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]

Tuesday, October 16, 2001

• 1529

[English]

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

• 1530

It's my pleasure today to welcome our witnesses, General Henault, General Macdonald, and Vice-Admiral Maddison. General Henault is obviously no stranger to this committee, but this is the first opportunity we've had to have him before the committee in his new role as Chief of the Defence Staff.

General, on behalf of all of the members of the committee, first of all I'd like to congratulate you. I wish you the very best with the important work you have ahead of you.

I would also like to advise committee members that at the end of this meeting, if we could take five or ten minutes, perhaps we could deal with some housekeeping items related to future business of the committee. I think that would be helpful, for those of you who can stay around for that.

Without any further delay, General, I'd like to give you the floor. We're all anxious to hear your comments.

General Raymond R. Henault ((CMM, CD) Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

[English]

Thank you very much for the kind words, Mr. Chairman, and also for the invitation to be here. All three of us are really quite pleased to be here. We're anxious to share with you some issues we know you're very focused on, and to provide answers to questions you might have in terms of, in particular, our capability in the aftermath of 11 September.

As you mentioned already, it is my first appearance before the committee as the Chief of the Defence Staff, so I very much do appreciate the opportunity to voice my thoughts about the events as they currently are unfolding, and about the current and future challenges that are facing the Canadian Forces, many of which will continue in spite of all the events going on.

As you mentioned, Chairman, I am joined here today by Lieutenant General Macdonald, who is the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff and is responsible for primarily resource management within the headquarters. He is also the chief of staff for the integrated headquarters. And also with me is Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, who you've all seen before. He is currently the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, and he is responsible for all deployed operations, as well as a number of other things in his mandate.

In these challenging times—and they certainly are at this point in time—the Canadian Forces are demonstrating their ability to intervene in a global strategic context where ethnic conflicts—as we've seen—ideologies, and politics complicate efforts to maintain world peace and stability, as we certainly know from our white paper. It has already been recognized that, since the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the new world order, peace support operations, both here in Canada and to which we have contributed, have certainly become more complex, they have certainly become more dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, they've become unpredictable. We have also recognized our vulnerability to new threats, including those related to cyber-terrorism and acts of violence by groups of extremists who may have access to arms of mass destruction or weapons of mass destruction, as you may have heard in the past.

[Translation]

The terrorist attacks of September 11 on the United States have made it very clear that there are some very deadly aspects to the emerging asymmetric threats to North American security.

In the wake of those attacks, the Canadian Forces responded rapidly across a wide range of activities. These included an immediate recall of CF personnel, increased levels of readiness at home and abroad, and an increase in the number of the assets dedicated to the defence of North America's air space.

Today, the Canadian Forces remain at a heightened state of readiness and increased vigilance, to respond to possibly more terrorist activity. And while we already have more than 2,150 service personnel deployed on operations around the world, and this prior to the terrorist attacks, we are now generating forces to participate directly in the global campaign against terrorism, and to assist with the humanitarian assistance that will be provided in the region.

At the same time, we continue to face a number of challenges that were already the focus of our attention, as I mentioned previously, prior to 11 September. Rapid changes in technology mean that we must not only remain apace of these changes, leveraging technology to our advantage, but it is also essential that we maintain and enhance our interoperability with our allies, particularly the United States.

• 1535

Recruiting and retention of our personnel remains a continual challenge that may seriously undermine our long-term ability to fulfil our operational missions, here in Canada or abroad, if not satisfactorily addressed.

From my perspective, we already have a strong foundation to build upon in response to these challenges, and we will carry on.

[English]

As CDS, it's certainly my responsibility to capitalize on what has already been done and what was already underway before the events of 11 September, and to maintain my sights very clearly on the need to maintain a multi-purpose, combat-capable force that is operationally relevant—and I emphasize the word “relevant”—in a changing world. To do so, I intend to focus on three main priorities, some of which you have heard before but which still remain intact. Primarily, those are: investing in people; modernizing the force; and enhancing both our internal and external communications.

Let me first begin with communications. I made it my goal to better connect Canadians with the military, and to build closer ties between the Canadian Forces, our government obviously, and parliamentarians. That's why the opportunity to be here today to voice our opinions, express our views, and address this committee is very important to me, as it is to the other general officers with me today.

This committee's most recent work, by the way, has been fundamental to the introduction of many of the important measures to enhance the quality of life of the members of the Canadian Forces, and the well-being not only of those service personnel, but also of our families. I wish to publicly thank you for those efforts, because I think they've been absolutely fundamental to many of the very important changes we've made in the recent past.

With respect to investing in people, as with any big organization—which the Canadian Forces are—the Canadian Forces are only as good as their people. It may sound like a broken record, but it can't be emphasized enough how important our people are to us and to the success of such a diverse organization with an important and well-respected national and international role.

I can tell you from my own experience that we have some of the best. I've had the great opportunity and privilege to visit Canadian Forces members throughout the world in my former capacity—and I will do so again as the chief—and I have had personally relayed to me the appreciation for the Canadian Forces' capabilities and the professionalism and leadership qualities of those members who have been deployed, as well as of those here in Canada. Those qualities have represented a great deal to international peace and stability and to the international community.

This means we need to make every effort we possibly can to improve and to continue improving the quality of life for our members and service families, and to enhance the health care we provide for our members, as well as a number of other things that we already have underway.

We must also develop programs to further enhance the professional development, education, and leadership skills of our officers and non-commissioned members. I highlight the fact that our professional development initiatives are not only focused on the officer corps, but, very importantly, on the NCM corps, which is really a backbone of many things we do and succeed at.

[Translation]

But we can't stop there. We also need to focus on our recruiting efforts, as I mentioned previously, and on retention. In that respect, we recently launched a very bold new advertising campaign, which I'm sure you've already seen, to attract talented Canadians to the Defence team, and we are continually introducing initiatives which make it more attractive to stay in uniform.

It's equally important that we provide our personnel with the equipment and technology they need to accomplish their missions in an increasingly complex world, a world that is far more dangerous, as I also pointed out earlier. And that will be one of the key areas in which I will be concentrating my efforts during my tenure as Chief of Defence Staff.

In terms of modernization, I remind you that we have recently acquired new equipment at the leading edge of technology that includes modern frigates, the Coyote reconnaissance vehicles, which are world renowned, the new Light Armoured Vehicles for troop transport, the LAV III, and Search and Rescue Helicopters, of which the first two of fifteen arrived in Canada this month. Naturally, we also have submarines, some of which are already here in Canada, while others are coming soon.

We have also commenced significant modernization programs for both our CF-18 fighter aircraft and our maritime patrol aircraft fleets, that is, our Auroras.

• 1540

But if we are to remain a relevant, credible, combat-capable force—which is important from all viewpoints—we must continue to react rapidly and be able to deploy globally, and so, we must step up these efforts.

Our experience over the last decade has also demonstrated the importance of operating under a joint umbrella. This is another way of saying "joint operations". This is very important. These operations are termed.

[English]

joint operations—and I would add “joint and combined” to that, but I'll explain that in just a moment.

[Translation]

As the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, I became clearly aware of the importance of operating under a joint umbrella and of the concept of jointness. I know full well how critical it will be to our success in the immediate and longer terms.

[English]

As such, we are dedicating more resources to improving our ability to conduct both joint and combined operations. I would just remind you that “joint” is really an operation under which two or more services are involved—that is, army and navy, or army, navy and air force, or whatever combination you wish—and “combined” are those operations done in concert or in cooperation with another nation. As you can see, some of the operations we're going to be embarking on in the Middle East are both joint and combined, and that is really the focus of much of the training and preparedness that we undertake as a military force.

I highlight that because “jointness” is very important, too, in the long term for the Canadian Forces. In terms of jointness, the creation of a new organization in this last year or so, the Joint Operations Group, has provided us with a modern, rapidly deployable, and what we would consider to be—from a military perspective—robust command, control and communications capability, which is absolutely essential in this changing world. It has already proved its effectiveness in operations, with staff from the Joint Operations Group providing what we call the theatre activation team that went in ahead of the troops that deployed to Ethiopia and Eritrea. The ability for them to do operations as soon as they arrived there was very marked in this respect, and it proved the concept beyond any shadow of any doubt.

The group also provided some of the communications capability for the force. That is, the Joint Operations Group left capability behind and later conducted theatre deactivation on the completion of that mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea. It was a very successful mission, I might add.

The troops recently deployed to the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia from Bosnia to participate in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest—the the peace process there—were also augmented with resources from the Joint Operations Group, to provide for the necessary command, control, and support elements we needed, including the commander of the task force itself. Again, that was a short-term mission, and one absolutely essential to the success of the overall mission, according to NATO and according to the Secretary-General of NATO, who has in fact reflected on that many times over the last several weeks. It was one in which we again proved the importance of joint capability and rapid deployability, and the Joint Operations Group will again play a part in the national command and support of our forces in the Gulf region.

In addition to the preceding capability improvements, we will nonetheless need to enhance their ability to deal with asymmetric threats that are very real, be they cyber-terrorism, terrorist activities such as those witnessed on 11 September, or others that will undoubtedly come to challenge us.

More and more, as we evolve in this global world that we operate in, senior Canadian Forces officers are serving at the highest levels of operational command control in combined operations around the world, quite frankly. Without naming them all, I would perhaps highlight the fact that we have had senior command assignments over the past couple of years for a number of our experienced senior officers, general officers, and in some cases, colonels or navy captains.

In one case, we were responsible for command of Multi-National Division (Southwest), which is the division in which we operate in Bosnia. A Canadian two-star army general commanded that formation very effectively and very successfully, and he has just come back home. We also have a two-star army officer who is commanding the ACE—that's the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land)—in Germany. We've had a commander of the NATO Standing Naval Force Atlantic who completed that tour of duty not all that long ago. Admiral Maddison has done that himself, as well. And the list goes on. So we are involved and we are playing what we consider to be a very important role in multinational and combined operations.

• 1545

That relationship with our allies can't be taken for granted. It not only demands that we continue to take on these responsibilities, but, just as importantly, that we continue to excel at them, because it is important on the world stage for Canada and for what we represent. For example, take our most recent deployment to the Persian Gulf, one in which the two vessels that were involved, the frigates, just came home not all that long ago. The two vessels involved were HMCS Charlottetown—in fact, HMCS Charlottetown is going back out to the Gulf region again tomorrow—and HMCS Winnipeg. Both of those ships operated together, and, in concert, worked very closely alongside the Americans and other countries in the Persian Gulf to help enforce the embargo against Iraq. I visited both of those vessels while they were in the region.

