Mr. Chair, I will answer the member's question by putting forward the facts as I understand them and as I understand the way we tried to place them here in this audit.
The army had the Leopard 1 in theatre. It made a determination that because of the deficiencies--particularly with respect to mine resistance--it needed to replace the Leopard 1; that, plus the fact that it couldn't operate as effectively in the heat as they had hoped.
They made the decision to acquire a Leopard 2. When they started this process, in terms of the acquisition of the Leopard 2--the borrowing of the 20 tanks from Germany--they started out on the assumption that the Leopard 1 and the Leopard 2 were similar vehicles. Because they are called Leopards doesn't, as the department found out, make them the same vehicle. There has been an evolution in terms of the construction of the vehicle, and the old Leopard and the new Leopard are fundamentally different vehicles.
The new Leopard was brought into theatre, and as we point out, it had some initial problems that have been resolved. It is actually being used by the army for operations in theatre and is providing the direct fire support that the army requires.
I think I've answered the member's question, but I'd just ask if there was something else I may have forgotten in terms of a response.
Oh yes. The Leopard 1s are being maintained in theatre because of the dozer plows and blades that are required. When we were in theatre we saw the Leopard 2. It had the mine plow and the mine rollers--it's equipped now with the mine rollers--but the department, the forces, still need the mine plows and blades, as I understand it. So the Leopard 1s are being kept in order to provide that support to the troops in theatre. As I understand it--I stand to be corrected, of course--the two are working together in Afghanistan to provide the full range of protection that is required.