NDVA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

1530

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton, Lib.))

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Eggleton

1535

1540

1545

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

1550

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

1555

Mr. Art Eggleton

1600

Mr. R.M. (Bob) Emond (Assitant Deputy Minister, Finance and Corporate Services, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Emond

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Mr. Art Eggleton

1605

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Art Eggleton

1610

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Lieutenant-General George Macdonald (Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1615

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

Mr. Art Eggleton

1620

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Alan Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

1625

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mrs. Gallant

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Art Eggleton

1630

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Art Eggleton

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LGen George Macdonald

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Bob Emond

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Claude Bachand

1635

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1640

LGen George Macdonald

Mr. Stan Dromisky

LGen George Macdonald

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1645

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

LGen George Macdonald

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

1650

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.)

1655

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Janko Peric

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Janko Peric

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

1700

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

1705

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Bob Wood

LGen George Macdonald

Mr. Bob Wood

LGen George Macdonald

1710

Mr. Bob Wood

LGen George Macdonald

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Claude Bachand

1715

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Art Eggleton

1720

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

1725

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Emond

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

NUMBER 051

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order.

The first item on the agenda is a routine motion that we'd like to pass before we hear from the minister on the estimates. It has to do with the travel of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs to various locations in Canada. It's been dealt with by the subcommittee, and we need a motion from the main committee in order to pass the budget.

So, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): I move.

The Chair: Moved by Mr. Dromisky, seconded by Mrs. Wayne.

(Motion agreed to—see Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Thank you.

Minister, we are very pleased to have you and your officials here before us today for the estimates. I know there are going to be lots of questions for you, and I don't want to deprive members around the table of their opportunities, so I'm going to give the floor to you right away, and you're free to get started.

Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of committee. Before I begin my remarks, let me introduce those who are here at the table with me: the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, General George Macdonald; the assistant deputy minister for materiel, Alan Williams; and the assistant deputy minister for finance and corporate services, Bob Emond.

The subject of my presentation is part III of the estimates for the fiscal year that we have now begun, 2002-2003, particularly the report on plans and priorities.

[Translation]

Before I start talking about our priorities for this fiscal year, I want to share with you some of our recent accomplishments.

[English]

Let me start with the campaign against terrorism. I think we can all be proud, Mr. Chairman, of the action Canada has taken since September 11 to stand up to international terrorism. Canada has not stood on the sidelines. From the day of the attacks, when hundreds of aircraft were diverted into Canadian airspace, right through to today, where we have some 2,300 military personnel fighting terrorism under Operation Apollo, Canada has shown she can be a significant player on the international scene.

In and around Afghanistan Canadian personnel have once again proven themselves to be fully capable of performing the tasks to which they have been assigned. And I'm sure you've all heard reports of the excellent job they are doing. I recently visited some of the troops on the ground in Afghanistan. I also talked with people in our air detachments in the region, and I visited one of the ships at sea. I was glad to have the opportunity to tell all of them how very proud Canadians are of their excellent and courageous work.

Much has already been accomplished in the campaign against terrorism, but there is still more to be done. Among other things, let me single out our troops and their families. They will continue to need our strongest support.

National Defence is, of course, contributing to international security in many other ways. To cite just a few, Canadian troops are still playing a significant role in helping to keep the peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina, they are serving as observers in the Middle East, and they are providing military advice and training in Sierra Leone. Altogether, over 4,500 Canadian troops, the most since the Korean war, are on deployment internationally.

[Translation]

We currently have personnel deployed on 13 operations, in addition to Operation Apollo. And here at home, we continue to contribute to aerospace defence at an increased level.

Clearly, the Canadian Forces are making their mark around the world. They are the human face of Canada's commitment to building international peace and security.

[English]

Since September 11 the importance of our commitment has been clearer than ever. Canada must continue to defend our values, our way of life. Our ability to do that, Mr. Chairman, depends in large part upon strong Canadian Forces, and strengthening the forces through strategic investments is exactly what we have been doing at Defence. Consistent consecutive budget increases over the last few years have enabled us to move the markers forward in a number of areas. That commitment to strengthening the forces can be counted in billions of dollars. In fact, in the last three years we've had a 20% increase in the defence department budget, and over the next five years we will have more than $5 billion of new money coming into the defence budget.

We're spending this new money strategically. For example, in the last few years, we have made sweeping quality of life improvements, implementing the recommendations this committee made earlier. I want to extend my appreciation for SCONDVA's work, very instrumental in this area.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

We have also taken action to improve the leadership, training and professional development opportunities available to our military personnel.

[English]

But we also need to ensure that they have the equipment they need to do their jobs, and that means equipment modernization. We've made significant strides in this area as well. I'm thinking about the Victoria class submarines, the sophisticated Coyote reconnaissance vehicles, the LAV III armoured personnel carriers, and of course, the new Cormorant search and rescue helicopters.

Modernization projects will continue. The air force is proceeding with upgrades to its maritime patrol Auroras and to the CF-18 fighter aircraft fleets and also, of course, the acquisition, Elsie, of the new maritime helicopters. Progress is also being made on acquiring strategic air-to-air refuelling capabilities. That's a project now under way.

[Translation]

Modernization is important if we want to provide military personnel with the right equipment, but it is also a means of maintaining interoperability. And interoperability is another area in which we continue to make progress.

[English]

For example, our sea, land, and air forces under Operation Apollo can be fully integrated into the U.S.-led coalition force structure. The 3 PPCLI battle group and our ships in the Arabian Sea are cases in point.

We've also made strategic investments to enhance domestic security. Let me touch on our actions since September 11 in just a moment. I should mention first that even before then we had taken action to enhance domestic security with the creation of the Office of Critical Infrastructure, Protection and Emergency Preparedness—OCIPEP is the acronym. OCIPEP provides national leadership, a comprehensive approach to protecting our critical infrastructure and managing emergencies, and together with the other examples I have provided, it is clear evidence of the government's commitment to strengthening the Canadian forces and domestic security, something we very much intend to continue doing.

To make sure Defence continues to build on the achievements of the last several years, I've set out five broad priorities for this fiscal year. They are as follows: responding to the new security environment; putting our people first; optimizing Canada's defence and security capabilities; maximizing management effectiveness; and enhancing our defence relationships. At this point, I'll expand on each one of these priorities, starting with the new security environment.

Even though the security environment has been changing steadily over the last decade, September 11 brought these changes into a new reality. We now face different threats, threats like global terrorism, potential threats to our critical infrastructure, the proliferation of conventional weapons, ballistic missile technology, weapons of mass destruction. The technologies that are transforming global commerce are also changing the nature of warfare, from equipment to doctrine to military operations. These same technologies are also increasing potential threats. In the face of these new realities, Defence has to remain innovative, has to remain forward-looking. This means focusing on the future and investing in the capabilities that are most relevant to the emerging security environment, capabilities like interoperability, deployability, intelligence, the protection of our critical infrastructure, and the protection of our people. In other words, we must actively respond to the new security environment, and that is what we are doing.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the last budget devoted some $7.7 billion to defence and security issues. There's $1.2 billion specifically for a number of defence items. This funding is an important tool for us in addressing the new security environment. With this additional funding, we are offsetting the costs of Operation Apollo, fighting the terrorists where they originate. We're enhancing capabilities within the Office of Critical Infrastructure, Protection and Emergency Preparedness. We're building on the capabilities of the Communication Security Establishment and generally in the area of intelligence gathering and analysis. We're increasing the capacities of our anti-terrorism force JTF-2, we're augmenting the force's capability to prevent and respond to biological, radiological, chemical, and nuclear incidents, and we are addressing some of our immediate equipment requirements as well. We will be enhancing our capabilities in the areas of counter-terrorism intelligence research and development and emergency response through these investments. And we will work to provide national leadership on critical infrastructure protection and emergency management.

The next priority is what I've called putting people first. As I indicated when I talked about the quality of life initiatives, Defence has focused on putting people first for several years now, and we've made tremendous progress, but when it comes to quality of life, we won't be resting on our laurels this year. Our people deserve the best because they give their best, and there are also practical reasons for putting people first.

¹ (1540)

There is stiff competition in the job market. Defence has improved its reputation as an employer, but if we want to make sure we attract the people we need, we have to present ourselves as an employer of choice, and that's not a simple task. It means continuing to develop our learning and professional development programs, it means seeing through reforms to military health care, a major priority in quality of life measures this year, and it means improving how we manage people. We also know we have to increase diversity and promote a sense of inclusiveness for all components of our society. These are goals we will focus on as we aim to put people first.

Another issue that has quality-of-life implications for our military personnel is Canadian Forces' high operational tempo over the last decade. This relates to my next priority, optimizing defence and security capabilities.

