NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 4, 1997

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): My dear colleagues, I would like to begin by welcoming General DeQuetteville, Chief of Staff of the Canadian Air Force. Good morning, General. With your permission, we will just take a few minutes to move several short motions.

[English]

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the committee adopt a budget of $211,650 for its travels inside of Canada from January 1997 to April 1997.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: General, please proceed with your presentation and then we'll go to question period.

Lieutenant General A. DeQuetteville (Chief of Air Staff, Department of National Defence): Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I have the privilege to address you today on what I consider to be some of the most critical socio-economic challenges ever to face Canada's air force. Accompanying me today is the air force Chief Warrant Officer Gilles Guilbault. We will both be pleased to answer your questions at the end of my presentation.

[Translation]

I would like to outline some of the concerns and challenges facing the Air Force in Canada today, and what we are doing internally to address them. However, there is a clear limit to what we can do, hence the significance of the recommendations you will make to Parliament once your study is completed.

[English]

Over the past seven years the air force has become almost 45% smaller, with only a marginal reduction in operational output. Like the other two services, the air force has never been busier. Its orientation has changed from a relatively static structure to a dynamic posture that must be prepared to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. In fact, it is this global reach that poses the most significant opportunity and challenge for our remaining personnel.

Coping with these profound changes has been the focus of the air force leadership over the past three years. In 1995 I initiated a four-phase commanders' flight plan to deal with the realities of fewer people, smaller budgets, maintaining operational capabilities, and a worldwide mandate.

First we developed a blueprint that we called Flight Plan 97 to try to create an optimized air force structure to meet these defence policy and budgetary realities. Secondly, we addressed air force culture. A structural vision is only an academic exercise if people don't buy into it and aren't personally equipped and motivated to participate. To help define our core values of excellence, professionalism, and teamwork we constructed a toolbox of communication and basic management skills and packaged it into a three-day course called Flight Plan 97 Ground School. More than 19,000 of our members took this program.

• 1540

This long-term investment has attempted to better prepare our members to cope with the massive reductions and changes that have occurred in the air force.

[Translation]

Thirdly, we invested more resources and energy in communications, both internally to our members, and externally to Canadians at large, all in an effort to ensure our Air Force story is better understood.

[English]

Having addressed how to get 45% smaller, we then began to focus our attention 18 months ago to better supporting the 55% of our personnel who will be with us into the next millennium. Therefore, the fourth phase of our effort addresses the people issues under a program we have called Flight Plan for Life. Through a highly consultative process, we have given our entire team—all ranks, reserves and civilians, including our families—a direct voice in telling the leadership not only what issues must be addressed but also in what order these issues should be tackled.

A working group composed primarily of my senior chief warrant officers from each of our 13 air wings, who are my champions of change, are refining these particular issues and making doable recommendations to enhance quality of life in the air force. Chief Warrant Officer Guilbault is the titular head of this group. A Flight Plan for Life summary has been provided to you separately.

[Translation]

Therefore, perhaps the timing of your deliberations could not be better. I doubt you will notice any surprising concerns or priorities in the report, but I must point out that these issues are not the considered work of senior staff. These are the exact words, issues and proposed solutions of our members. It's them speaking to us.

If for any reason, you do not have the opportunity to meet with many members of the Air Force, please read their words to understand their concerns.

[English]

While we have made some headway with our Flight Plan for Life program, pay and compensation are CF-wide issues that are beyond our air force scope and are by far the biggest concerns of the air force team. The minister, the CDS and the assistant deputy minister for personnel outlined these issues extremely well in earlier presentations to this committee. I will not go back over this ground today. Suffice it to say, while recent incremental adjustments are welcome news, I hope this is only the start of a process that will help improve the eroded income of our military members.

Instead, I would like to focus today on some paramount air force issues. The nature of service in today's air force and its short-notice deployments for unspecified lengths of time demand the resolution of domestic issues. The reality is, air force personnel serve in the greatest variety of locations from coast to coast. A number of our 13 air wings are in isolated or semi-isolated locations. You can see why creating a safe and supportive environment at home is imperative for us.

What follows are some examples of problems in this area. First, the home equity assistance plan, or HEAP, reimburses the established 90% loss only when the market has declined a minimum of 10%. The Greenwood housing market, for example, recently declined just under 10%. Consequently, the claim for reimbursement by one of our corporals, who earns around $35,000, was rejected, resulting in a personal loss of $14,000 when the member was posted from 14 Wing Greenwood.

• 1545

The accommodation assistance allowance, or AAA, poses a similar dilemma. Rental costs must be 12.5% above the national average for a member to be eligible. This allowance is then taxable. For example, personnel serving at 22 Wing in North Bay, where rents are 9% above the national average, are not eligible for this assistance. In Victoria, a high-cost area, a sergeant with two children does receive the allowance, but it's a total of $228, or only $136 after taxes. Surely a willingness to serve anywhere in the country should not result in a family financial penalty.

Another area of concern is the fact that the air force must recruit and retain new members in a modern society in which careers now change several times over the course of a working life. We face the additional challenges, due to the technical skill needed, of finding more and better ways of sourcing qualified personnel from industry. As well, we have to prepare our personnel for the transition back to civilian life when they choose to move on.

This means we need to capitalize quickly on individuals who come to us with civilian experience as members of either the regular or reserve force. One of the best things we can give and also recognize is civilian accreditation that can be applied as easily to the private sector as to recruitment.

We are working on a plan to recognize both military and civilian accreditation interchangeably. To do so may require national standards that transcend provincial jurisdictions and licensing boards. Creating a climate where closer links can be forged with industry and academic institutions will go far to address this concern.

Another major issue that requires special attention for us is pilot retention. In the summer of 1996, we began to be struck by an alarming number of fixed-wing pilots leaving the air force primarily for the commercial airlines. Attrition has now increased to more than twice our production capacity. By the end of March 1998, we expect to be approximately 240 pilots, or about 14%, below our establishment.

Although this in itself is serious, the numerical shortage does not tell the whole story. Equally critical is the fact that most of those who depart are highly experienced pilots without whom the air force cannot function safely or effectively. On average, we have calculated that we have close to nine years and $4.9 million invested in each pilot we lose.

Having absorbed initial losses in staff, jobs, and professional development courses, we are now at the point where pilot shortages are beginning to seriously degrade our operations and reduce our capability to train replacement air crew.

In an attempt to retain this fundamental capability, I have directed that training replacement air crew will become our top priority, behind only national tasking such as search and rescue, etc.

The direct and immediate consequence of this action has been to lower the number of experienced pilots in our operational squadrons and to reduce the operational effectiveness of these squadrons. For example, our ability to execute national airlifts has been affected by nearly 40%, as we have had to transfer pilots from our operational C-130 Hercules squadrons to the operational training unit. While the C-130 community is most affected at the moment, the CF-18 fighter and CP-140 maritime patrol communities are the next most affected.

