NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 4, 2001

• 1531

[English]

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

I hope all of the media people have the shots they require. I would ask them at this point to vacate the committee room.

We have before us today the Honourable Art Eggleton, Minister of National Defence, and Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff.

Everyone around this committee table appreciates that there have been some significant changes to the security landscape since the attacks on September 11. At the risk of repeating myself twice within the hour, pursuant to a motion that was passed unanimously by this committee on Tuesday, the committee will be looking at producing a report on the issue of Canada's operational readiness in the area of counterterrorism. We will be looking to have that report completed in time for the pre-budget deliberations occurring later this fall.

I have received a motion from Mr. Peric in connection with the issue of the timing of committee meetings. I would ask that we deal with it at the steering committee, if that's appropriate, because a number of other members have raised this issue with me. Right now I would like to get as quickly as possible to the minister and get his comments before the committee.

Minister, I understand you can be with us until 5 o'clock.

Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence): That's correct.

The Chair: We appreciate your time, and you have the floor.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

It's been a little over three weeks now since the terrible terrorist attack was carried out in the United States, the consequences of which are something we are still coming to grips with. It's no exaggeration to say the security environment we now face has changed fundamentally.

The campaign against terrorism will be unlike any campaign we have ever engaged in. Now more than ever we must prepare for the challenges of the future. Today I will focus on three areas: first, our immediate response to the events of September 11; second, the Canadian Forces' capabilities in the context of counterterrorism; and third, how we are shaping the Canadian Forces to deal with the wide range of future security challenges.

Let me start by saying that Canada's determination to stand by the United States and its allies against terrorism is solid and unwavering. We are committed to not letting the acts of September 11 go unanswered. While the United States is only beginning to define NATO assets that could potentially be required in the overall campaign, the Canadian Forces will be ready if and when called upon.

• 1535

In fact, as I indicated in the House of Commons last week, I've already authorized more than 100 Canadian Forces personnel serving in the United States and other allied military forces on exchange programs to participate in any operations their host units may be involved with as a result of the recent terrorist attack.

The Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence responded rapidly to the events of September 11, both in terms of providing assistance and enhancing our security posture. Even as events were unfolding, the forces mobilized key assets in preparation for any request for help that may have come from the United States.

For example, three Canadian Forces ships were put on a heightened state of readiness to deliver humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, transportation, and communications equipment into U.S. ports, should that have been required. At the same time, members of the Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART, were put on active alert and many of them were transferred into our base in Trenton.

During and immediately following the events, NORAD significantly increased its alert readiness measures. Additional CF-18s were put into the NORAD system to deal with increased threats from airborne terrorism, which included escorting planes in Canadian airspace if it was determined that they were in trouble.

Meanwhile, forces personnel were recalled to their bases and put on a higher readiness, higher alert, status.

[Translation]

The Canadian Forces also responded quickly to the domestic demands that the re-routed planes placed on communities across our country and worked closely with local airports, Transport Canada, Red Cross workers and countless volunteers.

[English]

Within hours of learning that flights were being diverted into Canada, Canadian Forces Airbus and Hercules aircraft were in the air, ferrying thousands of cots, blankets, and personnel across the country to help cope with the influx of some 33,000 stranded passengers and crew. At the same time, members of the Canadian Forces were assisting local authorities in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba to accommodate thousands of displaced travellers on that day of September 11.

And while little could be done to alleviate their great anxiety, our military—working with the people of this country, who volunteered much of their time and effort—ensured that they were kept comfortable until they were able to resume their travel. The assistance provided by the Canadian Forces was an important part of our overall national response efforts right from the very beginning.

Now, organizing the many aspects of this response was no small task. And here the federal government's new Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness—or OCIPEP, as the acronym goes—played a key coordination role. Within hours of the attack, officials at OCIPEP had compiled an inventory of resources available in Canada for humanitarian assistance to the United States, and this information was communicated to their counterparts at the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. They also worked closely with the provincial emergency measures organizations and the private sector to assist in coordinating the support and resources necessary to help local authorities accommodate the air travellers stranded in Canada.

Many of these stories have not been told, Mr. Chairman, up until now. But it's important to know of the many people who put many hours and efforts into this, right from the very beginning. These examples demonstrate the excellent work of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces and it shows that, when asked, they were ready—they were ready and able to respond.

• 1540

In the last three weeks there's been some criticism and a lot of discussion in the House about the government's counterterrorism plan and about the capabilities of the Canadian Forces. Let me first say here that no country could possibly be fully prepared for the kind of attacks we saw in New York and Washington, but that does not mean we're defenceless. A government has no higher priority than ensuring the safety and security of its citizens. Both my department and the personnel of the forces are committed to protecting Canada and the security of Canadians.

We do have a counterterrorism plan. It is continuously being updated and it keeps pace with the threat environment. This plan comes under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General when it involves incidents of domestic terrorism, and under the Minister of Foreign Affairs for incidents involving Canadians or Canadian interests abroad. The Canadian Forces are part of both aspects of that counterterrorism plan, as are many other agencies and departments of this government.

In terms of capabilities, the Canadian Forces have a highly trained tactical unit called JTF2, or Joint Task Force 2, which is a counterterrorism unit in the Canadian Forces. JTF2 is ready to respond to terrorist incidents in various situations where Canadians and Canadian interests are threatened.

We also have at our disposal the Canadian Forces Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Response Team, which has a limited capability—it's a small team and it has a limited capability—but can respond to terrorist attacks in those areas. This unit can be augmented when required by drawing upon other resources within the Canadian Forces, whether they be regulars or reserves. Let me add that the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Response Team is capable of supporting the RCMP—they are also part of a joint response team—and can provide advice and technical assistance during a nuclear, biological, or chemical emergency.

[Translation]

In terms of protecting our infrastructure, let me also mention that OCIPEP has accelerated its development of a complete inventory of Canada's critical infrastructure.

[English]

This national critical infrastructure protection program will identify and enumerate Canada's key facilities, assets, and networks, such as pipelines, dams, and power stations, and help develop a national protection strategy. This process is being done in consultation with both the provinces and the private sector. In fact, officials from the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness met with representatives from one of the provinces, Alberta, last Friday.

We also, Mr. Chairman, have a very effective intelligence capability. Since the attacks we have been working closely with the Americans to assist them with the collection and analysis of intelligence. Did you notice the remarks of Mr. Cellucci, the ambassador, the other day, when he said that our intelligence sharing, our intelligence operations with the United States, were very good up until September 11, but after September 11 they were extraordinary?

And of course this cooperation has become more important than ever, and we continue to enhance it. We saw in the Kosovo air campaign, and more recently in the Arabian Gulf, this kind of cooperation in the area of our navies. Two of our ships—the frigates HMCS Charlottetown and HMCS Winnipeg—just returned from the gulf, where they were helping to enforce the UN embargo on arms getting into Iraq.

In fact, we've had many ships there at many times, where, like their predecessor ships, they had been fully integrated members, not add-ons, of United States carrier battle groups. In so doing, the Canadian navy was able to attain a level of interoperability with the United States navy that is second to none—and that's what they say.

• 1545

We are also improving our ability to work with allies in meeting the challenges of asymmetric threats—from cyber-terrorism to random acts of violence using chemical and biological weapons to the kind of terrorism we saw on September 11. Here we are also expanding our bilateral research and defence relations with the United States, and collaborating with industry.

