Evidence of meeting #56 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jonathan Vance  Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence
John Forster  Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence
Charles Lamarre  Commander Military Personnel Command , Department of National Defence
Rear-Admiral  Retired) Patrick Finn (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that I am pleased to hear there are going to be supplemental estimates and at the time I'll ask more about whether that gets added to the base. It looks as if it does, and that would be a good thing for the military.

I want to go back to talking about diversity and recruiting and retention a little bit, where I left off.

One of the things we saw at the end of the last government was that the recruiting budgets had been cut, and a lot of times the smaller recruiting centres in rural and remote areas were closed, and some of the mobile recruiting centres that used to visit northern areas and reserves were cut back. I'm just looking for encouragement here that there have been funds to restore those rural and remote and aboriginal recruiting efforts.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

In fact, regarding the importance of having that increased diversity, I'll give you full confidence in terms of the direction we're going. We want to have increased awareness with our indigenous community and being able to recruit.

There are a lot of programs, actually, within the Canadian Armed Forces that are doing tremendous work. We need to also make sure that, from those rural communities, some of those reserve units can be supported as well.

It is that fine balance, but one thing I can assure you is that this defence policy has all the right resources to make sure we invest in the recruitment and retention of a diverse force.

5 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

In terms of retention, we had some unfortunate cases that have come forward in the media, especially with women who are quite often, when relationships break up, the ones who become the caregivers and the single parent with kids.

I want to ask whether the Canadian Forces are actively working on plans and proposals to support single parents, so they can stay in the military and we don't lose their skills and experience and their dedication.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

During the consultations we heard about a lot of the various challenges. They are the reasons some of these policies have been put in place. One of the reasons we are investing in the MFRCs is to make sure they have the right day care support. Even at the rollout, hearing that great advice during the town hall meetings, we were able to feed in what we were hearing, to be able to pass it on to the military chain of command. The chief of the defence staff and the leadership were also going out.

We are doing everything in our power to make sure we look after our men and women, to make the Canadian Armed Forces more attractive for single mums.

Is there anything in particular you want to add to that?

5 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

I won't comment on the case specifically. Again, with everything, there is balance. Absolutely, we want to have and celebrate anybody, whatever type of family you have, or whatever way your family happens to be rolling at the time, we want you to be able to serve in the armed forces and serve with distinction.

But it is service before self. We have an ethos that ultimately you are to serve. So there are challenges, and thousands of single parents in the armed forces deal with the challenge of having to do the military job and also perform the responsible role as a parent. Like any job, you have a parental responsibility as well.

That said, the unique demands of military service that take you away place more emphasis on the need to be set as a family, whatever construct the family has, for those absences, and we'll do everything we can, short of becoming the parent, to support people as they do that.

But your point, though, speaks to something that's near and dear to my heart, and that is to make certain that we look at people in a longer view. Individuals may have a problem now, and it might take a number of years to fix, but a number of years hence they still want to join and they still want to serve and we have to see the latent and potential value over a longer horizon with people, and we're going to put that and enshrine that into our policies.

5 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

I'm going to have to stop it there.

I want to thank the minister for coming today to discuss the new defence policy.

I am going to suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to allow the minister to depart, and then we'll resume with the officials.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

Welcome back, everybody.

We have about 23 minutes left.

I'd like to divvy up the time into five-minute blocks initially. I'll go to each party for five minutes: I'll give the Liberals five, then the Conservatives five, and then Mr. Garrison five, and then we'll see where we are.

The floor is yours, Mr. Spengemann.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

General Vance, I want to give you the opportunity to circle back to earlier testimony. You were in the process of answering a question that had to do with the capability gap, and you were cut off because of time constraints. I would like to ask you if you could finish your thoughts on that issue for the benefit of the committee.

5:05 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

Thank you.

I'll pick up on the question about NATO and NORAD defence. The capability gap is about the 88 planes: being able to have an 88-plane output and closing that ability to have an 88-plane output in the safest and best way possible with a capability we can rely on. The minister has answered the question about the interim fleet.

