NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 28, 1997

• 1524

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty] ...we can get to, I'm sure, an interesting question period after your notes.

Without any further ado, the floor is yours, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton (minister of National Defence, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you.

[English]

I'd like to first of all introduce our new Chief of Defence Staff, General Maurice Baril, and Colonel Arp, who are here to assist me today with any of your questions.

Let me also extend a very warm congratulations and welcome to those of you who are new to the committee. I'm kind of new to my job also, so we're going to learn together.

I was asking how long I should speak this afternoon. I was told that if I spoke for 40 minutes the committee might be satisfied, but if I spoke for 30 minutes the committee would be delighted, and if I spoke for 20 minutes the committee might even be thrilled.

• 1525

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Art Eggleton: Well, I want to get off on the right foot with all of you, so I'm going to keep my remarks brief.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Forces, as you know, have been through some difficult times of late. There's no use pretending otherwise. We're all aware of some of the issues we have had to deal with and we know the damaging effects all of this has had on both the public image and the private morale of the members of the forces.

Too often we have allowed the actions of a few to colour our view of the many. We have forgotten or chosen to overlook the everyday heroics, and have concentrated instead on the occasional heartaches. Such an approach is simply wrong—wrong because it does a disservice to the men and women who literally risk their lives to defend our country and our values; wrong because it invites us to dismiss out of hand the sacrifices they and their families make day in and day out on bases across the country and in camps around the world; and wrong because it encourages us to view the forces as some monolithic institution without seeing the individuals who comprise it.

Our task—mine as minister and yours as the committee—is to restore some balance to our perspective, to remind ourselves and Canadians of the magnificent work our forces are doing at home and abroad, and to remember that the forces are made up to an overwhelming degree of men and women who do credit to themselves, credit to their uniform, and credit to their country. This is their true legacy, and they have earned the right to have that publicly acknowledged.

Since becoming the Minister of Defence, I've set four priorities for myself and for our department, and being mindful of the fact that I'm the sixth defence minister in seven years, I've set some short timeframes to try to do all this.

First, I want to continue the process of reform, of institutional change, which will restore the contract of trust between the forces and the Canadian public. We have taken a significant step along that road with our comprehensive response to the Somalia commission of inquiry and by appointing a civilian monitoring committee on change. This monitoring committee will help ensure that the recommendations coming from the Somalia report as well as from other reports we've received, such as the one from the special advisory group on military justice and policing and the one by my predecessor on leadership and management issues, are not collecting dust on a shelf but are in fact being implemented and implemented effectively to have the impact they were intended to have.

Second, I am committed to providing our forces with the best equipment we can afford. The cabinet will soon be making a decision with respect to new search and rescue helicopters, and other equipment replacement has already begun through the process.

Third, I want to improve communications with National Defence so that the problems do not fester and concerns are properly addressed. We are in the process of establishing new grievance procedures and creating the office of the ombudsman to facilitate these objectives.

Fourth—and this will be the thrust of my remarks this afternoon—I want to address issues that affect the quality of life of our forces and their families.

On October 8 I wrote to the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, inviting you to resume the review of the social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian Forces and their families that was begun by your predecessor committee during the last Parliament. Let me just take a moment to expand on some of the things I said in that letter.

Members of the committee know the Canadian Forces face a lifestyle few of us would choose: high stress from high-risk assignments; frequent moves, with all the disruption to them and their families that that entails; and prolonged separation from family. And of course there are significant limitations on one's personal freedom. Add to these the impact of recent downsizing, reduced budgets, and re-engineering, and you have a situation on which we must act to improve.

• 1530

We can do better, and we have to do better if we are to attract and maintain the number and the quality of people necessary to ensure our operational effectiveness.

The nature of the demands we place on our military are changing, and so too is the nature of our relationship with the members of that military. How should that relationship be defined? What is the social contract between us, the government, and them? What are the responsibilities to them and what do we have the right to expect from them? How do we recognize the unique risks our members incur and the challenges they face while providing them with a quality of life that is comparable to what other members of society expect? These are the kinds of questions we need to ask and get answers to.