Here's something that's also not very well known. On this front, Defence Research and Development Canada, or DRDC, is engaged in research and development with our partners on both sides of the Atlantic, and indeed around the world. As an example, they have established an information operations R and D section that will help protect critical information systems from cyber-attack. This section has developed extensive protective measures against denial of service—one of the means of bringing down Internet servers—and we've all seen the threat of that in recent times.

Defence Research and Development Canada's research into detection, diagnostics, and vaccines also plays an important role in developing countermeasures against biological and chemical terrorism. A good example of this is CIBADS, the Canadian Integrated Biochemical Agent Detection System, which already provides the Canadian Forces with near real-time identification of chemical-biological agents.

The second generation of CIBADS, which is called 4WARN, is already deployed on some of our ships and is perhaps the best detection system of its kind in the world.

Obviously, in the coming weeks and months we will continue to determine the best way to deal with the threat posed by terrorism, and asymmetric threats at large. But as I have just shown in the examples, I believe we have a strong foundation to build upon.

At the same time, we will continue our efforts to ensure the Canadian Forces are equipped to respond to the whole spectrum of security challenges, and that they remain able, as our defence policy says, to protect Canada, defend North America in cooperation with the United States, and contribute to international peace and security.

With the significant investments in defence that this government has made over the last three years—let's not forget $3 billion over the last three years—we're on the right track.

Our CF-18s, for example, and our Aurora patrol aircraft are being upgraded. New search-and-rescue helicopters are now arriving in the country. The navy, which already possesses state-of-the-art frigates and destroyers, is now receiving new Victoria-class submarines.

The army is developing its blueprint for the “army of tomorrow.” This plan emphasizes medium-weight or lightweight mechanized forces, with enhanced intelligence, surveillance, target, acquisition, and reconnaissance capabilities. It will enhance the ability of the army to respond quickly and effectively to a broad range of threats anywhere in the world.

There's our new LAV III armoured personnel carriers, and our Coyote reconnaissance vehicles, recently used and requested to be used in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. These will all be at the core of this concept, as we develop numerous niche capabilities.

New combat clothing and related equipment have improved the ability of our troops to operate in the field. They've had something to say about the design of it. Some of you, I think, have been wearing it, in fact.

A new tactical command, control, and communications system is being introduced. We are investigating options to improve our strategic air and sea-lift capabilities. We are very close to a plan dealing with strategic air-to-air refuelling capability—restoring that to the Canadian Forces.

We will also be dedicating more resources to improving our ability to carry out joint and combined operations. In terms of jointness, the recent creation of the Canadian Forces Joint Operations Group is providing us with the modern, rapidly deployable, and robust command and control and signals capability we require for a changing world.

• 1550

In fact, the troops that participated in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia were augmented by resources from that group, in terms of command and support, including the commander of the task force. We were able to move them fast and get them into the theatre fast. That's what we need in terms of the ability to rapidly deploy and be there when we're needed.

[Translation]

Let me say by way of conclusion that I believe that only by maintaining a multi-purpose, combat-capable force can we manage to operate across the full spectrum of conflict areas that we see emerging, including the fight against terrorism.

[English]

Earlier this year, we began an internal update of our current defence policy, as set out in the 1994 white paper. The events of September 11 are now being factored into that assessment, in terms of future security challenges and how we can best respond to them, in terms of the capabilities of the Canadian Forces.

It is important to remember that the government already recognized the widening challenges posed by asymmetric threats well before September 11, as I've indicated in my remarks. That's what led to the creation of OCIPEP. The government assessed that cyber-terrorism and threats to our national infrastructure were among the growing new challenges of post-Cold War security, and we needed to develop and manage our country's response to them.

Finally, the message I'd like to leave with this committee is this: We are preparing to meet the challenges and the threats of the future head on. Obviously, the answers to the current crisis are not all on the table at this point in time. What we need to do, and what we are preparing to do, therefore, is conduct a government-wide analysis of the way ahead—an analysis that will include all departments and agencies that work to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

The Canadian Forces, as a key instrument of that domestic security, will be an integral part of a careful and balanced assessment of our needs. In the end, our response is going to require hard choices, not only on the part of my department and the forces, but on the part of all Canadians.

Only by working together will we best decide how we, as Canadians, can best contribute to the fight against terrorism and ensure the security and defence of our people.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. On behalf of all of the members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for your remarks today.

We have quite a few questioners. Let's get started very quickly with Mr. Benoit, for seven minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr. Minister.

We're now faced with a war situation, and I don't think it's going to be a short war. We're in for the long haul. For that reason it's important, when we look at this whole terrorist situation and the new world we face, that we look not only at the immediate needs of the military but also at the rebuilding of our military over the years to come. It's important that we look at both, as we examine the needs.

I don't envy you your position, Mr. Minister, because it's clear that the Canadian Forces are totally unprepared to deal with the conflict we face right now. Every member around this table would certainly agree with that, and most people sitting here today who are interested in this would agree with that as well.

I'm alarmed by your public pronouncements, which suggest you're still in a pre-September 11 mode of thinking. What I hear from you, quite frankly, is more spin, when we're in too serious a situation to be looking at spin.

Let me explain what I'm getting at, Mr. Minister.

• 1555

In your open letter to the Ottawa Citizen of October 2, you stated, and I quote:

...I want to assure Canadians that the Canadian Forces are ready and able to make a meaningful contribution—if that is what we decide to do as a country.

That's a quote from you, Mr. Minister. But everything that I've read from independent experts—without exception, Mr. Minister—suggests that this is nonsense.

Let me read a list of people and organizations that have raised serious questions about the capability of the Canadian Forces: the Conference of Defence Associations last week came out with an extremely valuable report explaining that they have some very serious concerns about the state of the armed forces; General Lewis MacKenzie; General Romeo Dallaire; Colonel Brian MacDonald, a noted defence analyst; the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, which produced a study showing that the numbers in our forces could be as low as 43,000 in two and a half years if the current trend continues; the Royal Canadian Military Institute; General Jean Boyle, a former Chief of Defence Staff, who said in 1997 that if he was asked to engage the army in a high-intensity conflict he would have to say that he couldn't do it; professors Jack Granatstein, Desmond Morton, and David Bercuson, who pointed to serious problems in the forces; Colonel Doug Bland; and the Auditor General, who has repeatedly pointed to funding inadequacies in the department.

So what we have is you, Mr. Minister, together with a few of your departmental people, on one side, and everybody else who really cares and has an understanding about the military on the other side.

Given the war we now face, isn't it time, Mr. Minister, that you told your spin people to get away from this and that you bring forward instead the expertise of all these people I've referred to, and that of many others? In other words, isn't it time you started listening to these experts who really care about our military and understand the seriousness of the situation and work with them to help rebuild our forces?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how the member can sit there with a straight face and say that. It's a bundle of distortions and exaggerations. He takes a little bit of truth and takes it completely out of context.

Yes, not everything is what we would like it to be in the Canadian Forces. We do listen to independent experts an awful lot, and many of the people he's cited have had useful things to say. But to take all of that and to take it to the exaggerated and distorted extent that he has by saying the Canadian Forces are totally unprepared to deal with conflict is absolute nonsense. The types of remarks the member makes are absolutely irresponsible.

I would just like to deal with a couple of things here. Regarding this question of the number of people in the forces possibly going down to 43,000, he doesn't seem to want to recognize that in fact we have taken action to prevent it from continuing to fall. He doesn't even explain that it's been falling in all countries of the world. All of the western democracies have had a reduction in the number of their forces, including in the United States. There has been a more competitive market. It has been difficult to get the numbers of people we want. But we have taken corrective action.