When airlines were in periods of growth, we have always lost pilots. However, this time, we are in a far more perilous position because of the general morale concerns across the Canadian Forces that have arisen in recent years, exacerbated by a pay differential that makes an airline job almost impossible to refuse. For a qualified pilot, twice the pay, half the work, a stable home environment, and being able to live in a major metropolitan centre is compelling competition for us.

• 1550

Aviation experts predict a continuing airline expansion that will see about 800 pilots hired by major Canadian carriers over the next five years. In order to alleviate this high attrition, the department and the Treasury Board are currently examining issues such as compensation options, a dual career path to provide more flying time to pilots during their careers, mobility among the various aircraft communities, helicopter and fixed-wing, to enhance satisfaction, etc. You will become well aware of this pilot crisis as you visit our air force wings.

[Translation]

In conclusion, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice a number of the Air Force's primary concerns.

[English]

I am encouraged that this important committee of Parliament is discussing these critical issues and that we are now recognizing, as did William Perry, the former United States Secretary of Defense, that quality of life for our forces means quality people in our forces.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We now move to question period. Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not attending this morning's session. I was unfortunately over at DND. There was a press conference there and I was involved in that. I feel bad that I was not here to question General Crabbe.

Thank you very much, Lieutenant General. I appreciate your somewhat candid concerns about the pilots. I've heard the same thing. In fact, I just recently talked to a young fellow who had served nine years with the air force and he couldn't wait to find something in the private sector. He left, of course, and is now working in the private sector. That seems to be a very common story. Some of them can't wait to get out. It seems as if it's a pretty serious concern you have addressed there, and rightly so.

I'm curious about how it's really going to unfold. It doesn't deal just with quality of life issues. It seems it goes far beyond. There is pretty low morale among the pilots. Pay is one thing, of course, and flying time. It seems as if their careers just dead-end and they look elsewhere. I guess promotion would be part of that.

I do have a question, and it relates to that matter. It's on equipment; but still, equipment is part and parcel of morale. I'm going back to a question I really asked in the House here a while back. It deals with the search and rescue helicopters in Trenton. I had word that they were all grounded at one point for seven or eight days, I believe it was, at a crack. Nothing was available there for any emergency, should an emergency have arisen. They were all in the garage, if you will, at the same time.

These search and rescue helicopters, to my way of thinking, cover large tracts of land, of course. They are needed for surveilling or covering a large of tract of land in case an emergency should arise. In this particular case Trenton covers about half the population in this country, I think, and no helicopters were available.

In the House today we heard even further, that search and rescue helicopters which were to respond to the Hibernia drilling platform couldn't respond. They had to lease helicopters to get out there in a search and rescue operation. That has to be frustrating for the pilots who sit there trying to run these operations or fly these machines. They can't get on the ground to go out and do their job.

I'm curious about how much more the military has to put up with in that regard if we can't go out and do our job. Where are the tools coming from? I know there's a political side to this issue, but it seems it's becoming more of an emergency situation to have those items replaced and those machines given to the appropriate people.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Mr. Hanger, thank you. I should mention that we have Labrador helicopters at four locations across Canada: Trenton—

Mr. Art Hanger: Besides Trenton. I realize that.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: —Greenwood, Nova Scotia; Gander, Newfoundland; and Comox.

Mr. Art Hanger: I understood.

• 1555

LGen A. DeQuetteville: We supplement our dedicated.... What we call our “primary” search and rescue is made up of those helicopters with some C-130s that are assigned to the search and rescue mission and some Griffin helicopters at other locations that are also primary SAR assets. We monitor on a daily basis all of these locations. From our air division headquarters in Winnipeg, they run the day-to-day operations of our air force.

I have lived in Winnipeg for the last two years, and I know that at every morning briefing we look at the status of each of those four search and rescue locations and the secondary ones, to ensure we have the assets to do the job. If we don't, and get into a situation like the one you described in Trenton, which was very real and valid, then we have to put in place alternative or back-up capabilities to deal with events that might arise.

The situation was very real and involved a vibration anomaly and two helicopters. We brought in some technical authorities, including some from the helicopter manufacturer, and made an assessment, but nothing substantive was found. We've put in place a 25-hour flight review to see if there have been any increases in the vibration loads. Those helicopters are now back in action.

The bottom line is if we have any technical problems in any of our fleets, we respond and put back-up capabilities in place. That's the versatility of air power.

Will we be anxious to have new search and rescue helicopters? Yes, because the Labradors are old and it takes a lot of investment in maintenance to keep them airworthy. I can assure you we do keep them airworthy, though. We do not fly them in any unsafe mode.

Mr. Art Hanger: I can appreciate that from the record. It sounds like there are about 16 hours of garage time to every hour of flying, which is rather costly, I would think. The down time seems almost unbelievable.

I'm still curious, though. The pilots who have to use these machines must be running things over in their own minds and thinking that when they're given a task to do and situations arise like the Hibernia one—and I understand it was leased helicopters that ended up having to go out there—they can't really respond. It must be frustrating for them.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: One of the merits of being able to watch question period is I became aware of this event at 3 p.m. today. We're checking with our regional control centre in Halifax that orchestrates any event that takes place in that part of the world to find out what went on in deciding who would respond to that particular event in Hibernia. Often, depending on the nature of the emergency, if there are coast guard assets or maritime assets in the vicinity, the RCCs will take a decision and not deploy helicopters. It really depends on what the circumstances were in that event. I will undertake to make sure you have the story, because I'm quite interested in it myself.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): I have a couple of lines of questioning. I'll see what I can ask in the time left from Art.

You commented it takes five years and costs about $5 million to train a pilot. That's what you have invested in a pilot. I know you've had a problem at probably all the air bases, and certainly at Cold Lake, where pilots want to leave. I know it's a huge problem in Cold Lake. What do you think the solution to that problem is? You've kind of touched on some of the issues that are to be considered and that Treasury Board must consider, but what do you think the solution to that problem is?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: The solution is complex. It's not just one thing. It is a focus on quality of life in general and a restoration of morale. We've been through a very difficult period, particularly with the air force getting 45% smaller. So there's been a lot of uncertainty for people over the last six or seven years. We are now coming into a period where we have some budget stability, some personnel stability in terms of downsizing. We have to equate that with a quality of life program that starts to show people that we really care about their value to the Canadian Forces.

• 1600

All classifications of the forces would fit under that same problem. The particular issue for pilots and for some other trades like doctors and information technologists is that they have an alternative now. They are highly sought after on the outside. There is an alternative. So they're voting in some respects with their feet. Other trades would probably do that too if the circumstances permitted.

When you talk to those pilots, they know that it's not possible to pay them airline salaries. They want to see some indication that their value is recognized by Canadians. If we can show that, then the love of flying that they do enjoy at places like Cold Lake will be restored.

It's a combination of quality of life improvements, but there has to be a compensation package for pilots that does recognize their value.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Do you have other questions? We can come back.

[Translation]

Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Unfortunately, I was absent this morning as well, for the same reasons as Mr. Hanger. I was quite surprised to see that this sort of thing was announced at the same time the committee was sitting; as you probably know, the Minister was announcing changes to the National Defence Act.

