Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

National Defence—Main Estimates 2006-07

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I guess you are going to get it once and for all.

Fitness, let us talk about fitness. The hon. member mentioned that somehow we are lowering fitness. We have no intention whatsoever of lowering the fitness standard.

We are potentially going to take people in who cannot immediately pass the fitness test. We are going to train them for six or eight weeks. They are going to do physical training through that period and if they pass the fitness test, they are in the armed forces. No one who cannot pass the fitness test is going to be accepted in trench training in the armed forces.

That is just an error of understanding, or whatever term one wants to use. We are not lowering the fitness standard.

With respect to re-roling, no one who is a sailor who has a sailor's trade or an air trade will be employed as infantry. What we are going to do possibly with infantry is we may ask some of the armour, or the field engineers, or the artillery who are in the combat arms to act in an infantry role if necessary. This, by the way, is historically quite traditional. Armoured regiments from time to time abandoned their vehicles and went into the line as infantry.

If we find that we need a few a more infantry to get through to 2009 without repeating the tasking of the infantry battalions, we will attempt to do that.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, we know that we are now talking about nine month tours instead of six month tours.

The minister has now said that we are going to have some re-roling of trucks, truckers and other people in the navy or air force. General Hillier has said that the trainees who are in navy training or air force training are also going to be diverted into infantry training. Is that going to be so or not? What is the real answer on that particular question?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the past up until about now, what the member would find if he checked the tasking in the armed forces is that about 40% of the armed forces do all the contingency operational tasks and about 60% of the armed forces do not.

We will find that many members in the armed forces have rows and rows of ribbons from going from one mission to another mission whereas other members have very few. The chief of the defence staff and the military are trying to make sure that the tasking is levelled across the armed forces so that if someone is qualified to do a task in Afghanistan or if we take on another mission somewhere else and that person happens to be in the navy or the air force and is qualified to do a job, we will employ that person in Afghanistan if needed.

The other issue the member brought up--

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am going to have to interrupt the hon. minister. The time has expired, but the minister happens to be the next speaker so he can pick up where he left off.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, a lot has happened since this government took office. In a matter of mere months we are getting things done for Canadians. We have begun to clean up government and politics by introducing the federal accountability act. We have strengthened crime legislation by tackling gun, gang and drug crimes. We have worked to keep the economy strong by cutting taxes and paying down the debt. We have protected Canada's sovereignty and advanced Canada's interest in the world and have taken a leadership role in international affairs.

On top of that, we have also done a lot for our Canadian Forces. I know that members of the House are unanimous in their desire to support Canada's military, but I also know we do not always agree on how we should do that. Indeed, investments in defence can be contentious. They often amount to very large sums and are paid for with hard-earned Canadian tax dollars. They demand the responsible and critical oversight of the House. So I welcome this opportunity before the committee of the whole today to assure each member and all Canadians that current spending by the Department of National Defence is well justified and in the interests of Canada.

To inform this debate, I want to explain the current government's vision of the defence of Canada.

I want to explain the departmental management framework that is guiding all our spending decisions while we are working to make that vision a reality. I especially want to stress that this government is going forward with a number of practical initiatives that will provide our troops with the support they deserve.

We all know that the world has changed considerably since the end of the cold war. We face new security challenges like global terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and failed and failing states. The stark reality remains that we lost 24 men and women in the attacks of September 11, 2001 and, unfortunately, September 11 was not a solitary event. Since that date, we have been reminded numerous times that international terrorism still poses a threat to us.

While the cold war is over, the need for diligence in Canadian defence and security has not decreased. More than 3,000 Canadian soldiers, sailors and air force personnel are deployed overseas in operations today. On any given day, about 8,000 Canadian Forces members are preparing for, engaging in or returning from an overseas mission. At home approximately 10,000 military men and women diligently work to defend our territory and its approaches, to assert our sovereignty and to serve our communities.