He doesn't point out that we've had many more recruits coming through the door as part of our current effort to bring new people in, nor that as part of our effort to retain people our quality-of-life measures are helping to keep people in the forces longer. All of this is going to help us get back to the numbers that we need. Instead, he throws out the figure 43,000. Sure numbers can and will continue to go down if we don't take corrective action, but he doesn't seem to want to recognize that corrective action is being taken. He wants to distort the picture. Just about everything else he said distorts the picture greatly.

One of the problems he and some others have is that there's a lot of old-think out there. There's a lot of old-think that relates to how you go about preparing for conflict. A lot of it relates to the last war rather than the next one. We're preparing for the future. Obviously, the member must have been busy and didn't hear a thing I said in my opening remarks, because I made it quite clear that what we're preparing for is the future. I talked about how we have a counterterrorism unit, JTF2. I talked about the NBC response team in terms of chemical and biological terrorism. I talked about OCIPEP in terms of cyber-terror.

These are all things that are relevant to asymmetric threats, which is a growing part of the concerns we have in the Canadian Forces and in this country in the future.

• 1600

This member wants to play politics. He doesn't seem to recognize the realities at all. He's already forgotten the remarks of the American ambassador, who's been quite impressed with the cooperation we have been able to provide and who believes we can provide assistance in terms of this campaign against terrorism.

He completely distorts the information. It's a disgusting comment on his part. I'm surprised he can sit there with a straight face and say those kinds of things.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Minister—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, your time has expired. You had seven minutes. You made a four-minute speech. The minister replied for three minutes.

Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.

[Translation]

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

I am a bit surprised by the minister's reaction, when he says that we are playing politics. I personally think that he is excellent at presenting things, I mean that the minister is a master at presenting facts and things with a great deal of sugar-coating. But we should not be called irresponsible if we do not share his view.

I think that the purpose of an opposition is to try to see how we can improve things, unless the minister tells me that there is absolutely no room for improvement in the Canadian Army. If that is the case, I do not know why we are sitting in a committee room this afternoon. It is my duty to tell you that I do not entirely share your analysis, and I would not like to hear you tell me that I am playing politics or that I am totally irresponsible.

This is a Parliament. I think that it is normal for us to engage in a bit of politics. You do it, and I do it as well. Our role is to criticize constructively, and that is what we intend to do. Personally, my attention was drawn to this passage, which I quote:

We will also ensure that the Canadian Forces will remain capable of protecting Canada, defending North America—

This is probably within the framework of NORAD.

[...] and to contribute to international peace and security.

This is probably within the framework of our international agreements, peacekeeping missions, observation missions, etc.

You go on to say: “Given the substantial funds that the current government has committed to Defence...” However, we must note that we are bringing up the rear with regard to the percentage of GDP invested. We are very far down on the list of countries, and quite close to the bottom. That is also an important point.

I am looking at the budget of the past 10 years. Of course, you can say that you injected an additional three billion dollars in three years, or the past three years, but previously, this had been totally abandoned. The budgets visibly fluctuate: nine billion dollars, eight billion dollars, 10 billion dollars. If we look at the economic factor, we have not even kept up with the level of indexation. And in the meantime, everything deteriorated. I have a list of these things here.

We may well be making efforts to upgrade the F-18s, but only about 20 have been upgraded. Now we are only upgrading 80 F-18s out of 120. As far as we are concerned, we suspect that the 40 others are being kept for spare parts. That is also happening. Do not try to tell us that it is not happening.

Regarding the navy, you told us that ships were restored and that our ships were in good condition. But even so, not so long ago, the Huron was unable to leave harbour in Quebec because there were not enough sailors on the ship. It is very good to have ships, but we need sailors to steer them and to man them. This is the reality. You cannot deny that this is true.

As for the land forces, General Jeffery recently stated that if his budget was not adjusted, he would have to drastically reduce his troops because he no longer had any means of supporting them. In fact, I put a question to you about this in the House. That is what he said. Certainly, this was followed by backtracking and spinning to try to say that this is not exactly what he meant, but I know this to be a fact, I took their training.

The people at Valcartier were listened to. They left for Bosnia, and if we want to increase our participation in Bosnia to relieve the Americans, we will have a problem because we hardly have any soldiers who are able to replace them, because the rotation is so fast. The number of personnel will drop to 52,000. Perhaps the figure of 40,000 over several years is a projection, but everyone is saying that in March 2002, there will be 52,000 persons in the Canadian Army, whereas your own white paper says 60,000.

As for our airlift and sealift capacities, we have to rent American and Russian planes to transport our material. On sea, we have to rent ships, and then, people from your own army start acting like pirates. They have to board the Katie to ensure that their equipment will reach its destination.

So I say that you certainly did make an effort. Certainly, if I were sitting where you are, as a minister, I would say that this is important and that there are some positive things. We are not denying that either, but there are some negative points, Mr. Minister.

• 1605

I would like to have your reaction to the statement made by the Bloc Québécois this week, whereby it requests that a billion dollars be injected immediately into security and defence in the present context. This is what we are proposing, with another set of measures. This is what we propose with regard to defence and security.

Now, Mr. Minister, I will give you the floor and I hope that you will not conclude in advance that I am irresponsible.

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: Mr. Chairman, not all criticism is obviously irresponsible. My comments to the previous speaker, however, I think were appropriate. I welcome constructive criticism. I welcome a wide range of questions, and I'm happy to answer them. But we're dealing with a very serious issue. I think we have to be careful about playing politics here, because we're dealing with the safety and security of Canadians—a matter that they have a great deal of anxiety about as a result of September 11.

Let me comment on a number of the things you've said. First of all, you said our spending on defence is down near the end of the line. I take it you're talking about the percentage of GDP, which is 1.2%. When you look at the NATO countries, it is down towards the end of the line. That is quite true. But I don't think it tells the story at all.

For example, the top country in terms of percentage of GDP is Turkey; 6% of their GDP is spent on defence. We spend the same amount of money they do. We just happen to have a larger economy. So it doesn't tell you anything. If you want to look at input—the amount of money—we spend about the same amount of money Turkey does.

If you look at any of the productivity or output charts—and the output is really what you should be looking at—what do you get for that taxpayers' money? How effective is it? How effectively is it being spent? If you look at that, I'll certainly match it against any of those forces in NATO in terms of our productivity or output. The charts that NATO puts out indicate that as well.

Out of the 19 NATO countries, we're the seventh largest in terms of budget. We're seventeenth in the whole world in terms of military spending. So we're spending a fair bit of money on the military. Yes, it was cut down a number of years ago, because everybody said we have to get rid of the deficit. We're going to have to cut all government spending. Nobody said, cut all government spending except defence. They said cut government spending. So it was cut. We have our deficit under control. But the last three years we've been investing more money—some $3 billion—and we're the seventh in NATO, as I said a moment ago, in terms of spending.

You talk about the CF-18s and the fact that we're cutting down the number there. The 1994 white paper calls for 40 to 60 CF-18s in the post-Cold War era. We bought a lot more than that in the Cold War, when we were looking at the possibility of something coming over the Pole. But the Cold War is over. We don't need 120 CF-18s.

So the white paper said 40 to 60. Well, we're going through an upgrade program for 80. We happen to think we need more than even the white paper says we need. So we are, in fact, going to have a very strong capability in terms of CF-18s.