I have a few questions for you. Here, we have a pay scale for pilots and officers of the general service; it is dated April 1, 1997. Was this provided by our researchers or by Defence?

The Chairman: By our witnesses.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: By these gentlemen here.

A little earlier, I was asking the chairman what the K beside these numbers mean. I was told that probably means thousands of dollars. But I don't see how that can be, because the performance bonus is given simply as $58,500. I would like you to give me a brief explanation of this scale. I don't want to spend the entire afternoon on this. Does this mean that, with the performance bonus, the officer's pay goes up to $58,500? What does K mean?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Thank you for the question.

In each rank level there are a number of incentives. So in the rank of captain or major there is a salary bracket from a minimum to a maximum. There are a number of incentives that one moves through, based on time and service. These were just selected as examples.

For an officer in the grade of captain at incentive 5, that would be the rate of pay of $58,500 a year.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: So this is not just the performance bonus. It includes the performance bonus.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: No, the incentive is simply one point of reference for a captain. It's about the midpoint of a captain's pay grade.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: In any case, as I understand it, that amount represents total pay.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Exactly.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: What is the cost of training a pilot?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: As we indicated, after they take the training at military college or university they go through basic training at Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, then they get their wings in Moose Jaw. Then the pilots go on to something we call operational conversion, where depending on which aircraft type they're going to fly, they go on to a specialized course that will prepare them for either the CF-18, the C-130, or whichever aircraft they're going on. Then they have one operational tour of three years. All of that costs about $4.9 million.

• 1605

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: As I understood it, that $4.9 million was for nine years. I read that you had invested nine years and $4.9 million for each pilot. So that amount is spread over nine years.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: That is the length of the training period, la formation: four years at college, two years in flying training, and three years on their first operational squadron. That's a total of nine years.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: The figures vary so much. I must confess I find them difficult to follow.

Here, we have a brief submitted by Captain Dan Haines, who has been a pilot in the Air Force for 14 years. He said it cost $1 million. Some have said it costs $2 million, and now we hear it costs $4.9 million. These figures vary a great deal.

In the Canadian Forces, we certainly considered hiring pilots who had experience with commercial airlines. So instead of having commercial airlines steal them from us, maybe we could turn the tables a little. Instead of training pilots and spending nine years and $4.9 million on each of them, why not raid commercial airlines, and offer pilots a higher salary? We could do that, since we wouldn't have to train them. Has anyone thought of doing this, and if you have thought of it, why aren't you doing it?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I think the principal reason is, as you cited, we would have to pay them more money and work them twice as hard, and I doubt there would be many who would choose to take a salary reduction to come and fly with us. But if we were to offer more salary.... I don't think we're anxious to get in a competition with the airlines. In fact part of our long-term solution here is to try to find an arrangement with the airlines whereby if we can keep our pilots for say twenty years, instead of losing them after nine so that we get a return on that investment, then we would try to facilitate their departure to the airlines at the twenty-year point. We want to avoid having the airlines take our people away earlier when we've made this high training investment.

The other aspect is the operational conversion that I made reference to tends to be the most expensive part of our training. This is the training that takes place for example on the F-18. After a pilot has gained his or her wings and then they go on to the F-18, that training alone is close to $3 million. It's nearly a year long and costs about $3 million. So the airlines could not train an F-18 pilot. We would still have to take an airline pilot and even if they were qualified put them through an F-18 training program and incur that cost.

So we are interested in any airline pilot who would wish to come and fly with us, either as a regular or a reserve member. We've made it known to the airlines. And some of them do. For example, in Winnipeg, we have a number of airline pilots who do fly as air reserve pilots with us. That happens to work for them because we have two flying squadrons based right in Winnipeg where many airline pilots themselves are based. So it works very well that they have enough days off in the month that they can come and supplement our squadrons and fly in our air reserves. But that's much more difficult to do at Bagotville or at Cold Lake.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: But what about the fact that we would be saving $4.9 million and nine years' training for each pilot? That's the crux of my question.

I know that F-18 pilots have special training, but not all pilots are on F-18s, as far as I know.

• 1610

Don't you think that saving $5 million per pilot would be profitable? How many pilots will be leaving in the next few months?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: We're losing more than 120 a year on average.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: So multiply 120 by $5 million—that is a lot of money.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Exactly.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: If I were you, I would seriously consider that option, because you are talking about huge sums.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: We are looking at every possibility of trying to attract people, but for us to attract people, obviously we would have to offer them a higher salary.

That gets back to getting department and Treasury Board authority to offer that kind of salary.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I think you can afford to offer them that sort of salary if you are saving $5 million on each of them.

I have another question. This will be my last, because unfortunately I will have to leave. My question is about women in the Air Force. In 1989, I read an old report indicating that most women in the Canadian Forces were in fact in the Air Force. Is that still the case? If it is, what level are they at? Are they pilots?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Yes, indeed, and we have had F-18 women pilots. At the moment we do not have any. Some who became qualified have since left the forces. We have a number of women transport pilots and search and rescue pilots.

So there are women pilots. I'll undertake to give you a more specific breakout of how many women there are in the air force, pilots and non-pilots, and how that compares to the other services.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Please. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Wood.

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

I'm going to get off the pilot thing, General, and get to the everyday servicemen, because I think it's safe to say the air force pressed on probably the furthest of all the forces in attempting to address the quality of life for its members, and your Flight Plan for Life is a positive step in that direction.

My question and concern goes to how accountable this process is. Last April, when you appeared before this committee, you stated that personal support programs were key to Flight Plan for Life. To quote you, General, you said:

This requires that our personal support programs be well thought out and appropriately funded and provide a consistent level of service across the country from one region and one wing to the next. This may be the biggest challenge that we face.

I would now like to read a passage from a recent air force document called Change Initiatives that Affect the Air Force. This section discusses local personal support programs, and it describes them as “a major boost to the quality of life for air force families that have been provided by the number of personal support programs”. These include the following:

In Bagotville, you spent $2.6 million on an arena. You've also been renovating its former public school to house community recreation activities.

In 4 Wing, Cold Lake, you've constructed a new $3.5 million community centre through a $1.2 million municipal grant.

There was the construction of a community centre in Trenton for close to $1 million. There was also construction of a new $2.8 million indoor pool.

In Greenwood there was the installation of a new irrigation system for the golf course and the rebuilding of a boat dock. A major retrofit to the arena was also planned.

At 19 Wing in Comox, the golf course was expanded to 18 holes. A new day care centre, a sailing club facility, and a cover for the outdoor pool were also constructed.

That's quite a list of projects. While I'm in favour of improving the quality of life for air force members, some of these projects cause me some real concern. First, during these times of cutbacks, it appears the air force is spending a large amount of money on these questionable projects. Secondly, I have to question the validity of sailing facilities, pools, and golf course expansions. It makes things look as though Flight Plan for Life is a plan really to improve the conditions for the higher ranks only.

I would appreciate it if I could have your comments on these personal support program issues.