Of importance—and this again demonstrates the importance of what we can do on the world stage with what are sometimes some very modest resources—the commanding officer of HMCS Winnipeg also acted as the on-scene commander for all coalition naval assets in the multinational interdiction force in the northern Arabian Gulf for a short period of time. In fact, this is quite a compliment to his capability and leadership, because this was the first time that a Canadian ever did this type of role, and he did it exceedingly well. In fact, I talked personally to the commander of the 5th Fleet, who expressed very high regard and praise for what that captain and his ship's company did in the region.

Operation Allied Force, in Kosovo, is still vivid in our memories, although it's a couple of years old now. It's another recent example of the importance of being highly interoperable and highly competent on the international stage, especially when it comes to joint and combined operations. Again, we performed extremely well, and our CF-18 pilots not only did their job as they were directed to do and did it exceedingly well, they also led over 50% of the air-to-ground combat sorties in which they participated. That again was only done by a very small number of nations that participated in that operation.

As you are aware, we are now in the process of deploying approximately 2,000 more people to the Middle East as our contribution to the U.S.-led coalition in the campaign against terrorism. A large component of that force—and I know you are well aware of this—will be leaving Halifax tomorrow. The naval task group will be en route to the Persian Gulf, where it will operate with the United States Navy and other allied forces in this campaign that we're all very focused on.

Many of the details of the capabilities that are being deployed—ships, aircraft, and so on—are already well known, so I'm not going to repeat those, Mr. Chairman. I think they have been made very well known to the public and to yourselves, so I won't expand on them.

While we'll do what we can in the future, by the way, for both this committee and to Canadians, we'll try to keep them informed as the mission unfolds. We'll do everything we can in that regard, but I would remind you that operational security will have to be observed as we go into this operation. Undoubtedly, that will limit some of the things we can or can't say.

What I will try to do though—and my officers will try to do this when briefing the various committees and when doing public presentations on our performance there—is what we did during the Kosovo air campaign, and that is to tell you not necessarily what we are going to do—because that would compromise operational security—but certainly what we have done. I think that's important for people to know.

As always in the context of combined operations, interoperability—I come back to that again—remains a crucial factor. It is very important in the strategic environment in which we're operating. We would not be able to contribute significantly to the missions we have been tasked with, before or now, if we are not able to integrate seamlessly into allied formations. We'll continue to look at ways to improve that interoperability, because you can never be as good as you can possibly be without making sure you make changes as time goes on. We'll do that particularly with our United States allies, because they are a very important part of any coalition operation. They certainly have been in the past, and they will continue to be in the future, as we see today.

We need to ensure we remain compatible not only in operational capabilities, but also in technology, equipment, training, doctrine, and procedures. All of those things come with doing our job properly in an international setting.

[Translation]

Naturally, we will also need to capitalize on the innovations that advances in technology—and there are many—and the revolution in military affairs are affording us to modernize our forces. As you know, this will continue to be very important in everything we do from now on. Since our resources are finite, we will have to make wise choices in determining the kind of land, sea and aerospace capabilities we need. We must be responsible.

• 1550

And acquiring new technologies is not enough. We also need to develop and test new concepts for employing and integrating these technologies in our operational units. For example, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles is one technology that we will be examining in the future.

[English]

I talk now about unmanned aerial vehicles, for example, and what they represent to surveillance capability and integration into a coalition activity. Those are the kinds of things we'll do as part of our Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre capability that was established this summer.

[Translation]

Indeed, the establishment of the Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre will help to do just that: test, experiment and validate technological developments to identify those that will be of greater relevance to the Canadian Forces. This is something that is being done not only here, in Canada, but also in the United States and in other countries who are serious about the future.

[English]

Let me conclude by saying the Canadian Forces that I have the privilege and honour to lead today are very much different from the Canadian Forces I joined 33 years ago, and they're likely to look a lot different 33 years from now. In the meantime, though, I'm firmly convinced the Canadian Forces are a highly professional force with a broad variety of defence capabilities. We have a very strong defence team, and it is a truly multi-purpose and combat-capable force. But the events of 11 September remain vivid in our memories, and the response of the international community certainly has shown that we must continue investing in the future to adapt to that changing security environment. That is really right at the top of our agenda.

As I see it, my job is to optimize the capabilities of our current forces, and to build upon that foundation for the future. We already have a good foundation, but we need to ensure we make the changes absolutely crucial to ensuring that we remain relevant and capable of defending Canada and Canadian interests and values, and of contributing to international peace and security in the years ahead. From what we've seen from this committee in the past, I know we can count on your support to do that, and we look forward to that.

I'll stop here, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very much for the attention of all the members of the committee, and I am prepared to respond to any questions that you might have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, General.

Let's begin our questioning with Mr. Benoit, for seven minutes.

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

Good afternoon, Chief, General, Vice-Admiral. Welcome. It's good to have you here for the first time, and I'm sure we'll see you many more times in the near future.

You've come to us at what is, in defence terms, probably the most difficult time for the Canadian military and for Canada in fifty years. That's difficult to deal with, of course, but I think there is an opportunity that comes with that.

I've seen a change in the thinking of the Canadian public in terms of the military and soldiers. People talking about the military don't have to try to use soft words. They can talk about these things now, because I think Canadians are understanding, more than they have for a long time, the need for a strong military. I'm encouraged, in fact, that even some in the government recognize with their talk that we need a strong military and that we do have to put proper resources, including people and equipment, into the military.

I think you do have a special opportunity, Chief. Because of that, I think it's important that you don't let this opportuntiy pass you by. I think now is the time when you can probably pry out of government resources you haven't been able to get for some time now. I'm willing to help you with that in any way I can. I want you to know that right now.

In terms of specific questions, first of all, I have a question I'd just like to get out of the way here. Last week it was announced our soldiers were asked not to wear their uniforms in public in Canada. I'd just like that cleared up. Why was that directive given, and why was it then rescinded some time later? It was something that wasn't very popular with either the people serving or the Canadian public, and I'd like to know the reasoning behind it.

Gen Raymond Henault: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain that, because I think it is important for Canadians to know why it was done.

• 1555

Certainly, as it became clear that the events of that day were going to unfold—that is, the commencement of bombing over Afghanistan—it was clear to us that there was a very real need for us to ensure that we preserve the safety and security of Canadian Forces members and their families, something we are very concerned about at all times. Without a clear indication of what the reactions might or might not be in the aftermath of the commencement of that activity, as well as the acknowledgement that Canada was going to be part of this operation, it was felt prudent at that point in time to restrict the wearing of the uniform to and from work—not in public, but to and from work—until we were able to get a better indication, assessment, and analysis of what the security threat might be, both here and abroad, for troops who are deployed and for many of our missions, which include those that are diplomatic missions or in support of diplomatic missions.

We did that, and we did that for exactly those reasons. We reassessed it over the next 48 hours, and it was assessed that the requirement to do that was not as high. We therefore rescinded that order, and we put people back into a state of alert that was relatively the same as it had been before 11 September, while giving local commanders the opportunity, depending on the threat and situation in their own local areas, in their own areas of operation, to make that decision on the wearing of the uniform, again based on safety, security, and well-being.

We think it was the right thing to do at the time, Mr. Benoit. I could tell you there are still members of the Canadian Forces in different regions—and they're not in Canada, they are deployed in different parts of the world—who are still not wearing the uniform to and from work for reasons of security, based on the situation in the countries or the regions in which they're operating.

So that is the basis for that order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That directive probably wouldn't help our recruitment drive, but I understand the recruitment drive has been very successful. I'd like to focus, though, on the retention part.

In your presentation, you talked about the importance of retention, as well as recruitment. I think I can safely say it's more important to focus on keeping the good people we have now, the well-trained people, the people with experience. It could take years to get recruits to the level you have to get them to in order to carry out certain responsibilities. In fact, when it comes to this particular situation—it may go on for years, but hopefully it will be settled down some probably in a couple of years—none of the recruits will probably be ready for that type of action.

I'd just like to ask you specifically—with brief answers, if you could—what you have done to help to retain, to keep the good people we have right now? We've seen some important losses, for example, that have left us desperately short of well-experienced pilots.

Gen Raymond Henault: Again, recruiting and retention—and that's what I think you've focused on—are important parts of our business. We are doing a number of things, including establishing much better and much more flexible terms of service, because we know young Canadians are much different from they were before in terms of what type of career they want. They don't necessarily want a 35-year career in the Canadian Forces; they may want to go in and out. They want the ability to choose from a personal point of view, from a family point of view, and so on. So we're doing some of those things to modify those terms of service.

We've introduced a number of quality-of-life improvements, many of which this committee has been responsible for helping us to achieve. We're improving our health care system, improving veterans' benefits, improving the help we provide to Canadians if they're injured while they're on deployments—whether that's post-traumatic stress assistance, injury assistance, or whatever it might be—and improving educational and professional development programs. We have to demonstrate to them how sincerely we feel about the fact that this is a business of choice. We are an employer of choice. This is a career of choice for them, and it's one we think they deserve every opportunity to either do or not do.

We also have a number of programs that allow them to broaden their horizons, serve abroad, and participate in the kinds of things we now see as they're deploying to the Middle East. Those are the kinds of things young Canadians want to do. They want to be part of solving global problems and be part of this world that is a very changing and dynamic one.

In addition to a number of compensation and benefits programs and other things, we think we have the ingredients that help not only to bring them in, but also to retain them. We think those things will give them the incentive to stay in the forces for as long as they would like to be there, and for as long as it's mutually beneficial to both parties.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Leon Benoit: ...we're losing people.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

• 1600

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you for joining us. I think it is important that you appear before us today to give us an overview about our state of readiness. I now make a clear distinction between the Canadian Forces' state of readiness before and after September 11.

Let me explain. Prior to September 11, Quebeckers and Canadians saw the Canadian Forces leave on peacekeeping missions or missions with other allies to try and remedy the terrible things that were occurring throughout the world, and they agreed to these missions. They knew that their taxes were being used to deploy people to places in an effort to resolve international conflicts. In other words, the North American fortress had not yet come under attack.

Today, things are changing. Today, people are telling me that it is all well and good to deploy 2,000 soldiers, six ships and six planes, but they are asking me what we are doing about our domestic security. As taxpayers, they are asking me what their money is getting for them. This is why my questions are different today. I am not interested in knowing whether or not we will have more recruits. Today, I want to focus on the here and now. What can you do to provide security for these people who need it so desperately?

I have never seen people feel so insecure. And I am not even old yet. I am only 50 years old, Mr. Chairman, but in my 50 years, I have never seen such insecurity. There is also all of this publicity surrounding the terrorist attacks and bioterrorism. There are people here who are even older than me, Mr. Chairman, I have a card to prove it.

