National Defence Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[Brian Bow]

I would agree with that. I think that if we're going to see the direct effect of that hollowing out of our defence capacity in the next 10 years or so, it's mostly going to be with respect to expeditionary forces and not necessarily continental defence. I think if current trends were to continue over the next 10 or 20 years, then yes, it would degrade that capability, like everything else. I think in the short term you're not going to see as obvious a degradation of our capability there as you would of our ability to participate in expeditionary missions overseas.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

We've seen significant problems, really, within the Department of National Defence, with respect to procurement over the last little while, certainly difficulties with respect to our procurement on issues like medium and heavy helicopters, the F-35, and most recently with respect to Arctic patrol craft.

I'm wondering whether these problems in any way also contribute to eroding our relationship with our American allies.

[LGen George Macdonald]

Potentially it could, if we renege on or are delinquent in providing the kind of support that we want to provide to continue to participate with the Americans either here at home, in NORAD, or internationally.

Any delay in acquiring a new fighter, for example, to replace the CF-18 beyond the useful life of that aircraft, will obviously potentially have an impact on NORAD and our obligations to defend North America with the Americans. That particularly is an example that could have a direct effect.

[Brian Bow]

I agree. It sort of follows from the question that if we don't have the actual capabilities, then we essentially make ourselves irrelevant, and that is just as true on continental defence as it is on other defence.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

General, you suggested that our decision in 2005 to not participate in ballistic missile defence has eroded our influence with respect to our American cousins. What would the actual cost be for us to participate in that type of system? What would be an effective response from the Canadian perspective in participating in BMD?

[LGen George Macdonald]

In 2005, I think we could have participated probably by simply adding some additional personnel to some NORAD sites that had part of the ballistic missile defence mission. Now, in 2014, with the intent of the Americans to deploy interceptors to eastern Canada and the need to have radar to support the proper target discrimination of an incoming ballistic missile warhead, there probably would be more interest in our providing a site in Canada to build such a radar. A site in Canada would be an appropriate spot to build one, and perhaps even some indication that Canada should fund or partially fund that.

In my view, we would not necessarily have to contribute directly to ballistic missile defence if we wanted to offer some asymmetric contribution that would be useful to the two nations, either within NORAD or in some other area, but the fundamental reality is that I don't know, and we wouldn't know until we made an appropriate approach to the Americans to explore the possibility of our participation and what they might welcome as a contribution.

[Brian Bow]

Your question was what the costs would be. There are lots of different kinds of potential costs. There are financial costs, but there are also costs involved in both participating and not participating in terms of other things, like how much of our resources are put into that as opposed to something else, or how much influence we have over the actual decision-making within a missile tracking and response system.

I agree with George that we can't know until we actually have the conversation. There are a number of different unresolved questions surrounding BMD, so if somebody comes to the committee and says we should do it because if we do it we will get x, y, and z, and it will cost us these other things, they are making it up. Nobody knows exactly what would be the terms of that agreement until we actually negotiate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you very much, Dr. Bow.

We will now move to the second round of questioning, with five-minute slots, beginning with Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for attending.

Could I have quick responses to my following questions.

I found it very interesting, not passingly strange but very interesting that my Liberal friend would talk about degradation. Let's talk about degradation. Would you say that the replacement by purchasing C-17s, the upgrades to the Hercules by already taking delivery of Chinooks, by the recent order of Cyclones, by our shipbuilding capacity that we've just announced that will regain our ability in this country to learn and to be able to build ships that our navy needs, that the LAV upgrades, tanks, and an increase in the number of people in the Canadian Forces—I could go on and on and on. Would you say that signals degradation in Canada's ability, or would you not say that it is a change from 13 years of degradation?

Mr. Bow, you can start with a short answer, because I have a few more questions.

[Brian Bow]

Sure. I guess my short answer would be that clearly there was a renewal of a commitment to properly fund the forces seven or eight years ago, and that showed some really tangible results. Unfortunately, it hasn't necessarily been followed through on in all areas. People have talked about this, probably within the committee and in other contexts before. The raw number of personnel in the forces isn't necessarily the only question that's involved in the strength of the forces themselves; the amount of money that's available for training and for equipment and for all those kinds of things are also important factors there as well.

I would agree with you that yes, there has been some improvement, but I think there's still lots of room for more.

[LGen George Macdonald]

I can certainly agree with my colleague. I think it's a question of balance. To have a capability is not to buy a C-17, but to have the people who can operate it, the training system that can support it, the logistics and the spare parts that work with that, the infrastructure that goes with that. If you have an imbalance in any of those, then you could not have that capability, as effective as it might be.

Right now we have an imbalance in that a number of capital projects are proceeding, but the operations, maintenance, and support that's required to sustain the existing and future capabilities are not adequate enough to do that.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I'm glad you mentioned that, General, because CFB Trenton happens to be in my riding. I can tell you, and it can be verified, that we do have the training capabilities for the C-17 and the Hercules, because we have just purchased simulators, which will.... If you're looking strictly at the dollars spent on fuel, etc., that's been replaced by training on the ground through these simulators, so I think, if you're looking at raw numbers, they sometimes slide.

