National Defence Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

[Terry Williston]

In fact we have a shipbuilding policy in Canada that says where competition exists we will have a competition within the country for the ships to be built in Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

But shipbuilding is a very changing industry. We did the review on shipbuilding, and it's very important, maybe not for me where I come from, the city of Toronto, but I know for other Canadians.

We had the technology. Is it not being competitive? Can you shed any light on that? Is it technology? It's a niche we don't want to lose--if anything, build on it.

[Terry Williston]

The shipbuilding industry is extremely important to us as the procurement arm of government, because without it we will not be able to have successful tenders to deliver the product. Without a viable industry, we'll have difficulty obtaining the pricing we're looking for as well.

I can't speak specifically about the state of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, but I'd like to think that with some of the programs that are coming out of the Department of National Defence and with the Canadian Coast Guard fleet renewal program, there should be some stability in the future for the shipbuilding industry.

I would let them tell you about the exact state of their industry.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for being here and sharing your knowledge and information with us.

We'll suspend for no more than five minutes and get moving in the second part. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene .

I did introduce all our guests when the meeting opened earlier, but we're into our second session and I'll take a moment to reintroduce our guests.

From the Department of National Defence, we have General Leslie, chief of the land staff, and Chief Warrant Officer Lacroix, land forces. From Public Works and Government Services, we have Terry Williston, and we also have Johanne Provencher, senior director, major projects directorate.

Welcome to the committee.

Will all of you be speaking, or will there be one presentation? All right, one presentation.

General Leslie, ten minutes. The floor is yours, sir, and then we'll go into questions.

[LGen A. Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. It is a pleasure to be back with you once again, particularly for these important hearings on procurement.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce to you the people who are with me. I am accompanied by Mr. Terry Williston and Ms. Johanne Provencher from Public Works and Government Services, by Colonel François Riffou, my Director Land Requirement and my Chief Warrant Officer Lacroix, the Regimental Sergeant Major for the Land Staff.

The army's requirements are evolving as a result of the changing threat and the environment in which our soldiers operate. Much of the equipment we field today was acquired just following the Cold War or in the 1990s. Today we face asymmetric threats and an enemy that uses different weapons and tactics. There are other differences as well: during the many years when our major focus was on central Europe and later, our service in Bosnia, we were not required to operate in desert conditions.

Army requirements are driven by two major pillars. The first pillar is the combat development process. This process has led to the development of the document Land Ops 20-21, which is our future force employment concept. It looks out 15 years and tells us what kind of army will be required and how we should be prepared to fight in two to three decades. That is the more theoretical side and is prepared by some of the most forward-looking thinkers in the army, officers who study the evolution of land combat, likely technological advances and other questions of that nature. We are putting the final touches to that document and it should be published in the near future.

On the more practical side, and this is the second pillar, army requirements are driven by government policy and funding. At the moment, Mr. Chairman, the primary equipment related focus for the army are unforecasted operational requirements for the Afghanistan theatre.

And on the positive side, Mr. Chairman, the system has been very responsive to our requirements in that theatre. Whether it was the M777, UAVs or the Nyala fleet, the system has clearly demonstrated that it can be flexible and responsive to the needs of our soldiers in theatre. What is new is the ability of the system to respond more quickly to requirements that involve major expenditures; equipment we will bring home and maintain in the army for years to come, such as the M777 artillery pieces.

This is not the way we want to procure equipment on a regular basis—clearly, we prefer to take more time and think carefully about what will serve us best in different theatres for years to come. But the fact that the system has demonstrated the responsiveness that it has to our most pressing needs in Afghanistan is a most welcome development. On behalf of our soldiers, we are grateful.

Mr. Chairman, the length and intensity of our engagement in Afghanistan will no doubt have a significant impact on some of our major capital fleets. And we are using them at a faster rate than we initially thought would be necessary; we are driving them hard and wearing them out. As an example, the army is initiating a study, to be completed by July that will tell us the exact state of our lav fleet. The fleet was expected to run about 4,000 km a year—and not necessarily in desert conditions. We are now running 14-hour crew days and we are loading them up past what we expected with additional armour, ammunition and other things soldiers need when they go to war. We are running them in desert conditions for much of the year. We may therefore be forced to schedule life extension or replacement programs earlier than planned.

Mr. Chairman, your committee has heard from Mr. Dan Ross. He referred to a new way of doing business, so-called performance-based requirements. The army agrees in principle with this approach: the tell us what you want this piece of equipment to do approach, and we look forward to guidance and direction that will facilitate the change in our culture and methods from the more prescriptive approach that we currently use.

I should update the committee on a couple of more immediate projects, Mr. Chairman—we expect to go to the contract phase of our heavy-armoured truck acquisition by the end of March and our medium-weight truck project is on schedule to go to contract by Christmas. In both cases, we have received a good deal of interest from industry.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Army operates in a world where we face asymmetric threats, enemies have shown themselves to be highly adaptable, where technologies change very rapidly and where the age-old competition between offensive and defensive systems has accelerated.