[English]

An hon. member: That says your age?

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have a card to prove it right here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Don't deduct that from my time.

[English]

Don't count that on my time now, eh?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Claude Bachand: I'm being distracted here.

[Translation]

I would like to ask questions that pertain to domestic security. I would like to know the Forces' state of readiness in terms of domestic security. I hope that you will go far enough. I realize that there are some state secrets that you cannot divulge to us, but will the Canadian Armed Forces bioterrorism group be prepared to intervene in the event of a massive attack?

I realize that attacks such as the ones we saw yesterday are useless. They weren't really attacks and other people can deal with them. But right now, if something serious were to occur in Canada, could we rely on the support of the Canadian Forces?

The JTF2 was deployed over there. I won't ask you how many people are over there. If terrorist acts, like airplane hijackings, were to take place here now, would there be sufficient members of the JTF2 to defend people in airports and airplanes?

Today I put a question to the minister about the Communications Security Establishment. Are you now ready to tap all conversations to intercept things that might be dangerous for your telecommunications and computer systems? I am thinking mainly about cyberterrorism.

Lastly, in my view the infrastructure protection program is an important one. Nuclear and electric power stations can be an easy target for terrorists. Terrorists can easily decide to attack a power station. Has the Canadian Army deployed any of its resources to deal with such a situation? We know that it is a program that comes under National Defence. Have you deployed the required resources to protect this infrastructure?

I'd like to hear what you have to say on these four points.

[English]

The Chair: General, Monsieur Bachand has given you a little less than three minutes to reply.

Gen Raymond Henault: I'll do my best, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me assure you that the defence of Canadians is the most important thing we do.

[Translation]

There's no doubt, Mr. Bachand, that our main concern is Canadians. I can assure you that in all our deployments of forces and all the structures that we considered in preparing for our contribution to the Alliance, the emphasis was also on the defence of Canadians.

I can assure you that we have in Canada everything that we require as part of a response to threats of any kind, whether they be terrorists, drugs or anything else that comes under our responsibilities.

• 1605

You will remember that the main responsibility lies with the Solicitor General. We do have a response force like the JTF2. Rest assured that the JTF2 is still very capable of responding, as required, to any such situations both in Canada and abroad. We have kept a very significant ground force here in the country. We have not yet touched the reserve. We have increased our air surveillance capacity in Canadian airspace. So we have indeed guaranteed, as we continue to guarantee as much as possible the security and welfare of Canadians.

As for the monitoring of conversations and so forth, that does not come under the Chief of Defence but rather the department and the minister himself. The Communications Security Establishment is responsible for such matters. You have seen the legislative changes and other changes being proposed in this respect. Yes, it does continue to support the intelligence resources that are brought together to provide as full a picture as possible of the activities of potential opponents. Yes, that is something we are doing.

We also have within the department and elsewhere in government systems to protect our computer networks, software and so forth. That is one of our capacities. I won't go into the details, but we do have mechanisms to conduct the necessary monitoring.

The CIP, that is the coordination of information protection, comes under the Office for the Protection of Essential Infrastructure and Emergency Planning. You have already heard the name. This organization also comes under the minister. It is the responsibility of a delegated deputy minister, Ms. Purdy. Along with other government departments, we are in the process of developing a list of critical sites requiring protection.

We have not yet been asked to deploy forces to protect these sites. In the event of such a request, we shall certainly give consideration to the matter but there are other organizations that would be the first to take on such responsibilities and we would provide support as the situation develops.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, General.

Mr. Price, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you for being here, General Henault, General Macdonald, and Admiral Maddison.

General, I'd like to start off by following a little bit on Claude's line on JTF2, and talk a little about that. That is a specialty of yours.

I'm wondering about something. There now seems to be more and more of a need for a unit like JTF2, and probably not only on the home front. The minister has been very clear about the fact that there will be no reinstatement of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. It's gone. Therefore, at this point, are you considering expanding JTF2 to take in those very special types of missions and the specialties the Airborne had, and are you considering doing so because of the fact that we probably need more of the type of work JTF2 does on Canadian soil?

Gen Raymond Henault: That's a very appropriate question. It does represent a counterterrorist capability. It is one that is inherent in what we do, and in what we do in support of the RCMP and the Solicitor General. The capabilities of JTF2 are something we're looking at in terms of the entire Canadian Forces' capability as part of our policy review, which was already under way before 11 September and now has taken a bit of a new direction. Although many of the same things, the same problems, are still there, we now have to factor in this counterterrorist capability requirement into the equation.

Certainly, without getting into the details of what JTF2 does—and I know you don't want me to do that—I can assure you we are now looking at what we have to do to enhance that capability. It's a very capable force, I can assure you. It's capable of doing what it's mandated to do, and it will do that both nationally and internationally, as it has been called upon to do. We will look at what we need to do in light of what has happened, and in light of potential changes in the future, in order to enhance its capability.

Without going any further than that, I can assure you that's very important on the list of things we have to do.

• 1610

Mr. David Price: Okay.

If I look at your capital projects that are coming up, I imagine you're reviewing those in consideration of September 11. I look at one item here, the Joint Command and Control Information System, which is scheduled to come online in two years. I'm wondering if it's something you're planning to move up, to move a little faster on. The needs might be greater there.

Gen Raymond Henault: I'm glad you brought that up, because JC2IS, as we like to call it—we like to use acronyms—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Gen Raymond Henault: —is actually now called the Titan System, because it got a little too complicated. It's a very important and very fundamental part of our joint command and control capability. Of course, it's critical to our ability to operate in both a domestic and an international sense. It provides an ability for secure transmission of data, information, imagery, and a whole bunch of other things we need to transmit both to forces in Canada and halfway around the world, in some cases.

We are doing that project in an incremental fashion. It has gone through a number of evolutions. It's one that now does it that way so that we can take advantage of technology changes and improvements as they come along, rather than buying equipment that's old and outdated, and we are looking at what we have to do to accelerate some of that capability. In fact, we have done that in some cases in support of operations like Ethiopia and Eritrea, and perhaps even more distantly in terms of how far away it was, in East Timor.

So that is very much a focus of what we're doing and how we're improving our capabilities, and it is on the list of things we need to look at in terms of acceleration, if required.

Mr. David Price: Another area in which you might be looking at acceleration... you had three lines in there: the afloat logistics or sealift capability, strategic airlift, and strategic air-to-air refuelling capabilities. I see one of them was actually online to get into operation... well not into operation, but to get started this year. Has it been moved up at all? What is the status of it right now?

Gen Raymond Henault: It looks like we have some opportunities in terms of air-to-air refuelling that we're certainly trying to pursue now, and that issue may very well move ahead a little bit. It's not going to happen in the next very short while, but it's going to happen more quickly than it perhaps would have otherwise.

Certainly, we're looking at everything we can to perhaps find some innovative ways to secure either strategic airlift or strategic sealift more quickly than perhaps we would have seen in the past. That again is all dependent on the resources available to us, as you are well aware. We are making the case to government for consideration of those, though, because they represent a fundamental part of our ability to do this global projection that's so important.

I would only hasten to add that even though we are very keen on getting it, we have some strategic capability. We do have Airbuses that provide a combination capability for both passengers and cargo, and they're very effective aircraft. We have our C-130 fleet. We have some afloat capability. But even if we had all the equipment we would like in the future or that we've projected out as a requirement, we would still undoubtedly have to do some contracting out to support global projection requirements. But that's no different from any of our allies. In fact, even the Americans, who have more equipment than most air forces, armies, or navies could ever hope to have, also contract out on a large scale for what they do.

So, yes, they're an important part of what we need, but we'll look at what we can do to move programs ahead within the envelope that we'll see presented to us.

The Chair: One minute.

Mr. David Price: I was recently at Spar in Edmonton, and I was looking at the upgrades on the C-130s, the Hercs. I was quite impressed with the amount of work going on. It's really rather a major overhaul, yet I don't really see any major figures in here for it. Was that a planned capital expense, or was it just a regular maintenance type of operation? It looked rather major to me.

Gen Raymond Henault: I'm not sure what you actually saw at Northwest Industries or at CAE, but we are making a number of improvements to the C-130 fleet, including a cockpit modification or an avionics upgrade. We're doing some work to upgrade the engines. We're also doing work to improve their aircraft collision and avoidance systems, and a number of systems within the aircraft that give them a much better operational capability. We're also modifying a number of aircraft—we have done so to about half the fleet or just a bit more now—in terms of self-defence equipment, in what we call defence electronic warfare capability, which has laser detection or missile detection capability, and automatic ejection of flares or countermeasures of whatever kind that are required.

• 1615

Those are the kinds of modifications that were already underway before 11 September, and we're now trying to move them up as we can. Some things can't be moved up very quickly because of industrial limitations, though, quite frankly. No amount of money will necessarily move them ahead any faster, but we are trying to do them as quickly as we possibly can.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

Who's going next? Is it Mrs. Wayne or Mr. Stoffer?

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chair, Elsie is leaving at 4:30 p.m. Given the fact she was kind enough to give me an autographed copy of her book, I would like to give my time to Elsie.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There you go, Elsie. That's my plug for you.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, you have the floor, and you also had a commercial there.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC/DR): It ought to help, but I had to buy this time.

I just want to say that since Mr. Bachand has said he's now 35 years old, I'm only 25. I wanted you to know that.

Anyway, I am leaving a little early, sir, because I am going to be in Halifax tomorrow to say some prayers and to thank our men and women for the sacrifices they are going to make on our behalf.

The deployment of the frigates and one trump destroyer in the campaign that we are now in—and tomorrow will see that—against terrorism reduces the number of operational ships available to carry out the surveillance of Canadian waters and to meet other commitments. Are there plans to bring up to a higher level of readiness the destroyer and the maritime coastal defence vessel that have been tied up and docked in recent months because of a lack of personnel? Do we have the personnel? Are we going to be able to do something to look after our security here, as well, sir?

Gen Raymond Henault: In fact, there are some measures being taken at the moment to enhance the readiness of our fleets—not necessarily to re-equip all of them to a hundred percent, but certainly to be able to give them a better capability to respond to either immediate readiness requirements or enhanced readiness requirements.

The fleet itself is quite diverse, as you well know, Ms. Wayne, and it has a number of elements to it that do provide us with a fair amount of depth in terms of our ability to do coastal surveillance and so on. That's all done in very close concert with both the coast guard and Transport Canada and other agencies on the coasts that do surveillance of our waters.