[Translation]

Over the last decade, the Canadian Forces operational tempo has risen dramatically. Despite increased government spending on defence, our level of deployment represents a challenge to our financial resources. But it also puts a considerable strain on our human resources, which is to say our people and their families. For them, it is a quality of life issue and one that we will have to address.

[English]

I think it's apparent that we cannot sustain the present mix of capabilities and levels of activities. In other words, we have choices to make, and to help ensure that we make the right choice, we are planning an update to our defence policy. We want to make sure the defence program is based on the new military realities. We need to make sure we invest in the right mix of people, equipment, and training, and at the same time, we must make sure we continue to advance our key capital projects, which I mentioned earlier. I'm confident that the defence policy update will serve as a compass to guide us in making the right choices for the future, thereby making the most of our defence and security capabilities.

Our next priority is maximizing management effectiveness. In 2002 and 2003 we will promote our modern management agenda, from modern controllership to risk management to procurement reform. The modern management agenda touches on a wide range of issues. This year will also see the implementation of a new information management strategy and governance structure. At the same time as we make these management reforms, we want to continue to improve our internal communications. These various improvements will help us ensure that we are the best possible stewards of the public funds entrusted to us.

The final priority is enhancing defence relationships. As you know, we enjoy an excellent and extensive defence relationship with the United States. Still, we cannot be complacent. Since September 11 the U.S. has been focused on examining the issues of homeland defence. We must continue to be fully engaged on Canada-U.S. defence issues in the days and months ahead. At the same time, we have to look further than just across the border.

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

We also have to continue to work with our European allies to promote a strong NATO. And we cannot forget the importance of certain relationships here at home.

[English]

For example, we will focus on expanding strategic partnerships with other levels of government and with the private sector, particularly in the area of critical infrastructure protection, and as in years past, we will continue to focus on improving communications with the Canadian public, who are our number one stakeholder.

Members of the committee, this concludes my review of this year's priorities. Our priorities build on the accomplishments of the Canadian Forces and the department over the past few years. They take into account the tremendous impact of the events of September 11 on national defence and national security. So let me, in closing, Mr. Chairman, ask all of you, all parliamentarians, and all Canadians to give the men and women of the Canadian Forces and the civilians of the national defence department your visible support as we move forward in the year ahead to achieve these priorities. They have earned it and will continue to do so.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister, for that very comprehensive presentation.

We have questioning now. Mr. Benoit, you're on for seven minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, Mr. Minister and gentlemen.

Mr. Minister, in your comments you speak so glowingly about the so-called extra $5 billion you've spent on defence, when the reality is that inflation adjusted, this government spends less on defence than it did in 1993—that's the fact. Furthermore, when you look at the DND budget, more and more of that has nothing to do with the military. An example is one you pointed out, OCIPEP, which is within the DND budget, but has nothing to do with the military. So when you take out approximately $2 billion that isn't spent on the military, this government is spending substantially less on the military than it was when it took office. I just wanted to straighten that out.

Mr. Minister, where is the purchase of the new Challenger jets reflected in the estimates?

Mr. Art Eggleton: First, I don't think you've straightened anything out. I think what needs to be mentioned here, when you talk about 1993, is that we inherited a horrendous deficit, and there was a need to cut government expenditures to eliminate that deficit, so all departments and agencies, including National Defence, had cuts. Your party at the time, or its predecessor, the Reform Party, were advocating cuts to government spending--

Mr. Leon Benoit: Not to the defence department, I want to clarify that. We have never proposed spending cuts to the military.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, Mr. Chair, I have the right to straighten it out when there's a misleading statement like that. My question was on the Challenger jets, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, the minister is answering your question, and the minister has a right to answer the question.

Mr. Minister, please continue.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We had at that point to make cuts to eliminate the deficit, and it was a sacrifice all departments made. The Reform Party was all in favour of doing that at the time. It wasn't until some time later that they started talking about their concern over the defence budget.

As to having OCIPEP in the budget, before that there was the emergency measures organization budget, so we're comparing apples and apples here.

But let me tell you that with these increases in recent times, we've now gone up to sixth in NATO in defence spending, and that's a comparison of similar expenditure items right across the board, so it is a fair comparison. So I don't think you're painting quite the right picture of the situation.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Leon Benoit: My question, Mr. Minister, was on the Challenger jets.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I was getting to that.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I would like to take this opportunity to remind committee members that according to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, we are to treat our witnesses with courtesy and fairness. That includes the right of a questioner to ask a question and the right of the person being questioned to answer it. The minister, as far as I can see, is in the process of answering the question you asked, so please let him continue.

Minister, you have the floor.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could, Mr. Chair--

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, the Minister was in the process of responding to your question, I believe, in connection with the Challengers.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes, I am about to answer that. When the member says he's trying to straighten something out and in fact is creating more confusion by providing information that isn't correct, I feel I have to straighten that out, so I was just doing that.

With respect to the Challengers, they obviously are not part of this. That was not something that went into the documentation that you have before you. It was a subsequent cabinet decision that resulted in that purchase.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yet it was in the year that the estimates are dealing with.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We're dealing with the plans and priorities. It will be in the supplementary estimates, I would imagine.

Mr. Leon Benoit: When were you, Mr. Minister, informed of the proposal to purchase these jets?

Mr. Art Eggleton: As I said, the matter was determined by the cabinet, by the government, and sometime during March the discussions began.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And who made the decision to purchase the jets?

Mr. Art Eggleton: The government.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The government, meaning your decision, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, the government means the proper machinery of the government, the cabinet.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Did you object to the purchase of the jets?

Mr. Art Eggleton: The matter was discussed within the cabinet, and discussions within the cabinet are not made public.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In question period today the public works minister said there's a $23 million difference between the $101 million purchase price put out in the press release and the $77 million that was admitted to by this government yesterday. In response today, the minister said a lot of that was on avionics. Could you explain how there could be a $23 million avionics package involved in this purchase? We'd like to find out what that $23 million is being spent on, if we could, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Sure. The aircraft themselves are about $77 million, as I think has been said. Additional equipment, particularly the installation of radios and a seat for the flight engineer, is some $7.7 million. Spare parts are another $7.7 million. Training is $8.2 million. GST is another $7 million, for a total of about $108 million. That can fluctuate somewhat because of exchange rates. Apparently, these transactions are done in U.S. dollars.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Training is $7 million?

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's $8.2 million for training.

Mr. Leon Benoit: First, two pilots are trained with the purchase of the plane, according to Bombardier. Second, it costs about $29,000 for training a pilot.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I don't know if that's correct, to start with, but there are eight teams of pilots, that's 16 pilots.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That still doesn't add up to $8.2 million.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Even if two are included, and I don't know if that's the case, it would still be a long way from the...

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Bachand, you're on for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have the impression that things are a little stressful today. Therefore, we will proceed calmly. I think it's important for everyone to know that I have always defended taxpayers. As you said, I feel it is important to ask questions with respect, but it is also important to receive answers. Sometimes, the minister's answers are debatable.

Indeed, I will begin by questioning his statement to the effect that Canada ranks sixth within NATO in terms of military spending. That might be true in absolute numbers, but it's not the right way of assessing the situation. You have to take into account society's effort in protecting itself. In that regard, the minister knows full well that Canada's ranks 17th out of 18 countries, since it spends 1.2% of its GDP on defence. We rank second to last out of 18. I would like to believe that we rank sixth, but, in fact, Quebecers and Canadians rank 17th out of 18 countries, since they spend 1.2% of GDP on defence. So, we rank second to last out of 18.

Now, in my capacity as the taxpayers' watchdog, I have several questions, including one on Operation Apollo. I think Operation Apollo involved the participation of the navy, the army, the air force and JTF-2. Every branch of the Canadian armed forces was involved in Operation Apollo, and the figures included in your estimates refer to $510 million for 2001-2002 and $251 million in 2002-2003.

In my capacity as the taxpayers' watchdog, I also pay attention to what our allies within Operation Apollo have to say, not only the Americans, but also people such as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who last week stated that the war in Afghanistan was over.

Here are my questions. Are the figures contained on pages 55 and 56 of the French version of the estimates accurate? Is the figure of $510 million for last year and $251 million for this year accurate? Further, how much longer will the Canadian army, navy and air force, as well as the other groups I mentioned earlier, be involved in this operation? How much longer we will ask Canadians to remain with Operation Apollo, when the President of Pakistan has declared that the war is over?

I would not want us to be wasting money by overstaying our usefulness. The six-month tour for Operation Apollo is drawing to a close. Will the government extend the mandate of the Canadian armed forces? Give us an idea of how much the operation cost? Were the original estimates on target and will Canadian Forces be asked to stay much longer in Afghanistan?

