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, March 13, 2001

• 1530

[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.

We're very pleased to have the Minister of National Defence with us today to talk about the estimates. The minister is accompanied by a number of senior officials from the Department of National Defence, including Vice-Admiral Gary Garnett, Mr. Bob Emond, and Alan Williams.

Gentlemen, we're very pleased to have you here today. I'm sure we have lots of questions for the minister and the officials after the minister concludes his opening statement. So without any further delay perhaps we could get on with the minister's statement.

I do have a number of housekeeping items that I'd like to deal with at the end of the meeting. Perhaps we could reserve a few minutes for that.

Minister, you have the floor.

Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This is my first appearance in the new Parliament. It gives me an opportunity to say congratulations to you on becoming the chair, to the vice-chairs who are going to be working with you as well, and of course to new committee members. It's good also to see those I've seen many times before.

[Translation]

National Defence and the Canadian Forces have come a long way in recent years.

[English]

This committee in that connection deserves much of the credit for having helped make progress and change within the Canadian Forces possible. No doubt you will continue to play an important role in the months and years ahead. I stress the word “important” because National Defence and the Canadian Forces are as relevant today as ever. They are a vital national institution. They reflect our values, they defend our interests, and they make a positive difference to communities across Canada and around the world.

That's why this government has reinvested more than $3 billion in defence in just the last couple of years. This includes the $624 million in new money announced in the supplementary estimates earlier this month. Of that $624 million, 40% will go to quality of life measures, including pay and benefits soon to be announced. The rest will go into equipment and infrastructure. In fact, we've increased our spending on capital—and this is important—from about 17% of the defence budget in 1998-99 to approximately 19% today, and we're well on our way towards our goal of 23% capital expenditure from our defence budget.

The annual defence budget for the upcoming fiscal year will be over $11.4 billion before adjustments—in other words, before adding on that $624 million, which is over and above this. In addition, we've put in place the most comprehensive institutional reform packages in the history of the department and the Canadian Forces. We've improved leadership and management, we've enhanced openness, transparency, and accountability, and as you know, we've made major strides to improve the quality of life of the men and women in the forces, something your committee has been particularly instrumental in helping to achieve.

We've also made progress in our efforts to modernize the forces to ensure that they have the tools they need to be able to do the job. The new Cormorant helicopters will be coming later this year for search and rescue. The new submarines are starting to arrive. Our armoured personnel carriers, the LAV III being used now in Eritrea, and our Coyote reconnaissance vehicles are both the envy of many other armies that have participated in these peacekeeping operations with us. And of course there is the process of acquiring a new maritime helicopter and that is well underway. With these new projects, all of the equipment we identified in the defence white paper of 1994 will have been replaced or upgraded as promised.

Just as significantly, Canadians have clearly indicated that they support the forces. Canadians want this country to play an active and positive role in contributing to international peace and security and they want the Canadian Forces to also make important contributions at home, such as they've done in terms of various natural disasters plus our search and rescue efforts.

Our experience over the last number of years has also shown that the fundamentals of Canada's 1994 defence policy remain sound. Clearly Canada and Canada's national interests continue to be well served by maintaining multi-purpose combat-capable forces to protect our borders, to provide disaster relief, to support peace operations, to play a role in NORAD, NATO, and in the United Nations, and to be able to fight alongside our allies if and when that is necessary. In short, the Canadian Forces have a stronger foundation and are on a firmer financial footing today than at any time in the last decade.

• 1535

This does not mean, however, that the Canadian Forces do not face significant challenges: peace support operations are becoming more complex and more demanding; the forces are facing a significant recruitment and retention challenge—our numbers are going down; advances in weapons and information technology, doctrine, and training are producing what is called a revolution in military affairs, a revolution that we and our allies are addressing.

Our allies are moving forward on other fronts as well. The European Union, for example, intends to strengthen its crisis management and peace support capability, a development that could have significant implications for Canada, for NATO, and for NATO's transatlantic link.

The new U.S. administration has clearly indicated that it intends to move forward on ballistic missile defence, but to do so with full consultation and in cooperation with its allies. And of course there's an increasing concern about critical infrastructure protection that they are addressing and we are addressing.

The Government of Canada, the department, and the Canadian Forces must respond to all of these challenges. Let me assure you that that is what we are doing. We have a strategy; we're moving forward; we have clear priorities.

We're planning for the future. This means having a vision of what we want the Canadian Forces to look like in the coming years.

[Translation]

To help do this, Defence has developed Strategy 2020, as a framework.

[English]

Based on this plan, we've established several priorities. First and foremost is the well-being of our people. The men and women who make up the Canadian Forces are our most important asset. In this regard we're pushing forward on our quality of life and health care initiatives.

[Translation]

Quality of life initiatives must be part of an on-going process.

[English]

As we speak, we are laying plans to enhance our recruitment efforts and to retain the people we have. We are also looking to improve the Canadian Forces health care system through our Rx2000 initiatives. We're looking to make our human resource policies more flexible to meet the changing lifestyles of our members. And we're looking to enhance the flexibility of the Canadian Forces Housing Association to better meet the housing accommodation requirements of our personnel.

We're also delivering on our commitment to enhance the future leadership of the Canadian Forces. We're moving forward with our efforts to modernize the structure of our forces. This includes optimizing the military force structure, strengthening the ability of the Canadian Forces to deploy and sustain operations, and investing in the defence capabilities and equipment that is required for the future.

To remain relevant, the Canadian Forces must be able to respond to crisis rapidly; they must be able to deploy globally and operate across the full spectrum of conflict, from peacekeeping to peace enforcement to war.

We must also strengthen the forces' ability to support operations in multiple locations. To achieve these objectives we will have to move forward on several fronts. We must strengthen our ability to respond to crisis rapidly by developing options to improve the transportation of troops and equipment, commonly known as strategic lift.

We need to enhance our capacity to sustain operations by implementing the plan I announced last fall to revitalize the land force reserve, particularly to increase the number of those in the militia. This plan builds on all of the work that has been done in regard to the reserves, including the work done by your committee here in the last Parliament and by my own ministerial monitoring committee, which is headed by John Fraser.

• 1540

Our goal is to increase the militia to 18,500 from where it is at the moment, approximately 13,500. This increase will allow our army reserves to continue to augment the regular force in operations and also to maintain its strong links to communities right across this country. That's an important part of the role they play.

We will also have to increase our investments in capital, as I said earlier. Let me assure you that as part of these efforts we are working as quickly as possible to acquire the new maritime helicopter.

We have other major projects. We're putting over a billion dollars in incremental projects into the upgrade of the CF-18s. We're doing similar work for the Aurora aircraft. The Aurora upgrade alone represents an investment of close to a billion dollars to improve that aircraft's surveillance, navigation, and communication capabilities.

This brings me to our third priority: National Defence's modern management initiatives. As a government, we have an obligation to invest Canadian tax dollars as wisely and as prudently as possible. To this end, we'll continue to simplify and streamline the way we do business. We will outsource where it makes sense to do so. We will need to divest ourselves of non-core activities and surplus equipment so that we can focus our resources on core military capabilities. This means streamlining our procurement process and developing new forms of partnership with industry, especially to support our operations and training.

We will look at ways to reduce our infrastructure, as we've said in Strategy 2020, by 10% by 2005. We'll be able to consolidate some of our facilities to have a more efficient and effective use of the infrastructure we have.

The bottom line is that we must demonstrate to Canadians that we are getting the most out of their defence investments. It's not just a question of getting additional money; it's making the best use of the money we have now as well. Through prudent investments, working and consulting with industry and allies, we can achieve several objectives and multiply the benefits of our investments.

This brings me to the fourth priority, and that is to strengthen Canada's defence relations with our allies, with our partners. In terms of our relationship with the United States, we will work closely with them to protect our shared critical infrastructure.

[Translation]

As you know, the Prime Minister recently announced the establishment of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness.

[English]

As the minister who will be responsible for this new organization, my new associate deputy minister, Margaret Purdy, will be working with the Solicitor General and other governmental departments, the provinces, territories, and municipalities, the private sector, and other countries, particularly the United States, to develop and implement a comprehensive approach to protecting our critical infrastructure, both from natural disasters and from any attacks that may come to our information or electronic systems.

Discussions and consultations with the United States will also continue regarding ballistic missile defence. As part of this effort, we're in the process of establishing a Canadian Forces liaison officer in the United States Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in Washington. This will help to facilitate consultation on missile defence issues, and it will keep Canada abreast of U.S. developments in this area.

We will also continue to nurture transatlantic cooperation with our NATO allies and European partners. Efforts will be intensified to enhance interoperability among our NATO allies through the NATO defence capabilities initiative, and I will continue to push for closer NATO-EU defence planning. It is critical to the future of the transatlantic link that binds us.

Finally, we must ensure that National Defence contributes to the achievement of broader national objectives. As one of the largest organizations in government that is solely under federal jurisdiction, the Canadian Forces and National Defence certainly have a vital role to play, fostering research and development, skills and learning, supporting families, youth initiatives, and supporting communities. In 2001 and beyond, National Defence and the Canadian Forces will continue to make valuable contributions to most, if not all, of these essential national priorities.

• 1545

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying I'm proud to say the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have come a long way in the last four years.

[Translation]

We are building on this success and planning for the future.

