Sir, I'll start, if I may, concerning the operational requirements.
You're absolutely correct that a lot of this equipment was introduced to Afghanistan, but in the context of a larger vision for the Canadian Forces, as outlined in the Canada First defence strategy. Training, people, and equipment capability give the Government of Canada choices on how they wish to employ us. We all recognize that domestic operations,
is our top responsibility, in ensuring that Canada-first defence strategy.
Expeditionary ventures imply a certain degree of protection. Loosely they're categorized as either light, medium, or heavy. The majority of the Canadian army's equipment—and we're currently running 8,000 or 9,000 vehicles, just to put it in context—is medium to light. We need some heavier assets to give our soldiers a higher chance of survival under extreme conditions and we need some lighter equipment to do missions such as we conducted in Haiti. The majority of our equipment fleets are in the medium range because you can go slightly higher into the heavy and slightly lower into the light.
This equipment lasts 25 to 30 years from the moment of acquisition, unless the enemy destroys it. If you look out over the sweep of potential mission areas—and I wouldn't presume to even guess where we'll be 15 years from now—an investment in this capability, which has been made and is being made, will afford choices over the next 25 to 30 years, i.e., the normal lifespan of ground-based equipment.