NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 30, 1997

• 1530

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.)): I would like to welcome you to our committee. Before we start, I would like to ask you for a few minutes so that we can pass one or two motions.

[English]

Mr. Hanger, would you be willing to propose the motion we discussed this morning at the steering committee, please?

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): First, I move that the motion for questioning that was adopted on October 9, 1997, be rescinded.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: And the second motion?

Mr. Art Hanger: I move that the committee adopt the rotation noted in the sheet before them for questioning of witnesses.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I thought what we had agreed to this morning, Mr. Chairman, was that the end of rotation five, in other words, PCs ten minutes, constitutes the end of the first round, and then we go into the second round and it's five minutes. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Yes, five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It's just for clarification. Thank you.

The Chairman: And the third motion.

Mr. Art Hanger: I move that when witnesses cannot be available for a full period of questioning the chair may divide that time among all parties on a pro rata basis.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: General, now that we have got rid of all the housekeeping duties, the floor is entirely yours.

[Translation]

General J.M.G. Baril (Chief of Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These things happen in our organization as well.

[English]

Before I start, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Chief Warrant Officer Parent. Mr. Parent is the Canadian Forces' chief warrant officer. He is my personal adviser on all matters that concern non-commissioned members across the Canadian Forces, both regular and reserve.

Sir, on behalf of all the members of the Canadian Forces I'll begin by extending a sincere personal thanks to this committee for agreeing to take up this very important task indeed of studying the socio-economic conditions and challenges facing the forces today, or as I like to say, the people needs of the military and in the military.

As this committee is aware, the mission of the Canadian Forces is to defend Canada and Canadian interests while contributing to international peace and security. Our continuing vision is to be a highly professional defence team, fully capable of executing our mission and viewed with pride by all Canadians. For the men and women of the forces, this is more than just a job. It is a calling that requires talented and committed individuals who believe in Canada and who subscribe to the highest standards of military professionalism. It requires people who are willing to put their lives on the line and who make themselves available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. All our members demonstrate their commitment to Canada and Canadian values every day through their efforts at home and abroad. This commitment translates into a unique family endeavour.

[Translation]

Canadians and the international community know that they can count on the Canadian Forces to carry out often dangerous operations on short notice in conflicts and difficult circumstances.

This is why we have to ensure that our forces have the tools they need to do their work effectively and as safely as possible. We have therefore improved our capacity to put in place and support operational forces and the way in which forces are prepared for missions, and we have focused on key equipment needs.

• 1535

One of the tools our troops need is peace of mind. They must know that everything is going well at home, especially when they are deployed far from home themselves. Because we know that morale plays a major role in operational effectiveness, we have to use every means available to strengthen the support we offer to the men and women in the forces as well as to their families.

[English]

There is much that we have accomplished in this regard. Still, with your help, I believe we can find ways to improve our support program in order to ensure that they are solidly based on the needs and desires of Canadian Forces members.

This committee has been tasked to conduct a comprehensive review of the social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian Forces, with an eye to making recommendations on the types of support and compensation that are provided to our military personnel and their families. We hope these recommendations will assist us to find solutions in those areas that require the involvement and support of agencies and departments external to DND.

The fundamental issue is this: While members of the forces make an unambiguous and total commitment to Canada, they need to know what is Canada's commitment to them. When I took up my new position as Chief of Defence Staff, I made this issue of support and care for our people one of my priorities. We often hear that people are the most important resource. For me, that means we must look after them in a fair and equitable manner that matches the reasonable expectations of all Canadians, while acknowledging the unique service of the forces in Canada.

We need to work together. Your recommendation will assist us to move into the next century with a healthy and vibrant organization able to attract and retain the best and the brightest of our nation. That is exactly what is required if the Canadian Forces are to do the job that Canadians expect and deserve of us.

Before I address a specific area that you might wish to examine in your study, let me emphasize that the Canadian Forces are a unique institution in Canada. A condition of service for a Canadian Forces member includes what we call unlimited liability—the risk of serious injuries or death. Also, there is the uncertainty that they can and will be deployed on operations at short notice, often to areas of the world that are culturally very different from anything they're used to, and sometimes very dangerous.

For members of the forces as well as their families there is the disruption caused by frequent moves within Canada and abroad. There are, as well, the long periods of separation from family, stressful disruptions of family life, often adverse and significant effects on the family income, and a limitation of their personal freedom. What other profession demands so much?

[Translation]

That is the kind of life that the members of our forces are committing to when they join the Canadian Forces. This is the agreement they have made and I believe they have more than met their obligations. However, forces members and their families also hope to receive recognition and compensation in keeping with their services. In my opinion, they deserve it.

This is the aspect of the bargaining that we have to clarify. In other words, we need a statement of commitment in the form of a social contract between Canada and the Canadian Forces. Canadian society has undergone profound changes since our last in-depth review of conditions of service. Most unmarried members of the forces were then living on board ships, on bases or in apartments nearby.

Many married members were living in family housing and generally had only one income. Each base had its own social infrastructure with a gymnasium, a movie theatre, churches and stores to meet the needs of members and their families.

[English]

Today, members of the forces are also responding to and reflecting changes in Canadian society. We have more female members, many more dual-income families with children in day care, and more single parents. More members live in communities close to their bases and either own or rent their homes. They are in fact quite like the rest of Canadian society, but at the same time the Canadian Forces are unique in many ways. We are a unified force, but as you will hear from each environmental chief of staff, each service, army, navy, and air force, has a distinctly different role, culture, and tradition.

• 1540

Even where the social and economic issues are similar, different solutions may be necessary. For example, a single-income military family of four stationed in Edmonton has different support needs and concerns from a similar family in Esquimalt.

Our policies should reflect and respect this diversity. We should ensure that our military, their families, and former members of the Canadian FORCES are not disadvantaged as a result of their service to Canada. Because our total force brings together the regulation force and the reserve, our policies, where relevant, should be extended to apply to both.

Unique conditions of service, social changes, diversity—all these factors prompt a fundamental question: how do we ensure that members of the Canadian Forces are appropriately recognized and compensated for their unique and important commitment to Canada?

[Translation]

We hope that your study will provide us with innovative ideas that will help us find answers to these external questions that cannot be solved by the Canadian Forces.

I am sure that your study will also enable us to prove to all present and former members of the forces that Canadians are prepared not only to recognize the unique character of their service conditions, but also to take measures to support the Canadian Forces and their family.

Allow me to put the situation in context by describing some of the pressures and realities facing the considerably reduced Canadian Forces in the 1990s.

[English]

We are meeting our targets and commitments outlined in the 1994 defence white paper, but at the same time the tempo of overseas deployment has increased the stresses on the force. Just think of our work last year in Bosnia and Haiti, or our tremendous work in the Saguenay region or in response to the flood in Manitoba, and our humanitarian operation in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

We're doing this in the context of our fiscal realities. By 1999 our defence budget will have been reduced by 23%, a reduction of 30% if you look at purchasing power. To achieve this reduction we will downsize our regular force to approximately 60,000 in 1999, an overall reduction of some 32% since 1989.

At the same time we have embarked upon an ambitious plan to improve the efficiency of our operations. We're now in the fourth year of a comprehensive five-year program to downsize and reduce the number of headquarters, rationalize infrastructure, and improve management practice and technology. The overriding goal of our renewal program is to preserve the operational capability of our force so we can carry out the wide and demanding range of tasks set out in the 1994 defence policy.