I'm very interested and surprised, Mr. Bow, because you said something about ordering them. There are four C-17s. The replacement of the Hercules is pretty well complete. Chinooks are being delivered to Camp Petawawa. Cyclones are ordered and they're here. The LAVs have been upgraded. The tanks have been purchased. The dollar value placed on that is significant. All those pieces of equipment are being used.

We can say there has been some degradation, if you want to work your way back to World War II, and that's exactly what I am referring to in our shipbuilding capability. We lost the ability to even build a ship in this country. We are now developing. That's why it's so expensive, but it is going to create jobs, and in the long run give us capacity that was no longer there.

I do appreciate what you've just said.

I'd like to move on to what I consider something that's necessary, and you alluded to it, and that's the replacement of the CF-18s. We will have no choice. The next government will have no choice. I think there has been a signal from the other side that maybe we don't need fighter jets any longer. Then I ask, what if a really bad thing happened? In history, this country's been able to contribute a full-fledged expeditionary force, which we can no longer send. I suppose we could let things fall apart and we could be workhorses or bit players.

My question for you is about your opinion on the replacement of the CF-18s. Shouldn't it be getting into the best aircraft, fifth generation stealth fighters? We heard at this committee stealth kills non-stealth 100% of the time.

General Macdonald, even though you would have to declare something of a conflict of interest, I think your military background and experience would supersede that, I would hope.

[LGen George Macdonald]

Yes. For the clarity of everybody, I worked closely with Lockheed Martin on the F-35 initiative.

The reality is that we do need a replacement fighter. The F-18 was originally planned to meet its end life in 2020. It's clearly going to have to be extended somewhat beyond that time. It's a very capable aircraft. It's in ISIL now, in Kuwait, and will do the job there well, I'm sure. Ultimately, you'll get to a point where its capability cannot be extended beyond a certain length of time at any cost in some areas, and it's expensive to even go beyond 2020.

I think we can make a good case that we need fighters for our NORAD obligations, for our NATO obligations, for other obligations we want to undertake. I think it's important that we proceed now to make a decision on a new fighter. I think the analysis has been done.

I certainly support the concept of a fifth generation fighter, not just because of stealth but because of the information fusion and gathering capability, and of course multiplying it affects the task.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, General. The time is up.

Mr. Harris, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Norlock, I admire your spirited defence of Trenton and all its good works, and I thank you for that, but I will say that I don't think Davie Shipbuilding would agree that there is no shipbuilding capability in Canada, and Irving, of course, on the west coast, is working very hard to develop it. Also, the F-18s, we're told by the air force, will be capable of operating fully until 2025, so I guess we do have a little leeway for the replacement decision.

I want to ask about one thing. We talked about the priorities and potential budget issues. Canada got out of the NATO AWACS program a couple of years ago. It was done for financial reasons. We were going to save ourselves $50 million. We've been involved in that program for 25 years. It was part of the NATO smart defence. We don't expect everybody to be able to put together that kind of warning system. It's proved very effective for NATO. It helped NATO to be very effective, particularly in the Libyan mission, as one noted example, and helped Canada do its job in Libya.

If we're getting out of programs like that—which are proven, which are part of Canada's commitment to NATO with our allies—for the sake of $50 million, why would we be going around looking for other programs of, as you say, Mr. Macdonald, and quite rightly, unknown expense? We've been told everything so far, from that it would cost us nothing to that it would cost us...I think the other day the term was a considerable amount or a large amount of money. We've had generals complaining about money for readiness and forces and things like that. Why would we be seeking something else to do unless there was a compelling need?

[LGen George Macdonald]

You are referring to—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm referring to BMD.

[LGen George Macdonald]

Yes. Again, our potential involvement in BMD is a moral and logical extension of the current NORAD mission in aerospace control. We do air control. We can send out fighters. We can defend against cruise missiles or bombers, but we can't defend against ballistic missiles as Canadians participating in that—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

This BMD can handle a cruise missile, can it?

[LGen George Macdonald]

No. An aircraft can.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I didn't think so.

[LGen George Macdonald]

It's hard to say that this mission is more or less important than a NATO AWACS mission until you can actually make an apples-to-apples comparison of what the cost effect would be and what the personnel involvement would be. I don't necessarily agree with the decision on the NATO AWACS withdrawal, but I think it would be appropriate for us to explore with the United States an arrangement whereby we would at least assess what the cost would be for personnel, expenditures, and long-term expenditures for sustainment and so on for ballistic missile participation.

For all I know, there may not be any direct costs. It may be something that we can simply add on to what Canadians are doing in NORAD, for perhaps the addition of some personnel or for a contribution in some other area that's seen to be useful to the United States.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

One of the assumptions inherent in both your presentations and in a lot of the talk about NORAD or about DND is that this is somehow automatically a NORAD function from either the Americans' point of view or from ours, but we were told that it's not the case, that the U.S. negotiators don't assume, for example, that NORAD is the place for BMD. It isn't now. This seems to be up in the air.

I'm not sure, Dr. Bow, whether you agree with that or not, but could you clarify that the assumption seems to be that NORAD would be the place where any cooperation on BMD would take place?

[Brian Bow]

It certainly seems like the natural starting point, but—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Natural, perhaps, but it's not, apparently, from what we were told the other day, what the Americans think.