NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 9, 2002

¹

1530

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton, Lib.))

Lieutenant-General Lloyd C. Campbell (Chief of the Air Staff, Department of National Defence)

¹

1535

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

º

1600

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

º

1605

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

º

1610

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Brigadier-General Doug Langton (Director General, Air Force Development, Department of National Defence)

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead, Lib.)

º

1615

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. David Price

LGen Lloyd Campbell

º

1620

Mr. David Price

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. David Price

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. David Price

Mr. Peter Stoffer

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Peter Stoffer

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Peter Stoffer

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Peter Stoffer

º

1625

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Peter Stoffer

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Peter Stoffer

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

º

1630

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

º

1635

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mrs. Gallant

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LGen Lloyd Campbell

º

1640

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

º

1645

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Claude Bachand

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Stan Dromisky

º

1650

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Stan Dromisky

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Peter Stoffer

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Chief Warrant Officer Daniel Gilbert (Air Command Chief Warrant Officer, Department of National Defence)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

LGen Lloyd Campbell

»

1700

Mr. Bob Wood

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

BGen Doug Langton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

BGen Doug Langton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

BGen Doug Langton

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

BGen Doug Langton

Mrs. Wayne

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mrs. Wayne

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton--Victoria--Brock, Lib.)

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. David Price

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. David Price

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. David Price

LGen Lloyd Campbell

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

LGen Lloyd Campbell

Mr. Leon Benoit

»

1715

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

LGen Lloyd Campbell

The Chair

The Chair

»

1720

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

»

1725

Mr. Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mrs. Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

»

1730

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 050

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 9, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

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

    We are very pleased, on behalf of all of the members of the committee, to welcome Lieutenant General Lloyd Campbell, as well as his colleagues, Brigadier General Doug Langton and Chief Warrant Officer Daniel Gilbert, to the standing committee.

    Gentlemen, welcome. We are very pleased to have you here today in connection with our study of operational readiness.

    Without any further delay, I am going to give you the floor, General, to begin your comments.

    Lieutenant-General Lloyd C. Campbell (Chief of the Air Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is a great pleasure once again to be able to join you and to provide you with a short update on where we are in operational readiness.

    As I already mentioned, I have two of my esteemed colleagues along with me: General Langton, who is director general of air force development, which looks after, essentially, equipment acquisition and future development for the air force; and also of course Chief Warrant Officer Danny Gilbert, who is our senior enlisted member.

[Translation]

    With your permission, I would like to start by giving you an overview of our current operations and our plans for improving our forces in the years ahead. I will try not to spend too long on this.

[English]

    I deeply appreciated the time I had last spring to talk to you about the air force. I know that while we have some new members in the group, there are many of you who were here for that time, so I'll try not to spend a lot of time going over the same issues and repeating myself.

    Of course a lot has happened since our time together last spring, September 11 probably more than anything else. Despite the activities that have taken place, I think the main priorities that I outlined in my presentation last spring, which were pretty simple--looking after people, modernizing our kit, and trying to balance our resources and activities--still remain valid.

    So where do we stand in terms of operational readiness? I think the best way of perhaps filling you in on that is to give you some idea of how we were able to respond to the operations of September 11 and beyond.

    From an air force perspective, there are really two separate fairly distinct operations associated with the post-September 11 activity. The first of these, quite a lot less publicized than the latter, is what NORAD has called Operation Noble Eagle, which is the NORAD response. If you think back to the day itself, immediately after the first attacks on the World Trade Center, in fact while those attacks were underway and while there were still planes that were hijacked in the air, the Americans launched their first NORAD fighters out of alert status in an attempt to intercept, and they would have actually successfully intercepted had not the passengers onboard one of the aircraft taken over.

    From a Canadian perspective, we immediately put our aircraft on a higher state of alert. General Lucas, who commands the Canadian NORAD region, after discussions with us also put extra aircraft into the fray. In fact, we stood up extra airplanes and deployed them to a number of bases across Canada, where in fact they are operating today.

    Parenthetically, we also responded of course with Hercules and Airbus aircraft to help take care of those thousands of unexpected visitors who arrived on principally the east coast of Canada, but elsewhere as well, in order to help the civilian authorities cope with the extra numbers of people they had.

    The second main operation we're involved in is of course much more publicized, and that is Operation Apollo, which is the overall Canadian Forces response to the campaign against terrorism. In that element, the air force component does include at the current time six Sea King helicopter detachments that are onboard navy ships either in the theatre or en route to or from.

    The first of these, as you will recall, in terms of when the navy launched, were out the door very early after the event, in early October. Our CC-150 Polaris aircraft was also very quickly deployed, initially to Rhinemein, near Frankfurt in Germany, subsequently to the Middle East, where it's been operating since then. We had a couple of Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, long-range patrol aircraft, that were made ready, as well as a detachment of C-130s. The latter, although they were ready for deployment almost instantaneously from Greenwood and Trenton, actually did not deploy until the late December and early January timeframe, but that was because of the challenges involved in that part of the world in arranging diplomatic clearances and bases from which to operate.

    From an air force readiness perspective, while the troops were ready to go and the airplanes were ready to deploy, it's a little bit more challenging to go through the diplomatic niceties that have to be done. We were not alone in that. Certainly in my discussions with General Jumper in the United States I learned that they have had similar kinds of challenges, and our NATO and other allies who have been operating there also had the deal with some of the same issues.

    I'll give you a few statistics with regard to the contribution the air force has been making over there. To date, and these are the statistics through the end of March, the Airbus operation has moved 700 passengers and over 6 million pounds of cargo. My staff said that's about 2,000 mid-size cars, probably a fair analogy to talk about.

¹  (1535)  

    The Hercs have moved something like 350 passengers and 1.4 million pounds of cargo. They're largely operating in and out of Kandahar, providing support to the battle group there. Of course, they're also there in the event of anything like casualty evacuation, and so on.

    The CP-140 Auroras, the maritime or long-range patrol aircraft, have flown something close to 100 missions. They're largely involved in the same operations as the navy, providing an air picture of the whole north Arabian Gulf area, and helping to deal with things like leadership interdiction.

    Finally, the Sea Kings are now up to about 1,000 missions, something like 2,900-plus hours, and have had absolutely superb availability while operating out there. They're doing an absolutely stellar job.

    Of course at the same time we're maintaining the other commitments we have. I talked about the NORAD one already. We have our search and rescue commitments that we have to continue to maintain back here. We have our forces deployed in Bosnia, and from an air force perspective that includes a tactical helicopter detachment that is continuing to operate.

    Let me do a quick tour of our capabilities and modernization plans with our various fleets. From an air force perspective, it's usually easier to understand that when I talk about fleets. Starting with the F-18, it is often in the news, not only because of the reaction to post-September 11 events, but also, if we think back to the last decade, the F-18 fleet has twice been called upon by the previous government and this government to go to war. The first time was in the gulf, and of course it is currently in Kosovo. You'll recall the aircraft and air crew played a very central role in the campaign and led many of the sorties. I was extremely proud of the work they did.

    The F-18 itself is an extremely capable airplane, but we need to make sure it remains that way. Because of that, we've not only made some upgrades in the past, but a number of them are underway right now. The most significant of these is in conjunction with Bombardier and Boeing, to really bring our F-18s up to essentially the same status as the U.S. navy F-18Cs, with some extra enhancements beyond that. That largely involves new mission computers, new radar, new software, secure and jam-resistant radios, new targeting pods, better munitions, both air-to-air and air-to-ground, and so on. The result of that will be an aircraft that absolutely meets the current and future requirements.

    The interesting thing, parenthetically, from a fighter pilot's perspective--and I can talk to this--is we've just about reached the endurance of the human being, in terms of fighter aircraft performance; that is the ability of the airplane to pull G, manoeuvre, and so on. So the F-18, from an airframe perspective, is extremely capable in that regard. What needs to be replaced in it are the brains and sensors that actually operate out there. The good news is that because of a number of programs that are going on, including similar upgrades the navy, our Australian counterparts, and others are doing, we'll be able to make this happen.

    On the air mobility side of things, the backbone of the capability is the Herc, which is an excellent tactical transport aircraft, and also a tactical air-to-air refuelling aircraft. We've recently upgraded all of our Hercs to the same standard of avionics, so the crews don't have to fly four different variants of the airplane, from the point of view of the cockpit, at least.

    There are two main models: the E models, which are the older ones, plus the H models. The H models are relatively new, but as you've heard before, while the E models are still capable, they are certainly getting on in age.

