NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 1, 2004

¹

1530

The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.))

Hon. David Pratt (Minister of National Defence)

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

¹

1535

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC)

¹

1550

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

º

1600

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

º

1605

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

º

1610

Hon. David Pratt

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Hon. David Pratt

Ms. Alexa McDonough

º

1615

Hon. David Pratt

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

Gen Raymond R. Henault

Hon. David Pratt

Gen Raymond R. Henault

Hon. David Pratt

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

º

1630

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, CPC)

Hon. David Pratt

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Hon. David Pratt

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Hon. David Pratt

º

1635

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Mr. Alan Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence)

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Alan Williams

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Alan Williams

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Alan Williams

Mr. Bob Wood

Hon. David Pratt

Mr. Bob Wood

Hon. David Pratt

Mr. Bob Wood

Hon. David Pratt

º

1640

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Hon. David Pratt

º

1645

The Chair

Gen Raymond R. Henault

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Hon. David Pratt

º

1650

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

º

1655

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

»

1700

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Hon. David Pratt

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. David Pratt

Gen Raymond R. Henault

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

»

1705

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

Hon. David Pratt

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 007

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 1, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the seventh meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

    I will start with our standard cell phone announcement that we agreed to make at the start of each meeting. Please, out in the audience, if it applies to you, if anyone has cell phones, we would greatly appreciate it if you could turn them off at this time so that our deliberations are not interrupted. I turned mine off too. Honest.

    Before we welcome the minister, I want to indicate to colleagues that following our meeting with the minister, there is a little committee business to clean up. It's not that much, but it's important. It's from the liaison committee and it has been distributed to you.

    With that, it's a great pleasure for me, on behalf of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, to welcome the Honourable David Pratt, Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs, back to a committee that he's quite familiar with, as he has been a past chair of this committee.

    Mr. Minister, welcome--you're obviously most welcome. I think I can be permitted a personal comment, which I think my colleagues share, when I say that, in my mind, there have been very few ministers of defence appointed who have the working knowledge and interest in the Canadian Forces that you have. I'm very pleased and honoured to welcome you back here and invite you to make an opening statement.

    Did you want to introduce General Henault and the others?

    Hon. David Pratt (Minister of National Defence): Yes.

    The Chair: I'll ask you to do that then, please.

    Hon. David Pratt: First of all, thank you, Mr. Chair, for those very kind comments.

    Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased to be here today, although I have to admit, it feels a little strange to be on this end of the table. It's definitely a good place to be, however, and I consider it a great honour to serve as Minister of National Defence.

    I'd like to introduce the people at the table with me today. They are Hélène Gosselin, acting deputy minister; General Ray Henault, chief of the defence staff, a person whom I'm sure all of you know; and another person who is familiar to this committee, Mr. Alan Williams, assistant deputy minister for materiel.

[Translation]

    It is good to meet with such strong supporters of the Canadian Forces. This committee has accomplished great things on their behalf, particularly when it comes to quality of life. I know each of you has a lot to contribute to any discussion of defence issues, and I am committed to working with you.

[English]

    My officials and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have on the estimates in a moment.

    First I'd like to talk about some of the key issues at National Defence today and about where we're headed in the future. As you'll see, my message today is a good one. We are in the process of turning a corner at National Defence. Our challenge now is to ensure that we move forward in the right direction.

    Defence has been at the forefront of this new government's agenda. The Speech from the Throne contained specific and extensive mention of Defence, in fact the most extensive mention of Defence in recent memory. A critical part of the government's new agenda is to restore Canada's place in the world.

    A quick look at Canada's military history shows there have been times when Canada has occupied a prominent place in the world. We earned that place, as Winston Churchill once said, with blood, sweat, tears, and toil. From Vimy Ridge to the beaches of Normandy, to Kapyong, hundreds of thousands of Canadians fought and were wounded or killed in the wars of the last century. I think you'll agree that our overall contribution to international peace and security in the twentieth century was out of all proportion to our size as a nation. That contribution earned us both influence and respect on the international stage.

    This government believes it's time to reclaim our place and our influence in the world. To do that, we've launched a comprehensive international policy review that will include our foreign, defence, foreign aid, and trade policies. I'm certainly very excited about the review. In fact, what we're now undertaking is even more extensive than what this committee called for in recent years.

    As part of the international policy review, we'll have the chance to ask ourselves some critical questions, questions about just what kind of role we want our country to play in the world. The international policy review will help us carve out a comprehensive policy framework, one that fully captures our Canadian sense of national and international purpose. It will also help inform the national security policy currently being developed.

    As part of the defence policy review, we will identify our domestic and international defence priorities and review the future capabilities of the Canadian Forces. What we want at the end of this process is an affordable, forward-looking defence policy, a policy that is well adapted to the security challenges of the twenty-first century.

    We're not looking to simply tinker at the margins or modernize the Canadian Forces on old models. We're looking for fundamental change. We expect to complete this review in the fall, following which it will be considered by a parliamentary committee. I'm sure many of you will play a key role on this committee.

    In the meantime, though, the business of defence continues, and we have commitments to meet. We are forging ahead on several fronts. As indicated in the Speech from the Throne, we made it a priority to find a replacement for our Sea King helicopters, something I know everyone here strongly supports. We're also moving forward with the acquisition of the mobile gun system for the army. We're looking to speed up some other major procurement projects as well.

    Overall, we're making very good progress. Indeed, as I said earlier, we're in the process of turning a corner. Whether you look at equipment acquisitions, training and doctrine, quality of life, leadership, education and professional development, or funding, you'll find signs of real progress. With the additional $1.6 billion identified for defence in last week's budget, we'll be able to make even greater progress.

    We are, for example, moving forward with the accelerated acquisition of a new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft for the air force. Not only is this an important capability, but the money we've saved in our long-term capital program can be applied to other equipment priorities for the Canadian Forces.

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The $300 million for current and future military operations is also important. It provides us with the incremental resources we need to accomplish deployed operations, without creating additional shortfalls elsewhere.

[English]

    Even more importantly, the commitment in this budget to reimburse Defence for costs associated with any future deployments makes our funding levels more predictable. This, in turn, makes long-term planning easier.

    The government's new program centring on income tax relief for Canadian Forces members serving on high-risk international operations is very good news from a quality-of-life perspective.

    I'm pleased to say that I've had some discussions with my cabinet colleagues about extending this initiative to include other operations such as Bosnia and Haiti. While progress has been made, we're not yet in a position to make any announcement. There's still some information to be received and some details to work out. It's certainly a very popular program that has been well received by the men and women of the Canadian Forces and their families.

    While we're talking about funding, I want to reiterate my strong commitment to sound fiscal management and living within our means, by which I mean spending selectively, weighing priorities, making tough decisions, and always seeking efficiencies. Fundamentally, it means managing taxpayers' money responsibly, prudently, and with respect.

    Of course, any spending decisions have to be made in the context of the ongoing defence policy review. I've talked about the international policy review process in general terms, but now I'd like to talk about some of the specifics.

    From my perspective, there are five key lenses through which we must view the future of the Canadian Forces. First is capability. We know the Canadian Forces must have the capabilities to fulfill a wide range of missions anywhere in the world—from combat operations to security and stability missions to nation building. Oftentimes, they must be capable of fulfilling these varied missions on the same operation.

    Second is deployability. The government must be able to send our people and equipment where they're needed quickly, whether that means across the country or around the world.

    The third is sustainability. The Canadian Forces must have the means to support and sustain their operations for as long as needed. Sustainability must not come at the expense of the quality of life of our men and women in uniform.

    Fourth is usability. We must ensure we have forces that fit our needs. We've seen recently that a robust special forces capability is more useful and relevant for the types of operations we're now facing and can expect to face in the future. In my mind, if we haven't used a capability over the past 10 years, we must ask ourselves whether it is still needed.