The expectations of a declining military role in the post cold war world have not panned out. The demand for defence capabilities continues to be strong. That is why the government is committed to strengthening the independent capacity of the Canadian Forces. We need a three-ocean navy, a robust army and a revitalized air force that is able to operate as an integrated Canadian Forces team to defend, to help protect the North American continent and to contribute to stability abroad.

To guide our steps forward, the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the Treasury Board's government-wide mandate, is implementing a new planning and accountability structure. It is called the program activity architecture and is based on three strategic outcomes that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces provide to Canada.

The first is that Canadians are confident that the Canadian Forces have the capability and the capacity to meet Canada's defence and security commitments.

The second is that the Canadian Forces achieve success in operations, whether at home dealing with severe spring floods in Manitoba or abroad bringing security to southern Afghanistan.

The third is that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence promote good governance, Canadian identity and influence in a global community.

Canadians identify with and are proud of the Canadian Forces. On the international scene, the professionalism, performance and bravery of our men and women bring much credibility to Canada.

To achieve these results, the program activity architecture describes three main activities around which the work of the department is oriented.

The first activity consists in generating and sustaining relevant, responsive and effective combat-capable integrated forces. The second consists in conducting successful operations, and the third consists in contributing to the Canadian government, Canadian society and the international community in accordance with Canadian interests and values.

Together these are obvious but profound goals for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

The government has moved forward on some major initiatives that will contribute to achieving these goals, which the recently tabled supplementary estimates support. For instance, we announced plans to expand the numbers of the Canadian Forces. We have initiated a program to increase the regular force by 13,000 and the reserves by 10,000.

A force expansion of such magnitude requires an aggressive national recruitment campaign, as well as the expansion and modernization of our recruitment and training systems. We are also working hard to retain existing military members by providing fair pay and allowances, improving base infrastructure and providing appropriate compensation for special forces and other members engaged in operations.

In addition, as I announced in June, we are planning to acquire medium size logistics trucks, medium to heavy lift helicopters, strategic and tactical aircraft and joint support ships. These procurement projects will not only enhance the capabilities of the Canadian Forces, but through the industrial regional benefits, policy they will also support our domestic defence industry.

To assure Canadians that their military is serving them at home, we are exploring options for Arctic defence initiatives and for territorial and rapid reaction battalions. Because Canadian security is inseparable from stability abroad, we are throwing our full support behind the mission in Afghanistan.

We have extended the mission to February 2009 and we have enhanced the configuration of our military contingent to address current military needs in theatre. They are extremely positive developments for the Canadian Forces and for all Canadians. Because the department has created a management framework that guides our resource allocation, we know that these investments are the right investments for Canada.

Having said that, the substantial efforts we have made so far cannot be the end of the story. It will take several years to restore the Canadian Forces to the level sufficient to meet Canada's defence needs. That is why in the coming months the government will release a Canada first defence strategy. This document will outline the capabilities that the Canadian Forces need for the next 10 years and beyond.

When I say that this government is determined to do more for the Canadian Forces this year and in the years to come, I do not mean that we are simply going to spend more money.

We have also looked at a number of ways of reducing costs in order to make better use of every dollar allocated to national defence. For example, we are transforming our defence procurement process so that we can provide the Canadian Forces with what they need when they need it, but in an economical and timely manner.

Managing the resources of a federal department requires difficult decisions, but at the heart of every decision that this government makes is our fundamental commitment to enhance the security of Canadians.

The Canadian Forces need our support today, tomorrow and the years to come. We just cannot give them verbal support. The Canadian Forces need tangible resources to do their job. It is that simple.

I welcome questions from members and I welcome constructive debate.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Reserve force is composed of dedicated men and women who are enrolled for service other than continuing full time military service. The reserve force is divided into four subcomponents: the primary reserve, the supplementary reserve, the cadet instructor cadre and the Canadian rangers.