Once we have defined the nature of our responsibilities, we have to then determine if we are honouring them. Are we doing an adequate job of meeting the needs of our forces and those of their families? Are they receiving the support they need before, during, and after deployment abroad? These and other issues are so important that they should be governed by a broadly worded covenant between the government and the members of the Canadian Forces. This covenant would be based on a clear acknowledgement of their unique place in our national life.

One of the key components of any job is the level of compensation. As you may know, compensation levels within the forces are below those of the public service. Adjustments are necessary; adjustments are under way.

In determining the appropriate level of pay and benefits for our forces, this committee will do doubt examine how our allies are dealing with these questions. While this is certainly a good starting point, we must also put compensation levels within the context of Canadian society as a whole. Members of our forces, after all, will find it hard to accept, as I do, that their decision to don our nation's uniform constitutes a de facto acceptance of a standard of living below that of their fellow citizens, whose rights they defend and whose security they preserve.

The decisions we make about the social and economic needs of the Canadian Forces members must also be informed by the changing nature of society at large. A new generation of members has aspirations and family concerns quite different from those of an earlier time. These aspirations are legitimate and must be accommodated in our approach.

The families of our force members face particular demands. Something that struck me during my first visit to the National Defence headquarters building was that one of the most prominently displayed newspapers in the lobby, along with the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen, was the Real Estate News.

The constant uprooting of families, changing of schools, and disjoining of friendships place tremendous emotional stress on family life. Are we satisfied that we are doing all we can to help alleviate that stress? Are we doing enough, for example, in providing medical, dental, and educational assistance? Are we providing enough facilities for physical fitness, recreation, and community services?

We also know that the frequent displacement of families carries very real financial costs. Disposable incomes fluctuate as personnel are moved to higher-cost urban centres or to extremely isolated locations in Canada or around the world. Have we made sufficient provision to compensate for these financial burdens?

There is also the whole issue of ensuring that suitable and affordable housing is available to members of our forces.

We must also ensure that we are doing enough for those who have been injured in service to our country, and that our veterans and retired members can enjoy a dignified retirement.

Finally, we have to look closely at the unique nature of our reserve forces and the special needs that members of the reserves may have.

• 1535

All of these questions are aimed at one objective, Mr. Chairman, and that is providing our forces with a quality of life they they deserve and of which we can be proud. I'm mindful, as I know you will be in your recommendations, of the fiscal reality in which we operate. The suggestions you bring forward, therefore, must not only be desirable; we also have to find a way of making them affordable in the kind of economic, fiscal regime we operate in here in government these days. This will require that you be innovative in your approach, and any suggestions for alternate funding approaches would be most welcome before you send me off to see Paul Martin.

Mr. Chairman, many years ago General Douglas MacArthur described what he called “the unfailing formula for producing morale”. That formula, he said, consisted of patriotism, self-respect, discipline and self-confidence within a military unit, and a fair treatment and appreciation from without. He went on to say that morale can survive and develop an adversity that comes as an inescapable incident of service but, he said, it will quickly wither and die if soldiers come to believe themselves the victims of indifference or injustice on the part of their government. I can assure this committee that within the military the virtues of patriotism, self-respect, discipline and self-confidence are alive and well. The men and women who wear our uniform are proud of their country, they're proud of the jobs they do, they're proud of themselves. They must not be disappointed, Mr. Chairman, by the perception that government is indifferent or unjust.

Let us work together to provide them with a quality of life that is worthy of their contribution and deserving of their sacrifice, and let us demonstrate to them that the Canadian Forces retain our confidence, our trust, our appreciation and our loyalty.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

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

Before we go to question period, I'd like to take a couple of seconds to welcome the senators from the Czech Republic. We will be talking to them after four p.m.

Now, question period, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen and Mr. Minister, for your presentation.

I'm pleased to see that you're going to address some of the concerns on the social side of our military men and women, and some of them are really suffering in many areas of our country. I was at the base not too long ago in eastern Canada, Gagetown, and learned that a number of our men and women were on the next thing to social assistance. They were standing in bread lines and going to food banks to supplement their wages. This was quite a number of families, I might point out. I'm curious about just what the department has done to alleviate that problem of our members just living on the edge of subsistence and what they intend to do about it. I know there has been a review within the military as to how many families are in that category, and it goes well beyond Gagetown to other bases in the country.