We're improving what we in the military call our “tooth-to-tail ratio”. This means we are reducing resources devoted to support functions and moving resources to operations—to the sharp end.

Our budgetary pressures are real. We have a delicate balance between the need to fund necessary support programs for our members and their families and the requirement to provide adequate funding for modern equipment and essential training for our troops. Allowing that we already commit approximately 52% of our budget to personnel and personnel-related programs, we will need your help to identify new, innovative and affordable solutions to any additional support program you may recommend.

When you combine such a significant reduction in the numbers of soldiers, sailors, and airmen and airwomen with the intense operational tempo and massive re-engineering and restructuring effort, not to mention the five-year pay freeze and intense media and public scrutiny, the impact on our people cannot be ignored. We know these factors have taken their toll and we haven't taken it lightly. There can be no doubt there is an unmistakable link between socio-economic well-being, high morale, and the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces, not to mention the health and future of our organization.

• 1545

As Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of El Alamein said, if you gain the confidence and trust of your people, and they feel their best interests are safe in your hands, then you have in your possession a priceless asset, and the greatest achievements become possible.

[Translation]

In examining the social and economic conditions of members of the Canadian Forces, we do not want to improve just their situation in the short term. We must also be able to carry on the tradition that we are proud of by attracting and retaining high-quality staff in the future.

I would also like to indicate some of the measures we have taken and some of the areas where I feel the discussions and innovative recommendations by the standing committee could be particularly useful to us.

[English]

In April we announced the first instalment of a pay-comparability program for the members of the Canadian Forces. Ultimately this program will close the existing gap between members of the Canadian Forces and the public service. At the same time, we know that our efforts in this area will be affected by the outcome of current negotiations between the public service and Treasury Board. We hope you can recommend ways to close this substantial gap and ensure it never happens again. I also welcome your suggestions for alternative ways to calculate pay and benefits that will correctly and consistently represent the forces' unique service.

We have and we will continue to improve the pay and benefit package for reservists. However, I still believe there is room for improvement.

We now participate in the federal government's guaranteed home sale program trial. While this addresses many shortcomings related to home ownership, the system still imposes financial penalties on some Canadian Forces members. I look forward to your recommendation on this issue also.

Dual-income families are increasingly the norm in Canada, but with frequent moves by members of the forces, this may be close to impossible for military families. Are we compensating our members adequately for the social and financial penalty of disruption? Are we compensating them in the right way when we move them to areas with a higher cost of living or to isolated locations? What solution can you recommend to minimize or eliminate financial burdens associated with moving around the country and the world?

We have established a disability compensation information advisory cell to provide information and assistance to members of the forces who are released or are about to be released for reasons of disability. We have started to work much more closely with Veterans Affairs Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion to ensure continuity of care for our retired members, veterans, and their families. Still, I am concerned that there may be potential gaps in the provision of services. I would welcome your opinions and recommendations for an accountable and consistent way to look after our military personnel while in uniform and after they have completed their service to Canada.

[Translation]

In spite of the steps we have taken, I am personally not convinced that we are doing enough to look after the members of the Canadian Forces and their families, particularly during and after operational deployment. The question that arises then is the following: What other measures could we take to meet the needs of members and their families during this critical period?

We have taken steps to improve the quality of life of all members of the forces, but have we done enough? Do our programs and facilities to support families and to provide education assistance, recreation and community services meet the needs of military families? Are adjustments needed to the medical and dental care offered for dependents? Are we offering the right combination of programs and facilities?

[English]

Housing is another important issue. What is the government's responsibility in providing affordable housing for members of the Canadian Forces and their families? What should be the role and mandate of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, or other agencies, to ensure that we meet our responsibility?

Finally, what about the reserve? They contribute significantly to our total force, but are we meeting our needs? I hope the committee will address issues such as job security, potential loss of seniority at their civilian place of employment, or loss of employment due to injury while serving in the reserve. By addressing these issues, your committee will help us ensure that members of the Canadian Forces are appropriately supported and compensated for their service, and they deserve no less.

• 1550

One of the most important parts of your study will be your determination of whether the terms of the social contract are right so that we can preserve our reputation as a vocation of choice for Canadians. What should be the nature of the social contract between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Forces? As part of our examination of this issue, we have asked several prominent academics to provide us with their views on this issue. But given the unique nature of the military profession and the very challenging circumstances under which the force works, we welcome your input in defining and confirming the government's responsibilities to the Canadian Forces.

This is just a brief overview of the many issues that will become more familiar to you over the next few months. All of these areas are essential to meeting the challenge of taking the forces in the next century.

The Canadian Forces have a proud tradition of excellence and dedication. We need to make sure they are appropriately compensated and rewarded for their unique and challenging work.

You have my personal support for your important study. I am a strong believer in getting our personnel policies right for all members of the Canadian Forces.

We welcome your interest in travelling to various Canadian Forces bases, and I'm certain your interviews will give you a broad perspective from members of the Canadian Forces and their families. I would be pleased to return to hear your views at the end of your study, and of course, Mr. Chairman, I will make myself available to you whenever you so require, and so will my staff. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the minister was asked yesterday about when I would submit my report. If I may, I'd like to give the answer.

The Minister of National Defence told the Prime Minister that the report would be done and will be given to the Minister of National Defence by May 15, 1998. If I may, the information in this report should include such things as the current status and accomplishments of the forces; a summary of the year's operations; lessons learned; the state of readiness of the Canadian Forces and all its units, and the steps taken to assess this readiness; a situation report on the development of military plans; a report on equipment; a report on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the minister's report to the Prime Minister's areas of concern; and of course an executive summary.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Now I am ready to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, General. We shall go straight-away to questions.

For the new members who are not on the steering committee, we've changed the format. We now have ten minutes for each party, whether you want to split it or just one person use it all; it's whatever you think is best.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, General, for appearing here today.

I noticed that you did spend considerable time dealing with, of course, the social well-being of our military personnel, and I believe that's a very key point. I'm going to ask you some practical questions in dealing with that particular point—the well-being, the morale, and so on. That was a topic that was brought up in the House yesterday with the Minister of Defence. It was regarding the missile that was dispatched off the HMCS Huron and went astray. Certainly with the latest video I've had an opportunity to see, it looked like it was fairly close to the HMCS Vancouver—I would say dangerously close, given the fact that those objects are travelling at such a pace and there's no control on them—landing in the water in front of the HMCS Vancouver.

• 1555

The minister said no one was informed because no lives were lost and no property was damaged. I would ask your opinion on that particular statement that the minister made. Whether lives are lost or not, would one consider this a dangerous or serious incident? Would it not have to be reported, and if so, isn't it the general practice to inform the minister and the chief of defence staff, and to make a statement to the press and to the media relating to that particular point? Don't you think the families of our servicemen have a right to know when something of that nature happens?

Related to the first question, my second question is, with the information obtained when a missile like that is dispatched from a ship, is there not a series of records kept, whether they be computerized records or whatever the case may be—a recording device of some kind? And was there not an investigation as to why the records were in some fashion removed or wiped from the recording device? In other words, was this device, or this black box, if you will, tampered with? My understanding is this in fact did happen.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Now I know I should have been accompanied by my rocket scientist instead of my chief warrant officer.

