Debates of May 29th, 2017

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, when it comes to protecting Canadians and our Canadian sovereignty, it is the most important aspect of our Canadian Armed Forces' work.

In the last 18 months, we have been focusing on making sure that our men and women have the necessary training, making sure that we are able to respond up north with Operation Nanook, making sure that we are able to respond to Canadians during national disasters, as we are doing now, and making sure that we move ahead with the procurement of equipment.

We cannot be an island of stability in an ocean of turmoil. Our navy needs new ships. Currently we have no joint support ships. We have an interim ship that is being worked on right now. We were talking about capability gaps. If we do not invest in our military, a capability gap will eventually turn into a capability loss. That is exactly what happened with our joint support ships. We are working very hard to move the process forward as quickly as possible so that we can project our power and support ourselves.

At the same time, we believe that we can work with our allies. We focused, as part of our defence policy review, on our sovereignty, looking at the north, looking at the Arctic. How do we complement what the military does? We are working with other departments, like the Coast Guard.

We are really focusing on this. I look forward to talking more about this in the coming weeks.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, in my association with this minister, I was always amazed by his incredible energy and his willingness to travel literally around the world, sometimes two or three times over, for meetings.

One of the most important alliances we have, of course, is NATO. He has been present for the ministerial meetings. I would be interested, as would this House, in his reflections on those meetings, and particularly on his reflections with respect to this possible change in the German posture.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, it was an absolute privilege to represent Canada at NATO at my first defence ministerial meeting.

The feedback I received, with our re-engagement in NATO, was on the importance of Canadian leadership that was felt in the past and how we are doing it now by continuing the presence of our frigate in the Mediterranean and the air policing we have increased.

We are taking that leadership role. Only four framework nations have taken up that role: the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Germany. More importantly, the demonstration that we are making is that this is a battle group, a multinational battle group of many European countries coming together. It is because of the great experience we have in our Canadian Armed Forces that we are able to put this together, show great leadership, and show that message of deterrence. It is one thing to put things together but another to actually demonstrate that message of deterrence to Russia to complement some of the other work we are doing in the Ukraine as well.

There is a lot more work that needs to be done. When we conducted our defence policy review, my advisory panel went to NATO and discussed these things with them. We had that input into NATO defence policy.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to get back to the air force capability gap and put things into perspective for the minister.

Back in 2016, on April 14, Lieutenant-General Hood said, “We have just recently established that the end of the F-18s' useful life will be in 2025.” Right after that, he said, “I'm confident that if a decision were taken, certainly in the next five years, we'll be in a comfortable position changing that aircraft.”

It just so happens that on April 18 and 21 and May 3 and 10, Boeing lobbyists met with officials from National Defence, the Prime Minister's Office, and Public Services and Procurement Canada. Then, on May 16, the minister mentioned the capability gap for the first time. He said:

Talking about previous governments, we are facing capability gaps. We should have had a fighter replacement by now, rather than trying to extend....

Curiously, a few days later, a 2014 report by Defence Research and Development Canada disappeared from the National Defence website. The report contained very important information about things such as the importance of not running a mixed fleet and having two different kinds of planes. A Super Hornet may have the number 18 on it, but it is not at all the same kind of plane as a CF-18. It is a totally different machine. The report covered life expectancy and the need for new jets. It stated that 65 jets would get us to 2025 just fine, and that a mixed fleet was a very bad idea.

On May 24, Boeing lobbyists were again making the rounds in Ottawa. On May 26, at CANSEC, the minister confirmed that our CF-18 fleet needed replacing right away. He was talking about the whole fleet, not just a few jets. He added that failure to replace it exposed us to a future capability gap.

The meetings continued. On July 6, the minister made a few little changes. The Liberals said they were going to drop the 2010 requirements for fighter jets. They made a few changes here and there.

There were other meetings after that, this time with elected officials. MPs met with lobbyists from Boeing on July 17, September 21, October 7, and October 18. Two ministers, two deputy ministers, and two parliamentary secretaries met with lobbyists from Boeing.

Then, on November 21, we received the response from the Department of National Defence confirming what General Hood had said on April 14. The general's response was confirmed. We received an official response in writing.

On November 22, the minister announced that the government was going to begin negotiating with Boeing for a sole-source purchase of 18 Super Hornets, while launching an open and fair competition that would last five years, when we know that, in other countries, it takes one year when you have the information to conclude a competition.

On November 28, General Hood appeared again before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and said that the air force's policy on the number of fighter jets had been changed and that he was not consulted. He was not even a member of the committee that did the evaluation.

On this issue, I would like to know if the minister can tell us once and for all who told him that there was a capability gap.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, when it comes to discussing capability, as a nation we have commitments to NORAD and we have commitments to NATO. Obviously, for security reasons, I cannot give the exact number of those commitments. However, currently we cannot meet those commitments simultaneously.