The role of the primary reserve is to augment, sustain and support deployed forces and in some cases, perform tasks that are not performed by regular force members. The Canadian Forces are continuing to explore ways to enhance the role of reserves in civil preparedness to respond to natural disasters and local emergencies. In fact, I would be remiss at this juncture not to mention the Brockville Rifles located in Brockville in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.

This is an outstanding reserve unit with a long, proud history and tremendous connection to its community. It proved its worth to the community during the now famous ice storm of 1998. At the height of that storm, 825 people were housed at the Brockville armouries, 75 of whom were regular forces members while the rest were from reserves across Ontario. It should also be noted that there was another similar contingent housed in Cornwall during the same crisis.

The reservists did a number of jobs during this storm including, but not limited to, assisting with police traffic control, patrolling vulnerable cottage areas, assisting older folks out of isolated rural homes and into care centres and hand delivering water to cattle. They put in thousands of hours of work clearing fallen trees with the city, individuals and hydro crews.

There are currently 125 reserve members in Brockville and the Rifles are looking forward to further expansion. Because many of its members are of high school age, the Brockville Rifles has received funding for the past two years as part of the local school board's cooperative education program. It is an important part of the community of Brockville and all of Leeds and Grenville.

The Canadian Forces reserves are also an integral part of the Canadian Forces. They are playing a key role in our current operation in Afghanistan. As the report of the Department of National Defence on plans and priorities states:

Currently, reservists make up 13% of DND’s deployed strength abroad, including one in seven soldiers in Afghanistan. make up 13% of the Department of National Defence's deployed strength abroad, including one in seven soldiers in Afghanistan. The CF Transformation and anticipated commitments in international operations suggest that this rate of reservists’ participation in operations will be maintained, if not increased, under the new Integrated Managed Readiness System.

Could the Minister of National Defence provide an update on what the Canadian Forces is doing with regard to the primary reserves?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government extends its gratitude to the men and women of the reserves. The reserves are an integral part of the Canadian Forces. We could not fulfill many important roles, both at home and overseas, without them.

There are currently approximately 25,000 members of the reserve force within nine separate organizations, including the army, navy, air force, communications, medical and legal reserves. Forty-five per cent of the reserves hold full time civilian jobs and 40% are students. As we promised during the election campaign, we are working to expand the primary reserve to 35,000.

Not many Canadians know that our reservists fill such a diverse set of roles. For example, our naval reservists provide port security and operate maritime coastal defence vessels. Members of the air reserve perform squadron augmentation and support roles. The army reserve will participate in territorial battalions.

The Canadian Forces continue to work on the land force reserve structure, an ongoing project designed to help to ensure the long term relevance and effectiveness of the army reserve and the Canadian Forces as a whole by expanding the role and size of the land force reserve.

The second phase of the project, which focuses on change in growth, wrapped up this summer. The restructure of the land force reserves continues to move forward. The land force reserve restructure resulted in significant benefits, including improving the way the CF recruits reserves, development of personnel policies to support force generation for operations and the growth of the army reserve from its current strength to more than 16,000.

The land force reserve restructure process was recently integrated into the overall CF and army transformation process. Work is now underway for a third phase that will guide future growth and further integration of the army reserve.

Reservists are playing an invaluable role in our current mission in Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces currently have mechanisms in place to assist reserve members in maintaining their civilian employment while they are deployed. For example, the Canadian Forces liaison council has a highly successful process in place to advocate on behalf of reserves. The council has lobbied more than 4,900 employers that have pledged to support the reserve and more than half of those have committed to allow their employees to participate in operations. Among them, the federal government, all 10 provincial governments and 147 municipalities have stated their support.

An estimated 40% of reserves are students. The Canadian Forces liaison council has launched a special project to reach the 308 post-secondary schools and obtain their support for reservists who attend their institutions. In the first year of the project, 163 institutions have pledged their support.

We will continue to work with the private sector to help them understand the important role reservists play in the Canadian Forces for their country and the skills and experience they bring back to their employer upon returning from a deployment.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, before starting, I would like to clarify one point.