On the first point you raised concerning the missile, let me remind you that the firing of the missile that took place in the spring was quite an extensive exercise being run. It was called OCA, operational capability analysis, of our missile systems both in the travel class and in the new frigate class of ship that we have. As you probably know, they have different systems of defence, because the purposes of those two ships are somewhat different. Some 19 targets were made available, and I believe we fired about 13 missiles on those. You're referring to a very specific incident that happened.

During the same day, I don't know if it was raised before, but there was another firing of the missile from the Vancouver frigate. One missile was to engage a target and two missiles were fired at the same time. The technical investigation revealed right away that it was a human error at that time. I guess the one pushing the button didn't know it was a semi-automatic guidance thing. If you push it twice, two are going to go out. With the high tension when they are engaging a target, that's the closest you can have to battle, and it did happen.

As for the second one, it is believed by some members of the crew that the missile came quite close. We're using a very sophisticated range system off the coast of Hawaii, with all the electronics that know in three dimensions what is happening in all the firing and all the missiles at all times. Also, the disposition of the ships we have and all the safety officers is within very tight control of the security measures.

If I may say so, the reason we did not have any injuries is that all the security measures we had in place did work. The drills did work. Some human errors were made at that time, but they were compensated for and it did work.

As for whether the missile did land 1,000 or 1,250 metres away—and we had video to prove it—we would have to give it to some scientist to make sure it did land 1,000 metres away. I've seen some video, the same as on TV, and it looks pretty nice. But I understand the rear part of the deck of the Vancouver is open to the crew, and it is felt that is safe. I understand there were quite a few video cameras on the back deck of the Vancouver while the Huron was flying, and it was observed by a lot of folks. A lot do have videos of that, so you might put your hands on many others, but it will certainly confirm, according to my rocket scientist, the one we saw on TV yesterday.

• 1600

It is felt that at no time was the crew of the Vancouver in danger. While saying that, let me remind you that our profession is pretty dangerous sometimes. Otherwise anybody could do it. When we get involved in live firing exercises, we try to make it the closest to combat. I must admit that sometimes, due to human error or because someone does not follow the rules and regulations, we get casualties. People get killed, like in Suffield a couple of years ago. Leadership will pay very dearly for that if they're responsible. We're human beings, and sometimes a combination of factors will get our people killed. This is unacceptable, but unfortunately it does happen.

As to the black box, the firing is done in a very sophisticated range. They have radars all over the place, to know at all times what is happening to the missile. Within the ship they do have a recording device and computers, and it would be a little difficult for me to baffle you with details of that, because I'm not quite sure if I know enough, but all is recorded.

A report is always made on each of the firings, and it's all compiled together. On this large exercise we're talking about, the OCA, the report should be made available to us and it will be accessible, except of course some of the classified data that might be in it. That cannot be released because of contracts with the supplier and some of the allies. But all the data in the report is also shared with our allies with whom we share the same weapon system.

Should we have reported this one? When we run an exercise and it goes according to the normal procedures within the safety limit, if it's felt that we have not endangered more than the norm—and our life is pretty dangerous all the time.... Missile firing is always reported. It's not only reported to us; it's reported within NORAD and those places. Every missile being fired is reported, as well as whether we hit, missed, misfired, or anything so that we can share right away and build into the data of our warship and correct it right away.

It was reported on the technical. Whether we should have made it public—

An hon. member: Why wouldn't you make it public?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I was not the CES. I was the army commander at that time. Whether my predecessor read the report or not, I don't know. The minister was not the minister at that time, and I don't know if his predecessor was informed of that. But it was treated as routine. You'll say that a 300,000 or 600,000 missile is not routine when it is fired. Well, I'm sorry, but it is routine when it is fired.

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't think anybody argues the point that there are going to be accidents, but even the reporting of the incident where the two missiles were fired because a crew member was over-anxious and hit that button twice was brought to the media's attention, oddly enough, and yet this situation where the missile actually lost control was not.

I'm curious. Isn't it normal that the crew, the captain, or the commander dispatch a message right to defence headquarters and go from there? Just what do you report? Or is it only when a missile is fired from a docked ship and runs into a garage and damages somebody else's property? It seems very odd that it wouldn't be reported here.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I understand, but you have to understand also that the same folks who reported the double firing were there too. They saw this thing happening, and of course they didn't think it came close. It was normal routine; otherwise they would have mentioned it.

Mr. Art Hanger: The crew sure did. If you watch that video, the crew was very much aware of that.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: No, I did—

An hon. member: What does that have to do with it?

Mr. Art Hanger: It has everything to do with it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll move on now to Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Good afternoon, General.

As you know, our committee is being asked to look at the issues of compensation and benefits for members of the military.

• 1605

We know that on April 1, 1996, all staff below the rank of officer received a 2.2% increase in pay. On the same date, this staff received an adjustment of 1.5%, while regular officers received a 2.4% adjustment. Moreover, the Minister told us the other day that another salary increase was planned before Christmas.

My question is as follows. Since the Minister is currently giving these increases without asking the opinion of the National Defence Committee, is our role going to be limited to examining expenses for housing, recreation and child care?

We are told that the salary of public servants has become practically the benchmark for the armed forces; that is, we model what salary we want to give the military on what public servants receive. I would like to know if this is how it is done in other countries. If so, in which ones?

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: Thank you for the first part of your question. The increases you mentioned are part of a plan to bridge the gap between the salaries of our members and those of the Public Service of Canada.

We started on April 1, as you said, and this will continue—if we calculate from November 1—for two years for non-commissioned officers and for three years for officers, in order to bridge the gap which was 14% for officers and 6% for NCOs. The gap should then be eliminated, but this is not a salary increase. It is a catch-up measure. For the person receiving it, it is indeed a salary increase, but technically it is not.

The minister had also mentioned yesterday that he hoped negotiations between the public service and Treasury Board would result in a true salary increase and not just catching up.

Now I will answer the second part of your question. I do not know exactly if other countries have linked the salary of their military to that of the public service. I do know that some South American countries, for example, have not done this. But regarding the countries we usually work with, I could not say. In Canada, this has been done for a number of years and I hope that your committee will not look only at child care and other services, but also at the problem of compensating the men and women who serve in uniform.

Personally, I am very concerned about attracting the best people we have in Canada and especially about keeping them after spending, in certain cases, millions to train them, as with our pilots. It is appalling not to be able to keep our computer experts, for example, because they are very much in demand, as are the pilots that we often lose at the end of their contract. When the contract ends, we have to accept that their loyalty to the Canadian forces ends as well. Although Air Canada is very happy to see an F-18 pilot arrive, the armed forces are less happy because they have spent millions of dollars to train this person and they will have to spend millions more to train another pilot.

We therefore have to be competitive with the labour market in order to be able to attract the best men and women who will serve us in the future.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: My other question concerns Operation Minerva. You were talking earlier about women and you said that there were more now than before. As you must know, there is a campaign to recruit women, know as Operation Minerva. I have two questions to ask you on that subject.

First, how can you reconcile reducing staff, as you mentioned earlier, in the regular forces, which will drop to 60,000 in 1999, with your program to recruit women?

• 1610

Second, I would like to know if you can tell us how this recruitment campaign is going. I have seen nothing on this campaign that is aimed exclusively at women.

