NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

¹

1530

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

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence)

¹

1535

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1550

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. John McCallum

¹

1555

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

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

Mr. John McCallum

General Raymond R. Henault (Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence)

º

1600

Mr. David Price

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

º

1605

Mr. John McCallum

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.)

Mr. John McCallum

º

1615

Mr. Janko Peric

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

Gen Raymond R. Henault

The Chair

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

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John McCallum

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Gen Raymond R. Henault

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John McCallum

Miss Deborah Grey

º

1650

Mr. John McCallum

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. John McCallum

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Mr. John McCallum

º

1655

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. John McCallum

Ms. Margaret Bloodworth (Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence)

»

1700

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 002

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

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

    On behalf of all of the members of the committee, I'd like to welcome the Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence, and two of his senior officials, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Raymond Henault, and Margaret Bloodworth, the Deputy Minister. Welcome to all of you.

    Before we get to the minister's statement and subsequent questions, I'd like to draw it to the attention of the committee that the minister can be with us until 5 o'clock, following which we're going to have an in camera meeting on the future business of the committee. I just want to make sure that everyone is clear on that.

    We will begin, Minister, with your statement. Please proceed.

    Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

    You've introduced my two colleagues here, but just in case the questions get difficult, we have some backup. I'd like to introduce Mr. Ken Calder, assistant deputy minister, policy; Mr. Ken Ready, chief of staff for the assistant deputy minister, materiel; Major-General Doug Dempster, director general for strategic planning; and Mr. Jim Shelvock, section head for estimates and reporting. So that's our army.

[Translation]

    I am very pleased to appear today for the first time before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans' Affairs. I am aware of the good work you have done on behalf of the Canadian Forces, and I look forward to working with you to continue these efforts.

[English]

    It's a particular pleasure for me to be here today, the second anniversary of the election and the sixth anniversary of my becoming Minister of National Defence.

    Understandably, any discussion of the current security environment has to focus on the threat that terrorism poses to both our national security and international stability. As we saw with the bombing in Bali, terrorism can reach us anywhere. Canada simply cannot afford complacency or a false sense of security. If anyone needed more proof of that, it came in the form of the alleged Bin Laden audiotape in which, as you know, Canada was mentioned by name.

[Translation]

    As you know, Canada has been concerned about terrorism since long before the last recording produced by bin Laden. We have been involved in the international campaign against terrorism since the very beginning. Since the start of the campaign, Canada has supplied over 5,400 men and women in the land, naval and air forces, to fight terrorism.

     Today, there are still some 950 members of the military deployed for this purpose.

[English]

    Probably everyone here is familiar with the work of the battle group in Afghanistan. I might say that early in my career as defence minister, about six weeks into the job, I went there and it really gave me a quantum leap in my respect for what our people did over there, because the temperature was in the fifties, the sand was blowing in one's eyes, and the people were all at great risk in terms of their lives.

    I had conversations with a number of the ordinary soldiers, minus their officers, and was extraordinarily impressed with their commitment, their bravery, and their positive attitude in pretty appalling living conditions. Their pride was reinforced by a number of Americans to whom I spoke, of all different ranks, and even the Afghanis were very happy with the humanitarian work that our soldiers have done.

    So in a sense, I guess that was my conversion to the cause, because if I don't speak for the men and women of the Canadian Forces, I'm not sure who will.

    But I should also tell you that it wasn't just the army that did great work. On the navy side, twelve ships have been deployed to the Arabian Gulf and Arabian Sea, and we still have two ships in the area. The navy continues to do superb interdiction and surveillance work in the region, and has conducted almost half of all hailings and 60% of all ship boardings carried out by coalition warships. That's with not much more than 10% of the ships, so you can see that our navy has done a great job.

    More recently, our forces made the news when they captured a ship carrying a suspicious cargo headed for Iraq.

    That's not to forget the air force. They have also been extremely active in the campaign, deploying Airbus and Hercules aircraft with strategic and tactical airlift, as well as Auroras and Sea Kings for surveillance operations.

    I'm well aware that our security does not depend solely on efforts overseas. In fact, National Defence's overriding obligation is to defend Canada and Canadians, and I can assure you that we are taking action to improve the security of Canadians. We continue to maintain an increased number of CF-18s on alert as part of our NORAD commitment to increased air defence.

    As you will recall, last year's budget allocated an additional $1.2 billion to defence as part of the government's overall $7.7 billion investment to protect Canadians against terrorism. We're putting this money to good use.

    Just to give you a few examples, we're in the process of doubling the capabilities of our special forces, known as JTF-2, in the area of nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. We've significantly strengthened both our military capabilities and our research capabilities. We've strengthened our ability to gather valuable signals intelligence. We're developing a coordinated national approach to deal with potential attacks on our critical information infrastructure. And lastly, we've invested in emergency response equipment and training at the municipal level through the joint emergency preparedness program.

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    I spoke a little about the context within which the Department of National Defence is operating at the moment. Let me now think with you about the pressures on Defence and about certain measures we are proposing to deal with them.

    I believe many of you are familiar with what I said in a speech I recently gave to the Chamber of Commerce of Toronto. I said in particular that the Department of National Defence needed a larger budget. I am not going to dwell on this point now, but I would like to emphasize that I am far from the only person who has called for additional funding for the Department of National Defence. As a matter of fact, this committee itself came out strongly in favour of an increased budget for Defence.

[English]

    In fact, given the way public opinion is going, I would say it's not a bad time to be Minister of National Defence. We see this in a number of ways. We see it in public opinion polls, where recently 75% of Canadians said they were in favour of higher defence spending. We saw another poll where, five years ago when Canadians were asked to rank different categories of expenditure, like health care, environment, and transport, etc., defence was second from the bottom out of about 15 categories. Today, five years later, we're above the middle. It's a very big increase over five years.

    We see it in other ways. We saw it twice in Edmonton with the thousands of people who came out twice, once for the service for our four soldiers who were killed and others who were wounded in Afghanistan, and on a second happier occasion upon the return of our soldiers from Afghanistan. I've seen it in my own caucus, although I can't speak for the other caucuses. But I've now spoken to three out of the four regional caucuses and have noted a significant enthusiasm.

    A few years ago, the only people supporting more expenditures for defence were retired generals. Nothing against retired generals or even active generals, but such calls from retired generals were hardly surprising. Nowadays, we have what I once called hardcore Liberals, strong Liberals, such as the Axworthy brothers--Lloyd Axworthy, former foreign affairs Minister, and Tom Axworthy, former principal secretary to Pierre Trudeau--and Michael Ignatieff, a self-described centre-left intellectual, calling for not only more defence spending but also a greater lethality in such defence spending.

    So as I said before, I think there is a real momentum for more funding for defence. At the same time, we have to recognize that the government is faced with many important and competing priorities and a limited pot of money.

    I can attest to that; I used to be in the finance department. It's true that when I moved from finance to defence I immediately stopped being a saver and became a spender, but because I was in finance I know that there are huge competing claims. It's not an easy task to decide where the top priorities lie.

