I should be very clear that what I'm speaking of specifically is expeditionary capability. That therefore leaves you with a core capability to perform the functions the CF is required to do domestically, in cooperation with the United States, on the continent.
There is an important point to make here, though. What is it about military equipment that tends to really increase the cost and make it very prohibitive? It tends to be more about the specific weapons systems and technologies needed to maintain a certain level of war-fighting capability and interoperability with key allies.
Let's say you look at coastal defence requirements. If we look at our actual coastal defence requirements versus the types of equipment and capabilities we put on warships dedicated to expeditionary operations, the costs are really quite different. If you look at, for example, the Arctic offshore patrol vessel and what it will be equipped to do for domestic purposes, and contrast that with what we intend or hope to find on this single-service combatant, those are very different types of equipment with very different capabilities.
Of course, one will be far more expensive than the others simply because the types of capabilities you need, let's say, to be part of a carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf and to do your part and defend the fleet and so forth versus the types of capabilities you would need to patrol the Canadian coasts are very different. Similarly, when you look at the types of capabilities you would require of your air force to contribute to Canada's NORAD obligations versus its ability to interoperate in an offensive operation overseas alongside your allies, you could find some substantial cost savings there.
I'm not sure that they're as night and day as we make them out to be. There is a middle ground. You can buy equipment more specifically tailored to your domestic and continental requirements that ends up being less expensive than what might be required for an expeditionary focus.
If we accept that premise, the question then becomes where we find savings. Must we do everything in terms of expeditionary capabilities? Do we need to have a navy that has the capacity to operate as part of a carrier battle group engaged in offensive operations? Do we also, if we have that need, need an air force that can do the same? Do we also, on top of that, need an army that can do that? We may answer yes, because we want to maintain maximum flexibility. But then the question becomes whether we're willing to pay for it. When I look at the current budget projections, it doesn't appear that we are.
Overall, then, you end up cutting down on the number of forces you have and you reduce the overall capability to act. That is the concern we have.