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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
General, the time has expired, so again, could you be very concise in your response?
Gen Thomas Lawson
The moneys that have been assigned to strategic review and to the debt reduction action plan are the cuts to the budget that add up to $2.5 billion going forward. The indications from the government to me now are to work within that plan and find efficiencies to reinvest.
It is my opening plan, a month in, to hold onto the capabilities we have and to introduce those capabilities that have been endorsed within the Canada First defence strategy and to maintain the operation costs of those fleets under that supply line.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
In response to Mr. McKay's questions, do you think Canadian pilots should have the same level of protection and survivability as U.S. and U.K. pilots? They seem to insinuate—
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
It would seem to be common sense that we would all agree on that, but apparently not.
I want to talk as well about smart defence a little more. I know you touched on it earlier in relation to NATO. What do you think that means in the Canadian context? I know in some smaller countries they talk about combining capabilities. Some have suggested that perhaps Canada doesn't need to maintain the full range of capability that we currently have. So what do you think smart defence means for the Canadian Forces?
Gen Thomas Lawson
Mr. Chair, it's a very interesting discussion. NATO is moving towards the smart defence that Canada is very interested in—simply because of the name, if nothing else. But it is difficult in our situation to determine how we can work smart defence into our capabilities when everybody lives so far from us, except our number one ally to the south. I think that speaks to the reason that successive governments in the last 50, 60, 70 years have sought to maintain Canadian capability in just about every area that there can be capability, because there's an awareness that Canada needs to maintain some capability to defend itself across the entire spectrum.
But the smart defence that we speak about here could be used by our number one NATO ally, and that's the United States. There might be some room for discussion in coming months and years. And our American friends aren't yet aware that we're positing this, but there might be some use for the smart defence concept with American allies in future years.
Conservative
Conservative
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
As you're aware, the economic climate is such that National Defence, like other ministries, must examine ways to be more efficient in order to do its part to balance the federal budget. How is this influencing the military infrastructure, such as bases, armouries, ranges, which are the easiest way, usually, to chop costs, and then we regret this in the long term?
Gen Thomas Lawson
You may be aware that the Department of National Defence is one of the largest landlords in the country. With our 21,000 buildings and property, it adds up to a couple of times the size of P.E.I. The point you make is that many of those buildings are of great use to us and have been under-maintained as a result of moneys being funnelled off by the army, navy, or air force to other requirements.
There is a need to rationalize our buildings so that we can focus more clearly on those that are absolutely required for our future. We think this is another area for profitable return of tail to tooth, figuring out just exactly which ones can be taken off the books and making sure we don't do it wrong and require them later on. But you're probably aware that it's a very complicated thing. Some of those buildings are armouries, which are now heritage buildings. Some of them are very expensive to maintain. All of them come with a payment in lieu of taxes, which are very important to the local economy. So all of that's going to have to work into this very clear rationalization of our twenty-some-thousand buildings.
Conservative
Conservative
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Thank you.
Going back to our NATO allies, I would like to ask you how we can get more command positioning in the NATO structure. Are you envisioning anything coming up in which a Canadian will lead a significant NATO command or have a significant NATO command role?
Gen Thomas Lawson
Thank you for the question.
You will have seen in the past in NATO operations that Canadians have been very highly placed. Some people call it punching above our weight. We spoke of Lieutenant-General Bouchard, but there have been many of our generals before him in Afghanistan who have been given, for instance, the troops of allies to command, which is the greatest faith a nation can show in the leadership of another nation.
You ask how we can go ahead with that without investing in it. This speaks to one of the tremendous training vehicles we have coming up in the coming year. It's called JOINTEX. Right now in Kingston there is phase 4A of JOINTEX, which is a week-long professional development course with 150 of our youngest and brightest majors, right up through one-star and two-star generals, who we're bringing all of our lessons back to so they'll be better prepared to take on these leadership roles.
One of their mentors, one of the subject-matter experts, is Lieutenant-General Bouchard. We also have Rear-Admiral Roger Girouard, who led a combined navy task force some years back, and we have Brigadier-General Andre Corbould, who recently led in Afghanistan.
We're bringing all of these things back, bringing the training onto home soil, where typically we've learned these things offshore at the facilities of others. We'll continue to do that, but we want to grow this homegrown capability to build our leaders.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's not too often we have time left, so as chair I can ask a few questions. I'd like to take that opportunity now, General.