    It means we can't make increased funding the only solution to addressing current pressures and ensuring the Canadian Forces long-term sustainability. Let's not forget, after all, this government has already provided increased funding to defence, funding in the amount of more than $5 billion between fiscal years 2001-02 and 2006-07. We can request more resources, but we also have to make sure that we are getting the best possible value for every dollar we spend.

    I know it's true for any large organization; I worked for three. Whether it's a bank, a university, or now the military, the large organizations don't change on a dime. Large organizations always have a certain amount of waste and are not exactly swift in responding to changing world circumstances. I think this means we have to take every opportunity to increase efficiencies.

    By the way, what I'm saying is not against the military at all. Any large organization has problems adapting quickly to a changing world.

    To help me increase efficiencies, as you may have heard, I'm planning to appoint a small number of private sector experts with experience in restructuring to study ways in which the department can save money.

    Whatever we do, we need to make the Canadian Forces sustainable. One key to ensuring this long-term sustainability is to address the pressures the current operational tempo is putting on our people and their families. I recognize this. The chief has said it publicly. Other leaders of the Canadian Forces have said it. We are indeed acting upon this need.

    For example, we decided not to rotate more ground troops into Afghanistan when the battle group returned from Kandahar. Recently, further to a NATO recommendation, we were able to draw down our forces in Bosnia from 1,500 to about 1,300. This was made possible by the much-improved security environment in the region. It wasn't only a Canadian withdrawal. NATO as a whole reduced their troops by approximately the same percentage, reflecting an improvement in the security environment.

¹  (1540)  

    Another way we're dealing with some of the pressures is through ongoing quality of life improvements that I think you're very familiar with. For example, we're conducting a study on the effect on our members of frequent deployments. These findings will help us develop policies and programs to deal with the effects of repeated deployments.

[Translation]

    In May 2001, the department, together with Veterans Affairs Canada, introduced the Social Support Project for victims of operational stress. The objective of the program is to establish social support programs for members of the military, veterans and their families who suffered operational stress-related trauma and to provide training courses in the Canadian Forces to promote better understanding of this type of trauma.

[English]

    These initiatives, together with other quality of life improvements implemented by my predecessor, represent concrete actions taken to invest in our Canadian Forces members and their well-being.

    I was particularly pleased when the troops coming back from Afghanistan spent a few days to decompress in Guam. This was a novel experiment, and my British counterpart was impressed enough to ask me for the template for how we do this. I'm not saying we've reached perfection by any means, but I think we are among NATO leaders in this important area.

    I've just returned from the NATO summit in Prague. As I expect you know, the face of NATO is about to change dramatically with the invitation to seven new countries to join the alliance. With the addition of these new members NATO's territory will extend far over central and eastern Europe.

    I'd like to comment briefly on two issues related to our meeting in Prague. One is the admission of the seven new members and the second is the advantages of an alliance like NATO for a country of our size.

    It was a moving moment when the seven new countries were admitted; seven countries with 46 million people. Certainly not for 50 years, and perhaps not ever in their history, have they had the kind of security afforded by the NATO umbrella. And so possibly for the first time in their history, and certainly for the first time in 50 years, these seven new countries were afforded this degree of security provided by NATO. I think this will permit the flourishing of democratic institutions and, with that, economic progress in the region.

    I think all of us were very touched when each of the seven leaders made their brief comments to the group after they were admitted into the club.

    In terms of advantages for Canada of membership in NATO, I mentioned yesterday one example concerning strategic airlift. The Germans have this proposal, and a number of countries signed up to look into the possibility of pooling resources to get strategic airlift in a cost-effective manner.

    The analogy I use is that it's like a time-share arrangement for a condo, where the amount of time you have is proportional to your monetary contribution. We don't know if it will work for sure; the devil is in the detail. We need access to the planes when we need them. We certainly would want some of them to be in Canada, but it is an advantage, in NATO, that one can work with allies to try to find cost-effective solutions to some of our highest priorities.

    We're also focusing on our defence relations close to home as we work on an enhanced approach to continental security in concert with the Americans. This is nothing new. Since 1940, when the Ogdensburg Agreement was signed by Mackenzie King and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we have worked jointly with the Americans in the defence of North America.

    We're now in the final stages in the development of a new arrangement that represents a continuation of that 60-year history that will make it easier for our two countries to work together in the event of a terrorist attack or some other disaster on North American territory or in the sea approaches to the continent. We hope to have a joint planning group in place very soon. This group will allow Canada and the United States to share intelligence and contingency plans and to make arrangements for accessing the resources necessary to respond to a crisis.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    This is one of the most important new facts in the history of Canada-U.S. cooperation since the establishment of NORAD.

[English]

    To sum up, I want to reiterate a few key points. The threat of terrorism still lingers. We're taking action with our allies to address that threat and we are working here at home to do the same.

    Lastly, I want to repeat that all doomsday scenarios to the contrary, Canada's military is doing good work that we can all be proud of. My biggest challenge and priority is to ensure that the Canadian Forces remain sustainable so they can continue the critical work of protecting Canada and North America and contributing to international stability. It will cost us money and it will require tough choices, but frankly, I don't think we can afford to do anything less.

    With that, Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that the committee members may have.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister, for that very comprehensive presentation.

    We'll go directly to questions now, and Mr. Benoit is first on our list for seven minutes.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister and Chief of Defence Staff and others, for being here today.

    I do appreciate the opportunity to ask you some questions, Mr. Minister. In your comments you said that it's important to defend Canada and Canadians, and you were referring I think to here at home. But also part of providing the security that Canadians really deserve and expect is to be able to have the capability with our military to strike at the heart of where our enemies are operating.

    For example, we sent troops to Afghanistan, and in spite of a lack of commitment on the part of the government, they performed very well. They didn't have the equipment they needed, they didn't have proper uniforms, but in spite of that they performed very well. So it's important that we can strike at the heart of where the problem is. That's an important aspect of our military, dealing with the security of Canadians.

    I'd like to ask you some questions, Mr. Minister, regarding how we would get our troops to Iraq. In your comments, you made some statements on that. But on Monday in the House of Commons, you said that Canada had signed an agreement with other smaller countries in NATO to achieve strategic airlift availability.

    Well, I'd like to remind the minister that Canada is one of the three founding nations of NATO, that we're a member of the G-8, and that we're geographically the largest country in NATO. And I'd just like to ask the minister if he isn't somewhat embarrassed that his government has allowed this country--our military--to deteriorate to a point that he says we're now a small player and that we'll get together with other small NATO countries to achieve strategic airlift.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. John McCallum: In the first place, Mr. Benoit, I did read your press release, and I'd remind you that when you say there were three founding members of NATO, in fact there were twelve founding members of NATO. And I would also point out that smallness depends on the context and is in the eye of the beholder. Relative to the United States, which spends twice as much on defence as the rest of NATO combined, we are relatively small--very small, one could say. We're quite small relative to the U.K., which is a large spender. And those are the only two countries that have this strategic airlift. They're the only two countries in NATO that have it.