Again, we have to balance off what the requirement is here domestically with our ability to increase numbers, all in the understanding that we are also going to have to support this task group and other elements that are being deployed, perhaps for some extended period. We don't know how long that's going to be yet, but we are doing what we can in that respect.

We're also looking at how we might integrate the reserves more intimately into frigate operations, for example, or AOR or destroyer operations. All of that is part and parcel of what the Chief of Maritime Staff is currently doing to enhance his capability. All three service chiefs, by the way, are undertaking measures within their own envelopes and their own ability to do it, to enhance their capabilities, whether they're air, naval, or land capabilities, to respond to threats, whether they're threats here at home or whether they're enhanced threats or increased calls for deployments elsewhere.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Also, the department announced in February the expenditure of about $250 million for protective clothing and sensors to deal with attacks using nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. They said it would take eight years for the delivery of this equipment. In view of what's happening now, is there any way we can take steps to accelerate that in order to get the clothing and the sensors here for our military men and women because of the terrorist situation that we're into now?

Gen Raymond Henault: That's a very good point.

We have to ensure, and we always ensure, that we deploy our men and women into theatres of operations well-trained, well-equipped, and with every piece of equipment and leadership skill required to allow them to do their job. In many cases, we are accelerating or enhancing our national procurements. We're trying to ensure the shelves are full and that we have everything we need to do operations, all with a view to having some redundancy and an ability to expand, if required, if we're asked for more downstream.

I would add, though, that this is a coalition effort, and it's one to which we're not the only contributors. There are many nations that have now pledged support to these operations. I would predict for you that the involvement that we have will be long-term. I think we want to be involved every step of the way, but our involvement is going to change, transform itself, adjust as time goes on, based on our capability to provide rotation requirements and so on, and based on the needs of the mission. That's really an important factor that we have to take into consideration.

• 1620

So, yes, we're going to do what we can to improve what we have available to us, but we'll do that based on the long-term requirements as we become better aware of them as time goes on.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: This is my last question.

As everyone knows, we bought some used submarines. I believe we only have one that is floating at the present time. When can we expect the rest of the submarines to be brought over from Great Britain? Are they here now and already being refurbished, or are they still over there?

Gen Raymond Henault: I know the Admiral is chomping at the bit to give you this answer, but—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Vice-Admiral Gregory R. Maddison (Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): All four are floating, I can tell you that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Are they all? Okay.

VAdm Greg Maddison: I can tell you, though, that one of them is already in Halifax—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, I knew that.

VAdm Greg Maddison: —and is undergoing modifications, with Canadian equipment being installed in the vessel now. It will go under the system trials and evaluation systems that we will always put vessels through.

The second one is currently en route. The Windsor is in the Atlantic and will be here toward the end of this week, as I remember it. And the two others are pretty much on schedule and will be delivered over the next two years.

Gen Raymond Henault: Over the next year.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Over the next year, then.

Thank you very much, sir. I'm going to go now, so I can see you tomorrow in Halifax.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, Peter.

Gen Raymond Henault: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Stoffer, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thanks for the book, too, Elsie.

Thank you very much for appearing today, gentlemen. I apologize—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: He asked for the book. I want you to know that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Shhh.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Did he pay for it?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I want to apologize for my lateness for the committee.

Sir, I just wanted to put two names on the record. I think you already know them quite well, and I know Admiral Maddison knows them well. They're two people who have done outstanding work preparing the troops for Wednesday's departure, and they are Colonel Joseph Hincke, of CFB Shearwater, and Rear-Admiral Bruce MacLean. These folks are amazing. If Canada can produce two great people like them, imagine what the rest of the military is capable of doing. I have full confidence in their abilities—and and I know our constituents and their families do, too—and in the work they've done in preparing our troops. I just thought I'd let you, their chief, know of the great work they've done.

Sir, as you know, I wrote to the minister well over ten days ago. Barring the unforeseen picture that we have in terms of September 11, everyone is telling us we don't know what the long-term picture is going to look like. As you know, the Shearwater air base is in my riding, and as you also know, there are 1,100 acres of land about to turned over to the Canada Lands Company for divestiture and for sale. On that 1,100 acres is an extremely long, effective, and important runway to be used for our military aircraft or those of our NATO allies. I've asked the minister if he could hold off. Wouldn't it be prudent to hold off on any decision or the divestiture of any properties until we get a clearer picture of what the world situation will be like? I'd like you to comment on that, please.

Gen Raymond Henault: Thank you.

First of all, I would thank you for your comments about the two individuals you mentioned. I know them personally—we all know them personally—and they're great leaders. It's those kinds of folks who make this kind of a deployment the safe deployment that it is and the effective one that it is, so I'll certainly put that in my bank of thank yous.

Secondly, the closure of the Shearwater airport was announced back in 1994, Mr. Stoffer, as I think you are aware. It has gone through a number of iterations and changes in terms of ownership options and other types of things. It is still on the books for sale, and it's assumed that will happen in the very near future. We have not looked at changing the intent to do that. That's not my decision, quite frankly. It would be a departmental decision, and it would certainly have a ministerial oversight on it.

From an operational point of view, the airport itself is destined primarily to support Sea King operations at this point in time, and ultimately the new maritime helicopters. Therefore, many of the parts of that airfield that we're now talking about are those relating to fixed-wing operations, and I think that's what you're referring to as well.

We had concluded back then—and we would probably stand by this at the moment—that there are other airports in the region that are equally usable, including Halifax International. Also, as I remember it, Greenwood is only fifty or sixty miles away, and it can take fixed-wing operations up to and including big aircraft and CF-18s. They can operate out of there fairly regularly.

• 1625

At the moment, then, even in spite of the events of 11 September, there would appear to be no reason for us to keep the Shearwater airfield open or to keep the long runway open in any different way than what we're currently intending. We will keep the short runway, the one Sea Kings use for approaches, landings, takeoffs, training, and so on, and recoveries from operational missions are still available to our air crews.

So I can't sit here today and tell you we're going to change that approach. I think it's still a sound one, despite the events that have transpired.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Also, sir, we've heard an awful lot of criticism about the Sea Kings, some of it warranted, some of it not warranted. I do know the Sea Kings that will be available and ready are sound, and that they'll do the job they're asked to do. On a personal note, though, of two of my assistants, one has a brother-in-law who will be flying on a Sea King, and the other has a fiancée who will be leaving tomorrow, so they're very concerned about the criticisms that are reflected upon the Sea Kings themselves.

But the minister was here last time, and I asked him about the replacement for the Sea Kings and when we will we see the first of those replacements. He indicated that it's by the end of 2005. But under the split procurement process, the returned tenders from any companies applying will be in at Christmas of next year or early January of 2003. When you speak to the various suppliers, Mr. Chairman, like Cormorant, Sikorsky, or Eurocopter, they're indicating that they're not going to have a helicopter ready by 2005 under that process.

I don't mean to contradict the minister, but I don't think you'd have any quarter from any of us on the committee if somehow you were able to convince the department to cancel the split procurement process and to accelerate the replacement for the Sea King so that we could indeed have a replacement by 2005. I'm just wondering if you could comment on that.

Gen Raymond Henault: While I appreciate your comments for accelerating the process, government has taken the procurement down the road that it has taken it. I don't think I can make any changes to that without some ministerial intervention, obviously. Nonetheless, even though we know 2005 is the earliest we would see a replacement for this helicopter, we have put a lot of time, effort, and money into ensuring that the Sea King fleet itself is safe.

From my experience as a helicopter pilot and as an airman for many years, I think I can assure you that aircraft are not put into service, nor are they flown, unless they are safe to fly and they're safe to operate. We know that aircraft is a little bit older. It requires a little more maintenance than perhaps others would, but it doesn't fly unless it's signed off as safe and airworthy, and it is.

We do have some operational limitations with it, but I would hasten to add that the Sea Kings are deploying to the region with upgraded engines, transmissions, and a number of other upgrades within the aircraft, including digital mission computers and other equipment essential to them doing their job. They are also deploying with a full complement of anti-submarine warfare and operational equipment needed to do whatever job they're assigned while in the region.

I would also hasten to add that they're going to operate in a coalition environment, which means they're not going to be doing the job all by themselves. They will be there with ships doing surface surveillance and some subsurface surveillance. They will have other aircraft, like maritime patrol aircraft, doing air surveillance, and on and on. The coalition benefit is being able to operate collectively to accomplish a mission, and we know the Sea Kings can do their job within that coalition as best they can with the equipment they have on them at the moment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

We'll go to the five-minute round now, starting with Mrs. Gallant.

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

Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2, is Canada's professional military response to domestic terrorism. As a well-trained hostage rescue unit, JTF2's role is in meeting the potential of terrorist threats where there is a significant Canadian presence, either here at home or abroad in our embassies.

JTF2's role of being a specialized hostage rescue unit is not special forces. Hostage rescue troops and special forces are clearly two different things—different selection, different training, different intelligence needs, different leadership and tactics, and a very different mindset.

Have we learned nothing from the lessons of our history? The decision to use special services forces, the Canadian Airborne Regiment, as peacekeepers in Somalia doomed their mission to failure. The decision to use a hostage rescue unit as a special services force in Afghanistan is questionable at best. The country needs to debate, in an open and public fashion, Canada's foreign policy regarding special operations before any other members of Canada's military are committed to Afghanistan.

• 1630

My questions are as follows: Does Canada's national counterterrorism strategy tie in with the international community, or is it just an extension of the strategies of other nations? Is the national counterterrorism plan a strategic plan? Is it clear, focused, and meaningful, and is it well understood and acted upon by all the departments and agencies at all levels? Does this plan have the endorsement of Parliament? Finally, what is Canada's military objective in the war on terrorism?

Gen Raymond Henault: I'm obviously not going to get into the specifics of what JTF2 members are going to do and the special operations that they've been assigned to. What I will tell you is that they develop very special skills as members of the counterterrorist unit JTF2, skills that are very usable in a special operations sense. They operate and cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate continuously with a number of other special operations units around the world, amongst others, the U.S., Australia, and Germany. There are many organizations that they collaborate with.

The skills that they have are skills that are very usable in the context of what they're going to be doing in this mission. I would say to you that they are not going off to do what is traditionally the counterterrorist role, even though it is a counterterrorist mission that they have.

For the operations that they will undertake, they have been prepared very well with the skills they've already developed, so we don't feel any concern... obviously, we're concerned about their well-being as they go off on a mission like this, but we are very confident that they have the abilities needed to do special operations in an international context. That is not something I have any question about personally. I've seen how they operate. I know how they do business. I've been out to the unit many times, and they are certainly very well motivated and very well respected in the international community in terms of what those skills represent. I think what they will do will be very credible and meaningful, and as we learn about it later on, after the fact, I think you'll find that, again, we've sent the right people to do the job.

