National Defence Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

That statement of requirements does raise stealth as a priority.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So stealth is still a requirement; it's not an option.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

The statement of requirements has different weighting given to different portions. When things are listed in there as requirements, they are graded. In other words, when a statement of requirement goes forward to meet what's available to fill that requirement, there are only very few that require absolute, to the letter, meeting of that requirement. Stealth is one of those that's preferable.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You know there are some who say that the statement of requirements is wired to one option and one option only.

Am I to assume, from what you've just said, that the statement of requirements is to continue as the statement of requirements and there are no changes to the statement of requirements?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

As a bit of an answer to Mr. Harris's question, I am removed from the air force in this respect, so I will have to confirm that there has been no change to requirements. I know of no ask for that change of requirements, but I can assure that as any statement of requirements is written for any fleet of equipment to replace what we have, it's never written, I think you used the phrase, wired to a given solution, nor was this statement of requirements written to—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm using the language of others who have read the statement of requirements.

I find it difficult to reconcile what you're saying with what the minister has been saying in the House. Ordinary people, myself included, would have thought that when all options are on the table, all options are on the table. In order for all options to be on the table, stealth would have to be one of the options on the table.

Am I incorrect in that assumption?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I think what we may not recognize is that all fighter aircraft come with some radar cross-section. All of them of later technology reduce that cross-section, as does our CF-18 right now.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The big sales point with the F-35 is its stealth. It is superior to all other aircraft in its stealth, and it has been sold as such.

Does that mean, therefore, in your mind, that the Super Hornet is on the table as one of the options? Does that mean that the Eurofighter is on the table as one of the options?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I'm not part of the negotiations or the process that Public Works is going through, so I'm not sure which options come forward, but I can say that each of those aircraft that you're listing has an element of stealth capability. I would agree with you as well, with my background as a pilot and as an admiring engineer of any type of advanced technology, that the F-35, like the F-22, which of course isn't for sale, provides a level of stealth that those other aircraft you've talked about have not provided. However, there are countries around the world flying the aircraft you've mentioned to great success these days.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I appreciate that as an engineer and a pilot you do appreciate it. I am having, however, some difficulties reconciling the minister's statements in the House, which I took to mean—and I thought pretty well everyone else took to mean—that when all options are on the table, all options are on the table, and that meant that even options that have less stealth capability than the F-35 would be on the table.

Can you confirm with me that at this point you've never been asked—in your capacity as CDS, but also in your capacity as a person intimately involved with the F-35 statement of requirements in the first instance—to change that statement of requirements?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I can confirm for you, Mr. McKay, that I am of the same opinion you are, that all options are on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

We're going to go to a five-minute round, General, and we're going to lead off with Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As NATO membership is growing and evolving in terms of states with varying military capabilities and backgrounds, how do you expect Canada's relationship with our NATO allies and other non-NATO partners to evolve?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I believe our relationship with NATO remains extremely strong. We're the sixth largest contributor to NATO. The deputy commander of Joint Task Force Naples is Lieutenant-General Marquis Hainse, who replaced Lieutenant-General Charlie Bouchard, who, of course, led the combat mission over Libya. We have Vice-Admiral Bob Davidson at headquarters in Brussels, and quite a selection of talented officers and non-commissioned officers over in Brussels helping with that as well.

That will continue to be the way ahead for us with like-minded nations over there. As we have spoken a little bit earlier, we've worked to be interoperable with all of the equipment they use as well.

There are all kinds of tremendous projects under way with NATO to transform—in much the same way we're working on it—their operations toward smart defence. There's a reliance and an interdependence between members, which will allow certain members to decrease capabilities in a certain area. It's called smart defence. They're also working very hard on decreasing the overhead, much as the Canadian armed forces are doing.

NATO provides us an opportunity, as the third mission given to us in the Canada First defence strategy, to project Canadian leadership as we've been so successful in doing through NATO in Afghanistan, with many deputy commanders and commanders in combat over there.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

As a former deputy commander of NORAD, how would you like the relationship between Canada and the U.S., under the umbrella of NORAD, to progress?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

It's a unique relationship in that it's a binational relationship, and as far as I know, it's the only binational military relationship in the world. It encourages the decrease of considerations toward sovereignty to allow for greater interoperations for the defence of the continent.

It has grown stronger over the years, and will continue to do so, because of our excellent operations and relationship with the United States, but also because of the fact that we've been battle buddies in Afghanistan for many years. All of that comes back to great fellow feelings and a great future for NORAD.

