Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

National Defence—Main Estimates 2006-07

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

Mr. Chair, the needs of our men and women in uniform are our first priority when it comes to procurement. The government has a plan to ensure the Canadian Forces have the right mix of vehicles, lightweight vehicles to armoured personnel carriers, to support them in their domestic activities and international operations.

As announced in June, we are investing approximately $1.1 billion in the 2,300 new medium sized logistics trucks for the Canadian Forces. The new fleet will be the logistics backbone of the army, getting supplies and special capabilities where they are needed in the most efficient way possible.

We are in the process of acquiring these trucks through a competitive process that is still ongoing. We will ensure that Canadian firms have significant involvement over the life of the project.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a few questions for the Minister of National Defence. I will start with specific questions and then ask more general ones.

At CFB Bagotville, CF-18 pilots need to have regular training in order to achieve international standards. It is important for them to do the necessary training manoeuvres. And to do that they have to go to Valcartier for their training.

As far as the Valcartier firing range is concerned, according to an exemption signed by an official, this firing range does not meet National Defence safety standards.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us about this exemption and its consequences to the government in the event of an accident involving civilians?

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

Mr. Chair, our CF-18 air crews go to different places in the country to practise weapons use. Valcartier is one of them as is Goose Bay. There are others inside the country. These bases are safe. If there were any safety questions, we would not participate. We would not allow the CF-18s to take part in training.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chair, we know that NDHQ was given a mandate to present an option to give eastern Canada a practice target area for CF-18 fighters. There was a choice of three areas: Petawawa, Ontario, Gagetown, New Brunswick, and Bagotville, Quebec. In June 2006, a military representative publicly confirmed that review of the potential sites was underway.

Can the minister tell us the status of the review and when it will be made public?

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

Mr. Chair, the military authorities have not brought this issue to me. If it is in the department, it would be in the air staff somewhere, but they have not raised this issue with me as of yet.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chair, in January of this year, the Prime Minister came to my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and visited the riding of Jonquière—Alma. He committed to adding a 650-troop battalion to the Bagotville military base. We do not yet know when this is supposed to happen, because the Department of National Defence has not told us.

Can the minister tell the people in my riding and my region and the members of this House when they can expect this battalion to arrive? Can the Minister of National Defence confirm that this battalion will really bring in 650 additional troops? At the time, there was talk of a two-year timeline.

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

Mr. Chair, we have the full intention to meet all the commitments, including the commitment to Bagotville. The master plan, the defence strategy plan, has to be resolved at this time. It has to be completed inside the defence department. It is very close to that position. It has to be approved by cabinet, and at that time decisions will be made upon sequencing, when things start and when things are completed. At this time, we will have to wait until cabinet approves the plan.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chair, the army is patting itself on the back because recruitment is going well. They are filling and sometimes even exceeding their quotas. Yet their numbers are still not up. In May 2006, the Auditor General said that in the past four years, the department recruited 20,000 members, but that in reality, only 700 additional troops joined.

Can the minister tell us whether the reason he has not confirmed the Bagotville battalion is that he does not have enough personnel? What are your thoughts on reaching the 5,000-troop target announced by the Liberals? When do you think you will reach your own target of 13,000 additional soldiers? Also, since the minister will be answering these questions, how much will it cost to add the Liberals' 5,000 troops and the Conservative Party's 13,000 troops?

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

Mr. Chair, that is a number of questions. I will try to answer them all.

First of all, the commitment to Bagotville is part of a master plan. There is a commitment to Comox. There is a commitment to Goose Bay. There is a commitment to Trenton. There are commitments to the north. There are all kinds of commitments. They are all in this plan. They are all integrated in this plan and I have to get the approval of the cabinet for the plan.

Once I get the approval of cabinet, we then have to work out the sequencing of what comes first and what comes second. This is a very complex undertaking because we are restructuring the entire armed forces, regulars and reserves, into the future.

It is going to take 10 or 15 years to implement the entire plan. It is not going to be 10 or 15 years, and I do not want the member opposite to start reacting, until we deal with Bagotville, but I am telling him it is a long term plan. We have to buy ships and airplanes, and it takes a long time.

