NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 0859

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): Colleagues, I hereby call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

I welcome back again, as he was here yesterday with the minister but is the featured guest and witness today, General Baril. Welcome, sir. You are most welcome here. I will leave it to you to introduce your staff.

• 0900

[Translation]

General Maurice Baril (Chief, Defence Staff, Department of National Defence Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, committee members,

[English]

I'd like to introduce those who are with me this morning. With me are Lieutenant-General Mike Caines, ADM, HR-Mil, which means the head of the human resources, military, in our department; Vice-Admiral Gary Garnett, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff; and Chief Warrant Officer Desserault, the Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer. When he talks to me, he talks on behalf of 48,000 men and women in the regular forces and about 25,000 men and women in the reserve forces, so I listen to him because his office is very close to mine and his advice is very important to me.

[Translation]

I take great pleasure in accepting your invitation today. With the exception of our meeting yesterday, it has been only 11 months since I last appeared before your committee, and yet so much has happened since that time.

[English]

When I was here yesterday, Mr. Chairman, what I heard was music to my ears. It is always nice to see such a high level of non-partisan support for the Canadian Forces, especially when it comes to funding and to ensuring the operational capability of the Canadian Forces of the future, and especially when it concerns the welfare of the men and women who wear the uniform of the Canadian Forces.

[Translation]

In terms of operations, the war in Kosovo marked a turning point in the operational history of the Canadian Forces and NATO. This summer, our disaster relief team was dispatched to Turkey and, more recently, our troops were deployed to East Timor. Once again this year, the men and women of the Canadian Forces were asked to serve the cause of peace and security and to ease the suffering of fellow human beings.

Throughout this entire period, within our own country, we have continued to prepare ourselves for a possible request for assistance from the civilian authorities when the new millennium arrives in a little over a month.

The fact is that the number of men and women currently deployed on foreign missions is at its highest point since the Korean war nearly 50 years ago. You will often hear us say that the operational tempo we have had to maintain since the end of the Cold War is unprecedented. And the 4,400 or so men and women currently deployed overseas offer unequivocal proof of this fact.

[English]

The government's recent announcement on troop rationalization in the Balkans was certainly welcome to all of us. This initiative, which has the support of our NATO allies, will give us greater operational flexibility and will save money while still maintaining our long-standing commitment to stability in the Balkans. From a military perspective this makes sense.

As you can see, the demands on the Canadian Forces' resources are certainly not diminishing, and given the government's stated intention in the throne speech to make a notable contribution to the cause of human security in the world, I think we can expect to be called upon again and again.

From a CF perspective, the business of providing human security frequently involves complex and dangerous military operations. Much has changed in recent years on the international scene and things will continue to change, but, as was the case in Kosovo, if you want to be involved in providing human security you would be well advised to have the capability to use force, including military force, in your tool kit.

As the Minister of National Defence stated yesterday, “soft power” and “hard power” are not either/or propositions. Both make critical contributions to the human security agenda, often as two sides of the same coin. Diplomacy in pursuit of human rights or the prevention of humanitarian catastrophes sometimes needs to be backed up by military capability. This we have seen most recently in Kosovo.

The demands placed on our men and women in uniform have also not lessened. Providing for the well-being of the Canadian Forces members is key to our future success. I know there is no need to convince you of that fact. Your quality of life report clearly demonstrates that you understand the many challenges of being a member of the Canadian Forces.

Your report has been most instrumental in helping us focus on a number of key initiatives. Much has been accomplished since the government's response was tabled in the House of Commons in March of this year.

[Translation]

To date, we have completed the implementation of 24 recommendations. And next week, you will be receiving a detailed progress report that will provide some facts on the current state of the program.

• 0905

[English]

Allow me to take a few moments to go through the main elements of our interim report. On the issue of pay, significant pay raises were achieved, particularly for entry-level ranks and non-commissioned members, primarily as a result of an increase in the military factor that recognized the unique conditions of military life and the restoration of pay comparability with the public service.

For those serving in the reserves, on top of pay raises, major improvements will be made in pay services. Special leave measures have also been implemented to facilitate deployment, relocation, and family-related issues.

In the area of care for the injured, a combined DND-Veterans Affairs centre was opened in April of this year to provide information and assistance to injured retired members and their families. We are making progress in ongoing negotiations with provincial governments, industry and the Public Service Commission for the priority hiring of injured or disabled former service members. A priority hiring status with the Public Service Commission is already available for Canadian Forces members who are injured or who became disabled while deployed to a special duty area. We are now working toward expanding the definition of special duty area to include the pre-deployment training period in Canada. Beyond that, changes to various insurance plans will improve benefits for disabled participants with long-term disability coverage who are medically released from the service.

Together with Veterans Affairs, we are pursuing changes to the Pension Act to provide benefits, from the date of application, to Canadian Forces members disabled by service-related injuries, regardless of where they served, in Canada or abroad. We are also working with our U.S. colleagues toward improving the services offered to serving members and their families and to our new generation of veterans who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

On the military family support side, military family resource centres have been given the mandate and resources to better support reservists and augmentees to UN operations and peacekeeping operations. The centres also offer spousal employment counselling and assistance and provide full emergency child care for up to 72 hours, with assistance for a follow-on period. A pilot second-language training program for spouses has begun in selected locations and will be followed by a second pilot program early next year.

In August we held a national youth seminar to hear directly from the children of military families about their concerns. We will use what they told us to develop and deliver better youth programs within the mandate of the Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency.

We are pressing on within the transition, or work expectations, pillar. Contingency cost moves are now available for those who may not qualify for compassionate posting but who nevertheless deserve consideration. We have also created an honours and awards website, available on both the Internet and the DND intranet, which explains which awards are available, the criteria, and how to apply for them.

[Translation]

The initiative to create a Reserve pension plan has been incorporated into the review program for all federal government retirement plans. The review will specifically address the issue of introducing an appropriate pension plan for reservists. We are in the process of selecting a pension consulting company to develop and recommend suitable options to establish a Reserve pension plan.

However, I will not hide from you the fact that certain initiatives have not been implemented, mainly because their implementation depends on the injection of substantial additional amounts of money, not available within the current budget. And among these are the more complex measures and the one that our soldiers had the greatest hopes for. I am speaking here of the introduction of a regional cost-of-living allowance and a program for improving CF housing.

[English]

While we recognize the hardships that may be imposed on Canadian Forces members and their families as a result of regional cost of living differences, the establishment of a non-taxable global cost of living allowance is not in keeping with current government policy. As an alternative, we have developed a compensation mechanism that we now call the post living differential, which addresses the net after-tax regional differences in cost of living in Canada. Its implementation of course is subject to approval by the government.

• 0910

Regarding the housing program, we are fully committed to ensuring that Canadian Forces members have access to suitable accommodation. In June 1999 we issued a DND accommodation policy that reaffirmed that commitment. We have also put in place a more effective process for responding to housing-related emergencies, and $40 million was reallocated internally this fiscal year specifically to address remedial health and safety repairs in our housing inventory.

However, more needs to be done to address the long-term evolution of funding of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency to allow it to enter into innovative financing arrangements and to permit it to rationalize and recapitalize our remaining housing.

[Translation]

The message I wish to deliver to you this morning regarding the implementation of the quality-of-life program for the CF members is quite clear: we have reached the limits of our resources. Without an influx of new financial resources, the implementation of the cost-of-living initiative and the program to improve CF housing will go nowhere. These two projects are equally important to us as pay increases. If nothing gets done, senior military leaders and the Government of Canada will be the target of criticism by CF troops who will feel abandoned.

This fiscal year alone, the government has allocated an additional $175 million in order to implement this program. Within DND, we have redistributed a total of $341 million—suspending other priority programs—to finance the quality of life program.

We have done our part. In all, for the fiscal years from 1998- 99 to 2002-2003, nearly $1.8 billion will be redistributed within DND to ensure the implementation of quality-of-life initiatives. Even if it were technically feasible to transfer more funds from our current Defence budget to quality-of-life initiatives, the undertaking would be futile. Our current Defence budget is under considerable pressure, especially in the areas of equipment, infrastructure, operations and training. Any further budget withdrawals aimed at paying the bill for quality of life would have immediate consequences: they would hurt our equipment programs, our operations, our training, and the morale of our soldiers. Ultimately, if we do not succeed in striking the right balance among equipment, education and training, leadership, and quality of life, the operational effectiveness of the CF will be placed at risk. Canadian Forces members and their families will pay the price that risk brings.

This is why we are pursuing the reform process begun in 1997 and continuing our efforts to rationalize our resources. However, the effects of repeated budget cutbacks and the brisk pace of operations we have maintained in recent years are beginning to take their toll.

