Art Eggleton

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to say, and perhaps the hon. member was not here when I noted this earlier, that we have now regained the position that was our target in our policy, which was 60,000. In fact we are over the 60,000 mark. We are now at 60,484.

I know there are discussions about whether we should go even higher than that. This is part of the considerations that can be made in the context of our defence review update. We are at the target that is part of our current policy. This has helped to provide us with the troops that we need to carry out our missions.

We have a very high percentage of them deployed on overseas operations. We would be one of the highest certainly among the allied countries in that respect.

At the same time, to get to that number, we put in effect a new recruitment program, which helped us to do that. We are changing our incentives and our efforts overall to retain Canadian forces personnel. Our attrition rates are down. That is all part and parcel of why we have been able to get our personnel statistics at a higher level, as we now have them over 60,000.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I will have a look at the concern expressed by the member. We have been spacing these out in terms of capabilities that exist to do the cleanups and also the vision of resources spread out over a period of time.

If we can find some way that is more suitable to the people in the north, then we would certainly be willing to look at that possibility.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I cannot recall the number of sites that are part of the DEW line cleanup program. The sites were of course jointly operated by both Canada and the United States, and we are receiving some $100 million over a 10 year period from the United States to assist in that cleanup operation.

I have been to the north myself for discussions and to sign contracts with respect to the cleanup. We are engaging local companies to provide local employment for the Inuit to be part of the cleanup operations. Not only are we taking our responsibility of the cleanup seriously from an environmental improvement standpoint, but we are also getting money from our partner in those sites, the United States. We are also able to give local people job opportunities and skills development in helping to carry out that work.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the Canada search and rescue capability involves a number of agencies in the north including the Canadian forces. In fact we are the lead department in this case. DND co-ordinates search and rescue on behalf of the Government of Canada overall and we use a number of resources, including those from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the RCMP and the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, which involves volunteer civilian aviators.

While we cannot predict the number and types of incidents that may occur, the forces have the capability to respond to a wide range of search and rescue operations across the country including the north. We do have the rangers there and we are putting in additional money to expand that.

I might add that this is the 60th anniversary of the rangers. They go back to the World War II era. They celebrated their 60th anniversary by taking an expedition up to the magnetic north pole. I was very pleased, as was the Prime Minister I am sure, to talk to them by phone on the occasion of their reaching the magnetic north pole.

We also have contingency air plans for any major air disasters and plans for search and rescue. These kinds of possible disasters are always being tested and upgraded ensuring that capabilities exist for us to respond in a proper fashion.

Would I like more money for the north and for the rangers? Yes. Remember the defence updates, and those are some of the issues that we will have to look at.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, that is an excellent question. There is no immediate military threat to Canada in the north. There are a number of security challenges in the region, the increasing accessibility to the region, as the hon. member has pointed out. These all require continued and strengthening vigilance.

We are doing a number of things in that regard in the short run. For example, we are earmarking in this budget some $205,000 to further expand ranger patrols, our fine ranger organization up in the north. They are our eyes and ears in the north. We are increasing the rangers to some 1,300 personnel. We will open an office and post an officer to the office in Iqaluit within the next few months or so, sometime this summer. We will also send a couple of our naval ships up there, one to Iqaluit and the other nearby, to explore the waters in the eastern Arctic.

These are the beginnings of improvement. We are looking for opportunities to provide more training for our Canadian forces personnel in the north. We will have to go beyond these, quite clearly. These are short term steps.

In the longer run, I think we will have to address issues such as the possibility of the Northwest Passage being opened for more shipping. That is a very real possibility. With global warming we are seeing more and more ice free times in the Arctic. Within another 10 to 15 years we could well have ice free conditions for a sufficient length of time to justify the cost of running commercial shipping up there. I think a lot of commercial ships going from northern Europe to Asia would find it a lot less expensive than going down through the Panama Canal. That poses a challenge. We have to get ready for that challenge. That certainly will be part of our ongoing discussions.

We do have an interdepartmental committee, which is actually chaired by a representative of the Canadian forces out of Yellowknife, that is into discussions about what we will do in the future in the Arctic.

Our north warning system covers 47 unmanned radar sites in the north, all of which help to protect. We have some forward operating locations in the north for our CF-18 fighters if any threat comes into that area.

We have a number of things now. We are adding some things in the short term, but in the long run we still have more work to do.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, to take it from the back part first, we do not think it will have a financial impact on us. It might have to some minor degree if we set up a planning cell or something like that to work more with the Americans. However it is their internal command structure.

The Americans have had a series of geographic commands that cover the world, except for North America which includes their own country. They have treated that differently. Now with the increased focus on homeland security, which they were starting to focus a little more on even before September 11 but particularly since September 11, they feel that one of their geographic commands should now cover the continent in which their country is located. It makes sense. They have a southern command which covers everything to the south. They have a Pacific command. The central command in fact which is headquartered in Tampa, Florida is the command that is dealing with Afghanistan.

The Americans have these geographic commands. They have some operational commands as well. They have nine of them and they are adding a tenth one to their system. It is called northern command. It is entirely an internal reorganization of the United States military.