What is your plan, Mr. Minister, to make sure our troops are adequately looked after when it comes to the cost of living, their wages, etc.?

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: There has been, of course, a wage freeze for some period of time for people in the public service and that has also included people in the military. At the same time, the people in the Canadian Forces have been getting behind the public service in terms of comparable wage levels.

So there are two things we are doing. One is that we're on a four-year program of catch-up between the military and the public service, and there are in fact two adjustments being instituted this year, two pay raises on that account this year. Also, with the lifting of the freeze we are now in a position to offer an economic increase. That I hope we will put into effect very soon, before the end of the year. It will actually be backdated to April 1.

• 1540

So if you take the economic increase in the two comparability adjustments and put them all together, this will make a difference in the pockets of our Canadian Forces personnel. We want them to be able to have, as I said throughout my remarks, the kind of pay and benefits, and other services and assistance, that is going to improve their social and economic circumstances and going to improve the quality of life for them and their families. So we're starting on that, and this year with the pay increases we're making a substantial move. But we also need more to be done, and that's where this committee and the examination of the quality of life issues can be most helpful.

Mr. Art Hanger: I know it's going to be on the front burner for a period of time, but I'm curious. It seems on the other hand that there was, for instance, a recent report regarding the overrun or the shortfall within the military budget of $134 million, which I believe was in the army, and there seems to be an effort to cut the benefits to the soldiers and their families. There's even talk of downsizing somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000 men, the troop strength.

Are you in agreement with that particular point on downsizing our military by 3,000? Are you willing to let it happen?

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: No decision has been made of downsizing by 3,000. The decisions that have been made, and the decisions we will live by, are the commitments made in the defence white paper of 1994 with respect to the strength of both the regular and reserve forces.

Let me, however, put this $134 million question in context. This comes about as a result of the army going through the exercise of asking for the total request for expenditures, or what some people may call the wish list. It is not an indication of $134 million being cut from either this year or last year's budget.

In fact, in terms of some of the areas I've heard concern about, for example training, it will actually be going up. So this is trying to get the budget in line with what the fiscal requirements are for the army to meet. It's not an actual reduction from expenditures at all. This is not something that is going to lead to cutting of any of these areas we are concerned about.

You mention the support for family services. There is not going to be a cut in the support for family services. The only area that might be spread out over a longer period of time—and again this is not a cut, but we just can't meet all of the wishes—is in fact some of the facilities. Some of the infrastructure that may be put in place, which would include physical education, pools, arenas etc., would be put in place over a five-year period instead of a three-year period. But it's not a cut in actual expenditures; it just means it'll take a little bit longer to meet the wish list that has come out from the army.

The army, like all other branches of the Canadian Forces and like all departments of the government, has to live within its means, has to stay within the budget restrictions, but these are not cuts from expenditures.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. O'Reilly.

• 1545

Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister and our new commander, welcome. Colonel Arp, it's good to see you again. We've been through some times together in the last session.

The problem I have is the committee study dealing with social housing. Most of the things we were dealing with in the last Parliament were interrupted by an election, and now eight months have passed and we're back again and looking at the same thing. How long is it going to take before we move on the suggestions and how long are you giving the committee to review or to continue to review some of the inadequacies? And by the way, in my former life I was a real estate broker, so I understand some of these things—reading the real estate paper isn't such a bad thing in life—and I recognize there is a problem.

The fact that the military does not have a standardized package to offer to someone who is transferred is a major concern of mine. There is an experimental package going on right now that I think should be instituted, not from a real estate point of view but from a personnel point of view.

That is a concern, along with the lifting of the freeze so that some of the pay and benefits that are being added to now...I still consider it to be quite inadequate. I want to know at what level the people are going to be paid and what percentage increase they're going to be paid.

I also want to ask you, Mr. Minister, if you will move away from a civil service pay scale; in other words, will you move away from always taking the armed forces and comparing them to a section of the civil service? You should move away from that and have a stand-alone policy for Canada's military so that you can operate it as a true military force and not as another branch of the civil service.