You mentioned earlier coming up with JOINTEX as an operation between the different components of the Canadian Air Force, the navy, and the army, and also using some of the UAVs. Definitely the UAVs have proven themselves in theatre for our army in Afghanistan.
Would you be prepared to discuss some of the other attributes of UAVs in maritime surveillance and Arctic surveillance, and how you see them coming to greater use in the Canadian armed forces?
Gen Thomas Lawson
You're probably aware that we have a UAV capability onboard HMCS Regina in the Arabian Sea right now, to great effect. It's a leased capability, as was our capability in Afghanistan. That has proven our ability to work that into operations.
When we look ahead, the Canada First defence strategy lays out a requirement to develop a system of systems for intelligence, surveillance, and recognizance to the approaches of Canada, and a portion of the Arctic as well. That stands ahead as a project we will be very excited about. Whether it's high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft, or medium-altitude, medium-endurance aircraft is to be determined. But these are things that will now fit into a capability we've already developed through a leased solution, both in combat and in Combined Task Force 150 in the Arabian Sea right now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
As to future operations using UAVs, how do you see it working in Arctic sovereignty, especially as we see more activity in the Arctic because of a shrinking icecap, and how may that play into greater challenges for the Canadian armed forces to do maritime patrol up there, or even to do air force patrols? How do we incorporate UAV into that strategy?
Gen Thomas Lawson
That will be part of the doctrine we'll have to develop. Of course, running these things in a relatively small theatre, represented by Afghanistan or a portion of the Arabian Sea, within miles of a ship is a much different thing from now running them across 2,000 miles of very harsh area. That is a challenge we're looking forward to having as we develop recommendations for the government on which unmanned aerial vehicles would best meet the requirement.
I think what's also heartening about the Canada First defence strategy is that it foresaw a system of systems, which was probably a little ahead of its time in 2008 when it was published, because that system of systems, although many countries speak of it now, has been slow to develop. As you're aware, we really only have the Aurora long-range patrol aircraft that can get up to the north with presence and remain in an area. What we need, of course, to back up a long-range patrol aircraft, whichever one replaces the Aurora, would have to be a mix of high-altitude/medium-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles.
This also speaks to our developing capabilities in space, with the Canadian Space Agency. That really does provide us with more of a “through the straw” look. If it's queued by the north warning system and radar capability, then you can be looking in an area, have a UAV come over to look more carefully, and then have a response from a queued Aurora, which right now would be queued by nothing except the need to put a patrol aircraft up there at this time.
This system of systems is a very powerful way forward. We're looking forward to the technologies catching up to what we saw or hoped they would be when it was written into the Canada First defence strategy in 2008.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
General Lawson, you also mentioned the new Chinooks we're going to be receiving shortly. What about some of the other kit we've been talking about? I understand the Leopard 2s are here and the Strathconas have a group. There are some over at Gagetown, I believe. I'm wondering how that's working out. And also maintaining some of the kit we have, the LAV-III upgrades in particular, and whether or not we're on the right timetable to continue with the upgrades....
Gen Thomas Lawson
The equipment that has come back from theatre is tired. We're in the process right now of refurbishing that and bringing that back up.
You speak to the way ahead. The tactical armed patrol vehicle is the way forward for the army. They'll be very much looking forward to receiving those trucks as that procurement system gets back under way. The Leopard 2s are being delivered, and the LAV upgrades program has been very successful.
It also speaks to a refurbishment of capabilities that were well practised and well honed in Afghanistan.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, General. Your comments today and interchanges with our committee members really played into everything we've been doing at this committee.
We are just finishing off the readiness study, and we'll be tabling that report shortly. We are wrapping up our look at NATO and the strategic concept. We are in the middle of the care of the ill and injured study. You've talked to that component as well. You also alluded to some of the work we plan on doing with the defence of North America, NORAD, and to maritime surveillance with the United States.
We appreciate your testimony today. We've also been very impressed with all the members of the Canadian Forces who have testified before committee and have helped us do these studies. We are very impressed today with your testimony as well.
I want to again add my congratulations to your appointment as CDS. We can see there is a great deal of expertise you're bringing to the table and leadership you're going to undertake as commander for all components of the Canadian armed forces.
I want to pass on our best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I ask that you share that with all members of the Canadian armed forces, whom we're very proud of and whom we keep in our thoughts and prayers at this time of year.
A point of order, Mr. Harris.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I didn't want to interrupt the witness, but I just want to put on the record an objection to using points of order to interrupt a witness and actually give evidence. Mr. Alexander did that. I think that's an inappropriate use of the committee's time.
Conservative