    Now, it depends on the context. We are large, yes, if you're looking at the area of our country. I think grade 3 children know that. We're large if you look at the coast around the country. Yes, I would acknowledge that. And I would say if you look at things like quality of life and the degree to which we respect people of different religions and races and so on, then we're very large. So smallness depends on the context and is in the eye of the beholder.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Minister, you referred already to--

    The Chair: I would like to remind the questioner and the responder as well to direct their comments through the chair.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: --the fact, Mr. Minister, through the chair, that the United States and the United Kingdom are the two countries that have strategic airlift now. Well, there's a reason for that. Those two countries along with Canada are the three countries that are separated from the European continent. That's why it's important...or wouldn't the minister agree that it's...? Why would he say that it's okay for Canada to be involved in some time-share arrangement, as we would have in a condominium, to supply the airlift when the other two countries who are separated--the United States and the United Kingdom--provide their own?

    To me, the idea that Canada would be involved in a time-share arrangement with other countries on strategic airlift is ludicrous, because of course every person who owns the time-share is going to want that strategic airlift at the same time. They're going to want to rent the time-share the same week every year. So how does that make strategic airlift more available to Canada?

    Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chair, let's first get some facts straight.

    Strategic airlift means when you go long distances and tactical airlift means you go short distances. It is true that the United Kingdom is separated from Europe by water. I think the channel is 30 miles wide. I don't think that distance is such that you would say the United Kingdom needs strategic airlift to get to Europe, so I don't really accept the premise.

    But the point is, Mr. Chair, if I may answer the question, that all countries would like to have strategic airlift, and I think we want that. If we don't have it...we've coped without it in the past, like just about every country except the U.K. and the U.S. We've managed to get from point A to point B by leasing or renting. It's less than ideal, because sometimes the price is bad and sometimes we can't get it as quickly as we want. Therefore, acquiring strategic airlift is a high priority.

    That said, it's only logical that one would wish this to be done in a cost-effective way. One does not want hundreds of huge, very costly aircraft lying around different bits of Canada waiting to be used, and only being used a small percentage of the time. Therefore, one would like to explore a number of options. One option is this time-sharing arrangement. As I said before, the devil is in the detail, and we need to have access to these planes at the--

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: But, Mr. Minister, through the chair, what would make you believe that all the countries involved wouldn't need that strategic airlift at the same time--that is, when we have a war?

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, could I ask you to allow the minister to finish his answer?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I think he'd finished the answer, Mr. Chair. I was satisfied that he'd finished.

    Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chair, I was coming to the point. I said the devil is in the details. We would require a certain number of these aircraft to be in Canada, and we would require access to those planes when we really needed it. Those are things that would have to be negotiated. Maybe they can be negotiated successfully, maybe not, but one will never know unless one tries, and this is what I have said we would do.

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, your time has expired. I'm going to go to Mr. Price.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to the minister, the general, and Ms. Bloodworth for being here today. I think it's important that Canadians get a chance to hear what the minister has to say.

    I have several questions. First, it was interesting, Minister, to hear you mention that you came out of the finance department, and now you've become a spender. But one thing I'm very sure of; coming out of finance the way you did, you're going to be a very careful spender, and we appreciate that.

    Recently a group of MPs visited NORAD, and I have to say how very proud we were to see our Canadians working down there, the job they're doing, and the total integration into that operation, even to a point where I'd say the Canadians really do stand on top of the whole operation most of the time, and that's something we unfortunately don't talk about enough.

    We did hear one very interesting point down there, though. Since September 11, the Americans and Canadians have both had to fly a lot more missions, just cover missions, protecting the cities, and particularly the Americans--Washington and New York--and on a spot basis all around the country. Canada is doing the same thing.

    Therefore, the Americans say it's putting a lot more pressure on their airframes that they hadn't really planned on. I imagine that's going the same way for us.

    Just before I ask the question, though, they did mention that our CF-18s, once we get the upgrades done, will actually be ahead of the American F-16s that they have down there. They'll be more capable, and that doesn't even include the precision-guided equipment that we already have on order.

    My question is, we'll be ahead of them in that sense, but how are our airframes holding up?

    Mr. John McCallum: I'll give you an answer, and then in terms of the more technical issue about the airframes, I'll pass that on to the chief.

    I too was hugely impressed when I visited NORAD and saw the Canadians and Americans working interchangeably. I believe on September 11 it was a Canadian, by chance, who was in control, and it really didn't matter. It worked well. So I agree with you that it was a great experience.

    Certainly I will be a careful spender. I've said we need to do some reallocation; we need to improve our efficiency. I have a duty to the taxpayer as well as to the military to spend smartly and not just spend a lot.

    In terms of our upgraded CF-18s, I didn't know they would be better than the Americans'--I'll defer that to the chief--but I knew they would be a good piece of kit, as they say in the military, and very capable of doing what they're called upon to do.

    In terms of the state of the airframes and how good the renovated planes will be relative to the U.S. planes, I'd ask General Henault to comment on that.

    General Raymond R. Henault (Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Minister.

    We do have an upgrade project, which is underway now. It's to upgrade 80 of our CF-18s to a standard that will allow us to use CF-18s through to roughly 2017 to 2020. The aircraft will be upgraded to standards that are compatible with all of our NATO allies; in fact, they will be upgraded to a degree that is compatible with the timeframe that we're going to be using them for, or intend to use them for, and that's over the next 20 or so years.

    I would hate to compare them with American aircraft, necessarily, because it depends on what you're comparing them with. The F-16 is not necessarily an all-weather, multi-purpose, multi-capable aircraft. So there may be blocks of F-16s, for example, which the F-16 will surpass in terms of its technological capability, but whether it will surpass some of the other F-18s in the American inventory or other inventories like that of Australia and so on, will be determined by how much they upgrade their own aircraft.

    What I would say, though, is that the aircraft will certainly be compatible with those of our NATO allies. It will be fully interoperable from all perspectives, not only from the technological, avionic, and other points of view, but also in terms of the ability to deliver precision-guided munitions or satellite-guided munitions through to the long term. So the upgrade will benefit Canada quite significantly and will keep our air force at the front edge, if you like, of technological air forces.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. David Price: Thank you.

    Minister, I'd like to get your comments on our reserve restructuring, phase two. This is the next area we're going to. I'm wondering if you have you been looking at the fear going through the reserves in regard to re-rolling, hand-me-down equipment, and the hours that they're able to train. Granted, part of that's covered in phase two of the reserve restructuring, but I'm wondering if we're going to go a little further in that because of the value of our reserves, that footprint in our communities.

    And I think you yourself have said in the past that you find our reserves an extremely important part of the military and probably one of the most cost-effective short-term things we could do help out in our military.

    Mr. John McCallum: Certainly, as you said, the reserves are our national footprint, a long and proud national institution. I have met many reservists in my short time as minister and I've been very much impressed with their performance. And I know the reserve community is proud and I know that the reserve restructuring has been in the past a high priority. It is certainly my hope to be able to proceed with the funding of phase two.

    I can't announce that yet because the budget is not until February. But as I think you know, under phase one, the purpose was to increase the numbers from 14,500 to 15,500 by 2003. This is on target. We expect to achieve that. Phase two, going to March 2006, would raise the numbers further to 18,500. It's certainly a high priority for me to obtain the funding for that.

