National Defence Committee on April 10th, 2014

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Now the one thing that's made NATO partners successful in force projection, in having power, is the power in the skies. Air superiority has been I think the telling tale as to the success of providing global stabilization and peace and security. So as we look forward to the replacement of our fighter aircraft, I know you guys have some recommendations. What would they be out of the ones that we've looked at so far?

[George Petrolekas]

It comes back down to.... Look, the F-35 is an incredible airplane and one of the reasons that Ferry and I were talking about potentially a dual fleet was this. Does all of it have to be F-35 level of capability for the defence of Canada? Or could you do with a diminished F-35 purchase and buy something else? That's a discussion that we need to have. I'm not there to suggest to you what platform it should be.

One of the other things in the preamble to your question, it's not just air power. I'm a great fan of the old Napoleonic quote that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics. One of the things that has made our air power successful is tanker fleets, C-17s. It's all that support infrastructure that comes with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, sir.

These are four-minute rounds. The next questioner is Mr. Larose.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We talked about power projection and the white paper.

There is an increasing vacuum internationally. Commitments are being broken, budgets reduced and there is a dearth of international leadership, which seems to be increasingly felt. That is what you said.

Is this not an opportunity for us to defend our country right now? Canada could increase its contribution.

For us to be more present and to contribute on a strategic level internationally as a leader, and at the same time

would that not influence our white paper? We could reposition ourselves, make up for the delay that we are facing and should not have had to face, and move forward, thereby having an impact on the way we are seen internationally.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I don't have a problem with your question, but once again it is up to the government to determine what it wants to do internationally. We are not on the international stage to participate in a beauty contest. We are there to act based on specific interests.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, but that increases our defence.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

Yes, and I believe that, if the Government of Canada were to define our interests in terms of a leading position in some areas of the international stage, it could serve us well. But, as long as we do not know what the government wants, I have no answer for you. I do not disagree with you at all. We might be able to take advantage of the vacuum created in order to make a place for ourselves, but what would we do with it? It takes us back to square one, which was: tell me what you want to do and I will tell you whether it would be better for you to take a position a little this way, or a little that way.

For example, the Canadian government is very closely tied to the security of Israel. George and I already mentioned it and I believe that it is in the document. As a principle, therefore, we should be very much engaged, much more so than we actually are at the moment, in all aspects of the conversation on the Middle East peace process. This is not just about some possible contribution to things going on along the Jordan basin. It is also about determining to what extent we as Canadians should become more committed to a dialogue with the countries in the area, instead of just ignoring them completely.

Egypt, the most populous country in the region, is right in the middle of a process that still remains to be defined. But, since March 2011, not a single Canadian minister has gone to that country to start a dialogue with the countries involved. If we really want to contribute to improved security for Israel, we must, exactly as you said, be a lot more proactive.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

However, we recognize that defending our territory depends more and more on the role that our country plays internationally, whether during a natural disaster like the one that happened in Japan, through specific actions shared around the world, or when reactors break down. We no longer have any choice.

Defending our territory absolutely depends on the role that our country plays internationally. Given our limited financial capability, we will never be able to have an incredibly strong army. So, automatically, we depend on our neighbours a lot.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

That is why we are saying that Canada cannot do without an expeditionary capability, though it must be well defined. It is exactly related to what you said. It may be to fight an epidemic, or to deal with the aftermath of an earthquake, but we cannot allow ourselves not to have that capability.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

That brings us back to ballistic missiles. It is premature to take a firm support position when we have yet to define our own strategic role. That would come down to deciding to participate in something that is not clearly defined.

Establishing better relations with the Americans on a number of issues is a positive thing because they are our neighbours. However, we must not speculate on a danger that does not exist when there is no international leadership on it. Leadership like that could have a lot more influence—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

The question will have to go unanswered, and you can respond to it in writing to the committee, if you wish.