With respect to recruiting, as I said, recruiting is up. As a rough figure, and I will talk about 1,000 people, 1,000 infantry would be cheaper than buying 1,000 doctors, but as an average figure, it costs about $150 million a year for 1,000 personnel. That covers all their salaries, benefits and equipment, rifles et cetera, their immediate equipment, but that is an average figure. If we are talking about something like infantry, it would be cheaper. If we are talking about technicians, it would be more expensive, but a rough average is $150 million per 1,000. All the member has to do is multiply either by five or by 13 and he can get to the number that he is looking at.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to go back to my first question, when I said that an official signed an exemption for Valcartier. The fact that an exemption was signed means that the Valcartier firing range no longer meets National Defence's security standards. The minister does not have to answer me tonight, but I would like some information about the exemption sooner or later.

Can the minister tell us what the exemption covers? When an exemption is signed, that means that the facility, the training ground, does not meet all the standards. So if an accident involving civilians ever happened, what would the consequences be?

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

Mr. Chair, I am not aware of the member's allegation that Valcartier is not a safe range area for the CF-18s. If it were true, then we would not be employing the CF-18s in that area because safety is number one for us, but I am not aware of that.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to point out to the minister that a military authority signed a special exemption in 2005 so that the F-18s could train at Valcartier. It is supposed to expire in the fall of 2007, if I remember correctly. My question for the minister concerns this exemption. Since he cannot answer this evening, I assume that he will send me his response.

About a year ago, the press reported on problems with fissures in the tail rotors of 15 Cormorant helicopters. Where are we with this? How much money has been and will be spent to correct the problem?

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

Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite is referring to the Cormorant helicopter. The Government of Canada, in fact the previous government, acquired Cormorant helicopters for search and rescue. After some use, it was discovered there was a technical problem in the rear rotor.

I do not have in hand a number of what it cost to deal with the problem, but what has happened as a result of this difficulty with one part of the rotor is that we have increased the number of inspections. We inspect the helicopter at a more frequent rate than is called for in the specifications, which of course costs money.

We are one of the leading countries in the world using this helicopter and we have suggested technical solutions to the manufacturer, who is working on it now to create a new hub for the rotor blade.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have had the opportunity over the last two years to visit several Canadian military bases. During these visits, I received a number of complaints that the funds allocated to fixing military infrastructure were not being invested in any priority order. I was also given other information.

I want to be specific about this. On some military bases, hangars have holes in their roofs. In addition, the runways that have been re-surfaced are not used very much.

Can the minister assure us that the safety of our military personnel and their quality of life are more important than his election agenda?

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

Mr. Chair, I may have the number wrong but I think DND has about $21 billion worth of infrastructure. For a long period now DND has not invested enough money in its infrastructure to maintain it at a proper state everywhere. In fact, in our defence plan we have already started to increase the amount of money going to infrastructure.

That being said, on an ongoing basis, we do not allow anyone to be in an unsafe structure, but many repairs have to be done to runways, buildings, pipes, sewers, et cetera, across the whole country.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Has the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord finished?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I have finished, Mr. Chair.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a speech, followed by a few questions.

Hon. members, I have the pleasure of being with you this evening to take part in debate in a committee of the whole on the 2006-07 estimates for the Department of National Defence.

No one doubts that the present government is determined to rebuild the Canadian Forces. This is an important point to note, when we consider previous budgets, in which the equipment of the Canadian Forces had essentially been allowed to go to rack and ruin.

We made a commitment to do more for our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen and women. Our plan for the Canadian Forces is a guarantee of success both for the forces and for Canadians.

We demand a lot from the members of our military. They are ready to put their lives in danger to protect us, to protect Canada and its people, to secure our sovereignty on land and water and of course in the air, and together with the United States to protect North America. With climate change beginning to occur, this issue has taken on special meaning, particularly in terms of protecting the north. Our military also defends our interests both here and abroad by carrying out humanitarian missions that are the pride and joy of our country and of Canadians, as the blue helmets do.

The present government is making sure that the Canadian Forces get what they need to do their job.

This evening, we have been focusing on what the Canadian Forces do outside Canada, and specifically on their important mission in Afghanistan. In fact, I was at Jean-Lesage International Airport in Quebec City last week to mark the departure of 71 soldiers from Valcartier.

It is important that our troops both here and abroad have the equipment they need. It is also important that we guarantee the security of our own country first. That is why I would now like to address the subject of protecting our territory, the territory of Canada, so that we can secure our sovereignty, and about the role of the Canadian Forces in that regard.