Given such an environment, the importance of having a clear strategy cannot be underestimated. Thus, in June of this year, we published a document entitled Shaping the Future of the Canadian Forces: A Strategy for 2020, commonly referred to as the 2020 strategy. This paper translates into clear objectives the mission assigned us by the Canadian government in the 1994 Defence White Paper. By focussing our attention on the future, the 2020 strategy will help us ensure that the financial resources we have at our disposal are wisely spent.

[English]

Strategy 2020 will help us position the Canadian Forces to provide Canada with modern, task-tailored, and globally deployable combat-capable forces that can respond quickly at home and abroad and in a wide variety of operations.

Making this happen in a viable, achievable, and affordable manner will be the greatest challenge facing us over the next two decades. In that vein, in order to avoid burning out the army and field support personnel, it is vital to fully integrate the militia into one army where all are employable at various tasks and to varying degrees.

In summary, much has been achieved as a result of your study of the quality of life of the Canadian Forces members and the government commitment to implement the accepted recommendations. However, the remaining initiative, one seen by the troops and myself as equally important to pay increases, requires additional resources and funding for the departmental budget.

• 0915

[Translation]

So I am asking for your support. It is an undeniable fact that the Canadian Forces play a central role in the affairs of this country. They are the instrument of the government's will every time we want to improve international security. Today, we are asking for your help and the help of the Canadian people in pursuing our mission. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have displayed exceptional dedication and professionalism. We cannot give up on them halfway through. They deserve nothing less than a quality of life that equals the service they give to Canada and the international community.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, General Baril.

Before we go to questions, I would simply tell you that as the chair of this committee I very much welcome your opening statement. I am very impressed with your directness, with your candour. As we say in English, you're telling it like it is. I think on both sides of this table you have the unanimous agreement for the request for additional resources that you and the Canadian Forces need.

If my colleagues agree—I am sure they will and I hope they will—I would ask you to pass on to the Canadian Forces the congratulations of this committee for the tremendous work they do, in particular those whose lives are at risk on mission overseas. Please pass on the congratulations and the thanks of this committee and the Canadian people and the expression of the pride we have in the work they do. I don't say that to be trite, but I think sometimes as politicians we forget that maybe it's not a bad thing to actually thank the people who work every day on behalf of this country, in this case the Canadian Forces but also, in other cases, other people.

If it is helpful at all to you, sir, to express those views, I would be happy to write to you on that basis. I know the committee would agree that we would seriously ask you to convey our sincere intention as a committee to do everything we can from both sides of the table to help secure additional funding and reinvesting in the Canadian Forces.

I really thank you for your opening comments. They were very direct, candid, and useful. I appreciate that.

We will start with our first round of questioning. I recall for colleagues, because I hate to be rushing a witness or the colleagues, that it is seven minutes for questions and answers. So you may want to factor that in when you ask your questions.

Mr. Hart, we will start with you.

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Thank you very much, and welcome. I also appreciated the comments. I hope your comments are stronger to the cabinet and the Liberal government, because I still don't believe the Government of Canada has the message that we are losing our combat capability. Although you've fallen short of saying that, I certainly read into this message that the Canadian Armed Forces are in a serious situation right now in losing their combat capability.

Many other people would argue the same point. Professor Jockel, in his recent book The Canadian Military: Hard Choices, Soft Power, argues that old equipment, insufficient training, and a shortage of troops have left the Canadian army incapable of meeting one of the main goals set out in the defence white paper to have a combat-ready brigade that can be sent overseas in the event of a war.

Yesterday, General Baril, you stated that a Sea King pilot was able to drop a torpedo. You indicated that was being combat-capable. I would argue that 40 hours of maintenance for one hour of flight to drop that torpedo certainly means we are not as combat-capable as we should be. In fact I would argue that platform is not combat-capable at all and it's putting at risk our airmen who have to fly such a mission.

I would ask you why, in your comments yesterday and even today, you fell short of actually addressing the issue of combat capability and the fact that even in the internal documents 77% of the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces feel the equipment they have is not combat-capable. That is very serious, in my view, and I think other experts around the world would argue that Canada is losing, or has lost already, its combat capability.

• 0920

Gen Maurice Baril: I guess the one who is at the receiving end of a torpedo dropped from one of our helicopters wouldn't care too much if we put 28 hours or 48 hours of maintenance on it.

Having said that, I think it would be highly dishonest of me to stand in front of this committee, or in front of the press, and say that we have no combat capability, that we have less combat capability than we had 10 years ago, or say that we are lacking training, because it's not true. We probably have the most experienced leaders in the Canadian Forces that I have seen in a long time, at all levels, from corporals to me. Most of us have commanded in operations at the rank we are wearing. It hasn't happened for a long time in the Canadian Forces that we have had such experienced leadership, leadership that you see in operation in Kosovo, Bosnia, and some 20 other countries, leadership that is in great demand by a great many countries.

Somebody—I won't tell you who it was—asked me why the Canadian Forces have such a great reputation. I had never been asked that question before, and I was kind of taken aback. I said, I don't know, but it's a fact of life, and it's a reputation that's kind of nice to have but also very heavy to carry, because when we go somewhere, we're expected to be very good. We are expected to lead and we're expected to make things happen. That's why we are in such great demand.

But at the same time as I tell you the way the Canadian Forces are, that they're very competent and very capable, I have to say that they have limitations. You're telling me that the white paper says we have to deploy the brigade group—the brigade group and much more than that. It would be about a 10,000-person organization, air, sea and land. The army portion would be about 6,000, which is a pretty heavy brigade group.

As I said yesterday, would it take 99 days or 101 days to deploy? I'm not quite sure. I don't where it is we would go, to do what, and what kind of training we would have to have, and maybe improve some of our equipment. Maybe we would have to share it with some of our allies, and we don't know who we would go with. But I think we have to be honest and recognize what the forces are doing, what they are doing it with, and what we're trying to do, at the same time agreeing that it will be very difficult to move into the future. I have to take care of the forces and the tasks that are given to us today, tomorrow, and in five years, ten years and twenty years from now.

It would be very easy for me and the vice-chief to muddle through the financial hardship we're facing, not rock the boat too much, retire, and leave it to somebody else behind us to fix. I think that would be highly unprofessional. We're trying to fill and fulfil the task the best we can and engage the Canadian Forces toward the future so that they can be relevant to the battlefield and to the task our country wants us to accomplish.

Mr. Jim Hart: With the revolution in military affairs, are we really relevant now with our antiquated equipment?

You said yesterday and again today that we have about 4,400 deployed, the most ever for quite some time. We also have the millennium coming up. If the Canadian Forces were asked to deploy another 5,000 personnel, could we do that? I don't think we could.

Gen Maurice Baril: Do you mean, with the millennium coming up, deploy 5,000 people in Canada or outside?

Mr. Jim Hart: Outside Canada.

Gen Maurice Baril: We would see what the reason to deploy outside would be—

Mr. Jim Hart: How many could we deploy?

Gen Maurice Baril: —and a recommendation would be made to the government as to what we could provide. We just don't go into the bin and get 5,000 people out. Would it be navy, air force, army, or a combination of all three? How much time would we have? Can you call in the reserve at that time? What would be the direction of the country?

I am not the one who decides whether we deploy 5,000 people or not. It's the Government of Canada, not me.

Mr. Jim Hart: But there has been a great deal of preparation for the millennium. There was a piece on the news last night saying that Canadian Forces personnel and systems are standing by to monitor the world. Then we must know how many we would be able to deploy if something happened.

• 0925

Gen Maurice Baril: You will certainly understand, regarding the Y2K contingency plan, that our department and all the other departments of the federal government and also the provinces and territories are involved in the protection of our country first. This is where the priority is going at this time.

DND is involved in the coordination of all the contingency planning we do. All the Canadian Forces weapon systems, command and control systems, and transportation systems are Y2K compliant, and we are ready to go. We have done all the training. The final preparations for the regular reserves are taking place. You probably saw it in the newspaper over the weekend. We are in communities all over the place, not only to train but to demystify what we are about to do.

We are preparing for the very worst and we are hoping for the very best. We hope we will not have to use our troops in Canada, but we are ready to do it—not only to use them in all the communities, but at the same time to move our strategic reserves across the nation if so required.

As far as outside our country is concerned, to go to help other countries will be a national decision. We don't know what will happen in other countries—I hope nothing—related to Y2K or any other disaster. If it is a disaster, we have resources that we can make available. We've done it twice in the past 13 months.

Mr. Jim Hart: How many?

Gen Maurice Baril: It would depend on what the task is.