[English]

While much has been accomplished, National Defence continues to face significant challenges. I believe this committee has a role to play in helping to address those challenges. Whether it is how we can meet our people needs through quality of life measures, how we can enhance our operational readiness, or how National Defence and its forces can contribute to national priorities, these are all areas that this committee could be very helpful in addressing. Your input is a valuable part of our movement forward.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We have a number of questioners, starting with Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Minister, I have two short questions that I wish you to address, and I'll put them both together because they both require short answers.

I'm concerned about the privatization of the air base at Moose Jaw. From reports that I've read from the military point of view, this has gone well. Does the minister have any intentions in the future of any further privatization of any military training in Canada?

Secondly, could the minister inform me of the number of armouries or former defence buildings that will be closed across Canada during the coming year or the next two years? I'm talking about the ones that are government buildings in the way of armouries or former training centres that will be closed in the coming year.

Mr. Art Eggleton: The base at Moose Jaw is still under our ownership. We're not privatizing the ownership; we're privatizing some of the functions. We've been doing that for several years now. Our air force training out of Moose Jaw and out of Cold Lake, particularly through the NATO flight training, has been the most recent product of a joint private sector-public sector adventure.

By doing these kinds of things, we're helping to save money in our core budget, which allows us to use our core budget for the core things we need: to make sure we have the people, the equipment, the training, and all of the things essential to a vital military. If we can continue to do that—continue to offload the non-core activities, but do it in a way that is completely consistent with our standards that need to be met—then we will continue to do that. We look at them on a case-by-case basis.

Now, you mentioned the armouries. As I indicated, we have put in place a plan to expand our militia. Until we see how all of this unfolds, we will not be moving too rapidly to make determinations about our armouries. In other words, we don't want to make the determinations prematurely. We want to ensure that we do have the capacity to be able to train our people and parade our people through the various units that occupy these armouries.

So we'll be looking at these things very carefully. As we get into the expansion of the militia, we will be looking very carefully at our needs with regard to our facilities, and we will also be trying to make sure we get them the training and equipment they need as well.

The Chair: Any further questions, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, that's it.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Minister, first of all, thank you for appearing and making your presentation before us.

• 1550

A couple of times during your presentation you alluded to some $600 million that was designated for the military budget, and I think a lot of people are of the opinion that this is a new wage increase for the military. I've had a number of military personnel call my office to advise us that this is not a new raise but rather moneys that were allotted to a previous commitment—last year, I believe, around October 2000. But I wonder if you wouldn't mind clarifying exactly where that some $600 million went or is going.

Mr. Art Eggleton: As I indicated in my opening remarks, 40% of it is going into wages and benefits. I can't give you a further breakdown at this point in time, but it's about 40%. The rest will go into equipment and infrastructure, as I indicated.

It will be a new increase; it will be new money for these people, but it's based on an existing policy. Maybe that's what you're really referring to. Our existing policy is in fact to follow the wage guideline of the public service. If we get behind that wage guideline, then there is a need to catch up to it, and there will be an element of that, but there will also be some new increases over and above that. But in both cases, whichever policy it comes under, it's new money. It's going to be new money for our troops.

I might add that last year we also gave a 2.5% increase, and the year before, in response to the quality of life report of this committee, we were into double-digit increases. Let's not forget that. At a time when nobody else in this country was getting double-digit increases, we were giving those—14% to privates, and various figures close to that for other ranks as well, predominantly giving the highest increases to the lower ranks. We did that two years ago.

But there will still be more increases coming, which will be announced shortly. To repeat, 40% of that $624 million will go for pay and benefits.

Mr. Art Hanger: So you're speaking of incremental increases that the recommendations suggested last year or the year before. That's what part of this money is really catching up on.

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, not specific increases. There's a general policy, and we're following the general policy. This is not a second announcement of an increase. This is going to be new money in their pockets.

Mr. Art Hanger: Sir, the estimates also note certain capital projects, and, again, you made reference to some of the upgrades that were going to take place with the CC-130 and the CF-18s.

I'm of the understanding that there were, for instance, something in the neighbourhood of six separate contracts to upgrade the CC-130s. You have a cockpit contract, sonar, radar, FLIR, and ESM. Why would you want to proceed in such a fashion? Why not just have it out as a package and deal with it in one term instead of five different contracts?

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's a matter of money; it's money availability. You can't do all the work at once anyway, and we need to spread out doing the work, both from a practical standpoint but also from an affordability standpoint.

We are doing incremental work not only to, as you mentioned, the Hercules, the CC-130s, but to the Auroras and to the CF-18s. So spreading it out over a number of years puts it into a more manageable, practical, and affordable implementation.

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't have any more questions.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Benoit, you have ten seconds.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): I think I'll wait for the next round.

The Chair: Okay. The next questioner is Mr. Bachand from the Bloc.

[Translation]

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

I am a little disappointed to see that the minister will be listening to me through an interpreter, as I was about to congratulate him on his French, considering that the beautiful Royal Military College of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, in my own county, has a French immersion school.

• 1555

I am going to be saying this to him in French knowing that my words will probably be translated for him into English. Perhaps, next time, we might have an open discussion without going through an interpreter.

I must say that this former military college remains an extraordinary place. Indeed, the Minister goes there often enough to have noticed how profoundly steeped in our military heritage it is and has been for so long. I do not wish to give a history lecture here, but the history of North America was probably written in the county of Saint-Jean, what with the Americans invading from one side, and the British from the other. So that we do truly have, in Saint-Jean, a military tradition. It is no accident that it is the location of a former military college as well as an army base.

I would like to relate what I have to say to the minister's presentation since the minister has told us how difficult it is to get new recruits to sign-up. I do not wish however to betray the confidence of what several generals have told me. Let me simply say that the idea is to recruit between 3,000 and 5,000 new members each year so as to make up for lost time. If I am not mistaken the Canadian Armed Forces currently number less than 70,000 personnel. The idea is to substantially raise that number.

Without betraying the confidence of what was said to me by several generals, my first question is the following: Will some of these people be recruited, as is currently the case, through the Saint-Jean army base? Three thousand military personnel presently go through the base each year. If that number is raised to 5,000, would these people continue to be recruited through the Saint-Jean army base?

My second question concerns the future of the Military college. I raised the issue in the House yesterday, but I wish to take the opportunity of raising it again here, amongst ourselves, since that might allow us to stay with the topic for a bit more than 30 seconds. With respect to the enhanced framework, will this course be given at the Saint-Jean military college? I was told, after the election campaign, that the course would no longer be given in Saint-Jean but rather in other schools located in various parts of the country. As of now, is there any possibility of this increase from 3,000 to 5,000 recruits being effected through the Saint-Jean military base and is there any chance the course on the enhanced framework, which everyone has been awaiting for some time now, might be given in Saint-Jean?

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: I am delighted to go to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu as often as I can, and obviously I need to go more often to get my French in better shape. I'm on sort of a long-term plan, but I'm getting there.

I quite agree with you, Monsieur Bachand. I hope the day is going to come when I can come here and dialogue in French without the translation.

In terms of whether we are going to increase the recruitment numbers, I can't verify those numbers at this point in time. You said 3,000 to 5,000 people. The 3,000 is a fixed number; the 5,000 I can't verify at this time, as we're still in discussions about it. In terms of whether this means more people are going to go through Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, to that I say “oui”—a one-word answer.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Could you say it in English also?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes, of course, because in terms of recruit training, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is a very vital part of that.

As you know, we're talking about more than one facility in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. We have the megaplex where much of the training of recruits goes on, but also the site of the former Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, which is a fine historic site—the site of my French lessons as well.

With respect to the ELM program, the enhanced leadership model, last August I went to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and announced a 25-year lease. I think that clearly indicates that we want the Conseil économique du Haut-Richelieu and the Corporation Fort St. Jean to succeed. We've given them 25 years during which they can go out and borrow money and get customers with the strength of a long-term lease. Of course, we put in a fair bit of money. We put some $10.8 million into that facility, as we did to the one in the west as well, to help in this transition phase from the military college into a new community venture.

In the case of Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, though, we are also going to continue to use it for military purposes. We do have military programming that goes on there now. Second-language training goes on there for the military as well as for MPs.

• 1600

We are looking to expand our use of the CMR property. When I was there last August, I referred to the fact that we were developing a program, the ELM or enhanced leadership model program. But the bottom line is, what we're going to do today is the same as it was then; we're going to have expanded use.

We've since decided that we will deliver the ELM program in a different way. This will mean we'll put other programs into the CMR property to acquit ourselves of the obligation of expanded use of the property.

We're looking at some other programs. One or two may in fact come from the megaplex. If it deals with additional recruits, we'll need to move a couple of activities—we may even need to expand the megaplex. But in either event, whether it's the megaplex or the CMR property, it's going to mean increased economic opportunities, increased jobs, and increased usage for St-Jacques-sur-Richelieu, your constituency.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Merci. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Before we proceed with any further questions, with the indulgence of the committee, I would like to introduce some very special guests with us today, some representatives of the cadets from the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry. There's a larger group outside, but unfortunately we can't fit them all into this committee room.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a few of them. Perhaps you could stand when I mention your name: Master Warrant Officer Weston, Sergeant Harris, Cadet Lacroix, Corporal Maylor, Cadet Scrivo, Master Corporal Lazier. We also have a captain. Captain, I'm sorry, I don't know your name.

