Debates of May 17th, 2007

National Defence—Main Estimates 2007-08

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can say that we would be happy to solve this problem if they would step aside. When we get back in government we will solve it. The problem is that the Conservatives are the government and they are responsible to all Canadians, for protecting their charter rights and ensuring that they have equal employment access.

Minister, what are--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. There is 10 seconds left for the minister to respond but I am going to ask all members to maintain some order because I am having trouble hearing.

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

Mr. Chair, as I said, we made a significant move today. We are getting the defence department so it cannot be subject to ITARs anymore. We are going to move on the rest of the government operations and then we are going to move on to industry and within a few years we are going to cure this problem.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I plan to speak for 10 minutes and then ask insightful questions for five.

Tonight I would like to contribute to the debate on the 2007-08 main estimates for the Department of National Defence.

This budget reflects our government's commitment to rebuilding and revitalizing the Canadian Forces. At the height of the most demanding combat operations our forces have faced since the Korean war, we have worked hard and kept our promises. Our commitment to the mission in Afghanistan has shown how essential it is for the Canadian Forces to have good equipment in order to do their important work.

But we are not just focused on our abilities in Afghanistan. We have to plan for future international operations and future domestic requirements. Our Canadian Forces have had to do battle against underfunding, cope with personnel shortages, and work with obsolete and aging equipment for far too long.

I found some quotes from a document called “A Democratic Society Taskforce Report on Security”. The task force was chaired by the hon. David Collenette, a former minister of national defence. One quote is:

Over the past thirteen years Liberal governments have cut back resources for the Canadian Forces...because a philosophical choice was made to diminish the military's place in Canadian society and invest in other priorities. However, this has come at a price.

That is a good quote from a Liberal. In fact, we might call the last little while a decade with an absence of light.

This government is standing up for the Canadian Forces, making sure that those who commit themselves to defending Canada and Canadians have the essential tools they need to protect themselves and to do their jobs effectively.

Another interesting quote that may be of interest to one of the members is:

Our traditional allies have questioned the commitment of one of the world's wealthier societies to roll up its sleeves to take on the tough jobs required to make the world safer and a better place. There is reason to believe that this perception has manifested itself in the impact of Canada's opinion being somewhat diminished and our military not being taken into full confidence by our allies.

This is what led to our losing our favoured status under ITAR, and do not be mistaken about it.

We have taken a number of steps to reverse years of neglect and to assure that Canada regains its rightful place as a force for good in a troubled and dangerous world.

Budget 2006 provided $5.3 billion over five years to help rebuild and revitalize the Canadian Forces. For this fiscal year alone, the defence budget will increase by $2.1 billion. Under this government the portion of the overall defence program dedicated to capital projects has increased to 21%.

When it comes to procurement, this has been an unprecedented year for the Canadian Forces. Last June the Minister of National Defence outlined plans to purchase tactical and strategic airlift, joint support ships, medium size logistics trucks, and medium to heavy lift helicopters.

Members will recall that just in the past month our government has responded to a need identified by our soldiers in theatre for more modern tanks. The Minister of National Defence announced that Canada will borrow 20 Leopard 2 main battle tanks from Germany to meet pressing short term needs this summer for the protection of our soldiers. The minister also outlined the government's intentions to purchase up to 100 Leopard 2 main battle tanks from the surplus stock of the Netherlands. These are to meet Canada's long term requirements.

Mr. Chair, I was in Afghanistan at a place called Masum Ghar with a whole bunch of infanteers at Christmastime and they were there with the Leopards as well. I can tell you that the infanteers sure appreciate having the Leopards around.

We have also provided our troops with other modern equipment, the XM777 gun and the Nyala mine protected vehicles, and the forces will soon take delivery of new fully armoured heavy logistic trucks.

We are undertaking the biggest re-equipping of the Canadian Forces in decades. These procurements represent the government's commitment to the Canadian Forces' current missions, domestic and international. They reflect careful forethought about the uncertain security environment that will ensure the Canadian Forces can meet the challenges our country will face in the decades to come.

I could not agree more with our Minister of National Defence who said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence in February, “These are essential purchases, and time is of the essence. Failure to take action today to replace equipment will create serious problems for our military units in the near future. Investments in defence are investments in our future”.

It is not just new equipment that is needed. It is the procurement process itself that needs improvement. On average, it has taken 15 years from the initial identification of the need to the delivery of new equipment. Clearly this is unacceptable. Ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to succeed is why we must have an efficient and reliable procurement system. This government, keeping in mind our duty to be open, accountable and financially responsible stewards above all else, has taken steps to speed up and improve the purchasing of essential equipment.