¹ (1555)

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: On the question of being 17th out of 18 in defence spending, I think that's a misleading statistic, because, as I indicated a moment ago, we are the sixth largest spender in NATO. If you take percentage of GDP, which is the one you've taken, we're 17 out 18. You find that Turkey is at the top, spending something over 3% of their GDP, and yet they don't spend any more money than we do. So it doesn't tell you very much. On the other hand, Japan, which is not a NATO country, is restricted by its constitution and spends only 1%, but it has such a large GDP that the amount of money involved far exceeds just about every NATO country except the United States. So percentage of GDP doesn't tell the whole story. And as I said, in spending alone we're the sixth largest of the 19 NATO countries.

But I think what's more important is to look at what it produces, what you get for that money, what kind of outputs, what kind of outcomes, and in that department we do just as well as anybody. We can top the charts in NATO in a lot of different areas simply because we are an efficient spender of the taxpayers' money when it comes to that defence capability.

So I think this percentage of GDP is overrated as a statistic in determining our appropriate level of defence spending. Not that I wouldn't want more money, I've always said that I do, of course, but I think we should get that in some perspective.

With respect to Operation Apollo, we have designated the ground forces, the battle group, for a period of six months, and that six months would be up in July. However, we also have JTF-2, and we are about to go into a rotation with JTF-2, so they will be there for a longer period of time, but I couldn't tell you how much longer. I don't agree that the conflict or war is over. Substantial progress has been made in removing the Taliban from power, removing much of the al-Qaeda machinery, but there still are pockets of resistance, and we've had incidents in just the last few days where some of those pockets of resistance have come to the surface.

We want to make sure the al-Qaeda terrorists do not re-establish themselves. It was from this major base of operations that they exercised international terrorism on the United States on September 11, but there are other occasions, other places. We certainly don't want, for our own protection, the interests of our people, and their security, to allow them to re-establish themselves. So it's important to continue that mission.

We also anticipate that personnel in the Arabian Sea and our air detachments may be required for a longer period of time, and there will be rotations. Our normal period of time is six months for those rotations. We may be keeping the navy there for up to two years. But we have not made any final determination of that to this point of time. Nor have we made any final determination about a rotation for the ground troops, although at this point we're not planning on one. The Americans we're operating with in the 101st Airborne Division aren't planning on a normal rotation for that operation either.

I'll let Mr. Emond go over those costs with you.

º (1600)

Mr. R.M. (Bob) Emond (Assitant Deputy Minister, Finance and Corporate Services, Department of National Defence): Thank you.

The Chair: Please be very brief, because Mr. Bachand's time is expiring.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Emond: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the estimates you have before you correspond to the expenditures which were made at the end of December of last year. I can assure you that the figure of $500 million, which you quoted, corresponds to the total and that the figure of $216 million, which you also mentioned, corresponds to additional costs. This amount is included in the total cost. Up until now, we have spent approximately an additional $190 million for the mission up to the end of March.

You may remember that we received funding from Treasury Board for additional costs in the 2001 budget.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Emond.

Mr. Bachand, I'm sure there'll be an opportunity for you to pursue that line of questioning again.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, in your opening remarks, you talked about an update to our current defence policy. Am I to see that as a review of the current white paper, or am I going in the wrong direction here?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, you're quite correct. Remember, the white paper goes back to 1994. That's eight years ago. A lot has changed in that time. We've found the kind of peace support missions we've engaged in has changed. They've become a little more demanding, a little more challenging and risky. It's not the traditional kind of peacekeeping. We've seen that in Bosnia and Kosovo, for example. Asymmetric threats are growing, terrorism being an example of that. Technology is fast advancing. So for all these reasons, it's time to do an update.

A lot of the basic fundamentals of the 1994 white paper I think are still sound: the basic mission of defending Canada and Canadians, defending the continent with our partner in the United States, and contributing to international peace and security through peace support operations, through the UN, through NATO, through coalitions of the willing, our continued membership in NATO and NORAD. All these things are still relevant, as is the need, particularly given the size of our force, for a multipurpose combat-capable force. So I think a lot of those fundamentals are still the same, but time has moved on and we do need this update. So very shortly we will want to enter into a dialogue publicly. We hope your committee will be involved in that, as it was in 1994, so that we can help bring forward some recommendations with respect to the policy and amendments to the white paper this fall.

º (1605)

Mr. Bob Wood: So you're saying there should be some public input into this, as well as governmental or departmental input.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Absolutely.

Mr. Bob Wood: What other departments do you envision bringing on board as you get into this review? Maybe it's too early to tell, but how do you foresee the public input being entrenched into this report?

Mr. Art Eggleton: We're working on various ideas. This committee should be a part of it, and the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence would probably also want to be a part of it, as in 1994, but we'll be looking at other things, such as use of the Internet, round tables, or focused groups of people on round tables We want to do it in a short period of time, and so we'll attempt to put all of this together very soon. One of the things we're waiting on at the moment is an overview from the foreign affairs department with respect to foreign policy, which should be before the cabinet very shortly, and then, hopefully, soon after that we'll be able to discuss with you the plans for public participation in the process.

Mr. Bob Wood: Would it be possible, Mr. Minister, to have the finance department in on this? Because, regardless of what the recommendations may be, the finance department is going to be involved sooner or later, and the quicker they get involved, the better. Is there any thought of that?

Mr. Art Eggleton: They're certainly going to be involved in issues respecting the various capabilities. In a great deal of what we'll do we'll deal with things like capabilities, force structure, readiness levels, and there are costs with all of these. At the end of the day, what we're going to need is a policy that is matched by resources, so that we clearly have money behind the policy. This will involve some choices in those areas of capabilities and force structure and readiness levels. So there will be costings done on these things, and there will be a great deal of input, I'm sure, from Finance. Certainly, it's going to require cabinet consideration of just how large a military we're going to be able to afford and how many of these capabilities can be part of the plan.

Mr. Bob Wood: The Auditor General's report came out today. It says many of the retention initiatives under way will be implemented only after some members of the armed forces have decided to leave, and it could take the Canadian Forces as long as 30 years to achieve a stable population profile. It goes on to say the gaps in higher ranks are difficult to correct. Not enough people are moving through the system to be promoted to those ranks. Has anything been done to alleviate that problem?

Mr. Art Eggleton: The Auditor General also says:

We found that the Department has taken action to improve its systems and practices for identifying recruiting requirements.

They found the department is doing good work to correct the problems. We have in the past year entered into a new three-year recruiting program, an aggressive recruiting program. We set a higher target for this first year of some 10,000, as compared with the target of 7,000, as I believe it was, the year before. We've met that target. That's a target involving both regulars and reservists.

There are, however, as the Auditor General points out and as we've indicated before, some occupational categories, both at the officer level and at the non-commissioned member level, where we do have a shortage. We are looking at various ways of attracting skilled personnel into those positions, allowances or bonuses being used in certain occupational groups to deal with that particular problem.

At the same time as we do that, retention is also a focus of attention. I'm pleased that our attrition rate is down. More people are staying. I think the quality of life measures have had a lot to do with that. We're out to increase the flexibility in terms of service for those currently serving, as well as the quality of life measures. So in a number of these areas improvements are being made and will be made to keep that retention rate continuing to fall, at the same time continuing this aggressive recruitment program.

There is more work to be done, there's no doubt about it. I think that's what the Auditor General has pointed out. I don't think it's going to take 30 years—that's a whole generation—to reach perfection. I think we're already making substantial progress, so we'll continue moving in that direction.

º (1610)

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you.

Thanks for appearing Mr. Minister. Obviously, I'm not the great renowned Peter Stoffer, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't quite give you the same flavour.

To make sure I heard you correctly, did you say 18 teams or 18 pilots were going to be trained? Did I catch that correctly?

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's eight teams, 16 pilots altogether.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: And the training cost was $8.2 million. Are they being trained from birth, or is that an average cost for training a pilot? I'm assuming the pilot has already been trained as a pilot and is flying the planes that are now flying, and this is just additional training.

Lieutenant-General George Macdonald (Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Yes. This would be additional training to become qualified on the newer type of aircraft. The aircraft aren't exactly the same as the old ones, as you can appreciate. I don't know the specific number of flying hours involved, or even simulator hours, but pilot training is not a cheap undertaking, as you can well appreciate.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm quite aware that it's not a cheap undertaking, but $8.2 million to train 16 pilots, and this is additional training? I can leave here, call a number of places, and probably get a reasonable estimate as to the cost of additional training for a pilot. I'll be shocked as anything if they come up with a figure of $8.2 million for 16 pilots for additional training. I'm a bit skeptical.

LGen George Macdonald: I'm sorry, I can't today give you any additional information on that. I'm not sure if the entire amount is for flying hours, some equipment, or something else involved in the training.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: This was specifically training, because I believe there were other figures the minister mentioned--again I may have misheard--such as $7.2 million for spare parts, I'm assuming spare parts for these new planes.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes, $7.7 million.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, $7.7 million. This is not on-time delivery inventory. Are we expecting problems with these new planes to the tune of that much?