You mention the numbers again, and say it's going down to 52,000 versus 60,000. I'm sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. There are two numbers. One is our overall strength and one is our effective strength.

Our overall strength at the moment is 58,500, although our policy calls for 60,000. That policy still stands. We're going to get back to 60,000. We're going to get back to that number.

The effective strength is always less than that, no matter what number you take it on, simply because a number of people are always in training, for example. The effective strength is always lower than that. Proportionately we're going to move back up to that 60,000 level as we put our recruits into place.

The Chair: Minister, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off there in terms of our questioners.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Okay. I'll try to get to further answers later.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne who has some travel to do very soon and has to leave the committee. There's agreement on the Liberal side to allow her to question now.

Mrs. Wayne, you have the floor.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC/DR): Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for coming.

And I won't play politics, Art. You have my word. None of us wants to play politics when it comes to the military.

We do have some concerns. I will just say this, too, Mr. Minister. I honestly believe that retired colonels and generals have concerns. They were there. They have concerns and they're legitimate concerns. They're not trying to be difficult. They're trying to bring forth to you and the public—and I know you know, but the public doesn't know—that our military needs their support. You need their support.

• 1610

We know the system that's in place, and it's that way no matter who's in government. Our military gets hit the hardest because the vice-admiral can't come up here with a placard and protest that he needs more money. He relies on us. We want all Canadians to come forth to help you and to help all of our military. So to be honest with you, that's what we're all about.

I would ask you this. I know there's been discussion about when we are going to have replacements for the Sea Kings. We heard at first it was going to be immediate, and then it would be in 2006, and then 2007. But right now, Mr. Minister, there's an urgent need for those replacements.

I raised the issue of CF-18s today. I received a letter from a gentleman who wears a uniform. He is very concerned about our CF-18s. He said some of them have been grounded because they've rusted out. Some of them need new brakes, and they're taking them from one and putting them in another.

The CF-18s are slated to be modernized during 2002 and 2006, but with what has just happened in Washington and New York, the timeframe we're talking about now is more urgent. I'd like to know what the timeframe is, to ensure they can carry advanced air-to-air missiles and the full complement of precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons.

Given the current situation, is there any possibility that the modernization process can be accelerated for them, in order to maintain the CF-18 fleet at the highest level of readiness? That's the question I have for you, sir.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Let me say something about retired colonels and the Conference of Defence Associations report that came out.

I respect the views of people who have served this country. I think we owe them a great debt of gratitude, and I respect all of them. Even if I don't agree with them at times, I respect all of them and I know they're trying to be helpful. I also have a great deal of respect for the Conference of Defence Associations. Again, I don't agree with everything they say.

I think one of the difficulties here is that things are changing so rapidly, and a lot of people who have retired don't have the latest up-to-date information. Their perspective and their experience are based on previous times. That doesn't apply to all of them, and not all of the comments they make are of that nature. I'm not writing all their comments off as being old-think, but there are some aspects of it where that is the case.

But let me say that I greatly respect that organization and I think their report had a lot of valid comments. They said I needed more money. I totally agree, and I will continue to go after more.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If I might just interrupt, I want you to know I spoke last Sunday night in a riding in Ontario. I spoke about defence and you, and the need for our grassroots Canadians to let the cabinet ministers and everybody know they support you and our military. Glory be, they're all going to write letters. You'll probably all get them.

You will certainly get them, sir.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you. I'm grateful for that. I need support. There's no doubt about it.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You're darn right he does.

Mr. Art Eggleton: On the CF-18s, the modernization program is under way now. We're not waiting until 2002. In fact, we are able to take advantage of a good-priced contract by having some of our work done with the Americans. Some of their planes are being modernized at the same time. So that's already under way.

On the issue of the brakes you mentioned, or taking parts from other planes, remember, we have a surplus of these planes—as I said, we're going to bring them down to 80—so parts will frequently be taken from the planes that will not be part of the ongoing system we're going to require, particularly on a short-term basis, if necessary.

• 1615

With respect to the brakes, it's not a question of the brakes being faulty; it's a question of them wearing out faster. They have to be replaced faster, as I understand it, because some of our runways are short and they have to come to very quick stops. I understand that is being looked at with the manufacturer.

With respect to the Sea Kings, I want to get them replaced just as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, we will ensure that they will continue to be safe to fly. We have a very rigorous maintenance program. But there's no doubt that their capabilities are not what we require right now. We need something more modern and efficient. As soon as we can replace them we will.

I hope we can keep to the schedule of having them delivered, beginning in the latter part of 2005. We will have to catch up a little bit on the timing of that. But as the contracts are awarded, I hope we will find a formula to be able to do that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: We'd be very happy to build their ships for them in the Saint John shipyard.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Actually, the Halifax shipyard would be a good place—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: We'll work with you, dear.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you for that commercial, Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and Vice-Admiral, for being here today. It's nice to have you come this quickly. I think it is important.

I have two questions. The second one will be on JTF2, which we've had our differences on in the past, but I'm sure you'll be happy to answer that.

First I'd like to talk just briefly about an experience I had recently, on September 11. I was privileged to have been at CFB Trenton when all of this happened. I have to say that I was extremely impressed by the way everything went into operation on the base.

Colonel Higgins, the base commander formerly with NORAD, obviously knew exactly what he was doing. Base security quickly went into operation. They knew exactly what they were doing. They were prepared. You mentioned the DART team. It wasn't just a question of having to bring in people from Petawawa; the DART team itself was up and ready to go, with their materials, within a matter of hours. It was that quick.

The planes that were on the ground there, our Hercules, were dispersed immediately to different parts of the country where they would be needed. Other things were moved inside.

I attended the first briefing they had, and it was very clear at that point—the word had come down—that whatever the Americans needed they would get. That came right down through DND, and obviously the PM. There was no “maybe this, maybe that” but whatever they needed. The airstrip was cleared immediately, in case they needed it.

Since Trenton is the closest Canadian base to New York, they were nervous; there was no question. We had special equipment there. Beds and blankets were taken to the three bases of Shearwater—Halifax, St. John's, and Gander. I went myself on one of the Hercs and delivered some of these things.

There were such things as the family resource centre. It was something we maybe wouldn't have thought about that much, but all of a sudden many members of our military were going to be working different shifts. They were all of a sudden going to be gone. The resource centre was up in place to take care of the kids and whatever was necessary.

I found that all of that was extremely so well done, it actually made me very proud. There was only one little problem I had with all of it. At the first briefing, the base commander said to get all the contractors off the base, for security purposes. There was total logic in that. But immediately one of the group commanders said to wait just a minute; we do have maintenance people for our planes, and our planes are going to be needing the service—even to the point where certain parts of these maintenance crews pull the planes out onto the tarmacs so they're ready to leave.

• 1620

My question, Mr. Minister, would be on what type of security set-up we have for contractors who are coming onto the base. How well prepared are we to make sure these people are safe to be on the base?

Can I go with my second question as well, on the JTF? I'll make it very quick, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. David Price: On the JTF, we see the Brits, the Germans, the French, and the Americans out there with their special forces, talking about them all the time, talking about what a great job they do—as ours do. But we don't hear anything about it here. We lack information on them.

We don't want to know what they're doing at a certain time or any of that, just the fact that they're out there. We have a great team out there. They're doing a great job. And most Canadians haven't a clue that we have these special forces out there, able to take care of us in special cases like that.

