Evidence of meeting #38 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nato.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stéphane Abrial  Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

12:40 p.m.

Gen Stéphane Abrial

It does help, of course.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Okay. Would it be of even greater assistance to achieving mission success by providing the allies, when they have developed a piece of equipment together, a plug-in-place aspect to the equipment or different capabilities?

12:40 p.m.

Gen Stéphane Abrial

Sorry, I'm not sure I got your point.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Some countries may want a specific capability in a piece of equipment and they would put theirs in, but another country may want that same one at a different point in time, so they could take out what they were using and put it in.

12:40 p.m.

Gen Stéphane Abrial

The difficulty in the multinational cooperation aspect of smart defence is how you reconcile the nations' calendars and nations' specifications. Examples in the past have proven that going multinational is not always the best solution. We all have in mind experiences where going multinational has resulted in more delays, more costs, and maybe not the best characteristics at the end. We want to build on the experiences from the past to find the right criteria to make sure that doing things together tomorrow will bring benefits, not disadvantages.

We have been working, for example, from the conceptual point of view on the notion of what we call strategic proximity: why nations would like to do things together in a given group on a given project. There may be regional geographic proximity. There may be notions of culture and language, a successful history of cooperation in the past, such as among a few nations that operate the F-16 in Europe—from Norway to Portugal and Belgium, and so on. Successful operations by these nations may encourage them to have another project in another domain together.

You may have nations sharing the same strategic vision. For example, there is the most recent Franco-British treaty at Lancaster House on doing things together in a defence environment. We look at the best chances for success in each project. It doesn't mean that all the groupings will be the same. To the contrary, we have about 25 projects that will be agreed upon in Chicago, and we have 200 more ideas on the table that we're going to continue working on afterwards.

No two groupings are similar. Every project encompasses somewhere between three and eight or nine nations, and all these groupings are different. For each topic there is another aspect of strategic proximity which gives you the best chances of success. This is what we're working on.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Over the last decade NATO had looked at setting up a rapid response force, but over time this has evolved into not such a rapid response force. We had people ready to train together and then eventually to work together on the ground—that's excluding of course the very successful Operation Unified Protector.

Are we still looking in the future to having this rapid response force, or have we toned it down and lengthened the response time for cost reasons?

12:40 p.m.

Gen Stéphane Abrial

We're continuing to follow this path. NATO will continue the so-called NATO response force, which has been with us now for years and, as you rightly say, has never been employed, for various reasons.

One of the reasons, for example, is that when you build forces for a NATO response force rotation—it was six months in the past and now it's one year—you prepare them 18 months in advance. You make sure that the elements the nations provide are used to working together, from headquarters level to forces level. But the force composition is not always adequate to the operations that will erupt in four or five months, and the nations who have agreed to provide forces to the NATO response force might not want to participate in an operation. We had the case again of Libya, where eight nations decided to physically contribute and others decided not to do so. This is why in the past every time an operation has erupted, we have built a new ad hoc force.

We maintain the NATO response force for two reasons: one, because we still believe there is a good rationale to have forces ready in the future; and second, it's an excellent transformation and training tool. This eighteen-month period of time during which these forces train and come to readiness is a transformative period. The one-year period during which these forces are on alert is a very good training opportunity. We want to maintain that.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

It's almost 1:45, and I know that you want to leave between 1:45 and 1:50. Would you entertain at least one quick question from two of our committee members who haven't had a chance to ask questions yet?

We won't have time to do the full five minutes for each of you, because General Abrial and his delegation have to catch a flight.

Mr. Brahmi, you can ask the general the one question that's burning in your mind, and then I'll let Mr. Alexander ask a question.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, General.

Since I am only allowed one question, I would like to talk about the fact that Canada has withdrawn from two programs. I think this sort of falls under your area of expertise, given that it has to do with the AWACS and unmanned aerial vehicle surveillance. In broad strokes, could you tell us how NATO might be affected by the fact that Canada withdrew from those two programs?

12:45 p.m.

Gen Stéphane Abrial

First of all, generally speaking, that will not affect NATO. But there will be consequences for the nations that contribute to those programs because the sharing of the burden and of costs will change. NATO will continue to have the same capabilities. In terms of AWACS, the mission has been around for a very long time, there is no doubt about that. The unit is there and will continue to exist.