    Fifth, and finally, we must look at interoperability. The Canadian Forces must be able to operate alongside our closest allies and partners across a broad spectrum of missions. In the case of domestic emergencies, they must be able to work very closely with other government departments and first responders here in Canada.

    If we get these five areas right, not only will we enhance the credibility of the Canadian Forces and Canada's credibility among our allies, we'll have a much greater impact, both at home and abroad.

    As I said a moment ago, the business of defence continues while a review is underway. The core of defence business is of course operations. There's no question that our men and women in uniform are making an absolutely critical contribution to peace and security around the world, whether it's in Bosnia, Haiti, Afghanistan, or the Arabian Gulf.

    I want to focus briefly on two of our operations, Haiti and Afghanistan. I'll start with Haiti. As part of the multinational interim force in Haiti, Canadian Forces members are now on the ground helping to restore stability, assisting in the delivery of humanitarian aid, and supporting local police efforts. In the case of our contribution in Afghanistan, the deployment of the Canadian Forces is only one aspect of Canada's overall approach in Haiti.

    The Prime Minister has committed Canada to playing a leadership role in rebuilding Haiti. While we're still developing our strategy, it's likely to include political, security, humanitarian, and reconstruction efforts. This broad strategy reflects the government's coordinated 3D approach to international affairs, that is, the integration of defence, diplomacy, and development. I saw how effective this approach can be when I visited our troops in Kabul, and I'm confident it will be equally effective in Haiti.

    Before I close, I'd just like to say a few words about my trip to Afghanistan in February. Our men and women in uniform are doing an absolutely fantastic job there. It's no exaggeration to say they're making a world of difference. While in Afghanistan I met with President Karzai, and he himself emphasized the fact that Canada is making a real and significant difference in the lives of the Afghan people. He asked me to pass that message on to Canadians.

    Haiti and Afghanistan are worlds apart, but they have one important thing in common. They illustrate the valuable contribution a country like Canada can make on the international scene. When we take a leadership role in defending the innocent, enforcing the peace, and rebuilding shattered communities, we achieve a number of important aims.

¹  (1540)  

    First, we do the right thing and stand up for what we believe in, and we back up our values with action. Second, we honour our commitments to the international community. Third, we improve security, not just in Bosnia, Haiti, or Afghanistan, but also in the surrounding regions. In many cases, such as in Afghanistan, by improving security overseas we also improve security here at home. But most importantly, by assuming a leadership role we can have a real and meaningful impact in the world.

[Translation]

    As we look more closely at just what we want our place in the world to be, and at how we get there, I consider myself very fortunate to occupy the position I do.

[English]

    It's a fascinating time to be Minister of National Defence. In fact, I'd say it's an interesting time for any of us who are passionate about security and defence issues and about our country.

    I'd like to stop here so I can take your questions on the estimates, or any other issues you want to discuss. But let me close by saying that I look forward to hearing your views on the course Defence should take in the coming months and years. I know you have strong views, as I do. That only makes sense, given the kinds of questions we are dealing with that go to the heart of who we are as Canadians and who we want to be.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

    I know I can speak for all members of this committee, and indeed all members of the House of Commons, when I ask if you and General Henault will please, at every opportunity, inform the Canadian Forces just how proud we are of their outstanding efforts that you have spoken about. I think it has come home to Canadians very clearly and very graphically recently just what an important contribution the Canadian Forces make. We're all very proud of the men and women of the forces.

    I want to thank you very much for your opening statement.

    Before I go to questions from colleagues, I believe Mr. Price has a point of order.

    Mr. Price.

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

    I want to thank the minister for being here, and I want to especially thank General Henault today because it's a very special day for our air force. Today happens to be the 80th anniversary of our air force. We're very proud of the work they've done.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    Hon. David Price:In addition to that, this week we have the 50th anniversary of CFB Cold Lake, which is a very important base for us in Canada. So again, congratulations on a special birthday. I'm sorry we forgot the cake, but we're working on it.

[Translation]

    Gen Raymond R. Henault (Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Price.

    General, our congratulations to the air force, especially at this time. Thank you.

    We'll start a 10-minute round now. With a minister, it's all the opposition parties first, and then we'll go to the government side.

    We'll start with Mr. Hill for 10 minutes, please.

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I just echo your comments, at the beginning of my statement, that certainly on behalf of the official opposition I want to congratulate the men and women who serve us so well in Canada's military.

    I have a series of questions to ask, so, like the minister, I thought I'd prepare an opening statement and include them in that. But I'm also going to provide him with them in writing so that he doesn't have to take notes while I'm talking.

    Unfortunately, I won't have the time to ask the minister everything I'd like to ask him today. In fact, he could appear before this committee for an entire week, I suspect, and there wouldn't be sufficient time to raise all the concerns I have about the depleted state of the Canadian Forces. Just discussing the ongoing equipment deficiencies in our military alone could consume most of our time, from UAVs to trucks, tanks, subs, supply ships, destroyers, helicopters, and the list goes on and on.

    Then there's the ongoing issue of severe personnel shortages. Regular force strength continues to fall, and we've learned today that the regular army is actually short about 677 troops, or roughly the equivalent of an entire battalion, and it is also short nearly 3,000 reservists. We heard more about that last weekend.

    Then there's the scandal surrounding the phony computer invoicing scheme and Department of National Defence headquarters, and who knows how long it's going to take us to recover those tax dollars?

    But my first question relates specifically to today's article in the National Post by Chris Wattie that details the underfunding within the Canadian Forces for the coming fiscal year. I don't think I need to remind the minister that this money is required to conduct basic operations, and the heads of the army, navy, and air force have rather bluntly stated that in order to just get by in the coming year they need an additional $635 million.

    I've just referred to this in question period. The minister stated, I believe, if I understood him correctly, that we will find in this year's main estimates an additional $1 billion. I'd like a further explanation on that, after I've posed my other two questions, as to where we can find that.

    I note that there's quite a difference in the reporting mechanism in the two books--the main estimates for National Defence from last year and this year. It's a little harder to follow, because last year we had a departmental planned spending table included in the main estimates, which very clearly showed that the expected increase was only $310 million. So I would like to know exactly what increase, out of that $1 billion the minister referred to a few moments ago in question period, is in the operational expenditure column.

    Just to be clear, I'd like to add that the $300 million that was included in last week's budget allocated for Afghanistan and the Haiti missions is money already spent, and it's therefore unavailable to use to offset these shortfalls that all three branches of our military have suggested they're going to be facing.

    My second question relates to the announcement in last week's budget--which the minister referred to in his opening remarks, and I appreciate that further clarification--that Canadian Forces members would be exempt from paying income tax on income earned while serving on high-risk international missions.

    I think we can all agree that recognition for the contribution made by the men and women of the Canadian Forces is long overdue, especially given that they often serve in primitive and dangerous conditions, far from their families and loved ones. This tax relief initiative relief is one that I support in principle; however, it's unfortunate that the implementation was so poorly thought out by this government, because immediately following the budget, I began receiving e-mails about the inequities of the tax relief for high-risk missions, and I know other MPs offices have received similar calls and correspondence from Canadian Forces personnel.

    I believe the government is pitting soldier against soldier by granting some income tax relief while others won't receive it, and this will undoubtedly result in troops vying for assignments on high-risk missions where they won't pay income tax. The minister referred to the possibility of extending this to our soldiers serving in Bosnia, for example, so I'd like a little further elaboration on the criteria, and specifically, why would the government bring in a proposal and program and announce it in the budget to much fanfare, when they haven't even developed the parameters for that program yet, and cause all this angst within our ranks between people who are serving in different theatres overseas? I would question why they would do that.

¹  (1550)  

    Finally, the last question, Mr. Chairman, that I want to discuss is on the issue of Canadian Forces housing. Roughly 20,000 military families live in private married quarters on bases across our country. As the minister is well aware, the state of disrepair of many of these housing units is quite shocking.

