National Defence Committee on Sept. 15th, 2010

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I understand, then, it does take a lot of time to plan, and develop, and build this aircraft. It's not something you can buy off the shelf at Walmart.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That is correct. In fact, being on the inside of the MOU has significant industrial benefits, which my colleagues have spoken to. Other countries will have the ability to come in to purchase this aircraft. Some are contemplating that now--Japan, Singapore, and we've seen Israel now enter into it. They will do so at a higher cost. Canada benefits from having been in on the early design phase and having signed and exercised the MOU.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I have another question through you, Mr. Chair, for Minister MacKay.

Mr. Bachand talked earlier about buying a car and ordering particular parts, and if he didn't get the right car with the right parts, in fact he would create a lawsuit.

So my question really is in terms of the requirements for this aircraft. I understand that our Canadian Forces, and in particular the air force, has put in what their requirements are. My question is will this aircraft meet the specifications that they were looking for?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Minister, you have two minutes.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'm very confident: based on the advice of the current Chief of the Air Staff, General Deschamps, his predecessor General Watt, and the chief of procurement we have at the department, Dan Ross, whom you'll be hearing from as well, all of this speaks to the necessity of this type of aircraft.

People ask what an F-35 is. It comes with stealth capability, which allows us to see that potential threat before it sees us. That is the stealth capability. It is virtually invisible, which is cutting-edge technology based on years and years of research and tremendous investment. We are the beneficiaries of that investment by virtue of being part of this MOU.

It also has incredible on-board capability to communicate with other aircraft of the same nature. That is to say, within an international operation these aircraft can virtually talk to each other. That is of tremendous benefit. The on-board weapons system is state-of-the-art. All of this speaks to what is described as a fifth-generation aircraft.

Now, I'm not a person well versed in all of the technology, nor am I a pilot. General Deschamps and others will speak to that capability. That unique aspect, that stealth, that fifth-generation capability--that is what makes this the right aircraft, at the right price, which we've spoken to, with the benefits of being in the process early. All of these indicate that this is a decision that was well contemplated by the department, by the experts, in consultation with industry.

This fifth-generation aircraft, I'm very confident, will serve us well into the future, not just on the existing threat scenario but what may come. That's looking out, projecting out, as we did with the CF-18, at what potential threats might exist for our country, and it is in keeping with our global responsibilities.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Bouchard, you have five minutes.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, Mr. Ministers, good morning.

My first question is for Mr. MacKay.

You came to Bagotville last week to announce that 24 fighter aircraft would be housed there. But you did not mention anything regarding the maintenance level or job retention. Bagotville currently provides maintenance levels 1 and 2, and part of level 3.

Can you tell us, Mr. Minister, whether these levels will continue to be provided or increased? I am talking about the current maintenance levels in terms of the F-18s and the level of employment, which accounts for roughly 1,500 military and civilian jobs.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and dear colleague.

The Department of National Defence is clearly planning to base half of these new aircraft in Bagotville and half in Cold Lake. The Bloc Québécois asked that 40% of the aircraft be based in Bagotville, but the Government of Canada exceeded expectations with a 50-50 split. So it is good news for the base in Bagotville.

Clearly, with respect to the training squadron, that will be announced in the future. That is very much based on the need. We have not stated the full training program as yet, and we'll examine that as we move closer and closer to the delivery date of the aircraft; determinations will be made about where those other aircraft will be based. But currently there will be 24 in Bagotville and 24 at Cold Lake, where Mr. Hawn made the announcement. The operational needs will dictate that decision, as you would expect.

We'll continue the use of existing basing at those two locations, with the infrastructure that's there that supports our current jet-fighter operations. The basing of the F-35 at CFB Bagotville with 425, and with 409 Cold Lake, will provide the continued significant economic opportunities that exist for those two communities. That is to say that having those two main bases for the aircraft will continue the jobs, will continue the presence of military personnel for those communities, which I know you are extremely interested in. Ultimately it will reduce the overhead training costs to have these two existing bases continue with that operation and to optimize what we can do with the aircraft.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Minister, let's not play word games: 24 out of 65 is not 50%. You announced 24 planes for Bagotville and 24 planes for Cold Lake, but that still leaves 17. You still have some homework to do, Mr. Minister.

You also announced that day....

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

If you would let me correct the record, sir, I just said that the additional 17 for training will be decided in the future.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

a $2.7-million investment in infrastructure upgrades in order to accommodate the new F-35s. From hangar 2 in Bagotville, we know that rebuilding a hangar costs $40 million. So in terms of infrastructure upgrades, $2.7 million is pretty minimal.

While you invest a billion dollars in Trenton to house the C-17s, the government is content, according to your announcement, with simply adding prefabricated modular units in Bagotville to sustain the base for the next 30 to 40 years. So I have some doubts. You have two projects in Bagotville: the expeditionary project, which shows a true lack of seriousness, and the F-35s. One could call the $2.7 million that you announced for infrastructure upgrades crumbs.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

To use your example of investments at Trenton, that's apples and oranges. That's a completely different aircraft. The hangars there accommodate the C-17 and the larger C-130 aircraft that we have just purchased. That is a different scenario to compare the infrastructure investments there with the maintenance of the fighter aircraft.

And if you do the math, 24 aircraft and 24 aircraft, between Cold Lake and Bagotville, is 50%. The 17 aircraft that we will also receive for training purposes...and hopefully drawing down on that 17 and distributing them equally, then, in the fleet, will allow for the operational decisions of the air force to meet all of the demands.

