Art Eggleton

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the member is referring to what we call the white Challengers which are the ones that are used for executive services, for cabinet, the royal family or the Governor General as the case may be. We do have grey Challengers that are part of the military operation and have been used for transport of various kinds over the years. They do have a very functional purpose in terms of military operations. We have two of them by the way.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, let me see where I can start on the wrong information that the member is giving out. He is living in the past. The government is interested in looking at the future and what our future needs are.

Yes, we do need to look at supply ships. We have three of them that are coming to the end of their life and we do have a project officer who is looking at the replacements of them. However the government is providing what our forces need now and in future. Yes, we have resource challenges. We need to deal with some of these issues in the context of our defence policy update and we will be doing that.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I bet he knows it, so I think he should get up and say it.

We have here the 2002-03 estimates. We have literally hundreds of counts to deal with. If he was seriously sincere in wanting that information he would have asked in advance. We would be happy to bring the books for 1993-94 and all the other years and give him the answer. However he did not give us that courtesy. He is not interested in the answer. He is about to tell us what it is in any event.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, it was several years ago now, but the other side of that coin is when was the last time we deployed a brigade? We have been deploying battalion or battle group size operations and we have had full training for them. When we have deployed any of them they have been ready to go into their mission just as the PPCLI was quite prepared in going into the mission in Afghanistan. We would not send any troops to any theatre of operation, whether combat or peace support, without the proper training, tools and equipment to do the job.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, there is more to the Canadian forces than the main battle tank even though that party does not seem to think so perhaps.

However I think we do have a responsibility. For example, we have had some contamination problems near our property at Val Cartier. As a result we helped hook up people in the nearby community of Shannon to our clean water system because of trouble they were having from underground contamination emanating from another site. It migrated in through defence property so it was a concern to us.

We have the old DEW line system up north and the contamination there. Earlier construction had PCB in the paint. We are a responsible steward for the environment. We want ensure we clean up these matters. We have focused our attention which is part of our government responsibility to do so. Are not all members concerned about the environment? Do not all departments take responsibility for ensuring that they do their best to clean up the environment? That is what we are doing.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, there are hundreds upon hundreds of accounts and this will take a totalling of more than one number, but we will provide that number to the hon. member.

I am glad he has raised that because we are attempting to be good stewards of the property. We have more property under the defence department than any other department of the government and a lot of it is environmentally sensitive. We have some areas where there has been some contamination and clean up is necessary. We are proceeding with all of those and taking our responsibilities quite seriously.

I have to go back though to Lord Robertson because the hon. member says that Lord Robertson has been critical of Canada. I would like him to hear what Lord Robertson did say about Canada. He said that whenever Canada was needed Canada was near. He added that he was very proud of Canada and he congratulated the Canadian government and the Canadian people.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, again I would reiterate that I do not think these percentages of GDP are good measurements at all. When there is a situation in which the highest percentage of GDP is Turkey at 5% and we are one of the lowest but we actually spend more money than it does, as we buy more equipment and do more things, what is the relevancy of those percentages of GDP figures?

I will say this. The hon. member asked what I say when I go to NATO. Let me quote George Robertson, who happens to be the secretary general of NATO. I hope the hon. member will listen to this. He said that it is not how much you are spending, it is what you are spending on that really matters. It is outputs, not inputs, that matter to me, he said.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Hungary, Madam Chairman? I do not know. I have no idea. I think of all the landlocked countries. That is a silly question, because some countries have very small navies and some have large armies. It all varies, depending upon what their particular needs are.

Let me make a comparison which I think has some relevancy. When it comes to spending among the NATO allies, and the hon. member looks very anxious now, we are actually the sixth largest, so there is a fair bit of money that the government is putting into defence expenditures. Although people might cite that Turkey spends 5% of its GDP for defence, it actually spends less money than we do. When it comes to outputs and outcomes, we are unsurpassed by many of these other countries.

We are able to get good results with the taxpayers' money in terms of its investment. The fact that we do not have any new warships under construction is totally irrelevant. We have a very good, modern navy and we will continue to provide--

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, why does the hon. member ask a question he knows the answer to? There are not any under construction. We have 12 frigates. We have 12 MCDVs. He might need enlightenment. If he does not know that we do not have any under construction I think I had better give him the rest of the answer here. We have the four submarines that will be put into service following the repairs and the training that is being done. We have quite an extensive, modern navy. He can just ask the Americans. They keep inviting us to send the frigates with their state of the art equipment to be part of joint operations--

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, that is absolutely false. With respect to the Coyote, it is on the listing as what has happened over the last several years. It does not say that is during our government's time, although 99% of this is during our government's time. The Coyotes have come into operation only in recent years. They may have been ordered by a previous government, but they have come into operation just in the time this government has been in office.

There are many other things there as well, such as the LAV IIIs, the light armoured vehicles. The Americans were so impressed with them they asked to borrow some. After they borrowed a few they decided to buy some, hence we will have more employment and more opportunities for the defence division of General Motors out of London, Ontario. That is because our government decided that these kinds of light armoured vehicles can best meet our needs and others are now following.

About the upgrades, once again the hon. member is wrong, because the upgrades on the CF-18 modernization program have already begun. A billion dollar contract has already been let for this. Modernization does cover more than just brand new. It means upgrades as well. We are not the only ones who do things in that fashion. Let us look at the United States B-52 bomber. The B-52 bomber is over 40 years of age. It is probably actually older than the Sea King but it is still used as part of the U.S. inventory by what is the most modern military in the world. We keep upgrading this kind of equipment and it continues to serve our needs, as we are doing with the CF-18s and also with the Auroras. The clothe the soldier program is also not mentioned there, but we have state of the art clothing and personal equipment for our troops. In fact, other countries are looking to duplicate that.

I think this government has shown itself to be on the leading edge in a lot of these areas of new equipment or modernization of existing equipment.