I can tell you that I phoned the recruitment centre for the Montreal south shore region, and I was told that circulars and documentation were being printed at this time. We know that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has given you until 1999. You do not have much time left to increase the proportion of women in the armed forces. At this point, the publicity is still being printed. I would like to know what you can tell us about this.

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: Thank you, Madam.

First, with respect to reducing the Canadian forces to 60,000, a goal which must be achieved in 1999, we are now at about 61,500, so we are nearly at the goal we set for ourselves and that we are going to achieve in 1999.

Now when we achieve this goal in 1999, if we do not do any recruitment, we will create a gap in the age and experience of the men and women serving. Of course, our attrition rate varies depending on economic conditions in the country; the rate in the pilot classification is about 14% at present. The average for the Canadian forces as a whole is probably 4% or 5%. This means that we have to recruit thousands per year, because the rate of loss in training is quite high, after all. We need an ongoing recruitment system and an ongoing training system to bring new blood into our forces.

The purpose of the recruitment campaign aimed directly at women is obviously to comply with the directive from the Human Rights Commission. It is an order. It is the law in our country. Personally, without accusing anyone, I must say that we have done enough. This is quite clear. We were told in 1987 or 1988 to open all our positions to women. We did so technically, but I wonder if we did it with our whole heart at that time. I feel a little responsible as well, because I was in the command and training system at the time when women were allowed to join combat units. But I don't believe that they were welcomed and I do not think their life was made easy.

In fact, I think that we wanted to have women meet the highest standards, while it was less clear that we did the same thing for men training in the same school. It was felt that women would get discouraged if the objectives were very rigorous and they would not come to bother us in the infantry, armoured divisions, or artillery.

Unfortunately, I think it is very true that traditions and opinions have not changed, and training has not been allowed to become more accessible. I even think that we went to the point of leaving the youngest officers to look after the training of women, without supervision, with the result that a young captain might think that it was a good idea to make training so difficult as to discourage women from wanting to join the armed forces. My explanation may seem simple to you, but I believe this is what happened.

I have said on a number of occasions that, in the Canadian Forces, we no longer have the patience to wait for those who are not ready to live with that, to wait a few years until they get used to it and slowly change. I no longer have the patience to wait for that. I think that any Canadian man or woman who is able to go through the training and achieve the desired standards can wear the same uniform as Mr. Parent and myself. I am not at all concerned whether it is a man or a woman. And I have thought that way for a long time.

• 1615

Regarding the recruitment campaign, we had asked that women be targeted specially in order to attract them and demonstrate to them that our training institutions, like our mentality, have changed and to try to recruit as many as possible. I can assure you that those coming into the infantry, for example, are good because this is a very difficult classification, for both men and women, and the standards are very difficult to attain. Any man or woman who receives the diploma at the end will have met the standards of the Canadian Forces, otherwise the diploma will not be awarded. For this reason, we try to recruit a lot of people. When we talk about a target of 25 or 15 or 20%, this is at the entry level. This is at the recruitment office. Of the 20% who come, perhaps 15% will read the documents, 10% will join, 7% will be trained and 3% will come out at the other end. We therefore want to try to broaden recruitment, both to respect Canadian laws and to give a chance to all Canadians to serve in our great institution.

[English]

The Chairman: George.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, General, Chief Warrant Officer.

To follow up on Madame Venne's questions on the recent salary increases, the pay of members of the forces remains well below the public sector even with those increases. If you take into consideration the gap between the public sector and the private sector, it's even worse. Sir, as you have said in your presentation, in order to recruit and maintain high-quality people, you have to offer a compensation that will keep these people. That's difficult.

On the other situation, I have three questions. The personnel represent nearly one-third of a declining budget. So how will the department afford the much-needed increases to members' salaries without jeopardizing other areas of operation, particularly in training and maintenance?

Secondly, if we take into consideration recent initiatives to improve the leadership and justice regimes within the forces, I would like to get your views on the real needs of these frequent relocations. I want to reiterate the negative impact of frequent relocations on the families of the members of the forces. Spouses find it hard to get jobs in certain areas of the country, and it's difficult for children. You've moved around a lot yourself, as have many of us, so you know what it does to families. I wonder what the impact of the recent initiatives and the need for relocating members so often is, and if this is really necessary.

Finally, during the review of the defence policy with the joint committee that I had the opportunity to be on, one of the big questions that we thought was going to get a lot of support in dealing with the reserves was job security. Job security legislation, we thought, would be a shoo-in. One of the first comments that we had was from a former Minister of Finance from Alberta. He was sure this was something that would be an easy sell. The chamber of commerce from Alberta had a motion that this would become a priority. However, as we went across the country, both from reservists themselves and from people in the forces—and of course from the advisory group to the minister—this wasn't something that has a very high priority.

I wonder what your own views are on legislation that would give job security to reservists who leave. We've seen several times during this Bosnian situation that members of the reserves have been called upon once or twice to go, or maybe three times.

So on those three questions, sir, I would appreciate your views. Thank you.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Thank you very much, sir.

I think your point is the cost of our personnel in the Canadian Forces. I mentioned in my opening statement that it is about 53% that we're paying now. At the same time, I asked the committee to look at ways to make it somewhat less expensive, or, in other things that we do, make it more efficient, so that we can make sure we have the equipment and training for the people we have. It is extremely difficult, and this is where the big bucks in our budget go: into the personnel. Of course, any augmentation or anything that has to be done to improve the welfare of our troops has to be taken into consideration. Also, can we afford it in our budget, or is it coming from outside?

• 1620

I am told that for any increase in the salaries of the public service or the Canadian Forces, the money comes centrally, as approved by Treasury Board. I was delighted to learn that, because I was not aware of that before. I just hope our minister has it this way. I don't know if it's a law that is written on the wall someplace, but it would be rather difficult on us if we have to absorb a pay increase.

Mr. George Proud: We'll make sure he hears that.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I think he has heard it before.

On the other point, stability of our family and reallocation, when somebody asks me how many times I have moved in the 31 years that I've been married, I always answer 18 times. My wife, who is normally close to me, will say 22 times. She says that for the other times, I was not there or I don't even remember. I'm afraid she is absolutely right.

My wife was a teacher, and I don't know how many times she has resigned. I know she has resigned in Ottawa. She has resigned twice in Brandon, Manitoba. She has resigned in Toronto. She has resigned in Gagetown, and Germany. She has always loved it, but she was following me because it was decided in our family that we would pursue with one line.

It's also the same for our children. One is 28, and the other is 18. It would take too long to tell you how many schools they've been in, but our 18-year-old daughter started in Toronto, Ottawa, two schools in New Brunswick, New York City and Manhattan, and Quebec. She graduated from high school last year in Ottawa, and now she's at university.

So it's pretty hard on the family. And I'm telling you a little bit about myself because I know about that fairly well. Our daughter was three months old when I met her. I was coming back from the Middle East. We had moved back from Germany, and my wife was six months pregnant when I cowardly abandoned her in Canada and went to the United Nations for six months. But it has always been this way, and I'm only one of those who have served—and not only army, but navy and air force. It's the law of the land for the navy that they leave for about six months of the year, and the wives or the spouses—more and more, it's the spouses—are doing it.

