Debates of May 17th, 2007

National Defence—Main Estimates 2007-08

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, it does matter how Canadians find out about this. I would like to ask the minister this. Why did the government not compete this $29.6 million procurement and why was there no call for a tender?

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

Mr. Chair, we had an immediate operational requirement and there was only one company that could meet that requirement. We are talking about the lives of soldiers. We are not going to go into a five-year process when the lives of soldiers are immediately on the line. We needed devices that would find IEDs to save soldiers, so we would have less soldiers coming back to Trenton.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, could the minister tell us what the delivery date of these vehicles will be?

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

Mr. Chair, I do not have the precise date. It is going to be relatively soon, within a few months. I will have to get back to the member and give him the answer.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I look forward to the minister's response.

Will the minister's former client, BAE Systems, profit from the purchase, as it did from the Nyala purchase last year?

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

Mr. Chair, when we acquire any piece of equipment anywhere, I assume that if it is from a private enterprise, it will have profit. So, everybody that sells equipment to DND or any other government department, if it is a private enterprise, it will have profit.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, then why were these purchases handled by the U.S. navy and not by the Government of Canada?

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

Mr. Chair, it depends how they are acquired. If they are acquired through FMS, foreign military sales, then it depends who acquires these vehicles. It is done through foreign military sales in many cases. That gets the equipment rapidly to the Canadian Forces.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, in order to get this equipment rapidly to the Canadian Forces, how much did the U.S. navy charge Canada for handling these purchases?

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

Mr. Chair, I do not have that figure at hand. I will get that answer to the member.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, as the minister knows, the federal government is responsible for providing security for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver. What steps has the minister taken to meet these security requirements for the 2010 Olympics?

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, security at the Olympics is the primary responsibility of the provincial government of British Columbia. In federal terms, it is the public security ministry. The defence department is in support of the public security ministry. Our people are talking to the public security ministry and we will provide whatever resources are needed by public security.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, is the minister telling us that he has not been briefed by VANOC, he has not been briefed by the province of British Columbia, and he has no idea what is going on for the security of the 2010 Olympics? Is that what he is saying?

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

Mr. Chair, what I am saying is that public security is the lead in the federal government. Our officials and other officials of other departments of the government are working with public security. As public security and the provincial government agree on what they require, we will provide it.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I too would like to salute the Canadian Armed Forces. As someone who was not born in this country, I had the very great honour of spending some time with the 22nd Regiment in Valcartier and later, with that same regiment in Bosnia. I must say that during the weeks I spent with them, I learned a lot. Most importantly, I learned to respect our armed forces and our young Canadian men and women who are working so far from home in situations that are often very dangerous.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions. First, the minister recently stated in this House that he intended to change the policy on bilingualism in the armed forces. I find that the change amounted to lowering the standards and reducing the level of bilingualism in the armed forces. Can the minister explain to the House how the new system works and can he tell us about the new percentage targets for the armed forces?

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

Mr. Chair, I believe that the course we are on now is better than it was in the past.

Year after year the department failed to achieve the objectives of the Official Languages Act. The department and the Canadian Forces have developed a new plan. They have abandoned universal bilingualism. They will not train every member of the armed forces to be bilingual.

They are identifying all the jobs that have to be bilingual and all the people who have to be bilingual, and they will put all their money behind those people to make sure they achieve the language levels they are supposed to achieve to ensure that people are served in the language they require.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the minister's answer, that means that within the Canadian Forces, some units would be French-speaking and others English-speaking because people cannot understand one another, especially at some levels of the army.

I would like to know how these people can communicate among themselves in complete safety, especially considering the very dangerous situations the armed forces often find themselves in.

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

Mr. Chair, there are three kinds of units in the Canadian Forces: French language, English language and bilingual units. Each of the services operate slightly different as well.

With respect to the senior members of the English language units and the French language units, headquarters would ensure that they have enough bilingual people to guarantee that orders are passed back and forth.

However, by having French language units and English language units it means that those people who are unilingual have a full chance at a career in the armed forces. That is true of the Vingt-deux. The three battalions of Vingt-deux are French language units and the three battalions of the RCR are English language units. They are all outstanding infantry and they do their jobs in their own language.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a hard time believing the minister's explanation. As I understand it, young francophone soldiers could find themselves in a unit that speaks English only. I am not talking about a situation on a military base, but a war situation, where people have to react very quickly. I would like the minister to explain how two unilingual people could communicate quickly to keep safe on the ground, with bombs falling all around them.

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

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Forces have operated for decades with French language units and English language units. As a former military person, I lived in that regime and it works. We can have units operating in French and units operating in English. They are combined at a headquarters level, which is bilingual, and it works.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, in the last election the Conservative Party promised to station three new armed naval heavy icebreakers, to be made in Canada, in the area of Iqaluit, which would include 500 regular force personnel for crucial support.