    Some soldiers and their families, including young children, are living in homes with black mould on the walls and frozen food in the cupboards. Yet the Canadian Forces Housing Authority, which oversees on-base housing on the government's behalf, has been increasing monthly rates on many of these decaying units by roughly $100 every year.

    The minister is well aware of this issue. I'm sure he's aware of the petition campaign demanding that rent increases on PMQs be suspended, at least until significant repairs are undertaken by the CFHA.

    If possible, I would ask for an update on this, Mr. Chairman, so that the people living in those quarters can further understand what possible rationale the government uses in continuing to apply rent increases on very questionable living conditions.

    With that, I would like to sum up and leave the remainder of my ten minutes for the minister, his staff, and General Henault to respond to those questions.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    What's left is a little less than four minutes. You can have as long an introduction as you want, but I have to be fair to the colleagues. It's ten minutes for questions and answers.

    Minister, do the best you can.

    Hon. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I thank you for that. I appreciate the position you are in right now.

    Let me say, what I was trying to get at with respect to my comments in the House today, with respect to the increases in the budget, is that is a reflection of the $800 million between fiscal year 2003-2004 and fiscal year 2004-2005--the money that was introduced to the Canadian Forces in the last budget, not this recent budget, but the one before that--the point being that there has been a significant injection of money going into the Canadian Forces.

    In this most recent budget as well, of course, we had the $300 million, which was intended for operations both in Afghanistan and Bosnia, and another $1.3 million stretching out over four years for the new fixed-wing search and rescueaircraft.

    The importance of that announcement I don't think can be understated, from the standpoint of whether it would freeze up within the capital budget of defence. It allows us to bring medium-term projects forward in a very significant way.

    Equally important, I think, is the fact that since this government took power on December 12, what we have seen is roughly $5 billion in equipment procurement moving forward. I'm thinking here of the maritime helicopter project for $3.1 billion, the approval of the mobile gun system for approximately $700 million, and of course the fixed-wing SAR. Above and beyond that, we're looking at the potential for other equipment projects as well.

    One thing that wasn't stated in the budget, which is worth mentioning here, Mr. Chair, in terms of the carry forward from fiscal year 2003-2004 to 2004-2005, is that there was an additional $100 million that wasn't very well publicized in the budget.

    Let me address the issue Mr. Hill has raised with respect to the Chris Wattie article. I think it's very important to keep in mind that what we're dealing with, when we're dealing with business plans, is essentially unmitigated demand within the department. Every department goes through a business planning process where they lay things out on the table, the sorts of things they want to do. There has to be a process put in place to set the priorities in fact for the department. It's a question of living within our means. We are very much attempting to do that. It's clear that whether it's in the Department of National Defence, the Department of Fisheries, or the Department of Transport, the demand for services always exceeds the supply.

    I want to make one thing very clear to committee members here. First of all, the options within the business planning document are options only, and none of those options have been implemented at this point. In many cases, many of them will simply not be implemented.

    I want to make it very clear as well that we are going to continue to buy ammunition. We are not going to be closing Canadian Forces bases. We are going to be continuing to protect Canadians and to fulfill our international obligations. Again, in no way will our core mandate be in any way jeopardized.

    What has been said by the government, and what has been agreed to as well by this committee, is that we need a strategic plan to move forward in terms of funding for the Canadian Forces. That is part of the international policy review. The defence white paper that will be produced at the end of this process will provide us with the guidance we need to focus on the priorities we want to have going forward.

    I think that's what's really critical. We have to have the game plan, and I think at the end of the day we are going to have a good solid game plan.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: I'm very sorry, Minister, but in fairness to the other colleagues, maybe you can pick up the rest of Mr. Hill's....

    It's your 10 minutes to use as you want, but if you ask questions for eight minutes, it really doesn't leave the minister.... So he'll have to do the best he can, and I have to be fair and give everybody 10 minutes--question and answer.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bachand, you have 10 minutes.

[English]

    Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you for your fairness, Mr. Chair.

º  (1600)  

[Translation]

    First of all, I would like to thank the minister for his presentation. I would also like to say that I find his approach to defence and external affairs policy interesting. Incidentally, I would like to discuss it today. I do not know if the chair has told you this, but as recently as yesterday, it was mentioned how important it would be for the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to take a more active role in regards to this policy. Presently, its role is merely reactive since, when it is asked for its opinion, the policy is already defined. I think my colleagues agreed with me, yesterday, to ask that we be much more active and that we even be able to make suggestions for this defence policy.

    There is one aspect of the defence policy which is very important and for which, it seems, normal procedure was not followed. I am talking of course of the anti-missile shield. I think it represents a very important aspect of the Canadian foreign affairs and defence policy. During the festive season, you wrote to your American counterpart saying Canada wanted to take part in this project. You mentioned in that letter that Canada was even willing to make a financial contribution. You wanted to discuss the terms and you were open to a change in NORAD's mission. It indicates to me that you are willing to take part in the project, that you intend to do so and that negotiations to this end are pretty far advanced. This seems to me to go against the way a real policy should be developed. Before making a decision, you must first listen to the people, and this is what I want to discuss with you.

    I do not know if you are aware of it but today, 49 retired generals and admirals told George Bush that he was making a mistake. There was even an editorial in today's New York Times, entitled “Dream-Filled Missile Silos”, in which President Bush's policy is harshly criticized. I will quote only two passages. The first reads:

[English]

But, so far, the rush into the old “Star Wars” dream amounts to an extravagant political shield.

[Translation]

    It says it will be an electoral issue for George Bush. He is trying to accelerate things so that the first missiles can be deployed and he can claim that he has succeeded in carrying out this project. However, all through the article, we are told that it is not feasible, that the project is very costly and that the money put aside for this project should be used to more important ends—which I had myself mentioned when the subject was debated—, namely anti-terrorism measures. Only 2% of containers entering American harbours are inspected. They could hold weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist groups could buy a cruise missile and launch it from American coasts. Many issues are ignored because of this big dream, this anti-missile shield.

    Here's what the editorialist has to say at the end of his article:

[English]

Voters paying for this buy-now, fly-later dream deserve realistic planning and candour, not another slice of political pie in the sky.

[Translation]

    My question could be a little hard to answer, but you have the reputation of being an eagle, Mr. Minister. So you should be able to answer me. I think you are playing right down George W. Bush's alley and you are giving him credibility when you say that Canada wants to take part in this shield project. Can you tell us a bit about the negotiations? What level have they reached and is it too late for Canada to withdraw?

[English]

    The Chair: Minister, you have about six minutes for that.

    Hon. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Well, there's a lot in that question, obviously. I'm not sure I'll be able to address everything, but I'll give it my very best try.

    I think what members have to appreciate is the fact that these discussions on ballistic missile defence--and they are merely that at this point, discussions, negotiations--are intended to protect Canadians. That is the bottom line here in terms of the ultimate objective of the Government of Canada with respect to these negotiations. We're very concerned about the threats that have developed over the last number of years.

    I go back again to 1998, when there was a North Korean missile launch that took most of the world by surprise, certainly with respect to the capabilities the North Koreans had in the area of missile technology. As I say, it was shocking for many countries to learn that North Korea had this capability. We've learned subsequently as well that the proliferation of missile technology is not something that's limited to North Korea, that it is in fact in many other countries in the world.

    When you combine missile technology of the sort we've seen over the last number of years with weapons of mass destruction--I'm thinking here of nuclear weapons that are possessed by North Korea--it is a recipe for a security problem, not just for Canada, not just for North America, but for the entire world. That's why countries have taken measures to protect themselves, to work toward systems that will provide some measure of protection.

