Art Eggleton

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, 1981 takes us back to a previous project and another government. It was not the right project for the Canadian forces so we cancelled it. Our 1994 white paper policy indicated that replacement of the Sea Kings was one of four major projects. We proceeded on the search and rescue first. We replaced the Labradors and the submarines. We purchased the light armoured vehicle, the LAV III, and we entered into the replacement of the Sea Kings. Of course we did the upgrade of the Sea Kings so they could continue to operate while we have gone through this process.

In terms of the government and this project it is not the same project started in 1981. It had a different kind of mission purpose and a different statement of requirements from today. It was started by the government in the mid 1990s.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

I was not around in 1981.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, it was in the 1990s. Department officials will probably indicate it was an earlier time because they will tie it to the earlier project. However, the earlier project was one that was unsuitable for current day needs so we cancelled that project. We will now get a helicopter that is more suited to current and future needs. We will save over $1 billion in the procurement process from what it would have been under the old Conservative EH-101 proposal.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, that is what we are ordering. We have indicated to the industry that we need 28. We have rationalized it fully. It is 28 that we are seeking in this procurement process.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I have heard enough of this. It is actually 30 hours, not 40 hours, but the member left out some words, person hours. That means that if a crew of 30 people did a little maintenance work and they spent one hour, that is 30 hours. In the formula the air force talks about it is person hours. It is a misleading kind of statement.

These helicopters are kept in good shape by crews who know how to do that. The age of the helicopters is not the big factor at all. It is how well they are kept. They have performed well. They have been operating in some 23 countries, including the United States. Yes, the president of the United States used to have one. I do not know if he still does. We are not told anymore because of security reasons. The past president of the United States was going around in one, and maybe the current president is as well.

Being 35 years or 40 years of age is not a factor. It is how well they are maintained, how much is invested in them to upgrade them and keep them safe to fly, and to be able to perform the mission. They are being kept in that condition and they have performed well during our mission in the Arabian Sea.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I belive that very soon we will get into the pre-qualification stage but we are still in discussions with the helicopter companies and the industry in an effort to give as many of them as possible an opportunity to bid on this because we want an open bidding process. We want to get a helicopter that meets our needs at the best price.

Let us not just focus on that. Let us focus on the fact that we do have a helicopter that is operating quite well for us. The Sea King helicopter has been upgraded and has been performing exceedingly well. How come members are not talking about how well it is performing in our operations in the Arabian Sea.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the member said it was my aim. I am an optimist. I am still trying to get the helicopters as quickly as we possibly can.

We are in a process that has been a lot slower than I would have liked. We are also trying to ensure that we retain competition, that we have an understanding by the industry as to what our needs are and our specifications that flow out of those basic needs. This is taking some time to do.

I still stand by what I said, that by the end of the year we would like to have the helicopter named. I will make every effort to achieve that. I believe it is achievable. It will be difficult to make the end of 2005 but I will not change the target until we are near the end of the year, know the helicopter and see what kind of arrangement we can then make with the company with respect to speeding up and gaining some of the lost time. I am not prepared to change my aim at this point in time until I have had that opportunity.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, one always knows that in the cut and thrust of debate and question period all sorts of things are said. He would have to answer for himself but I think we responded to those concerns.

Can I take up the member's entire 20 minutes? I could go back and read my whole speech all over again.

Yes, there were cuts to the budget because we had to eliminate the deficit. Everybody had to absorb budget cuts. Unfortunately for the Canadian forces and the department of defence, they were coming on top of budget cuts that were already made by the Tories when they were in office.

However we have turned a corner. For the last four years we have increased the budget by 20%. We have another $5 billion coming over the next five years or $700 million a year as his colleague pointed out earlier. Either way, it is correct. We are investing more.

We have talked about the quality of life measures. We have talked about the upgrades to equipment, the improvements to the training and the educational programs. These are all ingredients that are necessary to give the kind of support we need to give to our forces in what we ask them to do.

We will not ask our forces to go to Afghanistan or Bosnia or anywhere else unless we give them what they need to protect themselves, to reduce the risk factors while they are in that theatre of operation and to do the job.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, General Jeffery has been mentioned all night but fortunately for him he has not had to be here. By the way, this is General Macdonald who is sitting here.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, we have been developing a number of outreach programs. We would like the Canadian forces to better reflect the population which exists in Canada today. People in the Alliance will call that social engineering. We think it makes good sense. First, it helps to bring into our fold people with a wide range of interests and expertise from all parts of the population.

Second, it also helps to bring support from all parts of the population for the Canadian forces. We want people of Canada from different parts of the country, from different parts of the socioeconomic framework of Canada and from different ethnic origins. We want all cultural origins to identify with the Canadian forces. We want it to reflect the population that exists in Canada today.

We have started a number of outreach programs. There are aboriginal outreach programs, outreach programs for women and for other target groups as part of our employment equity program.

This outreach is beginning to produce higher numbers. We are sending out more caravan programs with people who are role models in many of these different communities. They can talk with people either in the schools or at community fairs, et cetera. We want to reach out to people to have that kind of employment opportunity.