I would like to hear from the minister what steps he has taken to implement this promise.

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

Mr. Chair, as I have said on a number of occasions tonight, we intend to meet all our commitments to the Arctic. When each of these commitments is processed properly through the government, announcements will be made.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Chair, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate on the 2007-08 main estimates for the Department of National Defence.

The main estimates reflect the commitment this government has made to rebuild the Canadian Forces. Since we came to power, we have made major progress toward that goal. In the 2006 budget, we injected an additional $5.3 billion over five years to help rebuild the Canadian Forces. That represents an increase of $2.1 billion in this fiscal year.

We have invested in new equipment for the Canadian Forces, such as aircraft for strategic and tactical airlift , tanks and medium to heavy lift helicopters.

We have also supported our soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, who are doing a tremendous job despite difficult conditions.

Afghanistan is not only a priority for national defence. As the minister said in his speech in Australia last September, there is a “home game” and an “away game”. This means that we are defending our country and its citizens right here at home and also in distant lands like Afghanistan.

Today I would like to talk a little bit about the home game. That is because I believe that no debate on the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces can be complete without considering what our military is doing here at home or talking about our important and enduring defence partnership with our neighbour and friend to the south, the United States.

Defending Canada and North America is an integral part of the defence mission and it is at the heart of this government's “Canada First” defence strategy.

I would now like to talk about Norad and its importance to continental defence in the post 9/11 world.

Norad was established in 1958 to monitor and defend North American airspace against Soviet aircraft and missiles.

The events of September 11, 2001, underscored Norad's continued relevance. That day also highlighted the need to further enhance our cooperation and adapt to the evolving threat.

Norad no longer just monitors aircraft coming into North American airspace, but it now monitors civilian aircraft within North American airspace as well. That is exactly what Norad has done.

In May of last year, Canada and the United States renewed Norad indefinitely. The Norad agreement was also enhanced. Norad has a maritime warning system and Norad processes intelligence regarding maritime threats or potential attacks against North America and disseminates it to national authorities.

The national commands, Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command, are then responsible for supporting civil authorities in response to these threats.

Norad is not the only organization that has adapted to this new security environment. Canada and the United States have introduced new commands to focus specifically on domestic security and defence.

Canada Command stood up in February 2006 as part of the ongoing transformation of the Canadian Forces. Its mission is to detect, deter, prevent, pre-empt, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at Canada.

With the creation of Canada Command, the Canadian Forces awareness of events of national significance has been enhanced.

The Canadian Forces have also improved their preparations for natural disasters and man-made threats, and their ability to respond effectively to these events.

While Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command have a domestic focus, both of our countries recognize there are threats that cut across borders and are of concern to us both.

That is why Canada Command has been working closely with the United States to monitor and defend our maritime interests. That is also why both commands are also closely connected to each other and to Norad through staff interaction and through the exchange of liaison officers.

This close relationship enables all three organizations to be prepared to respond to any emerging situation in support of our other departments and agencies who have the lead responsibility for domestic security.

To increase our readiness, Norad, Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command take part in many cooperative land, air and sea training exercises each year.

Some of these exercises are designed to ensure that our maritime approaches and airspace are protected from terrorist threats. Others are designed to strengthen the arrangements that we have made with the United States to support civilian authorities during emergencies.

I would like to tell members about one such exercise that was designed to ensure that Canadian and American military personnel work together effectively if a disaster ever occurs.

It was a bilateral exercise called Ardent Sentry/Northern Edge involving Canada Command, U.S. Command and Norad, and a host of government departments and agencies.

As a part of this exercise, Canada Command coordinated responses to threats to infrastructure, as well as air and maritime security threats. The Canadian scenarios took place in Alberta, British Columbia and Northwest Territories.

The aim of this exercise was for the Canadian Forces to practise military assistance to civil authorities, including bilateral planning, communication, information sharing and coordination with U.S. Northern Command and Norad.

Our “Canada First” defence strategy includes many initiatives aimed at strengthening Canadian defences. In the decade following the end of the Cold War, the Canadian Forces focused a lot of attention on deployments abroad.

With the continuing terrorist threat to North America, the Canadian Forces are being called upon to play a greater role at home. Several initiatives this government has undertaken in recent years reflect this increased commitment to defending Canada.

For example, we have established marine security operations centres on both our coasts to detect, assess and provide a coordinated approach to marine security threats. These centres bring together civilian and military resources from the Departments of National Defence and Public Safety, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Transport Canada.

The centres facilitate information sharing between departments and agencies, allowing them to build a more complete marine security picture. The centres combine and analyze data from all sources. The results of this analysis are then given to government decision makers who have the authority and mandate to act on it.