As our Minister of National Defence clearly described earlier in this debate, our government has established three strategic outcomes for national defence. The initiatives that we have taken in the north have a direct impact on those strategic outcomes.

The present government has promised to make Canada’s security and sovereignty in the north one of its priorities. This is an important part of what is called the “Canada First” defence strategy. I am happy to say that we are currently working to put that promise into action.

Today, I would like to point out to my colleagues in the House the important measures that we are taking in that regard, measures that go beyond what was provided in the previous government’s estimates. I would like to explain why it is important that we give the Arctic our full attention.

Why do we need to guarantee security in the Arctic?

As the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, it is easy for me to answer the question, because in 1906 Captain Bernier took possession of the Arctic archipelago in the name of the Government of Canada. The Arctic covers a vast area. It accounts for 40% of our territory and more than 100,000 Canadians live there, many of them aboriginal people and Inuit.

The Arctic is also a region of growing strategic importance. There are about 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Arctic, and 25 trillion cubic feet of gas hydrates—enough energy to supply the needs of North America for nearly 200 years. This shows the full strategic importance of Captain Bernier’s discovery and of his act in taking possession of the area 100 years ago.

In addition, between 1998 and 2002, $13.8 million carats of diamonds, with a value of $2.8 billion, were mined in the Northwest Territories, and a great deal more remain underground.

Consequently, in the coming years, we expect these natural resources to lead to increased commercial activity in the north. This will result in an increase in commercial shipping. As well, it is expected that it will be possible to travel the Northwest Passage fairly quickly.

These economic activities in the north will give rise to new risks and challenges to be addressed such as development of gas and oil, diamond and other resources, environmental protection, man-made disasters and illegal transnational navigation.

In addition, the increased activity will lead to increased demand for search and rescue services.

Although other government departments and agencies—such as the Canadian Coast Guard which also has significant needs in terms of equipment, and the RCMP—will continue to be responsible for most of these matters, the Canadian Forces must be able to support them and to provide assistance to other federal departments when called upon.

We also know that security issues have changed and, as a responsible government, we must have better intelligence about the people who enter the country through the north and vessels navigating our coastal waters in that region.

We have come to the point where we must have a presence in the north in order to guarantee our security and our sovereignty, but also to protect our economic interests in this region of the country which, to date, has been underdeveloped.

The reasons to be in the Arctic are clear and that is why we are making a strong commitment to the area. Within Canada Command, the Canadian Forces have joined the Joint Task Force North to serve the Arctic region. I am pleased to note that since this government has taken office, the duration and frequency of Canadian Forces exercises and sovereignty patrols in the north have increased.

For example, this past spring only, 75 Canadian Rangers, organized into five patrols, travelled over 4,500 kilometres across the Arctic to assert our sovereignty. This was the longest ranger patrol to date.

In August this year, we conducted two sovereignty operations, Operation Beaufort in the western Arctic and Operation Lancaster in the eastern Arctic. There is another operation, Exercise Narwhal 07, that is planned for April of next year.

We are there and our Rangers are there, but let me say that these developments, while encouraging, are just the beginning. This government will do more and we need to do more.

In the months to come, our department and government will put the finishing touches on our Canada First sovereignty strategy. It will explain in detail how we intend to increase the forces’ ability to assert our sovereignty over the Arctic and ensure our security.

This government will ask Canada Command to regularly carry out operations and exercises all over the Arctic. We are studying a number of options, including the following: open an army training centre in the Arctic so that most of our soldiers are prepared for operations in the north and are experienced at them; build docking and refuelling facilities for the navy in the Arctic so that Canada has its own ability to meet the needs of its military forces throughout the Arctic; increase the number of Canadian rangers and the frequency of their patrols, as we have done; and improve our surveillance capabilities, especially through the integrated use of satellites, airplanes and pilotless aircraft. The government is also trying to find a practical way of detecting traffic in strategic routes and passages.

That is not all. Just a few months ago, this government announced plans to proceed with the following major procurement projects. Among others in the Arctic, our Minister of National Defence announced the acquisition of three joint support ships The House will certainly agree with me that, in addition to ensuring our sovereignty, these projects will enable our naval industry, which was neglected by the previous government, to make its expertise available to assist our country and help it assert its sovereignty.