The Chair: Mr. Hart, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, you have seven minutes.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): General, when the Minister appeared before us yesterday, I tried to go into some depth on the issue of the Canadian Armed Forces' future direction. I would like to bring up the same topic with you today, because in your brief you state that your resources are stretched to the maximum and that the only way to improve quality of life for CF members is to inject more funds.

We always hear that more funds are needed. I know that this issue as such is not under your purview. You receive orders from the government, and try to carry them out. Assuming that the government agreed to reassess the army's mandate, as it were, would we then be able to fulfil our obligations as a government playing a secondary role in overseas operations? Would we be able to fulfil those obligations with the light equipment we have today?

I am referring to an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. According to a military analyst, the $140 million we spent upgrading our Leopard tanks was a total waste, because their purpose was to bring them up to par with the Russian T-72 assault tanks. The analyst felt it was very unlikely we would ever have to face assault tanks like the Russian T-72S, and that the upgrade was unrealistic in the context of today's theatre of operations. The equipment was upgraded to something we longer need today.

I'd like to have your views on that. Would we have enough equipment if we were to reevaluate our intervention orientations?

Gen Maurice Baril: It's not up to me to decide if Canada wants to sit in the back seat of the international influence vehicle.

Mr. René Laurin: General, that's not the purpose of my question. I understand full well that's not your role. You are there to obey the orders you're given.

My question has more to do with an evaluation of the equipment. Would our present equipment allow us to play a major secondary role in those missions rather than a primary role? In Kosovo, we needed six months to deploy our equipment before it was operational in the field. We saw in the newspaper accounts that as of the time we took the decision to intervene it took six months for us to prepare.

Shouldn't we think of fulfilling our role in a different manner and, if so, would we have enough adequate equipment to face our obligations?

Gen Maurice Baril: You say my role is to obey government.

• 0930

My role is also to make recommendations to the government—

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, of course.

Gen Maurice Baril: —in matters of the nation's defence and security and at the international level. I'm not doing this job alone as this is done through teamwork at the political and military levels. We thus manage to improve our judgment and we're in a position to help the government to exercise its national and international policies. The Canadian Forces are also part of its international policy.

You ask me if we would be in a position to play any role anywhere. If the Canadian government were to decide tomorrow morning that it would no longer intervene anywhere, for whatever reason, we wouldn't need forces with a deployment capability anymore. Our recommendations are based on the White Paper on defence which is very clear and we need the means we already have as well as the ones we'd like to have to respond to the document.

I think you're mainly alluding to the slowness of our means and our capacity. In my opinion, all the world's armies try to have flexible, swift, very murderous and very precise means whether dealing with combat platforms on sea, in air or on land, which give the governments of this world the flexibility necessary to decide to intervene or not at an acceptable price in terms of human and financial resources.

We're advancing in that direction. Everyone would like to have robot systems that allow us to eliminate the danger of loss of human life and which would be an extension of our country's foreign policy. This is an extremely interesting subject for discussion that you've raised. It directly touches upon the role our country wants to play on the international scene.

It is up to me to give Canada the tools necessary to play this role on the international scene. As was mentioned yesterday, the tanks we've just upgraded will be able to deal successfully with the T-72s.

Mr. René Laurin: I'm not the one who said that.

Gen Maurice Baril: Although some have criticisms concerning those upgrades, we shouldn't forget that T-72s or equivalent equipment are probably less than two hours away from our troops in Kosovo. They're right on the other side of the border. These are the tanks that we took out using our planes and precision bombs. They're still there and winter is coming.

I feel rather reassured when I see that my allies who are there with us in the field have tanks that can defend against the T-72s and that we, the Canadians, are in the same position and that our F-18s in Aviano can intervene within the coalition. For our soldier getting shot at, it doesn't matter that Canada plays a first or second-level role, or whether there's soft power, hard power, or whatever power. For him, it's war.

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, but our intervention in East Timor wasn't the same kind as what we did in Kosovo.

Gen Maurice Baril: No.

Mr. René Laurin: But we did play an important role there. If we had played a similar role in Kosovo as the one we're playing in East Timor rather than a first-level role, would it have cost us less?

Gen Maurice Baril: In East Timor, the threat was passably different and we got in there as a second line with New Zealand and a bit behind the Australians. We shouldn't forget that the agreement provided that Indonesia would withdraw its troops. We expected to fight and we were ready to do it. Fortunately, it wasn't necessary.

In Kosovo, the threat was extremely important and there were bombings during 93 days. When we went in, we didn't know the nature of the threat we were facing. So we had to expect the worst and provide for heavy intervention. Canada has the capability for lighter interventions, as was the case in East Timor, or heavier ones as happened in ex-Yugoslavia and more specifically in Kosovo.

Our battalion in Bosnia is extremely powerful, we can't have a light force in the Balkans at this point. We absolutely have to have heavy troops, first to exercise the necessary dissuasion to be able to implement the peace plan and secondly to defend ourselves and impose our will if necessary.

The Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

• 0935

[English]

Now, I would never snub my friend Mrs. Wayne, but the rules now call for me to come to this side and then come back to that side. So now we come to the majority side, and I have three names in total for seven minutes, colleagues, so judge yourselves accordingly.

I have Mr. Pratt, Mr. Bertrand, and then Mr. Wood.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was interested in your comments, General, with respect to the national youth summit that you convened with the children of military families. It strikes me as a very interesting way to gather information and to get to the heart of the matter, as it were, because kids will tell you things that their parent won't.

Gen Maurice Baril: Yes.

Mr. David Pratt: I think it is safe to say that when we went out to the bases during the quality of life study, we got some very frank opinions from the members of the Canadian Forces we spoke to, so I can imagine that you got even more frank views from the children of the parents we spoke to.

Can you share with us some of the general thrust of the comments you heard?

Gen Maurice Baril: First of all, I am with you; I think it is a great idea. Second, I cannot claim having that great idea; it was given by somebody else. But I am a parent too. We have thousands of children on our bases across Canada, and we feel the same as any other parents.

I think it is a great idea, and I will ask my head of personnel to talk about it. Otherwise I will drag out General Popowych, who was probably the one who thought about it.

Lieutenant-General V.M. Caines (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources—Military, Department of National Defence Canada): General, I think Colonel Poulter has some details on the actual findings.

Gen Maurice Baril: Colonel Ian Poulter is the project director for the complete quality of life implementation project that we have.

The Chair: Thank you.

Welcome, sir.

Colonel Ian C. Poulter (Director, Quality of Life Project, Department of National Defence Canada): Sir, I attended the final day of the national youth summit in August. It was approximately a week-long event. We invited the youth selected by their communities across all our bases, including people from Europe. They were very positive about having the youth summit. They were very positive about being able to contribute to the family life and to the support of families.

The main themes they had were these: They would prefer to see consistent support at each of our bases. Some of our bases have been affected differently in the way reductions have been made over the last few years. They would like to see some consistency as they travel from place to place with their families. They would like the opportunity to go with their families to look at the new locations as and when the mothers or the fathers go to find new accommodation, etc.

That has been accommodated in our policies, and they are exceptionally pleased about that. We are looking at ways, with General Popowych and his organization, to standardize support programs for the youth across the board.

Mr. David Pratt: What were the ages of the children consulted?

Col Ian Poulter: As I understand it, they were anywhere from 13 to 18—teenagers and pre-teenagers to a certain extent.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The other question I have is with respect to a kind of amorphous concept, the concept of influence with our allies.

General, we see on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen this morning: “World's new power group doesn't include Canada”. Could you give me your view, based upon our defence spending over the last 10 years, on whether our influence is increasing, waning, or remaining about the same within NATO?

Gen Maurice Baril: On the one hand, it is difficult for me to judge, because I have been involved in the NATO circle for about four years and I have been involved outside the NATO circle quite a bit from the United Nations point of view.

I don't think it has gone down, because every country in NATO has been cut and slashed and reduced. Every country we deal with within NATO, the Partnership for Peace, and the other countries in Europe that are not part of NATO, all have the same hardships. Many of those countries went from conscript armies to volunteer armies. They have realized the cost of personnel, the cost of human resources that they have to devote, just as we have all the time.

• 0940

I think the influence of our country, not only in the NATO circle but in the world, from what I have seen from very close since 1992, has not diminished. That is my humble opinion. With the resources we are providing and the experience and also the willingness of our country to step in and get involved, and the quality of the people we have involved not only in many countries but in headquarters, more are in demand than I can provide. If I had another 10 generals, I would probably have them deployed in many NATO headquarters in Europe or in some of the UN missions. We are in great demand.