That's basically what I had to say. I always combine all my questions because I know the chair gives latitude to the answers but not to the questioner.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John O'Reilly: So I kind of lump them together and get them all in before I get cut off.

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: Thank you. I've made notes.

First of all, with respect to the timeframe, that's within the jurisdiction of your committee.

What would I prefer? I hope that by next spring, let's say before the adjournment in June, we might have a set of recommendations to look at. If you can do it earlier than that, I'd be happy and so would the members of the Canadian Forces. But I do hope that you will get out across the country to the various bases and listen not only to our personnel but to their families.

I've been visiting them since coming into this position in June. And particularly during the summer when the House wasn't sitting, I took advantage of the opportunity to go across the country to visit our military bases and, of course, to go abroad to Bosnia and to Haiti to see our missions there.

In my trips across Canada to the different bases, I frequently had meetings with spouses, so I got the perspective of the families. A lot of issues, a lot of them that I noted in my opening remarks, came out of those meetings. I hope you will listen to them as well. Going across the country and giving them an opportunity to meet with you will be quite informative for you and will help in the formulation of your recommendations.

So the sooner, the better, but next spring sometime is what I expect.

With respect to housing issues, you were mentioning the real estate news. This brings into play a lot of the concerns that you'll hear from people, particularly from those who are going out west, for example, where the real estate market has been hotter and higher and more difficult for people to cope with.

We do have an accommodation assistance allowance, triple-A, as it's called, and we have a new housing authority. It's new so it needs a little bit of time to get fully operational, but it is starting to make improvements in the provision of affordable housing. And any further suggestions with respect to housing that you may have as part as your study would also be quite welcome.

With respect to the percentage pay, I can't tell you what the percentage pay will be here and now because we have been waiting on the public service. The government's overall policy has been to do this through the Treasury Board, and the Treasury Board has been negotiating with the public service sector unions. They haven't got them all settled yet, and the biggest one of all, PSAC, is, I'm told, still a little time away from settlement. This is a factor in determining what the percentage would be.

With the Treasury Board, I am looking at the possibility of an interim pay increase so that we might get some money into the hands of our military personnel by Christmas. I hope we can do that. Then the final negotiations with the public service unions will help determine the final percentage.

• 1550

You then flow from there into the question of why be tied to the public service in terms of pay scale. Well, first of all, we're behind the public service, so I think it's to the advantage of the members of the Canadian Forces that we do catch up to them.

Once we have caught up, I think that bears some examination, and that certainly can be part of what you do. You might want to look at what our allies do in terms of setting pay, whether they tie it in to their public service pay scales or whether they have a separate mechanism for doing that.

I would be most interested to find out if you think there is in fact another way in which we should consider doing it, but for now, I'd like them to catch up to at least the public service pay rate to get them back on economic increases to help meet their needs.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Ms Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Minister.

I suppose we can discuss any issue of interest about the Canadian Forces and about the socio-economic life of the members of the Forces. Sometimes, we have to take a roundabout way to do it. In any case, I would like to ask a question and you'll tell me if you want to answer, Mr. Minister.

Since we have learned through a Toronto newspaper that general Maurice Baril has asked you to make a decision about the promotion of Colonel Serge Labbé, who was involved in the Somalia scandal, I would like to know if you intend to grant him the rank of brigadier-general. I ask this because we also know that the Létourneau Commission clearly indicated in its report that he had been derelict in his duties as commander of our Somalia Forces. That is my first question.

[English]

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: The matter of Colonel Labbé is under examination, under review, by the Chief of the Defence Staff. He will subsequently make a recommendation to me on the matter.

As you know, he was previously recommended to become a part of the general ranks, to be promoted to general. That was held in abeyance during the time of the Somalia inquiry. It still is being held in abeyance, but that matter is under review.

As soon as the review is complete and the Chief of the Defence Staff brings the matter further to my attention, then the matter will be dealt with.

[Translation]

Ms Pierrette Venne: Very well. I hope you will be able to answer my second question.

Do you intend to announce soon your decision about the search and rescue helicopters? Would you like to announce it here today?

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: No, but close.

[Translation]

Ma Pierrette Venne: Ah, well.

