House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, all successes, and I thank the member for Edmonton—Leduc. We are fully committed as I mentioned earlier to getting the best equipment at the best possible price with benefits to Canadian industry. That protective equipment is so important to what we are doing over there. We will continue to work diligently to deliver.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, my friend from Kitchener makes a very relevant point in terms of the equipment needs. In particular, the Chinook aircraft have literally been a lifesaving investment. They have provided incredible utility in Afghanistan to Canadian Forces, all of our allies and Afghans as well.
These helicopters were acquired on recommendation of the independent committee that provided a number of very useful insights and information that was considered by the Canadian government and from the Canadian Forces perspective. These D-model Chinooks, that we were able to purchase from the American army, were immediately put into use.
They were in Afghanistan and available to us. From January 2009 until April 2010, these D-model Chinooks have currently flown over 3,300 hours. They have carried over 38,000 passengers and transported over 2.5 million pounds of cargo. That is just to give an idea of just how much use these aircraft have been.
My friend from Edmonton also referenced the use of UAVs, these unmanned aerial vehicles that provide eyes on in Afghanistan. They have an incredible intelligence-gathering capability that is also saving lives in our efforts to prevent the scourge of IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, that have taken lives and injured so many in that country.
As well, we are making very good use of the C-17 aircraft to bring equipment in and individuals from the Canadian Forces on various rotations in and out of Afghanistan. We know as well that the tanks have provided incredible protection to the men and women in uniform who are patrolling roads, who are out in these very difficult parts of the country in southern Afghanistan and particularly in Kandahar province, where we have the bulk of our mission.
We will continue to make the necessary investments in this protective and preventative equipment. The less time that Canadian Forces find themselves on the ground, the more lives are saved and the more able they are to travel throughout that country. That is why these investments were made. That is why we will continue to look for ways to bolster our capability there and provide them with the necessary equipment. That is what these investments are all about in terms of the main estimates.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, the current F-18 jets will be in operation until 2017, is the short answer.
I want to come back to the mirage, though, because the mirage here is the hon. member's vote. His vote was not there when it came to the increases for the navy and increases for the Canadian Forces generally on a whole range of issues. There is the mirage. Let us be clear on that fact.
With respect to the ongoing maintenance, this contract is a huge success story, as is the case with so much of what the Canadian Forces do these days. This contract was completed on budget and ahead of schedule. We now have 80 planes that are able to perform that important work.
There is an entire modernization program that was phased over eight years at a cost $2.6 billion. The total of 80 CF-18 Hornet aircraft went through what is called a mid-life upgrade. I know my colleague from Edmonton has flown those aircraft, so he knows of what he speaks.
We are also now well down the road on a replacement program. The joint strike fighter program, of which Canada has already made significant investments, will see the next generation fighter capability, will see Canada participate in that program and avail itself of an aircraft that will exceed the current capability. This has been a magnificent aircraft. This next generation fighter, again, will be an open, competitive, transparent process that will see us receive the best capability, to provide that capability to the best pilots in the world. We have some participating right now in operation Maple Flag, which is a great chance for Canada to showcase its fighter capability.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, I know the hon. member likes to dig, but the reality is it is clear sailing. We have ships on both coasts, ships that work in the Arctic, ships, as I mentioned earlier, that take part in international exercises.
What is important is that the Canadian Forces and the Canadian navy have sufficient resources to do their job, and that is my job to see that they have the necessary resources.
The Canadian navy will receive more money in its budget this year than it has ever had in its 100 year history, so that is a pretty strong commitment from the Government of Canada. That will allow it to do its important work. It will allow it to continue to shine, to continue to receive the accolades that it so richly deserve.
I know the hon. member will want to join me in praising the navy and supporting it.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, I think there was a direction given, but it has been clarified.
Clearly there was information that did not accurately reflect what was to take place. We now have clarification. We now know that those particular vessels will continue operations. There was a lot of misinformation and a lot of attempts to fan the flames of what was really a made-up scandal or what the Chief of the Defence Staff quite rightly called a tempest in a teapot, or a tempest in a tugboat, perhaps, in this case.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, we are all on the same page. The navy will not be taking ships out of commission or mothballing them or tying them up. There was a lot of miscommunication that went on around this issue.
The reality is the Canadian navy will receive more money this year. In fact, it will receive in excess of $200 million more in this fiscal year. It has seen an increase of its budget since we took office, since 2005, where the expenditures were somewhere in the range of $1 billion. They have now gone to $1.5 billion. This year its expenditures with respect to maintenance will see an increase of $209 million.
The navy has the money necessary to operate, to do what we expect of it, which is an extremely important job. It is able to operate in all three oceans. Vice-Admiral McFadden, the Chief of the Defence Staff and I are all on the same page. The orders are clear. We know the navy will continue to do exceptional work and we will give it the necessary resources.
There are always challenges with respect to having the necessary personnel aboard the ships. We also have challenges with refits that are taking place with regard to the Halifax frigates and the submarines that are in repair. That requires a great deal of coordination for ships that are under repair, ships that are at sea, ongoing missions and expectations both at home and abroad.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, I certainly will provide that information to the member.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, that is until the end of the mission.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, I do not want to belabour the point, but it is in fact a chancellery and it does have input from a number of sources. He is factually incorrect to suggest that it is solely the purview of the Department of National Defence that makes these decisions around medals.
With respect to his question, the all-up costs for the mission are well-known. They have been published. They have been discussed, even in this chamber. The answer is $9.4 billion. That is of course incremental costs. That is the expense that would not have incurred but for the Afghanistan mission. That is in addition to the regular budget that is allotted for the Department of National Defence.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, first, I want to thank my friend for his questions, his attendance here and his ongoing interest in the Canadian Forces. In particular, of course, I know he takes great pride in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. I know he attended the Beaumont-Hamel memorial. He and I have discussed having an appropriate designation or monument built at Gallipoli to also honour our soldiers from the Royal Newfoundland Regiment and others who gave their lives there.
The member's question is about extending back a particular award that was designated in this instance for the Afghanistan mission, and perhaps applying it to other peacekeeping missions, as he referred to them. The short answer is that it not entirely within the purview of the Department of National Defence, and this is not a bureaucratic answer on my part. This is simply to say that awards and recognition medals are done at Rideau Hall, with the overall decision being made in consultation with, but ultimately by, the Governor General.
The member's suggestion that we would extend it further back in time would go against previous practice, which is normally to go back five years. In this instance, we already went outside that time limit, because of the length of the Afghanistan mission, which as we know goes back to 2001.
With regard to that, we always want to recognize the valour, the sacrifice, the contribution of those who served. We attempt to do so appropriately. There have been rare exceptions where we have revisited issues. I know that another contentious one that we have examined is bomber command where, again, we are looking at going back a significant period of time in that case.
These are very sensitive issues, of course, for families and those who sacrificed greatly. We always want to honour them. We always want to look for ways to do so appropriately, and so I know that those involved in this discussion will take his question to heart.