So there is no disparity here. We're saying the same thing. The decision on the training aircraft will be made when we start to receive those aircraft.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

As for future investments in Bagotville, we'll do so on an as-needed basis.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Minister, I'm going to have to move on.

Mr. Braid, you have five minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for being a few minutes late this morning. I could have used an F-35 to fly from Kitchener-Waterloo.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

[Inaudible--Editor]...but absences were duly noted.

You have five minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Ambrose, I wonder if I could please start with a question or two for you.

You indicated that the process all began with the identification of the F-35 in 1997, and at that time we had, we saw, a rigorous competitive process. Could you provide some detail about the process that the government of the day went through at the time?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's correct, there was a competition when it came to who became the manufacturer of the JSF. Canada, as you know, entered into the JSF program in 1997 as a partner with our other ally nations, and through the program there was a lengthy, rigorous, and intense competition to choose the company that would then build the joint strike fighter. That concluded in 2001. Lockheed Martin was chosen as the manufacturer for the joint strike fighter.

Canada has participated in the joint strike fighter program for over a decade now. Canadian companies have participated in not only the development and design, but now the manufacturing of the actual aircraft.

In 2008, two years ago, the Department of National Defence stated in their Canada First defence strategy policy framework that they committed us, Canada, to purchasing the next-generation fighter. It's our job to then take those requirements and assess what suppliers are available. DND concluded that only the F-35 met their requirements. It's our job to then validate that conclusion. We did validate that, and therefore we agreed to acquire the F-35 through our memorandum of understanding. As part of, I believe, chapter six in the memorandum of understanding, we are able to acquire the F-35 through the MOU, and by doing that, we gain access not only to the global supply chain, but we get a discount on the aircraft and we get priority place in the production line.

It's good news for the military in terms of meeting all of their requirements. It's good news for the Canadian taxpayer because we get a discount by procuring through the MOU. And it's good news for Canadian industry because we get priority access to the global supply chain of up to 5,000 aircraft.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

Minister MacKay, on July 15 of this year, the Liberal member of Parliament for Westmount—Ville-Marie, Marc Garneau, said: “If the Conservatives won’t put a stop to this contract, a future Liberal government will.”

Given the explanation from Minister Ambrose with respect to the rigorous competitive process that started under the Chrétien government, Canadians who are tuning in and watching today may find this statement at best opportunistic, perhaps at worst hypocritical. In addition, it rings similar to the Sea King decision as well.

Minister MacKay, do you have any thoughts or observations on that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Just to hearken back to your comment, it was in fact a Liberal defence minister, Art Eggleton, back in 2002, who really pursued this initiative, and he said of that initiative:This initiative will provide DND as well as Canada's aerospace industry with an excellent opportunity to be involved in one of the most exciting aerospace defence programs of the 21st century. Our participation will greatly enhance interoperability with our allies....

This is what Mr. Eggleton, then defence minister, said in 2002. To compare it to the potential fallout and cost to taxpayers of what happened with the cancellation of the EH-101 program by then Prime Minister Chrétien, you're right, when he took his pen and wrote zero helicopters, guess what? We still have zero helicopters when it comes to the maritime program, at a cost calculated to be upwards of $1 billion. So we spent $1 billion not to buy the aircraft, because of that cancellation.

Angus Watt, then Chief of the Air Staff, upon hearing those comments and the intention of the Liberal Party to potentially cancel or delay the contract, said this: “I am particularly appalled at the Liberal announcement that they would cancel this contract at the first opportunity. As a former Sea King squadron commander earlier in my career, I know only too well the consequences of such political games.”

That's exactly the unfortunate reality; the political games can cost the air force, can cost our ability to defend our airspace, and can cost billions to Canadian aerospace. I wish we had a less partisan, more bipartisan, approach to procurement. That would benefit the men and women in uniform. It would benefit them in the ability to do the important work that we ask of them.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Minister.

I will now go to Mr. Simms for five minutes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister MacKay, this hearkens back to a conversation I think you had earlier with Mr. Hawn. From this testimony and from what I've read, there is one thing that bothers me the most, that concerns me, and that is the fact that we are on a slippery slope towards procurement in the future. By that I mean we're inheriting things that are forced upon us in a situation where there is less Canadian input and from which, in future, there may be fewer perceived benefits. I'll give you an example.

You talked about perceived new threats. We had a release from the Prime Minister's office about the Tu-95, which I talked about earlier. Now, you said, along with Mr. Hawn, and you gave evidence, that this is a perceived threat...and it enhances our ability to defend Arctic sovereignty; therefore, if a Tu-95 comes close to Canadian airspace, we now have the ability to defend.

But how can you talk about this particular plane when, from my understanding, the speed of the F-35 is 1.6 Mach, whereas that of the CF-18 is 1.8 Mach, which makes the CF-18 faster. Not only that, if this plane is going to run up against the Tu-95, it is, in your words, virtually invisible.

So this is part of the concern I have about this. Some of the reasons why this plane is good for Canada don't really jibe.

You also mentioned...but I'll let you answer that first.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

First of all, when it comes to inheriting things, we inherited this contract from your party, your government. Let's be clear, this was inherited from a previous government. And thank you for doing so, because it was the right choice. It was the right aircraft.

With respect to the capability of the aircraft and the air speed, they're comparable. A new F-35 taking off from Cold Lake can get to the outer limits of Canadian airspace in virtually the same time.

But don't take that from me. Take it from an expert. I'm going to allow General Deschamps to address that question, and you'll be able to speak to him further in the committee.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes, and because of that I'd like to keep asking you the questions now.