National Defence Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ross, I want to go back to some things that Mr. Dryden was talking about. With your background in the military, of course, you will understand this.

We didn't invent this process of buying equipment for the long term. Governments of Canada of both stripes have been doing that forever. The process has unfolded, with whatever research was done--whether it was by intelligence agencies or whatever--and whatever DFAIT involvement there was through DND that wound up with the Canada First defence strategy. Is that a reasonable outcome?

[Dan Ross]

Yes, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Obviously we don't know what's going to happen in the next 40 years. If we don't equip our folks with the best equipment available today and project it against whatever we do know, we would not be responsible. Do you share that view?

[Dan Ross]

That's where I am. The world is an uncertain place. Perhaps in an ideal world we would have clarity, from a foreign policy point of view. I'd be delighted to have that. But if you don't have it and you have to replace your fighters because they are not going to be life-extended.... If the fatigue factor kicks in and gets to 1.0, they must be parked.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

On the bureau's perceived lack of clarity in foreign policy, this is nothing new. This didn't happen on January 23, 2006. Governments of Canada have been operating this way forever and doing the best we can, making sure, to the best of our ability, that we equip the folks with the best stuff.

I would submit that our foreign policy is laid out on military affairs, Arctic sovereignty, participation in NORAD and NATO, and participation in the United Nations. Under those agreements we have historically entered into conflicts, some of which we couldn't have predicted--Kosovo, the first Gulf War, and now Afghanistan, and so on.

So I don't think it's accurate to say there is no analysis and no foreign policy out there; that we have no idea, we're just bumbling along into the future, buying a piece of kit because it's sexy and expensive, and let's find something to do with it. I think that's a gross over-simplification of the process here.

Would you agree?

[Dan Ross]

Sir, the Canada First defence strategy does reflect the Government of Canada on both defence and foreign policy in terms of our involvement in the defence of Canada, North America, and our involvement as a G-8 partner in international operations. That is government foreign policy and defence policy. Clearly, cabinet, including the foreign minister, had a say in that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I would suggest to you that's been government practice, with either government, over a very long time. The eight other partners we have in the MOU and others coming on have presumably done a similar process of whatever in their own countries and have reached the same conclusion. Is there not some sort of comfort in numbers, some sort of strength in numbers, that if everybody is coming to the same conclusion, maybe it's just the right conclusion?

[Dan Ross]

All the partners have a different geopolitical environment. They all tend to be NATO—five of them are in Europe, and Australia, Canada, and the U.S. are not, obviously—but I think we've shared a similar apprehension about the uncertainty of the future development of weapons systems in China, Russia, and other parts of the world that are not necessarily directly the threat, but they're exportable to places and to people who are very unpredictable. It's really impossible to predict where these things would go and where you would face them, in what environment, or even when.

Is this our last manned fighter? I don't know. Clearly, people have looked hard at whether you can do it with UAVs and other things. Just airspace coordination issues today are extremely difficult to manage without a manned fighter, so I think the short answer is the nine countries are still at that common conclusion.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I just want to thank you, Mr. Ross and Mr. Slack, and the other folks who have been part of this process for many years, at a level of information that we don't share and can't share because we don't own that information. I think you've done an admirable job.

The big thing for me—and you've agreed—is the unpredictability of the future. If we don't equip our people with the best equipment for the next 40 years and equip our industry with the ability to compete at that level of technology that we're competing at for the next 40 years—and who knows what's coming?—then I think we would have done the country a very great disservice.

I thank you for your participation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Ross, thank you for your participation in our committee work. I also wish to thank all members of the committee.

I don't know whether members of the committee want to suspend the sittings for a few minutes and then come back briefly in camera in order to discuss future business.

Do we have an agreement to suspend for two minutes and then come back in camera for the work that we must do this week?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

[Proceedings continue in camera]