I know that members of this committee will agree with me that our military personnel, which have already waited far too long, cannot wait another 15 years for the essential tools they need today.

However, we are also determined to do better. The Department of National Defence is eliminating the need for the costly development and adaptation of prototypes. It is ensuring that the procurement process is more flexible. It is procuring more commercial products and the emphasis on efficiency will pay off.

In June 2006 we announced our intentions to acquire a strategic airlift capability. I will quote from a Liberal paper. It states:

The air force must have varied strategic lift capability that would allow it to transport troops, material and supply infrastructure for deployed troops...the recent government commitment is welcome.

That is from December of last year or thereabouts.

In February 2007, only eight months later, we announced that a contract had been signed for the purchase of C-17s from Boeing. This August, a little over a year after that first announcement, the first of four C-17s will land at 8 Wing Trenton. A process that previously took years, and in some cases more than a decade, has been reduced to four months.

Again from December of last year, here is a quote from the Liberals that I really like:

In providing new resources for Canadian Forces the Liberal Party must not shy away from using sole source procurement in order to avoid the long delays in the normal tendering process.

I had no idea the Liberals had so much common sense. They should let it out more often.

At the ceremony held at the Boeing plant where the four major sections of the first four aircraft were joined together, Sue Hale, project manager for the C-17 project, spoke about the improvements in the process. She said:

--we are here to celebrate the collaborative efforts of everyone involved in getting the members of Canada's military a proven platform in 15 months, and not 15 years.

But efficiency is not just about ribbon cutting ceremonies and numbers on paper. To quote one of our aviation technicians, Master Corporal Desaulniers:

The first time that big plane lands in Afghanistan to bring our ground troops their supplies is going to be a really great day.

That day is approaching quickly. This summer our military will begin to have an independent, reliable and flexible capability to move troops and heavy equipment quickly over long distances. The first crews are training right now. They are full of pride and enthusiasm. Again, Master Corporal Desaulniers put it all in perspective when he said, “The future is looking so bright for us”.

This is what we asked for, now we have it, and that is very good. It is also a good day for Canadian industry. On this acquisition and others, contractors are required, under the industrial and regional benefits policy, to invest an amount equal to the value of the contract in the Canadian economy. Dollar for dollar, money spent on this new equipment will be matched by spending right here in Canada.

Canadians will also reap ongoing benefits through long term, in service support contracts, which will bring jobs and investment to Canadian industry, economic investment in our communities, and jobs for Canadians as we work to create a well-equipped armed forces.

By providing much needed equipment, our government is ensuring that the Canadian Forces possess key capabilities needed to produce combat capable forces. This reinforces the confidence of Canadians in their relevant and credible capacity to meet Canada's defence and security commitments.

We are providing the tools they need to operate effectively and to be successful in operations in Canada, North America and internationally.

We are ensuring that Canada has the necessary means to have a multipurpose, combat-ready military and the ability to provide leadership throughout the world. Our government is enhancing Canada's ability to meet today's challenges and prepare for tomorrow. We are preserving the fairness, openness and transparency of the procurement process, in accordance with the Federal Accountability Act.

We are ensuring that contracts are granted, equipment is delivered and services are provided in a timely manner, in order to meet the needs of the Canadian Forces while obtaining the best possible value for Canadian taxpayers.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a couple of questions now, if I may. First, if he would not mind, I would like him to finish answering the tremendous question that the hon. member from Renfrew asked previously with respect to the Phoenix Centre.

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

Mr. Chair, with regard to the Phoenix Centre in Petawawa, this government is dedicated to working with the Ontario provincial government in supporting the children's mental health centre and ensuring that the services provided are expanded and improved upon.

We already have approved a one time funding allotment of $100,000 to CFB Petawawa's Military Family Resource Centre to help them contract services in conjunction with the Phoenix Centre. It is in the federal government's best interests to help since the mental health crisis at home affects the morale of our soldiers overseas. If soldiers feel their families are not being cared for, they will not be able to perform their duties well.

I want to say that this government has done more than any previous government to provide comprehensive support to military families. We are not content to sit back on our successes. We will continue to seek proven methods of assisting the families of our brave soldiers.

We are committed to working with provincial governments to elicit more areas in which the local and federal governments can collaborate in improving health services available to military families.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, we know that the 1990s were a dark period for the Canadian Forces. Irresponsible decisions by previous Liberal governments left the Canadian Forces unable to replace critically important equipment, resulting in a loss of capabilities. As if this was not bad enough, the Liberals cut funding while increasing operational tempo, further stretching the Canadian Forces.

