Art Eggleton

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, we may develop a planning cell that would rely on shared information about operations on land and sea. Discussions might help organize some exercises that would result in our ships working together out in the maritime operations. Maybe we will work on things that will better co-ordinate protection of our coastlines as a continent.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

No, Mr. Chairman. It depends what the hon. member means by those words. We have not been invited to participate in the northern command. We have not been invited to become part of the northern command.

I do not anticipate we will ever be asked because that is an internal structure within the United States just as the southern command covers all of South America. Nobody has been asked in South America, or any part of the world, to join that command. The northern and southern commands are internal organizational commands.

When the hon. member asks what we are discussing, we are discussing the possibilities of co-operation. In that respect it could be a relationship but it certainly will not be coming under northern command. No, we are not looking at that at the moment.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, October 1 is the target date to put it into effect. At this point in time I would have to say no, but there are discussions that are going on at this point in time relevant to how we could find more practical co-operative ways of improving the defence of our people, both in Canada and the United States and our common continent.

In terms of such structures as Norad, which is one of the reasons we entered into discussions with the U.S., it will be in the same position as it is today. It will be a binational command reporting to the governments of the two countries. It will not be changed.

Depending on how these discussions that are currently under way evolve and how they evolve if there is any formal part to them beyond this, that could have some effect on what happens on October 1. As I have indicated, let us not get carried away with what is being talked about here. Let us understand that the northern command is in fact an internal structural entity in the United States forces. It is one of many commands that they have.

We are looking at co-operation which would involve more planning within that context. We are not talking about putting our troops under any other command. We are not talking about assigning some large standing force to it. We are not talking about anything that will affect our sovereignty or our ability to make our own decisions with respect to foreign policy. I think we had better keep this whole thing in context.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, we have in the last year entered into an internal exercise with respect to the north that includes a northern operation out of Yellowknife. We have various entities that come under that command throughout the northern areas, such as our Canadian Rangers.

Our Canadian Rangers will be our eyes and ears in the north and in much of the remote areas. We will expand that operation, as we are indeed expanding the junior ranger program which helps young people become involved with something that is very valuable for them in terms of development of life skills.

Those programs will be increased. We will also establish more exercises in the north. We have two naval ships that we will be sending up there this summer as part of an exploration of the passage areas. Ultimately, yes, we will address this question of the Northwest Passage. We are likely to see that passage opening for shipping in a few years with the effects of climate change, perhaps 10 or 15 years. We must be prepared for that possibility and what that means in terms of sovereignty and environmental conditions. These are matters that we are quite cognizant about. We are continuing to address them.

At the present time we are looking at the organizational structure of the northern command and subsequently how it relates to our most northern areas will have to be fully addressed.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, in conflict operations where there is high risk we will not send civilian personnel to do the jobs military people have done in the past. I mentioned that we have put people into Bosnia but the risk levels are lower. The Americans have been using this kind of support for some time as well. When certain occupations in the military are stressed it is particularly helpful to be able to give support through private sector personnel. However we would not send that kind of personnel into a place like Afghanistan which is a conflict zone.

The hon. member may also be referring to the Supply Chain Project which is the major alternative service delivery program we are proceeding with at the moment. We talked earlier about scarce resources and the need to use them on core military capabilities. That is what we are trying to do here. We believe we can enhance the performance of our supply chain from beginning to end by putting it together as a comprehensive entity. We can make it a better system all around. It is pretty good in many respects but we can make it better. We think we can save over $70 million a year. We made a business case with respect to that and the auditor general thought we made a good case.

On top of that, the company is a Canadian company. It has foreign ownership but so do a lot of Canadian companies with which we do business. The service provider has committed to making reasonable job offers to 100% of the permanent civilian employees affected by the project. The company is willing to guarantee employment for seven years. It will offer salaries equivalent to or better than what the employees got in the public service. Health, dental, disability and pension arrangements will all be provided.

A year ago when I was talking to the president of the Union of National Defence Employees he thought it was a great idea. He does not seem to think so today but he did at one time. That is because it is fair and reasonable in its treatment of employees. At the same time it will allow the government to save a lot of money and provide for an effective and efficient system. We will be able to put the money we save into our core capabilities to help relieve some of the stresses and pressures we have been talking about.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, we have put in place peer groups for people to consult with. There are also various professionals within the organization such as social workers, medical people or chaplains. There are a number of elements that come together to help in terms of counselling people and giving them the support they need.

However I am happy to look at any other peer support groups that might be helpful. We are moving in that direction now. We have established those kinds of groups. We are open to the idea and want to continue in that direction.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, we are going through reforms to our health care system. We have put a number of operational centres in place to deal with trauma and stress and the ailments of people who served during the gulf war.

The ombudsman recently issued a report about PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. He made a number of recommendations which have been accepted by the forces and are in the process of being implemented. There are a multitude of ways in which we are improving health care services. We have established a centre for the injured and their families jointly with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The question of depleted uranium has seen considerable study. The difficulty is that the medical or scientific evidence has not indicated that any of our people have been adversely affected by it. Tests have been provided by the Department of National Defence. We have paid for tests to be done by independent parties. The relationship between service in the gulf or any other venue and depleted uranium is yet to be established but it still causes us considerable concern. We will continue to examine and study it. We will keep an open mind about it as we do for other ailments our people have.

Our people have experienced many different physical and psychological ailments and combinations of illnesses. The bottom line is that we want to look after these people. We want to do our best. It may be difficult in terms of scientific evidence to prove whether the ailments are related to depleted uranium, toxic substances or whatever, but if our people are sick we want to look after them. That is what we are endeavouring to do with these various changes and reforms.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the matter raised previously, in some cases we use the private sector to complement our own resources. We have been doing this in Bosnia for some of our stretched occupations. We have been able to provide private sector support services in Bosnia for things like cooking and cleaning. That is a further response to the previous question.

Regarding the current question, in the last year we have added $40 million in equipment purchases. We are increasing the percentage with respect to capital. With respect to the Sea Kings, as I said before, our people will not be flying anything that is not safe. We have put some $75 million into improving and upgrading the avionics and other parts of the Sea King. It has been performing exceedingly well. We have quite a number of them in the Arabian Sea. They have been performing exceeding well there because they are kept in good condition. We would not allow our people to fly anything that was unsafe.

However we need to get on with replacing them. We need new equipment with new capabilities for modern needs. As I indicated before, the process is in place and moving along. Yes, I wish it was faster but by the end of the year we will be in a position to name the helicopter that will replace the Sea King.

We are trying to make sure the process is conducted fairly and that we can keep it competitive. We have gone through various discussions with the proponents as to the technical specifications that flow out of the statement of requirements. They have been continually asking us for information about them and this takes time. However I think we would all agree we want to be fair to all the competitors so we can get the best helicopter to replace the Sea King. Meanwhile the Sea King will continue to do terrific service for us.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, it is an excellent question. As I indicated in my previous comments, overall recruitment and retention has improved. There are certain categories in which we are short. The people in those categories are in a somewhat stressed position with respect to our various operations, but we are focusing on those 43 categories to be able to increase the numbers.

Meanwhile we have been doing a study on operational tempo to determine alternate strategies. Such strategies would involve cutbacks in some operations if need be because we want to ensure that in dealing with quality of life issues we bear in mind the stress many of these people are going through in making their contributions. We are trying to find the right balance. We want to be able to make our contributions but at the same time deal with the stress factors until we can get our numbers higher in the 43 categories.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

There are no negotiations. There are informal discussions going on. There are no decisions that have been made, and subsequently, yes, we will want to make sure that the House is aware of what the government will propose and it can then respond to that.