• 1616

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

No, Flight Plan for Life is definitely not a plan for the higher ranks, and Chief Guilbault can help me attest to that. I mentioned that when we built Flight Plan for Life we brought all 65 ranks to Winnipeg—in January of this year—and they articulated the top 20 issues in last year's package, which we've updated this year. Our members have told us where they want the resources spent and on what priorities.

Funding comes from several sources. Some of it's national level funds. And in fact some of the things you mention here are national level funds, some of them are command funds, and some of them are local funds. There's also a split between public funds and non-public funds—in other words, funds that are actually raised by the local communities themselves and are put back into some of these projects they themselves decide on. In our case, it's at the wing level. A mix of those projects is under way.

The Flight Plan for Life funds that we put out to the wings are put out on a per capita basis. We injected some money last year from the air command level and we're going to put some into the budget this year. It works out to about $250 per member. Each wing, then, has its own plan too. They've done things like increasing recreational workout facilities at Cold Lake. There's a real mélange of national level programs, command level programs and wing level programs in the context of what's been described there. But I can assure you that—

Mr. Bob Wood: What's the difference between non-public funds and public funds?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Non-public funds come from things like the revenues that come back from various clubs and activities and things that members themselves generate. Public funds, of course, are moneys that flow from the defence budget itself.

There are very strict rules for how you can expend funds in each of those categories. I think you have some technical members from the ADM personnel world coming before this committee in the next rounds here—and I'll take it under advisement—but I'm sure they will address the distinction between public and non-public application of funds, because clearly it's something that we watch very carefully.

If a wing chooses to have a golf course, generates revenue from that and puts it towards that, it's their call on the moneys they raise locally. We don't interfere in that too much.

Mr. Bob Wood: Flight Plan for Life is your vision of the future of the Canadian forces personnel in the air force. As we know, the Department of National Defence also employs a large number of civilians at air bases and wings across the country. Many of your solutions in Flight Plan for Life involve alternate service delivery and contracting out in order to maximize budgets while at the same time providing the necessary support services to personnel and their families.

A problem I face is that these civilians get laid off, not only because of budget cuts, but also, I guess, indirectly because of Flight Plan for Life. I think if we sincerely want to improve the quality of life and morale in the defence department, these civilians should also be considered.

General, does Flight Plan for Life give any consideration at all to civilian defence department employees working alongside air force personnel?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Absolutely.

We may have two things confused here. Flight Plan for Life '97 was how we have reshaped the air force to be 45% smaller in people terms and 50% smaller in budget terms. We have had to use alternate service delivery, amongst other things, to make those reductions. That was how we changed the shape of the air force. Flight Plan for Life was an air force package of quality of life initiatives within a national level program to try to improve the quality of life of all members of the air force team, which includes civilian members.

• 1620

When we articulated this program in January of this year in Winnipeg, those 65 members.... Each wing sent one junior officer, one senior NCO, one junior NCO, and one civilian from each of our thirteen wings. They came in to represent their constituents, and that's how we put together the package of the top twenty items that we wanted to work on from an air force team perspective. So I think we're very mindful of the integrated team of military and civilian members on our airways.

Mr. Bob Wood: My next question is very specific to my riding, and I hope the committee will indulge me for a minute.

Internal surveys of base personnel at CFB North Bay consistently show that they and their families are happy in this location. It is a community with a relatively low cost of living. It is accessible to major urban centres. It has great recreational facilities, and it's a great safe place to raise a family. General, you've been there a number of times. All of these things fit in perfectly with the objectives of Flight Plan for Life.

The general knows that we have differing views on the future of CFB North Bay. I've never agreed with the operational reasons given for downsizing the base, and I strongly oppose any future changes as being tragically flawed, both operationally and logistically. But that's another matter that you and I will deal with in the next two or three days.

My question really concerns the priority being given to Flight Plan for Life. The actions taken at North Bay seem to be flying in the face of the principles of the program. In saying this, I'm only repeating comments made to me by your own servicemen and women in North Bay. So perhaps you can give me an explanation so that I can better explain to them the air force's action in this matter.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: The dilemma, Mr. Wood, is that I don't know how to get 45% smaller without getting 45% smaller. Trying to make the air force that much smaller has not been a lot of fun. The direction was to get that much smaller and maintain operational capability. That's what we've been trying to do. Locations have been affected by that, and people, as we have had to downsize.

I understand it's attractive living in North Bay. It's attractive living in a lot of places. It was attractive for the army to live in Chilliwack and Calgary, too, but we have had to make adjustments to try to deal with the reality of the downsizing we've been asked to undertake.

We didn't undertake the downsizing based on where people wanted to live. It was based on how do we get smaller, the way we've been directed, and still keep the operational focus, the operational capability that we've been directed to keep.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Do I have time for one more?

The Chairman: No.

We now go to the five-minute round, and Monsieur Benoit.

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

Because of the short time, I'm going to focus my questions on two issues. I may get some time later; I hope I do, because I have a lot of questions I would like to ask you.

The first issue is one we've already talked about a bit, and you've given an answer to some questions in this area. It's the issue of dealing with the high cost of training pilots and the conflict between that and these pilots wanting to leave and go to the private sector.

Surely, because of the cost of training, there has to be some commitment on the part of pilots, and there is, to stay in the military for a certain amount of time. How do you think you can deal with this conflict that's there so that the cost of pilots isn't just going to be a revolving thing, where you're training and training new people coming in, at high cost, and you don't have the experienced people?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I think you've put your finger on it: we have to find a way to keep people in and to avoid losing the high investment we've made in them.

Part of it is terms of service that force them to stay for an extended period of time. For example, beginning in May of this year, the first pilots graduated who now have seven years obligatory service after they get their wings at Moose Jaw. So now each pilot who gets a new set of wings at Moose Jaw will have to serve for seven years before they can take their release. Of course that won't start to pay off for some period. Prior to that it was five years.

• 1625

We're looking at some bonus options. We have this dilemma that the nine-year point is kind of crucial because prior to nine years we actually pay more than the airline average. For the young pilot who comes out of the community college and goes through the feeder airlines, it's at about nine years where the curves cross with the salary of the Canadian forces. Then the airline pilot salary starts to go up pretty quickly.

At nine years we also give people $40,000 to leave because their terms of service in the Canadian forces enable them.... That's their short service period of commitment. They get their return on their pension contributions, so we actually give them a cheque for $40,000 at that point.

We have to find some ways to drag them out further past that nine-year point, out towards twenty years where they start to get a pension. Then it's more difficult for them to leave when there's the attraction of a pension out there. So the bonus options we're looking at would come with a fixed period of service. Let's say we give you a bonus at the nine- or ten-year point; we would expect an additional five years in terms of obligatory service to take you on out further into the career path.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I get a chance I'll ask some more questions on that later.