[English]

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: It will be soon.

I appreciate the question. It is a matter that needs to be dealt with soon. We are in the final stages of the evaluation and decision-making process.

We want to make sure, as I have said before, that we have a piece of equipment that meets our operational needs and brings good value to the Canadian taxpayer. We want to make sure we dot all the i's and cross all the t's in terms of our evaluation and our examination of the different bids.

We want to act on this soon, because the equipment we are now using in terms of helicopters is rather old. It's over 30 years of age. We need to make that replacement to ensure that we have the best equipment to be able to carry on search and rescue missions and that it's safe equipment for the people who operate it. We engage in over 1,000 of these missions a year and rescue some 500 people a year. So it's vital to have proper equipment.

• 1555

It's not the only piece of equipment we have in our inventory for dealing with search and rescue but it's an important piece of it. We're anxious to have that decision made soon, but what's important is that we make the right decision.

[Translation]

Ms Pierrette Venne: Could I ask a third question?

The Chairman: You have about 40 seconds.

Ms Pierrette Venne: It will be very short. I hope I will get an answer to this one.

It relates to Recommendation 65 of the March report stating that we should make sure that the Chief of Defence Staff submit once a year to the Standing Committee on Defence a report on the state of the Canadian Forces, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence.

Could you tell me when that report will be tabled in front of the Committee, if you know the date?

The Chairman: Mr. Baril.

General J.M.G. Baril (Chief of Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): I should probably know but I don't. I will check and I will send you the answer.

Ms Pierrette Venne: Could you send it the chairman of the committee? Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Wood.

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

Mr. Minister, I was noticing in some of the documentation provided by your department, and I know you touched on this briefly, that while touring military bases this summer you specifically asked to visit with spouses of non-commissioned officers. This is something this committee tried to do during our previous examination of the social and economic conditions in the military. I would commend you for that, for taking the initiative to talk with the spouses and to receive, I expect, some very direct responses.

From the spouses' point of view, what is the most important issue facing the military family today? Is it pay, housing, transfers, child care? Is one more important than others?

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: It perhaps would be unfair to try to single out one, although I will say that the first one that usually gets raised is pay.

A number of them raised concerns about housing, medical facilities, educational services. There is also still a fair bit of anxiety about being separated for a long period of time from the troops who are abroad or in training. A lot of the information flow is a concern to them. They feel that maybe they should get more.

So there are numerous issues that come up. I think that's something you'll find out. They certainly have not hesitated to tell me about their concerns. I'm sure they'll tell you those concerns as well. I think it will be most instructive.

I might add another one they point out, that nowadays, as I mentioned in my remarks, things have changed for families in the military from what they were a number of years ago. They have changed in accordance with the way society has changed. Quite common now is having two people earning a living in a family, both husband and wife working. That's quite normal in society now. It's also quite normal for people in the military, particularly some of them having a tough time making ends meet. They need to have both of them working.

Well, some of our bases are not exactly in urban centres. If you're in an urban centre, it's much less of a problem, but if you're not, it can be quite difficult in terms of trying to get a job. As well, there's the moving around, although we're trying to do less of that. In fact, the number of movements has been cut substantially in the last few years. Still, for some career advancement you have to move people around. That's the nature of the military.

Of course, the spouse, him or her, might have some difficulty getting a job, depending on where that posting is. If they are moved from time to time it's not easy to be able to pull up roots, leave a job and get another job.

So I think you'll hear that from them as well.

Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Minister, your budgetary constraints put you in a very difficult position, particularly in light of the mandated need to increase the pay scales and also to obtain new equipment. As you struggle to reduce costs by cutting capital expenditures and the number of personnel, you're at the same time increasing wages and, one hopes, getting new equipment to the remaining personnel. This seems almost like an even trade-off.

• 1600

I guess I'm concerned about the areas where other savings are being sought to meet these goals, particularly in the area of funds for training our troops. I'm thinking in international terms. Have we been forced to cut our participation in joint exercises in order to meet budget requirements, and if so, how do our allies feel about our participation levels?

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: We're still participating. There are some adjustments, but basically we're meeting our obligations. We're involved in those exercises there.