The last time I had the pleasure of participating in this kind of discussion, the current Minister of National Defence was sitting on my left and was in the official opposition. I had to let my friends who were watching the debate know that it was a committee of the whole. At the last committee of the whole, I was surrounded by Conservatives. I reassured my friends at the time that I had not become a Conservative. This was a committee of the whole where people can sit where they like and I had ended up by chance in the middle of the Conservatives. This evening, in order to be totally fair, I wanted to reassure my friends that I have not become a Liberal; I am a Bloc member of Parliament and this is a committee of the whole. So I can sit where I want.

Now that I have clarified this, I have a question for the minister.

The Bloc Québécois is not happy with the mission in Afghanistan. I will explain why. When we were last here some time ago, we asked questions of the Liberal defence minister at the time. Everybody wanted to talk about reconstruction and the urgent need for the Canadian Forces to intervene because schools and hospitals had to be built and protected and roads had to be reconstructed.

Since the start of the mission, though, there has been a change in its mandate. Canada is no longer there to build hospitals or schools; it is there to hunt the Taliban. Many people criticize the Canadian mission for just hunting the Taliban.

The minister himself agreed in committee that the main objective was to drive out the people who had sheltered and supported the authors of the September 11 attacks. If this is the objective of the current mission, the Bloc Québécois feels that it has not been achieved because reconstruction and diplomacy are also important. The 3D approach included not only defence but development and diplomacy as well.

My question is for the minister. How much time and money does he intend to spend before moving on to the two other Ds, development—or construction—and diplomacy? He has said himself on several occasions that it was not by military operations alone that Canada would accomplish its mission in Afghanistan.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the primary purpose of the military in Afghanistan is actually to support development. We have recently committed extra forces to defend the provincial reconstruction team. We have now committed a full infantry company, a reinforced infantry company, to defend the provincial reconstruction team whose primary mission is to get out among the people and improve their lives.

The battle group is there not only to protect the PRT but to protect the Afghan aid programs, the U.S. aid programs, the Afghan government, the UN aid programs, and all the aid programs. The battle group is there to keep the insurgency under control so development can proceed.

When I talk to troops, I tell them that our mission there is to protect the development mission. That is why we have put so much military effort in there.

Our focus has not changed. It is the same mission that we inherited and we are carrying on with it. What has happened in the meanwhile is that the level of violence has gone up and we have had to react. If we do not keep the level of violence down, we cannot continue with our projects.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, the minister just confirmed my remarks. He tells me that 200 soldiers from Valcartier will be sent to Afghanistan to protect the provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs.

However, I would like to remind the minister that 2,200 soldiers are currently in Afghanistan. If he needs additional reinforcements to protect the PRTs, that means that the other 2,200 soldiers are busy chasing the Taliban. A considerable ratio is chasing the Taliban as opposed to working on development and diplomacy. It seems that this is not a question of diplomacy or development.

The minister tells us that we are sending 200 soldiers to protect the PRTs, but what are the other 2,200 soldiers doing? Therein lies the problem. I say this because the Bloc Québécois does not believe that the solution to Afghanistan is military in nature. The minister said so himself.

I am asking the minister if he does not agree with us, by admitting that the 200 additional soldiers who are heading for Afghanistan are intended to ensure the protection and security of the PRTs. Is he not, then, also admitting that the 2,200 other soldiers are busy looking for the Taliban and, therefore, are part of an aggressive mission? We have a hard time accepting this. The international community and the people of Afghanistan, I believe, have a hard time accepting this. I would ask the minister to clarify his position on the 200 new soldiers in relation to the 2,200 other soldiers.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I mentioned that we were sending, and in fact they are arriving this month, a reinforced infantry company to protect the PRT. The PRT itself is essentially military. There are some diplomats there and some CIDA people, but most of the people in the PRT are military. The PRT and the protection put together will have more than 400 people involved.