I want to ask a follow-up question to the questions Mr. Wood asked about the facilities going up at all the bases. There was a report in an extremely reliable news magazine, Frank magazine—I say that tongue in cheek, just for the record—some time ago about a facility at Burnt Lake. The Cold Lake air base is in Lakeland constituency, as is the weapons range. Burnt Lake is on the weapons range. There's a facility which Frank portrayed as a retreat for the top brass on Burnt Lake. I would just like your response to that. Is that an accurate portrayal of what this facility is? Is this a retreat for brass which really isn't available to the lower ranks or is it some other type of facility?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I might ask Chief Guilbault, who was the wing chief warrant officer at Cold Lake, to pick up on this. That was interesting to me. I've served at Cold Lake three times in the past and was unaware of any such facility at Burnt Lake. If I were looking for some place to go I'm not sure that I'd choose to go to Burnt Lake or go to Cold Lake. I was just there on Tuesday, and as nice as it was, I'm not sure that's where I'd choose to put some Taj Mahal.

Burnt Lake is a ground search and rescue and survival camp that is used for teaching pilots, ground crews, and ground search crews survival techniques. To the extent of my knowledge, that's what it is and it's no more than that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying that Frank magazine has been inaccurate in their portrayal of what this facility is?

Chief Warrant Officer J.G. Guilbault (Air Force Chief Warrant Officer, Department of National Defence): The last time I heard of anybody going there, sir, was in the middle of the winter in minus 30 degree weather, sleeping outside in a sleeping bag to show their ability—

Mr. Leon Benoit: You're saying it's anything but—

Chief Warrant Officer Gilles Guilbault: There may be a few structures out there, but they are very limited in stature.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I just had to ask. Thank you for your response.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I just had the chief of the Singapore air force into Cold Lake on Tuesday of this week to discuss NATO flying training with him. This question of pilot attrition came up. I asked if they have a problem in the Royal Singapore Air Force. He said “No, we don't.” I asked why that was. He said “We pay market value. The navy is benchmarked against the merchant marine, firefighters against firefighters, air traffic controllers against air traffic controllers, pilots against pilots.” He said “The investment we make in people is the training investment so much that we simply benchmark against—”

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you done a study on that that would give some information that would be somewhat reliable as to the cost? You have this revolving door thing now where you train and put the money in; it's high cost and then they're gone and you're training again. Have you done a study comparing those costs to the costs of of paying market value for pilots, for technicians, for the people who are trained?

• 1630

LGen A. DeQuetteville: To my knowledge we have not, but I would again undertake to see if there's anything in the department that.... This would be a total change in philosophy for us, because as you know, first of all we are benchmarked against the public service, but more significantly, within the Canadian Forces we're benchmarked by rank, and it's independent of service and somewhat independent of trade. There are distinctions. So this would be quite a different philosophy.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In my opinion there's absolutely no business for the military to be considered part of the civil service anyway. That's just my opinion from the bit of time I've examined this. Part of the problem in the forces right now is the close tie between the civil service portion and the military. Military is not civil service and shouldn't be treated as such, and that's part of the problem, I believe.

The Chairman: Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: I would like to follow up on the commitment of pilots to the service, this topic we're on at present. You mentioned that you talked to Singapore, was it, where they pay the equivalent of the private sector. One of the things you're always going to have is the remote areas these people are going to have to serve in. As they say, you buy the field, you buy the stones. That's part of the price you pay for being in the service. That you're never going to be rid of. You might have to go to the gulf again on an operation.

If in fact the pay of military people went in line, pilots in particular, with that of the private sector, would this end your problem? Would the want to leave the forces be as great? Would they be more loyal to the force than they would be to the private sector? Would this be the answer to your problems?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Mr. Proud, I think it would, absolutely. But quite frankly, the pilots are telling us they know we can't compete with the airlines, and they are not asking for that. They are just asking for some level of compensation that reflects their appreciation, their value. I think it's doable at somewhere significantly less than the airline wage scale. That's what we're trying to work out now, internally within DND and with the Treasury Board: some of these notions of compensation plus bonus which would be enough to attract them. It would be significantly less than an airline scale.

As you rightly point out, people join the Canadian forces not necessarily to be paid exactly the same as somewhere else. They join for other reasons; and there are still lots of great challenges and reasons to join. People just want to get some feel of a need by Canadians and a reward for what it is they are asked to do.

Mr. George Proud: I guess the question is all other aspects of life have changed: the public service, as Mr. Benoit referred to a minute ago, and everything else, over the years. At one time you joined the public service because you had a job for life. That's no longer the case. The pay wasn't as high as it probably was in the private sector, but you knew you were going to be there for life. To some degree the Canadian forces were like that too, right after the war. So I was just wondering if that would be the answer.

Probably it isn't. I guess there is a dedication. People join the forces.... Certainly people become pilots for obvious reasons.

It was mentioned that the air force can implement some changes on your own, without approval from department headquarters. Can you then give me what types of areas you can do that in?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: In career management of our people, rather than moving them arbitrarily every three years or so, all three services have taken more responsibility for the direct management of the army, navy, and air force—those people who are in those services. Going back to Mr. Wood's question on Flight Plan for Life, we've done some things in which we took some command level funds that were within our authority and pushed those out to the wings on a prorated basis so that they could make improvements to the single quarters, to barrack blocks if you will, and to some of the recreational facilities. Those were direct things that we've been able to do within air force discretion. At the same time, of course, we work with the CDS, the ADM for personnel, and the other service commanders in those national-level programs—whether it's pay or terms of service—and we simply try to make sure the air force view is represented there.

• 1635

In our Flight Plan for Life package, we've given you the top twenty topics in there, and I think we've pointed out those things that we believe are DND and SCONDVA topics, and the others that are air force internal issues to sort out. Some of those are basic, like communications, doing a better job of telling people what's going on. That's a thing we can clearly do ourselves, and we are trying to do a better job of it.

Mr. George Proud: What other area of communication besides the public website is there to inform these people?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: There's the public website. We have an air force website. We put out an air force magazine called ROUNDEL. We put out regular air force letters that I send directly to all of the wing commanders. My chief warrant officer communicates with his equivalents at all thirteen wings on topical issues, policy issues that we try to get down to our members as quickly as we can. We do town hall visits; we spend a lot of time on the road, getting out there and trying to get those messages out.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Lieutenant General, do you think the air force, as it sits right now with the downsizing, is adequately equipped to perform the duties it is assigned?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: As you know, we operate in five principal areas of capability: air transport, fighter, maritime air, tactical helicopters, search and rescue. Of those, tactical helicopter and air transport are in pretty good shape. Search and rescue hopefully will be in pretty good shape with the announcement of a new SAR helicopter. Behind that, for maritime air, we have to get the Sea King replacement project, and then we have a plan for the life extension of our Aurora aircraft. In the fighter area, the only vehicle there is the F-18. It is now seventeen years old, and we will have a replacement coming up here to life-extend the F-18 hopefully out to the year 2015, basically by putting new brains in the airplane, computer technology being what it is.

That's a kind of quick overview of what we need to do to keep the air force modern so that we can be relevant to Canadians and can do the job we're asked to do.