I think all of us in this House tonight can agree that we owe it to our brave men and women in uniform to provide them with the equipment they require to perform their jobs both safely and effectively.

I proudly stand here today as a member of a Conservative government that, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, has recognized the dire situation of the Canadian Forces and has taken drastic action to restore Canada's military.

One of the things I found so disheartening about the neglect shown to the Canadian Forces in the 1990s was how these cuts limited Canada's sovereignty. That is ironic, as the Liberals like to talk about Canada having a strong, independent role in the world, yet the cuts they oversaw in the 1990s left the Canadian Forces increasingly dependent on other actors for mobility, be it our allies such as the United States or other allies or corporations.

How can a strong and independent Canada exist if we are dependent on other actors to move our military where the Government of Canada deems necessary? How can the Canadian Forces respond in a timely manner to disasters and crises if we are facing competing interests and queues to rent equipment?

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Could he please inform this House of what action the government has taken to increase the independence of action of the Canadian Forces?

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

Mr. Chair, I will try to answer these questions as quickly as possible in light of the time constraints we have experienced, but I want to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

As he said, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, this government has undertaken a major effort to increase the independence of action of the Canadian Forces.

I think its most notable development thus far has been this government's decision to acquire four C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifters. They will be delivered later this year, as was noted. A dedicated strategic lift capability is absolutely pivotal toward restoring the operational independence of the Canadian Forces and, consequently, our foreign policy.

Strategic lift, with its capability of transporting outsize equipment--and by that I mean assembled heavy equipment such as disaster assistance response team hospital equipment or water distillation equipment, or the new Leopard tanks--is integral toward sending properly equipped response teams to troubled areas, whether the response is military or humanitarian.

Furthermore, dedicated strategic lift capability means we can transport whatever amounts we need of personnel and material whatever distance we need, when we need to do it. This makes a truly rapid response now possible without relying on others, as the member said, such as other nations or corporations.

We can say that it expands the Canadian Forces' core capabilities by giving them the ability to react faster, to take the equipment they need to get the job done, to travel where they need to, when they need to, and in the numbers necessary for the mission.

Although this obviously increases the potential independence of the Canadian Forces, it also helps us in fulfilling multilateral commitments. Rather than relying upon our allies, we now can help them transport their equipment and personnel. Developing our strategic lift also helps us to fulfill our obligations like the ones we have with regard to NATO and to better carry out our UN missions as they arise.

I am going to try to answer the second question as quickly as I can. By possessing an independent and dedicated capacity for strategic lift, Canada will have less need than ever before to rely upon foreign nations and corporations to transport its men and women, its equipment and its emergency humanitarian aid. We will have the capability of operational independence, with all the implications that brings.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to continue on from where I was in terms of search and rescue aircraft. I want to notify the Chair that I will be sharing my time. I will use the first 10 minutes for questions and answers. My colleague, the member for Halifax, will take the last five.

It is clear that there is no real champion for search and rescue aircraft in the Department of National Defence. I said at committee that it appears that search and rescue really is the orphan child of the defence department, so I want to ask the minister about this.

Will the department champion our domestic needs to have adequate search and rescue, or should it, in the opinion of the minister, be moved to another government department?

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

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, defence spends about $600 million a year on search and rescue. It is one of our vital missions. We maintain a number of fleets to meet that mission.

The member has asked me about what our intentions are in the future. As I said, the air force staff are looking at options for the future in terms of what they will replace the current fleets with. That option analysis is not complete, or at least it has not reached my desk yet.

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

Mr. Chair, I know that the minister realizes that the Buffalo aircraft on the west coast are 40 years old and that many of the parts needed for replacement have to be manufactured individually because they are no longer available. It seems to be past time for them to be replaced.

I want to return to the question of the CC-130Js that was raised earlier, the aircraft that Canada is buying. The figures we have been given say that we will spend $3.2 billion to buy 17 of the aircraft and an additional $1.7 billion for a 20 year service contract for the planes.

Earlier tonight the minister indicated that he thought the cost of each plane was $85 million Canadian. When we have $3.2 billion for 17 planes, it works out to $188 million each. I want to ask the minister, if it is his contention that they are $85 million Canadian each, what is it that we are buying besides planes? What else are we getting for our $3.2 billion for 17 aircraft?

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

Mr. Chair, as the member said, the estimated total project cost for the 17 aircraft is $3.2 billion. That includes the actual cost of the aircraft, which are $85 million Canadian each. It also includes spare parts and infrastructure, that is, buildings and whatever they have to do, and salaries of people involved in the aircraft.