I want to make it absolutely clear. You are hearing it now from the chief of the defence staff. This is me. This is my advice. The capability gap exists in terms of the numbers of aircraft we have. It is inconceivable that we would be in a major kinetic configuration on mainland Europe using air power without there being any concomitant threat to North American airspace. Therefore, it is the policy of the Government of Canada, and certainly my advice to the Government of Canada, that we must be able to have the mission-ready aircraft necessary to defend Canadian airspace and NATO airspace simultaneously, should either one or both arrive.

Again, there is no chief of defence I know of who would believe—and certainly I don't—that we would be in a shooting war in Europe and not have our own airspace threatened. With that, we need to be able to do both, and we have commitments to do both. We need the mission-ready aircraft all the time. When you do the math on their deep maintenance and daily maintenance rates, you get 88. That is the capability gap being discussed. That is the number of aircraft we need, and that is why: to be able to defend both in NATO and in North America at the same time.

The pathway to get there is often what's described. The interim aircraft fleet is a pathway to get there, as is the final competition for 88 aircraft, to make certain that we have the aircraft we need to fill that. It is important now, and it has been spoken of a lot. You are hearing it from the chief of the defence staff, my advice.

Unfortunately, based on timing and when committee appearances occurred that came out of the RCAF, my advice and the policy of the Government of Canada have changed after the first committee appearance. That first committee appearance by the commander of the RCAF is no longer relevant or valid, because at that time he was dealing with a different policy. He has a new policy: to be able to do NORAD and NATO simultaneously, because simultaneous threat is what we are dealing with now.

Thank you.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

General, thank you for very much.

The committee has heard testimony on this issue over the course of its studies, but for the benefit of the Canadian public could you respond to the following? You talked about airplanes and the number 80 being a very important factor. How important is what's in those aircraft: the weapons systems, the software, and the interoperability with other fighter fleets and air fleets?

5:10 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

It's 88 aircraft. That consists of a statement of operational requirements that I'm responsible for. I'm responsible for ultimately signing off to the minister that this is what the military needs, and the threat horizon, the time, and the likely scope of use of our aircraft. The RCAF has the expertise to put it together.

That drives what the on-board systems must be. There are on-board systems that must be able to allow the aircraft to fly in peaceful air space, the avionics and so forth to be able to fly modern aircraft in Canadian air space and allied air space.

Then there's the military fly capability that must allow the aircraft to be able to defend itself in the air, to be able to defend air space, to be able to survive, and to be able to conduct offensive operations, should we have to fight to get to Europe, for example. All of this counts, but it's all in the SOR, and industry builds their planes to be able to do that.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

That's very helpful, Mr. Chair.

Those are my questions. Thank you.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

Mr. Bezan, you have the floor for five minutes.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just make one statement and then I'm going to turn it over to Pierre Paul-Hus.

With all due respect, General, your predecessor, the former chief of the defence staff, General Tom Lawson, just said a couple of weeks ago that there is no capability gap. Thirteen former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force have said there is no capability gap. Now, if the threat levels increase and we need more planes, then just buy the planes. But the idea that we need an interim solution is going to compromise our capability, compromise our resources, and compromise our ability to have enough pilots. I have to put that on the record because there have been enough experts who have actually flown the CF-18s, who have said completely the opposite to what you just stated.

5:10 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

The capability gap that I'm describing is the need to have 88 airplanes. I think you would agree that it is the ability to do simultaneous operations in NATO and NORAD. None of those former people, or Tom Lawson, were commenting on that. In fact, when they were in the forces, they didn't have that policy. In fact, the policy of the government of the day was not to be able to do them both simultaneously.

What is very important to understand in this policy is that for the first time in my life in the forces, there's a “concurrency of operations” model, where you must be able to do the following simultaneously. It's never been done before. It has a dramatic and important impact on our ability to develop our force structure—

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

As long as we're clear, it's about policy change rather than actual operations that were employed before.

5:10 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

No. The policy change is a result of what our allies and we face in the world. I would challenge anybody, you included, to paint me a world—

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I'm challenging you.

5:10 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

—where we would be in a shooting war in Europe and we'd be all safe at home here in North America. It won't exist. Threats are transregional—

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

But in that situation, 88 planes aren't even enough if we're in—

5:10 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

I beg your pardon?

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Eighty-eight planes won't even be enough if we're into a full war.

5:10 p.m.

Gen Jonathan Vance

Eighty-eight planes are better than 65.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I'll turn it over to Mr. Paul-Hus.