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's a standard element of a purchase to keep some spare parts.

General.

LGen George Macdonald: When we buy a new piece of equipment, we always have spare parts, so that we're not caught without them. You can appreciate that even a single engine is a fairly expensive item to keep in stock.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Fair enough.

Then again, there's $7 million for changes to seating, and something for an engineer.

Mr. Art Eggleton: And radios.

LGen George Macdonald: Again, I don't think I can give you too many more specifics, but the communications department--

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: There are two planes. I'm assuming two seats. How many radios? We're talking big dollars here, so there has to be some reasonableness involved.

Mr. Art Eggleton: What we can do is get more detailed information about these figures. I just have in front of me the figures I gave.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

Then, of course, there's the $7 million in GST, which we know is just going to go back into general revenue, so we're gaining money. It's not really a cost factor, because it's just going back to general revenue. I didn't have a big problem with that.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Absolutely right. But it is part of the cost, and I'm just giving you the details of the cost.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Fair enough.

Are any of the dollars that are being collected from airline passengers now for security fees being allocated for security discussions with the Department of Defence or anything along those lines? Will there be dollars coming from that security fee for Defence?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'm not aware of anything.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So there's no liaison with Defence and other areas as far as airport security goes?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No. We haven't been asked to be involved in any of that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I was under the impression that after September 11 there was going to be a national strategy on security. I'm a bit surprised that I'm now hearing there isn't some kind of strategy in place with Defence in regard to airport security.

º (1615)

Mr. Art Eggleton: Airport security comes under Transport Canada, but as with any other government department, if it needs assistance from the Canadian Forces, that assistance can be provided. But the day-to-day planning of their operations is just done by their department. Of course, when it comes to the air, as opposed to the airport, we do protect through NORAD.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Fair enough. I just would have expected that Defence would have been involved in a national security strategy for the airports in light of September 11. It just seemed like a reasonable expectation.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We're not involved directly as a department, but we do have the public security, anti-terrorism committee of the cabinet, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel totally comfortable knowing that it's the cabinet looking after the security, rather someone involved in.... You're like me and these guys around here, you came off the street pretty much, and I don't think you have a security background, with all due respect.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Okay, it's like any other cabinet portfolio. Items do come up for discussion at committee. The transport minister is there, I am there, other people are there. So there is a coordination for ensuring that we're not duplicating and there is a horizontal link in the security programming. There's just not a direct day-to-day link on airport security with National Defence.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I understand that there are some armouries in Toronto, that there has been a request to have them made into or used for homeless shelters. Has this request been made to the department?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I understand there is a request coming from the City of Toronto, but it hasn't arrived yet. In the past our armouries in Toronto, the Moss Park armoury and the Fort York armoury, have been made available on certain occasions for emergency shelter requests by the city, the Fort York armoury on two occasions. They are intended, though, to be used for that purpose only on an emergency basis, because we do have ongoing functions within the armouries.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, just this past weekend I was stopped on the street back home by the father of one of our men who is in Afghanistan, one of the first ones who went. He said to me, Mrs. Wayne, we got a letter from our son, and our son has not had a proper meal since he went there. He asked if there was any way they could send him some food. I know that's not what you or any one of you sitting there would want, but I'm not sure whether you or your people have been informed of this problem. I was in absolute shock. This was on Friday of this past week, and they just got the letter last week. He said he was hungry, he was tired, and that's what he asked for. I didn't know. What is the procedure for feeding our military men and women over there?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I was over there and I've seen the meals. They get a mixture. Sometimes they are getting ration food, but that is a full, balanced diet. There is a mixture of freshly cooked food as well.

General, would you like to try that?

º (1620)

LGen George Macdonald: Certainly, we're always concerned about the quality of life of our deployed service personnel, and we do the best we can for them. Sometimes they do have to live on hard rations for a time, but I can assure you, we're doing the very best we can for them in a fairly tough environment.

One thing you should know is that we recognize also the stress of individuals in a deployment such as the one our soldiers are in in Afghanistan right now and the need for them to get away from that for a period of time. We have started a rotation of four-day periods of rest and relaxation away, physically out of Afghanistan, for our soldiers on a rotating basis, so each one of them will have a chance to get a proper break from the base, without compromising our operational requirements in Afghanistan.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I was told today, when I was asking about this, they were supposed to be getting some dinners from the U.S. troops and their people over there. We weren't relying on the United States to feed our people, were we?

Mr. Art Eggleton: There is a combination of Canadian food and American food. It provides for variety. At least, I found that while I was over there.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: There is?

Mr. Art Eggleton: But I wouldn't say relying. It just provides a greater variety of foods.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When it comes to the submarines, as you and I know, they've been having some problems with the fuel systems, the submarines we bought from Great Britain. We have not been able to make use of all of them. Where are we right now with those submarines?

Mr. Art Eggleton: There are some start-up or growing pains with the submarines, they are taking a little bit longer to bring into service than we had anticipated, but we want to make sure that when we do take them over and put them into operation, they can function quite safely. So they're undergoing some further work over in the U.K., at their expense, and when they are in a position to be assumed by us for operations, we will do so, because we know we can rely upon them.

I'll ask Mr. Williams to expand on this.

Mr. Alan Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence): The first two have arrived and are being Canadianized. The third is due later on this summer, we hope, and the fourth in March 2003. As the minister said, a number of problems have arisen, but we're not going to compromise their safety and take them before we think they're safe for our men and women. The costs are being borne by the contractor, BAE, and we're going to insist on safety before anything else. So they are later than we had hoped, but at the same time, we're ensuring that they're right before we take final delivery.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: With regard to the Sea Kings, have you decided, Mr. Minister, whether it's going to be the C-17 or the C-130Js, or what have you decided?

Mr. Art Eggleton: With regard to the Sea Kings?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: With regard to the Sea King replacement, the helicopter replacement.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, I think you're confusing strategic airlift with the maritime helicopter program.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm sorry. Yes, I am.

Have you been looking at that as well?

Mr. Art Eggleton: We do have a project management office that is looking at the question of transportation, strategic airlift. We have not made any decision with respect to that. We're looking at different options at this point in time. Those are two of the options, but not the only options.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When will we really see a replacement of the 40-year-old Sea Kings? I know down deep in your heart, though you can't say it, you would like to have new ones. I'll say it for you. So, for heaven's sake, tell me when you're going to have them.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Of course I want to have new ones, and that's why we're progressing with the purchase. As I've indicated, we will be in a position to know what the replacement helicopter will be by the end of this year. We then will very quickly get into the mission system procurement process, and then we'll be negotiating as to just how fast we can get those manufactured and delivered. I find it difficult to give you that end date until we get a little further down the path.

º (1625)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I did tell my colleagues, as the chairman knows, at our last meeting that if you replace the Sea Kings with the EH101s, I wouldn't come after you in the House of Commons, I'd get up and praise you. Just remember that. If you give us the EH101s, you're going to get praise from Elsie on that one.

But I would like to know one thing that just came up today. With the camouflage uniforms, a lot of them probably won't get them until they come home, as they won't be ready for them. Why is it taking that long for us to give them the camouflage uniforms we feel they should have?

The Chair: Minister, can we get a quick answer on this? Mrs. Wayne's time has expired.

Mr. Art Eggleton: The uniforms they have are quite satisfactory. In fact, when they were in Operation Harpoon, they were spending a lot of time in a mountainous area where the colour of their uniform blended in very well. If you look at the Americans who have on desert camouflage, they also have on their packs and their vests that are in the dark green colour. So it really is quite suitable. The chief of the army has indicated it's quite suitable. Certainly, when I was over there, I found that the uniforms were quite what they needed.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Ms. Gallant.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate this opportunity to go on the official record to congratulate the men and women of 3 Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry for the excellent job they're performing representing their country in the war on international terrorism in Afghanistan. I congratulate Colonel Pat Stogran and 3 PPCLI parachute company on the three successful parachute assaults they completed in Afghanistan, jumping with the U.S. 101st Airborne, the famous Screaming Eagles

Given the facts, does the minister still feel, as he told this committee on October 4 last year, there is no need for that particular type of unit, an airborne regiment, in the Canadian Armed Forces?

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's not only what I'm saying, it's the advice I'm getting from the chief of the army, the chief of defence. The senior officers feel that with the organization of the Canadian Forces today, the airborne regiment is not needed, that there is a dispersal of the kind of work and expertise that was in that organization into the different infantry organizations, as well as the JTF-2. So what they were doing is being covered in another way.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The 3rd battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was picked to go to Afghanistan because it has a parachute company of airborne soldiers, who are doing their country proud. Does the minister feel proud that our parachute company had to rely on American planes and American equipment to do their job?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Interoperability involves sharing different capabilities. The United States did provide a strategic airlift for us, but there are very few other countries that have the kind of lift capability the United States has. In fact, in NATO there's only the UK. All the rest of them got into Afghanistan through the rental of equipment or with the assistance of the United States.