    The other airlift resource is the CC-150 Polaris, which is essentially a converted A-310 aircraft. This airplane, according to our colleagues in Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, as part of the coalition, has been like the Eveready bunny--it just keeps going and going and going. It's providing absolutely superb service, and has been mentioned in dispatches in just about every situation report we get back from folks.

¹  (1540)  

    As I think I briefed you on last time, we have a plan to modify two of the aircraft to an air-to-air refueling capability that will give us a tremendous surge in our ability to operate. It will not only provide us with the ability to offload fuel for our F-18s, but will also allow us to carry troops, cargo, and so on, at the same time.

    Neither the Herc nor the Polaris, of course, are good platforms for outsized cargo. You spent some time before Christmas talking about the difficulties of moving things like LAV IIIs and other large army equipment over long distances.

    Of course, for that reason we have a project within the department and the air force to address the whole issue of the strategic airlift and of course the strategic sea lift that is an important component of overall strategic mobility. Airlift is a marvellous thing, and is becoming more important, given the kinds of areas we're going into. On the other hand, if one needs to move very large quantities of matériel over long distances, sea lift is an important chunk of this too. I think all of us who wear blue suits will recognize it, as well.

    As Colonel Dowsett briefed you on when he was here, we're in the project definition phase to look at all of the various capabilities out there, look at our own requirements versus what we think is there, and try to put together some proposals and options. We've enlisted some independent outside consulting effort and the study has been done.

    Essentially, of course, we're bumping the project into the defence review and update that we expect will take place some time over the course of the spring and summer, to see how it fits with our future requirements and what our future funding lines are going to look like. The project is certainly still very much alive and well.

    At the same time, I've asked my staff to take another look at the entire air mobility fleet. We will look not only at capital costs, but at personnel, operations, maintenance, and capital costs over a 30-year period, to get rid of the colour of money, if you will, that we sometimes concern ourselves with when we talk about capital. We will talk about the real costs of operating the current fleet of airplanes over a 30-year period and the risks associated with it, versus several other different models of various combinations of new and older airplanes. The work is underway.

    On the maritime environment, I talked about the Aurora already and what it's doing. In fact, it has not only been involved in Operation Apollo, but think back over a couple of years to the work it was doing with illegal migrant operations.

    Lesser known by many Canadians is an annual operation in the Pacific against illegal drift-net fishing. I won't go into what illegal drift nets are. I think most of you will understand. Our Aurora crews play a very central role in bringing the perpetrators of illegal drift-net fishing to prosecution, along with coast guards from the United States and ships from Russia, who do the apprehension on the high seas. The Aurora has been doing the finding.

    The Aurora itself has been going through a major upgrade program, as well. It's the same idea really as the F-18. The basic airframe is absolutely superb for doing the job it needs to do, but it needs new brains inside the system. The computers are obviously 1970s vintage, given we acquired the airplane in the early 1980s. Data management systems, sensors, and so on, all need upgrades.

    The other key contributor to the maritime operation is the Sea King. I mentioned the outstanding job it's doing today. There's no secret, obviously, that the airplane is getting old. It's in need of replacement. It went through some tough times in the mid-1990s, particularly, when we did not make some choices about renovation, repair, and so on. In fact the airplane itself is a pretty solid and well-designed machine.

¹  (1545)  

    With the recent program we've put in place--I'm talking now within the last two to three years--we've been making a major effort to replace the engines, replace the main gearboxes, replace some of the avionics systems, give it some better defensive electronic warfare systems, and so on, and the airplane is doing really well. Of course, parenthetically, we just had an announcement by the minister yesterday on MH Basing. I'm sorry all to heck that Mr. Stoffer is not here, because that has been his favourite question for me every time I've seen him over the last two years.

    We conducted a study some months ago, and as you'll know from the minister's comments yesterday, our conclusion at the end of that is you can debate a little bit about the costings, but they're really marginal. Operationally keeping the airplanes in Patricia Bay, Victoria, near Esquimalt, and also in Shearwater will provide the navy with the absolute best operational capability.

    On the army side, the main support there is the CH-146 Griffon. Our big plans in terms of upgrading the Griffon, since it's a relatively new airframe, are actually again in the sensor mode. It really requires a more capable standoff target acquisition system. If you think of it as a complement to the Coyote, which you've heard a lot about as to its operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, what the modifications of the system called ERSTA--we love our acronyms--will do is really provide the army with a lot better eyes in order to see the battlefield and provide a complementarity to the Coyote.

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    Finally, I must mention the contribution of our squadrons on search and rescue missions. Rescuers respond with tremendous courage and professionalism to the needs of our citizens, 24/7, all year round.

[English]

    It's an exciting time, actually, in the SAR world, with the delivery of the first CH-149 Cormorants, the H-101. It is an outstanding airplane, which, in conjunction with the fixed-wing SAR assets and currently the Buffalo on the west coast, is going to really enhance our SAR capability. We expect an initial operational capability this year, with a full deployment of the 15 helicopters we're ordering in Comox, Trenton, Greenwood, and Gander next year.

    Let me finish by talking about people. While modernization initiatives are significant, the technical capabilities aren't worth much if we don't have the folks to operate them and command them. In this regard, our situation, I would say, is not quite so bright. And it's not because we don't have great people--we have excellent folks, but we have a tough time keeping them. There's a lot of competition out there for the kind of people we attract and train in the Canadian air force. We're not alone in this, by the way. Our allies suffer pretty much the same kinds of issues.

    You'll have heard previously that recruiting has greatly improved over the last year with the focus that was put on it by our military human resources people. From an air force perspective, recruiting has not been much of an issue, with the exception of the engineering classification--our aerospace engineers and so on. Like anybody else, we're having a hard time competing out there for those types of people. But in general, we're not bad.

    The biggest concern is in the area of retention. That, for us, is a significant problem, given the high cost of training, given the limited ability we have to put people through schools--and there I'm talking primarily about pilots, where there are very limited capacities to put people through--and, finally, the ability at our units to absorb people. You just can't dilute the experience levels at units either, of both air crew and ground crew, without causing difficulties. That's a big challenge for us.

    The overall personnel situation is we're about 212 officers and 353 non-commissioned members short--560-some out of a little over 13,000. On the pilot side, we're about 169 short, which is actually an improvement of quite a significant amount since a year ago.

    That may not sound like much when you think about it--500 and some-odd people. But in fact I know from my visits down to the units that it is a challenge, because as we downsized during the 1990s, we trimmed away all the fat that existed down there. We built units that are able to function quite well with full complements of trained people. Now that they have less than a full complement of trained people and a lot fewer experienced folks being recruited who are coming in--which, by the way, was sort of the norm back in the 1970s and 1980s--we have some evidence it's starting to cause some difficulties.

    We're doing a couple of things. One is taking a look at our whole technical training for aircraft technicians, to revamp the process. We made some major changes about three or four years ago. We've discovered that, having done that, we have a few things we need to tweak--not seriously, but change slightly--reducing the scope in some trades and trying to make our technicians more productive earlier on in their service careers so they don't spend as many years learning and are able to do more actual work on airplanes early on.

    We're also looking at the overall structure of our units to see whether in fact we need to boost the establishments slightly in each of them in order to give them a little more depth than they have.

    The September 11 thing, of course, had an impact, and the recession or economic slowdown that was in place at the time has had an impact on retention from an air force perspective. As you would imagine, as airline travel has gone down or taken a bit of a hit, there was not the same kind of pressure on us of people getting out. My sense, though, is that's temporary, for three reasons, I suppose. One is the economy is going to bounce back. It's already doing so. The airline travel business will continue to expand, or at least will regain what it's lost. Thirdly, the demographics of the situation say that regardless of the first two, actually even if they didn't happen, we're going to have a very difficult problem here because the airlines are losing.... Air Canada itself looks to be hiring about a hundred or more new pilots every year, and the first place they tend to look is the air force.

¹  (1555)  

    We have to do something about this. We're working very hard with our human resources people, with the Treasury Board Secretariat, and with others to try to come up with some programs in terms of service, but also in bonuses and so on, to try to maintain an attraction here for folks. By the way, in that regard, the kit thing, the equipment part, is a very important element because good equipment is a quality of life factor all on its own. We need to make sure we keep our focus on that element of quality of life as well.