In terms of the national counterterrorist plan, it is a plan that was coordinated interdepartmentally. It's a plan sponsored by the Solicitor General, so I'm not going to comment on where it sits in the parliamentary process, because I'm not sure about that. But it is a plan we're very much involved in, and we contribute to the national counterterrorism capability in Canada in support of the Solicitor General.

Our counterterrorist unit represents that capability that we provide domestically, and they do, by the way, develop some international skills as part of what they do even in a domestic sense, because that is part and parcel of the nature of some of the other tasks that JTF2 does.

So we're very confident in what they can do, and in terms of the plan itself, I'm very convinced the plan is a sound one. We've exercised the plan, and we contribute to a number of support requirements when either major events or other things occur here in Canada. I guess I would ask you, then, if there is something else in that question that I can answer in terms of the capabilities that they represent.

The Chair: Unfortunately, there are only about ten seconds left, Ms. Gallant, so I'm going to move on to Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Bachand, you have five minutes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chair, I'll have to start off in English this time, because I heard there was a very nice error earlier. I said in French that I was 50 years old, and the translators nicely translated that I was 35.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Claude Bachand: Now I understand why all the people here were very skeptical, and, in perfect honesty, I don't want to correct the blues tomorrow, so I will now tell everybody in English that I am 50 years old, okay?

[Translation]

Let me now return to domestic security. You previously answered my question about the JTF2, the Communications Security Establishment, and the program for the protection of essential infrastructure, but you did not say anything about the group to combat bioterrorism. I'm referring to the atomic, biological and chemical group. I am told that it exists mainly for army people, that is people who might be victims of an atomic, biological or chemical contamination. Would civilians be able to take advantage of the knowledge of this group in the case of an attack, for example?

• 1635

Would you be able to elaborate, General, on the four points I've just mentioned? People ask me whether the Canadian Army is ready to defend them and to ensure domestic security. With all due respect, all I can answer them, with the kind of responses you have given me, is that yes, it is ready, because General Henault told me so in committee.

I'm wondering whether it might not be a good idea for you to make some kind of public announcement. I don't expect you to say you've sent over so many people with the JTF2 and how many remain in Canada. I know you can't do that. But I think that Quebeckers and Canadians need someone to tell them somewhere other than in this committee that you do have the resources necessary to protect them, for you to be a bit more specific.

I don't know whether you'd be able to respond on the ABC group and be a bit more specific to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians in this present context of anthrax, deployments and terrorist attacks.

Gen Raymond Henault: As far as the chemical and biological group is concerned, it is the JNBCRT, the Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Response Team. It is a team with a limited capacity. It is made up of approximately 29 people from the military and the RCMP. We have the capacity to respond to emergencies or chemical or biological attacks, with the necessary notice, to assist those who are the first on the scene. There are several levels of intervention, as you know. There are people from the municipal, provincial and federal levels. We make a contribution to the entire range of required interventions but we are nonetheless subject to limitations. We have a team that can respond to an emergency anywhere in Canada. When we have advance notice, this team is supplemented, as required, with additional resources in order to optimize its decontamination capacity, its ability to respond and to provide technical advice to the teams and provincial, municipal or other authorities.

It is one of the things we are looking at in an attempt to increase our capacity and extend it further throughout the country but the fact remains that the initial responsibility lies with the front-line workers. Should we be among these front-line workers? Maybe. I don't yet have the answer but it is something that is absolutely critical. However, the team itself is made up of experts in this field. I can assure you that if any such incident arises, they will be able to provide all the necessary support to whatever team intervenes.

As regards the JTF2, I can't say much more. But I can reassure you once again that this unit is able to respond to such requirements and take on its responsibilities at the domestic level as well as provide necessary support to the international mission.

I have every confidence in this unit's ability. I have every confidence in our domestic ability. Canadians can be reassured because I'm absolutely convinced of this.

By the way, Mr. Bachand, there's a very important civil link, one that is being increasingly developed by the infrastructure protection group, that is Ms. Purdy's group, aimed at including this in a very cohesive plan capable of responding to the needs of Canadians throughout the country, at the interdepartmental level as well as the federal-provincial level. All this is part of a plan that has been greatly expanded since September 11 but that was already in the process of being perfected well before that.

[English]

We will prevail.

The Chair: Thank you, General.

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. O'Reilly, for five minutes.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for attending, General Henault, Lieutenant General Macdonald, and Vice-Admiral Maddison. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple of questions that are on my mind that I haven't been able to deal with or find an answer for.

Will there be a rotation problem? As we are offering to expand our role in Bosnia, how will this affect our total force? Because there is talk of backfilling in the Balkans as other units withdraw, I want to know if that is a UN decision and whether we are capable of doing another early rotation if that's required.

• 1640

Also, I think the myth of the Sea Kings is finally coming to rest. The press and the opposition have created a myth. Every time I see the President of the United States arriving from or landing at Camp David, I notice he is in a Sea King. I know it might be modified a bit for his needs, but it's obviously a very safe aircraft, so I think that myth has probably pretty well exhausted itself.

Also, the other question is on the Cormorant delivery. I notice it's a very quiet delivery, perhaps because of the events going on. I believe there are fifteen of them coming on stream. I just wanted to know what the celebration date is on the delivery—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John O'Reilly: —because we get criticized when things aren't delivered.

Also, what is the approximate delivery date for the other two submarines? I think I'd also like to know something about the operational capabilities of them—not whether they can float, but whether they can actually dive also might be of interest to everyone here.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gen Raymond Henault: Mr. Chairman, I might take on a few of those, and then I'll ask the admiral to expand on the operational capability of the submarines. He's very familiar with them, by the way, and very familiar with what they represent from an operational point of view.

I think what you're referring to is the backfill issue in Bosnia. Is that what I'm gathering here? Yes?

We have agreed—as have all other NATO nations—to a number of measures put in place in response to the counterterrorism response that NATO and the allies have developed, in order to do what NATO has to do to provide forces or to backfill behind forces that might be required in the counterterrorism campaign in the Middle East or elsewhere.

The backfill requirement is one that a number of NATO nations have already signed up for, and we are part of that. We have agreed that, if required, we would consider the backfilling of NATO forces there. However, we haven't been asked to provide any backfill at this stage of the game. There are several NATO nations that have offered, but we haven't necessarily offered specifically at this point.

Quite sincerely, I think we're already playing a very significant role in the Balkans. We already have over 1,650 troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the moment, so our contribution is very significant.

There are other NATO nations that are not necessarily going to find themselves perhaps deploying to the Middle East, so they are able to backfill if the requirement is there, but that actual backfill requirement is still not certain at this point in time. In fact, our assumption here is that some of that backfill may be in much smaller pieces than a battle group or a brigade or something of that nature. It may be a very specialized capability. All of that has to be factored in.

Nonetheless, as the minister has said, we would take that into consideration if we were asked. We haven't been asked yet, but we are doing contingency planning to ensure that if we're asked, we know what we can do. We still have residual capability if it is required.

On the withdrawal question, I'd have to ask you just to expand on that a little bit. You asked about UN withdrawal.

Mr. John O'Reilly: The UN has mentioned that some countries, particularly the United States, are talking about withdrawing from the Balkans in order to provide troops in other theatres, and that those countries are asking the UN to evaluate how many other countries would be able to provide the backfill necessary. I suppose that's all part of the planning going on at the present time.

Gen Raymond Henault: Yes, it is, and that appears to be less of an issue than it was right at the outset. In the aftermath of some of this initial planning that we undertook, the U.S. has stated very clearly that they will continue to remain in the Balkans as long as NATO is in the Balkans. They're not going to withdraw completely at this stage of the game. They still have a commitment to the Balkans, and they will satisfy that commitment as long as it's required.

Again, it's a moving train, a moving vehicle, and it's something that continually changes in terms of requirements and where we might be going. I don't think we're going to see a unilateral withdrawal, or at least I would surmise that. I can't speak for the U.S. military or the U.S. government, but, from a Canadian point of view, it doesn't appear we're going to be asked to provide any significant backfill to that requirement.

• 1645

The Chair: Thank you, General.

Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

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

I'd like to thank Mr. Rossignol for suggesting the following question, because I think it's actually quite good.

Sir, as you know, the minister indicated a while ago that there is an agreement under NORAD that, in the unlikely event the government would make a decision to shoot down a commercial airliner if it was indeed threatening a community of any sort... I noticed CF-18s were around Toronto the other day, and for that specific reason.

In the United States, I believe the decision to do that is brought by regional commanders or generals, whereas it's a government decision in Canada. I was wondering if you could elaborate on what the NORAD policy would be on that. Is there any bit of a conflict of interest here, or a difference of opinion? Or does that just suit the NORAD capability or the principles of NORAD in this unlikely circumstance?

Gen Raymond Henault: Yes, that's a very good question.

I would add that the CF-18s are a very big part of the national domestic security that we're ensuring, and we have expanded our CF-18 commitment to NORAD so that we can continue patrolling more widely than we have in the past, in response to this heightened state of alert that we're in after the events of 11 September. You will see CF-18s flying in parts of Canada where you don't normally see them. They're not only going to be operating out of Cold Lake and Bagotville, for example, they are going to be operating out of other airports in Canada—without giving any specifics—to ensure that we do have better coverage in terms of our air defence. In my view, that's an important part of our role in doing continental air defence and air sovereignty operations. So, yes, they're doing that job and you'll see more of them.

The Commander-in-Chief of NORAD is the authority for NORAD at large, and he has a Canadian deputy, a Canadian three-star who is in Colorado Springs and is at the head of many Canadians who are part of the NORAD mechanism. We are involved in decision-making in NORAD, and we will continue to be, in accordance with the bilateral agreement that we have.

The rules of engagement in the wake of 11 September are not necessarily different. The national command authorities are still the authorities for the shoot-down of an aircraft—something we would never wish to do, but a decision that would have to be taken if the circumstances so dictated. That national command authority in the U.S. has been delegated as the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief of NORAD, who has delegated it to the commander of the continental NORAD region, but that's again only as a last resort. He still will make every effort to go to his command authority to get that authority because of the significance and the magnitude of a decision of that nature.

