Thanks, Chair.
I want to return just briefly to the issue of 68,000 being how many you determined you need, and that we're short of that. Again, I quote the Auditor General's report, paragraph 5.11:
Overall, we found that the total number of Regular Force members had decreased, and that there had been a growing gap between the number of members needed and those who were fully trained.
Although I think you have up-to-date information that says you think you're turning that, the information we had at the time of the audit was that that gap is growing.
Further, I quote from 5.17, “In our opinion”, meaning the Auditor General, and I raised this earlier, “it is unlikely that it will be able to recruit, train, or retain sufficient personnel to meet its target of 68,000 members by the 2018-19 fiscal year.” Anyone who wants to can see a very effective chart at the top of page 5, Exhibit 5.1, which shows the trend line down and the gap growing.
Here's my question. Why aren't you freaking out more?
Here's why I ask. When you were explaining that you lowered the target to make sure that it's reasonable, okay, I accepted that for that round. Here's the more macro question. Either 68,000 is 4,000 more than you need, or you're leaving us vulnerable. I don't expect and I'm not going to ask you to get into the vulnerabilities in a public setting, but I think it's fair to say, if you determined that 68,000 is the number we need and we're not meeting it, just artificially lowering the numbers so you can be more realistic about how you're going to fail to achieve 68,000 still leaves us vulnerable.
I'd like you to comment on that vulnerability, please.