Last week I was in Haiti. I met a female sergeant. I asked her how it was going and if she had any children. She said yes, she had some children. I think they kind of met for three weeks when her husband was coming back from Bosnia and she was leaving for Haiti. The children were caught in between, at eight or nine years old.

So relocation and stability are something else we have to think about, but not only for compensation. You don't compensate with money or anything like that. You just have to make it easier on the family, easier when they move.

Selling a house and buying a house is a pretty traumatic experience for all of us. Just leaving a married quarters that you just kind of clean and leave before going into another one is quite an acceptable experience, especially when you're younger. But deciding over three or four days to invest the family savings in a house in Toronto when you don't know how the hell the market is going to be in two years, and going through the home guaranteed sale, is an experience of its own. It's no fun at all. It's really difficult for the family when they have all their earnings involved.

What we have tried now—and I think it's not because we were very wise, but because of budget cuts that forced it on us—is concentration of our army, navy and air force into large bases. For the navy, it was easy. They like to be close to the sea, so they are in the east and west. That's where the big garrisons are. What they are trying is to make sure that when NCMs, or especially the young officers, go west, they're going to be west for a long time. It's the same for the east.

• 1625

The army has been concentrated in Edmonton, Petawawa, Valcartier, and Gagetown. We're trying to make sure that an NCM who is in Edmonton can really do 10 or 12 years without moving. Then he might choose stability over moving up into the ranks. If it's so important for him, he can delay advancing in rank because of a very particular situation. But hopefully he will not be penalized by that thing. That's what we're trying to do.

We have reduced. I think a few years ago we were moving about 20,000 men and women across Canada and the world every year. Now we're down to fewer than 7,000, I believe.

Again, I think we saw that it was no fun. The society within the forces has changed quite a bit. We just outright didn't have the money to do it any more. During the summer of 1998, there will be fewer moves than that which we have seen for a long time, and I think it's for the good.

But again, we are a big operational organization whose purpose in life is to be ready to go to war. And to be able to do this, we have to train and develop our leaders and technicians everywhere, and we have to move them. We have a very mobile society and we have to be able to do it.

As for the one who does not accept being mobile, well, I hope we have a place to keep him very static like this. But it's not guaranteed. It's the service first, then the family and all else come behind.

As for my opinion as to whether job security legislation will go, I've been told by some folks who know a bit about this country and its legislation that it'll probably never fly. Having said that, and thinking that it's quite possible that we will never have job legislation in the present circumstances for the reservists who help us to serve, it doesn't mean that we'll just kind of abandon the approach.

I'm particularly grateful to the defence liaison council, which is really working with hundreds and hundreds of companies. I tell them two things. If they provide good work conditions for our reservists who work for them, they're going to have a much better product after we train them as leaders. We allow them to serve in our operations around the world. I think the men and women who serve become much better persons.

So far we have not required legislation to allow us to have reservists serve full-time on our missions; we have been using volunteers only. We enter into a contract with them for anywhere between nine and twelve months if it's a six-month tour. We have to make sure they participate in the work-up training, six months of training.

Before, we used to kind of send them back to their units. We certainly found out a few years after we had been in the former Yugoslavia that it's rather inhumane to take somebody who has spent six months in a theatre of war with a group and put him back within a few hours of his return with his reserve unit. He is totally abandoned. Now we keep them with us. We give them holidays, like anyone else who comes back from a mission, and then he stays with that unit to decompress.

It's all part of the stress management process and program that we have. It's not only for the soldier who served, but for their family also. It happens before they leave, when they are away, before they come back, and when they come back. We have a pretty extensive program on stress management.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I want to begin by congratulating General Baril on his appointment as Chief of Defence Staff. I had the privilege of being at Rideau Hall for your investiture last month. I think it was a wise and judicious appointment. It sent a proper signal to Canadians and our allies abroad that we're changing course. I wanted to begin with that.

I would have preferred to ask this question of the defence minister when he was here on Tuesday, but I didn't have the opportunity.

I guess you could consider me a bit of skeptic on this study of quality of life and pay conditions for the military. I just don't know that this standing committee is the right body to be travelling the country and meeting with the military people and presumably the civilian folks who work at the military bases to find out whether their pay and rations are appropriate or not.

• 1630

I think there's a widespread perception throughout the country that this is not the case. I guess if I had wanted to do that, I might have applied for a job at the Union of National Defence Employees instead of seeking to be elected in this Parliament.

General, do you think that using the standing committee in this way is a good use of it? I should say that I hope I'm proven wrong. I'm a new member of Parliament, and maybe I will be wrong. Is it a good use, and if so, why?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I guess I'm new at this job too. I'm a little more junior than you are.

I certainly do hope that it is so. I participated in a long discussion with the previous Minister of Defence on this. Let me talk here as a soldier who is looking at it. We discovered that when the previous committee started to work, there were great expectations from the men and women who were serving. They were just waiting with great enthusiasm to be able to tell someone who is very close to the leadership of this country, and for that matter, all of you, who, it was believed, have an entry right into the government of this country.

I guess we have been somewhat gun-shy for the past four or five years. If I may say so, we might have the impression that when we talk, we're not believed very much by Canadians across this land. I hope it's only a perception. But we have a committee that looks at what we're doing, listens to what we have to say, and feels the way we are being treated. I'm not saying that in a bad way, but it's compared to the rest of society.

Personally, there are probably two ways of doing it. You can hire a firm to go out and compare what we do and come back with a scale. They give it to us, we give it to the minister, and he fights for it for more than a year.

I prefer to see a committee that is rather well connected. If you need advice from outside, you go and get a company to help you with your determinations after you've heard from the men and women to see what we deserve.

It's always linked to being competitive. In peace time, when you serve your country, I guess at the beginning, everyone is about the same in terms of the excitement and adventure. You get a uniform, three meals a day, and it's fairly good.

But then you get into the family business, your profession, and a career. You have to be able to justify this to your wife and children when you come back at night. You say you are well taken care of for the sacrifice you make for the country, especially when serving outside.

So my very humble opinion is that I don't think there's any other body better placed to be able to tell to the leadership of Canada, at the highest level, what their men and women who are in uniform deserve.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Here's my next question, Mr. Chair. I assume that when we're out there, we will be talking to some of the civilians. I know that your statement focused properly more on the military. I'm sure other members have been receiving these letters as well.

There are a lot of people who are up for alternate-service delivery because the base is about to be privatized, or at least a chunk of is. I think there's a fair degree of frustration. I know that in 15 Wing, in Moose Jaw, there certainly is. This is part of my constituency. In that one, Bombardier is the consortium that hasn't announced, but we hope one of these days soon that it will.

There are a lot of people there who feel they are simply part of the critical mass. They feel they really won't be required, but they're kind of stuck until Bombardier takes over and then decides which employees will be required and which ones will be let go.

Some of these people simply want to get on with their lives. There are buyout provisions, but they're restricted from accepting that until this all takes place.

You're nodding your head, so you're obviously aware of it. I just wonder, then, if you could provide a response.

• 1635

Gen J.M.G. Baril: One thing I cannot tell you is where we are in the NATO flying project that we have. You are probably more aware than I am as to where we are. But it's a very ambitious project that we are doing.

Going back to the alternate service delivery, or ASD, it is not only a policy of this government, but a necessity for the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence to be able to live within the resources allocated to our department and also to maintain the capability to fulfil the task that has been given to us. It's part of an innovative way.