Reducing costs and the re-engineering that's gone with that is quite a balancing act. We've got to look at these different needs, socioeconomic needs versus equipment needs. All of these things have to be looked at with some delicacy.

I think that at the same time we've been able to, as part of the re-engineering, learn to spend smarter. We learned to do things more efficiently and effectively. We have some very innovative people who can find better ways of doing things. They're employing new technology to do things faster and more efficiently.

So a lot of the changes we made have been in that way. It was so we could maintain a very high capability, do the things that are expected of the forces, and still be able to meet cost reductions. The whole government has been forced to do that. It's part of getting our costs down to get our deficit down.

I don't think we can go any further than we have. I think we've done remarkably well. Since the 1994 budget, we've seen a 23% real reduction. If you take it as an inflationary figure, it's more like a 30% reduction in costs. We're down now below the $10 billion mark. We're down to $9.9 billion this year, and we'll be down probably to $9.2 billion or $9.3 billion next year. That will complete the cuts. We can't afford to go lower than that.

We've been very innovative in being able to absorb these cuts and still keep a highly efficient and effective force that meets our obligations internationally. But it hasn't been easy, it's taken a fair bit of balancing.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, gentlemen.

In your opening statement, Mr. Minister, you quoted General MacArthur, I believe. You said that the most important issue affecting morale was the perception that governments are inefficient or unjust. I think you can safely say that over the past 30 years, governments in Canada have shown a level of support that's somewhat less than indifferent. Just since the Liberals came into government in 1993, or shortly before that time, the budgets decreased from $12.5 billion to $9 billion. Money isn't the only measure of support, I grant that, but there has been really no serious change in structure to make things better.

Referring to the issue of being just, I've had several complaints about the justice system.

Would the minister acknowledge that there has been a lack of commitment on the part of governments over the past 25 years or so and that he is very serious about showing a higher level of support?

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: I can't speak with respect to past governments; I can only say that this government is not indifferent. Yes, we've had to get our fiscal house in order. That's something that your party has certainly been urging upon us, just as the Canadian people have. We understand the advantages of doing that.

Of course, there have had to be cuts in every part of government spending to be able to accomplish that, but as I said a few moments ago, I think we've been able to do that in a fair, humane, and innovative way. We've been able to keep some balance.

I mentioned General MacArthur and talked about how he was describing morale. I think what is important to note here is that he wasn't saying morale is all tied to things like pay and benefits and those kinds of things. The support you provide in a tangible way is a factor, there's no doubt about it, but he was also saying that we have to treat them fairly and at the same time show appreciation.

• 1605

I think we've got to establish that contract of trust between the forces and the Canadian people. We've got to build the confidence in the Canadian people so they'll understand the things these fine, dedicated men and women are doing: they are putting life and limb on the line in faraway places. We should show appreciation for what they do. I think that is, to a great extent, also what he's talking about in terms of indifference.

This government, I can tell you, is not going to be indifferent to those men and women in the Canadian Forces. We want them to be treated justly. That's also one of the reasons why I want this committee to deal with the issues of quality of life and the social and economic needs of the members of the forces and their families.

Mr. Art Hanger: I want to ask a supplemental question to the minister.

A live-fire exercise took place off the west coast. Apparently a surface-to-surface missile was fired from the HMCS Huron. It went astray and headed straight for the HMCS Vancouver. I understand that the HMCS Vancouver wasn't even participating in the exercise. Just as the missile came within about 500 metres of the HMCS Vancouver, the HMCS Huron crew managed to disable it. They were just fortunate to be able to do so.

I'm curious, Mr. Minister. First of all, was it human error or mechanical error? When did you intend to tell the public about it?

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: Well, we'll have to look into it. I don't know anything about the incident. I've never heard of it. But I would be happy to look into the matter and let you know.

Mr. Art Hanger: In addition to that, there seems to have been some concern over the guidance system in that particular incident. I'm curious as to whether or not the situation warrants further analysis because of that.

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: Well, it may. We'll have to look at the facts of the situation. I'm not aware of it having occurred. When did this supposedly happen? How long ago was this?

Mr. Art Hanger: Late spring.