Thank you.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's report about the DART operation and how it was assembled. It's quite true. Our people were saying, in terms of disaster assistance, humanitarian assistance, whatever the Americans needed they would get, because at that point we were watching the horrors of the twin towers coming down in New York and the attack on the Pentagon. We certainly did everything we possibly could to assemble as much as we could, and were prepared to add to that as much as we possibly could in terms of disaster or humanitarian assistance. So that was the attitude—whatever the Americans needed in that time of crisis, on that day, they would get.

Regarding the comment about all contractors getting off the base, there's no general policy that says non-military people would have to get off, unless there is a sudden security reason for that. My understanding—and I'm checking this further, so this is only a preliminary answer—is that it was only a contractor who was working on a runway, a parallel runway to one that was being used at the time, because the thought was they might have to use both runways, as opposed to getting all civilian contractors off the base. I'm trying to confirm that still. But if that's the case, I can understand it, in light of the fact they thought more planes might be coming in at any time and they might need to use that runway. So that is the preliminary answer. I'll let you know when that's finally checked out.

With respect to the JTF2, they were primarily put in place as a domestic counterterrorism unit, although they do have the capability of operating offshore and have from time to time served in capacities offshore. But we're having a good look at that as part of the post-September 11 look at what we need in terms of improvements to counterterrorism capabilities. We're looking at the JTF2 and the possibilities of enlarging it. Even the DART, which up until now has been used primarily for foreign service, could be used in a domestic context, as well as our NBC response team, in case of a chemical or biological problem.

Those are just three capabilities, along with a lot of other things we're examining very closely in this post-September 11 environment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

Mr. Stoffer, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Maddison, for coming before us. Thank you very much for outlining the great work our armed forces did, not just in David Price's riding but also in our riding of Halifax—Dartmouth, at the Shearwater air base, for example, and the Halifax airport authority. The coordination was spectacular. Thank you for pointing that out.

But, sir, as you know, I wrote you a letter a couple of weeks ago now, basically saying with post-September 11 and the concerns everyone has regarding the future of what's happening, a lot of people know that DND has deemed 1,100 acres of land on the Shearwater base as surplus. On that land is an extended runway, a very long runway that was, by the way, used extensively during the Halifax air show just recently.

• 1625

In light of the circumstances of what's going on, wouldn't it be prudent, until we get a clearer picture of what's going on in the future, to hang on to those lands where that runway is in the event the Americans may require it, or we require it ourselves for any NATO joint concerns we have?

As well, the supply chain, as you know, is being deemed.... There are ongoing conversations to allow it to go to a private contractor. Again, wouldn't it be prudent to hold off those decisions, or at least delay them, until you yourself and your department get a clearer picture of what would be asked of us?

As well, sir, as a former airline employee, many of my colleagues—those who are still working, of course—have asked me to ask you a very pointed question. They would like a yes or no answer to it. I know it may be very difficult.

We've heard, Mr. Chairman, that the United States has ordered F-18s to shoot down domestic aircraft in the event they veer off their original course. My colleagues in the airline industry have asked me to ask you today, knowing we were going to have this conversation, whether Canada has contemplated that same type of order in our air space, and if not, when our aircraft depart Canada and go into American air space, whether they would fall under the same jurisdiction as an American airline.

For example, if Air Canada leaves Toronto and goes to L.A., right through in a straight line, will they be under the same American law in their air space, with F-18s? I'm looking at that recent incident where the F-18s were right there. Many of the passengers were frightened.

So I ask you those three questions, sir. And thank you for your report.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you for your kind remarks about the fine, dedicated people who wear our uniform. Halifax, as the admiral knows, was a very key place, as well as other parts of your province.

Yes, you wrote me a letter—and I appreciate that—with respect to the matter of Shearwater and the supply chain. We've looked at that, and we tend to look at everything now in a post-September 11 way. We've come to the conclusion that, no, we should proceed with the Shearwater plan; we do not need to revisit it.

It's the same with the supply chain. That has moved along the pipe quite well. Here is an area I think we can improve substantially, as well as save money, on the kind of service we get in terms of delivery of various pieces of equipment and supplies and their movement through the system.

I must say, the plan that's come out is a well-founded business plan. It will save the taxpayers a considerable amount of money, and it will treat our employees well. In fact, all of our employees will get a job offer, and some of those job offers will be better than what they've been working under, so much so that the president of the union of defence employees is supportive of the contract. So we will be proceeding with that. But I take well your point that we need to look at everything in a post-September 11 light, and we certainly do that as we go.

In regard to the question of an airline that may be hijacked and what the air force personnel would do, this, of course, was demonstrated, as you pointed out, when an Air Canada jet was in the United States near Los Angeles and was accompanied back to the base by American air force fighters.

This possibility of shooting down an aircraft is a very extreme one. It's a very last resort, and I hope it never happens. We would try everything in Canada, as they would in the United States, to try to get the plane to turn around, to come down in a fashion that would be safe for the passengers.

If it were going into a situation such as the World Trade Centre, then, of course, there could be a point where, God forbid, an ultimate decision might have to be made with respect to the possibility of shooting it down.

• 1630

If this was to happen in Canada, the decision would be made by the Canadian government, acting through me in consultation with the Prime Minister. In the United States that same authority is being delegated to members of the general staff, as I understand it. But neither the Americans nor ourselves ever want to see this happen. It's an extreme last resort. We would do everything possible to not have it happen.

The Chair: Mr. Anders, you have five minutes.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, I was shocked to hear you use a word like “surplus” when you described our CF-18s. When you consider how unprepared Canada is with regard to our air force, for you to use a term like “surplus”, I think, frankly, was a pathetic cover-up for what's been going on—an emasculation, or a sissification, of our armed forces while you've been minister.

With you as minister, we're not even meeting our NATO commitments as far as our 1994 white paper goes. If that were the case, if you were doing your job, we wouldn't have had to have U.S. fighters escorting passenger planes into Vancouver and Whitehorse earlier this September after the strikes. If we have a surplus of aircraft, Mr. Minister, where were they?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Do you want me to answer now?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, I'd like that, thank you.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I thought you were still going.

Well, as I said earlier, there are some surplus CF-18s. The defence white paper, if you read it, calls for 40 to 60. We are upgrading 80. We're upgrading more than what is required. We bought originally 120 in the Cold War era, and so we don't need as many. When I say surplus, I'm talking about those over and above the ones we need, over and above the 80.

As for our unprepared air force, what an insult you've just given to the fine, dedicated men and women in our air force. I had an American general tell me during the time of the Kosovo air campaign that our people were first-teamers, and among the best trained. I've heard this time and time again.

Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, in an interview the other day talked about how well trained and prepared our people were. They were involved in the Kosovo air campaign above and beyond what an air force of our size would normally be involved with. As the saying goes, they “fought above their weight”. They were in over 700 sorties—and this is two years ago in the Kosovo air campaign. They led about half of the sorties they were involved with, which included United States and British and French aircraft as well.

They did a first-class job in the work they were asked to do. I don't accept your comment that they were unprepared, nor do the people who were responsible for them at that time. And if it's necessary they can be part of any operation now.

You like to criticize what our chiefs of defence staff, both past and present, have said about being more combat-capable than we were 10 years ago; but 10 years ago in the Gulf War we couldn't have flown that many missions and led that many sorties and we didn't have precision-guided munitions at that time.