    Are there problems? You bet. As the minister himself has frequently said, we certainly could use more resources. If you see brown paper bags full, bring them my way. We'll spend them wisely. Are there personnel and other shortfalls that we have? I talked about some of those, and they certainly are making life difficult down at our wings. Sometimes, of course, as a commander, I wish I could simply wave a wand and make it all better, but that's not the nature of the problem. It didn't develop overnight, I can assure you of that. It won't go away overnight either, even if more resources were available immediately.

    I can tell you that the situation is certainly a lot better than it was just a few short years ago. It is also a lot better than it was when I was a young pilot growing up in the 1970s, when our capital budget was down below 10% and we really didn't have the resources to operate at all.

    Let me finish by saying that in my view, which is biased, as I'm sure you'll understand, the air force has a group of talented, very dedicated, wonderful young men and women--and not-so-young men and women too--doing a great job for this country of ours. They don't have everything they want or need in terms of kit and financial resources, but with what they have, they're doing a wonderful job. I can tell you that from my own discussions with our colleagues and allies in the United States and abroad, we have a great reputation and it's a reputation that is largely earned by the men and women who are out there in the field doing things for this country of ours.

    I'm also convinced that with the new equipment I outlined, with the new modernization programs and so on and the training that goes with that and the doctrine, which we're working hard in the air force to upgrade and bring ahead, again very much in conjunction with the United Sates air force, we have the potential here to have a very modern, capable, and effective tier two air force--I'd like to say perhaps the best small air force in the world. That's the goal I've set for myself and my staff to develop. I think it's achievable and I'd appreciate any support SCONDVA can give us, even moral, in that regard.

    We're now ready to answer your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, General Campbell.

    Let's begin the questioning with Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, General, for your comments today. I particularly appreciated your comments on the fact that our air force has been able to maintain a good reputation because of the people we have serving. They're top-notch, no doubt about it, and I appreciate that comment.

    I want to ask some questions on some of the other issues you brought up, but I want to start by asking some questions on an issue you didn't bring up, which is the Challengers. We had a report from the Chief of Defence Staff, which was obtained under an access request. It was a January report where the Chief of Defence Staff said that the Challengers are in good shape basically. But I'd like to get some information about the Challenger fleet. There seem to be conflicting stories coming from various sources.

    I'll start with the first question. How many of the different types of Challengers do we have in the fleet now? Can you give me a little bit of background on how they're set up, what their use is?

º  (1600)  

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: We currently have two types. The white Challengers belong to the Administrative Flight Service, which is the one that supports government. We have two of what we call grey Challengers, which were electronic warfare airplanes, 601 versions that used to be with 434 Squadron. Those airplanes are currently used for medevac and so on. So we're currently operating two types.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: How many are there of the white?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: There are six.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: So there is a total fleet of eight.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: No, there is a total fleet of six, four and two.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: That's what I had understood. Thank you.

    The Prime Minister said some time ago--or maybe it was the defence minister--that the new Challengers would be configured for medevac. Is that the case?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: I'm not aware of a statement that the new Challengers would be configured for medevac. Any Challenger can be modified to do that. For example, we use our Challenger 601s for some military VIP flying--not much, but on occasions where it's cost-effective and economical to do that--in which case there are seats similar to a standard VIP airplane. But the same airplane is readily modifiable to carry medical passengers.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: What is the intended primary function for the new Challengers?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: My understanding is that it will be part of the administrative flight service, which is a government function. We operate it for government, but that is essentially a VIP service for government.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Is the cost of the maintenance and operation of the Challengers taken out of the defence budget?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The funding for the annual operation of the Challenger fleet is a line item in my budget. In 1993-94 we took on this service in its revamped form, which was the four airplanes piloted by the air force but supported by Transport Canada technicians. This is the current situation. When we took this on, we had an allocation of funding to operate that service on behalf of government. That's now part of my budget. But presumably, if I lost the obligation to provide the service I would also lose the funding that goes along with it. So it's a discrete funding element.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: What will happen to the Challengers that are being replaced?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: That depends on choices that still have to be made by government with some recommendations from us. From an air force perspective, we would prefer to limit the number of types we're operating with that service. We really need to look at the two grey airplanes we have, the 601s, and see which of the remaining fleet we ought to keep and which ought to go away.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Has a decision been made on that yet?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: There has been no decision by the air force in that regard.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: You've said that the military budget has been expanded to cover the cost of purchasing and operating the Challengers. How would the operating and maintenance costs of the new Challenger 604 series compare with, say, the current white series?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: In that regard we of course can only rely on figures provided by the company. They are in operation with other organizations, though, so the data are fairly solid. They'll be less expensive to operate than the current fleet.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: You would expect that. I'm trying to get an idea of roughly how much less.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: I can't give you a specific number. This issue has come upon us fairly quickly. Based on the operation, I'd say probably 15% to 25%. I'm really talking off the top of my head, which I shouldn't do. But I can get you that figure.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: What has happened to the Airbus that was referred to by some Liberal members who are now in cabinet as the “Flying Taj Mahal”? What's it being used for? What's the story on that?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The 001 is used in the normal fleet. We employ it as an air force resource. It's not a combined freight and passenger variant like three of our airplanes are. It's purely a passenger airplane.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: And who uses that normally?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: We've used it for the Governor General on a couple of occasions. We've used it for other visitors. We've used it for ourselves, for moving military people.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

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

    I would like to come back to the strategic airlift that you spoke about. We have been hearing a great deal about this for some time now. I would also like to try to sort out what is political and what involves decision-making at your level.

    If I understood correctly, whether we are talking about the strategic airlift or the purchase of any military equipment for the air force, your role is limited to making recommendations. Is that correct? Am I mistaken when I say that you make recommendations to the government and then the government makes the decision? Is that how the system works?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell, : Yes, that is correct. Initially, we take the steps to find the solutions or options to meet a military need. We first present our proposals to the department and then to the government. Normally, Treasury Board decides, but in case of major acquisitions, the Cabinet must make the decision.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to come back to my example of the strategic airlift. For example, the decision to rent aircraft for the strategic airlift or to purchase them is a political decision based on your recommendations. Is that correct?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: That is absolutely correct.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I see.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: We are doing some studies in order to put forward various options. For each of the aircraft, we will first present the lease option, and then the purchase option.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I see.

    Could you describe for me how this works at the outset? Colonel Dowsett appeared before the committee, and apparently there is a director of air resource requirements. There seem to be two people working together. I would like to know how the process begins. Is it the politicians who tell you that there is not enough strategic airlift and ask you to review all the options? Is that how the process for leasing or purchasing aircraft for the strategic airlift begins?

     LGen Lloyd Campbell: Normally, our Director General of Strategic Planning does an initial study to determine whether there is an overall need to provide transportation for our armed forces in the context of humanitarian and other missions. Next, if the submission is seen as something that the air force can do, it is transferred to us to determine the specific needs. For example, in the case of the maritime helicopters, we, together with the navy, did the necessary studies and determined our operational requirements and prepared the statement of operational requirements. Once the project is approved by the department, we work with Mr. Williams, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Matériels) and his staff, who discuss, among other things, the possibilities of contracts with the major firms.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Fine.

    Is the Department of Public Works also involved in the discussion? You spoke about Treasury Board, but does Public Works have a mandate to negotiate directly with the companies once the choice is made, for example? Is that how it works?

     LGen Lloyd Campbell: Normally, we work on these projects as a team. Let me go back to the example of the maritime helicopter project. There was a Public Works employee who was on our team. So there was therefore someone from Matériels, someone from Public Works, and someone from our air force. We work together as a team.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Very well.

    Are any studies that are done during the project public documents? Could a member of Parliament, for example, get a copy of one of these studies?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Yes, usually. However, some of them are secret. It all depends on the project, which may sometimes contain some very specific information about electronic war equipment, for instance. Normally, however, these studies are available to anyone.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Right.

    Earlier, you spoke about the studies on the strategic airlift. To your knowledge, are these studies public or secret at this time?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The studies on the strategic airlift? I'm not sure.

    Do you know?

    Brigadier-General Doug Langton (Director General, Air Force Development, Department of National Defence): I am not sure either. I would have to check, but I think they are.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: We can certainly get that answer for you.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: And pass it on to me. Thank you very much.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: I think so.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Fine.