Captain John Steve Sari (Cadet Instructor Cadre, 237 Cadets, Burlington): I'm Captain Sari. I'm the commanding officer of 237 RHLI Cadets in Burlington.

The Chair: Thank you for being here with us today. I hope you find today's proceedings interesting, and I hope we're looking at some future members of the Canadian Forces or the reserves.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We will now turn to the Liberal side, Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you back, Minister.

I have a few questions. One has to do with the recently announced Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. I think it's a good program and I'm anxious to see it in operation. How will it be funded? Does it come out of general operating funds in the existing defence budget, or will there be an additional allocation from the centre?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Well, at this time we're funding an associate deputy minister. We also have Emergency Preparedness Canada, which already has a dedicated budget.

What we'll need over and above that, I can't tell you at this time. What we are doing, however, is preparing a plan. How are we going to get involved with this protection of critical infrastructure? We know this is a vital thing for Canada, and we know it's vital to do it with our neighbours in the United States because much of our critical infrastructure, our information systems, our energy systems, etc., are linked quite substantially. So we have already been, and will be, in considerable dialogue with them about this.

I will then bring a plan of this matter to cabinet, and I'll have to deal with the funding resources at that time.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So we should prepare for the appropriate interventions on your behalf.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'm told, by the way, that $2.7 million is already included in the supplementaries for the amount this year.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

One of the projects that's been added to the estimates is the Canadian Forces health information system. How is this going to contribute to our quality of life? While you're talking about the Rx2000, could you give a fuller explanation of what that entails?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'll start, and I'll let these guys pick it up from there.

• 1605

The Rx2000 is an attempt to overhaul the health care system. I think it deteriorated a little bit too much, it needed an overhaul, and we're in the course of doing that. We've restructured the organization a fair bit. We want to make sure our people get timely medical help when they need it. We're in the throes of a complete overhaul.

I'll ask whether Admiral Garnett or anybody else wants to add to that.

Vice-Admiral Gary L. Garnett (Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): I should just add that General Mathieu, the director general of health services, has a project team and is working with a variety of civilian agencies to package Rx2000.

She has received the initial funding to stabilize the program and has considerable additional programming coming forward for funding over the course of the next year. The objective is to fix the in-garrison health care program as well as the support to overseas operations. She has outside certification of the program to do that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: The reason I ask is that we heard a great deal about the state of health care for our enlisted men and women and their families. I hope some of the recommendations and observations from that report are being taken into consideration and that we're addressing those specific concerns as we're crafting Rx2000.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Absolutely. It's an area that I'm personally interested in following through, because it's part of the quality of life measures. It's part of looking after our people and making sure they have as good a health care system as anybody in this country. Hopefully we can upgrade them both.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: My final question has to do with the surveillance to space—the estimates included funds for that. We're trying to improve our surveillance capabilities. Is this tied in any way to the Aurora surveillance? Will it enhance it, or is it separate and apart?

Mr. Art Eggleton: It is a separate program. Maybe Vice-Admiral Garnett can.... I'm not sure how it might enhance it.

VAdm. Gary Garnett: I think where we're ultimately headed is to have the ability to compile what we call a recognized picture of activities, not only on the land but the sea and the aerospace approaches. Doing that will take some time. But surveillance from space is a key part of the program. Also feeding into that will be things like Aurora aircraft, ships, submarines, NORAD air defence, etc. So the objective here, probably in a timeframe of about five years, is to have all that information collected together in one central place.

The Aurora upgrade program includes a new feature for Maritime aircraft, what we call a ground moving target indicator capability in its radar. In other words, it will have the capacity to see targets or movements on the land. One reason we sought that out was our experience in central Africa. If you remember, there were large movements of people around the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Rwanda, etc., and we had no capacity to see that movement.

So we're building that feature into the Aurora radar. We believe it will help with the Winnipeg floods, for example. We used RADARSAT pictures to see the movement of water around the city of Winnipeg, but with the new radar capability, we'd actually be able to do that in real time from an Aurora.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I might add that on any of these individual areas—Rx2000 or surveillance—our officials would be happy to come in and go through a more detailed discussion. I think the health care topic could be a very appropriate one.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mrs. Longfield. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the minister and his staff for appearing.

Sir, last year you said to my former colleague in the House of Commons, Gordon Earle, that the level of regular staff in the armed forces would not go below 60,000. What's the current figure?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Our policy is still the same: 60,000 people. However, through attrition, we do have a lower number than that; we have about 58,000 at the moment. That's why we are also increasing our recruiting, so we can get back up to that level.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It is below 60,000 now, though?

• 1610

Mr. Art Eggleton: It is below 60,000, but it is not a policy change. What I've frequently referred to when asked that question is.... Is our policy going to change and are we going to cut further, as in fact there were cuts in previous years from other authorized levels? We have no plans at this time to do that. Our authorized level for the regular force is still 60,000. We have a practical problem—we are below it—but we are going to increase our recruitment, both for the regulars and, as I indicated earlier, for the reserves as well.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, in the debate last week, on Monday in the House of Commons, something was brought forward by my colleague from Saint John about the helicopter concern. You had announced last year that the helicopters would be replaced by 2005. In fact, Colonel Brian Aitchison of Shearwater said that was a red-letter day. Indications from Public Works Canada are now that this may be delayed until 2007. I'm just wondering if you could clear up the misconceptions. Will those helicopters be replaced by 2005, or is there a delay in replacing the Sea Kings?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I can't tell you what the date will be at this point in time, whether it will move from 2005. But it won't be 2007—that is too far down. I am attempting to get these 28 new helicopters just as quickly as we possibly can. I'm also looking for ways to expedite the process.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: When you talk about the consolidation of infrastructure, that usually relates to base closures. There is a committee that was struck in secret. I was completely unaware of it. It went to Shearwater, Halifax airport, and Greenwood to discuss this particular aspect you discussed. I was wondering why the local members of Parliament for those areas wouldn't have been told that this committee was coming. The people of Shearwater, Greenwood, and Halifax airport would really like to know if there is indeed a future plan to shut down either Greenwood or Shearwater in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Art Eggleton: There's no immediate plan I'm aware of. I'll ask Vice-Admiral Garnett. I don't know what this committee is that you're referring to. Maybe the admiral knows.

VAdm Gary Garnett: I believe it was an air force working group that was looking at all the air force infrastructure. You know that we have set ourselves a five-year target of reducing infrastructure by 10%. That's because we have to pay PILT to the local communities, heating, lighting, etc. We believe we have, for our size at this point, too much infrastructure. So that was an air force committee that was going around looking at all the air force bases and looking at what the options were around those bases. It was nothing more than a working group. In terms of modern management, which the minister mentioned as a priority, this is the kind of thing we should be doing, just trying to identify opportunities. But it's not a decision-making committee at all. It's just collecting information.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would it not have been appropriate to have told the members of Parliament for those areas that this committee was coming?

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, could I ask you to direct your comments to the chair?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Would it not have been appropriate for the defence department or someone to have advised the members of Parliament representing those areas that this was taking place?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I think there has to be a middle level or a lower level in the management process. The fact that someone goes and checks these things may not give any validity to any recommendations whatsoever. I've not personally heard about this. If in fact they are going to make a recommendation to me, then I would want to make sure that you and any local member of Parliament is aware of what is being contemplated. That would certainly be the case.

Let me also add, with respect to the 10% infrastructure, that this doesn't mean bases closing. It could mean consolidation within bases. For example, down in Esquimalt, we're taking our maintenance operations from several buildings and putting them into two buildings. That is part of removing unnecessary or surplus infrastructure and making it all more efficient.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just have a couple of things more.

Is it possible, not now....but could you give a written answer to the committee about what the defence department or the government is doing, in concert with its NATO allies and in response to some concerns, with regard to depleted uranium?

When you talk about core services and the military core, there's another arm of the armed forces, our civilian workers, who are attached to areas like the supply chain and who are very proud of the work they do. At the same time, Mr. Chair, they are very nervous about the future of their employment. Would they not be considered members of the Union of National Defence Employees the dockyard workers in Halifax, for example?

Also, for my colleague from Halifax West who has many members living in his riding.... They are very concerned about the future of their employment when you talk about consolidation, alternate service deliveries, or whatever. Is it possible for me to go back and tell them today that their jobs will be secure in the future?

• 1615

Mr. Art Eggleton: In the process of streamlining our operations and contracting out through alternate service delivery, we are concerned about the people involved, whether they are military or civilian. We talked about core capability and we talked about core functions. There are civilians as well as military people who contribute to that. In the support functions there are civil and military people who are involved, and they are all important. I can remember the case in Goose Bay, where we went to great, additional lengths because of our concern about people being treated fairly and reasonably. The human resource dimension of these things is vitally important, and that is being watched very carefully in the process, which is dealing with the supply chain as well.

Mr. Williams has something to add.

Mr. Alan Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence): With regard to the supply chain in particular, I think it is important to note that the unions have been very much involved in the whole process leading up to the current evaluation—which is taking place right now—and were instrumental in strengthening the human resources component in part of the evaluation.

The evaluation is going on right now, and I am very much convinced that the emphasis we put on human resources will be reflected in the final proposals that come out. In addition, we have written to all the employees to make them aware of the great lengths to which we will go to ensure that we treat each person as an individual, that each has an individual training plan, and that we look after them as carefully as we can.