My humble point of view is, no, it has not diminished at all. We are looked at very well. They are always after us for more resources. They are after us for our experience to work on committees. That is simply the way I see it. What else can I say?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): General, I'd like to come back to the text of your speech where you say that a non-taxable high cost-of-living allowance does not conform to the government's present policy. I think I understood you to say that you had suggested another solution. In other words, a high cost-of-living allowance based on postings that would take into account the regional differences in the cost of living, after taxes, on our national territory. Where are you at with this new proposal? How could the committee help you implement it?

Gen Maurice Baril: I'll ask Lieutenant-General Caines to answer your question.

Lgen V.M. Caines: Mr. Chairman, we polled 85% of the places where our personnel is posted with a view to identifying specifically the cost-of-living differences, taking into account numerous factors such as taxes, transportation and housing. These data go back a year already. We are getting ready to hire other researchers to complete this study and get the data on all places where our personnel is posted and try to update our data bank. We will then present these data internally, following the usual procedure, and will submit them to committees to get their support. We are also undertaking consultations with different government agencies to obtain the necessary authorization to implement this program.

You asked us how your committee could help. Would you like to say a few words, General? We would greatly appreciate you showing your support publicly. Your recommendations, a year ago, did represent an initial response and were the basis of all the work we're doing to move this matter along.

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Will I get a turn in the second round?

The Chairman: Of course.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to put more questions.

[English]

The Chair: We will have a second round, of course, and I will put you back on the list, Monsieur Bertrand, and Mr. Wood as well.

Now we go back to the opposition side of the table and Mrs. Wayne for seven minutes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General, I guess you are quite aware that I have been very worried about the situation when it comes to helicopters, and I will briefly tell you why. I have had a number of calls from parents of the pilots who have had to use the helicopters. One person in particular was a pilot himself who flew the Sea Kings, and his son was killed in one of the Sea Kings. So it tugs at my heart when I see that they are still there.

General, my understanding is that you have signed off and approved the statement of requirement for the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. You've done that. Could you just tell me if that is accurate? That's what I've been told: that you have signed off, that you have said yes to the replacement. Can you tell me what is the delay in implementing that maritime helicopter replacement program at this time? Is it strictly funds? Is that what it is?

• 0945

Gen Maurice Baril: I will ask the vice-chief. The vice-chief is the resource manager in the forces and the statement of requirement comes out of the project management board.

Vice-Admiral Gary L. Garnett (Vice-Chief, Defence Staff, Department of National Defence Canada): Mrs. Wayne, the process internally in the department for a statement of requirement comes through committees that I chair. So we're talking within the Department of National Defence, and indeed in terms of the process, which includes a review by a joint oversight committee, I have signed that statement of requirement as our process having been completed.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I see, yes.

VAdm Gary Garnett: That then goes to the procurement process, which is not within the department but is indeed much wider than just DND, and that's where the statement of requirement now lies, for government and for senior bureaucrats, including a variety of departments, to proceed to a public announcement.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I know all of you at the head table are familiar with the Conference of Defence Associations and their recent presentation to the finance committee. Do you believe the CDA's interpretation was an exaggeration when they said that you need $500 million and that the armed forces—and I think it was just the army they were referring to at the time—was collapsing? Could you address that statement?

Gen Maurice Baril: You specifically said “if they were exaggerating” in two ways. As for whether they were exaggerating about the requirement for the added funds that we have, it can be debated for a long time. But the higher it is, the better it is for us.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

Gen Maurice Baril: In terms of using the word “collapsing”, certainly if there are no new funds, a pretty hard decision will have to be taken for affordability in the future. When this happens, you have to take a hard decision if there are no extra funds coming in. Doing business in every part of the world today is increasing. The cost of human resources is very high. If we want to attract and keep the best people Canada can offer to us and to the industry, we have to compete and we have to pay for them and pay very dearly.

So it's always a combination of what we do with the resources we have, that we spread in equipment, training, leadership and in taking care of our people, and it is very difficult. But the word “collapsing” is attracting a lot of attention, and I think that was the idea of it, and I thank them for attracting the attention of all Canadians to the difficulty that their defence department has.

Vice-Chief, do you want to add something?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Have you put a figure on what you would like to see in the next budget? Have you addressed that? Is it $500 million you want or is it $1 billion more? Have you set the target for the next budget of what you like us—you can't fight for it, we can fight for it—to fight for?

Gen Maurice Baril: Very detailed work is going on, not only in our department but with other agencies in the federal government, to do exactly that: determine what is required for the forces to be affordable for the future for the long term. We just cannot have a forces for which we're going to close the book for this year but next year we're going to be choked again. I think we have to look at the long term.

What is required is an infusion of cash into the department. What has to be done inside also is to make ourselves more efficient, to make sure we keep only the core requirement we have. And I think it is a combination of the two: new money coming in, and our being more efficient and making sure we do only what is required, no more than that, and in the best way possible.

The minister would not come out with a number, and I also don't think it would be fair to say a number today that would be attached to the process. There is no final number as yet.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: My understanding is that yesterday in the Senate there was a debate, and it was stated yesterday that they apparently have a copy of a document that says the Sea King helicopter replacement will not be in place now until the year 2015. In fact I have a copy of it here somewhere. With that, first we were told it was 2005. Yesterday we were told it was 2008, and we were worried about the 2005 and 2008 because they're taking the Sea Kings out for the year 2005 and then we weren't getting a replacement until 2008. That was three years without any helicopters. Now we are told it's the year 2015. Is that correct, sir?

• 0950

Gen Maurice Baril: Yesterday 2008 was mentioned here, now 2013. The minister said it will be 2005.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That means I have to run again to make sure he does that.

Gen Maurice Baril: The only real answer will be known when our pilots are flying them off the decks of our ships. Then we'll know for sure.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, off the frigates that were built in the city of Saint John. Yes, they were built there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm glad the general stated that, because the minister was quite clear on his target date of 2005 for the new helicopters.

General, I want to inquire about your time. I'd like to have a second round of questions, but must you leave at 10 o'clock?

Gen Maurice Baril: I am co-chairing, with the deputy minister, the research and development board, the outside advisory board that comes into town once a year.

The Chair: I understand that. We did have a chance for some questions yesterday.

Colleagues, in light of that, I'm going to say there will be one brief question for each member, because the general has to leave at 10 o'clock. He is always quite accessible, and if necessary, I know he would return to the committee. I'm going to ask for a brief—please underline brief—question from each side, as our process calls for.

I will start with Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart: There are so many questions to ask. With one question, I will refer to some of the things I heard you say this morning. One of them was that you make recommendations to the government. Another was that the government would have to make some hard decisions if we don't get our budget increased for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Can you explain and develop that a little more? What do you mean by “hard decisions”? To me, that means we could be talking about maybe in the navy losing our TRUMP destroyers, or it could mean losing more CF-18s. It could mean losing more combat capability in our Canadian Armed Forces. What exactly does “hard decisions” mean if we don't get the budget increased by $2 billion?

Gen Maurice Baril: Now we have $2 billion.

Mr. Jim Hart: I thought I'd throw that figure in and see how you'd react.

Gen Maurice Baril: It certainly means that we have to go into places where there is money available. Money is available by reducing fleets of airplanes, reducing the number of ships that are sailing and the amount of heavy equipment that the land force is operating. It means going to outside industry to give us the service that we're providing in-house now if it is cheaper to do it. It means closing some of the infrastructure we have across the land. It means looking at restructuring the reserve. It means looking at the number of people we have serving in the regular force. It means looking everywhere.

Mr. Jim Hart: It means the end of the military.

Gen Maurice Baril: It means looking at very innovative ways, such as the NATO flying training centre, where we get involved with industry and our allies to cut the costs of training our pilots, which is extremely expensive. I think we have to open every drawer and every door of the Canadian Forces to see what we can do to still maintain and provide to our country the best defence in our country and also the best capability that can be used by our government outside the country.

That's why I say they are very difficult exercises, difficult decisions to take, but I don't think we can delay them. It would not be honest to delay it. We have to have the forces that are capable of being projected into the future in an affordable way.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I have a question, General, on the shuttle. I'd like an update.

The Germans have obviously decided to leave and do their training at home. In my mind, that leaves a bit of a void in our NATO training procedures, because we interact with these people all the time. We're out of Europe, so we don't have that playing for us any more. I wonder how that deals with our capability of interacting with our NATO forces.

I understand, and rumour has it... There are many rumours floating around the military, as you know. If you don't hear one by 10 a.m., start one. So I'll start one, being an old air force guy. To fill the void, military people are thinking of moving some of the troops from Winnipeg to Shilo. Is that true, false, or whatever?

• 0955

Gen Maurice Baril: I never confirm rumours.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon. member: —

Gen Maurice Baril: We'll open the bids.