    I'm going to move quickly to another subject while I have you here. Do you require F-18 pilots to have a certain number of training hours in order to keep their licence? You do? What is the number of hours you require at the moment?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The current practice is to require 189 hours a year. However, it depends on the pilot's experience; for more experienced pilots, the figure is somewhat lower; while for the less experienced pilots, it is somewhat higher.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Who sets the number of hours? Is it you, as the general?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The number of hours is suggested by the commander of the 1 Canadian Air Division, General Lucas, and then there is a discussion between him and myself, because we have to take our resources into account as well.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Could you be tempted to grant fewer hours of training this year because the cost of fuel has increased, and, unfortunately, you fear that you will not be able to stay within your budget?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: No. We had to apply all the professional and operational procedures to reach the figure of 189 hours. The consideration about reducing the number of hours of flying time was really central to our concerns when I and the commander of the 1 Canadian Air Division decided to maintain the low-level flights, which made it possible to reduce the annual number of flying hours.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

    Mr. Price.

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

    Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.

    I know it seems like a bit of a rehash. We keep going over these things, but in actual fact, the way things are changing all the time, we're not. We're getting into new territory all the time.

    I'll just follow a little along Mr. Bachand's line on the airlift. I'm sure you've looked at the testimony of the people we had here and the different arguments we heard. It was probably the first time we had three lined up like that. We did hear a little about it after, too. Some of them didn't quite get across the messages they wanted to.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. David Price: Anyway, it was an interesting exercise, and I'm sure you saw an interesting exercise in it too.

    You talked about studies that are done and what you should have and all that, but I'm sure that within your group you also have a wish list, things people have already determined in their minds they'd really like to have. If we look at the Herc, which is the workhorse...and I'd say we're probably going to keep Hercs there. Somewhere in the line, we'll keep our Hercs. You've talked about the upgrades they're going through, and now they're all pretty well at the same level.

    I was out at Spar a while back, and I had a chance to see the rebuilds that have been going on there and how extensive some of them are. We're getting to a point now, though, where if we look at the upgrades and the point where you've gone, if you were to go further, it really would be major. It would almost amount to tearing apart the plane and starting to build over, a little like what we've basically done with our search and rescue maritime helicopters. So the question is, since we've gotten to this stage with our current Hercs, how long do you expect they will go at that level before we have to very seriously look at changing the complete airframe, going to this major overhaul, the next step?

º  (1615)  

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, there's the study I asked to be done with regard to our baseline fleet operation, the current fleet of Hercules of the various models that we have and the airbus, as a baseline for essentially a 20-year to 30-year period, and then we've costed that against some other ones.

    Now, in doing that baseline we had to determine whether indeed this is even phyisically possible. Can you do that? And the answer from the engineers is yes, you can. But there's risk in that. And as you correctly point out, there are increasing costs. The airplanes, in this case the Herc, as it gains hours, the kinds of inspections such as you saw out at Spar become progressively more invasive and expensive. So that has to be factored into the program.

    Physically, the Hercules is a very solid airplane. Barring something that we haven't seen, in terms of corrosion or whatever, according to the engineers it's supportable for that period of time. But there is risk, and there are increasing operating costs. Somewhere, just like with an old car.... And I noticed that in the discussion that was going on there were a lot of used car analogies being thrown around. It's the same kind of thing: there comes a point where keeping it is a costly option.

    Mr. David Price: One thing you didn't mention.... You did talk about the Griffin and the Coyote, the interaction that could take place there. Have you looked at the unmanned aircraft and the interaction that could take place between Coyote and...?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Absolutely. We're doing studies in the department. It's not actually in the air force, although we're involved, because UAVs will be a joint requirement. The director general of joint force development is actually the lead on this. But the air force obviously has not only a significant interest from the point of view of product and operation of these kits, but as the air-worthiness authority for the military in Canada in my current appointment, I also have legal and other obligations. So we're very much involved in that.

    General Bastien, my deputy, was just in the United States talking to General Foglesong, who's the vice-chief of the United States air force. We're trying to do some work with them to determine what their experiences have been: how they've integrated them; how they've managed air space control--that is, the de-confliction of these resources and other airborne platforms; the integration of the information; who operates them. We want to learn as much as we can from what they've done and mistakes they've made. As Doc Foglesong said, they've made lots, so we're going to take advantage of that.

    There's a lot of movement. It very much will be integrated into this whole business of surveillance and reconnaissance.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. David Price: I guess that was going to be my next question. You mentioned the problem of retention of pilots and so on, so we starting talking of unmanned aircraft. Somebody still has to fly them, even though it's from the ground. So I guess you partially answered the question. You're looking at the possibility of who could actually fly these things.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Indeed. We need to figure out what kinds of skill sets they require. I don't see that there will be people like me, who have gone through pilot training, but they do have to have some very unique and probably expensive skills in the training sense as well to be able to properly operate these.

    Mr. David Price: Video game people.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: They may not have the same demand from the the airlines, at least initially, so that may help us a bit.

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the committee and to our presenters for being late.

    Dave, you asked most of my questions, so I'll have to go back to my old standby in Shearwater.

    An hon. member: You missed it, Dave.

    Mr. David Price: Go for it.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know, I heard. I'll get the blues on it.

    As you know, sir, it's the 84th anniversary this year of Shearwater.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    A voice: Is he being set up?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm putting it on the record.

    We had sad news the other day when they divested themselves of the 900 what were deemed surplus acres. Nobody who I know in the military down there ever deemed them surplus. It was a political decision to do that back in 1994. I think it's a mistake to divest ourselves of military infrastructure, especially since September 11.

    There was a report done last August, which was supposed to be released last September, on the home base of the maritime helicopter program, and now we heard yesterday in questioning that the report's not supposed to be out until the end of this year. For the life of me, I can't understand why that report would be so delayed and it would take so long to figure out where to put the Sea King replacements.

    So my question for you, sir--and I know I may sound a bit political--being an air force person yourself and knowing Shearwater, shouldn't Shearwater be the home base of the Sea King replacements?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: In fact, the minister I think announced yesterday that it would be.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, what he said was the base would continue, but he didn't say where the home base for the maritime helicopter program would be. That's a big difference.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Then I misheard what he said. Because I certainly know what my recommendations are--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Could you open that to the committee? Are you free to say it?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: I think I am. Certainly my understanding of what the minister said...and I shouldn't be speaking for him, but I can speak for what the recommendations were. The recommendations in our report were that, given all of the various operational cost and other quality-of-life issues, we ought to stay where we are, in Shearwater and Pat Bay. My understanding is that's exactly what the minister said yesterday.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: For the record, the question was about the future of Shearwater. He didn't speak about the maritime helicopter replacement. When Mr. Cuzner, our colleague from Cape Breton, asked that question, the question was about the future of Shearwater. He said the base will continue. But the question I would have asked if I had a chance would be where will the home base of the maritime helicopter program be? That question hasn't been answered yet.

    We're still very concerned in the HRM area of the future of Shearwater because now what will happen--and you can correct me if I'm wrong--with those 900 acres deemed surplus, the city, or somebody, developers, want to turn that large runway now into a road and a bypass road. They're going to put development along that road, and that's going to put severe pressure on the Shearwater base itself, because as helicopters go off, people always complain about the noise. And every time they tell me this, I tell them, that's the sound of peace and freedom; you should get used to it. That base has been there 84 years, but these residential properties have been there just recently. I feel the pressure will be on to eliminate that base. That's a little statement.

    The money they would get from the sale of those lands, does that go directly back into DND's budget, or does it go back into general revenues?

º  (1625)  

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: This is a bit outside my area, but I think it goes back, ultimately, into general revenues, although we have an agreement to get some funding back from the sale of surplus lands. The assistant deputy minister of infrastructure and environment would be the guy who would be able to best address it. We can give you an answer on that.

    But to get back to the issue, I certainly know what my recommendations have been. My understanding is that those have been supported. I'll attempt when I go back to the office to get a clarification, unless the chair can help me out here. But certainly my understanding of what the minister said yesterday was he supported the study.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: In terms of recruiting, on the news the other day they had quite a good special on the army and the excessive number of recruits who have shown up. Are you facing that great problem, as well? I think it's quite good to know there are a lot of Canadians willing to look at the military as a career. Are you noticing a large recruitment into the air force?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Even at times of poor recruiting, the air force is a popular place for people to come. So as I said in my opening remarks, we haven't had the same challenges, with the exceptions of aircraft and communications engineering. We're facing the same challenge that everybody out there is with engineers these days in Canada. But we're doing very well in that regard, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Another concern that has been addressed, of course, is that the supply chain will be devolved to Tibbet's of England. So you have a foreign company now running our supply chain. Are there any concerns in that regard at all from your perspective?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Well, from an air force perspective, our concerns have been making sure that the supply element that is closest to the operation, that is deployable, that needs to go to the field, that we need to send when we're going to the Middle East or when we're operating F-18s in Aviano or wherever...that organization is military deployable and ready to go and that the part that supports it has the means to do that.