I might add that we also provided a lot of assistance for them. In fact, we transported as many people as they transported for us, through the use of our airbus, through the use of our Hercules aircraft. We've transported a lot of people, a lot of them Americans, we've transported a lot of equipment and supplies, a lot of it for the United States. We've also provided the Coyotes, a reconnaissance vehicle, which they don't have. So we provided some things for the coalition effort, they provided some things for the coalition effort. There's no doubt the United States is far bigger militarily than we are, and of course, they're quite capable of supplying a lot more, but we're pulling our weight and providing services for the coalition effort, just as they are.

º (1630)

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Our standing committee has recommended increasing the complement of the JTF-2 to 1,000 soldiers. Considering the stringent recruitment requirements of the JTF-2, how does the minister propose to expand the JTF-2 without watering down the requirements to enlist?

Mr. Art Eggleton: We don't have any intention of watering down the requirements.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: In a recent JTF-2 recruitment drive out of 800 applicants 12 were accepted. Considering the high burnout rate among existing JTF-2 members, how does the minister propose to keep existing manpower levels without dumbing down the enlistment requirements?

Mr. Art Eggleton: You just proved my point about not watering down the requirements, if a lot of people couldn't make it. I'll ask the Vice-Chief to respond further.

LGen George Macdonald: As the minister said in his opening remarks, we have a fairly aggressive recruiting campaign, and we've achieved some considerable success, but we still have some areas where we're having difficulty in recruiting people, notably in the technical trades and engineering trades. The source of personnel for the JTF-2 is largely the existing Canadian Forces, and we have to be careful that we maintain the standard for those entering the JTF-2 and that we are able to backfill them in the regular army, navy, or air force, wherever they come from. That's a challenge we will maintain and manage over time, to make sure we don't draw down any particular unit unnecessarily, so that they can't do their job, that we keep them up to the operational standard that's required, and at the same time, increase the capacity of the JTF-2.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: For intelligence gathering purposes, is it helpful to know how an enemy elite commando force is uniformed?

LGen George Macdonald: I think it's a fairly obvious fact that any information you can get from your enemy about your enemy, how they operate, how they're equipped, what kind of tactics they have, what kind of vehicles they have, is important information.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to the figures quoted by Mr. Emond. The numbers I referred to were $510 million for 2001-2002 for Operation Apollo and $251 million in 2002-2003, which are the current estimates. I want to know whether the 2001-2002 estimates will be exceeded and whether the $251 million figure is the current projection of the Defence Department with regard to what Canadian taxpayers will have to pay for Canada's participation in the Apollo mission next year. That's what I want to know.

Mr. Bob Emond: Mr. Chairman, the estimates were based on the mission as defined in December. We calculated the estimates over a 12-month period, as expected. Are we going to exceed those amounts based on last year's expenses? As far as I know, no. We should stay within the estimates, which is usually the case at the Department of Defence.

Mr. Claude Bachand: That's perfect. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as regards the decision of whether or not to stay in Afghanistan, it seems that the minister replied earlier that the navy may still stay for another two years. He did not mention the other branches of the armed forces, including the air force, the army and GTF-2. I would like to know who will decide whether Canada will remain in Afghanistan or not. Will you decide? Will it be the Cabinet on the recommendation of the chief of staff? Who will make that decision?

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: The government decides that, the cabinet, but of course, the recommendation from the Chief of Defence Staff from his consultation with the other senior officers is part of the input into making that decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Perfect.

I would now like to turn to the issue of strategic transportation, which has already been raised several times. We had the pleasure of hearing from the airlines several weeks ago and they made many requests. The issue is not only deciding which aircraft will be chosen, but also whether we should buy or continue to lease. You said a little earlier that there were only two countries in the world—maybe three if you included Russia—which could afford strategic air transportation. Those countries are the United States and Great Britain.

Could you tell us how much the Canadian Forces pay in leasing costs for transporting troops throughout the world on the various missions you have described in your documents? Do we have any figures on that? Perhaps Mr. Williams could answer.

º (1635)

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: Not in the case of Operation Apollo. At least, I'm not aware of any costs associated with that. In each of the missions, if we lease or rent either aircraft or ships, there would be costs associated with that. But as for our acquiring any capability in a more direct fashion, such as acquiring C-17s or leasing C-17s or any other equipment, that is yet to be determined. We're looking at the options now. I don't know.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Several people are starting to mention the possibility of sending troops to the Middle East. I also see in your estimates that you expect to extend Operation Palladium into next year. It may be easier to recruit more people at this time, but they still need to be trained. We are also losing soldiers. Do you feel that our capacity to send troops abroad has reached its limit and that it would not be possible, tomorrow for instance, to commit another 2,000 or 3,000 soldiers somewhere else, given that the Palladium and Apollo missions are still ongoing?

If we respect our international commitments, do you think that means we have reached the limit of our ability to deploy troops elsewhere?

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: We do have limitations on how much more we can do. As I said, right now we have the largest number overseas that we've had since the Korean War, and as a percentage of our active armed forces, it's one of the highest percentages you'll find of any country. If a situation arises in the Middle East that requires peacekeeping operations--there has been some discussion about that, but we're still not there yet in respect of any decision to be made in that regard--we'd have to take a very close look at what we were capable of doing. But when the call has come out in the past, we've been there.

There are limitations, particularly on long-term sustainability, the ability to continue to rotate. We've been able in Afghanistan to do one six-month period. If we had to, we could go further than that with the rotation, but there are limitations on just how far we can go. It's also a matter of priorities. You can always rework priorities, depending upon availability of troops, their readiness, and where the greater desires of the government are with respect to these operations.

Let's look at what's happened in past. What we find is that we have responded in most cases, we have been there, we have participated. We've always had the question of our limitations, how stretched we are, what our sustainability is, but so has every other country. They talk in the same terms. They may have bigger numbers of forces, but they talk about being overstretched as well. In fact, when the British went in to pad up the ISAF in Kabul, they said they only wanted to be there for three months, they were feeling so stretched. We haven't even said that. We said we would be there six months. So everybody is undergoing this problem of being stretched or overstretched.

We're having a very close look at Operation Tempo as well, because we think it's important, particularly as part of our retention program.

The Chair: Minister, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off there, because Mr. Bachand is well over his time.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't expect a detailed answer, because it's impossible to give one at the present time, but perhaps in the near future we can get a detailed response to the area of concern I'm going to present, and that is our recruitment for the future. When I was at NORAD, every single air force officer I talked to there was a former cadet. I'm heavily involved with cadets in Thunder Bay, and all the officers that have appeared in Thunder Bay involved with the cadets have also been cadets in the past. When I take a look at some of the budget items that pertain to the navy, army, and air force cadets, I'm a little concerned. I'm concerned because we have cadets across this country who have to sell tags on Navy League Day, they have to go out and sell chocolate bars in the malls, they have to get their parents to go to bingo in the community to raise some funds.

I think we're missing the boat here, simply because we're not putting the emphasis where it should be, on the seed where it's going to begin to germinate. We then have a process through which we can pick out in the future those who are strongly motivated, very keenly interested in the military field in which they're involved ever since they've been cadets, and they can devote their entire lives to that occupation if they so desire. But above all, you usually find that those are the people who have the capability, the level of intelligence, the desire, and everything else we want, the skills that are required, knowledge, and so forth.

So I would like a breakdown, some kind of comprehensive report regarding where the money is going and what kind of program we have. I know Rear Admiral Raymond Zuliani made a report, but I'm not satisfied by what we're doing at the present time in those three areas, the cadet leagues.

º (1640)

LGen George Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we certainly can provide more information; there's quite a bit that's available about our cadet program. We have about 55,000 sea, army, and air cadets in Canada. About 6,000 volunteers are associated with those cadets, and a number in what we call cadet instructor cadre, instructors and officers. It's a tremendous organization, probably the most successful youth organization in Canada. We have a partnership between the Canadian Forces, the local volunteers, and the leagues, the Navy League, the Air Cadet League, and the Army Cadet League. So it's a combination of providing public funds from the Government of Canada through the cadet program, the leagues raising their own money through their volunteer programs, and the local volunteers contributing.