    But there are stresses and strains. As I've said 1,001 times, throughout the Canadian Forces there are budgetary strains. As my predecessor put it--I haven't used this myself, but quoting him--he had a $12 billion budget and a $13 billion program. And indeed, within the current year, we have a shortage of money. So, yes, some of the problems that you mentioned in regard to the reserves are also common to the regulars.

    Finally, in answer to your question, I could say that we have had a number of accomplishments under the reserve restructure. We have, as I said, increased the army reserve strength by approximately 1,000. The recruitment process has been streamlined; the pay system has been improved; personnel equipment holdings have been increased; a new training doctrine has been developed; and there have been a number of other improvements.

    So there have been strains and there have been some improvements, and I hope very much that we'll be able to finance phase two as soon as possible.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

    Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

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

    I would like to thank the minister for his presentation and speak with him about a subject that is very important to me. I do not think this will come as a surprise to him. As you know, at the time the National Defence Committee tabled its report, the Bloc Québécois was the only party that presented a dissenting report, and I think you know why. I would like to discuss with you the question of our national defence policy.

    In fact, you referred to this in your speech in Toronto. You said you wanted more millions for the army. We are not opposed to that. However, we think it is very important to know where this money will be invested. In order to do that, our view is that we need a national defence policy.

    When I asked you this question in the House, you told me that you had no specific plan as to how to invest the money. I suspect that the reason you gave this answer is that the defence policy we have is now more than eight years old. The world has changed a great deal in that time. I will not mention anyone here, because there are a number of generals who will tell me, particularly the land force generals, that this may no longer be the time to be spending money the air force and the navy. And when I meet with a navy general, he will tell me that it may no longer be the time to be spending as much on the army and the air force, and so on.

    I think it is time that the taxpayer had a say in this. This is a debate underway at NATO and it is related to the whole issue of the war on terrorism. People are starting to wonder whether submarines are what we need to deal with terrorism. I very much doubt that terrorists can be stopped using submarines. And yet, Canada has just purchased four submarines. It wants to improve its fleet of aircraft and it is trying to recruit sailors so that the ships can go to sea.

    I therefore think it is time to ask taxpayers whether we can afford, with a budget limited to $12 billion or even $13 billion or $15 billion, to maintain all our armed forces—that is the land, sea and air elements. That is the question. Your predecessor told me on a number of occasions that the national defence policy would be coming out soon. In the last Speech from the Throne, you said this would be done during the current mandate. In the meantime, you were free to invest any surplus we may have and spend it wherever you like.

    Why not ask Canadian and Quebec taxpayers what type of army they want and then develop a budget accordingly?

º  (1605)  

    Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bachand is quite right. I am not surprised to hear him ask this question, because he has asked me perhaps four questions since I have been minister, and they have all been the same.

    So, the reply is simple. It has not changed since the last time he asked the question. The answer is that there are two steps involved here. The first is the period between now and the budget, which is to be tabled in February, that is in three months. We have had some public consultations and we have read all the committee's reports. I have held meetings with experts and other individuals over the summer, and so on.

    On the basis of all this information, I'm going to try to get the funds we need to do what we are doing today. For the time being, we are not asking any questions about the long term. Should we have more ships, more planes or more soldiers? All we are trying to do in the short term, is to do what we are doing today in a sustainable manner. Even the Department of Finance and Treasury Board have said that the current situation was not sustainable, and that there was a deficit of some $900 million a year. We need these funds just to continue our activities in a sustainable manner. That is the short term, step number one.

    Mr. Bachand's question covers the longer term. It is true that in the Speech from the Throne the government said that before the end of the mandate, we would be looking at the options for the long term. So, Mr. Bachand's questions relate to the long-term situation. One of these days, I will be presenting some options to cabinet for defence review, as was described in the Speech from the Throne. At that point, we will be asking not only Quebeckers, but all Canadians, what they think. So, in the short term, we will not be looking at the big issues, and there will not be any major structural changes. We are merely trying to get the additional funding we require to carry out our activities in a sustainable fashion.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: You have one minute left, Mr. Bachand.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I have a quick question on Iraq.

    The UN resolution and the question as to whether we will be with the Americans under the auspices of the UN, is an important issue, but we will not dwell on that. I would rather ask you whether you could talk to us briefly about the state of preparedness of the troops, perhaps with the assistance of the Chief of the Defence Staff. If, in the months ahead, we had to send some forces to Iraq, would our land, sea and air troops be ready for such a mission? That is my question.

    Mr. John McCallum: First of all, we hope that there will not be a war. We have a very strong UN resolution; we were unanimous in the decision to exert pressure on Saddam Hussein, and the inspectors are in Iraq today. So far, it seems that the Iraqi government has been cooperative, probably because Saddam Hussein has two choices: either he identifies his weapons of mass destruction and destroys them as requested by the UN, or his government may not last and he himself may not survive. We therefore hope that he will behave rationally. I do not know whether he is entirely rational, but we hope that as a result of this pressure and the very strong resolution, it will be possible to avoid war. That is point one.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, Minister, you're going to have to wind up your answer here, because we have a lot of questioners.

    Mr. John McCallum: Then I'll end with point one, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Perhaps there will be another opportunity later to respond.

    Mr. Peric.

    Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Minister, I'm glad you mentioned in your opening remarks that you just came from Prague and personally witnessed the acceptance of seven new member countries. I believe only one wasn't under the Warsaw Pact. The rest of them were members of the Warsaw Pact, right?

    Mr. John McCallum: Yes.

    Mr. Janko Peric: It's been only 12 years since the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, and I believe there are still active officers who were educated under the Warsaw Pact mentality and now they're becoming members of NATO. In your opinion, do you think they'll be able to switch over?

    The second question would be this. You mentioned that the combined population of the seven new members is about 35 million. That's a little more than Canada's population. The economies are very weak. In your opinion, will they be able to follow the demands of the rest of the NATO members to upgrade their equipment and to be ready with the training and the equipment to be involved in NATO actions, if it's necessary?

    Mr. John McCallum: Well, the countries had to meet certain conditions set by NATO in terms of degree of democracy and degree of military adequacy. We were very pleased that Canada was the first to push for the expansion of NATO on condition they achieved at least a semblance of democracy.

    So I believe the arrival of NATO will in and of itself create conditions to improve democracy and improve the military. I'd be the first to acknowledge that there's a long way to go. In the early years NATO will probably contribute more to some of the new countries, at least, than the new countries will contribute to NATO. But I think that's a worthwhile investment because it's an investment in the security of the region and in democracy and in the economies of these countries. Given history and the horrors of war that some of these countries have experienced in the past, I think it's very much a worthwhile investment, but I also think the militaries do have a way to go.

    The last point I'd make to Mr. Peric, through you, Mr. Chairman, since I know he comes from Croatia originally, is that another point made at the NATO meeting is that the NATO door is still open. So those who did not make it this time we hope will not be discouraged, because sometime down the road there will be additional countries admitted into NATO.