    The overall status of that project, of course, is still in its first year of assessment to see whether there's a business case from industry's perspective on whether they can actually do the job we're asking them to do and to do it economically in comparison to us. The jury is still out on that. We will see over the course of the next few months. I think it's by September that the first year of contract is up.

    I can assure you that I, and I would suggest the commanders of the army and navy as well, have been equally as concerned, interested, and involved in trying to make sure that whatever we deliver at the end of the day in terms of the capability is usable and useful not only in peacetime but also in times of tension or when we're involved in operations.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. Thank you, General.

    Mrs. Wayne.

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

    Our Minister of Public Works and Government Services had stated with regard to a couple of the Challenger jets that they were over 19 years old. He said “They're getting up there in age”.

    Lieutenant-General, could you tell us what percentage of the Sea Kings, the Hercules, the Auroras and the CF-18 aircraft are over 19 years of age?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The Sea Kings would all be there. The Hercules, I would say, are probably 75% there--these figures are really off the top of my head. The F-18s were acquired between 1982 and about 1985 when we took delivery, so they're right around that timeframe.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The reason I ask that is because in fact where I come from back east, we had some Sea Kings that crashed, some people who lost their lives.

    As you know, ten years ago they were talking about replacing the Sea Kings with EH-101s, and that became a very political issue, which was unfortunate. It seemed that ten years ago there was a recognition within the armed forces and our air force that there was a need to replace the Sea Kings. So here we are now and we still haven't got the contract out.

    When do you see a replacement for those Sea Kings?

º  (1630)  

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The expectation here is that we'll see the contract for the basic airframe signed this year, towards the end of the year, and for the insides, the avionics mission systems, early next year.

    I don't recall if it was here or at the Senate that I spoke to that. How quickly thereafter we'll see airplanes will depend a little on the serendipity, I suppose, of the matches. It could be a very easy match, in which case the delivery of the airplanes will happen quickly. It may be less matrimonial, in which case there will be more of a challenge.

    In the meantime, as I think I mentioned to you last spring, ma'am, we really are focusing on making sure that the Sea King operation stays safe and sound. And if you look at the flight safety records of the aircraft, in fact, of the accidents that we've had of all different types, serious and less serious, they really are balanced across the entire four decades of the operation. So newness is not necessarily a good thing from the point of view of operations.

    If you look at the F-18, for example, our loss rates in the early days of the airplane were much higher than they have been in the latter ones.

    Commanders never like talking about accidents.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You mentioned the split contract. I just don't understand why we've gone this way, except it is a political thing. I think we need to somehow get the message out to the government, “Look, nobody's going to stand up there and scream and holler at you if you give them the EH-101, the best helicopters there are to replace them.” We're not going to go out and say, “Hey, ten years ago you campaigned against it.” Glory be to God, all we want to do is give those men the tools--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Just a minute; you had your time.

    I'll tell you right now, you would probably do it, but I wouldn't, because the men would come before me, that's for sure. They truly would, and I can look you in the eye and tell you that, sir. Getting what we need for our men and women in uniform to me is number one. Politics shouldn't even by playing a role in it.

    The Auditor General, on February 21, testified before the committee on public accounts and revealed that the annual flying hours for the Sea King, the Hercules, and the Aurora have all steadily declined over the last five years, that their availability is declining, and that mission aborts are increasing. Is this the situation now? Is that how you see it?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: With all the greatest respect for the Auditor General's staff who prepared the report, I would say no. They tend to look at a snapshot in time, and the time they were looking at, in terms of the Sea King, was a time when they had a lot of airplanes going through modifications. Likewise with the Hercules: if you compare the Hercules, for example, when airplanes are going through major modification lines, and compare the serviceability against the entire fleet, obviously it will give you a bit of a distorted picture.

    The situation with both of those airplanes has significantly improved since the data the Auditor General was talking about.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Now, the Prime Minister recently stated that Canada would do well to continue hiring planes for strategic airlift. I don't know what the pros or cons of that would be. Is there a major difference as far as readiness goes? The U.S. has stated in recent months that we should have our own airlift. They're kind of criticizing us. What do they mean? Do they want to sell us planes? What is it? What was the point? They said we should have our own airlift; we shouldn't have to go to them for this. Are they pointing fingers at us: that we have not put enough money in the budget to give our men and women and you the tools to do the job; that we have to go to them for it?

º  (1635)  

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: I wouldn't want to try to guess--and I think you're referring to the ambassador's comments here--what the motives were behind it. We can only talk about what the motives are internally for things. As I said to the minister some time ago, if we buy strategic airlift airplanes, we're not buying them for the air force. The air force actually doesn't need strategic airlift airplanes, because we don't have stuff to move. We need them for the army, if we're going to move stuff, and we need them for whatever other national requirements may exist.

    That's where, in the course of the next several months here, as we continue this review of defence policy resources, it will really be up to the department initially, and the government obviously in a final sense, to say what the expectations are. Whether you need your own or rent them depends on how reliably and how fast you want to be able to move things. If it doesn't matter, if you decide nationally it isn't an issue, then renting them or relying on the U.S. would probably be fine. If, on the other hand, the government's decision is that some sense of speed and reliability and so on is important, then presumably government will give us some directions on what they want to do. In this case, we're again just a deliverer of a service.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

    Mrs. Gallant.

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

    Respecting the C-130, where does the replacement of these aircraft rank in terms of your equipment priorities?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: It's not high at the present time because of the fact that we have gone through the avionics update and other programs to give them a better and longer life. In terms of horizons, we have to be looking ten and fifteen years ahead of time. Certainly the question about what we do with the older E model airplanes, particularly, is one that will have to be addressed.

    As I explained to the committee, it's why I've put this study in place to look at our overall air mobility picture. It's to try to move us away from looking at things as simply the cost of a capital acquisition, and look at the cost of operating the fleets over the entire number of years. Each of the airplanes comes with different numbers of crew members, for example. People cost money. Operations and maintenance, repairs and so on cost money.

    Our major priorities right now are the American helicopter project, the F-18 upgrade that's underway, and the introduction of the F-149. The Hercules would fall into the next tranche of things that we need to deal with.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Given our experience with the Sea Kings, it might be an idea to place the order now.

    What about the fact that the ADATS, Coyote, HLVW, Husky, LAV III, Leopard, Beaver, Badger, and Griffon don't fit into the C-130's? Is there something else? Do you think strategic lift for them is important?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: To be fair, and you went through the list fairly quickly, some of them will fit in a Herc. In some cases, it requires letting air out of the suspension and tires to lower the height. In some cases, like the LAV III, it actually requires significant dismantling of the equipment--i.e., taking off the turret and armour.

    The other challenge, of course, is the Herc is not a strategic distance airplane. We've used it in a trans-oceanic way for some years, but with heavy loads it doesn't have great range. It's why we're looking at a strategic airlift program.

º  (1640)  

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

    What is the operational budget deficit of the air force in the present fiscal year?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: We don't operate on a deficit, although we do operate on an over-programming thing. We're over-programming, I think, about $25 million for this fiscal year. It is different from deficit funding.

    One thing about military and governmental budgets is in general it's very difficult to forecast the various costs associated with the operation of airplanes with precision. For example, a change of a penny or two for a litre of aviation fuel can make millions of dollars of difference in my budget. We find costs tend to be stated normally a little higher than what they truly turn out to be. As a result, we have to be careful, at the end of the year, we don't actually have money left over. We use an over-programming thing to do it. We basically plan on using more money than we have. We know, at the end of the year, we'll be able to bring it in on budget.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With the recent budget in December, did the increase in funding to the defence department provide enough to meet your immediate priorities?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: It met some of them. We certainly received some money for what we call minor requirements, vehicle replacements, and so on. Our biggest funding issues, I would say, in the air force are in the whole area of operations and maintenance.

    For the capital equipment element, I'd have to almost go back to my previous job when I was in charge of strategic planning. I think if we look at the capital equipment program, the air force programs are pretty well situated, with the exception of strategic airlift, where a decision hasn't yet been made.

    There is some room where we, the department, think it could be funded. The biggest pressures have been in the area of spare parts and the cost of repair and overhaul. Unlike the army and the navy, the air force relies almost totally on industry for our major support.