One doesn't like to think about going out and having to bomb, but if we do that, we need to have the latest equipment—and they had the latest equipment with precision-guided munitions and they were able to in fact do their job quite well.

The other thing you've talked about is why were there American jet fighters escorting an aircraft into Canadian airspace. Well, the fact of the matter was that when the aircraft was first spotted and there was some concern about it—there were signals coming from the pilot that something was wrong—it was being escorted over United States territory, Alaska. When it flew into Canadian territory, they handed it off to Canadian jet fighters.

• 1635

Remember that both the Americans and the Canadian jet fighters operate under the umbrella of NORAD, an organization where both countries contribute and where, in fact, we have the second most significant position. The chief....

You can laugh if you like, but remember, the deputy commander of NORAD is a Canadian. This means that on many occasions, a Canadian is commanding the entire United States air force.

Mr. Rob Anders: Are you suggesting some other country should have the second most important position in NORAD? Is that your suggestion?

The Chair: Gentlemen, gentlemen.

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, but you laugh at it as if it's somehow an inferior kind of position. I'm saying that when you put the United States—

Mr. Rob Anders: No, I'm saying it's an inane comment.

Mr. Art Eggleton: The United States has probably the biggest air force in the world, and we in fact have a very significant and important position there. We have many other personnel in command headquarters of NORAD who are part of a joint operation on our continent.

The Chair: I'm going to have to cut off this dialogue right now. We have other members who want to ask questions, and Mr. Anders is over his time.

At this point, I want to provide a very gentle reminder for members of the committee that when witnesses come before us, under the rules of the House—and it's basically just good manners—we should treat them with appropriate courtesy and fairness. Let's hold to this to the greatest extent possible when we're asking questions of witnesses.

Mr. Bachand, five minutes.

[Translation]

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

Just now, I asked the minister some questions. Unfortunately, he did not have time to answer. Among other things, I asked him a question about our airlift capacity, and also our sealift capacity. Following my earlier questions and in view of the answers we still expect, should we not be soon raising a basic issue, which I call “interoperability”?

Speaking of interoperability, here is my question. Have we not come to a time in our history when Canada can no longer pay for everything? It will no longer be able to afford a fleet of F18s in perfect condition. It will no longer be able to afford destroyers, frigates and supply ships. It will no longer be able to afford the full range of land forces. It will no longer be able to afford to constantly send troops overseas. And this is where the interoperability arises. It is already being done in Europe. Would there not be some way, within NORAD or NATO, especially NATO, to conclude agreements with our chief allies so that we can exchange services? Since sealift and airlift are too expensive for us, we could find a way to exchange services.

Consequently, have we not reached the point where we are asking ourselves if there are some sectors in the army, whether it be the land forces, the air force or the navy, where we would be prepared to stop building our capacity because we know that we will have agreements with our allies? We could be placing greater emphasis on areas where we have a high degree of expertise, such as, for example, peacekeeping missions, where there is a need for infantry soldiers from the land forces. We have had recognition in this area for the past 50 years. Is the Department of National Defence giving serious thought to this possibility at this point?

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you. Those are good questions.

With respect to your previous questions on airlift and sealift, we are looking at this, as I indicated in my opening remarks. We want to ensure that we develop capabilities that we can move quickly into a theatre of operations, because this is becoming more and more a necessity in terms of getting there in time to save lives and to be able to take quick action. We are looking at options now in terms of airlift and sealift.

You mentioned that we had a ship we had to board because of the difficulties, GTS Katie. But while we've certainly tightened up on our policy with respect to leasing the ships, all countries—including the United States—do this all the time. They lease ships all the time.

We don't have everything in our inventory. Even the biggest military in the world doesn't have everything in its inventory, and it does lease commercial ships to transport its equipment. We will do it, but I trust with the improvements we've made to the contracting procedures, we won't have the same kind of problem we had with the GTS Katie.

• 1640

As to the CDA report, you asked whether I agreed with the billion dollars. I've certainly agreed in response to previous questions that we do need more financial resources.

Mr. Claude Bachand: It was a proposal of the Bloc Québécois, not of CDA. It was a proposal of the Bloc.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Oh, I'm sorry. They copied your proposal.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, they copied us.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you for informing me.

Well, I would be interested to know how you calculated your billion dollars, in that event, if you're responsible for it.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, we are doing a review. Before September 11, earlier this year, we started a review in terms of how our resources and our capabilities and our defence policy of 1994 all match up. Now we're putting into that stream the things we need to examine post-September 11 in terms of improvements to our counterterrorism efforts.

We will pull all of it together, and then we'll be able to come up with a figure. I couldn't do that now.

Interoperability is very important. We work closely together in NORAD. As for our navy, our frigates have been going with U.S.-led groups of ships into the gulf. We've been an integral part of it. Our frigates are state of the art. They operate on an extremely close and interoperable basis with the United States. When we went over to Eritrea and Ethiopia, we operated closely with the Dutch. An increasing requirement for NATO members is to be able to work with each other.

We don't have to have every capability here, but we need to have capabilities that can help complement what they have and be able to work together in a multinational effort. We can't have every capability, but we are going to develop these capabilities in a number of areas where we can provide a valuable contribution.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We have the age-old problem around the committee here of far too many questioners and not enough time.

I'm going to go to Mr. Wood right now.

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

Mr. Minister, you've mentioned NORAD a couple of times already. As you know, NORAD headquarters used to be in North Bay, underground. There is still, obviously, an underground component in North Bay, but the main NORAD headquarters now is above ground, in Winnipeg. It operates out of a ten- or twelve-storey office building.

How secure is that facility above ground? We saw what happened on September 11. Surely with determination, the same thing could be done to NORAD headquarters in Winnipeg.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'm going to ask the new Deputy Chief of Defence Staff to comment here.

Vice-Admiral G.R. Maddison (Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): You're quite right, Mr. Wood, that the Canadian headquarters is in Winnipeg, and it is in a building such as you've described.

We still have significant capability, however, in terms of linking Colorado Springs with North Bay to our headquarters in Winnipeg, which is not just the headquarters for the Canadian aspect of NORAD, but is the headquarters for all of the Canadian air force in all of its capabilities—not only NORAD, but also our transportation airlift capability, the tasking for maritime aircraft, and so on.

As we went through the rationalization of all sorts of different headquarters within the Canadian Forces, it was assessed at the time that we wanted to consolidate all that capability and put it in Winnipeg—and that's where it is.

Mr. Bob Wood: How secure is it?

VAdm G.R. Maddison: If you take a look at it from a World Trade Centre perspective, it's a difficult scenario, obviously. But when we assessed the risk at the time, Winnipeg was considered to be the best site.

Mr. Bob Wood: How fast can you transfer it? Obviously fairly quickly, I would imagine. I've had the opportunity to see some of that underground in North Bay.

VAdm G.R. Maddison: We can do it very quickly indeed. In fact, it's almost seamless.

• 1645

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

Minister, we talked about the JTF2. Was that immediately mobilized after September 11, the situation being determined to be a terrorist activity? If it was, were you satisfied with the response time and the overall forces?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Let me say that all Canadian Forces were put on a higher state of readiness on September 11. That would include JTF2, although I don't want to specifically comment on JTF2 movements, for reasons of security. That state of alert has varied over time. Some are in a higher state, some have gone back to the position.... There are different degrees of this, and some have gone back to lower states of readiness.