We haven't removed all the angst, but I think we've gone a long way to showing them that we care about each and every one. When the evaluations are complete, we will move aggressively to make sure that everybody is consulted and taken care of.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that if I didn't ask this question, I know the minister would go away and he'd be in shock, so I'm going to ask it. I wouldn't want that to happen to him.

The appeal court brought down its decision with regard to the Sea Kings or the Cormorants being replaced and with regard to the letter of interest that went out. What the court said was that the evidence presented to it may “demonstrate that the procurement procedure suffered from patent politicization within the Department of National Defence”. He further stated....

Why do you think the court would make a particular note in its ruling that a senior officer had risked his career by writing the officer in charge of the air staff to ask why that officer had suggested that the selection of the Cormorant as the MHP would be politically unacceptable?

I want to know this from the minister: who were the officials involved in creating this atmosphere where politics entered into it? I don't want to use that word “politicization”; I just want to ask, who put the politics into it, Mr. Minister? What do we do to get the politics out? There must not be any politics when it comes to the military, whether it's about replacing the Sea Kings or providing anything else they need. We have to give them the tools to do the job, and that's what this committee is about: doing the right thing.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Let's bear a couple of things in mind. One is that the court and the CITT dismissed the cases that were brought.

Secondly, the statement of requirements was done by the military and the department. Both Vice-Admiral Garnett and Mr. Williams can talk about that. The statement of requirements was not changed by me, and it was not changed by the cabinet. In terms of what our military people want, it is in fact what has been recommended to us. They can talk at length about the requirements and the fact that what we are proceeding with now is to meet needs, to make sure we get the best possible equipment to do the job that is necessary. It is also the government's responsibility in developing the procurement process to ensure that we get it at the best possible price for Canadians, and we're in the process of doing that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Just to balance this out, I would like to say something more. Suppose that Eurocopter came in and their bid was one dollar less than the Cormorant bid, the Sikorsky bid, or what have you. The Cormorant or Sikorsky helicopter could perhaps meet the requirements of our military better, but the Eurocopter was one dollar cheaper. So according to that letter of interest, you have to go with that Eurocopter. This is what we're saying. How do we get that—

• 1620

Mr. Art Eggleton: But you answered the question when you said it has to meet the requirements. Whatever better meets the requirements and has the best price is going to in fact win the day. The requirements are going to be laid down, as they have been designed, in the statement of requirements. They're going to be laid down further in the further parts of the process to ensure that we get what we need.

I'm going to ask Vice-Admiral Garnett and Mr. Williams to comment further on this.

Mr. Alan Williams: Frankly, I would argue that to take any approach other than the one we are pursuing would be irresponsible. There is no need for us to spend one dollar more of the taxpayers' money than we have to in order to get what we want.

The fact that somebody may offer us something we don't need at a great deal doesn't mean we should buy it. If we were going to buy a car up north where the temperature never got above zero degrees and someone offered us air conditioning for $500 instead of $1,000, that would be a great value, but it would be unnecessary.

We have determined exactly what we want. We have worked aggressively with industry to determine that. We know it's out there, and all of industry knows it's out there, so we shouldn't have to pay a dollar more than we have to. If Eurocopter comes in for a dollar less, they deserve to win. That's what competition is all about. It'll be fair, open, and transparent. All of the companies will have a fair shot at it, and I hope they'll all sharpen their pencils and Canadian taxpayers will benefit.

In fact, my calculations are that at the end of the day, if you combine the cost for the Cormorant with the cost for the maritime helicopter, if you factor in on top of that the upgrades that we've had to put in place for the existing fleets, and if you factor in the cancellation cost of $478 million, the taxpayers will still be better off by between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. I think that's very significant, and it's based on total fact.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: We can debate this, I can tell you that right now. There's no question about it.

I still have another question. How many minutes do I have?

The Chair: You have about two and a half.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Six minutes? Then I will say—

The Chair: That was two and a half, Mrs. Wayne. I don't know how it got to six.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We know we're going after a helicopter they need, so I want to make sure we hear from the military on this.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, that's right, and we don't want any politics in it. So, Admiral, you just tell us the real thing that has to go on here and never mind the political side of it.

Some hon. members: oh, oh!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You'll keep your job, that's guaranteed.

VAdm Gary Garnett: All my friends from Hamilton have left. I was going to say one of the reasons I left Hamilton to join the military was so I wouldn't have to run in politics against the mayor, who was an old friend of mine. But they've left, too, so....

One of the issues—and this has been raised before, but I haven't been here to address it—is indeed around the SOR for the maritime helicopter. When I arrived back in Ottawa from Halifax, we were pursuing or starting to re-pursue a helicopter replacement program. It became apparent to a variety of staff that worked for me—central staff, not staff for the army or the navy or the air force—that the previous SOR was still the one from the EH-101 helicopter.

That SOR was written in 1987, 1988, and 1989. We could have all sorts of separate discussions about a helicopter that was designed for the open ocean, or what they called a third convergence zone—in other words, three distances to, in those days, Soviet nuclear submarines. It had features built into it that required a helicopter to carry a certain number of weapons, fly a very long distance, stay there, do the job, and come home.

As one of my more pleasant tasks, I'm also responsible for responding to the Auditor General—and I say that in case the public accounts committee is listening somewhere. But if you look at the kinds of issues the Auditor General raised about our capital program, he criticized our capital program as not having been reviewed in light of the post-Cold War era and the 1994 white paper. Indeed, that was the report that also said we were about a billion dollars short for long-term capital programming, if you recollect. It came to the committee and we got your support before the 2000 budget.

• 1625

He also pointed out that he had been pressing us for quite some considerable time to produce what he called a scenario set. You will find that we did develop a set of scenarios from search and rescue on the one end, through a Cold War kind of NATO article 5 war on the other end. That's fully available on my website in some detail.

Taking that scenario set and all the operations that the navy and their embarked helicopters have done since 1990—and you'll find in an annex to the SOR where the helicopters or ships were—for Haiti, for the Adriatic, the Persian Gulf, the HMCS Calgary search and rescue in the middle of the ocean, or for fisheries protection, all through the scenario set, we dissected every operation since the end of the Cold War. It was from that set that, with operational research, OR scientific support, we looked at the shallow water or closed sort of Persian Gulf or Adriatic operations and the SOR was designed.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But I have to say—

The Chair: Vice-Admiral, Mrs. Wayne, I'm going to have to wind this up. We have some other opposition members who are waiting to ask questions here, and it's a minute past your time.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, Mr. Minister, gentlemen.

Listening to your presentation here today, Mr. Minister, you made things sound so wonderful that I really wondered why we need this committee at all. There really is very little to be done, apparently. Your comments at the CDA meeting a couple of weeks ago were unbelievable when you were saying things are so much better now in the Canadian Forces than they were ten years ago.

I just want to refer to one particular issue. It's the most basic of issues, which is that of clothing. We had the vice-president of the Legion, Ron Scriven, come back from Bosnia and Croatia saying:

...the clothing of our personnel casts a negative image. Observations include worn, threadbare, stained and patched combat clothing, and a lack of uniformity among Canadian soldiers.

This is a pretty damning kind of statement he made in a letter to you. If things are so great, then why is something as basic as clothing still a serious problem in our forces?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'm glad you think I paint everything wonderfully. There are a lot of people who don't paint it so wonderfully, so I'm trying to get a little bit of a balance here. There are those who prefer to say the cup is half empty. I prefer to say it's half full. We've accomplished a number of things, but we still have more things to accomplish, obviously.

In terms of clothing, I was interested in those comments that were made by the Legion member. I asked General Jeffery, the head of our army, to check this out and to let me know. He had just been over there. When I've travelled, both to Bosnia and most recently to Eritrea, I certainly have not found this to be the condition at all, and neither did General Jeffery. He allowed for the fact that there could be some individual cases in which the clothing could be better, but by and large that was not the condition of the clothing. That was an exception as opposed to the rule.

I should point out that we are in the process of making a change in the clothing, so we haven't ordered new combat-type clothing. But certainly from my own observations and those of General Jeffery, that's not the general case.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But are you saying—

Mr. Art Eggleton: It may be in some isolated cases, but not in general.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that this Legion member, who I would think went over there certainly with no agenda, was just all wrong in what he saw? He stated that very clearly.

And what's shocking, Mr. Minister, is that this ad appeared in a base paper—and I'm going to read the ad:

Request and appeal to all military personnel at 15 Wing who presently hold combat shirts and trousers that are not being used for Operational reasons to please return to Clothing Stores so that these items may go back into the system to properly kit Roto 2 of OP Palladium.

This is from 1998—

Mr. Art Eggleton: Roto 2 was a long time ago.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This was from 1998, Mr. Minister.

• 1630

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: From 1998. And you said in the House of Commons, in response to a question at that time:

That shortage is coming to an end and all our troops will get the proper clothing and will not have to go through that kind of procedure.

That's what you said three years ago, Mr. Minister, and yet we still have reports like this. It seems unbelievable to me that it could take three years to make so little progress.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I think you're mixing up a couple of things here.

First of all, at that time, as I recall, there was a shortage problem because of industrial interruptions, or strikes, or something, that were causing the flow to be a little less than desirable. But what we are talking about here now is a case of changing the clothing. We're going through the Clothe the Soldier Program, which is a $200-million program. There are about 24 changes in the pieces of kit, including the clothing. When it's finished, we will have the most up-to-date military anywhere in the world.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it started—

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'm not finished.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —in 1996—

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'm not finished.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —Mr. Minister.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'm not finished.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It started in 1996.