    Perhaps I could ask the chief to comment more specifically on the state of the military in these seven countries.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Janko Peric: To the minister, just before the general makes any comments, Croatia is not my concern. I'm here in Canada as a Canadian member of Parliament. As a matter of fact, I have a son who is serving in the Canadian Forces, in the navy.

    I just want to make that clear.

    The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.

    Mr. John McCallum: I didn't mean that in any negative way. I know you're 100% Canadian. We had spoken about Croatia, so I thought you might be interested.

    I'll turn it over to the chief.

    Gen Raymond R. Henault: Mr. Chairman, I've been involved in both the partnership and membership action plans for some time now with all of these countries that were invited at Prague to join NATO. I can tell you, without going into the specifics of those countries, this last fall I visited Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland, which are the three most recent countries that acceded to NATO. Their forces have made some tremendous strides in their interoperability and their capabilities, their abilities to communicate with NATO, their knowledge of the English language, and their ability to follow NATO processes, procedures, and so on.

    They have done yeoman's work in their own countries to do that. The membership action plans, under which the seven new members were invited, required some significant undertakings on their part, as the minister has already mentioned. They've all achieved those standards and have now been invited to undertake talks with NATO, to accede to NATO because of what they've achieved.

    I have every confidence in their abilities to integrate into NATO, based on what I've seen of other countries in the most recent past. I've also seen a very strong vote of confidence on the part of others who have talked to them and met with them.

    I recently also had a visit from the Chief of Defence of Slovenia as well as Romania, all of which...spent a tremendous amount of time trying to learn what has to be done from their point of view to be members of NATO and with every effort and every desire on their part to do everything possible to do that.

    Finally, I would say that Canada is a very strong player in this accession undertaking, because we have done a tremendous amount to provide them with information, advice, exercising, and also language training, as well as providing them with shadow capabilities to come into Canada to see how we do business and so on. So I think we can be proud of the part that we've played in helping them to come along and to be invited into NATO.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Do you have anything further, Mr. Peric? You have one minute. Okay.

    Mr. Stoffer, you have seven minutes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Do I get his extra minute then? Oh, well.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, and Mr. Henault for appearing today.

    Minister, you said if you don't speak for the military, you don't know who will. I wanted to let you know that there are many of us, on both sides of this room, who'd be more than happy to do it, if you find the going tough in that regard.

    I first want to thank the department very much for the opportunity to be with the troops in Bosnia last week. I and three other colleagues spent a very informative eight days with them. I can tell you this much: Colonel King, Major Drew, Major Bury and the rest of the crew who are there are doing outstanding work on behalf of Canada and NATO. I wish that every Canadian had the opportunity I had in order to see exactly how our tax dollars are being spent and what the troops are doing for the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is simply outstanding. Your department should be congratulated for the work they do, and especially for the people who are at CIMIC. The CIMIC group does excellent work with only $200,000.

    One thing I'd like to leave you with is, if it's possible that your department can work with CIDA, Susan Whelan's department, see about getting additional funding. That country needs more assistance, and they can stretch a dollar further than anybody else can.

    Sir, you've also indicated funding. I'm pleased that you said you're going to fight for more funding. The CDA report indicated that $1.5 billion is immediately required. In essence, it will only stop the bleeding. It is not going to buy new Sea Kings, replace vessels, or get the other equipment the military requires.

    One of the concerns I have is that military concerns will drop off the radar screen after Romanow tomorrow. Health care will be a huge issue. I know you have a great challenge in focusing the department and the cabinet in trying to get additional resources. God knows I have enough concerns with my own party in that regard.

    I only want to indicate that it is very important, at least from my perspective, that the men and women of the military, who are currently there and who think of the military as a career, have a clear indication that additional resources will be spent accordingly and wisely. Then the men and women who make the military a career will know their government supports them.

    My great fear is, if some funding goes into the department and it's inadequate in the next budget, you're going to lose an awful lot of good people who are currently in the military now. There will be expertise lost and things you simply can't recover.

    Also, sir, in terms of Bosnia, one of the greatest concerns the troops had over there was that they are now at a critical mass. Any more shrinkage of Canadian troops over there basically means you're going to either ignore certain responsibilities and duties or put them in a critical situation. My recommendation is, prior to doing any of that, make sure the troops on the ground know full well what the game plan is.

    Sir, I have my first question. When are we going to replace the Sea Kings? When are the Sea Kings coming? It's a simple question.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Minister.

    Mr. John McCallum: I don't know whether to reply to all the non-questions.

    In terms of speaking for the military, I neglected to say that what I meant was who around the cabinet table will speak for the military. I know many members of this committee, notably the vice-chair, never cease to speak for the military.

    I also think the parliamentary outreach program that you mentioned is good. I've met perhaps 40 members of Parliament, from all parties, who have participated in it. Everyone I've met was very happy with it and came back more pro-defence. It's one way to get more spending for the military; get more MPs to do this program.

    Of course there's a competition with health care--it's at the top of Canadians' concerns--and there are no guarantees in this world in terms of funding. All I can say is that I'm doing the very best I can.

    By the way, when I listed all the indicators of public opinion in its various dimensions I forget to mention we had record poppy sales. It's the last indicator of increased support.

    Shrinkage of troops in Bosnia is a good thing, at least up to a point. NATO is making a concerted reduction in troops because the region is becoming more stable than it used to be. When I was in Bosnia, we had discussions of how long we'd have to be in Bosnia and NATO, as a whole. The idea is not to be there forever. The idea is to develop local police forces and local judiciary. Eventually, there won't be a need for foreign forces to be there. Opinions differ as to how long. The most optimistic view I heard was three years. Some would have said five or six years. The long-term view is that they will become stable enough to look after themselves.

    Those are the answers to the non-questions.

    In answer to the question about replacing the helicopters, I've said several times that it is a very high priority for me. There has been some slippage. This is partly because there were more than a thousand technical modifications submitted by industry. They have to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb. I'm doing the best I can to get the right helicopter at the lowest possible price as soon as possible.

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, one minute.

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

    Sir, I also want to thank you for your answer to the supply-chain question the other day. But my concern is that we're still going to be spending millions of dollars in getting out of the proposal for that. In my opinion, it's absolute nonsense that we pay millions of dollars to get out of a contract that was severely flawed in the first place.

    My suggestion is that, if this is what you call smart spending, sir, I fear for other areas within the department. Right from the beginning, we were told that the supply-chain thing would be a $70 million saving. We asked for the documents but we never got them. We don't believe it was $70 million saving anywhere, and now we're going to pay millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to get out of this proposal.

    I would hope, sir, that this type of thing never happens again within the military. If it continues—like the satellite system we have in the warehouse—Canadians are going to be very concerned about their tax dollars being wasted in this regard. You said yourself, as have others, that it's time to start focusing on smart spending within the military, and that I agree with.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: You have about 30 seconds for a response. Mr. Stoffer ate up a lot of the time there.

    Mr. John McCallum: One has to respect the contract. The money we spent there will be much less than the savings that we anticipate, without any upfront investment from the government program, which is a substitute for the supply chain. Indeed, the supply chain was useful in inducing the department and the military—which didn't like the supply chain—to get their act together and come up with this superior product. So there has been a net saving to the government.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Wood.

    Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Chair, at the NATO summit last week, NATO approved its rapid response force, which is supposed to be fast, technologically superior, and, hopefully, sustainable. Are the Canadian Forces suitably equipped to make a significant contribution to such a force, or do they need other advanced equipment?

    Mr. John McCallum: We're certainly going to be a part of it. From Canada's point of view, this was a very positive development. For many, many decades, we have been in favour of multilateralism. A NATO response is a multilateral response force, to us. I think the alternative would be a unilateral U.S. force. So from our point of view, we welcome this very strongly.

    The details haven't been worked out. It's been put on the table. I've had some discussions, for example, with the British. One possibility is that, on the army's side, we may form part of a brigade, or have a battle group within a brigade. The British have spoken about the possibility of that brigade doing training in Alberta. These are preliminary discussions—nothing concrete—but they give you an idea of one thing that we could do on the army's side.

    A lot of our equipment...and you have to understand, the media talks about submarines with dents, and Sea Kings that take a long time to replace, which has been true. On the other hand, we have some first-rate, state-of-the-art equipment, such as the LAV III vehicles, and the Coyote reconnaissance vehicles. And I would argue that our special forces are second to none. So we have a lot of good stuff, too. Reading the media will not give you a good impression of the strengths we do have. Working with our allies, we will make a significant contribution to this NATO response force.

    But it's still early days. The concept was only introduced a few months ago, and we're still working on it.

    Mr. Bob Wood: Regarding the Auditor General's report in September, we all know that the recruiting initiative has been going on for some time, to address, I guess, our immediate concerns. The couple of concerns that the Auditor General had were that the forces' retention initiatives being developed and implemented over the next five years “would benefit by having dedicated human resource professionals who are knowledgeable about both the military and human resource policies and practices”. In her mind, the forces need to rethink their approach to recruitment and retention. Are you doing this?

    Mr. John McCallum: Recruitment and retention are two vital issues. When I talk about the stretching of our resources, I'm referring partly to that. A lot of the people in the military have very good options in the private sector. Also there's demographics, and this is true of an aging population in the whole public service, indeed the whole country. It's perhaps even more acute in the military because people in the military tend to retire a bit earlier. We have challenges, absolutely, no doubt about it, and we're addressing those challenges. If we get more money in the budget, we'll be able to address them even better.

    My predecessor put as number one priority improvements of quality of life in a whole number of different dimensions. There have been substantial improvements in quality of life over the last five years. That in part is geared toward the retention issue.

    I should say, because I know the chairman doesn't want me to talk too long, that our numbers recently have been very positive. We had 10,000 new recruits--we exceeded the 10,000 recruitment target in the last year. The attrition rate has held steady at an average of 6% over the past five years. This is lower than the average among our allies.

    So yes, we have challenges, but I always want to dispute this false notion that things are falling apart. We have undertaken these initiatives, our recruitment is way up, and our retention is holding steady at levels that are better than the NATO average.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Two more minutes.

    Mr. Bob Wood: Okay, Mr. Chair.

    Briefly, in your opening remarks, I caught something about you're going to appoint two outside people to look at the top-heaviness in the Canadian Forces. Is that right? Is that what you're thinking of doing in hiring consultants?

    Mr. John McCallum: I'm not sure I'd call it “top-heaviness”. That might make generals nervous--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Bob Wood: Well, they should be nervous, there are lots of generals.

    Mr. John McCallum: --or deputy and assistant deputy ministers. No, I didn't use that term. What I said is that--

    Mr. Bob Wood: Just elaborate on what you said.

    Mr. John McCallum: --in any large organization, there are going to be inefficiencies. For example, there may be some administrative unit that has one for the army, one for the navy, one for the air force. Maybe we could save some money and gain some efficiencies if we had a single unit for all three. That's just an example. I'm not talking about military capabilities. I'm talking about ways in which we can, without changing the military capabilities, run the ship more efficiently.

    Let's say you're talking $200 million. If you can't find $200 million of efficiency-saving in a budget that's over $10 billion, then I don't think you really deserve to be leading the organization. So we'll do it.

    Mr. Bob Wood: What's your timeline on it?

    The Chair: A reminder to committee members, can I ask you to direct your comments through the chair?

    Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Chair, through you, to the minister.

    Mr. John McCallum: Well, we haven't appointed these people yet. I don't think I said two, I said a small number, So we're not sure of the exact number. But they would be, I hope, appointed within a matter of weeks and will then get to work with a dedicated team of bright inside people. So we'll have some outside people working with a team of inside people, both military and civilian, to try to find these efficiencies. My hope would be within six months, or something of that nature, they could come up with some recommendations.

    Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

    Ms. Wayne.

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

    I also want to welcome the honourable minister here, and the general, and also madam.

    I heard what you said a little earlier in reply to one of our colleagues about going to ask Canadians about what they think the priority should be, and so on. I want to say this, through the chair, to the minister.

    When it comes to the military, our Canadians, right from coast to coast, have never been really involved in or aware of the needs of our armed forces. If it weren't for September 11, probably they still wouldn't be.

    Some of them are more aware now because of all of us speaking out, including all of the retired officers and the Canadian military association, and our committee here, tabling the documents we have, and voices like yourself, the previous minister as well, and the general. But they still don't understand.

    If you were to ask them what their priority is today they would probably say health care or education. They would have no idea that health care and education wouldn't mean anything if the terrorists were here and our security wasn't. It wouldn't mean anything when it comes to security if we didn't have enough men and women in that military to look after us here in Canada as well as to play a major role internationally.

    I would say, to you, sir, that it isn't a matter of going to ask Canadians at all. We take the politics out of the military, and we do what's right for the military. I know you have to have a lot of help and support when you go to cabinet for that. By God, as far as I'm concerned, they have to be number one--number one--and I mean it. Nobody else is even a close second to them.

    I know something has happened back east again, just in the past month, and I'll talk to you privately about it. When I talk to you about it you're going to know why I say to you that we have to have all that surveillance and we need to have all these men and women to look after our people in Canada as well.

    If I didn't ask about the Sea Kings, you'd be saying, God, she went to sleep. Anyway, I want to say this. When it comes to those Sea Kings, here I am in my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick. And I had the father of one of the pilots who lost their lives in one of those Sea Kings say to me, “Elsie, I was a pilot, also, in one. Please fight tooth and nail to get new Sea Kings for them.”

    When I look at what we're told, that it's the lowest price, no, it shouldn't be the lowest price. It should be the best, regardless of what price that is. If it's not the EH-101, whatever it is should be the best replacement. We have to give them what is best, not the lowest price for everything.

    Last November 11 I had an officer come to me. He said, “I'm going to be stepping down soon, Elsie”. When I asked why, he told me, “I can't train these young people with equipment that's 40 and 50 years old. I can't do it.”

    That isn't the way it is in other countries around this world. I know it is in some. I'm going to tell you that they look to the image that Canada has out there around the world. They look to us to play a major role in keeping peace around the world. Our men and women in uniform want to play that role as well.