We should recognize that together with NORAD, USNORTHCOM—the same commander for NORAD is the commander for USNORTHCOM—is working very closely with Canadian Joint Operations Command on cooperation in the Arctic and cooperation in defence of the continent. So I think these things are well positioned to become stronger.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Since 2006, NORAD has expanded its region to include maritime surveillance. Could you explain to the committee what exactly this expansion entails in terms of Canadian security?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Yes. It's not so much maritime surveillance. That remains extant with the navies and the coast guards of both nations, right down to constabulary elements at various ports up and down the coasts.

The part that's been federally mandated for NORAD is the role of maritime warning. That has been one that NORAD has had for about six years, and it's had to grow into this new set of shoes because it's one that was carried out by others before.

What is now quite successfully being done at NORAD...they have a common operating picture that's fed by some of these agencies I spoke to, which gives NORAD the ability to assess the entire picture, with intelligence coming from the FBI, the CIA, the RCMP, CSIS, and others, and then bring that warning to the decision-makers of both nations. There has been a very successful acceptance of a role. NORAD was ready to accept it immediately, but I think it was based on the acceptance by others to provide NORAD the tools to carry out that role.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How do you plan to put your personal stamp on the Canadian Forces while you're Chief of the Defence Staff?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Now that we've come out of Afghanistan, for as long as we are not being used in a combat role—and we will be ready if the government needs us in any way to defend Canadian interests—we have an opportunity to focus on some of the other things that are deeply entrenched in the Canada First defence strategy: to look more closely at the Arctic; to open up a port at Nanisivik; to open up our Arctic training centre in Resolute Bay; to work on unmanned aerial vehicles; to work on intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance; and, as we spoke of before, to bring that into the regular operations of the army, navy, and air force to focus on joint capabilities.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Moore, you have the floor.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Recruiting centres were recently closed in certain parts of northern Quebec and Ontario, including Rouyn-Noranda, Thunder Bay, North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. There were closures in other areas up north, as well, Yellowknife being one. That leaves a void as far as recruiting goes. The presence of the Canadian Forces, especially reservists, in these areas is becoming more and more flimsy. For instance, the Combat Engineer Regiment in Rouyn-Noranda was merged with Montreal's. And as a detachment, the regiment is losing autonomy.

These areas often act as intermediaries in terms of access to Canada's Arctic. As everyone knows, the Arctic is increasingly important to Canada's resource and land agenda, as well as its ambitions. The Canadian Forces are ensuring that Canada has a larger and larger military presence in the Arctic.

How do you anticipate keeping the military community alive in those intermediary regions of northern Quebec and Ontario?

How will you manage that, in light of the cuts? How will you maintain ties with the community, while keeping these regiments alive?

What role do you foresee the Canadian Forces playing in the Arctic over the next few years? What are your plans as far as personnel and available funding are concerned?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you for your question.

You make a very important point. We need to continue to connect with Canadians, even if that presence becomes difficult for us as budgetary pressures or any sort of pressures, personnel pressures, come to us. You speak of northern Ontario and northern Quebec, but it's an even larger issue. We are seeking to increase from several thousand rangers up to 5,000 rangers. We need 4,000 to 5,000 people for the Canadian armed forces, and we broadly seek that they would be representative of all of our regions and all of our heritage backgrounds.

In fact, the news is quite good. As a result of putting much greater focus on online capability for recruiting, we're finding that the majority of those who are interested in joining the Canadian armed forces are getting most of their information much more comprehensively online, and receiving responses to it very quickly. So for those 4,500 positions that we're trying to fill, that we will be filling this year, we're finding approximately eight candidates for every position.

We have to be very careful, because that's indicative right now of an economy and a combat awareness of the Canadian armed forces that we may not have in years to come. In other words, never take your recruiting base for granted. That said, we are extremely well positioned for filling our strategic intake this year and for years to come, and we're finding that online resource is helping us greatly to get to those areas that we were unable to get to even when we had small recruiting elements in some of these northern towns that you talked about—both in Ontario and in Quebec, but also across the nation.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you conduct regular assessments to ensure a region doesn't slip through the cracks, so to speak? How will you make sure you don't end up in a situation where, four or five years down the line, it turns out that process didn't work and some region lost personnel, say reservists?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

We do track where our recruits come from provincially, and we do find imbalances, which is probably reasonable, based on the economies in certain provinces when economies in other provinces are hurting or ailing, and we find that to be very cyclical whenever that cycle changes.

But I think by and large, as long as we are successful in meeting a mandate that has a fairly good split between our linguistic numbers, that satisfies us. We've been able to do that across both the officer corps and the non-commissioned members, so we're quite pleased with the balance we've found in that respect.