in Afghanistan. It will better enable Canada to meet its reconstruction and stabilization objectives in Afghanistan. It will help the Canadian Forces contribute to the overall success of the mission. The government is committed to achieving success in Afghanistan.

While today's debate is on defence spending, we must not forget that the government is also supporting the efforts of civilian agencies and departments in Afghanistan. This includes the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. The Canadian Forces are therefore only one part of our integrated approach to rebuilding Afghanistan.

When he visited Afghanistan, the Minister of National Defence was told that additional equipment and more personnel were required by the military to get the job done. We are ensuring that these needs are met.

The government has pledged to remain in Afghanistan until we achieve our final objectives. This is why we committed to extending our mission until 2009 and to giving our troops in Afghanistan the resources they need. These initiatives show that flexibility and planning for contingencies are part of any operation. What the government is doing will allow us to continue playing a leadership role in NATO in international efforts for years to come.

It is about 42 years ago that I joined the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have lived through a couple of revolutions in military affairs in Canada, either directly or indirectly. The first one I lived through directly. Some people have called it the Hellyer revolution and it was a hell of a revolution, but not in the right direction. The second one I am living through indirectly is the Hillier revolution and I like this one a whole lot better.

Starting on January 24, the day after the election, I started meeting airplanes coming back to Edmonton with wounded or people on normal rotation. I want to tell members about two people I have come to know. One I have known since he was a baby and one I have only known since January 24.

On January 24 one of the people on the airbus was a young man named Master Corporal Paul Franklin. He lost both legs above the knee to an explosion in Afghanistan. He was in rough shape on January 24. I have seen him progress over the last eight or nine months. He is now walking on two artificial legs without the aid of a walker. He uses canes. He is shopping for racing legs because he used to run marathons and he intends to run them again. He is an absolute inspiration to anybody in the military and anybody who meets him.

The other young man is Ryan Jurkowski. I have known Ryan since he was a baby. He is the son of a close friend of mine from the air force, retired Brigadier General David Jurkowski. Ryan Jurkowski was with C Company in Afghanistan. It was called Contact C because it was always in contact with the Taliban. He came home with, I do not doubt, some emotional scars. He is an exceptional young man and again represents the very best that Canada has to offer the world, and believe me, the world is grateful for what we have given it.

These are the kind of young men and women that we breed in the Canadian Forces who stand up for Canada around the world.

I want to say something about peacekeeping. We talk about peacekeeping and what Canada used to do, or still does. Every single thing that the Canadian Forces do every single day, in every single mission, and in every single way, is about peace. It is about peacekeeping; it is about peacemaking. It is about whatever word we want to put on the end of peace, but it is about peace and we better not forget that.

I believe this is a historic moment for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. We have energetic leadership, a solid vision for the future, and a government that is dedicated to rebuilding the Canadian Forces. The government is also committed to giving the Canadian Forces the tools they need to achieve success in Afghanistan, and whatever other mission we give them.

I have a couple of questions and I would like to address my questions to the parliamentary secretary.

The first one deals with an area that is very important to any military and that is knowledge management. The professionalism of the Canadian Forces is, in large part, founded on learning and knowledge. The Canadian Defence Academy, the Military and Staff Colleges and the Royal Military College of Canada, all play a critical role in creating and ensuring knowledge in the defence community.

During a time when expansion, regeneration and transformation are posing substantial challenges to military professional development and education, would the parliamentary secretary describe how he intends to augment the education and training capacity of the Canadian Forces in the coming years?

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

Mr. Chair, the Department of National Defence intends to address the challenges faced in the coming years through means articulated in our publication Learning Architecture. This publication discusses the impact of new learning technologies and methodologies, notably distributed learning and important new trends such as knowledge management.

There are three other learning opportunities within the department that I want to highlight at this time.

The first is the articles of clerkship program. This is an articling program that allows students in law to develop skills in the areas of military law, including military justice and administrative law. Each year, up to three articling students carry out a 10 month articling phase as part of their bar admission program. This program is moderated through the Judge Advocate General's senior legal officers, and they act as articling principals and mentors to these students. This arrangement has the added benefit of increasing the JAG's recruiting base, since some of these students may apply for positions as military lawyers within the office of the JAG.

Another opportunity is the organizational learning or lessons learned program. The Department of National Defence has a long history of managing and mobilizing knowledge, primarily in the context of the conduct of operations. The current focus for DND is to harness the success of these organizations and create a corporate-wide DND vision and strategy for knowledge transfer, or lessons learned, that will promote continuous learning and improved performance.

The Department of National Defence will lead the advancement of knowledge transfer and lessons learned practices by creating knowledge and awareness of the practice, by providing governance and guidance within defence, and by offering a link to products and services to assist the organization on its journey.