    Sir, my question to you is this. Where are we when it comes to the replacement and grounding of God-forsaken Sea Kings that shouldn't be in the air? And they shouldn't be in the air, because when you have to have maintenance for 30 hours, for every hour that they fly, then you know it's time to ground them. It is time to say, that's it. Why don't we go out and say we're going to get the best there is?

    I have to say, sir, we'll be there to support you tooth and nail when it comes to getting enough money to give this military of ours, these men and women, the tools they want. They want to look after you and me. They want to look after my grandchildren. They want to look after your grandchildren. I don't know if you have any. No? Well, there you go. You got married too late in life.

º  (1635)  

    At any rate, I'll say this: we have to do what's right. We do. And you don't rely on polls, and you don't rely on anyone out there other than the people who are in this room right here today, and our officers, and those who are non-officers--the men and women who are in uniform, sir.

    The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, thank you very much for that dissertation.

    Mr. John McCallum: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and might I just say through you that if everyone had the attitude of your able vice-chair, my job would be very easy.

    The Chair: You have a minute and a half, Mr. Minister.

    Mr. John McCallum: Yes, but she covered a lot of ground.

    Of course it's necessary for Canadians to be involved and aware, and I think the committee members, and the vice-chair in particular, do a lot to help out there. We had thousands--I'm not sure how many thousands--communicate with us through our update. We had a website and there were 6,000 I think in the first week. So there was some communication there. But more importantly, I think, as and when we come to our review, we will have to think very carefully how to conduct that review in such a way as to maximize the education and involvement of Canadians.

    In terms of priorities, I think we have made progress, and I quoted all that material on public opinion. Public opinion has moved substantially in favour of defence, and it started moving before September 11, 2001. It's partly because of that, but it's a five-year trend that has shown some improvement.

    As to the Sea Kings, I answered the question earlier as to what I'm trying to do with respect to Sea Kings. But in terms of safety, even though I've only been on this job six months, one thing I have learned is that safety is not compromised. When the thing gets old, there's more time in the garage, that's true. But they don't go up in the air unless they're deemed to be safe, so I don't really believe that safety is an issue. The U.S. has Sea Kings that are just as old or older than ours, so we're not the only ones. I've said many times that I want to replace those Sea Kings as fast as possible. But every military has some things that are old, and some that are new, and we are working to replace the Sea Kings as fast as possible.

    Finally, as for the best, we have very detailed specifications. We have to be concerned about money. You can't just say, whatever it costs it won't make any difference. We specify rather precisely what we need in great detail and then we say, if that helicopter meets all our needs, given that it meets all of our needs we'll take the lowest cost. I think that's a reasonable way to proceed.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

    We're going to go to Mr. Bertrand now for seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I have three questions for you, Minister, and one for the Chief of the Defence Staff. If I may, I will read them to you quickly, so that you can take all the time you need to answer them.

    My first question is about the report you mentioned earlier, that will be proposed by a small group reviewing the entire policy in order to find some additional funds. I would like to know whether this report by a small group of consultants will be confidential. Is it strictly for you, or will the committee have an opportunity to take a look at it as well?

    Second, I know that your persuasive abilities are universally acknowledged, Minister, and I am sure that you will be able to get additional funds for the defence budget. I would like to know where these additional funds will go.

    My last question for the minister is this: at meetings we've held in the past, a number of groups representing reservists asked that this group have its own budget. I would like to know whether or not you agree with this idea. Do you agree that reservists should have their own budget?

    My final question, to the Chief of the Defence Staff, is about the role of the militia in increasing our forces. Where do you think the reservists can give us a good hand?

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bertrand, and I should say that I was in error in indicating that you have seven minutes. In fact, you have five.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: All the others got seven minutes.

[English]

    The Chair: We're on the second round now. After all of the opposition has had a chance to ask one question, we go to a five-minute round on both sides.

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: You miss one meeting....

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Them's the breaks, Mr. Bertrand.

    Mr. Minister.

    Gen Raymond R. Henault: The minister has asked me to answer the question on the role of the reserves, Mr. Chairman, if you wish.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bertrand, on the question of reservists, as the minister mentioned, we are in the first phase of an exercise to increase our reservists. We will go from 14,500 to 15,500 land force reservists. Under phase two, the number will increase from 15,500 to 18,500.

    Our reservists are an integral part of the Canadian Armed Forces. There is already total integration in the air force, and some very specific roles for reservists in the navy. We are planning to have reservists play a number of roles in addition to those they are already playing in the land force. These roles are both domestic and international. As you know, we have focused on improving Canada's biological and chemical defence capabilities, and our ability to respond to events both in Canada and elsewhere. The reservists will play a role in this context.

    The militia will also be playing an important role in increasing our overseas capabilities. As a matter of fact, we have a full company of reservists in Bosnia at the moment. Mr. Stoffer must certainly have seen them. For the first time, a company of reservists has been added to our forces in Bosnia. For the time being, this experiment is a total success, and we are assuming that this will continue and that in future, we will have an opportunity to do more with our reservists. They continue to play a very essential role within the Canadian Armed Forces. What we are looking at for the future is the total force.

    Thank you.

º  (1645)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bertrand, you have one minute.

    Or did you have a comment, Minister?

[Translation]

    Mr. John McCallum: There were three questions for me and one for him. Would you like me to answer them? I've not yet answered them.

[English]

    If you don't want me to answer, I'm quite happy not to.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Please proceed, Minister.

[Translation]

    Mr. John McCallum: With regard to the consultants' report, no conclusion has yet been reached because those people were not hired. I think that six months from now we will have some recommendations and I am sure that you will be consulted in one way or another or that I will discuss what they have said with you. I do not know whether there will be a report per se, or whether it will be made public.

    Should the reservists have their own budget? I am aware of the long-standing tensions, if not conflicts, between the regular forces and the reservists. I do not know whether they will have their own budget, but one thing is clear: if I have the funds to finance phase two of the program, I will ensure—and she will as well, I'm sure—that the funds will go where they should. That is the key to it all.

    How will the additional funds be allocated? It isn't really very exciting. As I said, those tensions exist and it will take more money just to do what we do now. So those are not really new capabilities; they are funds to do the things that are currently underfunded. There are five categories: operational budgets; staffing costs, including health costs; funds for infrastructure and the environment—there is a shortage of funds there right now—; the capital budget, that was underfunded because of the quality of life issues; and national procurement. Those are the five categories.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

    Thank you, Mr. Bertrand.

    Miss Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister, for your remarks.

    I'm struck by how many things are such a high priority for you, and I appreciate all that, but I'm not sure how we can label.... I've written down a whole pile of stuff here that is high priority. That's good, but surely to heaven something has to be one, two, three, in order of priority.

    I'd like to ask you a few questions. Given the time constraints, maybe we could take a different tack, and you could just answer me yes or no. In your opening remarks, you talked about the quantum leap, we don't want a false sense of security, you're taking action, the CF-18s are on alert, putting lots of things to good use, you're calling for extra funding. You said--and I quote--“It's not a bad time to be Minister of National Defence.”