The DART, for example, is one that was put on a higher state of alert, and as Mr. Price pointed out, it was sent to Trenton, where he saw it. But now they've gone back to Petawawa and wherever else they were from. So it's obviously not quite at the same status, although the DART all the time has a fairly high status compared to many other units.

I wouldn't want to get into detail beyond that, just to say that there are various states of readiness.

Mr. Bob Wood: Do you want to get into detail on money? It's been suggested that JTF has between 250 and 350 members and an annual budget of about $40 million. Are you satisfied with that, or has it already been increased?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I don't want to comment on that, but I do want to comment on the fact that we are looking at it in regard to a possible enlargement, as I mentioned in my response to Mr. Price.

The Chair: Mr. Wood, you have one minute left.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

You talked of a $3 billion investment in the past three years, saying we're on the right track. I guess my question is, shouldn't we be on a faster track?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Quite possibly. We are looking at that now. As I said, we started examination of our resources in relation to our capabilities and the defence policy earlier this year. We are now putting into that track consideration of enlarged and expanded or revised counterterrorism measures and capabilities, and before long we should know the answer to that.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Stoffer, I understand your question shouldn't last more than about two minutes or so.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes—in order to give my Liberal colleagues a chance, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question about the airlines. You said a decision would be made between yourself and the Prime Minister—and hopefully, you never have to do that. But have you advised the airlines of this procedure?

Mr. Art Eggleton: They would be aware of the procedure. I don't know if they're aware of the details of it, but I think my remarks in answer to your questions on previous occasions have been well reported.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So there's no formal documentation to the airlines and the airport authorities concerning the unlikely event that this could happen.

Mr. Art Eggleton: It would be the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to advise the airlines of these different policies, and I couldn't tell you at this time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague for being so brief.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and to Vice-Admiral Maddison, I'd first like to congratulate both the Canadian Forces and DND for their tremendous and significant response to the events of September 11.

Mr. Minister, you have painted a picture today, as you did on October 2 in your article in the Ottawa Citizen, but the perception that Canadians and many parliamentarians have is not what you wrote. The issue is myth and reality. You have indicated today and on many occasions that we are seventh out of 19 NATO states in respect of our spending. You talk about the new frigates, the LAV IIIs, the Coyotes, the upgrading of the CF-18s, etc., and it's an excellent message.

• 1650

My comment, with great respect, is that you have failed to get that message out, that Canadians, when we are in this crisis, in the media, and even our colleagues around the table, continue to say we are not prepared. That concerns me. I take at face value what you've said. You have indicated the position very clearly. We've seen the operation of the Coyotes in Macedonia, on the Eritrean and Ethiopian front, etc. But it's a failure, in my view, to get the message out about what we are doing.

You said in your comments, Mr. Minister, we are preparing to meet, head on, the challenges and the threats of the future. Yet the Conference of Defence Associations report indicated that the Canadian Forces are caught in the middle between conventional forces in decline and the new and modern capabilities that are unaffordable.

I would like you to respond to that, Mr. Minister. If you were allocated additional funds, given the nature of the current situation, where would you place them in the immediate short term?

Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of the national critical infrastructure protection program, we are seeing from the events of September 11, and we've seen this in other situations, attacks increasingly occurring in metropolitan centres around the world, in cities. You talked about the work that the national critical infrastructure protection program is doing in conjunction with provinces and municipalities with issues such as dams and pipelines. It would seem to me that there is an issue of vulnerability here, and without going into it at great length, could you tell us what the timetable is? How are you working in concert?

You talked, for example, about recently meeting in Alberta. How can we be assured that we'll be able to respond effectively to what, again according to the perception, are very vulnerable targets in this country, if we had threats of domestic terrorism?

The Chair: Minister, could you give us a two-minute response on that.

Mr. Art Eggleton: They are excellent questions. I don't know if I can do them in two minutes.

In addition to pipelines and energy fronts, there are, obviously, cities that are part of the entire inventory of critical infrastructure, as well as communication systems, transportation systems—they are all part of it, both urban and rural in nature.

As to myths and realities, I think we are putting out a lot of information. The public are indicating in opinion polls that they support the Canadian Forces. I think we have difficulty, though, with some myths and some detractors, who I think exaggerate or distort the situation. But we'll continue to fight distortions and exaggerations, and we'll continue to try to get the message out about what it is we're doing.

Much of the Conference of Defence Associations report was done before September 11, so a lot of it has to do with a previous way of looking at things. That's not a fault of theirs, that's just when most of their report was done.

As to additional funds, obviously the immediate concern is the safety and security of Canadians—there's nothing higher than that. I think we have to look at the areas of counterterrorism, but not just in the domestic sense, although that should have the highest of priorities, as I've just said, but also in respect of our contribution internationally, standing up with our allies in the United States and other countries and being able to suppress international terrorism.

So those are the areas I would see as the immediate requirements. We still have some requirements. We talked about airlift and sealift having to do with rapid deployment, all of which is relevant to the capabilities of the Canadian Forces we have and their ability to be a part of this international campaign against terrorism. So all those are important. The immediate post-September 11 environment, I think, requires us to look at safety and security.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We have another two questioners on this side. I'm going to go to Ms. Gallant. I've tried to accommodate as many members as possible today.

Ms. Gallant, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity this summer to see firsthand what happens when a country is destabilized.

• 1655

The events of September 11, 2001, have demonstrated the need for the creation of a highly specialized unit within the Canadian Forces, one that has as its principal role the defence of Canada. It would be able to operate against small-scale enemy incursions in the north in conditions perhaps similar to those of Afghanistan; provide short-notice response to United Nations and NATO requests for peace operations; operate in a limited or general war within the context of a larger, allied force, particularly on a variety of special-service missions, including pathfinding, patrolling, and winter operations; and undertake domestic operations, such as responding to the threat of terrorist attack, in response to requests from civil authorities.

Ideally, this group would train together on a daily basis on counterterrorism measures. Canada did have such a specialized unit within our armed forces, and it was called the Canadian Airborne Regiment. Why hasn't the minister announced plans to re-form the Canadian Airborne Regiment within what is left of, or what passes as, the special service force? If the name “airborne” bothers the government, what about assembling a battle group with a different name but with all the same responsibilities, including the parachuting capability it had when the group was first formed?

References have been made to the special forces JTF2. We would like to know exactly how many troops there are in this special force and how it compares to forces of other countries—the Netherlands, for example, with an elite force of 2,500 marines. The U.S. Special Forces Command has 40,000 regulars, and that is in addition to their airborne, which alone has 40,000 troops, and so on and so forth.

Canadians are asking, what is the likely response from terrorists against Canada? Should our country put together a brigade and participate in the war on terrorism in a meaningful way? What mechanism is in place to respond accordingly to that? What is Canada doing militarily to mitigate a reoccurrence of what happened in the United States on September 11?

Minister, the people of Canada want to know if we are prepared for a worst-case scenario. What happens if we already have our troops deployed, we do have multiple terrorist strikes in Canada, then civil unrest erupts, and then some political entity tries to take advantage of the situation? How do we know that there is a plan in place? The people of Canada are feeling betrayed.

Mr. Art Eggleton: You know we're going to be as prepared as we can for any eventuality, but one cannot be prepared for every eventuality. You have the biggest military entity ever in the United States, and it couldn't stop what happened on September 11. You talk about the size of some of those U.S. forces, but we're never going to be of that size. Obviously, we're a smaller country with a smaller defence budget. No country can compare its size of military to that of the United States.