In some cases the Canadian Forces can be asked to come to the assistance of other federal departments and agencies. For example, if a ship is suspected of carrying illegal drugs destined for Canada, the RCMP can ask the Canadian Forces for help. That is what happened last year when the HMCS Fredericton supported an anti-drug operation off the African coast. HMCS Fredericton and its crew supported police officers and served as a command post throughout the operation, in which the RCMP seized a 22.5 tonne shipment of hashish that was intended for the Canadian market.

The Canadian Forces can also be asked to help provincial or territorial governments with natural disasters. Last spring, for example, the residents of Kashechewan, Ontario had to be evacuated because of flooding. Thunder Bay's reserve units were there to help. They prepared local arenas, brought in cots and helped create a hospitable environment to receive the people of Kashechewan in their time of need.

The Canadian Forces will continue to be ready to help in years to come, whether it is in response to floods, forest fires or other natural disasters.

As part of our “Canada First” defence strategy, the Canadian Forces will continue to step up their training exercises and sovereignty patrols in defence of North America.

Members might have heard of our most recent training exercises in the Arctic, Operation Nunalivut. Last month, Canadian Forces members travelled thousands of kilometres across some extremely challenging terrain in the high Arctic. This exercise illustrated the government's commitment to defending the Canadian Arctic.

The Canadian Forces of course take part in search and rescue activities. This critical and often dangerous service takes them to every corner of our nation and the surrounding oceans. The air force, for example, did about 8,000 search and rescue missions in 2006 and saved some 1,000 lives.

Defending Canada and protecting Canadians is at the heart of the “Canada First” defence strategy.

I would like to conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that this government is determined to rebuild the Canadian Forces so that they can continue their important work here in Canada and alongside our partners in the south.

The 2007-08 estimates reflect this commitment and deserve the support of this committee.

I now have a question.

Much has been said in the House about the overseas deployments and operations of the Canadian Forces. This is important work and it is work that our men and women in the Canadian Forces accomplish day in and day out with professionalism, excellence, and commitment.

While we applaud these efforts, however, let us not overlook the important work that the Canadian Forces are doing here at home. I will take this opportunity to remind the assembled members of the fundamental mission of the Canadian Forces.

As I just mentioned, the Canadian Forces work in concert with their allies and our friends and partners to ensure international peace and stability. However, they also work in partnership with our American friends in the defence of North America.

First and foremost, the Canadian Forces are tasked with the defence of Canada and Canadians. This is primarily their responsibility and naturally it overlaps with the other two I mentioned. However, what does it mean in the domestic context?

I need not remind the representatives from Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec. When a flood or forest fire or ice storm has threatened our communities, the Canadian Forces were ready and able to respond to requests from the provinces for assistance. Likewise, in the event of a terrorist incident, pandemic or earthquake, the Canadian Forces stand ready to come to the aid of Canadians.

Could the Minister of National Defence, or his parliamentary secretary, provide an example of how the Canadian Forces are continually developing this capacity to carry out this primary duty?

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

Mr. Chair, this is a most timely question. Earlier this week, the Canadian Forces personnel arrived in British Columbia to plan for the potential flooding of the Fraser River. We all hope that this will not happen, but we know they are there in case an emergency happens. We would hate to see that occur.

However, today, Canada Command concluded a bilateral national level exercise with the United States Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Canada Command is the Canadian Forces organization responsible for the defence of North America, in cooperation with the United States Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command. Canada Command is also responsible for routine and contingency domestic operations. This would include providing support to civil authorities, like municipalities and such, for such events as natural disasters.

Canada Command's aim in this annual national level exercise is to practise the role of military assistance to civil authorities, including bilateral planning, communication, information sharing and coordination with the United States Northern Command and its subordinate formations in Norad.

The Canadian exercise scenario involved threats to infrastructure, air and maritime security. The key objective of this exercise was to validate plans that support military assistance to civil authorities. Canadians can be assured that Canada Command is prepared to provide assistance to provincial authorities if and when requested.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, ensuring the safety and security of our north has always been a challenging endeavour for political and military leaders in Canada. It is understandable. Just look at the size of the territory, the complexity of the potential threats and the challenging climate.

Ensuring the security of the Arctic region is a daunting task, however, this does not excuse the actions of the previous government. While we were all aware of those challenges, the previous government adopted a do nothing attitude during its time in power. Its lack of political will for securing the north resulted in a slow and steady deterioration of the resources necessary for the area. Unfortunately for Canadians, this led to a decline in the military resources that were required to sustain operations and activity in the north.

The policy of the previous government was simple. It simply reacted to the actions of our neighbours. It underestimated and ignored the potential threats in the Arctic and acted as though no protection was necessary. What is worse, the maintenance of many of our installations in the north has been seriously neglected. Consequently, the capacity of the Canadian Forces in the Arctic has been dangerously reduced.

Despite considerable changes in the geostrategic situation, security in the north still depends on a sustained presence and activity by the Canadian Forces. Indeed, the intensification of air and maritime traffic and the potential for transnational criminal activity are among the new challenges facing the Canadian Forces and their partners.