However, one thing I think all members in this House agree with is that we need to replace our aging fleet. We are going to do that with a full competition to replace the entire fleet.

Here is another thing. The previous government said that 65 fighters was going to be enough. We are a G7 nation. We talk about our sovereignty. We had 138 fighters a long time ago, and we are talking about 65 now. We need to make sure that we have the right number of aircraft to meet our obligations.

We are going to have a full competition. We need to invest in a legacy fleet. A transition for the fleet takes a long time. It is going to take longer than 2025, even with the full competition. We need aircraft in place. At the same time, I would love to be able to snap my fingers and have aircraft by tomorrow. However, we cannot produce the pilots, the training, and the technicians at the same time. We need to make sure it is a transition that it is smooth, because our aircraft are also being used. It is a plan that we have taken a thorough look at. Yes, the planes should have been replaced 10 years ago so that we are not in this situation. It is problem that we inherited. However, it is our problem now, and we want to make sure that we get this right. That is why we took the time to do a proper analysis. We are committed to making sure that we have the right number of aircraft for our Canadian Armed Forces so that we can meet all of our obligations.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to remind the minister that the 65 aircraft I was referring to was the minimum required according to the 2014 report. At present, we have 77 CF-18s in the Air Force, which is 11 more aircraft than the minimum required.

I would like to know why the minister has not decided to make the process open and transparent right now. This process would determine which aircraft is the best. It does not take five years to do that, it takes one.

Why not open it now? Is he doing this to impose a deadline? I would like the minister to explain this.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, when it comes to replacing our fighter aircraft, we need to make sure that we follow a process where we replace all of our aircraft, a process we can go through to make sure that all the requirements are met. The last thing we want to do is to make a decision and end up with something that does not meet our needs. We need a thorough process, because these are aircraft that will be here for a very long time. We want to make sure that we get this right. That is exactly why we are taking the time to get this right, and to make sure we have that process. I would like to speed it up as quickly as possible. I would like to have this equipment here. Unfortunately, we have to be responsible. The last thing we want is to have a lemon, regardless of what company bids in the competition.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to talk about peacekeeping missions. I would like to know whether the minister really believes that the United Nations is the best organization to combat the radical terrorism found throughout the Middle East and in Africa.

Does the minister really believe that the United Nations is the best organization to manage this?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, multilateralism is important to our government. Today I announced the extension and expansion of Operation Artemis, the counterterrorism measures that we have been part of for a long time, and which the previous government also supported. However, what we have done is not just take a leadership role to be done every two years, we will have the flexibility for our military leadership to add a frigate every two years, and also a maritime surveillance aircraft. We have stepped up there.

We have stepped up our commitments on the fight against Daesh in Iraq. We are taking a leadership role in NATO. Multilateralism is important, and the United Nations also plays a very key role. We also need to focus on preventing the recruitment into radicalization. We need to reduce the conflict portion so we do not have to deal with it after the fact. The United Nations does play a very important role in this, and all of the allies that I have spoken with. The French are playing an important role. The U.S. talks about the importance of peace support operations as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the hon. members that the answer should be about the same length as the question, just as a rule of thumb.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, still on the subject of the United Nations, I would like to know, yes or no, whether we will be contributing troops to a U.N. peacekeeping mission. At the beginning of his term, the Prime Minister promised to send more troops.

I would like to know how many troops have been deployed on different missions.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, could the member repeat the question, please?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, my first question is whether the government will, or will not, be sending a large number of troops on a UN mission in Africa.

Second, the Prime Minister promised to send more soldiers and police officers to various locations around the world to help the UN.

I would like to know how many troops have been deployed since the Liberal government took office.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, there are currently UN missions where we have had troops. When it comes to our peace support operations, we have committed up to 600 personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces, and 150 police officers.

As members know, no decision has been made at this time. I do not have the exact number of UN missions, but our folks have been part of them since we have formed government.

As I said, the UN plays a very important role in stability around the world. Multilateralism is important to our government, and we need to do our part.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, as a former member of the military, the minister must know what the operational situation on the ground looks like.

Does he believe that the Canadian Forces are able to send a troop of between 500 and 600 soldiers with the proper training to Mali, for example? Does Canada have the resources necessary to be independent and not to depend on any other country?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, any troop recommendations come from the chief of the defence staff, my military advisor, and he would never recommend anything that would overstretch us. I have also stated that we will make sure that any time we send our troops anywhere, we will send them with all the necessary equipment so they can protect themselves. More importantly, we also have to focus on the mandate. It is one reason we are taking the time, so that we have the right mandate, the right rules of engagement, and protection of civilians. All of these things are extremely important, not just for the military, but in a comprehensive integrated approach that looks at other departments as well.