    Now, what I hear constantly from your party, Mr. Bachand, and indeed from Ms. McDonough's party, is this phrase “Star Wars,” which I think is completely misleading in terms of describing accurately what we're attempting to do.

    What is being proposed by the Americans--I will state this again, and I've said this many times before--is a limited, land-based system to protect against rogue missiles. Star Wars, the strategic defence initiative as it was called during the 1980s, was a massive system intended to defend against virtually the entire Soviet arsenal.

    The two are as different from each other as chalk is from cheese. When we talk about Star Wars in connection with this proposed missile system, I think it is simply nothing but hype and non-factual or incorrect information.

    It seems as though the opponents of any cooperation with respect to missile defence always drag up the name of George W. Bush, when in fact it was Bill Clinton who got the process started in 1999 with the development of the Missile Defense Agency.

    Again, between Star Wars and Bush...that is intended to convey a particular message. But I think as a government we have to look at the facts on the ground. We have to look at the situation we face in terms of protecting Canadians, and in order to do that we have to follow the path that has been tread by some of our closest allies. I'm thinking here of the Australians, the British, the Japanese as well, who have entered into discussions with the Americans on missile defence. As well, the Europeans are talking very extensively about missile defence. So this is not something that is in any way new for Canada in the sense of our cooperation with our allies.

    I should say as well that our discussions with the Americans are not a blank cheque in terms of saying we're in no matter what. The Prime Minister has said very clearly that we're opposed to the weaponization of space. In fact, official U.S. policy is also one of opposition to the weaponization of space.

    These are issues that are certainly important for Canadians. I think they are issues we have to address. But I think we have to conduct the debate in a way that informs rather than misleads people.

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I have a question.

    The Chair: Make it very brief.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: General Macdonald was here and he confirmed that, except for Russia, no country has the capacity to hit the United States with a missile. That is what he said. Pakistan can't, no more than India. In addition, the New York Times editorialist has the same view as us. Do you think that North Korea would risk launching a missile on Washington? If it did, it would disappear from planet Earth. We think that it is a bad assessment of the present international geopolitical context. A Conservative member of Parliament described to us the shortfalls a bit earlier. It seems to me that, instead of launching ourselves headfirst into this adventure which could be very costly, we should be concentrating on the traditional Canadian policies of peace missions, and so on. Why join Americans in a dream that other Americans judge extravagant? I maintain that you're playing in George Bush's alley when you do this. I would no go as far as saying that you are interfering, because you intend to take part in negotiations on the subject, but you are making George W. Bush's position stronger. This is a mistake.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, monsieur Bachand. I'm sure the minister will have a chance before this meeting is over to pick up on those comments as well.

    Hon. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, could I give a very brief response?

    The Chair: Yes, a very brief response.

    Hon. David Pratt: I just want to address this because I think it is important to address the comment with respect to General Macdonald. The concern with respect to North Korea and missile proliferation is not necessarily that North Korea has the capability right now of hitting targets throughout North America. That's not the issue, so I'm perfectly in harmony with General Macdonald's comments that way. The idea is to get out front of the threat to ensure that we have protection before the threat is developed to the point where it's a serious problem.

    I'll try to deal with some of the other comments later.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I'm sure you'll have the chance.

    Now, for 10 minutes, Ms. McDonough, please.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I appreciate very much the opportunity today to substitute for my colleague, Bill Blaikie, who's not able to be here as the defence critic.

    I want to ask a couple of very brief questions and then move directly—it won't surprise the minister—to the issue of national missile defence.

    The first very specific one is whether you can give us an indication of what kind of timetable we're now looking at for the actual replacement of the Sea Kings. It is nothing short of perverse really to have pilots flying Sea Kings in the kind of dilapidated state they are in, not to mention the effect on their families and loved ones. I just want to know very specifically the date by which one could realistically, confidently, say we will have the Sea Kings replaced.

º  (1610)  

    Hon. David Pratt: Thank you for the question. It's a very important question. It's one that obviously our government is very focused on. As soon as we took office, as soon as I was sworn in, the first thing I did was ask for a briefing on the Sea Kings and I then moved the file along as quickly as—

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: That was 10 years after your government took power.

    Hon. David Pratt: I can only speak for this current government and my position within it, but as I said, I got my first briefing on Friday afternoon after having been sworn in. By Monday I had a letter to my colleague, Mr. Owen, suggesting we proceed with the request for proposals, and by Wednesday we had a cabinet decision going forward with the request for proposals. That process is going to take us to the end of April, at this point, and then there will be a period after that where we'll be assessing the proposals that have come in. We should be in a position by, hopefully, early in the summer to make a decision with respect to the winning bid. Going forward from there, we're looking at between 36 and 48 months for delivery of the new helicopter.

    There have been incentives built into the contract to try to get the helicopter just as quickly as possible—incentives in terms of monetary rewards for the contractors. There are penalties as well for any tardiness by the contractor. We're taking steps as quickly as we possibly can to move this file forward, but it is important to underline once again, Ms. McDonough, that we don't fly unsafe helicopters in the Canadian Forces. Every step is taken, whether it's a new helicopter or an older helicopter, to ensure that these helicopters are safe to fly.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you.

    I'd just like to move directly to missile defence. I want to totally set aside the terminology. I think we could spend a lot of time talking about whether it is or isn't in any way reminiscent of the original proposal for Star Wars, but the real issue is the national missile defence program, now in the process of being implemented by the Bush administration. It is multi-layered, being land-, sea- and space-based in all of its conceptualization.

    I've just come back with my leader, Jack Layton, from Washington, where we met with a number of different people who confirmed that in every detail. There are documents. The minister said he wanted to have the discussion based on the facts, which outline this space weapon-related program in the 2005 budget and beyond.

    First of all, and again dealing with this based on facts.... Actually, the day Jack Layton and I went to Washington, both Liberal members and Alliance conservatives began to cite supposed polling information again and again in the House, indicating that 67% or 69% of Canadians were in favour of Canada's participation in the missile defence program. It was suggested that this came from a Marzolini poll that was done by the Liberal government in directly investigating this; in fact, we have had assurances from Marzolini that no such question was ever asked, although it is now in the Hansard record again and again and again as fact.

    So I'd just like to ask the minister if he could speak to that when he also speaks further to my specific questions about the multi-layered land-, sea- and space-based system that is in the process of being geared up.

    We met with armed forces personnel, senior retired officers, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and not a single person we met with, including the many NGOs, was even willing to give the slightest credence to the notion that this is not the ramping up to a space-based missile defence program.

    So I want to ask the minister, in his persistent refusal to acknowledge that this is what we're dealing with here, whether he is failing to recognize that this is exactly what we're dealing with.

    The last time I appeared before this defence committee, where former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy appeared together with John Polanyi, I think they said it perhaps better than anybody else I've heard, that to be at the table and entering into this process at this time is like climbing onto a conveyor belt headed straight for the weaponization of space.

    I want to ask the minister how he can persistently keep denying that this staging process, or ramping up process, is ultimately intended to be part of the weaponization of space. The evidence is all there, so how can you deny the evidence?

º  (1615)  

    Hon. David Pratt: I guess, in some respects, I can only repeat what I've said before, with perhaps a bit of elaboration.

    First of all, there has been no U.S decision in terms of deploying weapons in space. The official U.S. policy indicates that they're not going to violate in any respect that policy, which they've had for some time.

    Now having said that—

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: All the research money—

    The Chair: Ms. McDonough, excuse me, we're all veteran parliamentarians. You've asked the questions and I want you to let the minister answer. I'm not going to entertain a debate from any member with the minister. Ask your questions, and then he will answer.

    Minister, please.

    Hon. David Pratt: What exists now within the U.S. budget in terms of the Missile Defense Agency is some research and development money. That they are looking at research and development projects, which could potentially have that impact, has never been denied by anybody. But the current system we are dealing with is land based with two sets of interceptors in Alaska and California and the potential for an expansion to a sea-based system.