    We do our own internal maintenance. Major refits of airplanes are all done in industry. The costs have been climbing in general over the past number of years, as have the costs in the aviation industry. There is pressure in what's called the “national procurement budget” that has continued to cause some problems. They are reflected in things such as serviceability rates and frustration levels.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

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

    General, when you appeared before us last time, it was May 15—you told us about a forum that is held with the Americans at which the main topic is interoperability. I would like to hear a little more about this joint form on strategic planning. You say that this group meets regularly.

    Could you explain the purpose of this forum and what is discussed there. Are the meetings frequent? Exactly who do you meet? Is it your counterpart for the American air force? Explain for us why it is to our advantage to be sure that... I imagine that you talk about interoperability, but is that the main subject of discussion at these meetings?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: In fact, there are two different meetings. There is one at my level, with my American counterpart, who is now General Jumper. It is held twice a year: once here, in Canada, in Trenton, Comox or elsewhere in the country, and once in the United States, usually in Colorado Springs, in October. Five or six of my senior air force generals take part in the meeting, and on the American side, there are five or six 4-star officers who attend. We discuss a variety of topics. Naturally, the interoperability of operations in Afghanistan was on the agenda at our last meeting.

    The second meeting is the strategic planning forum. Its objective is to inform us of the ideas of the American air force for the future, because, as you know, it takes a long time to acquire new weapons, new equipment, and so on. Consequently, we need to have a good idea of the direction in which the Americans will be heading in the next 10 to 15 years. That is why we established this strategic planning forum with them.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Claude Bachand: You spoke about the meetings held in Colorado Springs. That is precisely the question I wanted to ask next. These days, we hear less about the U.S. missile defence system. When I visited Colorado Springs, perhaps two years ago, there was a great deal of talk about it. General Madonald was there at the time.

    At this joint forum, do you discuss Canada's possible involvement in all the research and military industry surrounding the missile defence system? Is that the type of discussions you have at that forum?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: No, because that is really a political matter, not a military and definitely not an air military matter. So we spoke about it informally, but not at the discussion table.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: You talked about it at the dinner table.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Yes, of course. At the bar.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: At the time, General Macdonald thought that it was dangerous. He said that if Canada were to make a political decision not to participate in the NMD, Canada's 50-50 participation in NORAD could be jeopardized. Do you have the same apprehension?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Definitely. As I said last May, this is certainly a concern for all members of the air force, because our relationship with our American colleagues is very important to us. As I said, we have very close ties with the Americans. Consequently, even though this is not a policy that is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence, I think our interests are the same as those of the U.S. air defence, particularly since the events of September 11. My views on the matter are certainly the same as those of General Macdonald.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bachand.

    Mr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): I see by the information presented here that you were commander 1 of the Canadian Air Division, Canadian NORAD region. I'm not too sure what that really and truly means. Were you stationed at NORAD in Colorado Springs?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: No. The NORAD arrangement has of course its main headquarters in Colorado Springs, but it has three regions. One covers the continental United States, one covers Alaska, and one covers Canada. I commanded the Canadian region.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: The reason I'm introducing that is because I visited there with my colleague, Mr. Stoffer, just recently. I was very impressed. It was one of the most dynamic experiences of being on this committee--I just got on last fall--simply because it had a positive impact on my perceptions of that relationship we have with the United States. We were very fortunate in being there when an alert came in. It was that plane that was carrying what they thought was a terrorist on board from England. Our interceptors went up and escorted that plane, and the Americans took over until it landed at the terminal at Kennedy Airport.

    What impressed me was the attitude of the people we talked to--the Americans and the Canadians--and how they worked together. Never in our conversations did you ever hear people talk about “those Canadians” , “those Americans”, or “those guys”. In other words, there was no terminology that distinctly separated the people in their operations or in their social life. They were all distinctly members of the same family and the same team, and they had the same attitude. We saw them in operation working side by side, Americans and Canadians. They were like buddies, and there was no sense or indication that one guy was lording it over the other.

    The reason I'm pointing this out to you and anyone else who is listening is that to me that clearly indicated that our sovereignty is not at threat. In fact, many of the key positions there in that operation at Colorado Springs are held by Canadians. They have extremely responsible areas. The guy who's in charge--Lieutenant General Ken Pennie--has a heavy responsibility. I was most impressed with all the personnel we met there.

    Now, if we use that as a model and you are heavily involved with strategic planning, a visionary in the military, can we also do something of that nature when it comes to the utilization of equipment? Here we're talking about services using basically American equipment and their facilities in Cheyenne Mountain and so forth. Is there any way that this type of model can be put into operation in any other facet of the militia or the military in general, whether it be the air force...? Let's zero in on the air force.

º  (1650)  

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: I think I need to understand just precisely what sharing we might be talking about.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Well, everybody has their own toys. Every country in the world is building up their own armaments. They all have their own planes, their own tanks, and everything else. Sometimes they get together and play with each other's toys. That's what I'm referring to. Is there any possibility that any of that can be done simply because we could, cooperatively as a team, as allied forces, use in the most effective manner the expertise that exists within each team?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Indeed, that's exactly what we do through the NORAD alliance, through NATO: we share the defence burden by each bringing our resources. In some cases there are pooling efforts--the NATO AWACS program is one, for example, where Canada's a fairly large contributor. In fact, we have a large group of airmen and women in Geilenkirchen, Germany, who help operate that system.

    The challenge with some of these arrangements, though, is that some things we do multinationally and binationally and other things our government wishes to do on their own. One needs to be careful that for those things that are most critical to you as a nation, whether in terms of sovereignty or in terms of reacting to national catastrophes or what have you, you're not totally reliant on somebody else for the fundamentals, because at the time you need them they may be doing something else, or perhaps on that particular issue your politics aren't exactly on the same line.

    We do a lot of it; it's what interoperability is about, what alliances are all about. In the case of Canada we have never, for land, sea, and air, tried to deploy all the kinds of capabilities that would be required in modern warfare. We really do tend to focus on those things that have the greatest utility for the nation.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Stoffer.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Recently the ombudsman of the military issued the post-traumatic stress disorder report. I was wondering, at your level have you had a chance to review the report, and what will the air force be doing to enact some of the recommendations of the report to support the men and women and their families within the air force?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: I certainly have read the report, and it's an issue of great concern to us, perhaps not as significant an issue in the air force as it has been from an army perspective, simply because of the kinds of events that are there.

    Since I've been doing all the talking here, perhaps I'll turn to my chief to make a couple of comments on that.

    Chief Warrant Officer Daniel Gilbert (Air Command Chief Warrant Officer, Department of National Defence): I'm glad you asked the question, because it's a very important one. We have been working through a committee called the Flight Plan for Life committee, which aims to increase the quality of life of air force personnel, of course.

    At the last meeting held we discussed the health of our soldiers, and not only the physical but the mental health, and ways to develop a better communication between the health caregivers, the patient, and management. We are working extremely hard at getting that together--getting a better understanding of non-physical injuries also. We're making great progress on that subject. It will be discussed again on April 29 in Greenwood, at our next conference of Flight Plan for Life.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. And, sir, are there any other air bases within the country that we need to be concerned about having a review on, or about further downsizing, or any surplus areas? I know I concentrate a lot on Shearwater because I represent it, but are there any others across the country that we should have a concern about as well, that you're aware of?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: From an air force perspective, from my perspective as chief of the air staff, no; we have gone through, in the period of program review one and two, a major review of those kinds of things. As I mentioned to you, Mr. Stoffer, the last time around, the reason I commissioned the study on Shearwater and Pat Bay was in fact it was somewhat of a leftover question still from that period of time that we needed to resolve so that we could actually first of all give people in the local area, military and civilian, some comfort as to where we were going, and also get on with doing constructive planning about what was going to happen. Those are the only studies that are underway from an air force perspective, and that one is complete, in my view.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I know I have a couple of minutes left, so you can have the last minute for any question you may have. I just want to put on the record that on May 16 and 17 is the 60th anniversary of the 403 Squadron in Shearwater, which I'm sure you'll be attending. This is your personal invitation--for all of you, Mr. Chair--to come on down and socialize with this fabulous squadron we have in Nova Scotia.

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, did I hear you correctly, that you wanted to give this time to the government side?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: To you, yes.

    The Chair: Well, actually, a few of my colleagues want to ask some quick questions on this side.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm done. I've asked my questions.

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Wood.