So the strength of the movement stands on this partnership that we have, and it's important that each partner makes a contribution. We, of course, make a substantial contribution by essentially running the cadets program, recruiting the officers, giving them the necessary training, providing the administrative structure, and making sure they get the training facilities and so on they need. It's a wonderful program, and as you suggest, many cadets, young men and women, do end up in the Canadian Forces because of the training they have. Even if they don't, it's a considerable contribution to the youth of Canada, I think, for people to have that self-discipline and leadership training they get during their years as cadets.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'll be looking forward to that breakdown. I'm concerned about the transfer of funds from one budget to another, debiting the cadets' accounts by so-called rental of an armoury for their activities or whatever. All kinds of bookkeeping are taking place, and I would like to have a little better look at what's happening.

LGen George Macdonald: Much of it is related to the obligations of each partner in the organization. The leagues take care of facilities where there are no public facilities available.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I might add that four years ago, when we turned the corner on defence department funding, the first new sum of money allocated by the finance minister was for the cadets, $27 million that we added to the cadet budget to strengthen the organization, recognizing its value. Preparing young people for possible military careers is not even the main purpose. That's something that does happen to some extent, but it's really to give them an opportunity to become better citizens, to gain self-confidence in some of the other things that become a part of it. It isn't totally us, it's a partnership with the community, and that's why you get these tag fundraising days, because that's the community raising it's part of the bargain.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Dromisky. Thank you, Lieutenant-General.

Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: To follow up on that, I'm surprised there would be a debiting of costs for the armoury to the air cadets. I took it for granted that would have been something just provided as part of the program. It seems like a piddling amount of paperwork, and I'm curious why it even happens. With all due respect to the equal partners involved in the program, years ago, I can definitely tell you, cadets didn't run around for tag day, the communities were very much involved, there was a great deal of pride in the programs, and it wasn't a matter of having to run out and sell chocolate bars. Could you explain this?

º (1645)

LGen George Macdonald: We do not charge for the use of public facilities by cadets. There are cases, though, where communities do not have an armoury or do not have a military or publicly owned facility that can be used for cadets, and in those cases the league assumes the responsibility to find appropriate accommodation, be it in a school or a community centre or whatever. It is important that the individual cadet units have some way of raising their own funds for their own purposes, to do their part of the local contribution to the cadet movement, to have their buy-in. I was a cadet, and I sold peanuts and chocolate bars. I think we all have, those who've been involved, to establish a commitment to the organization.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: All right.

Do you have any statistics on how many cadets or army league or navy league people go into the forces? Do you have those kinds of statistics? I'm just curious.

LGen George Macdonald: I don't believe we track them, frankly. We can do it in retrospect by asking military members how many were cadets. As was mentioned, it's always a high number.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You made the statement that there's a high number, so I took it that somebody must be asking them, otherwise, how could you make the statement?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I think they just know anecdotally. As I said, it is not the primary purpose of the cadet movement to feed people into the military force.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

In regard to the comment that the $101 million wasn't showing in these estimates, and I think it was indicated that it would be in the supplementary estimates, will it fall under the department of defence within the estimates?

Mr. Bob Emond: I expect it will show as a line item in the fall estimates of 2002 for defence, crediting the department with the cost associated with the acquisition.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We have expenditure, but we'll get money from the centre, so it's a wash. It has a zero effect on the budget.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

We're celebrating the 75th anniversary of our air force cadets back in Saint John, New Brunswick. There's a great history back in our city when it comes to the cadet movement. We have the HMCS Brunswicker and the armouries and so on.

I've been asking my colleague John, and he's been looking into something. Do you want me to ask about it, John? All right, I will.

This 75th anniversary of our air force cadets has a two-day program. They were going to have a march, which they always do, in their uniforms to Trinity Church, where there'd be an ecumenical service, and they were informed the cadets could not parade to any church service any more. Are you aware, General Macdonald, that this order has been put out to our cadets?

LGen George Macdonald: No, I'm not.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: John's been trying to find out why. You're not aware of that, Mr. Minister, are you?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, I'm not, and I don't see any reason for those kinds of things to change.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Neither do we, but they had to take it off their agenda.

º (1650)

Mr. Art Eggleton: All we can do is look into the matter and find out.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Please do, it's rather urgent, because our young people and the whole organization were really dumbfounded when they were informed. It was shocking to them that they were told they were not allowed to do this any more. So somewhere somehow somebody has told them this, and we have to find out what it is. I had calls from the retired colonels back home about it, because they were extremely upset.

With regard to the Canadian Forces grievance board, in the papers this past week we had quite a number of articles about the number of people who were leaving our air force, and a lot of them were saying it was because of the quality of life. Through this grievance board, have you had people come complaining about the problems they're having such as to cause them to leave?

Mr. Art Eggleton: The articles of the past week related to a survey that was taken of approximately 350 people who were leaving, and it asked why they were leaving. So it wasn't a survey of the people who were staying, and the comments that have got disproportionate attention in the media are from a handful of people. That cannot be generalized to the entire force. It is not representative of the entire force. It's a handful of those people who were leaving.

There has been substantial improvement to the quality of life and in many other areas for the Canadian Forces. The judicial system has been completely overhauled, for example, and one of the reforms has been the grievance board. There has been a grievance procedure in place for a long period of time, but now there is this independent oversight that is provided. It used to go up through the chain of command and end up at the minister's desk. Now the minister has been removed from the equation. This civilian independent board examines a grievance and makes a recommendation to the Chief of Defence Staff, who can then accept or reject the recommendation of the board. If he rejects the recommendation of the board, he is required to do so in writing, to be accountable in writing for that. This is one of the reforms, one of the new oversight mechanisms, that I think are going a long way towards helping to ensure that there is fairness and equity, justice in dealing with matters where members of the forces feel they have a grievance against the system, they've been dealt with unfairly.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Peric.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have a few questions for the minister.

On thes cadets issues, as you, Minister, are aware, I approached your department for some assistance for facilities for a squadron to practice, and unfortunately, even if the money was there—and it wasn't that much, because the community raised 95% of the funding—the program wasn't there. There are a number of young Canadians who are cadets today who are potential members of military forces in the future. I would appeal to you to look seriously at more resources to assist cadets, not only air cadets, in this case where my son is, but all cadets, because they really need our support, not just community support. The community is getting dry.

Minister, you mentioned that we're going to have to revisit our policy. Are you expecting to work in line with other NATO countries, specifically with new members? If you are, how are we going to achieve that?

º (1655)

Mr. Art Eggleton: How are we going to achieve what?

Mr. Janko Peric: Will we work with them to create our own policy that will be in line with them, so that we won't have to argue in future?

Mr. Art Eggleton: All the countries in NATO go through their own national policy examinations, but one of the things we all have to look at is interoperability. We are part of a defence organization where we work together. We would work together in defence of our respective countries. We would work together in crisis management operations, as we are doing now in the Balkans area. So interoperability, which has many dimensions and many facets, is an important part of our considerations when we're developing capabilities and determining what our overall policy should be. One of the fundamentals of the white paper of 1994 is our membership in NATO and meeting the requirements for our membership, the contributions we need to make to the strengthening of the alliance. That is one of the fundamentals I would see us continuing to operate under in any review update. We have to take into consideration our relationship with our allies.

Mr. Janko Peric: Not so long ago there was a meeting in Paris, and the United States wasn't too happy with European NATO members. According to the United States, they are not ready to put in more funding for equipment and spend more money from their budgets. What can we expect from them if there's going to be a resistance, specifically with new members, as we know their economies are not as strong as ours, never mind the American economy? How can we expect them to be on an equal level with us?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I don't think we do expect them to be on an equal level, but we expect them to make improvements in their military. We expect them also to advance their countries and their people through democratic reforms, the rule of law. These are all important values and fundamental governance structures in NATO countries.

There is a membership action plan that was determined by NATO in 1999, and they're all following that membership action plan. They're all investing more money in upgrading and updating their military equipment and training to increase the interoperable factor I spoke of a moment ago. They are also carrying out reforms in the structure of the military. Many of the east European countries had a different form and structure from what we're used to in the west, where civilian control is a particular feature, so they're all moving in those directions. They all have civilian defence ministers now. They are making substantial progress, but it's not going to be completed at the time consideration of their application comes forward to NATO, that's perfectly understood.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I'm going to have to cut you off there in fairness to Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Benoit, you have five minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, Mrs. Desjarlais asked you earlier if you could get a breakdown of information on that mysterious $23 million out of the $101 million purchase of the Challengers, and you said you could. I was wondering if you could get that for us by the next SCONDVA meeting, which is Thursday. It shouldn't be too difficult to get.

» (1700)

Mr. Art Eggleton: We'll get it to you just as quickly as we can. There's no mystery in the breakdown that I've given to you, but you've asked for more information relevant to you, and we'll get as much information as we can to you as quickly as we can.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I hope that means next Thursday. In a report done for the Chief of Defence Staff on January 8 this is said:

Given that there are no identifiable trends or problems with this fleet, and given the high dispatch reliability of the Challenger, it is recommended that remedial action, such as fleet modernization or replacement, is not warranted at this time.

