National Defence Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you for the question. Merci beaucoup.

I think you speak to the importance of Collège militaire royal in the training of our young officers, not only the francophones who come into the Collège militaire royal, but also the anglophones who go to the Collège militaire royal for a period, learn French, and then bring those capabilities back to the Royal Military College.

I look around me. When I was the assistant chief of the air staff, my boss was Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, from a small town in Quebec. He and I had flown 104s 30 years prior. The new chief of the air staff is Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin. He and I flew F-18s for a long time. When I left NORAD, the general who took over from me was Lieutenant-General Alain Parent, from a small town in Quebec. I think we've done very well in making sure that we're very balanced across the upper ranks.

I think you speak to the importance as well of maintaining a standard at our military colleges that enhances that very balance we've been able to achieve. One of the heartening things from the Royal Military College that I can bring to the table is that fewer than 3% of the cadets who graduate from there graduate without being functionally bilingual, and many are beyond that level. That's a very good indicator and a very good start on a balance that is so important, as you mentioned.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

When I visit the Royal Military College, as I often do, I talk to officer cadets, who tell me that even students with high test scores aren't at all fluent in French. The marks aren't indicative of their actual ability to work in French. So you're contradicting what officer cadets are telling me when I meet them.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I hope not.

I understand that the levels set by the public service are standard across the military and the public service. Certainly those who achieve them I think achieve them with full faith in the fact that they've met a standard that's been very rigorous. The hundreds of hours that anglophones have put in on French training at the Royal Military College and that francophones put in on English training go into achieving those levels.

In terms of anecdotes that suggest that once having achieved those levels, those levels are somehow tainted by a lack of quality...I haven't heard about this and am not sure where to go with that. I know that standardization for colonels and generals is at a higher level, a university level, CBC, I think we call it in the public service. That comes with a level of quality that, until now, I thought was unquestioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

Mr. Norlock, you have the floor.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the witness, thank you for appearing today. It's good to rekindle old relationships. It's good to know that someone, the top person, is very familiar with Canada's pivotal air base, that being CFB Trenton 8 Wing. It gives me some confidence that if I find a letter going your way, you'll know what I'm talking about.

General, as you know, National Defence is working towards the acquisition of new equipment—and I say “the acquisition”, but I think we've taken delivery of almost 70% or 75% of the new J model Hercules. We have taken delivery, I believe, of some Chinooks, Cyclone helicopters, and tactical armoured patrol vehicles. Vessels built under the national shipbuilding procurement strategy are on the way. With these new capabilities, what do you think the impact will be on our Canadian armed forces? Do you think that with this new equipment Canada's role on the global stage will change?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the last part of the question first.

I don't think Canada's role on the international stage will change; I think it will be fortified.

We have been successfully employing old fleets to great effect. You speak of the Cyclone coming in, Mr. Norlock. They're working on a couple that are on the ground right now. They aren't being flown operationally yet, but they're on the way. As we're waiting for them to arrive, the tremendous work that continues to be carried out by the very aged Sea King is very impressive. Our Sea Kings are really in quite good shape. They're being held together in many cases with a lot of work behind each hour, that's for sure, but they work. They are supplying what the ships need when they go out. The F-18 is aging as well. It provided tremendous service over Libya, and it provides tremendous service in the protection of the sovereignty of Canada.

I think Canada has developed a reputation that says we will use our equipment. We will maintain our equipment very well, it will be interoperational, and we will be able to use it to great effect. But it becomes easier when we retire fleets that have been retired. Our old E models that you and I got to know so well in Trenton are now replaced by the J models. Some H models are still there, working quite well. These allow us to maintain that capability much better.

Some are coming online. You spoke to the Chinooks, the first of which will arrive this summer. That will refurbish a capability that we once had and leased from the Americans with the D-model Chinooks for the last part of our time with the air wing in Afghanistan. We will now have that as part of our fabric and have that for Canadian emergencies, for continental emergencies, and for expeditionary requirements as the government requires.