The government also hopes to acquire 2,300 medium-size logistics trucks. Gone are the days when people said of our trucks that the oil pans leaked. There will also be 16 medium- to heavy-lift helicopters, four strategic lift aircraft, and 17 tactical lift aircraft. This equipment is needed to enable a great country like ours to assert its sovereignty.

Much of this new equipment will help our forces conduct humanitarian operations and missions all over Canada, including in the Arctic.

We will give our troops the resources and equipment they need, and which the previous government deprived them of, thereby endangering our security. Allow me to pay homage to the 71 soldiers who departed for Afghanistan last week. They left to defend our values.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Chair, Department of National Defence representatives have been, for some time now, affirming the need for greater visibility of the Canadian Forces in the Arctic, given the new transportation corridors, the discovery of large quantities of natural resources and the changing security situation.

However, this transformation does not rest solely on more modern technology and equipment. It will require a fundamental change in the culture of our armed forces in order to guarantee a fully integrated and unified approach in terms of operations.

This evening, we have once again heard about great plans for procurement, put in place by the new Conservative government in an attempt to achieve new air and maritime capabilities that will reinforce our presence in the north.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to explain in greater detail the announcement of three new joint support ships, as well as logistics trucks, helicopters and other strategic aircraft needed for our troops.

How will the three branches of our armed forces be utilized by the new Joint Task Force North?

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

Mr. Chair, the Arctic region has featured prominently in debates about Canadian sovereignty and there has been a renewed focus on the Arctic due to the effects of climate change in the region, notably the melting of the polar ice caps. At the same time, there are continuing strategic issues relating to potential incursions into Canadian Arctic territory at various levels including the aerospace, surface and subsurface.

The Joint Task Force North is one of five regional commands under the new Canada Command structure. Canada Command was created to address the realities of the new international security environment facing Canada and to place greater emphasis on the defence of Canada and North America.

It is also the cornerstone of the command and control dimension of Canadian Forces transformation. As an integrated and national operational command headquarters, Canada Command allows the Canadian Forces to bring the best available military resources from across Canada to bear on a crisis or threat wherever it occurs nationwide.

The creation of Canada Command means that for the first time a unified and integrated chain of command at the national and regional levels will have the immediate authority to deploy maritime, land and air assets in their regional areas of responsibility in support of domestic operations.

Canada Command is based on a more command-centric approach to command and control. As such, the commander of Canada Command is delegated the authorities necessary to perform the responsibilities assigned and will directly command all Canadian Forces assets and personnel in operations.

The effects of this new approach, a new command structure with the emphasis on being able to bring an integrated military response to a given area for maximum effect, will be significantly improved in the north through a combination of enhanced surveillance, from satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles and radar to a more visible military presence in other improved capabilities including air lift and communications. The Canadian Forces will be better able to respond to the northern contingencies and the government will be able to more strongly assert Canada's interests in this vital region of the country.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has 45 seconds remaining for his question and the answer.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Chair, it will be rather difficult to square this circle in so little time.

I would first like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his response.

My other question concerns an issue that has not yet been raised this evening. It concerns one's pride in speaking French within the Canadian Forces. I would point out that French is the language spoken at Valcartier. Also, the Royal 22nd Regiment, the pride of the Canadian army, speaks French.

I would have liked to know how the department plans to deal with the demands from the previous government. There were significant gaps concerning the use of French. Perhaps I will forward my question in writing to the parliamentary secretary.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for Scarborough Centre.

I would first like to thank the minister for being here this evening. Personally, like all the members from my party and, in my opinion, all the members in this House, I have immense respect for our soldiers. Our hearts are with these women and men, as well as their families, when they are called to take up arms.

We would like the minister to assure us that these people are not going to battle unless they have received the military training we take such great pride in. We recognize that our soldiers receive the best training in the world and that we do not send them into battle or into dangerous places without full training.

I would also ask the minister to assure us that all the soldiers who have gone to Afghanistan received the same training.

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

Mr. Chair, I can assure the member that there will be no cuts in training. We set very high training standards and we will maintain those training standards. I think the proof is what we see in the Kandahar area in Afghanistan. We certainly have the best trained troops in the area and they are respected. We will not lower any standards.