It's unfortunate that the German forces will, it appears, be leaving Shilo. We heard it not through rumours; they informed us that they were looking at it. They are going through a defence review in their country. For them it's expensive to train in Canada even though it's probably some of the best training they are doing in their army. I understand they are close to a decision on whether they will stay or leave. The government has not officially taken the decision.

In the meantime, it's only prudent for us to look at all the options. The option that you mentioned is, I am sure, being studied by the vice-chief.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, do you have any questions?

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, I have a couple of small ones, Mr. Chairman.

Generally, if we wanted to summarize the army's present situation, would you agree to say that, without any supplementary funds being added to the National Defence budget, the Canadian army wouldn't be able to adequately respond to the government's expectations?

I would like your comments on a news item which appeared on television this morning. Apparently some of the weapons from Somalia which were used during the war have disappeared mysteriously.

Gen Maurice Baril: In reply to your first question, I would say that if Defence costs, such as those for personnel, equipment, etc., continue to rise over the next few years, the government should probably examine what it wants to do with Defence. For the time being, I can tell you that we are able to meet the requirements of our defence policy.

Mr. René Laurin: Adequately?

Gen Maurice Baril: Yes. As far as your second question is concerned, I heard this news late yesterday evening. These events go back six years, I believe. If I remember correctly, it was in 1993.

Unfortunately, I have not had the time to study this matter in depth, but you should know that all these reports which are resurfacing are the subject of an investigation by our military police in co-operation with other police agencies, because the importing of illegal weapons is a very serious offence. I believe that this story refers to at most 20 or so weapons which are alleged to have disappeared. They were brought back to Canada to be sent to various museums, which very often happens when our soldiers return after a war. We have adopted a very strict policy with regard to bringing back war souvenirs. No member of the Canadian Forces is allowed to bring back war souvenirs. It is a question of respecting not only the policies and regulations of National Defence, but also the laws of the country. Returning weapons which are still operational is an extremely complex procedure. It would appear that there has been a breakdown somewhere, and we are looking into the facts.

I want to say that we did not launch an investigation because of the news reported on television yesterday. We have been looking into this matter for some time.

The Chairman: Thank you, General.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Monsieur Bertrand, une question, s'il vous plaît, then Mrs. Wayne, and then we'll be done.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

My question is for General Caines. I would just like to come back to the new COLA clause again. General Baril was mentioning that it is subject to approval by the government. I think “approval by the government” means approval by Treasury Board. Has there been a meeting with Treasury Board to talk about this new COLA clause?

LGen V.M. Caines: Mr. Chairman, we have started negotiations with Treasury Board on the COLA clause.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: What has their reaction been? Are they open...

LGen V.M. Caines: My initial indications are that they're quite impressed with the methodology we have engaged because it has in fact put more order in something we were doing in a much more ad hoc fashion under our current accommodation assistance allowances, the ones you've commented negatively on. Where we go from there, we're not sure. The negotiation process has started.

[Translation]

The Chairman: A very short question.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

• 1000

[English]

I have to be honest with you, because when I asked you a while ago what this committee could do to help you out, you said

[Translation]

which you could apply publicly.

[English]

But I think this is one case where the committee would be able to help you out on this particular clause with Treasury Board.

LGen V.M. Caines: Thank you. My reaction to your question was perhaps a reflection of my own ignorance of how committee structure works within government, so if you could help us out that way, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

The last question goes to Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Admiral Garnett, I forgot to ask you just when you signed on or agreed to the statement of requirement. How long ago was it?

VAdm Gary Garnett: I am sure it's an accessible document. If my memory serves me correctly, it was just prior to the summer, I believe, so it was late June or early July.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

I just have another quick question. Is the department planning for or contemplating reductions to our naval service fleet in the near future? That's the rumour that's out there as well—that we're going to cut back.

Gen Maurice Baril: As I said through a previous question, we're looking at every capability we have to make sure we can live within the resources we have.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Right. Okay, then, I don't have a thing to worry about. HMCS Brunswicker, which has just built—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I can go back and tell them that. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne is a proud defender of Atlantic Canada, and we love her for it.

General and staff, thank you very much for attending today and for the very candid remarks and the answers to the questions.

There is just one request from the committee. There are very good questions from our researchers that we didn't have an opportunity to pose. You have them. We would request a written response to the committee clerk when you have an opportunity. Thank you very much.

Gen Maurice Baril: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, I am available whenever you wish me to come back.

The Chair: We appreciate that. Thank you, sir.

Colleagues, we have three other matters of business, all important. Would you like a short recess here for a couple of minutes?

We will take a recess for a minute or two.

• 1002

• 1008

The Chair: Colleagues, first of all, I was really impressed with General Baril's remarks. I think we all were.

I was also impressed with the questions. It's a little frustrating as chair to have to tell colleagues they only have seven minutes with somebody who is that important, but I'm just the guy in the striped shirt with the whistle who is trying to caution you to get in all the questions you can. I thought we had some good questions.

He indicated afterwards that he was very pleased with the committee discussion today and that he was counting on us to keep the message going. He was also very interested in returning at any time we need him to return.

Point of order, Monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I would like to make a brief observation, Mr. Chairman. I find it totally unacceptable that we call in the General of the Canadian Armed Forces to answer our questions and that we have him with us for only an hour. We only meet with him once a year. In view of the number of members asking him questions, I find it deplorable that he is only here for an hour.

[English]

The Chair: I understand, but I don't agree that we only have him once a year. I just said—and maybe the translation didn't pick it up on time, so I'll say it again—that he indicated he's willing to come here as often as we need him to be here.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: That is what he said the last time, and it is nine months since he has appeared before us. This is hardly overdoing it. I am not saying that it is his fault.

The Chairman: Yes, but

[English]

the committee did not invite him—

An hon. member: Mr. Chair, on a point of order—

The Chair: Just a second, please.

The committee didn't invite him back since the last time he was here. If we want him here more often, we, as a committee, must request that. In the time I have chaired the committee, he has never turned down a request to appear. It's just that he has a very important committee to chair. We had some time with him yesterday and an hour today. He has duties that we want him to perform. He will come back. I leave it to my colleagues here. When you feel it's necessary to have him back, let me know and I will ask the clerk to invite him.

• 1010

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: In any case, Mr. Chairman, our committee was supposed to sit until 11 o'clock this morning. It should have been possible for the General to continue answering our questions right up to the end of the meeting at 11 o'clock.

[English]

The Chair: No, we're meeting until 11 o'clock, but—

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Just a minute Mr. Peric, I am already entertaining a point of order. I can only take one point of order at a time. I know how to chair a meeting.

Mr. Janko Peric: There is a subcommittee, and one committee can discuss that business—

The Chair: Yes, but I have one point of order that is in order, and I have to deal with it. We're just getting some facts straight here.

It was known by the general that we had him for an hour because of other duties. The committee agenda is in front of you. It states that the work of the committee is from 10 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. There are three other matters. It's not as if we've got nothing to do, colleagues, so let's not exaggerate the case. The general is available to us. He'll come back at our request, and let's take him at his word. You tell me when you want him back, and we will invite him.

So let's go on now to the other work.

The first point of business is a proposed letter to Minister Baker from me, on behalf of the committee, summarizing how we think he should proceed vis-à-vis the merchant mariners. Have a look at it, and if there are questions, let's have them now. If not, and if you agree, then we'll send this off—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I move that it be agreed to and sent to the minister.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, seconded by Mr. Mercier, moves that this letter be sent to the minister. Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Do you have any questions?

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): I would like to ask a question. Mr. Chairman, I approve of the wording of this letter, although it might be worthwhile to refer, either directly or indirectly, to the first letter we sent him. In that letter, we said that the solution should take into account both the majority and the dissenting reports of the committee.

I would propose an addition to the third paragraph, the one marked with a black dot. It reads as follows:

However in the final analysis, the outcome should be one reflective of the deliberations of the representatives of the Merchant Navy Veterans.

I propose that we add “and take into account the majority and minority reports of the committee.”

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Well, we've already told him that. But if it's reassuring to you that I say it again, it's no problem. Can we add that in, then, researchers? Just remind him again to refer to both—

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't think that's what it's about. What it's about is that we're having some problems, obviously, getting the merchant navy people to agree to go to the table, and this is from a conversation that I believe you had—although I wasn't privileged to it, and I think some of the people in this room weren't, but I don't have a problem with it. It just asks them to get together and says to the minister that we don't want to have anything more to do with it. We already have the other letter, which gives a direction to Mr. Baker. We just want to make sure these people get into a room, hammer this thing out, and get a consensus, which I think they can. In my mind, this gives Mr. Baker, the minister, an opportunity to say, listen, the committee wants everybody to get together, and this is how it goes.