I don't think our role will change. I think it will be enhanced, because we will probably be able to get out the door with more, and more quickly.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Great, and I couldn't agree with you more.

I have another question on a different plane altogether.

I understand that negotiations are ongoing regarding the settlement of the class action suit under the Canadian Forces Service Income Security Insurance Plan, commonly called SISIP. Could you explain to the committee how these changes will impact current and former members?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I am peripherally aware of the work going on with that class action suit, and I will get back to this committee with what details we can, but I am not able to speak with any level of detail on the effects that will have going forward. I'm sorry.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I know it's a question that has come up here.

In a similar vein, in the caring...you had two priorities. I think we discussed the preparation with the new equipment. Going further with Mr. Strahl's question, I've seen the new medical facility for CF families right across from the runway in Trenton. I wonder if you could talk more about the military's investment in medical health professionals. I know we've heard from the chief of medical personnel clinicians, as well as many others. I wonder if you can expand further on how you plan to continue the level of care that you believe is required to support our brave men and women in uniform.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

We now have infrastructure in place—and you spoke to a little bit of it there at 8 Wing—at many wings across the country, small clinics that meet family requirements. As you know, with families moving so frequently, it's tough to get on a list long enough to actually get a family doctor, and these small clinics that you speak to address that by drawing on some of the capacity of the local community, as is the case in Trenton, bringing them in, and then looking after the clientele at the base first. That's a great step forward for families.

You also speak to military family resource centres, which provide such great services to those whose members are deployed, and provide help to the families in a way that we weren't really into 10, 15 years ago.

On health care in particular, we're now up to 36 clinics across the Canadian armed forces, 26 mental health clinics, and 24 of these joint personnel support units. As the ombudsman has said, “It's great that you've done it. You're undermanned at some of those clinics, which makes it very difficult, then, to meet the standards that you're seeking to meet.” That's our next challenge. All of Canada is short in some areas, and we experience the same thing.

We work very hard on that. It's a very heartening story. Now that we've got the story out there, we need to make sure we continue to work on decreasing the stigma related to operational stress injuries. That will be part of my narration as I visit wings and bases across the country.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Komarnicki, you have the floor.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have just a couple of questions.

As you know, the economic climate is such that the government has taken a number of steps to ensure that the federal budget is balanced. I wonder if you could touch on some efficiencies that you see the Canadian armed forces being able to make in order to help meet that goal.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

The defence renewal team, which holds so much promise for us, will be working on new ways of streamlining our defence processes. I speak hesitatingly about that because it's a new business for us; however, we know that it holds potential for high profit. This week alone, the deputy minister and I, together with the vice-chief of the defence staff and the co-leader of our defence renewal team, were in Toronto speaking with some of the leading businessmen in Canada who have gone through these very difficult transformations that relied on business process renewal. We're ripe for that, and I'll speak a little bit. As I was the wing commander in Trenton, for instance, I worked in a silo. I owned not only where the rubber met the road on base for our Hercs and our search and rescue aircraft and our C-17s, but I also negotiated with the shop stewards. I was well trained for the first, not so well trained for the second, and had to learn very quickly.

There are a lot of other things in taking care of a base—and we have 27 of these bases and stations across the country—that we believe we can probably do better. Rather than being in a silo, we can do it across our 27 bases and stations. That's only one of the business processes that we think show room for great profit in streamlining the process. There are others. The infrastructure and engineering processes and real property processes are ripe for renewal of these business processes.

