National Defence Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

You could help me by--

You used the term “surveillance”?

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

I used the word “coverage”.

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

Is it like with AWACS or...?

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

Perhaps I could talk rather about air-to-ground missions. Let us say there was a call for air force reinforcements to attack a Taliban position. Who would intervene in Afghanistan?

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

Most of the missions in this regard are being provided by United States aircraft. When it comes to the close air support, the missions in which munitions are delivered, there are aircraft from the United States and aircraft from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Netherlands Air Force. Each of those three countries contributes aircraft that have that capability.

Regarding our ISR capability, we have some limited capability in respect of the Sperwer. The UAVs that we've deployed there have some tactical capability, but the United States, with its predator aircraft UAVs, is providing a much more significant capability in theatre in that regard.

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

Phase two of the F-18 modernization has been speeded up now. Our committee met at the end of phase one, when the first 80 planes were ready. If we are speeding up phase two, is it because a request was received from NATO for a certain number of planes to be ready in case of need in Afghanistan?

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

To the best of my knowledge, we are proceeding with phase two of the CF-18 upgrade much as the contract called for. We should have all of the aircraft done by the year 2009. With that, we will have significant capabilities so that if we were asked to participate in an activity in Afghanistan, it would be very helpful, but it would probably be at least another 12 months before those new aircraft could be utilized under those circumstances. So my sense is that--and we've been asked this question before--the situation in Afghanistan is a very dynamic one, one that changes on a regular basis, and because of that, the air force looks at the capabilities we have right now and looks at ways that we could contribute if the commander of CEFCOM, General Gauthier, asked us to participate or called for that capability. If the Government of Canada agrees, after we bring this requirement forward, then we will be prepared to do so, but at this point in time, there has been no call for that to go forward, and therefore we're just in the contingency planning stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That was pretty close to being right on schedule. Thank you.

Ms. Black.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much to both of you for appearing here.

Admiral Robertson talked about HMCS Ottawa and said it was deployed as part of the U.S. Navy's expeditionary strike force. You talked about it being part of the war on terror. Is it part of Operation Enduring Freedom that we're under? If so, how does that fit into the whole war on terror? Is there any chance that the operation on terror would end up supporting operations that are not in Afghanistan?

How does the chain of command interact with the U.S. chain of command? That wasn't very clear to me when our ground operations were part of Operation Enduring Freedom. I'm wondering how that works in the chain of command down from you to the ship and your U.S. counterpart, and how those lines interact.

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

It certainly is part of Operation Enduring Freedom. There's a slight nuance. The ship deployed with the American battle group is completely interoperable with the battle group, but its rules of engagement flow entirely from the Chief of Defence Staff and directions from the Government of Canada.

The leadership in theatre at present is principally American, but there is one area commanded by a British officer and another commanded by a Pakistani. Canadians have had command of various areas.

We use the ships that are assigned and take full advantage of them within rules that are set by their government to conduct surveillance, boardings, and inspections--but only up to that limit. We're well aware of what that limit is for any of the ships that are given to us to command. The commanding officer of any ship is very quick to say if they're asked to do something beyond what their government has authorized.

When I had command of a region, I had French ships working for me, and the commanding officers were very eager to conduct boardings. Requests went to Paris, to the Quai d’Orsay, and the reply was repeatedly negative. So despite the natural desire of the commanding officers to be involved, they declined.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

It's obviously a complex arrangement. Operation Enduring Freedom is an American-led operation, and it's very difficult trying to understand exactly how the chain of command works.

I understand you're saying that the Canadian Navy takes their direction from the Canadian government, but it's still very difficult for me to understand exactly how, if you're in a joint operation, those lines are drawn and how they intersect.

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

Certainly the leadership in theatre is by the fleet commander, who is an American officer based ashore in Bahrain. He's the maritime component commander for American forces. He has a variety of international officers on staff, and some officers from both regional and western nations as subordinate commanders.

It really is as straightforward as knowing what the limits of rules of engagement are and then asking ships to do those things their governments have approved. There's really pre-approval by the government. If the Ottawa is asked to do something that is not already approved, the commanding officer will instantly get back to General Gauthier, in the face of a surprise arising in tasking, and seek direction from Canadian authorities.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

General Lucas, I have a document from the Minister of Public Works on deployment support for the CF-18s in the amount of $1.9 million, awarded in January 2006. I'm wondering if we carried out that deployment support contract. You talked about it a little bit. If so, what did we get for $1.9 million?

You touched upon contingency plans for deployment of the CF-18s, so I just want to confirm that there are contingency plans if it is deemed necessary that we deploy them.