Mr. Art Eggleton: What I'm telling you, though—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Minister, you said, in response to a question—

Mr. Art Eggleton: What I'm telling you—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, could I get order, please.

Mr. Art Eggleton: With respect to the observation by the member—

The Chair: The minister is trying to answer your question.

Mr. Art Eggleton: —of the Legion, there's no doubt that he probably did observe that. I would say those cases were the exception, not the rule. And as a general rule, the clothing is in good condition.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You said, Mr. Minister, that in response to—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, your time has expired. I would like to remind members this is the five-minute round—

Mr. Art Eggleton: And that comes from General Jeffery, not just....

The Chair: —and you're over your term.

Mr. Art Eggleton: That's just a very quick observation.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, if I could, I have a point of order here.

Mr. Chair, if we're going to have witnesses give answers that are getting on the long side, surely a member should have the right to interrupt at an appropriate point to ask a follow-up question. With a five-minute round being so short and with so little time going to the official opposition, we really aren't getting a proper chance to question the minister, and I think that's improper.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit—and for the benefit of all members—it's good to keep your questions as tight as possible, and we would ask the witnesses to keep their answers as tight as possible. That way we will get more questions in and more answers.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But we have to have the leeway to interject.

The Chair: I'm trying to cut members as much slack as I can, keeping in mind that we have lots of people around this table who would like to speak and have the right to speak.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm not asking for four or five. I'm saying let us use the time as efficiently as we can.

Mr. Art Hanger: Move on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We need more time as well.

The Chair: I'm going to recognize Mr. Bachand, now.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have two questions, including a rather technical one which can nonetheless be answered quite quickly.

In this year's main estimates, it has been decided that the financial assistance to the provinces in case of natural disaster would be scaled down to 250 million dollars, whereas the last budget provided for 441 million dollars. According to the annual reports of various international agencies such as the Red Cross, these agencies are telling us that the number of natural disasters throughout the world is certain to increase. That being the case, I have some difficulty in understanding how we can go from 441 million dollars in the last budget to 250 million dollars in the present one. I quite understand that there is a technical aspect to this question that you might not be able to address. In that case, you could perhaps come back to it at some later point.

The other thing stems from my union training, which enables me to apprehend the budget's significance. Beyond mere numbers, there are intentions, and policies that may have been decided upon. This year, what we find most striking in the budget, is the fact that the Air Force budget has gone up but that the Maritime and Land Forces' budget has gone down. Has the minister opted for a new policy that will, in the future, put greater emphasis on air defence?

I must add that I have seen several articles on the stealth fighter plane, which no one has yet talked about, and, according to this week's newspapers, the Canadian government might be investing some 500 million dollars. Is that to say that from now on Canada's policy will put a greater emphasis on air defence rather than on the Land and Maritime Forces? Such a policy may be entirely justified but I would like to know whether the figures I have received are indeed an indication of what I have just said.

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: First, with respect to the disaster assistance, that can vary depending upon disasters. No two years are ever the same, and these are estimates based upon what it's determined we owe to provinces already, largely from disasters in the past. So that can fluctuate up and down, depending upon the situation. Of course, we had some very heavy expenditures during the time of the ice storm and the Saguenay, as well as the Red River floods.

As for the air force going up and the others down, it depends upon the capital expenditures. It may vary. In another year, if we got into buying ships, the navy might be up, and so forth. So it depends on where the heavy emphasis is at any given time in the capital equipment. And a lot of our air equipment is quite expensive. I already mentioned that we're doing billion dollar upgrades of the CF-18s, billion dollar upgrades on the Auroras. You get those fluctuations depending upon what's on in any particular year, but that's not a change of policy.

The joint strike fighter program is one we've already been into. I'm going to ask Mr. Williams to talk a little. I'll just have him take it from here. Okay, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Alan Williams: Thank you.

What was said concerning the Joint Strike Fighter is not correct.

[English]

As the minister said, we have participated in the first developmental phase at level three to the tune of $10 million total. The U.S. is now considering embarking on the next phase, which will be $250 billion worth. We have not as yet made up our minds. The U.K., for example, has signed up as a level one, and they have paid $2.5 billion. Were we to become members, our current thinking is that we'd probably be at level three, which is a maximum of $250 million, not $500 million. Some of that would perhaps come from us, but a big part of it would come from industry, because it's industry that's going to benefit the most from this initiative. It does fit in potentially with our long-term plan, inasmuch as the upgrades the minister talked about will take us to roughly 2017-18. This aircraft is designed to be on the market at that time.

We have not made any decision about the future aircraft we'll use, and were we to participate, it would be with the objective of getting valuable access to wide-ranging studies that otherwise we would not be party to, and also allowing our industry to participate. There are no guarantees industry will get work if we do participate, but you can be certain that if the Canadian air space industry does not participate, they will not get work. You're talking about the major initiative probably for the next 40 to 50 years.

That being said, as you know, the U.S. is itself re-examining its priorities, and so before we take a precipitous decision, we are making sure that the program goes ahead and we understand all the facts, and that our industry is part of the solution. These facts all have to come together before we would even bring a proposal to our minister for discussion with his cabinet colleagues.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Price.

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

Mr. Minister, it's nice to see you here, particularly since this is our very first meeting and you are our first witness of the new Parliament. I think that's a nice message.

I want to hear you talk about our reserves. You've mentioned that 18,500 is what we're aiming at, and I think that's very important, since our reserves are our foot in our communities, the best chance for communities to see our military. Particularly in disaster times, this is very important. One of the problems we've seen in the reserves in the last little while is, as you were saying, that the numbers are going up, but their hours have been cut over the years. In the supplementary estimates here you have an increase in salary base. Is any of that going towards the reserves? Is it going towards the additional reserve numbers, or is it going to some additional hours?

Mr. Art Eggleton: We have a locked-in formula for the reserves that's equivalent to 85% of the pay to regulars. So if the regular pay goes up, the reserve pay goes up.

We have developed two phases to our land force restructuring program. Phase one involves an estimate of an additional $42 million to support the stabilization and capability growth, taking us from 14,500 up to 15,500 by 2003, and then by 2006 up to the 18,500 level.

• 1640

Maybe I could ask Admiral Garnett to speak further about the reserves.

VAdm Gary Garnett: Thank you

There's an LFRR project management office being set up under General Jeffery. General Jeffery has a strategic plan that the deputy minister and the chief have signed off to the minister about how to move the whole program forward. So it would probably be appropriate at some time to bring him and his project management office here to talk about that, how they intend to do it in the two-phase program.

But there will be internally some additional allocation of resources to phase one that you will see in what we annually call the defence planning guide, and it will come out probably in the May to late May timeframe for the current fiscal year. So there will be some internal reallocation of funds for more ammunition, etc., for the program.

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's important that in any of this activity on land force restructuring we make sure the equipment and the training all are commensurate with those increasing numbers. So it'll be a total package of changes for the reserves.

Mr. David Price: I have another couple of short questions. In the lines I see “improved tank ammunition, infrared laser, observation and Leopard appliqué and the turret armour”. Is that part of the original project of the renewing of the turrets on the tanks or is that in addition to it? Or is it to speed up the project?

VAdm Gary Garnett: It's an extra that came with the program, because the program originally was to see at night, but the cheapest way to do it is to bring in the new turret and everything else. So we got the extra package in the reduced price. There's a case of getting value for money. Is that what you call it, Al?

Mr. David Price: But these are the supplementaries. Does that mean the money is going in there quicker, therefore the project is moving ahead faster?

VAdm Gary Garnett: I think your assumption is probably right. It helps in moving it ahead more quickly.

Mr. Art Eggleton: The general intent of the additional money that goes into equipment and infrastructure is to speed things up.

The Chair: You have 45 seconds.

Mr. David Price: Go ahead. I'd need longer than that.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do apologize for having to leave after asking this question but I have another committee.

Listening to Mr. Benoit talk about the clothing reminds me of a joke about the soldiers who came back from East Timor and did such a great job that the Minister of Defence said, “Gentlemen, it's time for a change of clothing. Harry, you change with Jack. Jack, you change with Jim.”

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On a more serious note, sir, before I leave I want to give you a quote from a very respected individual, who says:

...capability is becoming harder and harder to maintain under current budgetary restraint. To maintain the kind of reputation and expectation that people have of our military capability, we have gone below what I think we should have now. And I think a number of other nations probably think that is the case too.

That's not a quote from myself, sir; that came from John de Chastelain himself, in the media.

I want to say, on a personal note, that my parents and oldest brother were liberated by the Canadian military during the liberation of Holland in 1945. My father met a young Canadian soldier and asked why he came over and the soldier said it was because they had a job to do. That endeared my father to come to Canada in 1956 when the mines of Holland were shutting down. If he was alive today he'd be very disgusted at the shape of our military today.

Last year you said, sir, that our troop complement would not go below 60,000. It's below 60,000. Mr. Williams said he didn't give any assurances that the jobs of people who are civilian workers—for example, to the supply chain—would be protected. An awful lot of people in the military have very low morale or no morale at all. The treatment of Mr. Riordon before his death, and other veterans, is deplorable.

