National Defence Committee on Sept. 15th, 2010

[Dan Ross]

Perhaps I'd just fairly quickly point out that Mr. Slack has already talked to the ITAR's special access that will be in place for all the partner countries and that actually takes that off the table.

In terms of intellectual property, we clearly will get access for Canadian companies to fully do maintenance on the joint strike fighters as they do on Hercules or C-17s and so on, particularly first-, second-, and part of third-line maintenance.

The other point I would make is that all the Canadian suppliers, with an amazing amount of Canadian content in the joint strike fighters, will participate in the sustainment over the next 35 or 40 years of 5,000 fighters globally, and they actually already have the technical data and the IP of all those components that are Canadian.

The third thing I would say is that these modern aircraft are heavily software-driven. They are not mechanical hydraulic machines anymore. The software to take off from a runway for an F-35 is more than 10 million lines, and the partner countries individually will never be able to manage that software themselves. The war-fighting software in it alone is tens of millions of lines of code. They are heavily software-driven and very complex. We are not absolutely sure at the present time what level of third- and fourth-line maintenance will be done by individual partners, or would need to be done. We are about six years away from our first aircraft, and we will be able to determine what that looks like at that time.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

I will now go to my colleague Mr. Harris for five minutes.

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

I don't want to get into a battle of general versus general here, but I'm interested in why we need this particular aircraft, perhaps why we need a fifth-generation aircraft instead of another.

I have before me commentary by retired Major-General Leonard Johnson, and he talks about some strategic questions. I'll just summarize it here. He suggests that in the absence of a bomber threat, unless the new fighters are intended to make war against an enemy with robust air defences, the joint strike fighters don't have a useful military role. He suggests that there is no close air support role for the F-35 in counter-insurgency operations nor any conceivable asymmetrical war against small arms and improved explosive devices any more than the CF-18 has that. The age of major inter-state war between developed nations has vanished, so why prepare for one?

These are comments from someone obviously with a significant military background. He also suggests you don't need a stealth fighter to patrol the Arctic.

You may not be able to talk about the simulation studies, but can you talk about why it is we need the kind of things that the stealth fighter can do in terms of realistic military needs for Canada?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

General Deschamps.

[LGen J.P.A. Deschamps]

I've spoken about that a bit before, and I'll just review a little bit of the logic of where we are.

People are certainly allowed to have their opinion, but one thing you have to understand is that things evolve very quickly. In technology writ large, and certainly in military operations at large, future technologies that are currently foreseen or in existence will be very challenging, because we're not the only ones developing good technologies. Therefore the future security environment is going to be very challenging both in conventional terms—nation-states that will have a lot of high technology—and the distribution of technology to non-state actors. Therefore we have to be able to deal with that range of challenges in a complex environment, either as a nation or as part of a coalition.

As you look at all those threats, whether they are advanced fighters or surface-to-air threats or maritime-to-air threats, we have to be able to deal with that. If not, we going to have to look at our defence policy.

As we looked at all those future challenges, we did the analysis of what we needed to get that would be good 30 years from now. We had to look at the leap in technology we'd have to make. We're getting fewer and fewer airplanes because they're costing more and more. So the few airplanes we have must be agile; I can't wait for another three years to get another airplane because we see a new threat on the horizon.

So we looked at all those options and said the only way we could at least have fairly high confidence that we'll be able to be agile 20, 25, or 30 years from now is with this technology. It gives us the best chance of success in an uncertain future, given the rapidly evolving technology.

Other folks are working hard to achieve fifth-generation capabilities. Other folks have very advanced surface-to-air weaponry. So these things will challenge us. Offshore, at some point, there's technology that can be put on ships that will challenge us, such as cruise missiles. There are other things that we have to worry about in the future. That is why we looked at all those things and said, “What gives us that flexibility?” Fifth-generation is the tool that we have looked at.

If that's the case, the F-35 becomes, of course, the lead contender, and it's the most cost-effective solution in all domains. For us, it was the most obvious, logical outcome of our exercise in looking at what the future would hold for us.

As I mentioned earlier, I can't afford going to multiple fleets of airplanes. This government, Canada, would be hugely stressed to buy fleets that are specifically just for North America and then a fleet for anything offshore. We just can't go that way, given the huge cost of multiple fleets.

This gives us the best solution. It's multi-use. It's flexible well into the future, and, as the minister mentioned, should we be wrong, if we didn't get the number right because the security threat becomes more prominent and we, Canada, have to do something more robust, we can change that without having to redo an entire fleet procurement. Within two years, we can have more airplanes. It's money, but you can make that decision—any government—10 years or 15 years downrange.

That's something we don't have with any current programs, where you buy what you have, and you have what you've got because they stopped making that airplane and the software and the weaponry. That's why this program is very powerful. It gives governments, plural, into the next 30 years, options.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, General. We appreciate that.

We will now turn to Mr. Hawn, for five minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to save four minutes off everybody's lives here and just say that I'm incredibly impressed with the thoroughness we've heard this morning from this group of witnesses and from the previous group of witnesses, with the work that has gone on for the last 10 or 15 years or more, with the vision we're showing going forward, the combination of the good work by the departments to make sure that our military needs are looked after, that our industrial needs are looked after, and that we're taking care of the taxpayers' dollars in the best possible way, to get the best possible capability for the next 40 years.

I just want to thank the witnesses and their departments and all their people for the tremendous work they've done. Canada's future, the military's future, is in damn good hands.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn. That was uncharacteristically short. And I agree with you; I appreciate the information that has been presented, and want to thank all our witnesses for appearing today.