The Chair: Get together, and get together soon.

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: We have an opportunity to do something and we want to make sure we get it done.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On that, I agree with what Bob has said. I think we're all aware that the coalition misinterpreted what we had agreed to when they were here listening the last time. This clarifies what we, as the committee, have asked the minister to do. This finally lays it out. We can send a copy of this, after you say it's okay, to Mr. Ferlatte, Mr. McIsaac, and whomever. Then they will all know—because in the letter Mr. McIsaac wrote to Mr. Ferlatte, not one of the three things in there was accurate.

• 1015

The Chair: I'll tell you, colleagues, if I can add an editorial comment, if I were the minister, I would get the whole group and I would say “You are getting one invitation to come to this spot. We will put you up for one night if we have to. You have 48 hours to give me an answer, and if you don't give me an answer, don't complain later about what I decide to recommend.”

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right. My understanding is that the date has been set for their meeting—it's December 8. So the sooner we get this to the minister, with a copy off to the rest of them so they all know what we have agreed to around this table—

The Chair: What I will do, Mrs. Wayne, when the committee agrees on this, once we vote, is hand this to Mr. Baker personally today if he's here in Ottawa, and I'm sure he is. Then we'll all be free to tell anybody we can to help influence this process.

But I want to go back to Mr. Mercier's suggestion. He's suggesting in paragraph three that we refer again to our committee report—the official report—and the minority opinions in the report. Do you want to do that, Mr. Peric?

Mr. Janko Peric: At the last meeting we decided in a unanimous decision that we should send this letter. I don't think we should go back and discuss changes again and again. Every time we meet, we're going to change the agenda or the position of the letter. There is a motion to send this letter. I second the motion.

The Chair: And that's fair enough, but as the chairman I can't censure debate on the motion. There's still debate on the motion.

Now we are speaking to whether we... I don't see the big deal, really, whether we refer again, and tell the minister also, but some members don't want to take Mr. Mercier's suggestion. So let's make a decision.

Monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that during the committee's last meeting we discussed the issue or that there was unanimous consent on the letter. Let's not mix things up.

Secondly, the purpose of the proposed wording is simply to avoid any confusion. I would not want the Minister to be under the impression that we are abandoning the recommendations that we had formulated in the first letter and that we wanted to replace them with these. This letter is simply the continuation of the previous letter and the purpose is to remind the Minister that in the final analysis...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laurin, maybe I can help in this way. Maybe we can accomplish what you want if we say “Dear Mr. Baker: Further to our previous letter dated... blah, blah, blah. Now we say this”. Okay? “Further to our previous letter dated so and so, and as a follow up to our meeting...”. Now we have in his mind that we sent him another letter. We're saying don't forget that letter, and now here's what we are saying.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's great. That's number one.

Maybe we should go to Mr. Pratt's motion while we are on these points. I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Pratt and give him a chance to briefly introduce his motion or take questions on it.

David, over to you.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the motion is pretty self-explanatory. I think it reflects what we have heard around this table for quite some time in terms of the challenges that are facing the Canadian Forces.

We obviously have a white paper that spells out certain responsibilities for the Canadian Forces. We also have a situation where the budget of the Canadian Forces has been cut back significantly, more than just about any other department of government.

It's been cut back as well to the point, as was noted by one of our witnesses not long ago, where we're effectively—if you exclude Luxembourg from the equation—the lowest contributor to NATO in terms of percentage of GDP that we spend on defence. It has gone from a serious situation in the early 1990s, when we were a low contributor to NATO, and we had more significant cuts than the NATO average, which I think was about 19%. So we started from a low base and went even lower, to the point where we're encountering a very, very serious resource shortage in terms of the capabilities the Canadian Forces are able to perform.

• 1020

As the minister has noted and as General Baril has noted, we've had an increase in the number of commitments over the last ten years, up from five to somewhere in the vicinity of 22 from the early 1990s to today. And it's clear, based on what this committee has heard as well, that we still are experiencing problems in housing and quality of life issues. There's not enough money to be able to do what we want to do in those critical areas, in addition to the equipment issue and the troop fatigue issue.

So the resolution itself calls upon the government to embark upon a five-year plan for the revitalization and modernization of the Canadian Forces. You might ask, why five years? Well, it's taken us quite some time to get to the point we're at now. We obviously had to do something in terms of the government's deficit reduction strategy. It's going to take us a while before we can ramp the spending back up, which I think is the desire of the committee, so that we're more in keeping with some of our NATO allies in terms of the percentage of GDP.

The actual percentage of course is not specified in this motion, for good reason. We want to say there is a need for a substantial increase. I don't think it's our place at this point in time to specify a percentage, without a very exhaustive study, which would probably take a significant amount of time. It's up to the bureaucrats and the cabinet to determine exactly how high we would go. But it's vitally important that this committee send a very clear message to the government about the need for more defence spending.

I would hope, Mr. Chair, that this committee will express itself unanimously on this. From a committee standpoint, there is very little that is controversial in this motion. A unanimous expression by this committee would have some impact on the government in terms of this very important issue. So I would ask my colleagues to consider the motion in that light. As I say, it's not intended to be a partisan exercise. We have operated on a fairly non-partisan basis, and I hope that will continue.

I understand Mr. Hart has some minor amendments, which we discussed yesterday. I have no problem with what he suggested yesterday. I would hope the committee would accept those modifications as well.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pratt. Thank you for your initiative.

I welcome back Admiral Proud to the committee from his journey yesterday.

I know Mr. Hart has some friendly amendments and Mr. Laurin has a question too. Would you like to hear the suggested friendly amendments?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, so maybe, Mr. Hart, you could propose your amendments.

Mr. Jim Hart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I support the spirit of the motion before us today. I think all the committee feels that way. There are some minor changes that struck me as things we should clarify.

The first one is in the first paragraph. When we talk about NATO or NORAD, we should be talking about collective defence. I would suggest striking the words “collective security” and changing them to “collective defence” through NATO and NORAD.

On the last paragraph, because we want to ensure the government maintains combat capability, which I've been talking about for the last two days, I would like to make the amendment that we add after “Canadian Forces” the words “to ensure effective combat capability”, and then keep the rest the same. That's in the third line of the last paragraph.

• 1025

The Chair: I'll read what you're proposing, Jim. It would read:

Be it resolved that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) request the Government of Canada to embark upon a five-year plan for the revitalization and modernization of the Canadian Forces to ensure effective combat capability, which would substantially increase the budget of the Department of National Defence as a percentage of GDP.

Is the researcher's opinion that it changes the meaning of the paragraph in any way?

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner (Committee Researcher): Well, no, it's just that it reads awkwardly, because you're not sure if it's the revitalization and modernization that's going to increase the cost or whether it's combat capability. But the meaning is clear.

The Chair: So we can get the meaning in and let them wordsmith it a bit.

Mr. Jim Hart: Okay, because we should have “combat capability” in there somewhere. It's part of the white paper, so it's important.

The Chair: That's a good point. Are there any other ones?

Mr. Jim Hart: The only other comment I have—and it does seem to be a bit of an editorial comment—is in the second paragraph, my suggestion would be that the sentence should end after “budget 1994”. The editorial comment that's been provided by the motion doesn't need to be there.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, in the spirit of non-partisanship, I'm prepared to agree to that.

The Chair: All three?

Mr. David Pratt: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. So there are the three proposed amendments.

I promised Mr. Laurin and then Mrs. Wayne.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, we too could probably support the spirit of the present motion. However, it is difficult for us to support the current wording since only one solution to the problem is being proposed. We are left with the impression that the CF is out of steam and that the only solution seems to be injecting additional funds.

There is perhaps another way of resolving the problem. We could examine and reassess the mandate of the CF and the missions it is entrusted with. We might reach the conclusion that there is enough money to satisfy the CF's requirements.

I could not recommend a substantial increase to the National Defence budget when there are obvious needs in the areas of health, education, social welfare and child poverty.

We have to make some choices, Mr. Chairman. After a study, I could support the implementation of a five-year plan for revitalization, but the purpose of this program could be to reassess our objectives or increase the budget. If, after study, we determine that the objectives set in 1994 must be maintained, we can invest the necessary amounts.

But we have to examine the possibility of maintaining our 1994 objectives and ask ourselves if these objectives are not such that our budget is not in keeping with our ambitions. We might have to be less ambitious or increase the budget. We have to look at both sides of the coin, whereas the proposal as it is currently formulated suggests studying only one aspect of the problem.