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

Mr. Chair, that would indicate that the fly-away cost of each CC-130J is $188 million Canadian.

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

No, Mr. Chair, the cost is $85 million. It is as if someone bought a car, then bought the spare parts for 20 years and put the cost of driving the car into the car. That is how DND calculates these costs.

As for the actual cost, if one is a very rich person and has saved money, one can get one of these aircraft for about $85 million Canadian.

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

Mr. Chair, I had the privilege, with other members of the defence committee, of visiting Kandahar in January. Along with all of my other colleagues on the defence committee, I was incredibly and profoundly impressed with the men and women in the Canadian military.

In October, Canada sent Leopard tanks to Kandahar. I have here a photo from the Department of National Defence from the November 22 issue of The Maple Leaf. It shows Leopard tanks rolling off C-17 transports in Kandahar. I also have a document that was released to me under access to information by DND showing the contract for transport of Leopard tanks via Antonov 124 from Edmonton to Manas Airport just outside Bishkek in Kurdistan. I want to ask the minister why most of the flight was made by an Antonov and only the short end of the trip by a C-17.

Further, on October 4, Major General Daniel Benjamin was at our Standing Committee on National Defence and said that the Antonov cannot land in Kandahar. Is this also the minister's understanding? Will we continue to use Antonovs to do most of the transport of heavy equipment?

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

Mr. Chair, I believe the information the member has is correct. Antonovs were used to get somewhere close to Afghanistan. Then the equipment was moved onto C-17s, which were fully equipped to go into a hostile zone. They have defensive measures and all those sort of things, which the Antonovs do not. The Antonovs are pure commercial aircraft.

When we acquire our C-17s, which will start in August, we will use our C-17s to their fullest to support not only the mission in Afghanistan but other missions. However, I anticipate that from time to time we will still have requirements to rent Antonovs when our C-17s are fully committed.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to move on to the issue of the Arctic. The decision of the cabinet priorities and planning committee regarding Arctic patrol vessels has been discussed recently in the media.

We do not have very much information about what precisely is involved with the proposal that was talked about but are we talking about a corvette type of ship, a frigate or is it something larger? Could the minister tell the House where this plan for Arctic patrol vessels, the six that were mentioned in the media, is in the planning stage and what part of the process is it at now?

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

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier today, we will be meeting our Arctic commitments because we consider enforcing our sovereignty in the Arctic is one of the key planks of this government and of the Department of National Defence.

An article that came out recently was full of errors but once the government makes a decision on a specific piece of equipment, an announcement will be made.

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

Mr. Chair, if the media report is full of errors I would appreciate it if the minister would clarify. Certainly from that report it is different than the Conservative election promise of icebreakers for the defence of Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic and in the north. Perhaps there may be good reason for that kind of a change to the six smaller ships.

When the minister was sworn in, it was the view of the department that because of climate change the Arctic would be largely ice free by 2015. Does the department have an understanding of how climate change is affecting the Arctic? Does the minister believe that the effects of climate change will mean that we will need to find new ways to defend our sovereignty and defend the north?

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

Mr. Chair, whatever is causing it, the ice is melting in the north. I do not know when the Northwest Passage will open up but that is one of the key considerations for our sovereignty. Our government and this department are fully committed to having air, land and sea forces available to deploy into the north, as well as satellites. We are going to enforce our sovereignty along with other government departments.

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

Mr. Chair, I know that the U.S. is taking the issue of climate change and security in the north seriously. Recently at the senate hearings in the U.S., retired General Anthony Zinni , who was the former commander of U.S. Central Command, raised concerns about Canada's ability to defend the north and, as the minister knows, the United States has never agreed with our claim of sovereignty in the Northwest Passage. They have raised--

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I need to stop the hon. member there to allow the minister enough time to respond.

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

Mr. Chair, it is not so much a matter of defending the north but of imposing our sovereignty. We need to ensure that other nations respect our laws and respect our claim to the waters and the lands, and we intend to enforce that.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, the minister may be aware that here on Parliament Hill about a year ago, the ambassador to Canada from Afghanistan participated in the launch of a campaign to achieve a global ban on cluster munitions. Could the minister tell the House whether any NATO members or other Canadian allies, to his knowledge, have used or are currently using cluster bombs in Afghanistan?

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

Mr. Chair, I am not aware of any use of that and I can assure the House that the Canadian Forces do not have cluster munitions and have no intention of acquiring them.