I'd like to give you an opportunity, sir, to once and for all say why young people, like those who were in this room earlier, should think of the military as a future career in Canada.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I think it provides a great opportunity for them, for their own personal development, as well as contributing to Canada's role in the world, and I think it is a very challenging and a very rewarding career for young people.

• 1645

Our capability is now better than it was ten years ago. In the Gulf campaign, we played a more secondary role in the air efforts at that time, but in the Kosovo air campaign, we were on the front lines. We were involved as a first-rate team in that effort. That showed the difference in capabilities in the use of our CF-18s just within a decade. Our people are constantly being sought after by the UN and by NATO to take leading roles. We have a general who is in a leading role for the multinational force in the Sinai. We have taken over the command of the southeast division in Bosnia. General Hillier is there in command of that. I think this shows the great respect our allies have for our leaders and for our forces.

We are operating now with the Dutch to demonstrate quite clearly interoperability and our ability to establish a sound framework for a peace support operation in Eritrea. And I think we have a lot to be proud of in terms of what we're able to do. A lot of the capability comes from our people, I agree, and I think that's what you were also saying when you were talking about your father and about other people. Our people do carry that extra effort with them and have constantly demonstrated that they serve this country well. I think our capability in terms of our people is outstanding.

But our capability in terms of our equipment, in terms of our training, in terms of the leadership, in the ways I've just demonstrated, has also improved substantially over that period of time. The LAV III that we have in operation in Eritrea is the envy of a lot of other armies. Look at the fact that the United States now wants to order it. We already have them and they're talking about them. The most powerful military entity in the world is now going to order something that we've already pioneered in this country. The Coyote reconnaissance vehicle was a well-received contribution to the Kosovo campaign.

I say again that, yes, there are a lot of challenges. Not everything is exactly the way we'd like it to be, but I think we have the people who can address those challenges, who can make sure that we rework the money we have now so that we're funding our core responsibilities, so that we're doing the things we need to do to make sure we make a valuable contribution to the defence of this country and to international peace and security.

No, we haven't lowered our policy in terms of the 60,000 people. As I said, there is a practical problem, but what I've been asked continuously and what I've responded to continuously is that we do not have a policy to change that 60,000 figure.

Yes, we have a practical problem and we're addressing that practical problem to get our numbers up to strength so that we can continue to do the things that are required by the white paper for us to do. We are implementing the white paper. We are doing the things that are expected of us. I think we should stop running down the Canadian Forces. They do a terrific job for us, and we are giving them the tools they need to do that job just as fast as we can with the money we're allocated. We have been getting an additional investment of money from this government.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, nobody in this committee is running down our military—nobody at all. It's this government's lack of attention to the military that is causing the morale problem. It's not the NDP or the Conservatives or the Alliance or the Bloc. It's the Liberal government that's been doing this to the military.

You said, sir, in Hansard—

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'll check the comments.

The Chair: Your time has run past—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He can check the comments. He said the troop complement will not not go below 60,000. He didn't say policy. He said the number of people will not go below 60,000 and the figure is below 60,000. That's a fact, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Art Eggleton: It was a reference to policy.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, sir. You said—

The Chair: In fairness to the other members of the committee who are waiting to ask questions, I think we should proceed with Mrs. Wayne.

And, Mr. Stoffer, if you ask open-ended questions, you get open-ended answers.

Mrs. Wayne.

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

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm going to go back very quickly to the helicopter issue. If the MHP is being bought at the lowest price because it is the only responsible way, why was the search and rescue helicopter bought at the best value, and why would we now break the Treasury Board guidelines, 9.1.1, 9.1.2? Will the minister, Mr. Chair, confirm the existence of a cabinet committee mandated to supervise the Sea King replacement, headed up by the Deputy Prime Minister? Will the minister and/or the admiral also confirm that an announcement to build new afloat logistics concept ships is imminent and that the contract will be directed to a Quebec-based company and the rest of the shipyards in this country will not be allowed to bid on that contract?

• 1650

Mr. Alan Williams: I'll take the first two parts.

The reason we've changed the procurement strategy vis-à-vis the search and rescue is because the world is altogether different from what it was back then. When we were purchasing the search and rescue helicopter, we could not precisely define what we needed. That's the key difference from now. We know exactly what we want. Industry at that time was much more variable in terms of what they could offer.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But you just bought the search and rescue helicopters.

Mr. Alan Williams: That's right. But because there was such a great variation in industry capabilities, we in fact went for the best value that would allow us to take advantage of the different capabilities. As it turns out, the company that won for best value also won because of the lowest price component.

We are not in violation of 9.1. Guideline 9.1 clearly says you should acquire goods through best value or, if appropriate, by other means that best serve the crown and the Canadian taxpayer. It allows for that flexibility. We are exercising it because that's the appropriate thing to do. There is a much greater risk that, rather than saving a dollar, we would spend millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money unnecessarily if we went this other route. I don't think taxpayers deserve that.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Remember also that the process for the search and rescue helicopters started seven years ago. In terms of the updated information and the knowledge we have in this process now, it has changed over that period of time, as he has just pointed out.

Let me say with regard to the afloat logistics proposition that it is still in its very early stages and hasn't been to cabinet. There has been no decision about buying that. It's definitely in our plan, our Strategy 2020 plan. We need it. I indicated earlier that we need to improve the strategic lift of transportation of our goods and people to be able to carry out rapid deployment on a global basis. Both airlift and sealift are part of that. We are not at the stage where any determination is made about ordering ships, let alone the kind of thing you're talking about, which I never heard before.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Is there any special committee there?

Mr. Art Eggleton: When it comes to procurement, a procurement in the $3 billion range, as this one is, the cabinet has to make a decision. The cabinet has had discussions through a committee chaired by Mr. Gray on this matter.

This kind of a discussion should go on all the time in the cabinet. When you're talking about an expenditure of that amount of money, you need to have the maximum flow of information to the cabinet ministers. That's exactly what's happening here. It's not a new structure. It's all part of the cabinet decision-making process. Three billion dollars of taxpayers' money is a lot of money. The cabinet has the responsibility to make sure it gets the right information and does the right thing.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When you are talking about the taxpayers, the interest of the taxpayers is not just to save money today and pay more in the future. The objective should be to achieve the lowest total cost within the budget considering the whole life cycle of the product and considering the advantages. You may buy the cheapest one now, but it may cost you a whole lot more to maintain it down the road. If you had paid a little bit more, it wouldn't cost you so much and it would be better for the taxpayers and the military. I have to tell you for me that's the number one thing.

Mr. Alan Williams: If I may, we are not doing what you're suggesting we are doing. We are not simply buying the helicopter that we may get cheaply and could incur long-term costs. We are in fact going to base our decision on a life-cycle cost of the equipment. Whoever wins will have to supply us with the helicopter and 20 years of support at the lowest possible price. We are in fact guarding against that by innovatively combining the initial acquisition with a 20-year in-service support contract by the winning bidder. That cannot happen.

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

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

I have a question along the same thought line as the previous question. I attended the recent opening of the Brigadier Jefferson Armoury in Edmonton, a wonderful facility bringing together the cadet organizations as well as the local regiments. The building was leased. I see in the estimates there is capital cost allotment of $18 million for a joint headquarters building, a construction project.

• 1655

I had some discussion with the people there. Coming from a business background, I really couldn't get a comfortable explanation as to why we would lease a building here and capital cost another building here. Why this idea of leasing something you're using 100%, and using consistently for 25 to 50 to 75 years? In other words, armouries are forever. We also have other types...or they should be, or they could be.

With that in mind, I recognize that we do lease other forms of equipment. That might be on a short-term basis, but could you please explain to me why you would lease long-term buildings?

VAdm Gary Garnett: I don't know about that specific building. We don't have the ADM responsible for infrastructure here. Certainly, every capital project is looked at for partnering, is looked at for leasing, is looked at for construction. The headquarters you're talking about is on the base in Kingston, and it is part of support operations, where they also needed a new building. So it's fixed, if you like; it has some training facilities built into it, etc.

I can't answer about specific armouries, but there have been others before for which we've partnered with industry and which we haven't used 24 and 7, so they have been available for industry to use part-time, too. I don't know if that's the case in this specific instance or not, but I would want to say that armouries aren't forever. Nothing's forever. As we try to be more innovative in the future, we will try to reduce our costs where it's not necessary to expend enormous costs.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, the Royal Edmonton Regiment in Edmonton had an armoury of their own for the past hundred years. That did expire, but it served its usefulness. So armouries are relatively long-term, I would think.

Are there other instances in the estimates here? In my mind, this could be a method and a vehicle to be able to offload initial costs on future generations. Are there other construction projects for which this is being contemplated? Is there any consideration for the very fact that a future generation is going to have to pay the bill? Nothing is for free, and anybody who is in the business of leasing buildings is making a considerable profit.

Mr. Robert M. (Bob) Emond (Assistant Deputy Minister, Finance and Corporate Services, Department of National Defence): We look at the merits of the case, but there is no intent to offload into the future, nor have we used leasing to smooth cashflows, as we call it. Over the last five years, we have been looking at innovative financing, particularly in the context of partnering. But, no, we're not doing that.

Mr. Peter Goldring: How much time do I have left?

The Chair: A minute and a half.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'll ask another question of the minister, then, please.