At the national command level here in Canada, the Government of Canada has retained that responsibility, and we have the mechanisms in place to get that kind of decision quickly if the occasion arises. It's slightly different in its semantics, but not in its actual practice.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As my last question, sir, there's another front that isn't going, but it's just as important to the efforts of Canadians, and that is the families who are left at home. I was talking to some kids over the weekend, and they're very concerned that their mom or dad won't be able to take them out to trick-or-treat, but maybe they'll be home for Valentine's Day or something in that regard. It's just as important to them as Christmas and anything else.

What they've asked—and I've asked you about this privately, so I hope you don't mind me asking it publicly as well—is whether or not there's anything the armed forces can do to encourage some sort of continuous dialogue to assure the families that there will be a certain time when they'll be able to come home, in order that they can make their plans based on that.

Gen Raymond Henault: Thank you for that, because I think it's important to reassure families that they're not going to be gone for periods that are unreasonable.

Once our troops have deployed—whether it's a naval seaman, an airman, airwoman, or soldier—our rotations are all based on a six-month rotational basis. At the moment, our plans are all based on a deployment of six months and rotations that surround that six-month deployment timeline.

That doesn't mean everybody is going to rotate back in six months. To sustain an operation like this in the long-term, we know we may have to stagger some of the rotations. Some of the ships may come back earlier, while some of them may come back slightly later, although not significantly later. In general terms, none of the people deploying on Wednesday should find themselves gone for much more than six months, although it may be less or it may be very slightly more, but not a whole lot more. That does give them some ability to plan for that type of a separation.

We know how difficult it is to go through those separations. They're not easy, so that is very much part of our family support and what we do to ensure that their families are well taken care of when they're gone.

• 1650

As well, though, I would add that when our Canadian Forces members are deployed for a six-month period or longer, they do come home during that deployment. We have a home leave travel assistance program that ensures they get home or that their spouses or families join them somewhere—in a safe region, obviously—to ensure that the family reconnects partway through the deployment.

All of those things are part and parcel of what we need to do to make sure the families are not affected to any worse degree than they will be by the separations we know they'll have.

The Chair: Thank you, General.

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Wood.

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

General, earlier you talked about a pledge of support from other NATO nations. The only pledges of support that I know about for the U.S. are from Great Britain, Canada, and a couple of non-NATO countries, Australia and New Zealand. I guess my question to you is, how many partners are out there right now?

Gen Raymond Henault: I can't give you the exact number, but I can tell you in excess of twenty nations have pledged different levels of support to the coalition. I'm not going to speak for those nations, but there are many nations out there, at different levels, different degrees, different capabilities, and so on, that are—

Mr. Bob Wood: How come we only hear of three, or five at the most?

Gen Raymond Henault: The NATO nations alone would give you nineteen nations. A strong number of those have pledged support already.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, they've pledged support, but are they delivering support?

Gen Raymond Henault: That support will not necessarily occur right away during the actual deployment. It will not necessarily be at the front end of the deployment. We may find ourselves adjusting, and I think we will undoubtedly adjust our support as time goes on.

Some of those nations will not move into the theatre of operations, perhaps. For example, a nation that has pledged a movements control unit may not deploy that movements control unit until there is an airhead that requires that capability to be inserted into the airhead. That could happen two or three weeks from now, or it could be a rotation several months from now.

All of these capabilities are an important part of this coalition and of being able to sustain this coalition in the long term, because this is not going to be a short operation. This is going to be a long operation, as we've heard from all the world leaders. Therefore, all of those pledges are part and parcel of now managing, from a commander's point of view, when and how he's going to integrate those support mechanisms or that level of support that's been pledged, how much, and for what time. Depending on the mission, again, those will all adjust themselves as time goes on.

So there are many nations that are part of this, all in reaction to what happened on 11 September. Quite frankly, they're all concerned and they're all anxious to resolve this as well as they can.

Mr. Bob Wood: You talked a couple of times about the Military Family Resource Centre. As you know, a lot of us on this committee were on the quality of life committee that went around the country. One of the most disappointing things was the Military Family Resource Centres. If I remember right, probably the only one that really operated halfway decently was in Petawawa. I think the rest lacked a lot, and some of them were even operating out of trailers. You have said this situation has changed.

I certainly hope the situation has changed, because I think a lot of us were very disappointed in what we found in terms of how people coped with long absences from their family. In a lot of cases, at least in my mind, the government or DND just gave lip service to this. When people really needed service or needed help, in a lot of cases it wasn't there. You have reassured everybody that it has changed, and I certainly hope that's so.

Gen Raymond Henault: We pay very close attention to both the members of the Canadian Forces and to their families. I think the proof of that is the great initiatives we've undertaken—again supported by this committee—in a number of quality of life improvements, including the Military Family Resource Centres.

I don't know the ones you're referring to, I'm afraid, but I visited many of those family resource centres in my previous capacity. I visited others not only here in Canada, but also where we have Canadians abroad. I can cite for you the Military Family Resource Centre in Naples and the one in Ramstein, Germany. They're very well established and very effective family support centres that are doing great service to the families there. Many of those members, including those in Brussels, which has a family resource centre, find themselves deploying outside the country deploying as part of their operational mandates. They're going to operational theatres for three-month and six-month periods even while they're already deployed in a support sense to a different organization. They're critical to our family support, and if there are ones that are not doing as well as others or that perhaps need more support, I'd like to know so that we can solve that problem.

• 1655

Mr. Bob Wood: Well, that was a couple of years ago, so let's hope it's better.

Gen Raymond Henault: General Macdonald just came from Colorado Springs, where they've established—

Mr. Bob Wood: They have a great support system.

Gen Raymond Henault: —a family support centre that's beautiful.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, it is.

Gen Raymond Henault: It's a great facility.

Admiral Maddison is very familiar with the entire navy structure of family support, as a former commander of the navy. I can ask him to expand if you wish to take more time on this.

Mr. Bob Wood: No, I don't. I want one more question.

The Chair: Mr. Wood, I'm afraid you're out of time.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

The Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Anders.

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

General Macdonald, I had a wonderful opportunity to visit NORAD when you were at its command centre, and the question I have for you is whether or not the Americans have expressed opinions to you on whether or not it is feasible to maintain NORAD and to keep Canada involved if Canada does not participate in ballistic missile defence. I'd like to get your view of the comments the Americans have made to you while you were in command there.

I'm going to ask a series of four questions and then have you gentlemen respond.

The second question is whether or not money has been earmarked for laser guidance systems like the type we borrowed from the Australians during the Kosovo operation. If not, why not?

As the third question, you lay out in your presentation today that there are priorities in terms of our interoperability with our allies, and particularly with the Unites States. You don't state them specifically, but you do give us a generic statement that those things need to be looked after. I'm asking you gentlemen what our specific and biggest priorities are that we need to enhance for interoperability.

The fourth question has to do with our enforcement of the embargo against Iraq. Since Canada has been involved with that, and since Iraq is one of those nations, along with about another half dozen, that have been directly supporting terrorism over the last decade or so, do you see their missions, consulates, and embassies in Canada or abroad as an intelligence and subversive threat?

Lieutenant General George E.C. Macdonald (Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Let me answer your first one, Mr. Anders, regarding any American comments that I may have had expressed to me regarding ballistic missile defence.

Of course, no decision has been made on the deployment of ballistic missile defence. We won't really know the outcome of whatever partnership we might continue to have within the deployment of that system until that decision is made, and until we've been asked to participate.

I think the concerns of the Canadian government have been well expressed in the past about the ABM treaty and so on. I also think the Americans are certainly interested in our potential participation of ballistic missile defence. During my time there, they certainly expressed their preference to have it within the context of NORAD, but I think they also accept the possibility that we will ultimately not participate. They would then simply assign it to another CINC, another commander-in-chief, such as U.S. Space Command, which is also located in Colorado Springs. So while I think they would certainly prefer to have our participation, they are ready for the alternatives.

I have expressed to this committee and others that this concerned me when I was Deputy Commander-in-Chief of NORAD because of the practicalities of actually implementing ballistic missile defence in a physical complex where NORAD and U.S. Space Command work very closely together. That may cause us some practical problems over time, but I don't think the Americans feel NORAD would be fundamentally threatened as a result of the implementation of ballistic missile defence from their perspective.

Gen Raymond Henault: I'm going to go to the embargo question.

Yes, we have been involved in embargo operations against Iraq for quite some time now. On several occasions, we have participated in the Gulf region with our naval vessels. We could find ourselves there again, by the way—and most likely will—as part of this current operation.

As to whether or not those countries are a subversive threat, I can't answer that for you. That's not my parked ship, quite frankly. It's up to CSIS to tell you that, and I would ask you to offer that question to them, as opposed to us giving you an observation. We have diplomatic relations with a number of countries, with attachés here in Canada and elsewhere. In return, we have attachés in other countries, obviously. Again, we honour those accreditations where it's appropriate. In this case, I just don't have an answer for you in that respect.

• 1700

On the laser-guided system, I think I'll ask General Macdonald to expand on this one.

LGen George Macdonald: I'm afraid I can't. I don't know anything about it.

Gen Raymond Henault: Quite frankly, I don't have an answer either on laser-guided capability. Are you talking about missile defence in this respect specifically?

Mr. Rob Anders: My understanding is that, during the Kosovo campaign, because we didn't have the proper guidance systems, we actually borrowed them from of the Australians. What I'm wondering is whether or not... I know you gentlemen have received some money, and I'm glad you have. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see you receive substantial increases beyond what you've managed to get out of the finance minister. That being said, though, has anything been earmarked for these laser-guidance systems for our planes?

Gen Raymond Henault: Thank you for clarifying that. That's not the way I understood it.

We do have our own internal capability for laser guidance. Our CF-18s are equipped to deliver precision-guided munitions, as we saw them do during the Kosovo air campaign. We are increasing the numbers as time goes on. Of course, the capability upgrade to the CF-18s will in fact provide them with an even better capability to deliver precision-guided munitions of many different kinds.

We don't have enough to equip all of our CF-18s at this point in time, and we don't need to do so at this stage. I won't necessarily get into the numbers, but that capability is resident within the Canadian Forces and resident within the fighter community, so any increases or enhancements that we make—borrowing equipment, as you call it—is to increase our stocks, not necessarily to provide the capability.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

Ms. Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you. I have one short question first, and it follows up a bit on what Mr. Woods was talking about.

We had soldiers who came back from Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia, who were severely injured emotionally. There's no way you can equip young men to go over and to deal with those issues. What I want to know is what the military has in place to help reintegrate these soldiers back into our society, because they've done the best service for Canada. They're the best ambassadors Canada has ever had. How far does our responsibility go, and what are we doing about it?

Gen Raymond Henault: We have an absolute responsibility to take care of those who are injured when they're deployed. That's part and parcel of what we're trying to increase our capability to do now.