The third and last opportunity that I want to highlight is called individual learning. In an effort to maintain a professional qualified force, the Canadian Forces continues to strive for a degreed officer corps through individual learning. The aim here is to recruit officers with degrees or assist members who meet policy requirements to attain a degree, but there are also efforts under way to enhance the educational qualifications of non-commissioned members.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to return to recruitment and retention. Despite numerous recruiting or retention efforts, a number of military occupations remain short of personnel. These include professional occupations, such as doctors and pharmacists, and operating occupations, such as naval electronics, technicians, signal operators, fire control systems technicians, airborne electronics sensor operators, naval weapon technicians and intelligence operators.

Indications are that intake estimates will not be sufficient to recover the above military occupations to the preferred manning level within two years. Recruiting and retention of some of these occupations will remain problematic in the foreseeable future for a variety of reasons, such as elevated academic standards, high medical standards, competition from the private sector and shortages of certain skill sets in Canadian society.

Given that in the fiscal year 2006-07 the Canadian Forces will continue to face challenges in recruiting that may ultimately affect their capacity to meet overall recruiting and forces expansion objectives to grow the regular force by an additional 13,000 and the reserve force by 10,000, would the parliamentary secretary please describe the specific activities currently in progress or planned that would mitigate the recruiting and retention problem?

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

Mr. Chair, National Defence recognizes the challenges the Canadian Forces will continue to face in recruiting that may ultimately affect their capacity to meet their overall recruiting and force expansion objectives to grow the regular force by an additional 13,000 and the reserve force by 10,000.

Our recruitment and retention strategy is a crucial part of our development, sustained and effective professional defence team initiative. The Canadian Forces are standardizing applicant procedures across Canada and are implementing e-recruiting, which is also expected to further reduce wait times by improving the accuracy of the applicant information.

We are also putting in place numerous subsidized and direct entry plans. Also, National Defence will continue to connect with Canadians through a broad range of coordinated, community based activities to attract and enrol quality recruits.

The aim is to make Canadians aware of the unique opportunities, benefits, challenges and rewards of a Canadian Forces career, and to effectively compete for the best people during a period of force expansion. The Canadian Forces have adopted a robust and cohesive recruiting strategy, a comprehensive national recruiting campaign supported by a national recruiting attraction plan, new advertisements and appropriate advertising federally--

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry I had to cut you off but we need to move on to the next speaker. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I had the pleasure of speaking this evening during the first period allocated to the Bloc Québécois. However, as member for Saint-Jean and the National Defence critic, I asked my party to allow me to speak also in the last part because I thought I should listen to the entire discussion this evening in order to stress some points that I believe are important. It should also be understood that an MP represents not only his riding but also a large region.

I would like to return to the issue of aircraft and the aerospace industry because 60% of that industry is concentrated in Quebec. I mentioned it earlier and I am reiterating this fact. Consequently, when military contracts involve the aerospace industry it is important, to me as an MP and representative of the part of the region at issue, that the maximum economic benefits be generated.

When I say that Quebec represents 60%, I am talking about some pretty large companies such as Bombardier, L3, CAE, Bell Helicopter and Pratt and Whitney. There are at least 35,000 jobs in the aerospace industry.

When the government decides to invest billions of dollars, it is the duty of the member from this corner of the country to claim his region's share. Some $13 billion are being invested in aeronautics. That is why I am emphasizing this.

I want to come back to the first contract negotiated with Boeing. Earlier, the Minister of National Defence told me he was not the Minister of Industry. I know that, but he is nonetheless a minister of the Crown and since he attends all cabinet discussions, he is in a position to answer these questions and not wash his hands of it.

And he is the one who establishes the specifications. In other words, the minute they say a plane has to have such and such a radius of action, a range of so many nautical kilometres and a load of so many thousands of kilograms, we know full well that there is only one company for the job and that is Boeing. The government wants to do business with Boeing; and that is its right. I am not saying it is not, but the government also has a duty to obtain the most economic spinoffs possible.

I have nothing against Boeing. It is currently a major multinational company in the world and it has a game to play. It has corporate interests to defend. It is playing its role and the minister has to play his, just like all the other ministers have to play theirs.

Accordingly, we already know that Boeing will get the contracts for the C-17s and the Chinooks. Unfortunately, I find that the government gave in to Boeing too easily. Let met explain.

There is a concept in the United States called ITAR, or International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The Americans are saying they are not prepared to give the intellectual property to anyone. There are other conditions to ITAR. We will therefore not get the intellectual property of what we buy.

There are other factors linked to ITAR. Recently we heard on the news that they will not allow people with dual citizenship to work on these planes. I am not talking about general maintenance, because full maintenance of the equipment will not be done in Canada. Not only will we pay big bucks for the equipment, but we will not be able to do the maintenance. The maintenance contract will go to the United States, except of course for basic maintenance such as fuelling the planes or changing the oil or whatever. This is insignificant compared to what will be done in the United States.

We have to wonder whether our people's preaward notice is the best way to proceed.

For some time now, the minister has been saying that it was a competitive process. However, the outcome does not reflect a competitive price or any major benefits for Quebec.

Does the minister agree that we will be giving many billions of dollars to Boeing and that, as of right now, there will be next to no benefits for the aerospace industry because of ITAR, and next to no spin-offs for maintenance because everyone knows it will get done in the United States. I want to know if the minister agrees with these facts.