Mr. Art Hanger: I was over in Aviano, Italy, and I found that to be the most very positive visit of all the spots I went to. Of course our fighters aren't over there any more, and neither are the support crews. The one thing that struck me the most, though, was that this was a deployment of our forces in a more or less real, live situation that they had to contend with even though they were playing in partnership with other nations. But they had to be equipped with better or more-up-to-date equipment—and when I say that, I mean mostly weaponry. It brought them up to speed, I guess, with what else has happened around the world. It was a theatre that I would have to say probably brought a certain amount of exhilaration, because they were out there and it was more on the edge of what is happening around them than maybe what would normally happen here.

There was a major hustle to bring those planes back, and I can see why to some degree. I understood it costs something like $25,000 an hour to fly those sorties into and around Bosnia, taking into account the total expense. And that's just taking into account the hours of flying.

• 1640

The crews were very up. The pilots were at the top. They felt very pleased that they were able to be part of all of this. When I talk to those back here, though, some of them have never had that experience, of course, but they don't even have that outlook. It's been pretty dismal. They've been chopped at every corner. Equipment they probably should have they don't have, and from what I can see may not have if they're going to downsize by 45%, which is a pretty big hit. It's a massive hit, and I wonder how this restructuring is really going to come into play, knowing that there's need for a certain kind of equipment, there's need for a certain kind of training on that equipment, and I understand training hours have been chopped and everything that goes along with it, even the use of some of the live-fire exercises. And instead the concentration seems to be going on in a fashion where we're going to train you to be officers, and we don't care if you can fly or not. Language seems to be more important. All these other things seem to be replacing the effectiveness training the pilots should be receiving. So their time is cut down and all these other things are just chopped and hacked away at.

So how can we sit here as a committee...? And I look over to the other side there because that's where the cuts are coming from: $2 billion in the military overall over the next two years. How can we try to piece together in some patchwork way an air force or attempt to put an air force out on the map when it's been slashed the way it has? I just can't see how it can be done effectively.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: You've covered a lot of ground there. I'll try to touch on your points.

The 45% reduction was viewed as necessary to create the resources so we could modernize our forces. Part of it was to pay for the reduction scenarios that were set for the department, but another part of it was to create enough money in our capital equipment budgets so we could in fact modernize.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is that happening?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: It's happening. It hasn't happened yet.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. On that point, if I may interrupt you just briefly, when it comes to tactical equipment for the modern weaponry, you don't have it and it would cost way more than you're able to spend right now because of the deep—in my respect—unnecessary cuts in some of that military equipment. And when I say that, I'm talking about the radar-guided equipment and the whole bit. You don't have all that. Talking to those pilots over there in Aviano, that's what was required, and it's not here.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Any pilot worth his salt would always want to have the most modern equipment. Those airplanes went over there with a newly integrated capability for precision-guided munitions, which I'm sure you saw.

Mr. Art Hanger: I did.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: And in fact it was having this new capability that allowed the government to be able to put the assets in there.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's right.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: It was very important for us to be able to do that—

Mr. Art Hanger: Agreed.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: —to demonstrate that. We didn't pull them out prematurely. We sent them there deliberately for three months because we have an obligation to do training with NATO anyway, so we were able to put them in there at a relatively small incremental cost and make a very important contribution to NATO as well as get the sort of training that's vital to us.

Yes, we do have a program, as I mentioned, to modernize the F-18 because we have to replace the brains, as I called it, of the airplane. It's still a challenge for us to get that done.

On the issue of morale, again, part of the downsizing has been to protect money to keep the front-line capability at a high state of readiness. We have not cut flying hours. Our F-18 pilots are still getting 210 hours a year. Their operational morale is high.

• 1645

When I appeared before this committee in the spring I remember making a distinction between operational morale and what I call societal morale. I said if you talked to the men and women of the air force about operational morale, whether they're in Haiti, in Bagotville, in Greenwood, or wherever they happen to be, and you asked them about their mission, you'd normally get a very positive response. You will all see that when you go around and visit our wings.

If you ask them how things are going in general, which is what I would call societal morale, that's when you'll get an earful about frozen pay and conditions. Those are the things, obviously, that the minister and the department feel strongly about and they have asked you to help us correct.

So I take your point: it's not an easy process. I think the operational morale of our people is very high.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Good morning, General. I confess that, for a civilian like myself, your document was most impressive. That's the sort of thing we see in Top Gun. I'm very impressed, and very happy to see you here today.

You must be an example for your troops. You have a direct impact on morale. I would like you to tell me a little bit about yourself, if you would. What is it that makes you proud to belong to the Air Force?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I will answer in English, if I may.

[English]

Mr. Denis Coderre: As you wish.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I am proud of the 14,000 men and women I represent, who are doing the very types of jobs I responded to Mr. Hanger about. I spent nearly 200 days last year on the road going around to our wings, our units, wherever they were deployed, talking to our men and women. When you go out and visit them you find they are committed, they are challenged, and they're very proud of what they're doing for the air force and for this country.

That inspires me to try to represent their needs and to try to make sure we can do the types of things this committee is setting out to do so that we can make sure they understand we value the service they bring to this country.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: You were obviously a pilot yourself.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Yes, I was.

Mr. Denis Coderre: How long were you a pilot? Please don't think I'm asking your age.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I was flying the F-18 on Tuesday in Cold Lake, so I would like to consider I'm still a pilot, although—

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have never forgotten what Minister Lamontagne said when he flew an F-18. I am sure you feel the same.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I spend far too much time flying the mahogany bomber now, so it's....

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: General, why did you never choose to go work for a commercial airline? Why did you decide to remain in the Armed Forces?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: There were probably three cycles in my nearly 37 years where my contemporaries were going to the airlines. It was not something I wanted to do.

There's an element of flying with the airlines that is very stereotyped. It's somewhat like driving a bus. You go from A to B. If you go and talk to our F-18 pilots or our C-130 pilots, they understand the tactical flying opportunities they have that cannot be replicated in the airlines. So it's that kind of challenge and joy of operational flying that keeps people motivated.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Obviously, representing your country should really mean something.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: That is correct.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You did not talk about allowances. So that means our troops' morale problem is really related to salary, to remuneration.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: It's all of those things. In other words, that enthusiasm for flying the F-18 or the C-130 is great. However, at night when you have to go home and sit around the kitchen table with your wife and kids, and you have to explain to your wife, who perhaps has career aspirations.... You've moved for the sixth or seventh time in the last several years, your salary has been frozen for five years, you're getting beaten up by the press on Somalia, and a whole host of other factors—

• 1650

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I see where you are going, General. I see where you are going. My salary has been frozen for four years. Who decides on pay and salary scales? Is it your staff? Do you decide how much young people get, according to their rank?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: It's a complicated process. Again, I think the ADM of personnel is going to be here to give you a technical briefing on how pay is established.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: But you decide that?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So, instead of taking funds to build golf clubs and things like that, why not give these young people a pay raise? They might prefer it to a golf course. In the evenings, when they see their wives, there are problems.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Again, I think it's a complex equation of making sure people have recreational facilities. If you're in semi-isolated locations, such as Cold Lake or Gander or Goose Bay, you have to make sure there are recreational facilities to give them and their families things to do when they have time off. It's not just salary.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: But General, if they had to choose between a salary large enough for them to have a decent quality of life, that is, a direct pay increase, and a golf course or a cinema, don't you think they would choose the pay increase?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I think it's a combination of finding the right balance of salary and other amenities that attract people to being in the forces, especially when we ask them to go and live in locations that don't have those facilities.