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

    Just one quick question, General. When the Cormorant search and rescue helicopter was purchased to replace the Labrador, I believe it was also planned to withdraw from service, sir, the remaining Buffalo aircraft used for search and rescue. I guess my quick question is, is a replacement of the Buffalo being considered in order to reduce the burden of the fleet of helicopters, some of which, as you know, are used for search and rescue? Is there something going on? Are you thinking of replacing the Buffalo?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: The current direction I have is that once the Cormorant is fully in service, essentially a year after that point in time is when the Buffalo should retire. We've had a look at how supportable the Buffalo might be for a longer period of time, and that whole thing is wrapped again into the broader question I raised earlier that says we really need to look at our overall air mobility search and rescue fixed-wing fleets here and decide what it is we need to do in the future. We're currently doing search and rescue on the fixed-wing side with Hercules. And of course if we do retire the Buffalo as planned, that means we're going to have to move some of these resources into Comox to replace that capability.

    So we're in the midst right now of trying to determine what is the best solution here, to put Hercules in there to do that, to look at some other acquisition of an airplane to replace the search and rescue Hercules, and so on. That study is pretty much at an embryonic stage right now.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Bob Wood: Has there been any timeframe on years? Are we talking 2004, 2005, or have you gone that far?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Well, a decision needs to be taken, I would say, within the next year. We have some commitments to move forward, and the issue with airplanes, particularly airplanes that are somewhat unique, like the Buffalo...it's not in wide use anywhere else. You have to make some early decisions about whether you're going to retain it or not because industry is the one that ultimately will...spare parts and so on.

    So the decision will need to take place early. The airplane itself is supportable for quite a number of years yet.

    Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood. Thank you, General Campbell.

    I have two speakers on this side who haven't had an opportunity yet, so I'd like to get everybody in today.

    Mrs. Wayne.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If you don't mind, Lieutenant General, I'm going to ask General Langton a question.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: He feels lonely.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: We've been hearing in Newfoundland about the 200-mile limit when it comes to fisheries. We don't have the helicopters to monitor the 200-mile limit, and this is what has happened to the cod fishery. Are you aware of this? Is this the problem, or do we have the helicopters that can look after that 200-mile limit?

    BGen Doug Langton: I'm not completely clear which helicopters you're talking about. We do have Sea Kings on the east coast, obviously--

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Oh, I know.

    BGen Doug Langton: --and our ships are assigned to assist Fisheries and Oceans, and the Sea Kings are there with that. So that happens on a regular basis.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But can the Sea Kings do that? We've been told that there's been a problem when it comes to the 200-mile limit and that really they cannot look after it. Are you aware of that?

    BGen Doug Langton: The Sea Kings can't go from Shearwater out 200 miles and do surveillance--

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, they can't, that's right.

    BGen Doug Langton: --that's correct, but they go with the ships that participate in this. In Greenwood we have the CP-140 Aurora aircraft, which are also assigned some hours to fisheries to do that sort of work.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just want to ask you one question.

    Now, Lieutenant General, just let him answer this one.

    BGen Doug Langton: He let me answer the last one.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If you had an open-ended budget, if you had the money to do whatever you needed to do for our air force and our men, what would be the first thing you would want to do when it comes--

    BGen Doug Langton: A pay raise.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, not a pay raise. I mean replacement of equipment.

    BGen Doug Langton: I think the pay side and the quality of life side have been handled and dealt with very, very capably.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: We've dealt with that, yes.

    BGen Doug Langton: And I think, as General Campbell said, the modernization projects that are underway right now put the air force in good shape. It sounds as if I'm waffling a bit, but the air force is in good shape.

    Strategic airlift, from my perspective, is an important issue, one I would like to see us move forward on. So in answer to your speculative question, hypothetically, strategic airlift would be number one.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Well, all I'll say to that is if I can get the government to agree to replace the Sea Kings with the EH-101, I'll send a letter over to the minister and tell him that I will not get up in the House, even though it was my party that brought it in. They defeated my party on that, yet I will never criticize them for doing it. I'm glad Leon Benoit is gone, because he would certainly say that he won't do it, but I wouldn't do it. I want you to know.

    Oh, he's back.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's a paid political announcement right there.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, not political. It's a paid announcement.

    The Chair: I have Mr. O'Reilly, and I understand your intervention is going to be short.

    Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton--Victoria--Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I just wanted to make sure, so I went back and checked my notes, and General Campbell is absolutely right. The minister did accept his report, and that would leave no doubt about Shearwater. I just wanted to confirm that; I did check the notes, and that's exactly what it says. That was all I wanted to put on the record--and to remind Mrs. Wayne that the Sea Kings do fly off the backs of ships.

    Thank you.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Certainly, General, 9/11 has been a defining date with respect to levels of operations in many areas. It might be helpful to the committee to know whether you've had to ratchet up levels of operations under your command, and if so, whether existing resources have been sufficient to respond to that increased level of operations. And where they haven't been, please tell us if possible, what types of deficiencies and strain on resources are we looking at?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Well, certainly we have ratcheted up operations. I already mentioned, of course, a greater number of F-18s being on alert and deployed across the country. That has a greater personnel bill, and it means more wear and tear on bodies who are deployed at other bases for periods of time.

    Probably the biggest area of concern is the whole business of force protection. We have obviously had greater concerns about the security of our own air fields and facilities, and that's a different environment than we used to live in before. War and difficulties were always things you did somewhere else.

    When I was the wing commander of a wing in Germany, we thought about having to protect your own airfield in wartime. We didn't much do that back here in North America. The whole business of providing force protection to our own facilities, land, sea, and air, is one that causes some concern to us, and it does so because there's a large personnel bill around that kind of thing. So that's an area of concern.

    As for the operations abroad and the operational tempo with respect to deployments of Sea Kings, Auroras, Hercules, and so on, they are in the long term an issue. But we have some pretty good plans here on what we're at least proposing to government to do in order to keep that under control. I'm less concerned about the forces we currently have deployed than I am about some of these other less glamorous and less seen things, but nevertheless, wear and tear on bodies here is a concern.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Provenzano.

    Mr. Price, would you like the last minute and a half?

    Mr. David Price: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one quick question to follow up.

    You mentioned the fact that some of this new kit we'd be getting would reduce the number in the crews. If we look at the new avionics, the glass cockpits that are going into the Hercs, are we going to be reducing the crews on the Hercs with that, taking out the navigator or engineer, for example? On the new Hercs they're not needed any longer. Are we going high enough in our upgrade of avionics to actually reduce some positions?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: With the Hercules actually I really ask that question myself, because quite honestly in a transatlantic transport-type mission the airplane as it is currently outfitted doesn't require a navigator on board.

    The problem is that the defensive electronic warfare system when we deploy it into operations actually does require an extra body to operate. This means you have to have the people, and if you have them they might as well fly in all of the missions, because, as I think you'd understand, we can't be changing the crew complement because of the fact that the crew cooperation, the flow of information around a cockpit, is very disruptive when you're changing, whether it's a two-pilot operation, a two-pilot-plus-an-engineer, or a navigator.

    Mr. David Price: But we should say at the same time that your crews are completely interoperable. It's not the same crew all the time on the planes.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: No, absolutely. They're all individual people--

    Mr. David Price: But it's just having three or two.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: --but they know their script and they know who they need to interrelate with and who has what responsibility in the cockpit, and if you change that you run some risks. So I made the decision when I was commanding the air division that we would not change that complement, but as we move forward certainly with more modern aircraft that will be an issue that will go away, certainly. The crew complement will be less.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

    Mr. Benoit, a last five-minute round.

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

    General, you made a statement something like, and I'm paraphrasing, that when you're going through the process of procurement it's not only the cost of the aircraft you consider, you have to consider operation costs, training of pilots, training of techs and so on, as part of procurement. Is that roughly what you said?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Absolutely.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, then why is it that in the maritime replacement contract, in fact those things are specifically not being considered? They're precluded from the contracting process, from the bidding process.

    So we would have an advantage. When you're looking at the EH-101s we have in place for search and rescue, we could have the same training for the techs, same training for flight simulators, things like that, yet that is excluded from the contracting process. Isn't that a false procurement process that's been gone through?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Again, it's not my part of ship directly because that's being handled by the ADM for matériel, but part of the evaluation process here is a 20-year life operation of the equipment. So companies, in this case the EH-101, that can demonstrate there are efficiencies and savings presumably at the end of that will be able to show that this in fact is the case.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: But nothing on potential savings for having our techs being able to service the search and rescue helicopters and at the same time service the maritime helicopters, and there could be a great cost saving. Flight simulators is another point, and there are other areas as well. There could be great benefits. Those are specifically excluded from the procurement process.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Again, let me not talk about the contract, because that's not my business, but I'll simply mention that the search and rescue helicopter is actually supported by an alternate service delivery program. So the technicians there are civilian, non-deployable people who stay at the base. So there isn't that same compatibility that you suggest with whatever the maritime helicopter project will be.

