John McCallum

[National Defence, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, as a result of an internal audit initiated by the department, $2 million of improper activity was discovered and an action plan has been put in place.

On the other hand, I would add that no amount of non-compliance with policies or regulations is acceptable to me or to the taxpayers. Our goal is always to have 100% compliance.

[National Defence, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, none of those contentions are correct. The whole idea of this project is to concentrate scarce resources on core military capabilities.

I might add that 100% of the affected permanent employees are guaranteed their jobs at no reduction in salary for a period of seven years. I do not have a job guarantee for even seven minutes let alone seven years.

[Question No. 154, June 7th, 2002]

It was recognized in the early 1990s that a problem existed with aging downhill ski equipment at the Castor Centre, and that without significant investment, final closure of the facility would take place within six to eight years. However, there were insufficient non-public funds at Canadian Forces Base, CFB, Valcartier to allow for measures to extend the life of the equipment or to plan for its replacement.

In 1998 the commander of 5 area support group and the personnel support program manager produced a business case on the long term future of downhill skiing at Valcartier. The business case identified two options for the future of the Castor Centre involving either a massive investment of financial resources or closing the centre in the short to medium term. From a financial standpoint, the most optimistic scenario envisaged the need for a $1.1 million grant from a source outside the Castor Centre and the only outside source was the non-public funds at CFB Valcartier.

In 1999 the double chairlift was repaired at a cost of roughly $150,000 to correct problems noted during inspections.

In 2000, 503 Canadian forces members were surveyed on various personnel support program services and plans for the future. Downhill skiing ranked ninth of the fifteen projects presented, in terms of priority. Upon receipt of the survey results, the executive committee for non-public funds at CFB Valcartier, composed of officers and senior non-commissioned officers, requested an analysis of the options. This analysis was carried out by the construction engineering officer, the personnel support program manager and a senior officer of the ranges and training areas. Several possible replacement options were analyzed and the committee’s ultimate recommendation largely correlated with the conclusions of the 1998 business case. Another option, managed downsizing, was also analyzed, however the committee concluded that further extending the downhill ski operation would cost the base non-public fund roughly $80,000 a year and that the situation would probably have to be reassessed on an annual basis.

The analysis prepared in 2000 was submitted to the executive committee for consideration in 2001. The executive committee decided that funds should not be invested to replace the mechanical lift. The committee also decided that it was not prepared to spend $50,000 to $80,000 a year to retain downhill skiing. This decision was supported by the Conseil d’orientation des fonds non-publics Valcartier, Valcartier non-public fund advisory board. This decision meant that downhill skiing would cease almost immediately, since the existing lift cable had failed to meet industry safety standards.

The co-chairs of the Conseil d’orientation, that is the commander of 5 area support group and the commander of 5 corps mechanized brigade group, were aware of the impact this decision would have on the community and referred the decision to the Commander Land Force Quebec Area before making the closure official.

The Commander Land Force Quebec Area supported the local decision to close the facility, but at the same time decided to extend the operation for one more year to allow alternative solutions to be developed and to mitigate the impact on the community. Implicit in this decision was the need to purchase a new lift cable.

The community was informed of the decision in late 2001 and the various alternative solutions were outlined in the local newspaper.

(a) Non-public funds were originally used for the construction and development of the infrastructures at the Castor alpine ski centre. Non-public funds are a type of crown controlled funds established pursuant to sections 38 to 41 of the National Defence Act and to which the provisions of the Financial Administration Act do not apply. These funds are non-appropriated crown moneys that are separate and distinct from appropriated funds.

(b) The electricity and heating are paid for by the Castor Centre. The Castor Centre is a non-public agency of CFB Valcartier. With respect to the downhill ski operation, the necessary funding was obtained through fees charged to the customers. These revenues, however, were insufficient to effect repairs or to make major investments in the facility. The major repairs of recent years had to be subsidized by the Valcartier fund. These non-public funds were procured through other non-public activities, such as the Canex stores and the Sport Loisirs plan.

(c) In 2000, 503 Canadian forces members were surveyed on various personnel support program services and plans for the future. Downhill skiing ranked ninth of the fifteen projects presented, in terms of priority. In addition, the executive committee for non-public funds at CFB Valcartier consulted the members of their respective units regarding their needs to gain a clear insight into the views of the group they represented and to make informed decisions.

(d) Two options were entertained: either the replacement of the mechanical lift, which would have generated deficit of roughly $80,000 per year, or an average annual investment of $50,000 to $80,000 to prolong the life of the existing equipment.

(e) The decision did not require the approval of the Minister of National Defence.

[Question No. 152, June 7th, 2002]

(a) A briefing note on various submarine issues, including the structural dent, came into the possession of the Minister of National Defence between 11-16 April 02.

(b) Canada accepted the Victoria based on Royal Navy standards, as reflected in the UK ministry of defence’s certificate of safety. This certificate included a structural strength assessment and hull surveillance documentation based on inspections and surveys conducted April 1999 to March 2000.

BAE systems, the original manufacturer, conducted the hull examinations when the submarine was docked during reactivation. This was done with UK ministry of defence oversight, as well as Canadian project staff observation and review.

[National Defence, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not referring to his own leader as cutesy and flippant. My point is that whereas the government committed $5 billion of additional defence spending to the military in the years to 2006, his own current Leader of the Opposition, writing in his so-called taxpayers' budget, called for a $1 billion cut in defence spending. Where do they stand?

[National Defence, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question coming from across the aisle when back in 1995 the then leader of the opposition stated in the House of Commons, “I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts”.

That was said by the member's leader. I think he should check with his boss to find out what his party's policy is.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 hours on the job I do not know the answer to that question but I will look into it.

I will say that as one whose father participated in the liberation of Holland more than 50 years ago, I am proud and humbled to be appointed as Minister of National Defence. I will do my best to carry on this job appropriately.

I think we can all feel extraordinarily proud of the way in which our soldiers have been conducting themselves in recent years.

[The Economy, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. It is not at all surprising that we get no questions on the economy from the opposition these days.

For the first time in 30 years we are coming out of the slowdown better than the U.S., we have become unambiguously the most powerful job creator of all industrial countries, we have recently re-achieved our top of the world triple A credit rating, and the Canadian dollar stands at a nine month high as of today. No wonder the opposition never asks us about the economy.

[Airline Industry, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, matters of taxation and charges come under the authority of the finance department.

[Airline Industry, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member on the other side should understand is that taxation is a matter for the finance department. As I just said, the signs are that the tourist industry is improving.