We have a number of mechanisms to treat post-traumatic stress syndrome. We have a number of new clinics, as we call them, across the country. The term for them is OTSSC, or Operational Trauma and Stress Support Centres. These are centres that are established. The one I visited most recently is in Halifax, where we have a number of professionals, psychologists, doctors, and medical professionals of many different kinds, who are not only treating members of the Canadian Forces who have come back and who have been injured by these exposures to some very difficult things, scenes, and situations, but are also helping them to reintegrate. That includes the veterans who are out—not all of them, but many of them are being treated by our centres.

We have a very aggressive health care improvement program called Rx2000. Much of that program also targets improving health care across the spectrum, including health care in terms of mental health, in terms of post-traumatic stress, and in terms of what needs to be done to reintegrate people into society.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: What about job training and/or assistance in finding employment?

Gen Raymond Henault: Pardon?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: What about training, making them job ready?

Gen Raymond Henault: Do you mean prior to deployment?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes.

Gen Raymond Henault: We do a number of things to prepare them for the situations, the circumstances, the environment they're going into. We now do a wide variety of things to provide what we call mission-specific training, which includes exposure to the kinds of things they're going to see. You never know, though. It doesn't matter how much you train an individual, a man or woman who goes into these theatres of operation—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Oh, no, I'm sorry. What I'm talking about is when they come back and are going to be discharged from the service or resign. Do we have a program in place for job training to help them cope, to get a job in civilian life?

• 1705

Gen Raymond Henault: There is in fact a mechanism through which those who are injured on duty, when they're deployed, do have a right of passage, if you like, or at least some priority in terms of transferring into the public service, for example. But we also have some very comprehensive programs with Veterans Affairs that we work on together continuously to actually do that: to transfer people from active service to retirement and to provide them with the kind of training they need as they go into civilian life.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Okay.

I think we've seen over history that eventually we turn on ourselves in extended wars. In watching CNN, I feel like the emperor has no clothes. We don't know what the targets are. We don't know exactly what the goal is. The goal is to fight terrorism. What are we shooting at in Afghanistan? If we do in fact get the big guy, are we then going to go into other countries along with the Americans if they so decide? I think we...

The Chair: Ms. Beaumier, that last question is a foreign policy question. It might not be suited to our witnesses today, but I'm sure they can answer the first question.

Gen Raymond Henault: I can tell you the objectives of the campaign are relatively straightforward: to bring those terrorists who perpetrated the acts of 11 September to justice, along with those who support them primarily—and we know who those are, “those” being Osama bin Laden and his network; to eliminate the networks, or at least to eradicate the networks to a degree whereby those networks can no longer support international terrorism; and to re-establish confidence in people in terms of international peace and security.

Those are very broad guidelines. We have reams of operational plans and mechanisms that tell us what exactly each one of the phases, each one of the objectives, is going to be, but that is really the overall objective: to ensure international terrorism is diminished to the best degree that we possibly can.

The Chair: Thank you, General.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

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

I would like to end my series of questions with some figures. Figures are important, and there are a lot of them being talked about. In the case of the current operation, it was said that the government agreed to an additional one billion dollars for security and defence, because, as we know, the federal government will have a surplus at the end of the year, or had expected to have one.

I was surprised to see the NATO figures over the weekend. I mentioned this when the minister appeared before us. We are almost at the back of the pack. Of the 19 NATO member nations, only Luxembourg ranks lower than Canada. We are second-to-last, with our participation of 1.2% of our GDP.

I'm not asking you to tell me, as the minister did, that we have the seventh largest budget. I know that. As far as I am concerned, the 1.2% of GDP represents the country's investment in its armed forces. After reviewing all these figures, my question is very simple. We are parliamentarians, and preparations are being made for a budget. As the head of National Defence, what increase would you recommend in the department's budget? It totals approximately $10 billion at the moment. What budget increase would you recommend, and once you get it, what would your spending priorities be? Would it be the Army, the Air Force, or the commitment of more soldiers? I would like you to give us some idea.

Gen Raymond Henault: I cannot give you any figures, Mr. Bachand, and I think you understand why. I can tell you that we are doing all sorts of things at this time. We are reviewing our policy and we are determining how we need to balance our capacities in the long term. We hope to have figures to put forward to the government by the end of the year, in the context of our policy review.

I will not give you any more figures, because it would be difficult for me to do that without giving you the political context surrounding them as well.

Mr. Claude Bachand: But do you agree that the budget for National Defence should be increased?

Gen Raymond Henault: Extra money is always welcome, Mr. Bachand. If we have some extra money, our priority would be to improve our antiterrorism capacity and our ability to respond to biological, chemical and other threats throughout the country. We should also increase not only our international capacity, but also our domestic capacity. If we were to get an increased budget, those would be our priorities.

• 1710

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Peric.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions, but I'll instead ask only one. The rest of the time I will share with a good friend of mine here, and he'll owe me a dinner.

General, you mentioned recruiting and retention of personnel remains a challenge today, and that this challenge might seriously undermine our ability to fulfil an operational mission in the future. When did that happen? Did this challenge occur after September 11, or prior to that? If you don't overcome the challenge, do you feel the minister or the department is going to have to redefine the role of our forces in the future?

Gen Raymond Henault: In my view, the role of the Canadian Forces is still intact in accordance with the white paper. Acting in defence of Canada, in defence of North America, and as contributor to international peace and security is what we do for a living. I think the white paper is still intact in that respect.

Nonetheless, the events of 11 September have shown us that there are asymmetric threats out there. That's what we call these threats that are not the traditional threats seen before, but which are coming to challenge us. That is going to mean we're going to have to make some adjustments perhaps in the force itself, in some of the priorities that we have, and so on, to respond to those threats, both domestically and internationally. Again, that's what we're here for. It's to evolve, to change, to improve our capacity and our capabilities internally, and to satisfy that defence policy that is laid out for us.

Recruiting and retention was not a problem because of 11 September, it was a problem recognized quite some time before that. We already had a fairly aggressive recruiting campaign underway. In fact, the day after I became the CDS, we launched our recruiting campaign that had been building for some time—and the recruiting campaign is paying off, by the way.

Our target for this fiscal year is 10,000 additional recruits, with 7,000 regular force and 3,000 reservists. We're about 85% of the way there already in terms of the regular force members who are now either signed up to the Canadian Forces or in the system, if you like, and ready to start their training. And in terms of the reserve force, we have actually recruited 4,000 reservists this year, so we're actually over our target. So the recruiting campaign is going well.

Economies change, and we have certainly seen the economic changes resulting from 11 September, the downturn in the airline industry, and things like that. In the high-tech industry, we've seen what has happened with Nortel and other agencies here in the city. The retention rate obviously changes and the retention figures change. The combination of those things—and perhaps also of things we have been trying to say in terms of what we do, how we do it, what we are as the Canadian Forces, and so on—has turned around quite a bit the loss figures we saw in the past.

Certainly, we are starting to recover again, but that recovery will take a few years in terms of getting us back to exactly the numbers we would prefer to have. That 60,000-member target is still ours from a regular force point of view, though, and that's the target we're trying to meet for a Canadian Forces establishment, if you like.

Mr. Janko Peric: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, you have all of a minute and a half.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I said that, and you indicated that I had more, so I'm surprised here.

Gentlemen, through the chairman, I want to first of all thank you for coming, and indicate to you that, as policy-makers, obviously we don't operate in a vacuum. We depend on having the most up-to-date information possible in order to make sure we are making decisions that are in fact the right ones.

We have now committed 2,000 armed forces personnel to a theatre of operations that... I'm not quite sure what it is we're committing them to at the moment. I'm not sure who the enemy is, or how we're going to find the enemy. It's like a stealth enemy, it seems. It's difficult. You've indicated some of the difficulties, but you have also indicated to us, General, that we have the right tools.

• 1715

As I did to Brigadier-General Michel Gauthier on the weekend, I first of all want to commend Army Night, which I saw at the SkyDome in Toronto. I think we need to see more of that, and I would hope other branches would do the same. The fact that the Argonauts won was a plus, but the fact is that I saw our army doing some things there. I think the response they got was really important when you're talking about the forces and getting the message out—and I mentioned this to the minister the other day. So I want to commend you.

Since we've talked about other issues, I really want to focus on the issue of the reserves. I had the pleasure the other evening of speaking at my father's regiment, the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders, in Hamilton, and I was very impressed with the community support from employers whose employees are in the reserves. I wanted your assessment of where we are on that issue currently, and the nature of the integration.

The one thing that concerned me—and you touched on it with regard to rotation—is the number of times we seem to be sending people over—three, four, five, or six times in a fairly tight timeframe. How are we going to address that, if I might?

Mr. Chairman, I've probably taken up his answer time, too.

The Chair: You have indeed, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you.

Gen Raymond Henault: Very quickly, I'll just tell you that reserves are an important component of how we do business. In fact, they are integral to the fabric of the Canadian Forces, quite frankly.

We have a number of programs underway. I think you would be familiar with Land Force Reserve Restructure. The first phase of that restructuring is underway and is funded, and the second phase will start in the next fiscal year. We have different mechanisms, different reserve structures, in the air force and the navy, both of which have effective reserves though.

We count on those reserves very significantly to help us when we get into these operational-tempo situations that we get into with multiple operations. As part of Land Force Reserve Restructure, we are working on a program with the land force, for example, whereby reserves will not necessarily go as individual augmentees to Bosnia-Herzegovina. In fact, in the rotation that left from Quebec City just a few weeks ago, we have reserve sections that are smaller—there are about ten people per section, perhaps—but are going as a complete section, be that a transport section or whatever. They will provide support in Bosnia-Herzegovina, thus allowing regular force members who are doing these multiple rotations not to have to go.

As we go from this rotation to the next one and the one in the fall, we are going to increase that to a full company of reservists in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a bit of an experiment. I know it's going to work, because I've been to many of these locations and have seen regular force and reserve members side by side. Quite seriously, you can't tell the difference between the two. They're very capable in all respects.

Reserves are fully integrated into the navy. They have a significant role in terms of the maritime coastal defence vessels and the different divisions across the country that have their responsibilities. The air force also has its reserve integrated into air force operations, and it operates reserve-heavy helicopter squadrons at Borden and St-Hubert.

All of that is to say they are important to us, and we try to give them the best training and the best equipment that we possibly can. We utilize them on operations, and we'll continue to do that.

I would only add one more thing, Mr. Chairman, because this is important from a reserve point of view: we have over 1,000 reservists on full-time duty at the moment here in the Canadian Forces, again helping us to bridge some of the gaps that we have as we build back up to our effective strength of 54,500 trained in the Canadian Forces.