If everybody lived in Ottawa, or everybody lived in Winnipeg, it would be fine, but....

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm from a region; I understand what you mean.

[Translation]

It's a question of setting the right priorities.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to raise a point of personal privilege here.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Cold Lake isolated? That is deeply offensive.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I think I said that in the category we use, it is semi-isolated, in terms of the medical facilities and so on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm kidding.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I certainly wouldn't offend Cold Lake, because I had three wonderful tours there myself.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand there was a program afoot not too long ago that paid out $100,000 to air force pilots to stay in the air force for a longer period of time. I think it was a ten-year commitment the deparment was looking for to keep those pilots in. In spite of the fact that they had resigned, they were granted a $100,000 incentive to come back.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I'm not aware of that in our department. This pilot attrition problem is universal—

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, I'm aware of that.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: —given the airlines situation out there. Other countries have used a bonus situation. In fact, I'm aware that the United States government has just increased their air force bonus from $12,000 U.S. to $22,000 U.S. a year to retain pilots.

Mr. Art Hanger: Unfortunately I don't have the documents here, but I'm very much aware that this incentive was used here in Canada, too. I'm curious about how many pilots that attracted back into the force.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Well, I'm at a loss. I'm sorry. I'm not aware....

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. I can bring that information forward at another time.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Please.

Mr. Art Hanger: Getting back to the capabilities of our search and rescue, that's in the news a great deal. That contract seems to be bouncing around. It comes to the surface very frequently, I think because it's been so long. That's probably why.

An increasing number of situations seem to impact directly on the purchase of those pieces of equipment that would accommodate an emergency should one arise.

• 1655

In the Trenton base, what back-up system is in place when those copters go down? You said that there is a back-up program to accommodate any situation that may arise. What is that back-up program?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: We have C-130s that are also assigned to the search and rescue mission based out of Trenton, and then we would have the CH-146 Griffin, which is based both at Borden and at Petawawa, which also could be brought in to supplement.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are the Griffins equipped with rescue equipment?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Not as rigorously, obviously, as the Labrador. The C-130 is, but the Griffin is more limited.

If it was an extended period, we also have the option of deploying Labradors from the other locations across Canada into the situation, bringing them into Trenton.

Mr. Art Hanger: I understand that the maintenance contract for the Sea Kings has been renewed. I think it's $34 million for the frame and $12 million each year thereafter to maintain them, up to 2005. What is going to happen with that particular program? Is that going to suffice such an aging machine as the Sea King?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Every year we go through a rationalization of what investment we have to make in keeping all our fleets running. It's our national procurement process. Contracts to repair and maintain all of our equipment are let. We have plans for all of our equipment that extend over the succeeding five years, and it's our intention, as I think you're aware, that once the search and rescue helicopters have been selected, we'll be able to embark on the maritime helicopter program, the replacement for the Sea King. So we have taken the necessary provisions to make sure that the Sea King is safe and airworthy until we can get a replacement project in line.

The Chairman: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I put this question to Lieutenant General Crabbe this morning, and he encouraged me to repeat it to you. I'm curious as to the attitude within the office of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the other force commanders, like you, towards the work of this committee.

Like your Flight Plan for Life, I know that each service has their own plan for dealing with the challenges facing national defence and how they impact on personnel. Does the work that we're doing here assist in this process, or does it undermine ongoing efforts that you people are doing to react to the needs of the Canadian Forces personnel?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: We are very hopeful that the work of this process will really strengthen what we're trying to do and that clearly having all parties able to come forward with some recommendations on the things that are “beyond our pay grade” will be extremely useful to us. That's the hope and expectation we have.

When I speak to my men and women, they're well aware of the SCONDVA process. When you visit, they will know who you are in advance, and our members are very hopeful that you will be able to help us in really bringing some strength to this quality of life process, within expectations.

I also know that there are resource realities here. So I hope we're partners in this.

Mr. Bob Wood: Good. Thanks.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): General, I want to go back to the search and rescue helicopters for which the bids are currently being looked at. I guess a winner is going to be announced imminently. Could you tell me if, as part of that search and rescue committee's consultation, they spoke with any of the pilots who are currently flying the Labradors or any of the pilots on the search and rescue? I know there was a technical end of it that had to be adhered to.

• 1700

I come from the field of business, and I know I don't make a major purchase unless I talk to the people operating the equipment, whether it's my bulldozer, skidder, or truck. I'm just wondering if that was part of the bid. I'm not aware of that. Perhaps you could fill me in.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Do you mean did the contractors themselves talk to them?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: No. Did the search and rescue committee that had been struck to recommend a winning bid to the government ask them?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Certainly the evaluation team within DND included search and rescue specialists who did extensive consultation with the field. The statement of operational requirement was drawn from field experience. A research study of five years of search and rescue operations went into developing the performance requirements for the search and rescue helicopters, so there was a high degree of field involvement of specialists in this evaluation.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I realize that occurred in the last five years, but since those bids were submitted on May 5, has there been any further consultation with the pilots? Am I not correct in saying you're into a new area? You're saying we're going to build a new helicopter and here are the specifications, the technicalities. What do you think the performance would be, based on the technicalities that are considered?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: That was all part of creating the requirement in the evaluation methodology. Now those results have been compiled by the evaluation team and forwarded to the government for a decision. There was a high degree of consultation with the field all the way through that process.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Was there a preference among the pilots for one of these bids? I'm into a minefield here.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I would prefer to avoid that. But given the long experience we've had in search and rescue in this country with the Labrador, we have a pretty good handle on what types of requirements would satisfy the Canadian search and rescue equation. I think if you were to talk to our people, they would be quite content if someone were to give them a modernized Labrador. It's old and it takes a lot of investment to keep it airworthy, but as far as its ability to do the mission is concerned—

Mr. Hec Clouthier: So do I extrapolate from that the Chinook's C-47—

LGen A. DeQuetteville: No.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I shouldn't extrapolate anything. But that would be the type of helicopter the pilots would probably prefer.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Not necessarily. But from our experience, they would prefer something that could do the mission the way the Labrador currently does it.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay, that's fine.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I was asked a question earlier about the Hibernia mission. I'm advised that the regional control centre in Halifax was only asked to provide top cover for the Hibernia mission, so we sent a C-130 out. It provided kind of a communications relay and the company involved had its own helicopters available for the evacuation. The bottom line is we were never asked to provide helicopter support. It depends on how the event unfolds. The RCC makes the call on what resources to use. If there are already resources on site, we don't need to engage our own.

Mr. Art Hanger: Good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a question on reserves in the air force. I just wonder if you've taken any initiative to change the way reserves are used in the air force. Do you feel the way they're being used now is the most appropriate way, or could you see some changes in that regard?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: We've made much of some of the downsizing, but the air force reserves are one area where we are growing to 3,000 reserves from some 1,500. I think we're passing through 2,000 now. We have the potential to grow to 5,000 reserves. So that's very positive.