Since the northern command will have as part of its interest the continent in which Canada is located, we are obviously interested in talking with the Americans about what that means. We have particularly focused on Norad because it is a binational command. We want to preserve Norad in that level of importance and we have accomplished that. They have agreed.

We are now going on to discussions to see if there are any other practical ways we might co-operate in terms of the defence of our continent. We approach these kinds of discussions on the basis of what is in our Canadian interests and what we need to do to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

We will look at options, but none of these options will in any way sacrifice our sovereignty or our ability to make our own decisions or to command our own troops. We are not talking about putting any of our troops under any northern command. That is a United States operation entirely, just as no other countries in the other geographic commands are involved. It is the United States' area of interest and entirely relates to its own forces.

The United States has no control over our territory. We govern our own territory. We make our own decisions with respect to our troops and our territory. We will, as I said, continue to look for practical ways of co-operating. That is a matter that should be coming to the cabinet for some decision fairly soon on how we wish to proceed.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, with respect to the reserve restructuring, we will not lose the gains made in phase one. The increase in the number of reservists and the improvements that have been made under phase one will continue on.

The question of phase two is a matter of additional funds. As we go through the defence update, that and a number of other capabilities and issues will have to be dealt with. There are no funds for phase two at this point in time but that will have to be addressed by the fall.

With respect to protection of employees who are reservists, we used to have that kind of protection around the time of the Korean war. It was on the books for a while even though it was not used. It has not been used since then because we have not had any mandatory call outs. Everything has been done on a voluntary basis. It is our feeling that as long as we are asking people to serve on a voluntary basis on things like the ice storm or other kinds of missions that might involve the need to have a lot of reservists come out, no job protection is being proposed.

It has worked in the past. Many employers have been co-operative and have understood the needs and they have given their employees time off.

In Bill C-55 we are saying that given the current climate and concerns about the possibility of terrorism, if there is a compulsory call out of the reservists and they do not have a choice and it is not voluntary, we should protect their jobs. That is what is in Bill C-55. That is an amendment to the National Defence Act.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I do not know what they told the hon. member but we try to give as much information as we can. However we must bear in mind that there are personal security and operational security considerations. We will not give information about JTF2. I do not think anyone would expect us to give information that would risk its members' lives or the success of its mission.

As I was saying the other day, we would not even talk about the battle group mission we just completed called Operation Torii. That would telegraph in advance what we were going to do. The more people we tell the more risk that it will get out to the enemy. The old saying is that loose lips sink ships. We do not want to do that. We do not want to risk the mission. We do not want to risk the security of any of our people involved. If word got out to the enemy in advance it could be in a stronger position when engaging our personnel. The enemy could also flee the area which would diminish the mission.

It is important to keep such information to a minimum number of people. That has been our policy and it is the best one to follow. However whenever possible we will provide as much information as we can to keep parliamentarians informed. I have always indicated a willingness to appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to talk about our operations. I will do so as much as I am able without risking personal or operational security.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I am surprised at what the hon. member said about union involvement in the discussions. They have been involved. There have been various meetings, town halls and seminars and the unions have been involved.

The president of the Union of National Defence Employees came to see me last year. He thought it was terrific. He said alternate service delivery had come a long way. Why did he think that? It was because the company offered employment for 100% of the current employees. It offered them a seven year guarantee at equal or better salaries than they have now, plus a wide range of benefits. It is a win-win situation. It means savings for the government and a more comprehensive and cost effective program all around.

Tibbet & Britten has established a Canadian company. It would be employing Canadian people, and 100% of existing employees is not something we see too often. However the union has been involved in discussions on the matter.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, a number of entities would become involved. What is important is that there is a co-ordination effort. The co-ordination effort in the past was called Emergency Preparedness Canada. It is now the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. It has a control centre and a crisis centre. It has a wide range of contacts with provincial counterparts. It has federal counterparts in different parts of the country. It has regional contacts which in turn have provincial contacts which in turn have local first responders. A wide network of people from the government and volunteer sectors is involved in the various emergency programs that can come together during a crisis.

We saw this during the ice storm. The Canadian forces played a support role but the initial role came from the people in emergency response organizations. It starts from the bottom up. It starts with emergency response teams at the local level through to the provincial level. The provincial level then calls in the federal level. In turn we were asked to bring in the Canadian forces in a support role during the ice storm. It was all put through a co-ordinated system.

The ice storm showed that the system was well tested. We also had it up and ready to go for Y2K. Thank goodness we never needed to use it, but on New Year's Eve 2000 I visited some of the control centres and saw the elaborate preparations for any problems that might have occurred. We can be quite pleased with the basic infrastructure we have. However post-September 11 we need to go further, certainly with respect to chemical and biological concerns.

We have put more money into increasing our operations. We have a small unit headquartered in Borden, Ontario which by and large has been a training unit. It will now be enhanced in terms of its capabilities. The unit works with the RCMP. It is both an RCMP and a military effort. As the hon. member pointed out, there will be a focus on Suffield in terms of research, development and co-ordination to deal with the possibility of chemical or biological attack. A lot of movement is being made in the whole area. The budget contained moneys to help strengthen this. It also contained moneys to strengthen our anti-terrorism commando force the JTF2. Various other areas were promised increased funds in the estimates to help make Canadians more safe and secure.