I was away from my country for three years serving the United Nations. When I came back I kind of fell right into this new approach of providing service. We are somewhat like a company who, to become competitive, has to make sure that what it preserves is only the core capability of that company. The other—they don't do it. They will contract everything out.

We at this point also don't call it “core” in the Canadian Forces—we call it “combat capability”. To be able to live within our resources and to be seen as living within our resources and giving a better product at the end, we have to make sure that the combat capabilities are the ones that are sacred, the ones that we're saving.

All the rest—well, it has to be done in the best way. That makes our people very nervous. I certainly understand that, and we're probably not the only organization who is doing it. In addition to making them nervous, the process is very complex, very complicated, and not the same everywhere. It is perceived by our employees that we are changing the goalposts as we're moving, and everything.

I don't think that's the case. I think we're still finding ways of how to make it fair, how to make it acceptable. We're making sure that we're saving money. That we're just going through the process and making everybody miserable and not saving any money—I don't think that's the idea of ASD at all. We're just trying to make sure that we save resources, to apply them to what we feel is essential.

In the good old days, as a soldier, I had to be sure that the ammunition coming to me was given to me by the quartermaster, who had the uniform. I was guaranteed that I would get ammunition because I knew the sergeant, and he gave me the ammunition. We're at the point now that we should not care who gives out the ammunition. I've got to have the guarantee that the ammunition will be there when I need it.

So we have to have an approach of combat capability, and then of guaranteed service. The guaranteed service must be given to us the most efficiently, but with the least expense. This is difficult, because we're moving that way big time, just like anybody else in this world is.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the benefit of General Baril and Chief Warrant Officer Parent, I do not sit on this standing committee. I'm here as an alternate to my colleague Mr. Price, who unfortunately had another function to attend. That's why the chairman didn't know what my name was, General. It's not that I'm shy and reserved, as you're well aware, General.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Mr. Price has been called back.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: He has been called back; he's been recalled.

First, I would like to again extend my congratulations on your promotion to the Chief of Defence Staff. I knew you a number of years ago, and I can honestly say that most of the officers I've talked to certainly, along with myself, congratulate you. You're a man who has certainly demonstrated his leadership ability, and I look for very interesting and good things to happen with the military.

In saying that, that is a bit of a suck-up as well, because I do have CFB Shiloh sitting in my constituency. I know, General, that whenever you think of CFB Shiloh you'll think of it in a very positive light.

I also am very familiar with the military and can honestly tell you I'm a friend of the military. I've had an opportunity over the last nine years to probably learn more than I even care to think of about the military and how it has reacted to some fairly dramatic cuts in its budget over the last little while.

• 1640

I have three questions, but first of all I'd like to say that one of the most positive things that has happened in the military, certainly over the last 12 months—and it's not necessarily positive for Canada—was the presence of the military during the Red River flood in Manitoba. I am sure everybody around this table has seen what happened there, and I can honestly tell you that was probably the best morale booster, not only for the military personnel but also for Canadian citizens who could actually see the need for a military that we have in Canada.

I wish no flood on anybody, trust me, but I do suggest at this time, General, that your troops and your soldiers, both enlisted men and officers, certainly performed as professional, dedicated soldiers. So I thank you for that on behalf of Manitoba.

My first question is more of an openness issue. I go back, as I said, in the military a lot of years and I've seen over the last two to three years a very positive move of opening the bases. We now have open bases as opposed to secured bases. We have a military now that is prepared to get involved in community. Your officers, whether it be directed from the top, are now getting involved in community.

We have open areas such as Canadian Armed Forces days, we have Freedom of the Cities, and I have found the civilians in Canada now have a much better idea as to what the military is all about. Before you were locked in a closet. When you do that and you stay behind closed doors there's a curtain that comes down, and civilians have a tendency to be a little bit perhaps reluctant to get involved in the military.

You're now the leader; you're now the Chief of Defence Staff. Are you going to continue with an openness policy that is going to let Canadians see exactly what the military is all about? That's my first question, and then I have two others.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Thank you very much. I used to say we never get a free meal. Now we never get a free compliment; we have to pay for it.

Thank you very much for the good words. You've made not only my day but my last two years, I think.

I can sincerely say that last year I thought for a while we would have to withdraw to our garrison and hide for a while. It would have been very irresponsible of me at that time, but we had the feeling that we were not welcome out of our garrison. It has changed, and I'm so glad it has.

The catastrophe in Manitoba is one that was most obvious, and the one in the Saguenay also. To me, not only those two but what we have done around the world should have brought us into the limelight.

I have realized for a long time that the best ambassador we have is the young man and woman in uniform, the young non-commissioned member, the young officers who are just thrilled to show their stuff, who are so proud of showing their equipment, showing what they've done, their medals, their shiny shoes, and their skill at music, at drill, and with a very sophisticated missile system.

We have been open. When we talk about openness it might be confused with dealing only with the media, and that's only one side of it. Again, being conservative in the forces, we've been forced into being open. We withdrew our guards at the gate because we didn't have any money to pay them any more. We had to apply the resources somewhere else. We never thought there was another way of doing it, but when we started squeezing we opened it up. The effect was that all of a sudden we were not locked away from the community.

It was a great shock and revelation for me the first time I served in Gagetown, New Brunswick. I had been in the service at that time for 18 years and had a pretty thick skin and had been in the community all the time. This was the first we were involved with the community where they were plowing our streets and we were sharing everything, schools.... I was the head of the scouts up there. I had 500 or 600 children because I was ordered to do it, and I discovered that we had a lot of leadership.

Yes, we are open, and.... I was going to say if it's up to me—it is up to me! It will remain this way, and not only show our military stuff, but show our capability and our talent with all of the community.

• 1645

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The reason I asked the question, General, is that it is up to you. You are the leader, and a very capable leader. It's very important—and I think you said it earlier—that Canadian citizens recognize what we really have in the military. The only way you can do that, General, is to make sure they are invited in to find out exactly what you're all about. So I know you're capable, and I like the answer. Thank you very much.

And don't be forced into it. Certainly insist that your officers and your enlisted men get involved in the community, because the community wants to know more about you.

My other question is a little bit more difficult, and perhaps not quite as positive. There's an issue right now with respect to forced retirement in the military. The military has a policy—you can confirm whether it still does or not—of retirement at age 55. There is an issue ongoing right now with respect to some of your previous soldiers who are taking this to the Human Rights Commission. Maybe the chief warrant officer can answer, but I know there's an appeal, although I don't know where it sits right now.

Have you given any thought, or has the military given any thought, with respect to the retirement age of members serving in the armed forces? I don't know which is right or which is wrong, but there's obviously an issue sitting there, General. Can you answer that?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: You are right, it's a very difficult question.

Most of the armies of the world, and most of the forces of the world, have an age limit. At the same time, several countries have an age limit that is linked to rank. A private soldier in the infantry is not going to be of very much use in the infantry when he is 55 years old and the only thing he can do is carry a weapon and go charging up the hill. However, a chief warrant officer in the infantry at 55 might be able to do much better than that, because he has different training. So those countries will have a retirement age for a corporal that is much lower than the other.