And it goes on say the Challengers have a 99.1% to 99.4% reliability rate in being available for VIPs. So this report said clearly the new Challengers simply aren't needed. The old ones are perfectly good, they're reliable, they're doing the job.

I'd like to ask you, Mr. Minister, what the reliability rate for our Sea King helicopters is.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I can tell you right now, in operations in the Arabian Sea it's over 90%, it's enormously high. They have been doing an absolutely outstanding job. This government invested $50 million, one of the best investments we've made, in providing an upgrade for those Sea Kings, and they're performing quite well. I've been taking them out to visit our ships in the Arabian Sea, and they perform quite well.

It's not surprising. There are 23 other countries that have Sea King helicopters. There are over 600 of them in existence. The United States uses Sea King helicopters. When the British Special Forces went into Afghanistan, they dismounted from their Sea King helicopter. So they're doing outstanding work, both the people that operate them and the machines themselves. The ones we have in the Arabian Sea, quite a number of them on the back of our ships, have, as I said, over a 90% success rate, and that's outstanding.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So there's a 90% reliability rate for the Sea Kings, 99-plus% for the Challengers, and yet your government, with its priorities the way they are, chose to replace the Challengers, when it's been 21 years you've been trying to get replacements for the Sea Kings. Where are your priorities Mr. Minister?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, the Sea King replacement, the maritime helicopter project, was identified in 1994 by this government. The government wasn't in office 21 years—well 21 years ago, we might have been, I don't know. But certainly—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the process started 21 years ago.

Mr. Art Eggleton: —the consideration of the maritime helicopter project goes back to 1994. We had four major purchases, as I recall, in the white paper. We've completed three of them, and we're now on to the fourth one.

There's no connection, though, between the Challenger purchase and the purchase of new maritime helicopters, no connection whatsoever. The purchase of the maritime helicopters is proceeding. We've gone through various consultations with the industry in the process to make sure they all get a fair chance to comment on the requirements. The statement of requirements is still intact, it's been verified by an outside consultant. As I said, by the end of this year we will identify the airframe replacement for the Sea King and move quickly into the mission system, with a request for proposals.

» (1705)

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the process has been 21 years so far.

Mr. Art Eggleton: No it hasn't. The process started with this government in 1994.

Mr. Leon Benoit: With this government, but it started with the former Liberal government 21 years ago.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I can only account for it in regard to this government. It is one of the major purchases, and we're proceeding with it.

But the Challenger aircraft, which your tying it into, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Minister, if this $100 million your government's chosen to spend on the Challengers will be put into the Defence budget, I'd suggest it has everything to do with your government setting priorities. When you would chose this luxury item, the convenience and comfort of ministers, over safety and having reliable equipment for our military, I'd suggest there's a very direct relationship. I think Canadians simply don't believe that's an acceptable choice for your government to make.

Mr. Art Eggleton: You're talking about safety, when we've got men and women overseas operating this equipment, and their families are over here concerned about it. I think it is a very irresponsible thing to say.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Minister, you're always willing to--

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I would ask you to let the minister finish his comments, because your time has expired at this point.

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We always ensure the safety. The air force always ensures the safety. They would not fly unless it is in fact safe to fly.

The Challengers you're trying to mix into this--no, there's no connection. The money for the replacement of the Sea King is already there, it's already been budgeted for. This $100 million makes absolutely no difference in that regard. There were year-end monies also allocated for equipment purchases for the military, and we have accelerated some of our equipment purchases because of that. This $100 million has nothing to do with that whatsoever, and they're not luxury. There's the same kind of outfitting inside the cabin as exists in the present Challengers.

The Chair: Minister, I'm going to have to cut you off there, I'm sorry.

Mr. Wood, I don't want to subtract from your time. Go ahead.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I want to go back to something Mrs. Wayne said about retention in the armed forces. If you believe what the Auditor General says, 2004 will be a crunch year, where a lot of the skilled and experienced members will have an option to leave. And to stop that, I understand some retention initiatives are being proposed or developed. Can you expand on that at all?

Mr. Art Eggleton: We've invested a fair bit of money and effort into these people. We want to try to retain them as much as we can, and, as I said, our attrition rates are down, so that it appears our program is working.A lot of our program of late has been in the quality of life area, but we are revising the terms of service to make them more flexible, more suitable to the individual. We are providing for bonuses or allowances in certain categories and certain occupational groups where they would help to ensure that we have doctors or pilots, people who are in heavy demand, but short supply.

I'll just ask if the general has anything further he can add.

Mr. Bob Wood: What about the regular corporals and sergeants? Is there any type of initiative being put forward to keep those people in?

LGen George Macdonald: Everything the minister mentioned applies to corporals and sergeants as much as it does to officer ranks in the military. Certainly, quality of life and the initiatives across the board have been a tremendous retention feature. As the minister says, our attrition rates are down. It's normally 7.5% to 8% per year, last year it was 6.3%, so we've made a significant improvement in that area, even at a time when the economy is still creating quite a bit of pressure on our recruiting levels.

We've also increased the compulsory retirement age to age 60 for those people who have skills and would like to stay in. We would like them to stay in beyond the previous compulsory retirement age of 55. And there are the flexible terms of service we have to recruit somebody who has specific skills for a specific length of time, to allow them to leave the military, if they wish, for professional development or for another position. All those things contribute to a significant improvement in our retention rates.

Mr. Bob Wood: Maybe you could just clarify this for me. One of the recommendations in this report is:

The Canadian Forces should consider adopting a human resource management occupation to ensure that it maintains the experience and expertise it needs to identify issues, develop policy, and implement changes over the long term.

What does that mean? Don't you have people in place already who do this? What does she mean by that, in your mind, General?

LGen George Macdonald: My interpretation of the recommendation is that we should train people specifically for human resource management. In the military we have specialty personnel who do HR types of things, but we don't have an occupation that you would call a human resource manager. On the civilian side of the public service there clearly are such people. We benefit in National Defence from having civilian and military people working together in this area, and so we do have a significant amount of residual and existing expertise in this area that our military people can benefit from.

It's important, when you're managing military personnel, to have some operational experience as a military person yourself, and we feel that's a valuable commodity in the HR world at National Defence headquarters. We do give some people specific professional development training in this area, but we do not have a specific trade or occupation of human resource manager for military personnel.

» (1710)

Mr. Bob Wood: Do you think it's warranted?

LGen George Macdonald: No. I think we can certainly make improvements to the current arrangement we have, with training and education, but I think we do a pretty good job in sharing our expertise with the civilian personnel of the department, as well as the Canadian Forces members in our HR system.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your leave, I would like to come back on an issue raised the minister a little earlier regarding our capacity and limits. Since the events of September 11, we have had to increase our involvement in NORAD. We sent part of our Canadian fleet to the Persian Gulf. Many PPCLI personnel have been deployed in Afghanistan. We have also deployed the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Second Battalion, which has just replaced the Third Battalion in Bosnia. All this indicates to me that a tolerable limit has been...

Would you agree with me, Mr. Minister, that the Canadian Forces have been stretched to the limit?

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: I don't know that I'd phrase it the same way. We are stretched, but it depends on what we're required or asked to participate in, it depends on what we have available at any given point in time, and it depends on what our priorities are. We have to look at each situation as it arises and determine whether we can contribute or not. If you're suggesting that we couldn't participate in any other mission, or even an extension of the battle group in Afghanistan, I can't say that. We are stretched, there's no doubt about that, and we've said that many times before, but there are a number of factors that come into consideration when we determine whether we can participate in a mission or not.

To go back to your previous question about the Middle East, we'll have to wait and see what it is that is requested of us at the time, but if you look at our track record, we've been there on many different occasions. We've participated in a significant way.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, you anticipated my supplementary question, which was not quite on the same subject. In fact, I just wanted to know whether Quebecers and Canadians can feel safe in the knowledge that the Canadian military is in a position to protect their security. We've been through a couple of natural disasters, such as the blizzard and the ice storm. But there have been others, and you will recognize with me that there may be other events related to terrorism. In your budget, for instance, you have made plans to have more personnel on guard in case of chemical, biological or nuclear attacks.

This is what I'd like to know. Since we have spread out our forces throughout the planet, are we still in a position today to tell Canadians and Quebecers that their armed forces can help in case of a natural disaster? I think that's the question we have to ask ourselves today.

As you can see, my question is not exactly what you anticipated. I know that we would be hard pressed to commit even more troops to an international mission. But wouldn't it also be hard for our Canadian Forces to come to the rescue of our taxpayers if there was a chemical, biological or nuclear attack?