In our discussion earlier with the Gulf War veterans and with peacekeepers of present and past missions, keeping in mind the quality of life initiatives and pride in service and looking for recruiting into the armed forces, they had a concern that they expressed very strongly: why are we not considering our veterans of peacekeeping missions where there are warring parties? They are between two warring parties. That is a particularly uncomfortable position to be in, and it's certainly not unlike the World War II positions, the Korean War positions, and the First World War positions.

Has there been consideration given to recognizing them? Has the reason for stalling on that or foot-dragging on that or taking time to consider it—it has been ten years—been a financial consideration? Is there something in doing so that would impact on the estimates? If not, why don't we do it?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Much of the concern you're expressing, and much of the concern the veterans have expressed, is relevant to Veterans Affairs Canada. Now, we are working with Veterans Affairs Canada on this question of a definition of a veteran.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, we're looking at recruitment here, at bringing new people into the service, and at having a pride of accomplishment and respect for the work they have done. This is for active service people, as well as for people who have left the service.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Well, as I said, we are looking at it. The changing times do require some examination of the matter. We are looking at what a veteran is and in what way can we recognize these people and the contributions they've made.

• 1700

According to Veterans Affairs Canada, if they were injured or became ill at the time of service—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Don't you think it would help with recruitment?

Mr. Art Eggleton: —then they are in fact covered. And I would hope that would be the case, because we are concerned about looking after their health care needs.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would it not help with recruitment?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'll ask Admiral Garnett to add to that.

VAdm Gary Garnett: Let me add that in the discussion with Veterans Affairs and veterans communities, particularly the Legion and Mr. Chadderton, we're very close to, let's say, modernizing the term “veteran”. But when one deals with these groups of people, one wants to do it in a very collegial fashion, so—

Mr. Peter Goldring: How close is “close”? Would you have a timeline on that? It's been ten years.

VAdm Gary Garnett: I've actually seen a document in the last month—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Really?

VAdm Gary Garnett: —that I believe everybody's about to agree to, so the term “veteran” will include a more modern generation.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So it's imminent, then.

VAdm Gary Garnett: It's imminent.

It's important for the Legion to be party to this—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

VAdm Gary Garnett: —and I believe we now are very close to closure on this issue.

The Chair: Gentlemen, I'm going to have to end this particular round of questions and go to Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based upon the measurement of that minute and a half, I'm counting on a very long five minutes.

The Chair: We'll be flexible.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, there are a number of issues that are of concern. I have a long list, but I can't go through them all, of course. A number of them have been raised already by colleagues. For instance, Mr. Stoffer mentioned alternate service delivery, which is an issue I've certainly heard a lot about in the Halifax area. I have a concern regarding the dockyard in particular.

We've heard about the helicopters. I want to say to you that my constituents and the people in my area would not be satisfied if I didn't express their concern and urge you to move as expeditiously as possible while obviously getting a good vehicle that does the job. Move as quickly as possible, and hopefully meet that deadline of 2005, and do not let go of it. I would urge you to try to hold to that deadline. I'd like to know what you feel can be done to expedite that matter.

Secondly, I see in the estimates that the air force is seeing an increase while the navy and army will be seeing a slight decrease or reduction in funding this year. Particularly with a concern for the navy, I'm wondering why they're facing reductions this year. I realize you are a strong advocate for funding for these areas, and I would encourage your colleagues in cabinet to support you as often as possible, obviously, but I am concerned about a reduction. Obviously, I'd like to see an increase in those areas.

Lastly, you mentioned the $200-million program for clothing. I know that in the report of the Auditor General of Canada, the AG talked about how many departments seem to measure their effectiveness and the success of their programs by how much money is spent on them, rather than by measuring the results. I'd like to know how your department is going about measuring the results of that kind of an expenditure.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'll ask Mr. Williams to respond on the 2005 situation. You asked specifically about what we could do to try to speed things up. Along with the public works ministry, he's running the procurement process, so maybe he can comment on it.

Mr. Alan Williams: There is no guarantee, but the best thing we can do is ensure there is a really aggressive competition. Industry knows what we want, and the more we put on their shoulders to try to deliver what they want, I think that'll be our best estimate. My judgment is that if the right players are successful, they will do everything possible to meet the minister's commitment.

Mr. Art Eggleton: On the question of the budget, I think I answered that previously. It's a fluctuation situation that depends upon the capital in any one year. It doesn't affect the operating. In the budget itself, with the capital, in one year you could be spending more on the air force and in another year it could be more on the navy. We've had a lot of years where more was spent on the navy, thanks to Admiral Garnett and others.

Did you want to comment further on that?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

VAdm Gary Garnett: I can assure you that since I've been the vice-chief, we've spent more money on the army than anybody else.

Mr. Art Eggleton: On the question of clothing—

VAdm Gary Garnett: I think the question might have been more generally on performance measurement. When the minister signs off the report on plans and priorities this year—I believe the government will table that in Parliament in the not-too-distant future—you will find an articulation of a performance measurement program that is going to be what we call capability-based. We're going to talk about the kinds of capabilities we want and then measure against those capabilities. The Auditor General is very supportive of this process, which you will see articulated for the first time in the plans and priorities document, as is the Treasury Board.

• 1705

Mr. Geoff Regan: Can we talk specifically about the clothing procurement package, for example? How do you ensure that the $200 million provides good quality clothing at a good price and you get the quantities you should get into the hands of personnel where they need it?

Mr. Art Eggleton: One of the things that I think has been particularly helpful in this whole process of clothing the soldier is that there has been a lot of consultation with the soldiers themselves to determine what they need, and a lot of experimentation trying this variation or that variation. That's why I feel quite confident that at the end of the day, when we finish this program, a lot of militaries around the world will be copying what we're doing.

Alan.

Mr. Alan Williams: I couldn't say anything better.

Mr. Geoff Regan: How's my time?

The Chair: You have about fifteen seconds.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Fifteen seconds...I guess I'll let it go.

The Chair: Given that we're exercising a little bit of flexibility here, I'll allow maybe a quick question, if you have one, and a quick answer from our witnesses.

Mr. Geoff Regan: All right.

I have one quick question about terrorist attacks. We've heard a lot lately about the NMDS, and it strikes me that one of the things we have to be worried about is attacks that don't come through the air, in the sense of missiles, but those that are carried, for instance, by terrorists, whether it's anthrax or something of that nature. I see that there is a plan to purchase the NBC decontamination system to deal with that kind of threat. I think that's the kind of threat it's designed for, but what is the military doing to counter that kind of issue? To me, obviously the NMDS can't respond to that.

Mr. Art Eggleton: As I indicated, we have established an Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness to address the possible threats to our infrastructure, either hackers or people threatening our infrastructure in some other way, any way, whether it's cyber-related or not. But at the same time, there is on the part of the Solicitor General—and we're involved in a consultative way—a counter-terrorism plan, and certainly our NBC, or nuclear biological chemical unit, helps to respond to the kinds of concerns that could be raised in the context of that kind of plan. So both in terms of people, which is largely being coordinated by the Solicitor General, and the infrastructure itself, which we are dealing with ourselves, we are moving along those lines.

The Chair: In fairness to our opposition members, Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I still have to ask why the department didn't consider commonality in its MHP program. It's not there.

Also, as you recall, at our last committee meeting before the election was called, we all signed off on a report that was submitted by the previous chairperson, Mr. O'Brien, to the minister and his department, and all of us agreed to it. There were a number of issues in it. One was that there should be new ships for our military and they should be built in Canada. I don't know if we ever got a report back from that, but I will ask this: first, I want to know whether you have addressed it, and secondly, is the statement of requirement done for the new afloat logistics concept ships?

The Chair: In terms of the housekeeping items we want to deal with at the end of the meeting, that's one I want to talk about.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

The Chair: But if the minister wants to proceed with answering the question....

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes.

My understanding is that the recommendations you made in regard to procurement would need to be reiterated and brought back as part of the response process. That's a housekeeping matter, as the chairman says, which he'll raise, but certainly we're anxious to deal with those recommendations.

With respect to the ships, I mentioned part of the strategic sealift. We see that as something that is going to be needed, but the statement of requirements isn't done yet. We're still at a preliminary stage, much earlier than what you're talking about. But we are moving the file along. These would be replacements for our current AOR ships.

• 1710

On the commonality thing, in terms of the helicopter, Mr. Williams will answer.

Mr. Alan Williams: In terms of commonality, it's there. The fact is that all the companies would, I expect, take advantage of the common elements they've put in place with this department from previous procurement, in order to be more competitive.

So companies that have previously won contracts with us, and as a result have training, manuals, and courseware in place that won't have to be replicated, will reflect that in their bids. That's what's so exciting about this buoyant competitive process. Commonality is there. It's up to the bidders to take advantage of that and lower their bid prices, as a result of the savings they themselves can achieve.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Minister, it's three years since you and I were both invited to the same committee. You were a witness, as Minister of National Defence, and I was invited to provide you with a description of what areas outside of National Defence I would like you to assist with. I just want to go through that briefly.

At that time I explained to you that the only department that could trigger a flooding disaster fund was National Defence. That is still true. The reason I ask that question, Mr. Minister, is that I have done a survey, and I can tell you right now that I will have more land flooded this spring in one corner of my constituency than all the potatoes lost in P.E.I.