As commander, I simply want to get the best possible equipment to my soldiers as quickly and in the most efficient way possible. Anything this committee does to streamline the system and help us to attain that goal will be greatly appreciated by Canadian soldiers.

In closing, sir, the process is going very well. When I first went to Kabul with 2,500 of your soldiers, in very short order we were provided with unattended aerial vehicles, night vision goggles, new radars, and up-armour kits for some of our vehicles. A whole bunch of people around town—Treasury Board, PWGSC, Foreign Affairs, PCO, ADM (Mat), and the entities within National Defence Headquarters—have done a great job, and that process is accelerating even faster, for which the soldiers of the army are extraordinarily grateful.

Quite frankly, sir, you and your committee should be very proud of all the work that you've done as a team to try to expedite the acquisition process to better protect our soldiers.

Gentlemen, I am now prepared to answer your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

Thank you very much, General Leslie, and thank you for those kind words towards the committee. I'm sure we all appreciate it.

We will go to the first round, which is seven minutes, and—I'll remind members—for both questions and answers.

Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Gen. Leslie, it would be appropriate, before we begin, to tell you to what extent we are proud of our men and women currently fighting in Afghanistan as well as all those involved in other missions throughout the world. You should also be proud, because you yourself represent this very pride and this honour. It is also a great privilege to have you here. Moreover, we wish you a speedy recovery. We hope you will be back on your feet in no time.

Today, it would only be appropriate, not only on behalf of the official opposition, but on behalf of all members, to say to what extent, through you, we express the pride that we feel in our men and women fighting for our country, democracy and well-being throughout this world.

That being said, I am pleased to see that now, at the end of March, we will finally have a selection process in place. As you have stated on several occasions, if there is one force that has crying needs, it is certainly the land force. We need to replace 1,500 military vehicles, 800 commercial trucks and 300 trailers. It's essential and it's important. The lives of our troops depend on it. We need these vehicles, we need them to be able to operate.

You will agree with me, general, that at the end of the day, the person who approves the requirements—

The one who agrees with the requirements is the minister. Do you agree with that?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, as the army commander, I state the army requirements to the Chief of Defence Staff.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

And at the end of the day, it's the minister who signs the final okay for those requirements?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Yes, sir, and then of course it is cabinet that actually approves a variety of acquisition plans. Sir, you know more about this subject than I do. You're well aware of what PWGSC does, in terms of the actual—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Well, I'm just sticking to DND, and I'm on your side; I'm working for you guys.

[LGen A. Leslie]

Absolutely.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Secondly, are you aware whether the minister has already approved all those requirements?

[LGen A. Leslie]

For the trucks, sir?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

For the trucks.

[LGen A. Leslie]

The process has gone through, and I believe we're in the final stages of determining what exactly the best mix and match of capability sets is.

Let me just refer you back, sir, to some of my introductory comments.

First of all, sir, on behalf of our soldiers, I thank you for your very kind words.

There are three different types, essentially, of truck fleets, all of which are wrapped up in the larger package. The most urgent operational requirements are heavy armoured trucks to ensure that our young men and women, when they're driving those combat logistics patrols between the provincial reconstruction teams and wherever else they might be going, have sufficient protection against blasts and shellfire. The second one has to do with the medium trucks, and the third package has to do with the trucks for use in Canada.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I am aware of that, and respectfully, our time is a bit short.

My concern is that the actual Minister of Defence was a major lobbyist for a company, and I think, inside DND, you are willing to eventually have those kinds of trucks. I'm talking about Stewart & Stevenson.

As an officer, are you comfortable with the idea that a minister who once had access to National Defence as a lobbyist should be the person approving selection criteria for these trucks? Would you be more comfortable if the minister recused himself?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, I approve the requirements. I state the requirements for the army. I'm very comfortable with the minister's role that he has demonstrated in terms of his ministerial responsibilities vis-à-vis the acquisition of assets, and I'm very comfortable with the civilian oversight that exists within the department.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The minister admitted in the House, last spring, that he had, in the past, met with a land forces officer as a lobbyist for Steward & Stevenson. So, you see no problem with briefing the minister, your boss, as to requirements which may or may not favour Steward & Stevenson.

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, I'm sorry, you are asking me questions on which I have no other details. That's completely and utterly outside my lane as a general officer to comment on that.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

All right. In that case, could you provide us with that officer's name and tell us whether he is still part of the project team? He met with one of the project team officials. Could you provide us with this information, if you do not have it now, in the coming days, and tell us whether he was moved and why?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, I'll take it under advisement and we'll get a proper answer for you.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

General, one of the issues is that the official opposition doesn't believe we should have bought those C-17s. But something that strikes me is that Dan Ross—we're talking about the tacticals—talked about the C-130Js as a 90% solution to the real requirement.

My understanding is that if you want to transport an HLVW, you will have to deflate the tires. Okay, we can put a truck in, but for tactical reasons, especially when you have to go into the desert and you need those trucks, do you think it's appropriate to have a plane that will have to bring a pump so we can put some air in the tires before you can use them?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, it's a matter of minutes to inflate or deflate the tires on the heavy logistics wheeled vehicle to allow it to fit inside a variety of aircraft.