Debates of May 27th, 2010

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2010-11

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the reason we are extending the life of the F-18s is obviously so they can continue in service until we get a new plane. We spoke earlier about the modernization and how it will see us replace much of the onboard equipment and some of the other important things, such as landing gear. Stem to stern, these aircraft are being upgraded and modernized so they will continue to serve such a useful purpose until 2017. That will also allow us then to continue down the road of procuring new fighter aircraft. There is eye-watering technology now available, and a fifth generation fighter aircraft will be brought to Canada after the year 2017. We are part of a global program and a global supply chain that will create many opportunities for those who are in the Canadian aerospace industry. There is tremendous excitement in industry as we embark on this important replacement.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, how many are there?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, there are currently 80 in operation. We intend to come back with a fleet of 65.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, did I take the minister's earlier comments in my last round of questions to mean that the government has already decided to purchase planes from the joint strike group fighter program?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is mistaken. None whatsoever. I should have referred to this with the more generic term that this is the “next generation” of aircraft. The joint strike fighter is one of the two aircraft, and there may be others. But I think those are the two main contenders that we are looking at. Obviously we want to get the best value, the best aircraft, and we have already embarked upon investments to ensure that happens.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, there has been a significant investment already by the Government of Canada in the joint strike fighter program and I understood the minister to say that it was from that program we would acquire our new jets. Perhaps we have to go over the transcript, but I take the minister's comments at face value that there will be a tendering process taking place.

The member for Richmond Hill asked questions about PTSD and, of course, the defence committee did a major study on that, as urged by my predecessor, Dawn Black, who I understand is watching these proceedings tonight. I want to ask some questions about it, because some significant progress has been made. There is no doubt about that, although we are not there yet. I had one constituent complain that it took 10 years for him to get recognized as having a 100% disability with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder. So we are getting there, but we are not there yet.

Earlier this week we had a report from the CBC that the military special advisor on mental health injuries, Stéphane Grenier, was concerned about the entry criteria for the PTSD treatment program at Ste. Anne's Hospital. He said that the program criteria were such that almost no soldier could meet the test for admission, that soldiers with anger problems or substance abuse problems, or who were managing medications, were among those excluded. He said that what we are doing right now is that we are excluding those people from care for these types of reasons. He think it's neither responsible nor appropriate nor acceptable.

I share those concerns. These are the facts, and given that anger and substance abuse are often among the difficulties faced by those living with PTSD, we have some serious concerns.

Can the minister respond to these concerns? If that is in fact what is happening at Ste. Anne's or at other places across the country, will he do something to fix that? We do know that PTSD is a multi-faceted disease and syndrome and that these other aspects come into play and must be recognized as part of the symptoms that need treatment.

Can he assure us that he can do that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I will come back to that in an instant. I just want to be very clear on the record that the reference to the next generation of fighter aircraft does not preclude a competition, and an open and transparent one. In fact, the joint strike fighter program thus far has provided Canadian industry with access to high technology industry opportunities. Since 2003, 80 Canadian firms have already secured contracts with a total estimated value of over $325 million.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest to the hon. member that regardless of what aircraft we choose, Canadian aerospace has already been a beneficiary of participating in this program.

To come back to the member's question about post-traumatic stress, I certainly agree that we as a government and all governments, as this syndrome is happening around the world, need to do more to address these very real afflictions and illnesses. I mentioned earlier that this is a genuine injury.

Canada has been a leader in this regard. The mental health professionals whom we have working on these files and working directly with the individuals who have been afflicted are making major breakthroughs.

We are of course very cognizant of the other implications that my hon. friend referenced, including things such as substance abuse. Suicide or suicide prevention is obviously something we are continually concerned about and looking to address. We have committed to doubling the number of mental health care professionals who will help treat those who are suffering from post-traumatic stress and other mental illnesses.

We are very concerned, and I know the hon. member's question on this is sincere, but I can assure him that we are taking proper steps to address all of the practical implications and the stigmatization that is still there, both inside and outside the Canadian Forces. We need to do more in that regard. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been a leader himself in addressing this in a very open and frank way and encouraging greater dialogue. Encouraging greater mental health awareness, period, is something that we are all tasked with.

We had a colleague here in the House of Commons, Mr. Chair, whom I know you were very close to. This is something that we have to be very diligent about and very vigilant in addressing each and every day, and I thank the member for his question.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the generalities and the support and sentiments expressed.

However, I want to ask the minister, can he undertake to see that these criteria for treatment complained about by Stéphane Grenier are in fact fixed? Can he ensure that the people who present PTSD symptoms get access to treatment? This is the problem that has been recognized. Will he undertake to seek a solution?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Let me respond with some specifics, Mr. Chair, because I do not want to denigrate his question at all.

We currently have 646 Canadian Forces personnel who are suffering from post-traumatic stress. In response to that, we now have over 370 full time mental health professionals who are working. We are going to hire more.

We have challenges, of course, given the vastness of this country and the availability of mental health care professionals. In many communities, it remains a challenge.

However, with regard to the member's specific question on any undertaking that I could give, this falls under Veterans Affairs Canada, not under the Department of National Defence. I will certainly make my colleague at Veterans Affairs aware of the hon. member's question and ensure that he has a transcript of it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, of course, these post-traumatic stress disorder treatment centres are also part of the joint project of DND and Veterans Affairs, so the minister obviously has some influence on that as well.

With respect to some specifics on budget dollars, we had talked generally about reservists earlier and we know there are always adjustments made during the year. Nonetheless, can the minister give us the budget allocation for reserves and break it down by services, the navy and army, et cetera, for the last year and what the budgeted amounts in the estimates were versus what the actual budget turned out to be, so that we can see whether there has been a decrease in expenditures based on the estimates. Then, what is the budget for this year?