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

Mr. Chair, surprisingly, I do not agree with the member opposite.

From the point of view of the Department of National Defence, the military sets the requirement. It says that it has a certain need and it describes the need and its essential characteristics. We also calculate the cost of this equipment, in the case of aircraft, and the support for 20 years. We then need to get the approval of cabinet to proceed with it. It is then basically handed over to the public works and industry departments.

The understanding in any procurement that we are making at these scales is that we will get 100% benefits back in Canada. Every dollar spent will come back to Canada.

I can assure the member opposite that Quebec industries will benefit, Ontario industries will benefit, western industries will benefit and Atlantic industries will benefit. Everybody in the country will benefit from these contracts.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I recently met with the managers of Boeing at the Ritz-Carlton in Montreal. To them, it is clear that only 60% of the benefits have to come to Canada's aerospace industry.

Certainly, when we talk about 100% benefits in Canada, that includes the remaining 40%. It is not easy to know where the economic benefits will go. Earlier, I gave the example of Pacific salmon and northern spruce. That is not where the importance of research and development or the importance of the modern issue of intellectual property control lies. It does not lie in either forestry or fisheries. It often lies in aviation, aeronautics and aerospace. If that accounts for only 60% of the economic benefits and 40% goes elsewhere, we are losing a large segment of the benefits.

The Canadian aerospace industry is asking that 100% of the economic benefits be in aeronautics and aerospace. It is not asking for benefits in other sectors. These contracts are important to my part of the country, where most of the Canadian aerospace industry is located.

Now, I want to raise the issue of tactical aircraft, because we have not talked about them much this evening. Earlier, the minister told the member for Oakville that $1.4 billion of the $3.2 billion is earmarked for maintenance. However, these are not the real figures. The real figures are $4.6 billion for the total contract for tactical aircraft and $1.4 billion for maintenance. That means that the cost of purchasing the aircraft is $3.2 billion, and the government wants to buy 17 of them. According to my figures, Italy recently purchased aircraft at $65 million apiece, while Canada will be paying $188 million apiece.

I await the minister's reply, who will likely tell me this also includes the cost of projects, training, the translation of manuals, the size of the operations manuals, and so on. Alright, let us add 20% to $65 million, which is what the Italians paid. That comes to approximately $80 million. Now, $188 million is more than double $80 million. That is the risk we run, when we proceed in this manner, telling the Americans we will purchase their planes without first setting out the conditions. It is the Americans who are now determining the conditions and Canadian taxpayers who are left to foot the bill.

In my opinion, it is not too late. The Minister of National Defence must instruct the Minister of Industry and the Minister of International Trade to be very careful, both with respect to Boeing and to the tactical aircraft. I believe the minister owes it to Canadian taxpayers to intervene now and to ensure, before the official contract is signed, that we achieve the best economic spinoffs possible.

Nine NATO countries have decided to procure the Airbus A400M, which means that the Lockheed Martin is becoming outdated. The American army is even ending production. Why would we pay such a high price for planes that are at the end of their production, while other options may exist and it is Canadian taxpayers who are left to foot the final bill?

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

Mr. Chair, first, I said that 100% of the money would be invested back into the country. I think the member alluded to the 60%. It is the 60% requirement that any contractor has to identify immediately to get a contract. They then subsequently have to develop the other 40%. One hundred per cent of every dollar spent on these projects comes back to Canada.

Second, the member referred to the C-130J, as did hon. members from the other party. No decision has been made. No tactical aircraft has been selected at this moment. We had the requirements and the funding. We have the SOIQ regime to sort out who can win. It is involved in testing and everything else. No company has been chosen.

I promised one of the member's opposite to get them the price of a C-130J, which I will do, but we have not acquired any.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have only one question for the minister. He just stated that the company must commit immediately to 60% in economic benefits. He says that the other 40% will come later. Will this 40% represent benefits to the aerospace industry alone, or will there be benefits for other sectors? I think I have clearly made my point. We want this 40% to go to the aerospace industry. Can the minister tell us, from his position, if that will be the case?

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

Mr. Chair, that is a question for the industry minister. He could tell the member where all the benefits are going.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, next time we might have to consider getting both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence together. I repeat that the Minister of National Defence is a minister of the Crown. He and his colleague, the Minister of Industry, are cabinet members. It is easy for them to say that they only make decisions about specifications and terms, that is, needs. We need more than that. I think the minister is well aware that if anyone is to benefit, it had better be Canada.

I am disappointed to hear that he does not want to say anything about the last 40%. He says this will benefit Canada, but he does not want to answer the question about the last 40%. We want to say officially that that 40% must generate benefits for the aviation industry.

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

Mr. Chair, as I said before, this is a matter for the industry minister. If the member opposite wants the answer to that question, he should approach the industry minister.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I believe the minister is onside with me on northern sovereignty. However, why has the Conservative Party, along with all the other cuts that have shocked the country, cut $13.9 million for the high frequency service radar project, which could be very instrumental in northern sovereignty?