The pleasure is all mine, more than it is yours, trust me, so we'll see how this goes.
I took great interest in report 5, and I'll tell you why. In my riding, we have the 103 Search and Rescue Squadron under the Canadian military. Several years ago, there was a rash of problems, including that we could not find pilots.
I want to turn to this part of the report, because I read it with great interest, regarding armed forces recruitment and retention. If we're going to look at buying the next generation of fighter jets, who the hell's going to fly them? That's really the deal.
I notice some stuff here which caused great concern for me. Files were closed in some cases while applicants were still interested. It almost seems like they had a process in place that was not adaptable to the current job market. If we're chasing after pilots, we have to go far and wide to find the people who have a lot of experience.
One thing I do want to point out, though, is the recommendation you made to them. Paragraph 5.52 states:
The Canadian Armed Forces should develop and implement a three- to five-year target with an action plan for each occupation to meet recruiting needs....
It was not so much the target numbers or revised target numbers they put out. I think there was a 10% variance to get up to their target. Their response was:
Agreed. The Canadian Armed Forces currently uses a five-year long-range planning model that factors in attrition and growth. That model is then analyzed in detail to produce a Strategic Intake Plan....
It almost seems like there's really nothing wrong at all, other than the fact that they acknowledge they should be more agile toward this.
How big is this problem? If we're talking about new equipment—and you also have a part here about maintenance—then there's a huge gap that will lead us to the future. Do they really believe that being a little more agile is going to help?