The minister may not be able to do that now, but if he cannot do it, can he undertake to provide that to me in the future?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I will provide the member with some of that information now, Mr. Chair.

The overall adjustments I can tell him are up for the army, air force and navy. They are up for the air force by $400 million; they have gone up this year for the army by $1.6 billion; and by $209 million for the navy.

With respect to the overall budget for reservists with the individual breakdown or more specific information, I will undertake to provide the member with that.

However, the member is absolutely right. There are ongoing changes based on need. This is a particularly high tempo period for the Canadian Forces. We have a lot of reservists who have been part of the rotations that have gone into Afghanistan, and sometimes they amount to in excess of 20% of the overall force.

I was reminded by a reservist that when they are there serving, there is no hat badge. They are all treated the same. Regular forces and reservists are absolutely treated the same while serving on a mission.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, it may be difficult to separate it out. Perhaps the minister can advise me on this, but I believe that when reservists are serving overseas with the regular forces, they are still part of the reserves' budget. Or do they become part of the regular forces' budget at that point in time?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, these are overall budget numbers, to be clear. As I said, I will undertake to get him the specific allocation for reservists each year. He wants, I believe, the allocations for the past year and the current year. The figures that I gave refer to the overall budget allocations for reserve and regular force this year. They are up in all three forces: the army, navy, and air force.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, I am looking at the budget numbers directly here. In particular, on page 18-8 of the main estimates document, I see that the contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the NATO military budget, is up by nearly 50% to $126 million.

Is there a particular reason for that increase of about $40 million on an $87 million budget?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, part of it again is because we are more active in NATO operations than we have been in the past. We have taken certain allocations that were requested of us by NATO with respect to a certain commitment that we made to support a system called the AGS. This is a particularly expensive piece of equipment that we have committed to support. It is the type of equipment that allows greater information gathering. It is also something that we feel is very important to support as part of Canada's overall commitment to NATO.

There were moneys allocated this year that were transferred as payment variance from the 2009-10 budget as part of the main estimates. This $40 million increase the member refers to is a contribution to the overall NATO military budget, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there to respect the balance of time.

The hon. member for St. John's East.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, I see on the next page, on the other hand, a projected contribution of $2.6 million in last year's main estimates to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre contribution program. These items are indicated as “Items not required”. In other words, I assume that the money was not spent. Some of the other items are indicated as being ones for which authority will be sought for the renewal of the transfer payment programs in 2010. However, that one item does not seem to be on that list.

Can the minister explain why that is?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I think there is some confusion. I would just simply indicate to the member that the first transfer payment variance that we spoke of, the $40 million increase, is a contribution to the NATO military budget, and there is a swap, if you will. The transfer is explained by the renewal of terms and conditions for the NATO contribution program, which was approved in October of 2009, to better reflect the current reality of the operations and the management of the airborne warning and control system, or AWACS as it is known, and it is effective 2010-11. This operating portion of the AWACS program was transferred from one budget to the military budget. Hence, there is a difference or a discrepancy that he has identified.

I would indicate that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there before he finishes that thought.

The hon. member for Guelph.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for York West and the member for Labrador.

I, too, want to join the rest in this House and the people of Guelph to express my deepest appreciation for the courage and sacrifices of all of our troops and their families wherever they may be.

Mr. Chair, through you, I thank the minister for appearing tonight.

In December 2009, church leaders from the Canadian Council of Churches, which represents 85% of Christians in Canada, wrote the Prime Minister and called for Canada to invest substantial new resources in diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to the war and to support the people of Afghanistan through diplomacy and reconciliation efforts at local and regional levels.

The Canadian Council of Churches requested that we ask the minister the following questions.

Will this government commit to taking a leading role with and among its NATO and ISAF allies in a diplomatic surge to end the war in Afghanistan?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I also thank the hon. member for his preamble and assure him that the families are listening. The families do appreciate the expressions of support, particularly, I would add, the family of Trooper Larry Rudd, who was received at CFB Trenton today. His mother, Helen, his grandmother and many of his friends were on hand to see him repatriated and we are all very much in awe and very much full of respect, love and admiration for Trooper Rudd and his family.

With respect to his specific question, I can assure him that the Canadian Forces are very much a part of the effort when it comes to efforts made to reconcile and efforts made to pursue our diplomatic efforts. We have in fact a surge of civilians as part of our effort in Afghanistan and it is one of the six priorities identified by the Canadian government in Afghanistan. So it is an Afghan lead and something we very much support.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, as Canada takes steps toward a civilian mission post-2011, what new financial commitments will the Government of Canada be making and what planning efforts are under way to support the reconciliation of which the minister speaks through local peace-building and governance initiatives?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, much of that is determined by the Afghan government, as the member I know would understand. This is something in which we are in a supportive capacity. We give advice to various government departments in Afghanistan. We are obviously very committed to working with them. Efforts to reconcile, efforts to bring about fruitful discussions by the Afghanistan government are extremely important and part of Canada's overall commitment and one of our six priorities.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, will the government now commit Canada to investing in the negotiation of sustainable peace with all stakeholders in and outside of Afghanistan with the same vigour committed to our combat role in Afghanistan?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, there is great rigour and vigour being demonstrated by our civilians, our diplomats and our aid workers working shoulder to shoulder with the Canadian Forces. This is a whole of government approach, as the hon. member knows, but the lead and the point to these efforts in reconciliation, in discussion and dialogue with those on the other side, who are very often difficult to identify, I am quick to add, that priority rests with the Afghanistan government and the Afghanistan people.