[English]

The Chair: I understand your point, Monsieur Laurin, but that's a philosophical debate on policy that this committee, this country, and this government can have. But in Mr. Pratt's motion, the first “whereas” properly starts with the white paper. So yes, as I read this motion, it's implied that the government is committed and commits the country to its white paper on defence of 1994, which calls for us to be actively engaged in the world. It all flows from that. If you want to challenge that assumption, that's another debate, but this motion is based on what stands as government policy today.

• 1030

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I am making this comment in light of what the Minister said yesterday, that the statements in the 1994 White Paper regarding the armed forces were not carved in stone, but part of an ongoing process. If it is an ongoing process, it must be discussed. That is the reason for my remarks.

If we accepted to amend the recommendation to indicate that we will study both the possibility of maintaining objectives and increasing the budget, I could support the motion. I could even move an amendment to that effect, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise, we will be forced to vote against it.

[English]

The Chair: All right. We'll come back to that.

Mrs. Wayne, then Mr. Proud, and then Mr. Hart.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm just going to address what my colleague has said.

In the presentation today by General Baril, he stated:

The message I wish to deliver to you this morning regarding the implementation of the quality of life for the CF members is quite clear: we have reached the limits of our resources—period. Without an influx of new financial resources...

He's talking about the quality of life, social programs, everything for our men and women. He asked us today to please...

When he left, when we went over to say goodbye to them, he said because of what this committee has done, now the government is looking at putting some money in there. He said, “It is because of the united front that you people here at this table have presented that we're going to be able to improve the quality of life.”

So already you have the general asking you today to come united to help the forces—those men and women who are there trying to do the job for us—to improve their quality of life. That is right in the document we have today that was given to us by him.

I want to ask one other thing, Mr. Chairman, through you to David. The motion reads:

Be it resolved that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) request the Government of Canada to embark upon a five-year plan...

I'm just wondering if we should say “commencing in the year 2000”, because they might come back and say, “Yes, but we're going to start the five-year plan in the year 2015.” Just to clarify that we want it immediately, can we somehow put it down there, please?

The Chair: Good point, yes, year one being this budget coming up.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You're right, this budget. Okay?

The Chair: Okay, very good. Do the researchers have that idea?

Mr. Proud—Admiral.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to follow up on what Mr. Laurin was saying. I don't believe we should look to put our direction in any other way. I think pretty nearly everybody around this table believes the defence budget has gone down too much.

I'm one of the ones who happen to believe we should be doing as much as we're doing in the world or more. I believe we should have a bigger role to play in NATO and other places where we're supposed to be, and we need more money.

I was one of the ones during the 1994 review on the defence policy who thought we should have a higher percentage of GDP go into our defence spending. That didn't fly at that particular time, but Mr. Pratt in his resolution today is saying what I was saying back in 1994.

We should do this, and as Mrs. Wayne has said, we should say that it should start in this upcoming budget. There should be a five-year plan to upgrade the forces' budget. I'm convinced we have to do what we're doing and we should be doing more. Therefore I submit to this resolution.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart: Just to add to what the admiral has said—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Hart: I too was on the 1994 committee reviewing the defence policy of Canada, which developed into the white paper.

We have a government policy that right now is lacking. We need a large injection into the military budget. I haven't heard any suggestions of what you or the Bloc Québécois would like to see cut from the military, and I don't think we have the time. This committee has a great opportunity right now to send a very clear signal to the Government of Canada through this motion. We heard the Chief of Defence Staff say himself today that if that doesn't happen, the decision will be out of our control, because they will have to look at reducing the number of CF-18s, reducing the number of destroyers, and possibly reducing the number of troops. This marks a continuous decline in the capability of the Canadian Forces.

• 1035

As a middle power, I think we have an obligation. Not only do we have an obligation to our own country's sovereignty, we have an obligation to the world. I just believe this is an opportunity, and if the Bloc Québécois insists on making this a partisan issue, I think the Canadian public will show their dissatisfaction with them very quickly.

I would urge all members of the committee to support this motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hart.

Mr. Pratt, and then Mr. Laurin.

Mr. David Pratt: Just in a last-ditch effort to obtain the support of Mr. Mercier and Mr. Laurin, I would remind you that there are people from your province serving with the Canadian Forces right now.

An hon. member: Many people.

Mr. David Pratt: The Royal 22nd is in East Timor.

This motion, among other things, would hopefully convince the government to spend more money on the Canadian Forces, and that would translate into better equipment for the people from your province who are serving in the Canadian Forces, perhaps fewer taskings, less stress, less troop fatigue, and a better quality of life. There are a significant number of members in the Canadian Forces from the province of Quebec, and I think they would be looking to you to provide some assistance to them in the work that they do on behalf of this country.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

I'm going to take Mr. Laurin's comment, and then maybe we should call the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, we do not want to turn this into a partisan issue. As you have all seen, the Bloc Québécois has always supported the Canadian Forces peacekeeping missions abroad, be it to Kosovo, East Timor or Bosnia. We are also in favour of improving the quality of life for our soldiers. We are not challenging that.

We are wondering if it would not be possible to improve the quality of life for our soldiers using sums of money that are currently available. The Defence budget is earmarked for various items, including acquisitions, housing and peacekeeping missions abroad. If we were to review our priorities, there might be enough money. Perhaps the $140 million that was spent to improve the Leopards in order to make them more combat capable could have been used elsewhere. If we had chosen a different approach for our missions abroad, without using this heavy equipment, the $140 million dollars could have gone to improving our soldiers' quality of life. That is what I want us to examine.

By making different choices, perhaps we could reach these objectives relating to soldiers' quality of life. If after discussion we come to the conclusion that the choices made must be maintained because of our international presence and a host of other reasons, I would agree to increasing the budget. However, I wouldn't want us to decide to increase the budget without looking at that other aspect. That's all I meant.

[English]

The Chair: I might just react, and then I'm going to Mrs. Wayne.

Monsieur Laurin, I take your comments at face value, but I think Mr. Hart spoke very well from my point of view, too, if I'm not out of line from the chair here. Even the chair is allowed to think and to express himself.

The point here is that the country is committed to the 1994 white paper. You're proposing a rethinking of the white paper. Fine, that's another bit of work for the committee. It's going to take a long time, and we certainly don't have time to do it before this budget.

If we withdraw from some of the missions that we're in and if we do a lot less, we could stretch the money that we have. But if we're going to be as committed as we are in the world, and be as proactive as we are, and if we're going to be as active in national disasters, which are happening more and more in the Saguenay, out west, in eastern Ontario and in Quebec, and if we are going to have these demands on the forces and we support them, then they have to have more money. The CDS has said it, the minister has said it, and I think it would be really nice if our whole committee said it.

Maybe I was stretching it for the chair, but I wanted to make that comment.

I'll go to Mrs. Wayne.

• 1040

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Laurin, as you know, when the general spoke to us today, he talked about the quality of life that needs to be enhanced for all of our people in the armed forces. He said the reason that he needs our help to get more money in the budget is the cutbacks that have taken place over the last ten or fifteen years. In the last ten years the budget for defence has been cut dramatically, and it has affected the lives of those people, the families and the children.

They did the study, and they've come up with what they have to do. Right here today, we have it in our hands. He has said that based on what the military must do for the families, they need our support to get money in the budget to turn things around in a positive way. I don't believe you or Mr. Mercier would ever want to take those children, those moms and dads and their little ones, and not put enough money in there to give them the quality of life they should have, the same as you and I want for our children and grandchildren. That's what they're saying. They've done the study. They have hit rock bottom now.

The Chair: I think we can go to the question after a last brief point.

Mr. Jim Hart: I would like to make the comment that even the CF-18 maintenance contract at Bombardier has been affected by the cutbacks in defence. I recently spoke with them, and they laid off hundreds of people last year who worked directly on the CF-18 maintenance contract. I am saying to the Bloc Québécois and the people of Quebec that this budget decline is affecting probably most jobs in the province of Quebec more than anywhere else, yet you're going to sit here today and vote against this on a partisan basis. I think that's absolutely insulting to the people of Quebec and to the rest of Canada.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Laurin has to cast a vote, as we all do, and he has the right to do that. We've had good debate on it and everyone has his or her own ideas.

I'm going to call the question. I'm going to say, though—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I had moved an amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, you have an amendment to propose.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I had suggested that we add a reevaluation of the army's objectives to the five-year plan. If you support my amendment, I will vote in favour of the motion. I hereby move that amendment.

The Chairman: Okay.

[English]

If I understand you correctly, it would come in the second part of the resolution, or as another statement that would say “and that the committee re-evaluate or review the 1994 white paper.” That's what you're saying, is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: No, my amendment is intended to provide for a five-year revitalization and modernization program for the Canadian Forces.