I am also very happy that when I was at the UN, other nations were also taking this on board, so there will be an even bigger impact.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to talk a bit about the reserve forces. The president of Réserve 2000, John Selkirk, confirmed that reserve units have had their budgets cut by 10% since last year.

How can the minister explain these 10% budget cuts? As a former unit commander, I know that things were not going well when my budget got cut. I would like to know what the minister thinks about that.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I too was a former reserve CO, and there were times when the budget was cut. However, there are even greater complexities. It is not just about budget cuts. One could also give money and change the rules, which has been done in the past, where the money cannot then be spent. Those are the things that we are also looking at.

I can assure the House that the reserves play a very important role within the Canadian Armed Forces, whether it is domestic operations, such as Operation LENTUS in Quebec, or overseas operations. We need to make sure that our reserve forces have the right funding, and they will. However, more importantly, it is not just about training and the right equipment, but having a robust goal. We are looking at many other areas and the role that the reserves can play. I have had many discussions with the chief of the defence staff on that, and there is more work that needs to be done.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that this is complex, but the major problem concerning funding for the reserve is that the money trickles from the top down to the units and part of the money disappears for different reasons. It is up to the minister to monitor the reasons for budget cuts to the reserves.

When the budget of a reserve unit is cut by 10%, the troops lose three weekends of training. That is huge. What effect does the minister think this will have on retention of reservists? They will want to find a civilian job because the army cannot give them enough work.

Does the minister believe that our troops will have adequate training?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I could not agree with the member more. We need to make sure that the reserves have all the right investments. Currently the reserves have a budget of $645 million for this year, but this is not just about a number. We need to make sure that the right money is allocated for the training and recruitment. The reserves are a connection to the community as well. There are many things that the reserves do, and we want to make sure the reserves have all the necessary funding. We need to also make sure they have the right equipment and vehicles, whether it is an infantry unit, armoured reconnaissance units, or a signals regiment, and that they have the right radios. Then, more importantly, how do we integrate a lot of this into the regular force?

A lot more work needs to be done. We are also looking at compensation for the reserves to make sure they are better looked after. Improvements have been made, but a lot more work needs to be done, such as possibly making a class A, B, or C system even more easy to manage for everyone.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, the minister spoke about NATO. The former parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence spoke about Barack Obama, who came to see us in 2016 and who said that the world needs more Canada.

Since we are talking about finances, I would like an explanation of why our contribution to NATO has decreased. In 2016, it was $92.4 million whereas this year's budget is $77.9 million.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I was speaking with the Canadian ambassador to NATO, Kerry Buck. We are the sixth-largest financial contributor to NATO, in addition to the contributions that we make.

As I stated, we have taken a leadership role at NATO. We have a lot to be proud of in the work and the leadership role that we have taken. We will make sure that we have the right investments for our troops so that we can be incredible partners.

I would like to tell the member to stay tuned for June 7 as well.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I will deliver a 10-minute speech and then I will be asking a few questions.

I am pleased to rise today to consider the most important military asset our country has, the women and men who wear Canada's uniform. As the mother of two serving members, I know first-hand the sacrifices that military families make.

They take an oath of allegiance to the Crown, but they also pledge to serve at risk to their own lives and well-being. That risk can be mitigated, but it can never be eliminated.

While this risk can be mitigated, it can never be eliminated.

Of course, we must provide them with the instruction, training, equipment, and support they need to successfully carry out the duties and missions they are assigned throughout their careers. If military members are unable to continue their military service, we owe it to them to ensure their return to civilian life is successful both through our own efforts and through partnership with industries that employ veterans.

As General Dallaire stated last March before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I quote:

If you don't treat the injured veteran right, the guy or girl who's going over will realize that if they come back injured they have to fight the second fight, and that's coming home and trying to live decently.

The funding in these main estimates directly supports our ill, injured, and wounded military members, and I would like to highlight just a few of those initiatives today.

The mission in Afghanistan was a watershed moment for the care of our wounded members.

The volume of cases from Afghanistan, with 1,859 wounded over the entire combat mission, had not been seen since the Korean War.

Moreover, our improved understanding of mental health allows us to correctly diagnose, and where possible treat, operational stress injuries that militaries of the past wrote off as “shell shock” or “battle fatigue”.

I want to take a moment to add, for any military member or family member who is listening and experiencing an operational stress injury, that they should please reach out for support to those around them.

The Canadian Armed Forces had more ill, injured, and wounded than at any time in recent memory, many of whom were dealing with complex medical conditions, including mental health issues. This required a careful, professional approach.