It's about time they got their payment. I need your help, sir. Under the present circumstances, I can have three times as much area under water as they had in the Red River flood—and it doesn't qualify for flood relief. I'm asking you, sir—I don't want to take away from your department the right to trigger a fund for flooding. But at the same time, as long as it stays in your department, you need thousands and thousands of acres. It will happen again this spring—fences, roads, crops, everything, are going to go again. Yet I cannot petition the government for any funding for flooding disaster because it has to come under your department.

I want to sleep tonight. I want to be able to go home and say, I finally asked the minister once more—and I'll let it rest. But I need your help, so that flooding from other than a moving body of water could also trigger some sort of government support. In my province, the province of Manitoba, I'm going to have an area probably the size of Prince Edward Island under water again this spring, and yet there's no money available whatsoever.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We administer the disaster financial assessment arrangement, and we deal with the province in this regard. It's the provinces that establish the program for the people of the different communities. They can establish any program any way they want. We have a formula for reimbursing them, but it's their responsibility to establish the program of disaster assistance.

We operate the program on standard criteria that have existed for quite a number of years, and we operate it in a fair and equitable fashion across the country. We don't say, “We'll cover this thing in that province but we won't cover it in another province.” That's under the DFAA. The DFAA is intended to deal with major disasters, to try to restore the infrastructure, whether it's roads, farm machinery or buildings. That's what it's intended to do.

You're talking about a situation involving rain—no single disaster from one rainfall, but an accumulation of rainfall. This water comes down in a normal rain fashion but in large quantities accumulated over a period of time, and it combines with moving water. But that kind of thing, which many farmers are interested in being reimbursed for, is not something that comes under the DFAA. That doesn't mean the government isn't doing something about it; it means the government is doing something in other ways. There is the NISA, the AIDA, the crop insurance. There are the additional funds that went into Saskatchewan and Manitoba last year—

• 1715

Mr. Roy Bailey: Minister, I know all those facts.

Mr. Art Eggleton: The DFAA, though, is not there to duplicate any of these other programs. So if there's another program that covers it, then the DFAA—

Mr. Roy Bailey: The Red River flood was a result of the heavy melt and the heavy rainfall.

The same thing happened in my constituency two years in a row—heavy rainfall in the fall, with a huge snowfall, like they have this year in the eastern part, and we're going to have flooding again. But when we ask for the same support as Manitoba and the Saguenay got for public roads, fences, soils, and everything else, they say, sorry, that only falls under your department, and we can't qualify because it doesn't trigger in. There can be more acreage under water than in the Red River flood, but it doesn't qualify.

Mr. Art Eggleton: As I said, we have criteria, which we apply fairly and equitably across the country.

We have been examining the criteria for the DFAA, but we're about to enter into more discussions with the provinces with respect to DFAA. Those are issues that could be discussed at that time.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, could the minister forward some of that information to us on what they do cover? I live on a flood plain, and I never knew you could get any compensation. I lost every godforsaken thing. That's why you have me here today, because of the flood plain I live on.

Mr. Art Eggleton: We have given some additional money....

The Chair: Mr. Minister, is that information available on the DND website?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I think it probably is, but we'll get you additional information.

Mr. Roy Bailey: It has to be triggered by the province.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Our province has triggered it—

Mr. Art Eggleton: I guess when they do that—

Mr. Roy Bailey: —previously, but not yet this year.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, your time has expired, and we have one member who hasn't been able to ask any questions here today.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I have one short question. It may be too technical. If it is, I don't mind getting it in writing later.

Do these figures, or anything in the near future, have any significant ramifications on the north, either in reallocation of resources or an increase or decrease in resources?

Mr. Art Eggleton: As we increase our budgets, which we've been doing for the last two and a half years to the tune of over $3 billion, all parts of the country will benefit.

A substantial amount of money is going to quality of life improvements—pay, benefits, and so on. We have people in I don't know how many communities, but we're spread out right throughout.... We have an operation, a north division headquarters, in Yellowknife, of course, and we have operations in many different parts of the north of this country. I've visited many of them.

There's another thing. We decided a year ago to just about double, as I recall, the size of our Canadian rangers and junior ranger programs. They are specifically relevant to the north, so we are going to carry on a very substantial investment in that area.

I don't know whether Admiral Garnett can add anything to that.

VAdm Gary Garnett: The study to which the minister refers had an objective of doubling the junior ranger program. To double that program, ranger guidance and ranger patrol need to be in the same community, as well as community support. We have a seven-year program to increase the number of ranger patrols, which are north and around the coastal communities and the southern end of Hudson's Bay, which would allow us then to double the number of junior rangers.

We've also looked at a variety of issues in the Arctic. We've called it an Arctic study. It isn't a study per se; it's a number of programmatics. We are going to have a construction program that will build, let's say, a more flexible, durable operations centre at northern region headquarters, one that will be able to receive information they don't currently receive.

• 1720

We'll also be putting some funding into more ranger patrols in the north, or in the Arctic region, to allow the rangers to go out and do more patrolling, both in their communities and in some of the more distant areas of the north that currently they can't get to.

There are some enhancements, as the minister has said, to a variety of activities in the north, particularly based around the rangers and the ranger program.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

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

Looking directly at the supplementaries and the lines, Sea King multi-band radios...I have a couple of questions on that. First of all, why are we putting multi-band radios into the Sea Kings now? Do we have them in all the Griffons at this point?

VAdm Gary Garnett: I don't know the specific program, but I would suggest that if we were, it's either due to some new safety requirement where they need a kind of frequency they don't otherwise have or something. But we can get you the specifics on that particular program.

Mr. David Price: Are they all in the Griffons now?

VAdm Gary Garnett: I don't know that.

Mr. David Price: Are the Griffons equipped with the multi-bands? They didn't have them before. Some of them were in, but not all.

VAdm Gary Garnett: We'll have to get you the specific information.

Mr. David Price: I have one more question.

The engineering change proposal on the CF-18s is the largest item on there. Is that advancing the program on the CF-18s?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Yes.

VAdm Gary Garnett: For sure.

That specific ECP came about because the U.S. Marine Corps has the same aircraft. So Boeing put together a package of a number of items that they call an engineering change proposal and packaged it singly.

We had already purchased, through foreign military sales, new computers for the CF-18 and new software. So when you put that whole package, ECP and the other two major items, together, we're going to deliver more than 80% to 90% of the whole upgrade program now in one single package.

Mr. Williams could tell you more, but we're very close to signing a contract to do that.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Chair: We have a vote at 5:30 p.m., and by my watch, which I don't claim is terribly accurate, it's about 5:23 p.m.

We perhaps have time for a quick question, keeping in mind that we have some very brief housekeeping items to deal with.

Mrs. Wayne, could we have a quick question and a quick answer?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister, at what stage specifically are the afloat logistic ships in the procurement process? Has the minister seen a draft statement of requirement yet? What is the timeline?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Based on that, we might even be able to get another question in.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Minister, I have one fast, last question.

It mentioned in here procurement of tank ammunition. Can you confirm with a yes or a no, are there any weapons shells in our military in the Phalanx systems on board ship or the Leopard tanks, or that are contemplated, that are depleted uranium based?

Mr. Art Eggleton: No.

VAdm Gary Garnett: We used to have them in the Phalanx system on board ships, but that was taken out of service I think three or four years ago.

The Chair: I would like to thank the minister and his officials for being here today. We've had a wide range of questions. I appreciate the thoroughness of some of those answers and the quality of some of the questions as well.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you.

The Chair: If I could impose on the committee for another few minutes, in terms of future business we are looking at a committee meeting this Thursday afternoon on the issue of depleted uranium. The committee is intending to hear, if possible, from Colonel Ken Scott, the director of medical policy. If he is not available, what we are looking at doing is reintroducing into the committee the procurement report, because under the rules of the House of Commons, as many of you may know, a report has to be responded to by the government within 150 days.

Because of the election, that period expired, and as a result we have to reintroduce the report at committee. What I'm suggesting for the benefit of the new committee members, again, if we're not able to get Mr. Scott, is to have a very quick briefing for the new members on the procurement report so that they're not adopting something they have absolutely no knowledge of and so that we can have the report reintroduced back into the House and then start the process again. Presumably it's not going to take 150 days to get the results back, the government's response.

• 1725

The next item I wanted to raise is that it looks like the Minister of Veterans Affairs is available on Thursday, March 29. The meeting is supposed to start at 3:15 p.m., rather than 3:30 p.m., because of other commitments the minister has, and we would go to five o'clock. It would be in room 237 in the Centre Block.

For next week, the committee has been invited by the department to visit the National Defence Command Centre and to attend a briefing session. What's proposed—and it would start at 3:30 p.m.—is as follows: a tour of the minister's office and meeting with staff, approximately 30 minutes; a visit to the National Defence Command Centre, 30 minutes; and a briefing session, which could last up to two hours. Transportation will be provided.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When is that?

The Chair: Next Tuesday, March 20.

Finally, as a result of the steering committee meeting we had before the parliamentary recess, I have met with staff, and we are in the process of trying to pull together a work plan for the steering committee in regard to the issue of readiness. So we should be able to get that to you some time next week. The steering committee can have a look at it, and we'll determine what witnesses we want to hear from and how we'll proceed on that.

So are there any questions? Is there a motion to adjourn?

Mr. David Price: I so move.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.