Mr. Leung, you have four minutes.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's an impressive list of 17 recommendations made here, and I think a lot of it impacts on how the federal government needs to make a decision and prioritize. In your opinion, which one do you consider to be the most urgent for us as parliamentarians to ask government to implement as soon as possible? All these ultimately impact on the types of assets we need, the type of manpower we need, and the funding that goes with it.

Then I also want to ask if it is possible in the funding model to have long-term, strategic, consistent funding, either as a percentage of national expenditure, or I guess as straight long-term funding.

[George Petrolekas]

I'd say a national strategic study and a defence white paper.

Ferry has mentioned to you several times about the Australians. One of the things I would highly recommend that you read is a very clear articulation of their strategic vision, both in near horizons and far horizons, which would encompass continental or domestic defence and what their contributions would be to the international order.

One fantastic thing about the Australian white paper is that it was signed across ministries. So it's not signed by just the defence minister. It's signed by the finance minister, the Prime Minister, the defence minister, and it actually has all-party support. The defence white paper is not an election issue. The defence of Australia is not an election issue. It may be on the margins a little bit, but there is cross-party consensus on what is good for the country, and I think that's one of the things you could do as a committee from a non-partisan basis, because I think one of the things that unites us is that we are Canadian and we love this country, and we seek its best interests. That's one of the things that the Australian example provides.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

But out of those 17 recommendations, which recommendation is that in there?

[George Petrolekas]

That's the first.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I think it's the first one. You know it's funny, because the way we've put them out is precisely that we focused on the essential from a Canadian perspective, and then we offered options about whether we want to have a greater role in this region, and if that is so, this is what we should be doing. But of course fundamentally—and don't forget this is all entirely focused on defence and security—the first one is the one that is the sine qua non to the continuation of the others.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

My past experience also has involved military procurement, and it seems as if everything you buy, the day that you buy it, it is also obsolete. Therefore you need to actually plan 20 or 30 years down the road to have a sort of evolving type of procurement.

[George Petrolekas]

There is some of that, but it is also the types of things. I think several of you mentioned disaster relief, and everything else.

For example, we mentioned an amphibious vessel, and imagine the effect Canada would have had, had there been an amphibious vessel with a 70-bed hospital on board, and the ability to take close to 2,000 on board if you needed to move them. Imagine the effect Canada would have had in Haiti, the effect Canada would have had in the Philippines. So it's planning not just the long-term budget, which I think you do have to do, but the type of capabilities directly related to what you want to do in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Regan, for a little under four minutes....

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Getting back to the Canada First defence strategy discussion we were having, you also noted that:

What is expected from the CFDS reset is both fluff and further downsizing with minimum real debate as to how go about either reducing force levels or overhead without debating what reducing capabilities, manpower and or readiness means....

Could you expand on that?

[George Petrolekas]

I gave you the example of the RCAF and the F-18s and the reduction of flying hours. There are things that are being reduced in order to preserve capability because the fiscal framework isn't there. We talked about trucks. Those are pieces of equipment, but we are unable to train to the degree that we wish to, which affects readiness, because much of the fiscal effect is being felt in the operations and maintenance budget, which funds daily operations. Those are the kinds of things that we're saying are the functional impacts.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I'd just add that CFDS was never fully funded, so how can you expect, at a time of further restrictions, the budget, and the postponement of some major procurement decisions in order to get to a balanced budget next year.... How can you expect anything else than fluff and reduction?

[George Petrolekas]

We're $3.1 billion under the projected CFDS spending line currently.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I would add, because it's a way to answer the previous question as well, that in this “Strategic Outlook”, you've noticed that instead of fully going to every single recommendation budget-wide, we've provided options. The five options are actually to assist the government in looking at how to approach budget and how to approach procurement and defence decisions. So what do you want to do? This is what you might need as a budget, but within it, try to be smart, try to make some specific decisions based on your broad outlook.

[A voice]

Yes, and here are the effects.