    While I appreciate that, there is a corollary to that, too. We are a nation at war. We are in a war against terrorism. We have troops in Afghanistan. There is a pending war--you call it a hypothetical war--against Iraq. You also mentioned that you hope there will be no war. Of course, all of us hope there will be no war, sir, but in the event of such a thing, do you still feel it's not a bad time to be Minister of National Defence?

    Mr. John McCallum: I think it's always important to take statements in context. I know we politicians don't always do that, and I'm not speaking just about your party. There is a tendency to take things out of context. But I wasn't referring to anything to do with war. I simply meant that it's not a bad time to be Minister of National Defence at a time when public support for defence is rising. That was the context of my comment.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Quite a bit earlier in the year, in February 2002, your predecessor said regarding CDA that an official review would be undertaken. That's almost a year ago. It was Mr. Eggleton who said that at the Conference of Defence Associations. That's getting really close to a year now.

    You also said recently in the House, I believe, and I quote, “It's very difficult to halt work on a defence review when that review has not yet been officially announced.” Now, I understood that was a high priority, as are the Sea Kings and various other things. But it seems to me that all these things are pending. They are all going to happen at some time in the future. Because we are a nation at war, and because these things are so essential, I'd like to ask again, yes or no, is this review happening or not happening? Has it started or not?

º  (1650)  

    Mr. John McCallum: There's no lack of clarity whatsoever. One has to distinguish between a thing called an update and a thing called a review. The thing called an update has been going on throughout the summer. I mentioned the website and I mentioned the consultations leading up to the budget where I will be requesting funds, based in part on this update, for being sustainable in what we currently do. The review is something entirely different, which was mentioned in the throne speech, and that has not begun yet because we've just completed the update. I'm going to cabinet regarding the budget soon. I will be presenting some options regarding the review. But we've finished the update. I'm going to cabinet very soon. We will have the budget, and we will be discussing options for the review. So we have now completed the update. We're in a little bit of interregnum. I think there will certainly be discussions of options for review at cabinet. Then we will let you know.

    Miss Deborah Grey: It seems kind of weird to me that we would have a budget without really knowing what our priorities are during the review. Would we not have some overarching vision, knowing that what is going to be happening is possibly a very real threat? We hope not, but surely we need some foresight and some long-term planning rather than saying, well, we'll have a budget and I'll try to scratch out a few bucks, and we'll let you know what the review is.

    Mr. John McCallum: Virtually all the stakeholders with whom I discussed this agreed with me. To have a full-fledged review takes perhaps a year, at least six months. My view is, and was, and those I spoke to over the summer have agreed with me, that we can't afford to wait six months to a year doing a review without getting any money.

    Priority number one, in the next two or three months, let's get some money, not wait a year for a review to complete itself. But let's get some money quickly so that we can be sustainable doing what we're currently doing. Then we'll have the review and at the end of that review we will have longer-term policies.

    Through you, Mr. Chair, if Miss Grey is saying to me don't ask for money in the budget until we have a long-term plan, which we won't have for a year, I respectfully disagree.

    Miss Deborah Grey: No, no, my point is--

    The Chair: Miss Grey, your time has expired. We're going to have to go on.

    Mr. McGuire, for five minutes.

    Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Shortly after September 11, 2001, there was a government committee established involving various departments under the chairmanship of Mr. Manley to coordinate efforts to combat terrorism. Is this committee still in existence? What has it been doing for, say, the last year?

    Mr. John McCallum: Well, we met...I believe it was yesterday. It still very much exists.

    In a way, it's a little bit like Homeland Defense, the new department in the United States, but without being a department. What it does is it brings together all the ministers who have some role to play in security and anti-terrorism, and tries to coordinate, and in fact in many ways has succeeded in coordinating, our efforts to make sure that all parts of the government, whether it's Solicitor-General, RCMP, CSIS, the military, transport, and others, have different roles in the security apparatus.

    In last year's budget, we had $7.7 billion over five years for additional security measures. Different departments had different roles to play in this. What we're doing is coordinating all this. We're reporting back to the committee as to how the funds that were allocated in the last budget were spent, or are being spent. We're developing new initiatives, working together with, I think, seven departments, or a significant number of departments, so that all of our security measures, military and non-military, are well coordinated. That's what the committee is doing.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Joe McGuire: Has there been any interfacing with the new American department? Are you coordinating anything on a bureaucratic or political level?

    Mr. John McCallum: I think the new American department was created within the last two days. I know Mr. Manley has had a conversation with Mr. Ridge, who will be the head of that department, in the last day or two to compare notes. Mr. Manley is the chair of this committee, so those are the two counterparts.

    I think this new department in the United States is a plus for Canada, because in the past, Immigration and Customs, for example, came under different organizations in the United States. Now they're integrated with others in this Homeland Defense. It's always easier for Canada to deal with one entity rather than 101 entities. With the Americans putting more things under this one entity, I think that will make coordination between them and us easier.

    As well, this new Canada-U.S. military planning group, which I mentioned earlier, also includes our Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. There's also a civilian element. That will enhance Canada-U.S. cooperation as well on the security and anti-terrorism front.

    Mr. Joe McGuire: I have an unrelated question, Mr. Chair. The JTF-2 group, at least from what we can know about it, has done an excellent job for us in Afghanistan. Is there any move to expand that elite group, and number two, to recognize, by way of conferring medals for the job they have done?

    Mr. John McCallum: I'm glad you asked that. First, yes, the budget contained $200 million, or some such sum, to double the capacity of JTF-2, our special forces. We're not at double yet, but we've made good progress in expanding those operations.

    The second point I make is that in general, if anything, we're excessively secretive in this country. The Americans have special forces that they publicize quite a lot. Our special forces, I believe, are second to none. We always have to be acutely conscious of any security risks, but I'm hoping there may be ways of providing more information to Canadians without compromising security about the fine achievement of these people, because they do a fantastic job. We are not there yet, but I'm hoping that it might be possible to inform Canadians more about the wonderful accomplishments of this group without compromising security.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGuire.

    Mr. Bachand, you have two minutes, and then the minister has to leave at five o'clock.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. He spoke earlier about the entity that has just been created in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security.

He said it was very important for Canadians because they could contact one person who coordinates all of the activities.

    Conversely, since Mr. Manley coordinates several departments, is it more difficult for Americans to contact us?

    Finally, shouldn't the Canadian government think of creating a department of homeland security so that we have a real counterpart and can then talk to each other?

    Mr. John McCallum: I think we have an historic perspective.

    Ms. Margaret Bloodworth (Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence): I might add that a huge bureaucracy is not always a good thing. It is good to have one person in the United States to coordinate, because it is big and more difficult for them to do the coordination, but we have a big department here. Creating another bureaucracy would require a lot of energy and it is not always a good use of resources.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. John McCallum: I think there are always pros and cons. Perhaps we should always ensure that one person, Mr. Manley, speaks with another, Mr. Ridge, and that afterwards, Mr. Manley oversees security operations via this committee.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. We promised to get you out of here by 5 o'clock because of your schedule. We appreciate your being here and your bringing Ms. Bloodworth and General Henault with you. Thanks very much for your comments today.

    I would ask the committee to take a five-minute break and then we'll reconvene in camera.