I think that's where we're going to find the next tranche of efficiencies so that we can reinvest back into “tooth”.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Having said that, and we're sort of focused on that on the other side of the equation, are there specific types of equipment upgrade that you foresee the forces requiring going forward?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Yes, there are. The chief of force development is a two-star admiral named Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd. He has a team that continually develops recommendations for the armed forces after studying future, potential battlefields and arenas that we may fight in. They have 18 they work through right now. They base their observations on the conflicts that we've recently come out of. They make an assessment of new technology in defence business, and they continually upgrade recommendations. We assess this from the Capability Development Board. We then go over to our chief of programs, Major-General Ian Poulter, who then says, “Yes, but we now have a line under which we need to live.” That's a yin and yang that every Chief of Defence Staff has worked with from time immemorial—with growing budgets and decreasing budgets.

The area that will show greatest profit as we move ahead with interoperability is this connective tissue we talk about: intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. That could come in the form of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, downlinks and data links, and things that allow us a better idea of the approaches inside our own nation and on the continent when we deploy the battlefield around us. We're very excited about the potential of that area for great advances in the coming years.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Alexander.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Two hundred years ago, there was the War of 1812. We're celebrating it today. Thank God we haven't had to defend our own border since then. In 1912, no one knew that Vimy Ridge was ahead. Now there's that painting behind you. Today there are lots of conflicts in the world and potential pressures. But we know our European allies have taken €50 billion out of their defence budgets in the last five years. This is a concern within NATO. The U.S., under any scenario, will be making rather dramatic defence cuts, we think. We increased but are now reducing, to some extent, to balance our budget. Does that concern you? What new pressures do you think there might be on Canada in the years ahead as a result of that rebalancing of effort within NATO?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

It will always concern military leaders when budgets are decreasing, especially in the face of a seemingly more hostile and uncertain world. But as you point out, Canada is not in a unique space. All of our allies are in a similar space. We have grown in the last six years from about $14 billion to about $21 billion. Some of that, as has been pointed out, has come with new fleets. Therefore, you really can't return to the old budget, because your new fleets come with an added budget for operations and management. But there's a heartening message that others in similar territory don't have. As you're well aware, the British forces have undergone a very significant cut that ate into their capabilities. Recently, they stood down their long-range patrol aircraft. In fact, during the war over Libya, Canada was asked to provide our Aurora aircraft to make up for some of the capabilities that had been given away by others.

Yes, I'm very concerned about a decreasing budget, as we may well be called upon as part of an alliance. However, I am heartened by the way I've been given the order to do it, and that is through efficiencies. They will be hard to find, but we will find them. I'm becoming more and more certain of the areas in which we will find them as we go forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We have finished our second round. We're going to go to our third round, where each party is given another five minutes.

Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you.

General, you mentioned O and M in your last statement. There's a need for support and readiness associated with that. The Union of National Defence Employees have complained that the military has been contracting out work that used to be done by these employees, resulting in significantly greater expense. I just read a report complaining that O and M may be suffering at Defence and that this could affect readiness.

Isn't that counterproductive? Is that something you're prepared to look into, to see that we're not spending more money contracting out work that could be done cheaper by existing employees?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not aware of the reports that have said that the contracts we've taken on have been more expensive than would otherwise have been if we had remained with our former capability.

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

I'll get you a copy of that.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you.

But I certainly do believe that as we trim contracts in the way forward as part of our debt reduction action plan, we will need to look at all options for maintaining that portion of the capability if that needs to be maintained.

If it can be shown to have been “tail”, then wonderful, we've stepped forward and become more efficient. But there are very few things that have been contracted or brought on that were entirely “tail”, so we can become more efficient. For example, we contracted out our pilot training about 10 to 15 years ago. That contract will be coming to an end in 2020. We will be looking at all options that are available as we go ahead on that one as well.

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

Thank you, General.

You mentioned that the well-being of the Canadian Forces is very important. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board is one method of settling disputes and improving morale, in fact. But we came across a problem when the committee was studying this a couple of years ago, in that you, sir, as the Chief of the Defence Staff, are the final authority for the settlement of grievances; yet you're not given the authority to even tell a person that a claim for an allowance of $500 shall be paid to him. You don't have the financial authority at all. Do you see that as a problem? Will you be seeking to change that?