That is what brought the forces to develop a system to rehabilitate ill, injured, and wounded military personnel called the joint personnel support unit, or JPSU. The role of this unit is to provide personalized support and programs to members who have a medical condition that precludes them from returning to their normal duty for six months or more.

The JPSU also strives to provide the best possible support and services during a member's recovery so that he or she can return to full military duty or successfully transition to civilian life.

The JPSU and the 24 integrated personnel support centres that form it do outstanding and difficult work in support of their brothers and sisters in uniform.

Because, in many cases, the illness or injury can have a significant impact upon the CAF member’s family, they offer a range of services to military families from coast to coast.

About 1,600 Canadian Armed Forces members are posted to the JPSU for six months or more. More than 4,000 walk-in clients are helped on an annual basis.

The dedication and commitment of JPSU military and civilian support staff is truly remarkable, so much so that the armed forces is now preparing to build upon their model.

As the chief of the defence staff testified before a committee in the other place, he intends to evolve the JPSU into a new organization that can provide that same level of personal service across the military. He will also ensure that the transition unit receives additional resources to handle these cases, which will address concerns raised by the ombudsman and others. This will mean that every member of the Canadian Armed Forces who experiences a transition receives the same focus on individual, personalized service, both while they are in uniform and when they end their military career.

The goal is to ensure that every member of the Canadian Armed Forces who experiences a transition receives the same focus on individual, personalized service, both while they are in uniform and when they end their military career. All aspects of this transition are key elements of the mandate letters of both the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

The ministers were given a mandate to work together to reduce complexity, overhaul service delivery, and strengthen partnerships between both ministries, and provide better service to our veterans.

I know this is something every member of the House, some of whom have also served in the Canadian Armed Forces, can support.

Many of us have heard from constituents who have experienced difficulties with this transition, who are experiencing hardship just as they are trying to begin a new chapter in their lives. We must ensure that those who have served with honour are treated with honour and that the families that serve alongside them are also supported.

When Canadian Armed Forces members retire, their pensions and benefits should be ready as soon as they take off their uniform. In most cases, this is what happens. Since the military pension system was transferred to Public Services Procurement Canada, 96% of retired members now get their first payment within 30 days. That is a major improvement. Other delays, primarily related to benefits, are going to take additional time to resolve because this is about more than just a simple transfer of files.

I will return to the example of mental health. Thanks to our improved understanding of mental illness, we now know that some mental health conditions can take years to materialize. Members could retire from the Canadian Armed Forces seemingly fully healthy, but with latent or undiagnosed conditions that manifest many years later. Demonstrating a link between this new diagnosis and their military service can be difficult. The members themselves may not make the connection. Their civilian doctors may not have access to their full medical files. This is one example of the challenges Veterans Affairs and National Defence are dealing with. They must not only ensure an efficient payment of benefits, but also ensure that those who retired healthy and need to re-enter the system later are both recognized and supported.

I want to stress that these gaps are not the result of an uncaring or unfeeling bureaucracy, nor a lack of will on the part of the Government of Canada. Our people are dedicated and committed to providing the highest possible level of service to military members and the families who love and support them. I thank them for their hard work. That work needs to be enabled, supported, and resourced appropriately so that the vision of a professionalized transition system can be achieved.

The funding in the main estimates is directly supporting these efforts, which are directly supporting our brave women and men in uniform. I will be encouraging my fellow members to approve them when the time comes to vote. I look forward to the additional transition measures that we can expect from the new defence policy when it is announced on June 7.

The size of the Canadian Armed Forces and its operational tempo can make dealing with transition a challenge, but it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to ensure that our women and men in uniform have the resources and support they need to continue to excel as they transition to civilian life.

Now I have some questions for the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Chair, the minister and the chief of the defence staff have called improving the transition experience for retiring and leaving members of the Canadian Armed Forces a “closing of the seams”. We owe so much to our retiring military members and their service to Canada. Can the parliamentary secretary provide details on what the Canadian Armed Forces has done recently to improve the transition experience for those leaving the military, and what more will be done?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, veterans are definitely one of our government's key priorities. As my colleague said so well, we owe a debt to the men and women who have served their country.

We are committed to reducing the complexity of the processes, overhauling service delivery, and strengthening partnerships between the two departments. The Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada are working closely to facilitate the transition of Canadian Armed Forces members to civilian life. The department is also committed to hiring veterans who are eligible for jog opportunities in the public service. In fact, medically released veterans are eligible for priority hiring within the public service.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Armed Forces are one of the best trained and most respected forces in the world. They welcome all kinds of candidates of all religions, ethnic origins, and sexual orientations. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces work together as a team and have a zero tolerance policy with respect to all forms of discrimination.

I know that this issue is important to the minister, and I would appreciate it if he would inform the House of what is being done to ensure that diversity remains a priority.