With respect to the battle group, it may vary in numbers but the battle group number is somewhere around 1,000 armour, infantry, artillery, engineers, et cetera. Their job is to protect development and townsfolk in the entire province of Kandahar, not just the PRT inside Kandahar City. Their job is in the entire province. There are about 1,000 in the battle group who are trying to suppress the insurgency throughout the entire province and there are about 400 in the PRT.

The remaining people represent those people who we have to have to support the mission, the logistics support, the command and control support, and the air support. That is what the rest of the people do.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow this train of thought a bit farther. We think this mission has become almost entirely a military one. As I just said, about 200 to 400 soldiers are working on protection, but more than 2,000 others are hunting the Taliban.

Furthermore, the military equipment in use in Afghanistan has changed. Not long ago, we were on a reconstruction mission. Now, news releases say we are sending more soldiers and more tanks. I think it safe to say we are not sending tanks to rebuild schools and hospitals. We are sending them to hunt the Taliban. This is more proof that the department is much too focused on the military aspect of the mission and not enough on its other aspects.

Does the minister agree that this is further proof that the mission is too military-oriented and not development-oriented enough?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite obviously ignored my first answer. I guess I will have to say it again.

We have about 1,000 soldiers involved in the battle group protecting the entire province of Kandahar. There are 400 or so soldiers involved in the PRT, along with diplomats, policemen and people from CIDA. As I have said before, from our point of view, the main function of all of that military effort is to support development work. Development work is going on throughout the entire Kandahar province, as it is throughout the whole country.

It is not a military oriented mission as such, but we have to do what is necessary to bring the Taliban under control. We cannot allow the Taliban to win and take over. Remember what kind of murderous regime there was before NATO and the alliance moved in. The Taliban was running the country, executing people, suppressing women's rights, et cetera. I could go on but everyone knows the story. We need the military there to suppress the Taliban so we can get on with development.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to say one thing. I think it would be pretentious to say I had any influence on General Jones, who is responsible for the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, but he said that if he had to choose between 5,000 additional soldiers and $50 million for reconstruction, he would take the money.

Why am I questioning the minister's statements? Because media reports during the visit of the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages to Afghanistan did not show a single school or hospital. No wonder we do not think there is any reconstruction going on at this time.

The government is focusing its efforts in Afghanistan on military action. I would like the minister to answer the same question General Jones answered: if he had the choice between 5,000 additional soldiers and $50 million for reconstruction, which would he choose?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, fortunately, I do not have to make that choice. What I try to do and what the government tries to do is find a balance among diplomacy, development and security. From our point of view, whatever it takes to be successful in the Kandahar area is what we are doing, so we do not have to make Hobson's choice.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Four minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to move on to another topic now.

The minister is well aware that I take a keen interest in the aerospace industry. He also knows that I object to the way the aerospace contracts have been awarded. In addition, in the supplementary estimates that will soon be before us, certain sums of money are earmarked for that industry, which means that they will be used to purchase aerospace equipment. The government currently wants to purchase aerospace equipment worth $13 billion.

We have gone from one extreme to the other. A few years ago, the government opted for a procedure that involved 12 to 15 years of waiting time because of a whole series of obstacles that had to be overcome before equipment could be purchased. The equipment was outdated by the time it arrived. Now, we are relying on the Americans, with the Boeing contracts and the like. I am talking about the C-17 aircraft and the Chinook helicopter. But the minister made a mistake, because now Boeing is deciding about content and industrial benefits.

And we are not talking about regional industrial benefits any more; now we are talking about Canadian benefits. That means that the aerospace industry in Quebec, which makes up 60% of the industry in Canada, could take a back seat and be told that the government has invested so many billions of dollars, but that Boeing is deciding where it will invest in Canadian content. The industry in Quebec would like the government to bear in mind that it would like economic benefits in aerospace, not necessarily in fish, Pacific salmon or northern spruce. We want benefits in aerospace.