    I guess what frustrates me about this is that you can say anything is going to happen 10 to 15 years from now. You could say we're going to be flying back and forth to Mars on a regular basis. Nobody is able to prove you're wrong. You can say we'll be putting a habitation on Neptune and nobody can prove you're wrong. That's the situation I find myself in when I'm discussing this with the NDP.

    But if you look at the facts of the situation, in terms of the amount of money that is being spent and the plans in the near term moving forward, I think it's probably safe to say there is no indication that the U.S. would be in any position even to begin to deploy weapons in space within the next 10 to 15 years.

    Now having said that, I think you have to go back rather than forward to understand what has happened in the past. The SDI initiative did not move forward because it was very difficult to do scientifically. It was economically unfeasible due to the amount of money required to deploy space-based weapons. And it became unnecessary strategically. So when individuals come to me and say this is what they think is going to happen, I would say, “Well, I'm sorry, let's be a little bit prudent here, a little bit cautious, in terms of the sorts of conclusions we jump to. Let's not pile speculation on top of speculation.”

    If what you're saying is correct, it would seem to me that the U.S. would have to be spending literally tens of billions of dollars more on this. Now I know the NDP has said this system is going to cost the Americans a trillion dollars, Mr. Chair, but there's no indication in their budget that they're anywhere close to spending that amount of money. In fact, and I've indicated this in the House to Ms. McDonough, it would take 100 years to reach that level of spending.

    So it's very difficult to sit here and disprove the speculation, but we have a security issue in terms of the proliferation of missile technology and nuclear weapons that I think the world recognizes. It's a problem countries have to confront and deal with responsibly. Ultimately, that's why we're involved in these discussions with the Americans. That's what it's all about, protecting Canadians and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.

    Having said that, I have one final comment. We have certain principles, values, and interests that we want to protect with respect to this debate. I want to go back to the point that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and myself have all said that we're opposed to the weaponization of space. That is the clear Canadian position. I can't say it strongly enough, loudly enough, or often enough to make it clear.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

    I'm going to remind colleagues to please ask your questions and I will then have the minister answer, but I do not want to entertain debates back and forth.

    Now we go to the government side for ten minutes. I have two speakers, Mr. Calder and Mr. Wood.

    Mr. Calder, please.

    Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Well, Mr. Chairman, as a farmer, I'll get right to the point.

    Minister, I have two things I would like you to speak to. The first is Afghanistan. I know we really impressed the Americans with JTF2 when that conflict was going on. I would like to know how the new G wagons are working over there and about anything else you saw when you were on your trip to Afghanistan.

    The other question I'd like to put to you is basically the submarine issue with the Upholders, now the Victoria class. When will they be fully operational? Will we be entertaining ASW with the United States and/or the United Kingdom?

    Is that quick enough for you, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calder. You have set a good example.

    Hon. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I must say that Chief Henault and I had just an absolutely superb trip to Afghanistan to visit the troops in theatre. I have to say that I was extremely impressed, not just with the dedication and professionalism of the troops, but also with the camp they had built. Camp Julien is really quite an impressive sight to see.

    But beyond the sort of creature comforts there for the members of the Canadian Forces, I was very fascinated to see how the operation works to pull everything together. With respect to patrolling, I had the opportunity to go out on a two-hour patrol with Chief Henault and members of the forces.

    Gen Raymond R. Henault: That's right.

    Hon. David Pratt: They had the first snow in Kabul in some 20 years, so they considered us to be good luck.

    But in terms of the equipment, I have to say it was very impressive what they have available in theatre, not just in terms of the LAV IIIs, but also the Coyotes. The capabilities of those vehicles are well known to members of this committee, but to see them operating in a theatre of deployment is really quite impressive.

    Another thing I hadn't seen before was something called counter-battery radar, which is a new addition to the Canadian Forces' capabilities. That gives us the ability, by virtue of radar, to track any incoming rocket, artillery shell, or any other sort of projectile, and locate its launch point based on its trajectory. Then we can return fire very quickly. It was really quite impressive to see the displays and how the troops operated it.

    The tactical unmanned aerial vehicles were also really quite something. The chief and I had an opportunity to see some of the video produced by these unmanned aerial vehicles. I think it's safe to say they are operating in some pretty harsh conditions, with respect to Kabul's altitude. I think it's between 5,000 feet and 7,000 feet.

    Gen Raymond R. Henault: Yes.

    Hon. David Pratt: So they're really at their operational ceiling, but the quality of the images that were produced just provides an immeasurably valuable surveillance tool for members of the forces.

    They also had quite impressive new night-vision equipment, which is extremely important when you're operating in a place like Kabul.

    More recently, after we left, they took delivery of 60 G wagons, and the reports I'm getting back are certainly very favourable in terms of the capability of that vehicle. It has slightly more armour than the Iltis, and it has a roof. The Iltis has its strengths and weaknesses. I suppose you could say the G wagon has its strengths and weaknesses as well, but it's certainly a much more powerful vehicle and one that I think is going to be put to good use, not just in Afghanistan but in other theatres of operation in the future.

    With respect to submarines, I did have the opportunity to attend the homecoming of the HMCS Victoria when it went through the Panama Canal and up along the west coast of the United States and Canada to Esquimalt. I had the opportunity to go inside and talk to the crew as well, and it is a very impressive piece of equipment.

    Even though the submarines have got a terrible rap from the media, I think it's incredibly unjustified, based on the value of that purchase and the capability it adds to the Canadian Forces. Just a couple of years ago we effectively had no submarine capability in the Canadian Forces. We are now developing a very significant submarine capability that will be used not just, as you say, for anti-submarine warfare.

    Of course, the diesel-electric submarine, which is what the Victoria class is, is incredibly important as a training tool for our allies and for the Canadian Navy. I was told by the captain of the HMCS Victoria something to the effect that when he went to San Diego, the Americans were very anxious to have us come down and train in anti-submarine warfare exercises because the Americans consider the diesel-electric submarine to be one of the primary threats to their carrier battle groups. So it's very important for them.

    But beyond the ASW role, there are a tremendous number of other roles the submarines will be involved in. I'm thinking here primarily of things like sovereignty patrols, fishery patrols as well, environmental monitoring, the use of the subs by other government departments--not directly but in cooperation with other government departments such as the RCMP in terms of drug interdiction as well as illegal migration. These are all tasks or functions a submarine is ideally suited to conduct because of the stealthy nature of its operations.

    We got four submarines at a price of roughly $900 million by virtue of allowing the British to use the training base at Suffield. When you consider that a brand-new diesel-electric submarine would cost on average close to $1 billion, it is absolutely just a stunning value for the Canadian taxpayer in terms of the capability combined with the value. I can't say enough about how it rounds out our naval capabilities.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Calder, there are two minutes left.

    Mr. Murray Calder: I have a final question, Minister, and I'll get into the issue of tire versus track and the mobile gun system, and there's a mention too of a multi-mission effects vehicle. I just wonder if you could explain that.

    Hon. David Pratt: Well, the multi-mission effects vehicle is something that is projected out into the medium term in terms of its acquisition. It takes the current ADAT system, which is on a tracked vehicle right now, and converts it to a LAV chassis. This has all sorts of benefits, not just in terms of speed, for instance, but in terms of maintenance as well. It makes great sense from a maintenance standpoint to have your LAVs, Coyotes, etc., on similar platforms.

    But beyond that, I think it will certainly give the Canadian Forces the sorts of capabilities that would be required to effectively do both air defence and anti-tank work in a very mobile, light, and deployment-capable fashion.

    The Chair: We'll come back to Mr. Wood on the next round.

    Now we'll go to a second round, with Mrs. Wayne, please, for five minutes.

º  (1630)  

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, CPC): Thank you. I'm going to be very quick.