• 1705

We have a number of programs under way to integrate reserves in all of our units. We designate all of our squadrons total force squadrons, and it's up to the commanding officers to determine the right mix of part-time and full-time members to get their job done. We have a squadron in Winnipeg, for example, that's roughly 50-50. We have a helicopter squadron in Borden that has probably a 75% reserve, 25% regular mix in it. So potentially all squadrons and all units can have a varying mix of regulars and reservists.

We've also embarked on a couple of other programs. One is an industrial reserve, where we've twinned with industry and signed MOUs with a number of industries in this country that already support our air force. For example, if they have technicians who are working on C-130s at CAE in Edmonton or F-18s at Bombardier at Mirabel, if they can provide those technicians as reservists, then it's a win-win situation. That's another program.

We're instituting something called a metropolitan reserve in the major centres of this country, where the air force has gradually migrated away from the major population centres, which I think is probably an environmental downside of the business we're in. We make noise and so on. But the reality is, if we're going to attract reservists, they're going to have to come from metropolitan centres. So we're trying to create manning depots, if you like, in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc., to give us an opportunity to bring people into the air force as reservists.

Those are just some of the things, but the bottom line is that reserves play a very big part of our future.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you have one document that would lay out your plan for the future of the reserves?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Yes, we'll certainly provide you with that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Do you have a question on the same subject?

Mr. Art Hanger: Basically.

The Chairman: Because George just had a small one to add on the same subject of reserves.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

Mr. George Proud: On the reserves, when you talk about the industrial group you have with you, do they have problems if you use these people on a mission, for instance? If you sent them to Italy, where you were a while ago, would they be able to do that and return and go back to their jobs?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: Mr. Proud, you are aware that of course we don't have legislation in this country to provide it, and that's why we embarked on these memoranda of understanding with industry.

The concept is quite novel. We pay them as class A reservists, and the industry tops them up so they don't lose any money and they don't have to take their vacation to go. It also guarantees them one year of deployment. If they have to go on a deployment, then they're protected for up to one year. So it's quite a good program.

Industry recognizes that their individuals are getting valuable training with us, and that's the quid pro quo in the thing.

Mr. George Proud: One of the things that was brought up during the joint consultations we had back in 1994 on the military was that very issue of legislation, which I thought would be popular. It turned out it wasn't popular with anybody across the country. The only place we really got support from was the Alberta Chamber of Commerce. It submitted a resolution saying this should be something that came about.

We thought when we started out it would be a very popular thing, but every place we went, whether it was with you people, companies, or whoever, it just didn't seem to be a top priority.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: There are some wonderful initiatives to educate employers and CEOs in the benefits of having reservists. Mr. John Eaton's Canadian Forces Liaison Council, ExecuTrek and things like that are all designed to educate employers so they see the benefits of their people joining us as reservists.

The Chairman: You have a couple of minutes, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are the number of CF-18s in service being cut back?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: No, they are fixed. By budget 1995, they were fixed at 60 operational F-18s, plus a training squadron and some test airplanes. So the number is just around 100 operational airplanes.

• 1710

Mr. Art Hanger: So 100 out of...?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: We have about 126 left. I think six or eight are in kind of a non-flying status, and the rest are in a maintenance rotation through Bombardier and Mirabel.

Mr. Art Hanger: When you look at the number of studies that have been done with the military, there seems to be a lot of attention paid to the white paper of 1994. There it said Canada's forces were to be equipped to carry out an array of new tasks. I'm kind of curious. What's happening now really makes the 1994 white paper obsolete, does it not? Do you have any suggestions in there?

LGen A. DeQuetteville: No, I think the 1994 white paper is still a very valid defence policy that we're following. Again, we would probably all like to have modernized equipment sooner, but we are still carrying out all the elements of that 1994 defence white paper.

Mr. Art Hanger: When I say that it makes it obsolete, there was talk in that white paper, too, about having the capabilities, for instance, of involving ourselves in a high-intensity, maybe very limited, conventional war. That seems to create a bit of a problem when it comes to describing what our capabilities are.

I had one general say here that yes, we would be capable of doing that, but we'd have to go and do some training first. So if we were to involve ourselves even with another high-intensity war or conflict, for instance in eastern Europe, whether it would be air force or whatever, there doesn't seem to be a good, sound, firm plan and feeling that yes, here it is, we're ready to deploy right now and we're gone.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I would make the point that we keep all of our units at different readiness levels, depending on how we assess the situation out there.

Using F-18 is a good example. We have four operational squadrons. One is always at high readiness, so if something breaks out around the world that we can't anticipate, we have at least one squadron ready to go within seven days to respond.

What you do is assess the reality of what's out there. If it isn't World War III, you do plan on having some time to build up your readiness, depending on what it is the government chooses to commit us to do. We normally, as part of that negotiation, say if you want to send this, it will take this long to get it ready and to that degree of training. That's a reality of the kind of peacetime scenario we're in here. But we have a certain number of forces always at a high state of readiness.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: General, I would like to come back to the matter of helicopters. We talked about the first contract, but I would like to talk about the second as well.

As you know, it is up to politicians—the Minister and Cabinet—to decide on the 15 helicopters that will be purchased. Obviously, members will have to live with their decision. But your pilots will have to fly them. You would be a very good parliamentarian, a very good politician. You have managed to avoid several of my colleagues' questions.

When the four helicopters are assessed—as we know, there are four—I think it is extremely important for pilots to give their views. They are the ones who will have to live with the helicopters. If I understand correctly, pilots want the Boeing, because it is most like the Labrador. But you would perhaps prefer the Cormoran, or another model. Am I wrong?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: No, I don't believe so. Again, the criteria that were used to describe the helicopter came from the operational community itself. They didn't come from anywhere else. They came from our experience in operations. They were predicated around the Labrador helicopter in terms of capacity and range. So that's what has been used to describe the performance specification or the operational requirement.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: So in your opinion, all four helicopters are good.

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: All four helicopters are world-class helicopters.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You can live with whatever the choice is?

• 1715

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I can't say that, and it's not appropriate for me in this forum to divulge what the evaluation results—

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't want the results. I just want your preference.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: I'm afraid I can't respond to that.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You can't respond to that. Okay.

[Translation]

The Sea Kings and I have something in common: we are the same age. So that gives you some idea of how old I am. We are told that the Sea Kings could be refurbished and that the Air Force would be satisfied with that. Is this true?

[English]

An hon. member: I hope you are in better shape.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm in better shape.

[Translation]

Is it true that, instead of buying new helicopters, we could refurbish the Sea Kings at less cost? In your opinion, what would the best option be?

[English]

LGen A. DeQuetteville: No, I don't believe so. As you point out, the Sea King has been around for a few years.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm 34.

LGen A. DeQuetteville: By the time we could get around to doing it, it would be close to 40 years old, and we would want to get another 20-plus years. I don't think we want a 60-year-old helicopter.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You want a new one.

The Chairman: That brings the meeting to a close. Thank you very much, General.

We are adjourned.