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

In cases such as this, military planners will always develop contingency plans, simply because we have been asked by the government to do a number of things from time to time, and it's always a good idea to have a plan, even if you don't carry through on it.

In respect of the contract, I believe it was done in anticipation that something might happen. I believe it was a contract that has not been carried out but was put in place just in case. That case has not yet arisen, so I don't believe the contract has been carried through, from my understanding of it.

Certainly the full Canadian materiel organization is the one who does that, but I believe it was just some good staff work there. It didn't cost us anything, and it positioned us, should we actually have to go into theatre, to be in a position to do so.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Whom do we rely on now for air cover? Is it all our allies? Is it the Dutch, the Americans, the Brits—or is it one of them?

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

Essentially, they all contribute aircraft to a pool. The Americans have the A-10 Warthog and the F-16, the Dutch have the F-16, the Royal Air Force has the Harrier, and there are a number of Apache attack helicopters that are also available.

They are all made available on a rotating basis, so when our people get into trouble and have to call for air cover, they don't know on that particular day who might actually show up. But they have a great working relationship with all of them, so that in fact we have assured delivery, if you will. A lot of work has been done to make sure the processes and procedures are independent of which country shows up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Ms. Black.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to share my time with my colleague. I will take the first five minutes, and she will take the two remaining. I would like to welcome our high-ranking officers. I had a look at your track records, and they are pretty impressive.

My first question is for Vice-Admiral Robertson. You talked about the acquisition of the three JSSs, the Joint Support Ships. I would like to know whether this type of ship could be integrated in the operations in Afghanistan, if you could use them? Would these ships be useful to you right now, as part of Canada’s operations in Afghanistan?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

The intent of those vessels is to provide the basic supply support required by a naval task group, to be able to provide transport for whatever might need to be transported using a cargo deck, and to provide support to forces ashore from a secure location at sea.

The amount of room in one of those ships for transport is useful for a tactical deployment of an army unit, but is relatively modest compared to what would be in a cargo ship—one of the large container ships you'd see in Halifax or Vancouver or Montreal. So it might have a role to play in the region, but I doubt we would use a ship like that today. We could use a ship like it today to transport goods to the region, for overland transport then into Afghanistan, but it would not be the principal use of the ship.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

So some more capable ships would be more useful to you in Afghanistan. Is that so?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

In fact I might mislead you if I indicate that maritime resupply is the way things are going. I'm not the person to talk, but I think most of the goods going into the country are going in by air. That's because of the particular geographic circumstance there, but also because of the timeliness of delivery.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I will turn now to Lieutenant-General Lucas.

In your presentation, you mentioned that 75% of the flying activities in which you are involved make use of rental equipment, if I understood correctly. Could you explain to me what sort of rental equipment is used at present. With the acquisition of new aircraft, will the proportion of rented equipment be reduced? What would the impact be?

I understand that we do not necessarily have all the equipment to conduct the operations expected of you, but what equipment is used? Would new equipment reduce the percentage of rentals?

[LGen J. S. Lucas]

When I spoke of 75%, I was speaking of the contracted airlift into theatre. A large portion of this was Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft that were used to transport a lot of our equipment directly into Kandahar. In addition, there were some C-17 aircraft from the United States Air Force that also moved people and equipment into theatre.

There is no doubt that this situation will change when we have our own C-17 aircraft. We will make great use of them, specifically for the ability to move people into theatre. At the beginning, in a deployment or a re-deployment into an isolated theatre such as that, we will probably still have to use some form of contracted lift for a surged capability, simply because in a very short period of time you want to concentrate and get folks in quickly. Four aircraft is a great capability, but it's insufficient for being able to surge in and at the end to surge out. It will significantly reduce the amount of contracted lift we have to do, but it will not completely replace it. We will still have to do some work using contract.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Ms. Gallant, you have two minutes.

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

My first question is for General Lucas.

The policy of the previous government to allow Canadian military assets to deteriorate, or in some cases to be sold off or scrapped, is now being reversed. We owe it to the men and women in uniform to provide them with the best equipment to do their job.

The decision to acquire medium- to heavy-lift helicopters is a necessary acquisition to protect our soldiers, particularly in those situations where the conditions warrant such a capability. There's an obvious need to address Canada's helicopter airlift capability shortfall. And I understand that with the purchase of a proven helicopter like the Chinook, from an operational standpoint, there's a need to integrate training with undertakings in a theatre of operation.

Could the general share with the committee which bases in Canada will be designated as the main operating bases of the medium- and heavy-lift helicopters that will be acquired by Canada?