    First and foremost, there's a compensation package to cover the soldiers at CFB Suffield and the chemical warfare laboratory here in Ottawa. But I've been getting calls from the veterans who were exposed to mustard gas at Camp Barriefield outside of Kingston, Ontario. I'd like to know if they are going to be compensated, and are there other testing sites that exist in Canada as well?

    Also, with the tax break that went to Afghanistan, I have all kinds of letters from people who have been to Bosnia, and they say they've been subjected also to circumstances where they feel those tax breaks should be coming to them as well.

    Lastly, are we ever going to have a national shipbuilding policy right here in Canada? As you know, in Saint John we built the best frigates you'll find anywhere in the world. We should be still building the ships for our military, and it should be on an ongoing basis, even if it's just one each year, if that's all we do, but that's fine, because those frigates are going to have to be replaced pretty soon, when you look at the age of them.

    Those are my questions.

    Hon. David Pratt: I'm sorry, Mrs. Wayne, can you give me the location in Ontario again?

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, it was at Camp Barriefield, just outside of Kingston, Ontario.

    Hon. David Pratt: Okay. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the recognition program for those who were subjected to mustard gas testing involving Suffield and Ottawa, I've not heard of this location that Mrs. Wayne is mentioning, but it's important to keep in mind that what was being recognized through this program with respect to the payments was the type of testing that was being done.

    Certainly the Canadian Forces underwent different types of gas training. I wouldn't go any further than that--

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'll write to you, and then you can look into it.

    Hon. David Pratt: --but I can certainly look into this, and I can share that information with my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. We can look into this further with respect to the nature of the training that was done.

º  (1635)  

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Please.

    Hon. David Pratt: With respect to Bosnia, certainly as I indicated in my opening remarks, we are investigating this. I have had discussions with cabinet colleagues. We're not in a position to make an announcement on this at this point. There is still some information to be obtained and details to be finalized.

    I think it's important to keep in mind, though, that when the government was looking at this, there were a range of risk levels that applied under the circumstances here.

    They range from a risk level zero, which is essentially operating on home turf just on a routine basis in, let's say, Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, something like that, which would have a zero-risk rating, for instance, right up to a risk level four, which would probably be similar to the situation faced by the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's in Afghanistan in the 2002 rotation. They had very robust rules of engagement. It was effectively combat.

    There's a whole range of different risk ratings that apply between there. It can be difficult, in some respects, to establish what is really appropriate under the circumstances. I think we may be moving toward a situation that is more generous here, but as I say, we have a little bit of work to do on this. Certainly members of this committee will be kept posted on that.

    Finally, on the shipbuilding issue, that has been a subject that we've dealt with at this committee in terms of the recommendations with respect to the procurement report, Mr. Chairman, that I think you were responsible for, going back to about the year 2000.

    Certainly in an ideal world what we'd like to see is a robust shipbuilding capability maintained within Canada, especially for the purposes of building naval ships, coast guard ships, and other types of ships, but that really is the domain of the Minister of Industry. I think those questions might be better addressed by her.

    But suffice it to say, we do have needs going forward within the Canadian Forces with respect of the replacement of the AORs and also the potential replacement of the Tribal class destroyers.

    The Chair: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wayne. We'll come back.

    Now we're on the second round, so we'll alternate sides. Mr. Wood, for five minutes, please.

    Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): All right. I just wanted to ask a couple of quick questions. Mr. Williams doesn't look like he's been doing much today, so maybe I'll ask him a couple of questions.

    First of all, I want an update on the Aurora refit. I had an opportunity to be in Greenwood for a week and had a chance to do some flying. I know they're being refitted, and the coastal patrols with fisheries, and everything. When is that? Is that ongoing? When do you plan on it to be completed?

    Mr. Alan Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence): Thank you very much for the question. The major incremental plan, which is about $1.5 billion, $1 billion-plus, is now contracted. There are about 23 sub-projects. Most of the Auroras will be upgraded between the 2008 and 2011 timeframe.

    Mr. Bob Wood: The other thing is, can you just give me an update on the Buffalo aircraft? We did put, as somebody mentioned before, some money in the budget, I think $300 million, to start procurement proceedings to get new search and rescue aircraft. What is their state? Are they still basically all operational? Do they need to...?

    Mr. Alan Williams: The Buffalo are operational. Six of those, as well as ten of our oldest Hercules aircraft, we are planning to replace as part of the fixed-wing search and rescue initiative the minister mentioned a few minutes ago.

    Mr. Bob Wood: So the Hercules are part of this, along with the Buffalo?

    Mr. Alan Williams: Correct.

    Mr. Bob Wood: When is that going to come on-stream? Do you have any idea?

    Mr. Alan Williams: Hopefully the procurement will be swift. We hope to have initial discussions with industry within the next few months and then start the formal procurement process thereafter.

    Mr. Bob Wood: Great.

    A lot of us here have been on the quality of life committee on National Defence for a while. When we were doing this, going base to base, I know Mr. Hill mentioned a bit of it, the accommodations were always a problem. Is the increase in defence spending sufficient to ensure some improvements in the accommodations we see? I'd like an update on what's happening in Esquimalt because that was probably the roughest spot. There are a few other places as well.

    The other thing is, has anybody given any thought of freezing the rents? Every time--and this is really upsetting to I think everybody--a military person of the lesser ranks seems to get a pay raise, the housing authority, and I realize there's an arm's-length relationship there, ups the rent and basically takes the raise away. This has been going on for a long time.

    These houses, Mr. Williams, and also the minister knows this, have been paid for, God, 10 times over the years. So I want to know what kind of relief there is for ordinary people renting on the base. Is there some update on the accommodations? Because they sure as hell need it.

    Hon. David Pratt: Mr. Wood, I could probably add a few comments on that--

    Mr. Bob Wood: You've been there, Mr. Minister.

    Hon. David Pratt: --having been on the same tour and having stayed in the same hotels.

    Mr. Bob Wood: That's right.

    Hon. David Pratt: We do have a plan to upgrade the housing that exists within the Canadian Forces housing stock. We're in the process of implementing that.

    But I think you have to keep in mind as well that we do have a market rent policy in the sense that we do attempt to charge market rates. Where the rates go up, there is a reflection of that in terms of the rents people pay.

    What's important to keep in mind here as well is that we can't put some members of the Canadian Forces in a more advantageous position than others who are out on the market by, for instance, providing them with subsidized housing. I think most people would agree that would be blatantly unfair to the ones who were paying, who had either bought their own homes or were renting on the open market.

    We could certainly provide you, and Mr. Hill, who asked this question as well, with additional details. In fact, Madam Gosselin may have some comments to add.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Bob Wood: Just to jump in--

    The Chair: You've run out of time, Mr. Wood.

    Mr. Bob Wood: I'm just going to make one point then. If you're talking about market quality, are they getting market quality? You're talking about market value. That's very nice, but when they're paying market value, are they getting market value, the same thing that's happening in downtown or in the suburbs of Ottawa? I don't think so.

    The Chair: In response, maybe the minister and his staff can provide us some written information.

    Hon. David Pratt: In effect, it is, Mr. Wood, market quality in terms of what they are getting. They are paying the rates that would be appropriate in the open market.

    Of course--

    Mr. Bob Wood: I don't believe that for a minute.

    The Chair: All right, Bob.

    Go ahead, Mr. Minister, please.

    Hon. David Pratt: What I would suggest, and again, the deputy minister may have some comments here, is we could arrange for a briefing with the Canadian Forces Housing Agency to bring you up to date on some of the more recent information that's available.

    Keep in mind as well that people do have a choice in terms of the type of housing they go into, whether it's on a base, whether it's the Canadian Forces housing stock, or the stock that exists in the open market. It's up to them to make a choice.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'll leave Mr. Wood to pursue that with the minister individually.