However, we have developed a number of capabilities that are interoperable with those of the United States and with those of other allies. I think we can be quite proud of those capabilities. You mentioned the JTF2. We have that as a counterterrorism organization, and we've had it for some time.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: How many are in the JTF2?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I don't want to comment on numbers.

Well, your colleague laughs again, but you know, when you have an organization like that, one that is in counterterrorism and that can be involved in covert operations to try to protect Canadians, we can't divulge things that are going to risk their personal security, the security of their families, or the success of their mission. Other countries don't give out those kinds of details about many similar kinds of operations.

You asked about the Canadian Airborne Regiment. No, there are no plans to put that back in place. The decision of the government of the day was to remove it, and that is a decision I can remember talking about with the previous Chief of Defence Staff, who felt, as does the current chief, there's no need for that particular type of unit.

• 1700

Time has gone on. This is, I think, one of the....

I see your colleague shaking his head, but I think this is another indication of some of the research the Alliance Party does that is more relevant to dealing with the past, spending money for the sake of the past, and that's not the direction to go. We're talking about the future. We're talking about the safety and security of Canadians. It's time for you to get out of that old-think.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I understand from one of your assistants that you may have time for another couple of very quick questions from a couple of members.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I have a 5 o'clock meeting, and I see it's 5 o'clock. It would have to be a very quick question.

The Chair: Okay.

We'll have Mr. Dromisky and then Ms. Beaumier, very quickly.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I'll go very quickly. Thank you very much.

I'm a new member here, and I'm very pleased with your presentation. As I see it, it's a global presentation that has many components. What impresses me most is that the components, when you analyse them, give us a direction, a direction for the future. Therefore, it becomes totally irrelevant—and this is a question regarding how we prepare for the future—to start talking about how many battleships we have, how many tanks we have, and how many planes we have. Your presentation clearly indicates to me an emphasis on the way, and a different way, we're going to use high tech and the intellect of human beings in discovering new and dramatic ways in intercepting and handling this threat of terrorism in our country.

Therefore, I see us developing expertise in a multitude of areas you have already identified in your plan. Those areas we will share with members of the coalition, and each member of the coalition will contribute whatever expertise they have, whether it be battleships, planes, tanks, or whatever if they are needed. What you are presenting here is something that will be needed for years to come.

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, can you get right to your question?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes. My question is this. In light of the presentation you made, I see an indication that the role of the defence department and our military is going to be changing dramatically in the future. Therefore, there will have to be new training programs, different kinds of recruits enlisted, and so forth. Could you comment on that?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes, there are changes coming, but that doesn't mean that what we have now isn't needed. I would suggest that most of it is going to be needed. That's not all. Perhaps at some point we'll have to make trade-offs in terms of developing new capabilities and shedding some old capabilities, but most of what we have now will still be required in the foreseeable future.

Yes, new high-tech equipment is coming. Some is already in our possession, and there's more coming, but essentially we're still a people organization, and it's the people who make it happen. We've been very fortunate to have good people in the Canadian Forces, and we'll continue to have to rely upon people to be able to deliver our services.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Nothing is going to replace our people.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Actually, my question is along the lines of Mr. Wilfert's, except that I'd also like to make a statement.

I've looked at the events since September 11, and what I basically feel is that an intelligence mess-up in the United States has exposed bad immigration policies in Canada, weak borders in Canada, and an unequipped military. I'm not sure why we as Canadians do this to ourselves or allow this to happen. In World Wars I and II we had 14 of the top 25 ace pilots in the war. We don't tell Canadians that, and I think what's happened out there right now is that we have Canadians feeling insecure, when what they need is some confidence that we are good and that we are amongst the best, albeit without becoming breast-beaters and flag-wavers.

So I think the one area in which the military has a little more work to do is in selling itself, not only for the pride of Canadians but for the feeling of confidence Canadians should have in their own security.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Well, we don't have every capability, and yes, some of our equipment needs replacing or upgrading. Most of it is going through that now, and we are looking to strengthen our capabilities. We do have a lot.

• 1705

As I said, the biggest capability we have consists of the dedicated men and women who make up our Canadian Forces. They want to be a part of helping to suppress terrorism because in doing that we're helping to make Canadians more safe and secure in this country and throughout the world.

The Chair: Minister, thank you very much for your presentation today and for your responses to the questions, on behalf of all the members of the committee. I extend that to you as well as to Vice-Admiral Maddison. We're going to let you take your leave now.

Mr. Benoit has some comments he'd like to make.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, Mr. Chair. We've had the minister for one hour in total. The chief opposition critic had seven minutes with the minister, and that's not nearly enough time. I would ask that we have the minister back next week at one of our committee meetings. We need him back for some meaningful time, where we can have at least two hours of questioning with the minister. That's not too much to ask in a situation like this.

The Chair: To begin with, Mr. Benoit, the House isn't sitting next week. This committee isn't sitting next week. We don't sit until—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, let's do it the week after, then.

The Chair: —the break is over. We can refer this to the steering committee in terms of a list of witnesses we want to bring before the committee. We can deal with that at the steering committee.

As far as the amount of time is concerned, yes, we were a little more constrained today. The minister is normally here under these sorts of circumstances until about 5:30. However, I should point out that under the circumstances we were able to get everybody on the government side and everybody on the opposition side—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think seven minutes for the chief opposition critic is appropriate?

The Chair: —asking questions.

I just want to finish.

By my count, the opposition had over 40 minutes of questioning and the government side less than 20. These rules, as you know, Mr. Benoit, were set out and adopted by this committee some—

Mr. Leon Benoit: They were adopted by a government-dominated committee, and it's not appropriate. It's totally inappropriate. This committee has not established a protocol—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, we can discuss that at the steering committee meeting if you want to raise some issues related to that. I've got to keep in mind that, as we sit around this table, all of us are equal as members of Parliament, representing constituencies that have concerns with respect to all sorts of issues. I think we have to respect the fact that when we're before committee like this, all members should have an opportunity to speak.

I appreciated your sacrificing some of your time today, Mr. Stoffer, to let some of the government members have an opportunity to speak. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had time for all the members.

Mr. Benoit, if you want to provide some suggestions to the steering committee, we'd be happy to entertain them. I want to reinforce, though, the fact that the rules we adopted in the past are not dissimilar to other rules that exist in other standing committees.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In fact, on the immigration committee we ended up with the official opposition having about double the time to ask questions throughout the period of a normal committee. The procedure of this committee is completely unacceptable, where the fifth, fourth, and third parties are given virtually the same time in a situation like this. In fact, they were given the same amount of time as the official opposition. That's absurd, you know. Nobody can think that's fair.

The Chair: This is a discussion that is more properly held during the steering committee meeting.

Mr. Wood, I'm going to give you one opportunity to speak briefly.

Mr. Bob Wood: With all due respect to Mr. Benoit, he had a four-minute preamble. If you want to ask a question, be precise and be quick. Don't take four minutes to get your point across.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I want more total time. That's what I want. We're the official opposition. Is it really right that the New Democratic Party had the same time as the official opposition? I don't think so.

The Chair: I don't think you'll find that's the case if you look at the amount of time allotted to members. There was a very significant difference in that respect—about 17 minutes for the official opposition and approximately 8 minutes for the NDP.

As I said before, we can take this up with the steering committee. If you have some proposals that you'd like to offer, we'd be happy to entertain them.

If there are no other comments, do I have a motion to adjourn?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, members.