What we have opted for in the Canadian Forces is universality of service. Everyone who is in uniform must be able to perform a certain level of activity, which is the basic combat capability, otherwise they cannot be in uniform. Also, because of this universality of service, we have a compulsory release age for everyone at 55 years old.

Having said that, we do have contracts with our troops. These contracts say they can retire after twenty years of service or at 40 years old. Where we have the capability of building into our different classifications flexibility whereby we can keep a group that is highly skilled and we would like to keep them up to 55, they'll go up to 55. We'll tell them quite long in advance, or give them a three-year or five-year extension to the initial twenty years of service. We have that capability.

I believe there are in court more than seven or eight cases, or maybe more, that are challenging our forced retirement age or compulsory retirement age. So far it has been upkept.

We do have some exceptions beyond 55. Specialist officers, depending on their rank of colonel or general, can go up to 58 and 60—doctors and lawyers and a few others. We have also made some exceptions because of special cases for very specific individuals that we have. When we do that, though, it's risky, because we will have to explain to the court why we're doing it for very specific individuals, while we're defending the 55-year limit in the other cases in front of the court. It's very difficult, but whenever it's being done, it's for the good of the service and of this country.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the policy is to continue with the policy there right now.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Now we go to a five-minute round, beginning with Mr. Benoit.

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

Welcome, gentlemen. General, I also wish to congratulate you on your new appointment. It's a great responsibility that you have on your shoulders, not only to the men and women in the forces, but to the Canadian public generally, in order to restore confidence in the forces. I wish you the very best with that job.

In response to a question from the last member, you indicated that you're a conservative in the forces, but I hope you can assure me that you're ready for real reform in the forces.

An hon. member: So was Lew MacKenzie.

• 1650

Mr. Leon Benoit: What I would first like to ask you about is the position of the independent inspector general, which was rejected by the minister. It was recommended, of course, in the recommendations from the Somalia inquiry. The minister, in rejecting this concept, said that the officers in the military couldn't function with someone looking over their shoulders. I'd like to ask you, General, if you would be bothered by someone looking over your shoulder, with that someone being an independent inspector general.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: If I was that bothered by having somebody looking over my shoulder, I don't think I'd be sitting here in uniform today, because it's been the case all my life. This is called the chain of command.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it would be someone from outside the forces. This independent inspector general would be someone who would represent the Canadian public in watching out for what's going on inside the military.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: If we're not, we're going to be the organization in government that is the most watched from outside and from inside.

We might have got tripped up a little bit on the outside inspector general. What we have within our system now is an overseeing mechanism from the chief of review service, who does just about every part of the job of inspector general, except that he reports to me, to the DM, and to the minister. We have the monitoring committee, the inspector of the army, and many from the Office of the Auditor General looking into what we're doing. But specifically, for the inspector general, it was certainly felt and agreed with by the minister that there was enough mechanism doing the same thing.

As to your precise question of having somebody from outside, it might be perceived that they do have inspectors general in other countries who respond directly to whoever runs their countries. It's not the case all the time that they have the name of inspector general, but the majority of them answer to the chief of the service, the chairman of the joint chiefs, or the minister. But the one who holds that title and answers directly to the government is actually not at all doing the function of an inspector general as you perceive it.

So there are different ways, different approaches. In terms of having somebody from outside overlooking what I do, that's the case now. Having agencies looking on from outside is the case on a daily basis—and it's not only agencies from outside, because every citizen of this country has access to what we do on a daily basis.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it is in fact well documented from the Somalia inquiry and from other sources, and I guess from our own probes through access to information, for example, that this information isn't available. In fact, I believe Mr. Grace—I think I have the right name—the person in charge of access to information, has said that the military has a terrible reputation when it comes to releasing information that should be released through access to information.

So several sources have clearly said this isn't working, and they have expressed the need for someone who is answerable to the Canadian public—not necessarily directly, because there are different ways of doing that—in a watchdog role, and who clearly has to have more power than any position that is in place, or that will be in place under the announcements made by the minister.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: On access to information, I cannot compare to any other department. I have not been personally involved in this too much, because we have a specialized section doing it. I believe the criticism given gets into the mechanics, the time that it took, because the volume of the requests coming in was just beyond the capability of the system that we have in place. It has been improved a lot. But as for saying that we're not releasing the information that should be released, I think it's up to the commissioner to say that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the reason so much time is taken—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, thank you. Your time is up.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chairman, the others were allowed considerably more time.

The Chairman: We've started the second round. The second round is five minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I know, but you let them go substantially over ten minutes—the Liberal member, for example.

• 1655

The Chairman: Mr. Clouthier.

[Translation]

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Congratulations, General Baril. I hope that we now have a chief for the future.

[English]

You did say that I'm an impatient person. I like to hear that, because I am of the firm belief that impatient people, men or women, get the job done. For far too long, we have had—and I do agree with some of my colleagues around the table on the opposite side—a certain clandestine attitude within the military. I believe it has to change and I believe that with a person such as yourself as the new chief of staff it will hopefully change. From what I have heard and seen this afternoon, I have no doubt that it's certainly going to change.

That said, I noticed that you quoted Viscount Montgomery. I believe one of his other famous axioms was “never give an order that cannot be obeyed”, and I know that you would want all of your soldiers to obey the upper command in the military.

I come from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Base Petawawa is in my riding. I was born and raised within six kilometres of the base, so I know it quite well. I've been there all my life. I've spoken with the younger military personnel, who have told me that lot of the equipment they have there is older than they are, so in some instances it prevents them or certainly hinders them from obeying a command because they just don't have the equipment to carry out the job.

I realize that some of this equipment is very expensive. I also realize that this government and previous governments have tried to purchase new equipment. But I understand—and correct me if I'm wrong—that if the military does sell some of the older or used equipment the money goes into the general revenue fund. As a business person, I disagree with that. I believe the money the military can save should stay within the military, whether it's through alternate service delivery or getting into some conjunctive deals with the private sector. If you do a good job—and something tells me you're going to do a good job—you should be rewarded for that. That money should not go into the general revenue fund. I don't know what the long-range intention of the government is, but I most certainly would be leaning towards that, because then you would have a contingency fund to upgrade your equipment.

With respect to outsourcing, I've had a great many meetings with some of the people in CFB Petawawa. The base commander has been very open, very candid and very upfront with them. In some instances, some of the outsourcing has cost them some jobs, but they have had the opportunity to bid on those jobs, and if they lose them, they lose them. Some of them are starting to realize that, because the military has to become more involved with the private sector.

General, would you, with the military, continue to look favourably upon getting into economic development initiatives where possible, where the situation presents itself, with the private sector?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Thank you.

With respect to the first part, I agree with you. If we have innovative ideas we should keep the benefits, but in certain parts the law of the land is different. It is changing, and it is changing for the best for us. And I'm sure that our ADM Finn, if he appears in front of your committee, can give you the real details of where we are and where we're going on getting the money from the disposal of our assets, whether it's real estate or a broken-down Jeep.

I think “partnering with industry” are buzzwords that have been on the street for a long time, but I do think we are doing it now. The project in Moose Jaw, for example, is a really great example of partnering with industry. Portage La Prairie was probably the first time that we tried it big-time. This is the way we're hoping to go, especially when we're looking at really drastically changing the support we are giving to our troops, again, to reduce the costs. The only way to reduce the costs is to look at what industry can do, at how they're doing it themselves and at how we can get into bed with them, actually, and be much more efficient and save more money so that we can buy equipment, which is showing some age.