    Now, Monsieur Bachand, s'il vous plaît, cinq minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to come back to the anti-missile shield.

    It is true that the Clinton administration was the first, but Reagan surely had his own ideas. It was called at the time Star Wars. The Clinton administration preferred the expression NMD, for National Missile Defence.

    I was reading a bit earlier in my notes that the director of tests and operations' assessment at the time was Phillip Coyle. Mr. Coyle was part of the Clinton administration. He revealed in August 2002 a report making 50 recommendations. According to him, the technological feasibility of this project had not been demonstrated.

    I wanted to know if you were aware that your counterpart, Mr. Rumsfeld, has just classified the document, and he did it retroactively. He has had it taken off all Internet sites. This already proves, to my sense, that much work remains to be done on the technological feasibility. I would like to hear your comments on this subject.

    Moreover, I would like to know if, according to you, Canada has the capacity to negotiate up to a certain limit and to withdraw, should the issue of space weaponization arrise.

    The Missile Defence Agency has a precise plan comprising several points. The first ones, I admit, concern interceptors based on the ground, at sea and in the air. However, the American Congress is already being asked for money to conduct research and development work on space weapons, which represent the third phase. The platform in space is expected to be operational in 2012.

    Mr. Chair, I wish to be sure I understand correctly what the minister is saying. Does this mean that you are ready to take part in the first two phases of the Missile Defence Agency plan, but that at the space weaponization phase, that is the third phase, Canada will decide to withdraw? Is that your reasoning?  

[English]

    Hon. David Pratt: To address the earlier question with respect to tests, Mr. Chairman, my information coming from the Department of National Defence, which had some fairly close contact with the U.S. Department of Defense, is that five of the last eight tests have been successful. The level of sophistication of these tests as well has increased significantly over the last two years, to the point where the tests have involved decoys where a missile is fired, the interceptor goes up to hit it, and the decoys are used to try in effect to fool the missile. Even under those conditions there has been success. Even the last test, I believe, was quite successful. I will defer to the chief if he has any further comments on that.

    With respect to the funding, it's my understanding that as part of its budget request for fiscal year 2005 the Missile Defense Agency has requested $9.2 billion. It has also asked Congress for $47 million to help develop the 2012 stage of the ballistic missile program, a portion of which will be devoted to research and development of space-based interceptors. That is not something anyone has ever denied.

    My point is that there is so much speculation, moving forward that far, that we can't operate and make defence plans on the basis of speculation. We have our position with respect to weaponization of space; it's very clear. Whether or not something is going to happen in 2012 is really anybody's guess, especially when they're talking about $47 million. I gather that $47 million is the price of a few armoured personnel carriers. To think you're going to have a space-based capability with that sort of funding is wishful thinking at the very best.

    I don't know whether the chief has anything to add, Mr. Chair.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: General Henault, have you any further comments?

    Gen Raymond R. Henault: I would say, Mr. Chair, that the minister has described the capabilities of the missile defence system quite accurately. From my point of view and my knowledge of missile defence and the technology developments that have gone on over the last several years, certainly the technology basis for missile defence is sound, and there is every indication from the recent successes of tests and so on that there's no reason to believe it will not be a successful system.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Merci, Monsieur Bachand.

    Mr. Tonks, please, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    This may not be directly related to the estimates, and I understand the tie-in is with the estimates, but there is an ongoing foreign policy review. My question is, to what extent do the objectives of defence policy from a Defence perspective, and the changing peacekeeping role and rapid deployment role, lead to a crossover between defence policy and the foreign policy review?

    Hon. David Pratt: I think there's a tremendous amount of interplay between the two, and that's one of the reasons why this committee recommended a few years back that more work be done between the two departments to come up with a defence policy that reflected the new needs of the new security environment.

    What we've seen more than anything else, over the last 10 years or so since the last defence policy was advanced by the government, is an incredible frequency of operations. We saw that certainly in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Haiti, Afghanistan, and the operations in the Persian Gulf.

    I think there was an expectation, moving forward from the 1994 white paper, that the world was somehow going to be a more peaceful place. What we've discovered is something a little bit different from that. The collapse of the Soviet Union created an environment that led to the whole problem of failed states and failing states, inter-ethnic rivalry in southern Europe and the Balkans, and a host of other difficulties associated more recently with terrorism.

    As a result, not just our nation but many other nations have been forced to adapt defence policies that were more geared toward static warfare along a central front in Europe. Our capabilities reflected that, in terms of the tanks we had based in Europe, the heavy artillery, the tracked vehicles, etc. We've found that if we want to be a meaningful force for good in the world, we have to be a lot lighter, a lot more mobile, and bring to conflicts capabilities that give us value, in terms of the impact we have on the international stage.

    We're in the process of making the transition to that, and it does require a considerable amount of work with the Department of Foreign Affairs. But we've also found it requires a lot more work with agencies like CIDA. You can't just look at a security fix in a failed state; you have to look at the interplay of the three. You have to look at the role development plays and the role nation building plays.

    When organizations like CIDA come together with organizations like the Canadian Forces, we find we have a role to play in things like security sector reform, reforming armies in third world countries so they support democracy rather than, in some cases, becoming a threat to democracy.

    We also have to understand the interplay in the modus operandi of aid agencies, how they work in particular theatres, and how Canadian Forces doctrine has to adapt to that so development assistance, security, and peace stabilization aren't working at cross purposes. I think that's another thing we've learned over the last number of years. There's a whole range of new skills and capabilities that are needed to adapt to this new security environment.

    One of the things that certainly encourages me is the fact that Canada is well placed. I think we have the thinking, the intellectual wherewithal within the Canadian Forces and other government departments to change our approach and adapt to this new environment.

    Other countries, for instance in Europe, are quite frankly having difficulty getting away from the old conscript-style forces that probably don't have much place in a modern world where you need a professional, well-trained, well-equipped soldier, sailor, airman or airwoman who is capable of fulfilling a job that is more and more demanding.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

    I think the minister has about 10 more minutes that he can spend with us. I want to remind colleagues that we will have a brief in camera meeting on about two or three very important items, so let's see if we can get all colleagues in who want to ask questions.

    Next, for five more minutes, is Ms. McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say, for the record, that sometimes when the Minister of Defence jeers and ridicules the NDP opposition to national missile defence, I feel compelled to remind him that I come from the riding that has the largest concentration of military personnel in the country, and I'm very proud of that. And on this occasion when we're celebrating the 80th anniversary of Canada's air force, I'm very proud of the fact that my father was here doing research on Parliament Hill when he enlisted in the air force, and I'm very proud of his record of involvement and that he went on to be one of the founders of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms. I don't know whether that does anything to rehabilitate my position vis-à-vis the defence minister on these questions, but I just wanted to say it for the record.

    Quickly, I have three things. The minister chose, or didn't have time perhaps, to comment on the Marzolini poll, and I would just ask again whether the government has done any polling on this question, and if so, would he be willing to table it with the committee?

    Second, I just want to ask for a reaction to a direct quote, a brief quote, from the Strategic Master Plan of October 2003 of Air Force Space Command, which reads as follows. It says the Strategic Master Plan describes how we will transform this command into a space combat command. It outlines how we will sustain, modernize, divest, and transform our forces in order to maximize our war fighting capabilities. This plan is the command's road map to ensure our military remains dominant in space, in the air, on the ground, and on the sea.

    I guess that statement is summed up by a lapel button that people walking around in the U.S. today are wearing, which reads “In Your Face from Outer Space”.