As for surveillance, intelligence and information, the alliance ground surveillance system that was just bought will be part of a bigger whole. It is one of the initiatives that will be approved in Chicago, based on a proposal made jointly by the United States and France. We will try to broaden the spectrum of intelligence and surveillance activities, because we realized that we were not quite where we had hoped we would be. So there will be a series of initiatives, including the AGS, in cooperation with the nations that will contribute to the program, but there will also be a host of other features, such as the fusion centre in Sardinia. We will see what resources each nation will bring and add to the system.

Overall, NATO's effectiveness is not at stake.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Alexander.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony, General.

You have highlighted the importance of the state of readiness for the forces of all the allies. Of course, that was the main conclusion of our report on this major issue, in terms of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Could you tell me to what extent the NATO high command feels that investments in training have been protected despite budget cuts? During exercises in the past, not only in Canada but also in a number of other countries, budget cuts had an impact on training. Could you also say a few words on how you view the impact of smart defence on the capabilities of our naval forces? Of course, we talk a great deal about our recent missions in southern Europe, in Libya, in the Mediterranean region, but there is also the major challenge of the pirates in the Indian Ocean and other challenges that might entail NATO's involvement.

12:45 p.m.

Gen Stéphane Abrial

Thank you very much.

For me, training is a fundamental aspect of Transformation. It is an integral part of Transformation and we need to fully focus on it.

At NATO, there has not been a revolution, but there is a very strong evolution of the concepts of training and exercise. There are a number of aspects.

First, as you might know, I have until now been in charge of overall and individual training, and Allied Command Operations in Mons, Belgium, under SACEUR, has been in charge of joint exercises. Those duties are now being grouped together and I will be responsible in the future. We hope to achieve better effectiveness, better use of resources and better overall consistency.

Second, NATO is trying to streamline activities because there is a great deal of redundancy within NATO and among nations in terms of education, training and exercises. We are streamlining all the processes. We are also trying to maximize the sharing of information. For example, we are currently developing a tool that will enable every man and woman in the armed forces, as well as their superiors, to know exactly what courses are required before being deployed to Afghanistan, and where those courses are offered. That means that every nation will make spaces available for the other nations. We feel this is important because training institutions have surplus capacity, since our forces have been reduced. So to use them more effectively, we have to increase visibility and transparency.

We are trying to make things easier. Counter-improvised explosive devices and roadside bombs are specific examples. Just two years ago, many countries sent their forces to Afghanistan without any training in counter-improvised explosive devices. This is no longer the case, because we have managed to streamline and improve access to those courses.

The rest is in the hands of every nation. At our end, NATO takes care of human interoperability and makes working together possible, but the basic training is in the hands of individual nations. So it is up to every nation to ensure that the basic training of its forces will meet the required standards. Once again, this responsibility strictly lies with every nation. Overall, our current approach at NATO leads me to believe that not only we are going to maintain the overall level of training and exercises, but we are also going to improve it at a lower cost, as a result of resources being pooled.

In terms of the impact of smart defence on our naval capabilities, I would say that it is the same as in the other areas. It helps nations develop or maintain the capabilities required in this area despite the crisis we are experiencing. It also makes it possible to avoid any random individual decisions that we would subsequently have to deal with and fix. There are many examples. Nations, regardless of their size or geographic location, make decisions as sovereign states, and they are usually very much in favour of major reforms in defence.

If tomorrow we could get nations to coordinate with each other and give us a little more insight into what decisions will be made, that would increase the overall capacity of naval forces and ensure coherence in the long term. The same goes for all the areas, but I feel that naval operations are particularly significant. This is one of the areas we are working on.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you very much.

General, I really appreciate your taking the time to join us. I know that you have a lot of responsibilities back in D.C. The committee thanks you for flying up here this morning. I know that you're catching a flight now to go directly back. Your contributions today will really help us in determining our recommendations back to the Government of Canada as we continue to enjoy our role within NATO and working with all our allied partners. So I wish you safe travels back.

Thank you for joining us, Ambassador Ravic Huso, Colonel Eric Autellet, and General Stéphane Abrial.

I'll accept a motion to adjourn, please.

12:50 p.m.

An hon. member

I so move.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

The meeting is adjourned.