• 1700

I can tell you, from the equipment point of view, our soldiers are right when they say it's old equipment. Some of the old equipment has been upgraded or is brand spanking new, such as the new Coyote. New projects are coming in, from new gortex equipment to new boots to new trucks replacing our reconnaissance vehicles.

So I think we're moving forward, but it's never fast enough for the impatient mind I have.

The Chairman: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I want to switch to a couple of questions on helicopters. I heard the minister the other day saying that the announcement was coming soon. I'm certainly not asking which one, or anything like that, but what I am trying to understand is whether the military has looked at the various specifications of the various companies bidding on this contract. Have you analysed those and made a recommendation to the minister?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: One thing I learned a little while ago was to not get involved in announcing anything about big projects, and this is a big project.

I think what you're asking about is the process, the process of determining which of the betters is going to win. The answer is yes, of course, the process is in the final phase, and the government will announce the decision whenever it feels it's the time to do it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But my specific question is, has the military analysed those various proposals?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: It is part and parcel of the process that every bid that is accepted and acceptable will be analysed in the most minute detail.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

We keep hearing rumours that, depending on which helicopter is selected for search and rescue, the frigates may not either have the superstructure, and in some cases would need to be retrofitted, for the Cormorant—I think that's the one—or the ballast would make it unwieldy in rough seas, the weight of it. Is there any foundation in that area at all?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I haven't heard of it. They might have to change the doorknob on the garage that's on the ship, but I really don't know. I haven't heard. However, I have not been in the job long to be briefed on all the priorities.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

I noticed this week that the Auditor General was concerned about the DEW line. The clean-up, they reckon, is going to be several times more expensive than has originally been budgeted. I know from a briefing I had earlier that DND is the lead department on those DEW line clean-ups. I guess it relates to the question of budget.

Does this money, the $250 million or whatever has been budgeted now, come out of the defence budget, and would any new appropriations come out of there?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: This is a rather long project that has been going on for a long time. You're referring to all the radar stations—

Mr. Dick Proctor: The 21 sites, yes.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: —that have been set up over the past 30 years or so. The current estimate we have, as you said, is $250 million Canadian. This project will be implemented over a 10-year period, so it's a little less costly than we were expecting. As well, we're certainly hoping that the work can be done using, as much as we can, local people, so that the money stays there.

We might find also that some of the clean-up might be even bigger than what we expected. I have no information on that. I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, then it becomes a special project that we look at it.

As to where the exact funding is coming from, eventually it's government money. I think it's certainly coming out of our budget. It's probably built into our base budget.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I see. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

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

General Baril, as have others around this table, I would like to extend my congratulations to you on your appointment as CDS. Clearly, your appointment comes at a time that I think is fairly critical for the armed forces. I think you've been given a fairly unique opportunity to put your own stamp on the forces as we approach the 21st century. I do wish you the very best in that regard in terms of the discharge of your responsibilities that way.

• 1705

The question I'd like to ask you is a question I posed to the minister when he was here a few days ago. It relates to the role of the department in assisting the government with respect to its jobs strategy. I'm thinking here particularly of some of the things that were in the throne speech and in Mr. Martin's economic statement about making strategic investments in knowledge-based sectors. The ones I'm thinking of in particular are the ones that come to mind with respect to the military, aerospace and telecommunications.

Your department has, I believe, the largest discretionary budget for capital acquisitions within the government. Please correct me if I'm wrong that way. You have, I think, based on that budget, a unique opportunity to contribute to the growth of these sectors. Obviously Canada has very strong capabilities in both of these areas. We have companies competing around the world in these areas.

I'd like to know what specifically your department is intending to do to ensure that those billions of dollars spent with the Department of National Defence serve to strengthen our industrial infrastructure in the years ahead.

Gen J.M.G Baril: I know now that I should have brought with me more expertise than my rocket scientist.

It is extremely important for us not only to keep the knowledge we have in the forces but also to attract the knowledge in the forces, and produce it. We're doing that right from hiring people coming out of university and training them as officers to developing our own in our college.

As you probably know, the military college in Kingston, with a very strong engineering faculty—it's probably one of the best we have in Canada—started a program in aerospace engineering. In fact, my god-daughter and niece graduated from our military college in aerospace engineering. She's wearing an air force uniform today.

I mentioned before that we have a problem keeping them in the service, too, because they're in great demand outside. Sometimes we're not competitive. We have to make sure that the talent we pay for and develop is kept inside the forces.

The other point is using the money we spend on capital acquisitions to make sure that most of it stays in Canada. Actually, it's built into the evaluation of the projects we have. All the mechanisms that we have are taken into consideration when we buy offshore, and that when we buy anything there is retombées économiques—it stays in Canada. If it's cost-effective, it will be billed in Canada. The retombées économiques is part of the evaluation of every project.

From my limited knowledge from the time I've been in this job, one of our main concerns is that the money we spend stays, as much as possible, in Canada, in one form or another. It's not necessarily that we have to buy in Canada, but when we buy outside, the same country is going to invest into our country in some other form so that Canadian money in one way or another comes back into this country.

Mr. David Pratt: I'm not so much concerned about the development of personnel, although I think that's obviously important from the standpoint of training. What I was getting at really relates directly to procurement issues, ensuring that the companies supplying the Canadian Armed Forces, whether it's Bombardier, Spar Aerospace or another company of that nature, to the greatest extent possible, when they're developing products for the Canadian Armed Forces, also have an eye on foreign markets in terms selling to the French, perhaps, or the Germans or the United Kingdom or the Americans, and that this is always in the back of their minds so that we can use the money in the DND budget to its best advantage in terms of our industrial capability.

• 1710

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Indeed, and I understand. The Canadian Forces and its network is involved in that, as you might imagine, and other countries are doing the same too. We're certainly part of the foreign trade of our country. We like to show our stuff and we do help the industry as much as we can within the limit of the law of this country. But we do participate quite often, and I must say on a regular basis.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): The last Parliament dealt with a number of the issues, such as morale, pay, stand-alone policy, housing and so forth, and heard witnesses from the military. I wonder if perhaps those notes or the presentations of those notes could be made available to the new members of the committee. We did actually cover a number of those things and actually had witnesses before the dissolution of the Parliament. I feel like I'm asking the same questions over and over again, and that's why I held back to hear what everyone wanted to say.

We covered social contract, release contracts, spousal support for family moves, the housing plan and so forth, and I just wondered if perhaps those could be made available. I know, General, that a lot of that was covered, and I believe the gentleman in the back who I elevated to the role of general at the last meeting—I didn't mean to move him up that many bars, but I just wondered if perhaps—

The Chairman: I understand there's been an agreement. The clerk has already called National Defence, and those notes and some of the presentations will be passed around to all the old members and to the new members also.

Mr. John O'Reilly: We don't want to waste our time here. We want to get on with this and try to get the report and the recommendations to the House as quickly as we can. I don't want to just waste time on the committee.

The Chairman: Your point is well taken, John.

[Translation]

General, I would like to thank you sincerely for appearing here. I have taken good note of the fact that you are prepared to come back if we need to speak to you. Once again, thank you very much.

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The meeting stands adjourned.