The Chair: Thank you, General.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, sir.

Last time the minister was here, we gave him the opportunity to explain to his critics about the current state of the Canadian Forces. As you know, sir, an awful lot of criticism has been levelled at the state of the armed forces and their readiness, from editorials, from opposition members, from some backbench Liberals as well, from the CDA, for example, from Esprit de Corps, and you name it. There has been an awful lot of criticism, which many times has been fairly demoralizing for the troops and their families.

I'd like to give you the opportunity, sir, to answer your critics—in terms of the CDA, you used to work with many of them—and to just explain to the general public that is listening and to your critics exactly what, in your impression, the state of readiness is right now, for tomorrow, as the troops leave. I give you that opportunity.

Gen Raymond Henault: Certainly, those groups out there have their views and their opinions. We've always invited debate, and we welcome debate, so we will always take those views and opinions into consideration whenever we're either making plans for the future or trying to develop the force into a much better and more capable entity.

I would agree that the criticism that we're not capable and that we have equipment that's falling out of the sky is not necessarily well placed. We have very safe equipment. We do everything we possibly can to provide the best possible equipment, despite its age. When that equipment goes into operations, we don't spare any effort to ensure it has what it needs to operate successfully and safely in the environment that our troops are going into.

• 1720

The proof of the pudding is, quite frankly, that the Canadian Forces always respond to the call when they're called upon. We saw that in a number of theatres of operations, whether it was East Timor, whether it was Ethiopia and Eritrea, or whether it was the redeployment of the recce squadron from Bosnia-Herzegovina into the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia. And now, again, in response to this counterterrorist threat, when we were told to step up to the plate, we did. We batted a home run in my view, and we continue to bat home runs.

I'm very proud of what the Canadian Forces can do and what they actually do, and I think it's important for those family members who are out there to know their members deploying on operations are being deployed on operations with the best possible training and best possible equipment we can provide for them in the theatre of operations that they're going to. They can also rest assured that we're going to take care of their loved ones while they're away, and we can in turn assure those individuals that we're going to take care of their loved ones back here at home.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that point.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Part of my question was already addressed when you were responding to Mr. Wilfert's questions. When Mr. Collenette was Minister of Defence, I was on an ad hoc committee looking at the relationship between the reserves and the active regulars. Many things that we found out were kind of disturbing, some more so than others, so I'm encouraged by the kinds of statements you just made. However, I really don't know what significant change has taken place in the relationship between the two levels of our military forces. I would like to know something, though, because of this change. Because the battle now could be on our ground, in our country, what changes are being planned for the reserves to have a more dynamic role as far as national defence and terrorism within this country are concerned?

Instead of saying reserves have such and such training and you'll pluck them out in groups of ten and send them over there, I'm thinking in terms of something much like the National Guard that they have in the United States. I'm thinking of that type of structure, possibly, but more in terms of the kind of role the reserves are going to have in the near future and in the distant future.

In my estimation, from what I know, that role will not be as effective as you might think—because you're at the top, and I don't think the top always gets all the information they should from the bottom—because of the kind of people we have in our reserves, given their expertise and their commitments to their community as well as to the military. I think the active component could do a far greater job in supporting the reservists.

Where are the reserves going in the future?

Gen Raymond Henault: That's a very good point.

No, perhaps I don't get to talk to a reservist every day of the week, but I do get to talk to quite a few of them. And I started at the bottom, too, so I know where they came from and where they are. I also have a Canadian Forces chief warrant officer who interfaces with the full range of non-commissioned members as well as reservists, and a Chief of Reserves and Cadets who also provides those critical interfaces with the reserve community as well as all rank levels.

It's important to get that feedback, and I would agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to listen to what they have to say. We need to be very conscious of the role they wish to play in the longer term.

I would add that there's one more element I haven't talked about yet, and that's the civilian component of the Department of National Defence. We have those three entities—regular force, reserve, and civilian component—plus everything that represents the rangers, the cadet instructor corps, and a whole bunch of other mechanisms out there.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the reserves themselves will likely find themselves facing new roles as an aftermath of September 11. We were already looking at a number of different ways in which the reserves could support the regular forces and could complement operations at large through Land Force Reserve Restructure, for example. Now, as we see ourselves facing a much different enemy, if you like, and a much different challenge, what better mechanism is out there to provide support across the country than perhaps the reserves?

• 1725

I don't yet know how that's going to manifest itself, but I can tell you we're thinking about exactly those things. We're looking at where we might be able to establish more biological and chemical response teams, for example—perhaps with a corps of regular force, or perhaps even a corps of reserve capability in some cases—that is capable of responding to those types of things or to natural disasters on a regional basis, rather than having just one team covering the whole country.

So, yes, the reserves will have an added role, in my view. The reserves were involved not only in past operations, like the Manitoba floods—the ice storm was a perfect example—they are going to be involved in this deployment too. We have reserve force members who are deploying to the region, to the Middle East. We will find them doing as they have done in the past: responding to the call when they are called upon. There are going to have to be changes to the way we do business as we go through this 11 September aftermath, and the reserves will be an important part of that.

I thank you for the opportunity to make that point.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thanks for the encouraging response.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Benoit.

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

General Macdonald, I do have some questions for you regarding NORAD. First of all, though, I would like to comment on the parliamentary secretary's statements on the Sea Kings. I'd just like to say the President may well fly on a Sea King, but the American Sea Kings came off the production line fifteen to twenty years after the first Canadian Sea King came off the production line. Secondly, the Americans took them out of service on ships twenty years ago, so they haven't used them for the purpose Canadians have been using them for the last twenty years. I just thought I'd maybe straighten Mr. O'Reilly out on that. I think it was an opening he gave to me so that I would do so—and I appreciate it, Mr. O'Reilly.

On NORAD, I'd like to ask about five quick questions, and if you could, please answer them quickly. I'll just give them all right now.

In terms of Canada's extra commitment to NORAD that the minister talks about, what was our normal commitment before September 11? What is it now? How many CF-18s could we get in the air tomorrow if we had to? Of course, to get them in the air, you need the ground crews, you need the pilots, and you need the planes that aren't stripped of parts and planes that aren't on routine maintenance.

Could you give me the answers to those questions first, General?

Gen Raymond Henault: I don't want to discuss publicly the numbers of aircraft we have committed to the NORAD mission at this point in time, because that is part of our own force protection. What I will tell you is that we've tripled the normal commitment of aircraft that we have for aerospace defence in Canada as part of the NORAD commitment. That tripling of our capability is very consistent with what our counterparts to the south have also done in terms of their response. We are also now providing patrols not only in the locations that we talked about earlier, but CF-18s are doing what they have to do across the country.

I would add, by the way, that it's an integrated system. That means it's also integrated into the American part of the NORAD system, so those numbers are significant. Tripling is an important factor.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Things are heating up in the Balkans. If we had to send CF-18s over to the Balkans again, with the NORAD commitment that we have now, where would we get the pilots, the ordnance, and the planes ready to fly to make that commitment?

Gen Raymond Henault: Assuming that we maintain the level of commitment that we have here at home, I can assure you we already have a Rapid Reaction Force (Air) that is made up of a number of CF-18s. It is composed of a squadron's worth of CF-18s, roughly, that are capable of deploying to the European region on about a 21-day notice to move, or whatever the notice to move is that we apply to them. We change that as circumstances require.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many was that?

Gen Raymond Henault: It's a squadron's worth, but I won't discuss the numbers, because those can vary.

We have enough pilots to crew all of our CF-18s. We have sixty operational CF-18s, plus the operational training unit. We have pilots at different levels of training, mind you—some are more experienced than others—but we have enough pilots to crew all of those CF-18s.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The minister said in the House a couple of weeks ago that we have only forty pilots.

Gen Raymond Henault: I haven't seen the numbers the minister is referring to, but from the numbers I have, I do know we have enough pilots for each and every CF-18 that's operational.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do we only have forty operational CF-18s now then?

Gen Raymond Henault: No, and I don't know exactly what number are on the flight line today. It depends on how many are in maintenance or how many are being repaired. But we have sixty operational CF-18s available to us for the jobs we have to do in the NATO and NORAD contexts.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many are upgraded so that they can work interoperationally with other NATO allies if we were to have a demand overseas again? That was a problem last time. They were able to operate because the security level of the communications was lowered, but how many would now be ready to operate with a higher level of security?

• 1730

Gen Raymond Henault: It depends which ally you want to operate with. I would hasten to add that, yes, we had some communications limitations in the CF-18, but those are being redressed through the upgrade program that has now been announced. It was announced last March—

Mr. Leon Benoit: It will take six years, though.

Gen Raymond Henault: By the way, that communications limitation was not only limited to Canadian aircraft. In fact, those communications limitations applied to most allies. Only a very small number—one or two—were able to actually fulfil the complete communications spectrum, if you like, so capabilities were degraded in some cases so that all of the allies could participate. We participated fully in that operation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is it true we had to borrow or obtain some of the smart bombs from other countries during the Kosovo operations?

Gen Raymond Henault: No, absolutely not. We had a stock of precision-guided munitions available to us in the Canadian Forces. We were required to augment those stocks as the operation went on, but they were provided to us through normal procurement processes in cooperation with the allies, with the U.S. Some of those came from different countries, but they were U.S. stocks, the normal stocks.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I'm going to have to cut you off there. We've hit 5.30 p.m.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses, General Henault, Lieutenant General Macdonald and Vice-Admiral Maddison, for their comments today.

I want to raise two points before we close off this morning. First of all, General—and I don't want to take you by surprise on this—I'm hoping that, for the benefit of the committee members who haven't seen the new kit that Canadian soldiers will be wearing in the field, we might have a number of our troop come in to perhaps give us a little bit of a fashion show in that respect at some point in the not too distant future.

Gen Raymond Henault: We'd be very happy to do that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The second item—and I'm sure I speak for all of the members of the committee in this regard—is that some of the members of this committee will be in Halifax tomorrow to see the troops off. From all of our perspectives, we all wish them the very best. Our thoughts and prayers are going to be with them as they take on these important responsibilities. They certainly carry the weight of responsibility of the entire nation on their shoulders, but I think each and every one of us believes they're more than up to that task, and that they'll do us proud. I hope you'll convey that on behalf of the members of the committee to the members of the forces with whom you are able to speak.

Gen Raymond Henault: Thank you.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Members, I think we only have a couple of minutes before we have to head off to the vote, so we won't be able to deal with a few housekeeping items that we had.

The meeting is adjourned.