Evidence of meeting #59 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was years.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
In that area, I work within the policies that have been developed for me to work within.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Let me tell you, sir, that that's regarded as a very significant problem. I'll give you one example.
The home equity allowance program is for someone who is forced to move as a result of being given a different assignment and loses equity in their home because there's been a depression in the market. They can lose $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 from the purchase and sale of the home. They aren't able to get...even though the policy is supposed to be there to get up to $15,000 if there's a small change in the market, and if there's up to a 20% change in the market, it's 100%....
Yet I'm told that of the 150 people who applied for this in the last five years, not one of them have been approved, although the former CDS supported them receiving what's supposed to be paid in the policy.
This seems to me to be a problem. Would you be prepared to look into that and see whether something can be done about it?
5:05 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
You're speaking, of course, of ex gratia payments—
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, this is a policy, a benefit that's supposed to be available to soldiers who are moved from one location to another. They are forced to sell their family home in a market and move to another location. The home equity loss is supposed to be covered by the military because the military made them move and the market has gone down.
We've seen a significant change in housing markets across the country of late. I'm told that virtually nobody is getting 100% of their losses because Treasury Board or somebody else has decided that there are no depressed markets in Canada, even though it can be demonstrated.
I'm saying that we have a situation where, even though the CDS agrees with the results of a grievance on these matters, no result comes forward because that's handled by somebody else.
Obviously, you don't know the details, but would you be prepared to look into that and see whether something can be done about it?
5:05 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
I'm well aware of the home equity policy, but I'm not aware of the numbers you spoke of. However, I am aware of grievances that have come up to me. In fact, what you speak to is the ability then of the CDS to provide an ex gratia payment in response to a grievance that he agrees with.
That is limited, and that's why I return to my first statement that it's something that has been looked at by my predecessor. It was questioned and we were told to live within the authorities given.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've had some time to think about your response. Frankly, you caught me by surprise by saying that the Minister of Public Works hasn't actually asked you for a restatement of the statement of requirements; therefore, for the foreseeable future, decisions will be made upon the current statement of requirements.
What's confusing me about this current and possibly future statement of requirements is the status of stealth in that statement of requirements. Is it a high-level mandatory...? Is it a sine qua non of the next generation fighter?
5:05 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
Stealth, in itself, speaks to a quality, so to write in that stealth is a requirement cannot stand alone. What requirement can be written in is some level of stealth, and therefore it cannot be written in that the plane must be stealthy.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that's set out in the statement of requirements?
5:05 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
No.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
All aircraft, even fourth generation, provide a level of stealth.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Okay, thank you. That's helpful.
The other question that keeps coming up, particularly with respect to the F-35, is the military profile of Canada as a nation, and particularly as it relates to stealth. The question becomes why Canada needs stealth, because we generally don't lead missions. Even in Libya, we didn't lead the mission. It's usually the Americans or the British who lead the mission, so one can see the argument for the U.S. needing stealth, and possibly Great Britain, but for Canada and our military profile, why has stealth become such an important element?
5:10 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
First I'd just like to correct the impression that Canadians don't lead missions. In fact, in the figures of 10 years earlier, in Kosovo, Canadians were leading 20% to 25% of the missions, and I think it would be near the same...but I will get that for the committee. Canadians were leading missions over Libya.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
You and I may have a different idea of leading a mission, because I'm thinking of first in. Am I incorrect about that?
5:10 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
We have the same idea of a mission, and of course the leadership went all the way up to the—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
On a point of order, Charles Bouchard was the commander of the mission. That counts as a leader.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
Thank you very much.
The question is the importance of stealth going forward, and I think it really speaks to what the Canadian armed forces assesses as potential threats that we will face. When you look at that set of scenarios, those who would stand as being the greatest probability of.... If not our peer competitors, then our suppliers of competitors are developing a level of stealth aircraft that would put our aircraft at an entire disadvantage if they had not some level of stealth.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Interestingly enough, anti-stealth capability is possibly developing as quickly as stealth capability, so the question then becomes what you give up in order to be able to have that stealth capability.
5:10 p.m.
Gen Thomas Lawson
That's a great question, and actually, we should probably simplify the idea of stealth. All stealth is, truly, is a set of technology steps that decrease the amount of energy that hits the aircraft and returns to a receiver. That's all it is, and there is a lot of technology in that, but when we speak in terms of anti-stealth, all we're talking about now is developing a radar with either different frequencies or more power in order to see through that.
An aircraft with stealth—that is stealthy—will be more difficult to see, no matter what radar is developed, no matter what power is put into that radar or whatever capabilities. So it will be the case that a stealth aircraft, whichever new fighter aircraft is selected for Canada, will provide a level of stealth beyond what the CF-18 has right now and will be harder to see than the CF-18 right now. But you make a very good point, and that is that in 10 years you will be able to see it at a greater distance, but far outside when you would have seen a less stealthy aircraft.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
My final question has to do with your budgetary pressures. You rightly say the Prime Minister is asking for less “tail” for less money. I have two questions out of that.
One, what will be your “less money”?
Two, some of the procurements that you are now receiving are very expensive platforms to operate. What will be the potential of any new or current platforms to be parked and not operated?
