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

National Defence committee  That's the first.

National Defence committee  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.

National Defence committee  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.

National Defence committee  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.

National Defence committee  It's a technical issue quite frankly. They don't decide to put something down just because is seems like a good place to put it down. It really is based on technology.

National Defence committee  Yes. Thank you.

National Defence committee  They're making more global strategic choices. So if you recall reading the U.S. strategic guidance of January 2012, which was the so-called pivot guidance, it clearly articulated a diminished appetite for what American contributions would be, or how they would morph. So for example, in areas of Africa where they recognize terrorism as still extant or terrorist groups, they wouldn't deploy large forces but they would still meet the problem with either special forces, direct actions, drones, or whatever the case might be.

National Defence committee  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?

National Defence committee  I think Mr. Bezan asked the question. Did we defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Did that stop another terrorist threat in North America? I certainly believe so.

National Defence committee  It's difficult to tell. Again, it's back to what Ferry and I have been arguing from the start. Tell us what you want to do within the fiscal framework you have, and we'll tell you what the forces can deliver for the nation. We've seen no indication, in terms of announcements, that say this is what Canada wants to do in the world, these are the naval forces that will pivot to the Pacific, or not, or other things we will do in the Arctic, or this is what we will do with our friends and allies elsewhere.

National Defence committee  Ferry mentioned something that might have just slid by, and I told this to the French when I was with them in the South Pacific two years ago and they talked about strategic distance. Caracas, Venezuela, is closer to Toronto than Alert is. So every time we do something in Canada, it is expeditionary.

National Defence committee  Going back to strategic papers and white papers and acquiring naval vessels, do you put a ballistic missile defence capability on to the new generation of ships that we buy? Some of the American response to that has been sending Aegis-class ships and ballistic missile radar-equipped ships to contribute to the defence of the entire Pacific Rim, which are our allies too.

National Defence committee  Ferry and I have a bit of a disagreement there. I think we've overused the word “terrorism”. I think terrorism has become a word for which we're prepared to trade off an awful lot of liberties. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that those who would be willing to trade their civil rights or liberties for security actually deserve neither.

National Defence committee  I will answer your first question. In terms of the number of bases and the personnel needed, it all depends on the source of the threat, the magnitude and the number of missiles. Right now, as mentioned, the system is designed to defend itself against rogue missiles launched by rogue states.