Did the minister not make a mistake when he used sole-source procurement with a specific requirement that ruled out everyone but Boeing? As a result, now, Canadian taxpayers will not get the best bang for their buck. What is more, the industry in Quebec could be hosed because of the government's approach.

I would like to hear the minister's opinion on this.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have to inform the hon. member that I am not the Minister of Industry and I do not know the details of benefits. He will have to contact the Minister of Industry for that. However, the equipment we are acquiring is what is needed by the armed forces and that every dollar spent on this equipment, no matter where it is spent, will be returned to Canada in investment, dollar for dollar.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask one last question. It is fine to say that every dollar invested will be returned to Canadians, and I do not know whether or not the contract with Boeing has already been signed. No matter, what I did find out from Boeing is that 60% of the contract must benefit the aerospace industry. That means that 40% will go elsewhere. Since 60% of the aerospace industry is in Quebec, we want the maximum amount of benefits for the aerospace industry.

That also goes for tactical aircraft. In their case, it is a question of 50%. I know that I am not addressing the Minister of Industry. Nevertheless, it is the Minister of National Defence who decided on the specifications for these contracts. He knew full well that with regard to the C-17 and the Chinooks, only Boeing could fill these specific orders. In my opinion, the taxpayers will lose out and I would like the minister to make a final comment on this matter.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I do not know if that is a question or not. I will say again that the military need this equipment. They are getting what they need. Every dollar spent will be returned to Canada in investments.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here tonight to participate in this process. I would like to thank the minister for appearing here tonight and spending several hours answering questions from members of the House.

The expenditures of the Department of National Defence are really vast. It is the largest single expenditure that Parliament reviews at $13.6 billion. The supplementary estimates alone are just over $1 billion, which is actually a sum that is larger than most departments of government.

In April of last year, in response to a written question that I sent the minister, I was told that the mission had cost, so far, $1.4 billion in incremental costs. About six weeks later, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told me that the mission had cost $1.8 billion and that the future costs of the mission would be $1.25 billion. The Minister of Finance has told me that the rest of the mission will cost $1.8 billion.

Clearly, these numbers are going up, and these are the incremental costs, not the full costs to DND. This number subtracts salaries and does not speak to the cost to the whole of government, to the costs of supporting veterans and their families. If we add up the full costs, as published in the department's report on plans and priorities, we get a sum of over $4.1 billion.

Can the minister now give us an update on the full costs of the mission going forward to 2009?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the incremental costs for the mission in Afghanistan to date is $2.1 billion. It is estimated, going forward to the end of the mission, that there will be a further $1.8 billion expended. So, total incremental costs estimated to the end of the mission, that is February 2009, and also getting the forces home if that is the decision at the time, will cost $3.9 billion incrementally.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for the information.

Information that was previously provided to me by the minister stated that the added cost of deploying the Leopard tanks will be $157 million. It is a fairly large sum of money, considering that his government made cuts to women's programs, to literacy and to the court challenges program.

When we compare this $157 million with the $1.5 million that the Department of Foreign Affairs is going to spend this year on civilian activities as part of the provincial reconstruction team, how much did it cost to send each tank?

I also asked through a written question to the minister, and I asked him in committee, and my office has even used the access to information system to try to find out the cost of a particular item of departmental spending. How much did Canada pay last November for each Excalibur round to be used with the M777?

The government spent $5.5 million for these shells. That is about the same amount of money that was spent on the court challenges program, in fact a little bit more than that, before it was cut.

The minister promised me at the defence committee that he would find out this information, so I am wondering if he could share that with us now. What is the exact cost of each one of those shells?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member had a number of questions. I hope I can keep track of them. The total cost to send the tanks, the cannon mortar and the engineers to Afghanistan was $189 million and that was the transportation plus what was necessary to get all the equipment up to standard for operations.

With respect to Excalibur, we do not own nor do we have any Excaliburs in the armed forces. I think someone is still trying to find out what the theoretical price is from a company but we do not have any rounds in the armed forces.