» (1715)

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: All of that is taken into consideration as we plan any troop deployments, because there are these other obligations, these domestic obligations, that must be borne in mind. You mentioned the ice storm, in 1998 I think. We put 15,000 troops on the ground to help people with the ice storm, and we still had over 3,000 overseas at the same time. On other occasions, with other natural disasters, we've had very large numbers deployed abroad, as well as putting large numbers into domestic operations. We have, remember, not only our regulars, but reserves as well. A lot of reservists came out and participated in the ice storm, the Saguenay floods, the Red River floods.

We're also in the process of getting ready for Kananaskis in a support role. But again, in any movement of troops we have to look at all aspects of defending Canada and Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Bachand.

Mister Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Minister, we throw the term quality of life around quite a bit. What's that look like in action? What can you tell the committee about the reality of the quality of life, how we monitor it, and what we're doing to ensure that it's what it's supposed to be?

Mr. Art Eggleton: We had 80-odd recommendations from your committee on quality of life, and we've made reports. I think we have an annual report as to progress. Many of those recommendations have been fully implemented, some partially implemented, and some are still to go. There's a lot done, but there still is more to be done.

One of the biggest realities has been pay increases. There have been substantial pay increases. One particular year, about two or three years ago, in fact, there were double digit increases, and nobody was getting double digit increases at that time. It was a question of catching up, a question of paying the right level of support for our troops. Where we'd had concern about troops going to food banks or having other jobs, part-time jobs, we've made very substantial improvements in pay. We've made substantial improvements in cost of living allowances, cost of living differential, which for people in high-priced areas has provided very extensive additional resources for them to be able to cope with those costs.

Our family support programs have received additional help. We have day care facilities, all sorts of child care plans we never had before. Our health care system is getting the focus of attention this year. It's the priority, as it is in the country. We have a parallel health care system, and we want to bring about reforms to that as well to make sure our people are properly looked after. We've put a lot more focus and attention on post-traumatic stress disorder and trying to deal with both psychological and physical wounds people can get in their service to their country.

These are some of the areas. I'm sure there are others, but the reports we do provide regularly will help bring you that update.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Minister, we've heard something about the Sea Kings, and there have been questions around the table today about the proposed purchase of the Challenger jets. Unless I missed it, I didn't hear any questions directly concerning the CF-18s. What can you tell the committee about the state of those aircraft and what the plans might be?

Mr. Art Eggleton: We are into a incremental modernization program, a $2 billion program that will operate over a number of years. It makes it more affordable to do it on an incremental basis. It has, I believe, about 17 individual state-of-the-art upgrades for the 80 remaining CF-18s. This will provide for an up-to-date jet fighter probably through to the years 2017 to 2020. So they are going with an incremental modernization program at this very time. They've already started.

» (1720)

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, to use up the balance of Mr. Provenzano's time, I'd like to ask you very briefly about SHIRBRIG, the Stand-by High Readiness Brigade of the United Nations, and Canada's contribution to it. I notice that in the estimates there's a decrease in the amount of money going to SHIRBRIG. I'm just wondering how you account for that, if you're able to provide those details for us today, to indicate where you see that organization going.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I would imagine the decrease in the budget is because we're no longer part of the operation in Eritrea and Ethiopia, the first SHIRBRIG endeavour, and a successful one that brought together a number of member countries, very quickly moving into an area and helping to defuse a very volatile condition that existed between the two countries. The concept here is to have under the United Nations aegis this SHIRBRIG available for hot spots, places that do need forces to react quickly. We've indicated that we would commit forces for that purpose, as have other countries. We specifically went with the Dutch into Eritrea and Ethiopia, and the mission has proven to be a successful beginning for SHIRBRIG.

Where it goes from here, I don't know. Operations under the United Nations have been reduced substantially in the last few years. What we are getting are regional organizations such as NATO or coalitions of the willing, such as we saw in East Timor. Even the United Nations is admitting that while it needs to be involved in providing a legal framework for these missions, the Security Council resolutions, it doesn't have the capacity to move quite as quickly or rubustly as coalitions or operations under NATO. There needs to be reform. The Brahimi report recommended a lot of reforms for UN peacekeeping operations. They need to be implemented.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I'd like to hear more on this, but I'm going to have to go to Ms. Desjarlais at this point.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you. I'll try to be quick, so you can get another opportunity.

Have the dollars that are indicated to go to the provinces and municipalities for emergency preparedness already been issued to the provinces, or will that happen if the provinces come up with certain plans that have to be paid for?

Mr. Bob Emond: That would be for the disaster financial assistance arrangement.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Actually, I'm specifically talking about contributions to the provinces and municipalities pursuant to the Emergency Preparedness Act.

Mr. Bob Emond: Yes, those are the disaster financial assistance arrangements. That is money that is paid to provinces for expenses incurred by individuals when there is a disaster declared to be of national interest. The provinces bill the federal government. There is an audit. So what you're seeing, if you're looking at the estimates, is the expected amount that would be paid out this year.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: There's also another line for “Contributions to the Provinces for assistance related to natural disasters”. That amount is $200 million.

Mr. Bob Emond: The $200 million is for the disaster financial assistance arrangements.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: What's the one for the Emergency Preparedness Act, $10,780,714?

Mr. Bob Emond: My recollection is that it's part of the joint emergency preparedness program that's recently been introduced.

» (1725)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Under Bill C-42?

Mr. Bob Emond: It's a collaborative effort. That would go to promote training etc.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That was the one I was questioning you on. Is that money that is being funnelled out to the provinces right now, or is it going to operate under the same premise, that if there is a cost, it will be billed back?

Mr. Bob Emond: It's not like the DFAA. It is not billed back by the provinces. It's designed to be a shared program.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

There's $1 million for a civil air search and rescue new initiative fund, there's another one for the civil air search and rescue, so I'm just wondering what the two are. What is the new initiative that gets the additional $1 million?

Mr. Bob Emond: You're reading from part II, I believe, which is the long sheet.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's under “Conduct Operations, Contributions to the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association--New Initiatives Fund”, and it's $1 million. You'll have to forgive me. Because they're such huge amounts of money, I just expect everybody to know them.

Mr. Bob Emond: Off the top of my head, I couldn't give you an answer.

Mr. Art Eggleton: The new initiatives fund is an attempt to improve our capacity for search and rescue. In fact, it's recommended by the search and rescue secretariat, which is an interdepartmental entity. All of these relate to how we can improve search and rescue, not only what might be provided by the forces, but more particularly, what would be provided in the communities by volunteers in search and rescue operations.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Was there a specific proposal as to what this would be dealing with? Why wouldn't it be included in the one line?

Mr. Art Eggleton: There are quite a number of these that are funded every year. It's an ongoing program. We can find out more details about that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I have one more quick question. I just thought about it as somehow Toronto came in there. On the natural disaster in Toronto with the big snowstorm a few years back, could you tell me if Toronto ever paid any money back to the Department of Defence for that snowplow effort?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I don't believe so, nor did anybody pay back for the other natural disasters.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Don't compare the flood to the snowstorm.

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, I'm not.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If you come from northern Manitoba, you're still laughing.

Mr. Art Eggleton: There was an excessive amount of snow, for Toronto. There were forecasts that there could be a lot more, which could have crippled the city. It was not only the assessment of the mayor of the city and the city council, but our own people had a look at it and decided it would be prudent to pre-position some troops in case that happened. It didn't happen that way, but there still was difficulty in getting emergency vehicles around, ambulances to hospitals and things like that, which, of course, can create serious problems for people. There was some assistance provided, as it is in the case of any natural emergency.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, thank you.

Mr. Wood, by my watch, you have about a minute left for a quick question.

Mr. Bob Wood: I will be quick.

Mr. Minister, we're in the process of starting to write the paper on the state of readiness of the Canadian Forces. Is that going to be redundant because of your initiative to start on a white paper, or can it be intertwined into it? Or if we are in the process of hearing people, are we going to end up hearing the same types of people, who will get here and talk about a white paper? Are you going to go through this all again?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, I wouldn't say so. It's related, but it is a key component of the considerations that have to be made in any policy update. In determining the resources we need, readiness levels are a factor. I think it will be quite valuable. I think it will work in quite well with the process. One of the advantages in going through this update is that there is a lot of opinion out there, there is a lot of information out there, different suggestions about what we should be doing, what capabilities and readiness levels and force structure we should have, so that it will all be useful input into this process and will help, in fact, to expedite the process.

The Chair: Minister, on behalf of all the members of the committee, I'd like to thank you, General Macdonald, Mr. Emond, and Mr. Williams for your presence here today. It's been a very useful exchange, I think, and the committee has certainly benefited from it.

For the information of committee members, there is a proposed program for a visit to two defence companies on Tuesday, April 23. Perhaps you could let our clerk know if you're able to attend. It includes tours and presentations by both the companies, as well as a reception.

I don't think we have any further business, so with that, we will adjourn the meeting.