    Third, I just want to ask for the minister's response to a very widely felt concern, one that was expressed even in advance of the new minister signing on to negotiations for our participation in national missile defence. The foreign affairs minister went across the country and invited people to engage in a dialogue about Canada's role in the world, and the overwhelming sentiment expressed in my own home town, which is a big military town, and right across this country, as reported by the foreign affairs minister himself, was that the future security of Canada, the future security of the human family on the globe, lies not in more and more armaments, not in more and more military might and muscle, and certainly not in the “fortress North America” approach that we've become part of, but rather in a more concerted commitment to disarmament, to more stringent arms control, to genuinely living up to our anti-nuclear commitments, and to dealing with the kind of peacekeeping role that is desperately needed in the world and that Canada has a particular penchant for, a particular respected record of performing.

    In view of that, I guess I would ask the minister whether he actually expects in the foreign affairs and defence review, about which you spoke again today in committee and in the House, that Canadians are going to change their minds about that and start to embrace the “fortress North America” mentality that underlies the Bush national missile defence vision.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, Ms. McDonough has left you about a minute, so I don't know how you can do it, but I'll give you a chance to try.

    Hon. David Pratt: I'll try to respond as quickly as I can, Mr. Chairman.

    With regard to the documents you referred to from U.S. Air Force Command, again, no one is denying that there are background pieces and think pieces being produced within the U.S. Air Force on these sorts of subjects, but--and I reiterate this--they do not form the policy of the U.S. government. There are policy papers and background papers within the Canadian Forces that don't necessarily reflect the view of the Government of Canada. We have to work with what we have currently in terms of policy, and the policy of the United States is not to put weapons in space at this time.

    On the non-proliferation issue, Canadians are very interested in non-proliferation. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken steps over the course of the last little while to pursue that even further, including some of the issues related to the non-weaponization of space, in various international fora. Canadians have been at the forefront of some of those non-proliferation efforts. We've also been a participant in the global partnership, which used to be called the 10 plus 10 over 10 initiative, to reduce the spread of weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, nuclear, etc.--and to deal with the threat posed by the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in terms of scientists working in various locations and weapons stocks being transported across borders. These are things that concern all of us and things that Canadians are working toward.

    But I think you have to keep in mind that peacekeeping can mean many different things to different people. When the NDP talks about peacekeeping, I don't know if it includes peace stabilization. Peace stabilization, as we've seen in places such as Afghanistan, can require a fairly robust capability as far as the tools the forces need to do their job are concerned. In the old days there were the Blue Berets, but we haven't seen much of that over the course of the last few years. The tools we need to be able to do the job in terms of international peace and security are, as I tried to indicate, changing, and we have to change with them. The reasons we have the sorts of platforms we do can be summed up, I suppose, in two phrases: situational awareness and precision fire power. We don't want to harm anybody we don't have to harm. Essentially, you want to get the bad guys and leave it at that. The days of mass bombardments of cities, going back to the Second World War, are, I would say, over, hopefully, thankfully.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister. You did very well with all the points you tried to address in a very short time.

    Mrs. Gallant has been patient. I'm going to give her five minutes. It's for questions and answers. Our minister is a bit into overtime, so we'll have to be right on the time.

    Mrs. Gallant, please.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): There has been an increasing concern expressed to me that DND is not dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder among the troops, that it prefers to hide these individuals in isolated postings, such as Yellowknife, rather than provide the attention and counselling they should be getting. Will the minister personally look into the treatment of military personnel suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to ensure they're receiving the care and attention they deserve?

    Hon. David Pratt: Thank you, Mrs. Gallant, for that question. I would say that the Canadian Forces have made significant strides over the last number of years. I would also suggest to you that people such as General Dallaire, for example, have been tremendously important in sensitizing the Canadian Forces to that whole issue. We have made some significant progress. Do we have more to make? Probably. But compared to other militaries in the world right now, I think we have nothing to be ashamed of in that area.

    We did have an incident recently, which I'm sure you're aware of, where a lawsuit was involved. As you may know, I'm working with the deputy minister on that issue. We stepped in to ensure that lawsuit went no further. The last thing we want to do is turn the clock back on some of these issues related to PTSD. I think the department is determined not to have that happen. Sometimes things happen that are not predicted. But in this particular case, I think we had a fairly swift response.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

    Approximately 42% of the skilled trades people working for DND will be eligible for retirement by 2011. The shortages of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and the like, in the private sector, means you won't be able to contract out for these services.

    In cooperation with the colleges, will your department consider developing an apprenticeship program to meet the future demand for skilled trades in your department?

    Hon. David Pratt: I can tell you that over the last three years we've recruited something in the vicinity of 15,000 new people into the forces. We're definitely trying to ensure that those skilled trades get covered, from the standpoint of the courses we provide to people and the counselling we give as well.

    That is a challenge as well that is facing many militaries around the world. It's an area where I think our department has been aggressive in terms of attacking.

    I will defer to either the general or the deputy minister here, if they have any further comments they might want to provide.

    Gen Raymond R. Henault: I would only add that we have had a very aggressive recruiting and retention program ongoing, Mr. Chair, for the last several years now. The minister has accurately described the numbers we've recruited. Many of our new programs are very much directed towards community colleges and partnerships with community colleges of many types.

    We are very aware that many of our shortages are in skilled trades. We are attempting, as much as possible, to introduce programs that not only allow partnerships for the actual training of individuals, but that allow us to recruit people who have come through the community college system and accelerate them through the Canadian Forces in many of the technical and skilled trades that you've talked about.

    We've had some success with that over the last recruiting drive we had. We expect to continue that aggressive recruiting for the next few years to get our numbers back up to where they should be. We're confident we'll be able to fill the holes that appear before us, at the moment at least.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Since 1993, no contracting services have been implemented in the army budget in Quebec. A proposal to contract out cleaning services at St. Jean, Montreal, and Valcartier, to save a projected 0.3% of a $132 million annual army budget in Quebec, is going to cost jobs and there are no proven savings.

    Contracting is how the department got into trouble with the Hewlett Packard fiasco. Why is the minister allowing the process of contracting out to continue, particularly, when the investigation into the lost $160 million is ongoing?

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: We understand you may be constrained in what you can say.

    Hon. David Pratt: I'm happy to respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: It will be the last question before we go.

    Hon. David Pratt: First of all, there is, believe me, a very significant difference between the two situations, between HP and the contracting out of janitorial services, as you can probably appreciate, in terms of the complexity of those particular contracts.

    With respect to Saint-Jean and Montreal, in terms of the Quebec forces area generally, there was a study done. It was the view at the conclusion of that study that there could be money saved and efficiencies could be achieved if some contracting out was in fact done.

    There was consultation as well, with the union involved. It's certainly my understanding that there will be no full-time positions lost within the organizations at either base. However, there may be some casual, part-time job losses involved, depending on what happens, I guess, with respect to the RFP that has gone out. For those who might be affected, they will have counselling services at their disposal in terms of future employment prospects.

    In certain instances, it may be appropriate for the Canadian Forces to contract out. I don't think we can preclude that, from the standpoint of efficiency, effectiveness, and spending the taxpayers' dollars in a prudent way.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister Pratt, General Henault, Madam Gosselin, and Mr. Williams.

    Thank you for being with us today. We look forward to seeing you again in the future.

    We certainly wish you all well in the very important work you're doing on behalf of the Canadian Forces. Thank you.

    Minister Pratt, I'll give the last word to you.

    Hon. David Pratt: I have just one final comment. Ms. McDonough raised an issue on polling. I didn't have any information on that at my disposal, but we will try to get her information on that. If committee members raised questions that I wasn't able to address, we'll endeavour to contact people and provide them with written reports on their questions.

    The Chair: We appreciate that very much, Minister, and I think you did well considering that—and I understand the enthusiasm of colleagues—it's tough when there are four minutes of questions and one minute to respond. We will look forward to your written responses when you get an opportunity.

    Thank you very much.

    I would like a motion to go in camera.

    We have a motion by Mr. Peric, seconded by Mr. Tonks, to go in camera to consider some committee business.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]