    As far as the airplanes go, there is a potential here, but a maritime version of the EH-101 would be quite different from the current Cormorant that we have in the search and rescue role.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: But there would be a lot of similarities.

    In terms of the Sea King now, you said it served well, and I agree with that, but what are the limitations when it comes to load, what it can carry in terms of detection equipment and response equipment, and the range and reliability with the current Sea Kings?

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Well, I think all of those fall into the deficiencies that brought us, in the first place, to have a project to replace the airplane. The technology in some of the sensors that are on board, like the sonar system, is less reliable and less capable than current and new systems. We've done some band-aid work to give it a more modern tactical navigation system, which gives it a better command-and-control capability out there, but it's certainly not state-of-the-art new equipment that's available on the market. The aircraft, although it is very capable, certainly is more limited in its range and carriage capability than the new maritime helicopter SOR calls for.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: What about getting parts? I've heard from several people who've flown Sea Kings and technicians that they have great difficulty getting many of the parts for the Sea Kings.

»  (1715)  

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Well, the major problem with the Sea King in that regard is that decisions were made in the early 1990s that the airplane was going to be replaced. As a result of that, certain contracts weren't refilled. And there was a period of time when, within the department and the Canadian Forces, we didn't take decisions about what we were going to do for long-term reliability.

    The situation actually is getting better today than it was before, although with older aircraft, the challenge is of obsolescence and the fact that firms simply don't support some types of equipment any more. So certainly that is an issue we're going to--

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I'm going to have to cut you off there, because we have consideration of your motion at 5:15 and we're already overdue for that--unless, of course, you want to defer consideration of your motion till the next meeting.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Can you give me another couple of minutes?

    The Chair: I'm sorry.

    Okay, thank you very much, General Campbell, on behalf of everyone sitting around the table here today. We've appreciated your comments and the comments made by your colleagues as well. Your remarks have been very helpful in terms of giving us an update on the situation as far as the air side is concerned.

    LGen Lloyd Campbell: Thank you, sir.

    The Chair: Perhaps, members of the committee, we can give General Campbell and his colleagues an opportunity to depart. We'll resume in about a minute's time.

»  (1716)  

---

»  (1718)  

    The Chair: Okay, members of the committee, with respect to the consideration of Mr. Benoit's motion, Mr. Benoit has the floor.

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'll read the motion. It is that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs immediately commence a study on the government's purchase, for $101 million, of two jets to replace the Challenger aircraft now being used by the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

    I think the motion is fairly straightforward. It's an issue that is before the public. It's going to become more of an issue with the public. Let's not do as we did with some of the issues to do with the Afghanistan deployment and try to cover them up. Let's deal with it openly at this committee.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    This is a purchase by the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Minister Boudria is the person responsible for it. It has absolutely nothing to do with this committee. It's not a military decision. And it should go to the proper committee. It's in the wrong committee. It would be great to study it, but the purchase is actually done by the Department of Public Works and Government Services, and it's before the wrong committee. We should learn to stay in our own lane.

    An hon. member: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: Mr. Price.

    Mr. David Price: Mr. Chair, I think I have to go a little further than that. We shouldn't even be discussing it at the table right here. This is something that goes to the steering committee. It always has. If we're going to discuss what work we're going to be doing ahead, it goes to the steering committee. We happen to have one coming up, so I think I'd like to see that it's referred to the steering committee for study there.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this doesn't belong here. Why would you pass it on to the steering committee of this committee?

    Mr. David Price: Because we're dealing with this....

    The Chair: I'm in the committee's hands with respect to that issue.

»  (1725)  

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I request the question.

    An hon. member: There's a motion on the floor.

    The Chair: Okay, we have to hear the speakers first, Mr. Dromisky.

    I have Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Anders, and we'll get back to any other government members who wish to speak.

    Mr. Stoffer.

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

    I'm not sure about the validity of it being out of order. Yes, Public Works definitely made the purchase, but isn't it the military that will be operating those aircraft? If it is, then maybe we do have a way of looking into this purchase. It caught all of us--or me, anyway--completely off guard on this purchase. I didn't even know there was a tender process or anything else going on, and we were quite shocked by it.

    I know that publicly people are calling my office saying that if the President can fly in a 21-year-old Sea King, why can't the Prime Minister fly in a 19-year-old Canadair. That's what they're telling me. So I think the motion is in order. I think the motion is balanced.

    The Chair: Mr. Anders and then Mrs. Wayne.

    Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I was recently in the Arabian Sea and had an opportunity to fly probably half a dozen times on the 40-year-old Sea Kings. I was quite surprised today to hear Lieutenant-General Campbell comment that he thought getting parts was easier than it was a few years ago, because the mechanics and the procurers of those parts didn't agree with him.

    Based on the public reaction I'm getting in my office, I think the people do want to know more about this. It was sprung on the country, if you will, on very short notice, caught by surprise, as Mr. Stoffer says. I think it's only fair that this come up for consideration. We deal all the time with readiness and budgetary issues and priorities, and I think this fits.

    The Chair: It will be up to the committee to decide whether or not this is an appropriate matter for consideration by this committee.

    Mrs. Wayne.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, I think we should find out just exactly under whose jurisdiction this does fall. I think what we should do is table the motion--not vote on it and defeat it or anything, but table the motion for today, send it back to our research staff, have them find out and report back to us as to which committee should be dealing with it, whether it should be us, whether it should be public works, or whoever should be dealing with it.

    I would move that it be tabled at this time and be referred to research staff to come back and inform us.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll second that.

    The Chair: Well, in the interest of expediting this issue, perhaps the way we could deal with it.... This is a matter of future business for the committee, which would typically be dealt with by the steering committee. I think your motion in some respects is a bit of a compromise that way. It's a little bit of both in terms of the research element that's involved.

    If there's consensus around the table, maybe we can refer it to the steering committee with a direction to staff to investigate whether or not it's appropriately dealt with by this committee in terms of the procurement aspect of it being done by Public Works and Government Services.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's fine by me.

    The Chair: That's your motion then, Mrs. Wayne? Okay.

    A motion to refer takes precedence, Mr. Benoit. Do you want to speak to the motion to refer?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

    You know, I'm tired of things being buried by this government. We saw it with the minister on that committee when that hearing was ended prematurely, when clearly there was a need for it to continue because there were clear discrepancies between what the Chief of Defence Staff, the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, and the Minister of National Defence said right at committee--direct contradictions, in fact. Yet it was buried.

    If this goes to the steering committee it's just buried again. I'm tired of the government burying issues the public has a right to hear about. They have a right to hear about this in public, not behind closed doors, where government can just throw it out.

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, there's another argument that I'm sure the government members would probably make to the effect that matters that are best dealt with in question period are not necessarily best dealt with by this committee.

    Leaving those arguments aside, maybe at this point we could deal with Mrs. Wayne's motion, which I think represents something of a compromise in terms of what's been discussed previously.

    On Mrs. Wayne's motion, are we ready for the vote?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Recorded vote.

    The Chair: Okay. To be clear, the motion is to refer the matter to the steering committee with the direction to staff to investigate the issue as to whether or not it's properly dealt with by this standing committee and not by another standing committee of the House.

     (Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)

    The Chair: Next is Mr. Benoit's motion.

    (Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)

»  (1730)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Just for clarification, was there a split along party lines with the government on one side and the opposition on the other?

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, you're the--

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Go ahead, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, do you have an item?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. Before anyone goes, I just want to remind everyone that the all-party party is happening tomorrow, and all proceeds from that party will be donated to military family resource centres across the country, of which we have 34. Seven representatives from the MFRCs will be there tomorrow.

    The Chair: Before everybody disappears from committee, I would like to make an announcement as well.

    Do you have anything further, Mr. Stoffer?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just to remind everybody to come along.

    The Chair: Before people go, I would like to bring to your attention an invitation to the committee from the British government. If anyone is interested in attending some of the exercises that are taking place in Suffield this summer just after Canada Day in the first week of July, they're certainly welcome to come out and have a look at what the British army is doing in Alberta. I can provide you with further information on that, and I'll undertake to do that as quickly as possible.

    The meeting is adjourned.