[English]

The Chair: Can we have order, please? We have two hours. If people are really anxious to go, then go, but this is important and we should work it out correctly. Mr. Laurin has the right to put his motion, so let's hear the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I move that the five-year revitalization and modernization program also reevaluate the objectives that the government has set for the Canadian army before the budget of the department of National Defence is increased.

[English]

The Chair: There is a motion. Is there a seconder?

I would almost have to rule that it's really contrary to the spirit of the main motion. Anyway, there was no seconder.

We'll call the question on Mr. Pratt's motion, as you have it before you. All in favour?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: I already seconded it.

[English]

The Chair: I'm informed that we don't need a seconder, so we have Mr. Laurin's motion on the floor.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll now deal with the main motion by Mr. Pratt, with the friendly amendments of Mr. Hart and Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I've done a bit of wordsmithing myself in terms of the resolution: Be it resolved that SCONDVA request that the Government of Canada embark upon a five-year plan which would substantially increase the budget of DND as a percentage of GDP in order to modernize, revitalize and ensure the effective combat capability of the Canadian Forces.

• 1045

An hon. member: Commencing...

Mr. David Pratt: Commencing immediately.

The Chair: Is that agreed, everybody?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: If this passes—and I suspect it's going to—then I'm taking this as a committee direction to report this in the House of Commons as our first report. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: I'm afraid I have to point out to you that Mr. Pratt just read out a motion that seems to be quite different from the wording that was presented to us.

[English]

The Chair: It's a friendly amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, I understood the amendments moved by the other two parties, but Mr. Pratt just added that he himself had changed the motion that he had submitted.

A member: No, no.

Mr. René Laurin: That's what I heard the interpreter say. Could you read it out again?

[English]

The Chair: If I might, Mr. Laurin, your motion was put and lost. Now we're back to the main motion, with the proposed friendly amendments, as we call them.

Mr. Pratt, would you slowly read your proposal for the translation.

Mr. David Pratt: Be it resolved that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, SCONDVA, requests the Government of Canada to embark on a five-year plan, commencing immediately, which would substantially increase the budget of DND as a percentage of GDP in order to modernize, revitalize and ensure the effective combat capability of the Canadian Forces.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, that motion is different from what we have here in front of us. Mr. Pratt is moving that we increase the department's budget substantially, whereas the motion that was submitted to us suggests increasing it considerably. That's much stronger.

[English]

The Chair: No, it's not.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon. member: —

The Chair: Excuse me, please.

Mr. Laurin, I have it in front of me. The last two lines of the original motion say “revitalization and modernization of the Canadian Forces which would substantially increase the budget”. That's the original motion.

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, but he said “substantially” instead of “considerably”.

The Chair: Okay, then there's a problem with the translation. Let's get on with it. I think the Bloc has a problem and they're going to oppose it, but that's fine.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I will report this as the first report of the committee in the House at the first opportunity.

Thank you for your work, Mr. Pratt, and thank you for the work, colleagues.

I know there are people who have to get to other things, but if you don't, we want to talk about our travel plans once and for all. We have a few places that we'd like to go, and we want to try to look at the order.

Mr. Bob Wood: Do we have any money to get there?

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Well, that's the other question.

Because he has to do the nitty-gritty for us, I'm going to ask the clerk to state what he understands to be the places we're hoping to get to in our study.

Eugene, can you take a minute?

The Clerk of the Committee: The committee has asked to go to Washington, Colorado Springs, Norfolk, Virginia, and San Diego. That was one trip.

It was Mr. Wood's request to go to Charlottetown to see the Department of Veterans Affairs—

The Chair: At which time we could go to Cornwallis to see the peacekeeping.

The Clerk: And the third one obviously arises because I've heard the minister has been asking the committee to go to Kosovo at some time. Merged in with that, we could stop in England to look at procurement—and that's the trip we had planned last spring.

The Chair: The advice of people in Kosovo is not to go there in the winter because of various problems.

An hon. member: How about San Diego, then?

The Chair: Yes, San Diego.

Are there any comments or suggestions on when we should try to structure these, and what we should try to do first?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, didn't the Minister say that we would be withdrawing our troops from Kosovo by the spring? If that's so, will there still be any point in visiting that theatre? Perhaps it would be better to choose another destination. Why would we go visit a place where the war is over and Canadian troops are no longer there?

[English]

The Chair: That's a good point, but we are being advised not to go now. It's a bad time to go to Kosovo in terms of the logistics of landing and so on.

• 1050

What if we try to go as early as we can to Kosovo, given the weather conditions and so on, assuming we still have personnel there to actually visit? We'll proceed on that basis, which will probably put it in the spring.

Bob, can you help us?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Laurin that our troops posted to Kosovo may be returning within the next few months. But 1,800 of our soldiers are in Bosnia-Herzegovina and perhaps we should stop there to see them as well.

[English]

The Chair: I think it's the minister's request of the committee that we get to that part of the world. We could look at that for the spring, when the weather conditions improve. Maybe we could do a trip to the United States on RMA—you know, Washington and some of those other places—or Charlottetown.

I'm in your hands. I want to help give the clerk some direction so he can begin to map these things out.

Mr. George Proud: You talk about Norfolk, Colorado Springs, and San Diego. Does this have to do with RMA and the role we can play in that with the military players?

The Chair: A lot of the members have not had the chance to go to Colorado Springs. Of course, that's the NORAD headquarters. That agreement's up again. It would just be a very educational thing for a lot of the members who haven't been there.

Mr. George Proud: I would suggest we make that trip in January.

The Chair: There's a suggestion we do the Colorado Springs trip to NORAD and anything else in that area on RMA during the January break of the House. Is there a consensus or any comment on that?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Are all of our members going on the trip, or what are we doing?

The Chair: That would be the ideal situation. We would hope that all the members would participate and that all the parties would agree. I won't editorialize from the chair—I'm tempted to—but let me state a fact. One party can wreck the whole trip of the committee if it wants to, which is an interesting way to run the committee's business.

Mr. Laurin and then Mr. Hart.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, could we develop a common set of arguments that we could make to our respective leaders and whips? We could explain that the committee intends to visit various places and why the committee wants to go there. That would be very useful to us.

The Chairman: Yes, that's a good idea.

[English]

Apparently it's the normal process anyway to give the rationale for the trip. If we agree, and it sounds as if we might, we will try to propose a trip in January to Colorado Springs and points around it related to our NORAD commitment and the RMA we're involved in studying.

Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart: I don't have a problem with the trip. I think it's important for the RMA, and in particular the Colorado Springs portion, to have a visit to NORAD. I just want to alert the committee—and I know Parliament has always respected political conventions—the Reform Party is having their assembly at the end of January. So in the last week in January, none of our members would be able to attend. I just wanted to alert you to that.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: What about the first week of February?

The Chair: Well, we have the whole month of January, Bob. If we avoided the last week of January, could other colleagues likely attend?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If you can put a letter together and give us the dates you're recommending, we can look at our schedules and get back to you immediately.

The Chair: Okay. That's what we'll do. We'll get our proposal out to you, avoiding the last week of January and so on.

Are there any other comments on that? Bob.

Mr. Bob Wood: I just want to put in a pitch for Charlottetown from a Veterans Affairs point of view. They would certainly like to entertain the committee. I know we're all faced with veterans' problems, but also, as the Canadian Forces change, more and more of the present peacekeepers are suffering from disabilities. We know about a number of problems they're having, trying to get disability pensions and so on.

• 1055

I think it would be probably just good information for the committee to go down and spend a day or a day and a half and be briefed and see how they are interacting with the present Canadian Forces, as opposed to disability, post-traumatic stress syndrome, all that kind of stuff that is now coming forward, which never came forward before. Everybody has to get a grip on how we're dealing with it and how we're going to deal with it. In fact I think this would be a great opportunity for the committee to find out about it.

The Chair: I think you're right. I think that would be very valuable. At the same time, we could get over to Cornwallis and see the peacekeeping centre. Elsie is going to buy us dinner or make us some Irish stew in Saint John.

Colleagues, I am going to ask the clerk to give us two proposals for two trips: the Colorado Springs area trip proposed for January; and then a trip to Charlottetown/Cornwallis, with a couple of proposed dates for that.

It would be a lot easier to do that trip, of course. It wouldn't take as much time.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: When you're talking about Colorado Springs, you're talking also about Norfolk and San Diego included in it.

The Chair: If we can do it all, yes. We should go to Washington at some point too.

Colleagues, we will get back to you shortly with that. All right?

Thank you very much. Have a good weekend.

The meeting is adjourned.