National Defence Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I understand the same thing is happening even with our Joint Task Force 2. People are being lured away to $1,000-a-day jobs.

Has the operation been draining some of your people from the operations in Afghanistan, given that the army numbers are so stressed?

I think General Hillier said he's going to call on other branches to take positions to help relieve the stress on the army in the Canadian sector of Afghanistan.

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

We view our activity in Afghanistan as a Canadian Forces activity, and there are obviously many army...but the navy and the air force are making significant contributions where we can.

As we move forward here in some occupations, such as truck drivers and so on, which are generic, we're going to see even more air and naval personnel make contributions where they can. But they're going to be doing so in areas in which they're already trained. So we're not talking about pilots becoming infanteers, or anything of that nature. We're talking about people who have training applying it in a way in which they can make a useful contribution. Most of the infanteers are going to come through the training mill within the army.

We're also looking—and I think Admiral Robertson made this point in his address—at finding places where infanteers are working in staff jobs and replacing them with air force or navy personnel, so that they can be released from those staff duties and become available. That's another area where we're going to make a contribution.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

This is happening without any detrimental effect here on ordinary operations.

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

There's no doubt that we are feeling it. The men and women of the air force and the navy as well are doing their duty and more, but we recognize the requirement for it. The good news is that as more people enter the forces here over the next while, we'll start to see some of that pressure relieved.

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

That's why I made the point about how many sailors we had at sea last week--2,600. We're still carrying on with business, and quite successfully so. We're making a modest contribution where we can. I made mention of CIWS earlier. The close-in weapons system is not a system that resides in the army presently. If we were to figure out how to use it to advantage in Afghanistan, then it would be naval technicians initially who would have the skill set necessary to maintain it and naval operators who would be proficient at using it in defence of the installations there. That's the employment we envisage.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

If there was one piece of equipment that you're lacking, what would it be? It's been announced that you're getting the lift at some point in time. At least the decision is made and those contracts will be let. Is there a piece of equipment you need now that you don't have and you'd like to have as soon as possible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Please give a very short response.

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

From an air force perspective, we are very shortly going to be approaching saturation point in terms of our ability to process new projects. With the announcements made in June of the C-17 and Chinook to fill two essential requirements and the replacement for our C-130s, we are almost to the point where it's going to be a challenge. We have a couple of more things we're moving on, but by and large, the men and women of the air force are delighted with the new equipment being provided and the new capability. They want to get on and do great work, and they're being provided with the tools right now to do that.

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

The navy is in a very different position in terms of timelines. It's just the fundamentals of our three services. We've procured a number of new pieces of equipment for service in Afghanistan, and rightly so. It's exactly the right thing to do. For naval ships, the next thing we need is to replace the Iroquois class command and control ships in due course. They're doing great work. The three of them were all at sea last week fulfilling their role as flagships and air defence ships, but replacing them is probably a decade-long undertaking. It just points out the significant difference between the ability to re-equip an army and an air force quickly, in a relatively shorter term than a navy. A navy requires planning over many years--decades.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Certainly. And maybe it's the navy's fault that the average procurement time was 14 years.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to welcome the vice-admiral and lieutenant-general.

I have some questions about operations. My first question is for you, Vice-Admiral Robertson. Do we have boats right now in the Persian Gulf, in Saudi Arabia?

[Vam Drew Robertson]

In the Persian Gulf?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, in the Gulf.

[Vam Drew Robertson]

Right now, the frigate Ottawa is in the...

Well, it's in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Yemen, but it will be bound for the Gulf of Oman and a visit to a country in that region in the short term.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Are these operations linked to the war in Afghanistan?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

I think they're all related, in the sense that they're all forming part of the international effort in the campaign against terrorism. Certainly taking an international maritime effort in that region in the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, all the way through to the Horn of Africa, is to make sure that those who are operating in those waters are, first of all, kept under surveillance; that piracy is kept in check; and that the region isn't open to the free exchange of people between the Horn of Africa, which in some areas is relatively lawless, and back up to the littoral of Iran and Pakistan. It's all useful work that's related to what's going on in Afghanistan.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

So there are still ship interception and boarding missions for control purposes. There are some.

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

Indeed, and HMCS Ottawa has participated in several boardings and inspections over the past week.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

At present a lot is being made of the fact that the operations in Afghanistan are now under the authority of NATO. Are maritime operations in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere also under the authority of NATO, or does each nation decide on its participation, its actions?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

Indeed, the maritime operations are undertaken by a coalition of nations that choose to participate and are not under the leadership of the alliance. That said, if you look at the nations that are involved, there are a few of the coastal states that participate. Pakistan, for example, recently had the leadership of one of the maritime interdiction zones in the region, but most of the navies are the highly capable western navies that are also NATO members.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

All right. Kindly answer my next question very quickly.

Does Canada provide maritime lift as far as the Arabian Gulf with the supply ships? Do Canadian boats do that?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

They have a very limited capability at lift, and at this point my understanding is we are using maritime charter to go from Canada into the region, but I don't know the details about that.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

It's a contract.

I am going to turn to you, Lieutenant-General Lucas.

Who is currently in charge of aerial surveillance in Afghanistan? Which nation is doing that? Canada does not have any aerial coverage planes; the F-18s, among others, have not yet been deployed. Will they be deployed one day in Afghanistan to ensure aerial coverage? I think that the Dutch, and probably the Americans, ensure aerial surveillance at present, do they not?