Members of the committee, before we suspend, I want to point out a couple of things. At 1:45 sharp, we will do some committee business. There's a motion that we will be dealing with. Whether we do that in camera or not will be, of course, up to you. I would point out that we have two sessions this afternoon: one from 2 o'clock until 3, and one from 3 o'clock until 4.

Again, I appreciate the cooperation of all members of the committee in getting through the first two sessions this morning, and I look forward to reconvening at 1:45 sharp.

The meeting is now suspended.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

The Standing Committee on National Defence, meeting number 24, has reconvened. We are now in public session.

Colleagues, I'm having the clerk distribute the motion that we're going to discuss.

I believe Mr. LeBlanc will be moving a motion from Mr. Dosanjh with regard to the continuation of further hearings.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've had a brief chat with Mr. Hawn and my colleagues from the opposition. We'd given notice just to make sure we were in under the line, but clearly this is a subject of great interest to parliamentarians and to a number of witnesses who I understand are on a list and obviously couldn't be scheduled for what was a fulsome day today.

My suggestion--I'm in the hands of the chair and the others who've been on this committee longer than I have--is that next week, or at the first opportunity, the steering committee would be seized of a schedule where we could have additional hearings and hear from additional witnesses with respect to the acquisition of the next generation of fighter aircraft.

So the motion, just to put it on the record, would be that given the number of witnesses who are relevant to this study, the committee schedule further hearings on the issue of the next generation of fighter aircraft.

Mr. Chair, I think we can find a way next week to identify the appropriate times and panels of witnesses, but that would be the text of a motion. Merci.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, this is such a good news story that we welcome the opportunity to have as many committee hearings as anybody wants. We have no problem with that.

I will throw out something...and I'm not proposing this, I'm just throwing it out for consideration for maybe next week. The committee may want to consider going to Fort Worth, to Lockheed Martin, to look at the airplane, to talk to people who have designed it and built it, or are flying it and testing it. We could look at the simulator or whatever. I don't throw that out for a decision right now, I just throw that out for consideration.

Is that the kind of thing that might help you guys--because clearly we think this is a pretty good idea--in terms of giving you some kind of comfort level that this is the right way to go?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

I'm sure, Mr. Hawn, we could take it under consideration. We'll come back to that, but thank you for the suggestion.

All right, you've heard the motion. You have a copy in front of you. Is there any further comment?

(Motion agreed to)

It's carried unanimously.

You also have in front of you, colleagues, a copy of the budget for some witnesses. This was put forward in the--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So moved, so moved.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Wallace, you're a wonderful addition to the committee today.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further comment?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It's carried unanimously. I thank you for that.

Mr. LeBlanc, I believe you have something you want to add.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I don't want to waste the committee's time. I had a brief conversation with Mr. Hawn.

I also spoke with Mr. Bachand, as well as with Mr. Harris and my colleague Mr. Simms.

We have some concerns about documents and information that ministers in particular referred to this morning, statements of requirements, research. The Minister of Public Works referred to research her department has done.

Mr. Chair, it's more to inform you and colleagues, if we can find a way in working with the parliamentary secretary to find an accommodation, I'd certainly be happy to do so. If not, then next week or at the first appropriate moment I think that some of us will want to bring forward a motion around the production of some of these documents. But we'll certainly have a chance to talk with Mr. Hawn and others to see if we can find a way to circumscribe it if it's appropriate.

I'm left, Mr. Chair, having heard the ministers this morning, with the sense that we should have a chance to see some of this information they referred to. We'll find the best way to get at that, perhaps next week.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. LeBlanc, as I mentioned before we suspended this morning, with regard to the statement of requirements, we could certainly request any appropriate documents and papers. We can request and send for those, and then obviously that would be in the hands of the various departments. We would then wait for the response. If we were not pleased with the response, obviously we could then report to the House of Commons, but I'm sure that maybe next week....

We don't need to deal with it at this point, but I did get some sense from some of the ministers that there are some documents that certainly could be provided. I would hope we'll be able to come to an accommodation next week. Those are my comments, that certainly any parliamentary committee can request papers or documents, and certainly given the nature of this particular issue, we should be exploring that avenue, depending on the will of the committee.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I acknowledge that we do need to discuss this next week, and probably in camera, I suggest. Maybe we need to discuss it at steering committee, I don't know, because there are clearly classified material implications to this, which is not the same as other document issues we've dealt with in this House that are serious and legal.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

And I would have no doubt, Mr. Hawn, that only those that are not of a sensitive nature would be made available, of course.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We need to have a discussion in the next week.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Yes, and I think we should set some time aside next week to do that. But I think we should be doing it.

Monsieur LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I share your view that there's a formal process by which the committee can request these, but I think in fairness to Mr. Hawn, we can find a time perhaps when some of the critics could get together with him and see if there's a process that is satisfactory before going to that more formal process. But we can try to resolve this next week in a way that I hope satisfies everybody.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Also, colleagues, not to belabour it today, but we passed a motion about further meetings on this issue. We will also have to decide when we want to have those. Are they going to be in addition to or part of the regular committee work? If I know this committee, I already know the answer, but I have to put the question out there.

Is there any further discussion? Are we going to have the steering committee next week?

You might want to pick a day when I.... Could I propose Thursday?

Thank you very much.

All right, colleagues, we will have a steering committee next Thursday. We will certainly inform the chair, Mr. Bernier, of that as well.

If there's nothing else, we're going to suspend for a couple of moments. I'm going to ask the media to come in to take a quick shot of the witnesses who are at the table, and then the media's out again and we'll start the procedure formally. Thank you.