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: Okay, we'll, look at that. Things can go wrong. Not everything is done perfectly, but I don't know if that's the case at all. I have to check the facts of the situation to see whether they can be borne out.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Would it be the policy of the minister and of the military to inform the public when an incident like that occurs?

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: I think we have to find out whether it really did occur or what occurred.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: But would it be the policy of the minister and the government to let the public know?

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Arthur C. Eggleton: You're asking me a hypothetical question that's based on something that may or may not be factual.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: No, I'm asking a question on general policy, Mr. Minister.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit. Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to welcome the minister and his staff here, as well as the distinguished senators from the Czech Republic, who I gather are soon to be our NATO allies in connection with their joining the NATO alliance.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I feel is very important is the role of the department in assisting the government with respect to its job strategy.

As the minister will know, both the throne speech and Mr. Martin's economic statement spoke about making strategic investments in knowledge-based industries. Several were mentioned, but two that come to mind immediately are certainly the aerospace and telecommunications industries.

In both of these areas, we know that Canada has industrial capabilities that are among the best in the world. We also know that high-technology jobs are best able to provide Canadians with the long-term job creation that I think is certainly one of this government's objectives.

My question to the minister, specifically, is: what is his department doing to ensure that the billions of dollars that are going to be spent in the years to come on defence procurement will serve to strengthen Canada's industrial infrastructure?

• 1610

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I think it's an important point because the Canadian Forces are, indeed, part of the government's job strategy. In fact, when we talk about the priority of youth employment, that's where we are a big employer, because the people we employ are largely between the ages of 17 and 24 and are young people. We employ over 3,000 a year into our regular force. We bring in over 5,000 a year to the reserve force, and many of them are going into university education such as our own college, the Royal Military College, where they get one of the finest educations you can get anywhere in any post-secondary institution in this country or the world.

For others, it may mean learning one of 50-odd trades that exist within the Canadian Forces. A lot of that equipment is some of the best state-of-the-art equipment, so they're really learning something that is quite valuable to them and quite valuable to the forces in terms of knowledge-based high-tech kind of industries. Indeed, aerospace and telecommunications are amongst the areas where we can help develop the kind of expertise and provide employment in those areas that are increasingly relevant to our economy.

So job strategy very much includes the Canadian Forces. We have to be sure, though, that while we help develop quality personnel, and we expect from them quality service as a result, we also get quality equipment for them. In the defence industries in Canada, the Canadian Defence Preparedness Association just completed a study that showed that over 50,000 jobs are relevant to the defence industry in this country, representing over $5 billion in revenues a year. Now, that's a big part of our economy in general, but it's specifically a big part of the aerospace and telecommunications and other advanced technology industries.

We get an opportunity also, as we add that kind of equipment to our inventory, to our infrastructure, to be able to showcase it. For example, we recently had one of our frigates in South Africa and it showcased a lot of that electronic equipment. That helps in terms of export sales. Canada, as you know, is an exporting nation. Our economy is very much tied into the global marketplace and I think we're developing niche opportunities in a lot of these areas. When it comes to job strategy, then, I think Canadian Forces play an important role.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. David Pratt: Do I have time for a couple of questions, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Very brief.

Mr. David Pratt: I'm glad the minister mentioned the issue of the defence preparedness industry and their analysis of defence procurement in Canada, because my riding, I think, ranks fourth with about a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of expenditures. But what I would be interested in getting from the minister or his staff is more information with respect to specific investments, sectoral investments, in some of these key industries, because in terms of exports I think we want to be in a position in the years ahead to ensure that we have a very vibrant export capability in terms of the equipment we're producing.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: We'll see what more information we can get you. We'd be happy to do that.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, I want to thank you very much for your participation. Rest assured that we will be looking forward to presenting the report on the quality of life to you. Thank you, sir.

• 1615

Mr. Art Hanger: I wonder if the minister could be imposed upon to attend our committee again. I think the shortness of time here really has not allowed this committee to question some very pertinent issues. If we could have the assurance of the minister that he would be willing to attend again in the very, very near future, I think the committee would benefit from his attendance.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Certainly. I'm happy to meet any requests from the committee to do so.

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

The meeting is adjourned.