National Defence Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I may, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank everybody for coming here today. I can echo the kind words others have said around this table. I've been most impressed with the men and women of the Canadian Forces and the way they've conducted themselves. I certainly appreciate the support you've given to us here at the committee. I can assure you—I think I can speak on behalf of everybody here at the committee—that we are more appreciative of the work the men and women of the Canadian Forces do on our behalf. So I appreciate that.

General, I want to follow up a bit on a line of questioning of one of my colleagues with regard to the purchase of the trucks. Has there been any political interference at any level with the statement of requirements for any of these logistics trucks?

[LGen A. Leslie]

No.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm glad to hear that.

This whole procurement thing is quite interesting to me. I've been researching this quite a bit and I have some questions that relate to the statements of requirements that the air force, if I can call it the air force, and the land service have been moving to, which would streamline the process so that we basically get rid of these 1,700-page documents on technical requirements and get down to capabilities requirements and then put it out to industry a lot quicker, speeding up the process. But when the folks from the navy were here this morning they basically were talking differently, from the perspective of still basically designing those technical specifications.

From an overall procurement perspective, when you talk about the integration of the three different services or three different elements of the Canadian Forces and how you're dependent upon the navy and how you're dependent upon the air force to project forces and to sustain operations domestically or in foreign territory, how do you see the fact that we are going to design-build with the navy, to off-the-shelf with the air force, and off-the-shelf maybe with the army component? Is that going to pose any problems?

There's going to be significant lag time, if we go to design-build in the navy, compared to off-the-shelf with air force and army. I'm wondering how that affects your defence capabilities planning and your strategic planning in the future.

[LGen A. Leslie]

Thank you for the comments about your soldiers. It's important for them to hear that. I think they know that, anyway, but it's very important for them to hear that. So thank you.

For the army, quality is important, as the technological sophistication of our various weapons platforms is ever-increasing. Also, mass has a quality all its own, so we tend to buy lots of things much smaller and less complex than ships.

My knowledge of shipbuilding is lower than a snake's belly. Admiral Robertson is a very smart guy. If he articulated to you the fact that he does need very detailed design specs, as the head of the navy, I'm going to nod at him, just as I kind of hope he'll nod at me when I'm talking about trucks or armoured personnel carriers.

In terms of the overall thrust, though, of getting to performance-based requirements, anything that can make the partnership among us, the other folks in government across town, and industry more responsive, and shape the output better such that industry can have a say in how things work--not in terms of dictating to the Government of Canada or the armed forces but just helping as a team--I think can only be of benefit in terms of the speed of response and in getting some good ideas from industry experts.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You spent a lot of your testimony answering questions that Ms. Black posed to you that deal with the safety that the Leopards provide for our forces that are currently deployed.

If we take a look, you talked about pillar one, combat development, future thinking, 2021. I believe if we were to look backwards, the Leopards were slated to be decommissioned based on the idea that future foreign policy might have us in situations where we're peace-building or peacemaking rather than peacekeeping.

Do you see, from your own defence capabilities planning perspective within the army itself, a new need for a significant rethink on going away from heavily armed vehicles to going back to heavily armed vehicles?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, we are going back to heavily armed vehicles, keeping in mind that we'll still have to have a range of capabilities to meet different operational scenarios, to give the Government of Canada a range of employment options. So we'll still have to have little, wee armoured patrol vehicles with four wheels. We'll still have to have heavier vehicles and a fleet in between.

By the way, the current fleet in between is the light armoured vehicle. As I mentioned before, only the Canadian army would call something that weighs 45,000 pounds light. It is a brilliant vehicle, but we have to wrap it in more steel to allow it to have a better chance of survival against the suicide bombers or the rocket-propelled grenades.

That sort of threat will probably exist wherever the Government of Canada might want to send us internationally. That is probably the worst case, but in the view of mitigating against unnecessary casualties, we in the army tend to try to plan for a little bit of the worst case.

So we see the army moving towards re-establishing a heavier presence--hardening ourselves, I guess, is the word you want to use. We're certainly not abandoning the idea of the lighter vehicles; it's just that we want a range of capabilities.

Of course, now we're operating at the extreme end of the range, but it's our thought that no matter where we may go next after Afghanistan, much the same sorts of threat scenarios will exist.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, Cheryl, you can have some time if you want.

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

Sure.

You had mentioned individual survivability. While I was in Afghanistan, I noticed that in addition to having fragmentation protection vests, a couple of militaries also had big collars attached to them for the soldiers who had to be in the hatch and drive a vehicle. Is that one of the individual protective devices we'd be considering?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Absolutely, Madame.

You have the army sergeant major here who speaks on behalf of the soldiers. We have seen the results of injuries to the neck and shoulder as a result of shells, rocket grenades or suicide bombers going off.

There's a continual trade-off between the mobility of the soldier himself--so he can do his job--and protection. We are actively pursuing, as we speak, higher collars for some soldiers, shoulder pads of different types of armour, and a newer type of ballistic goggles. The introduction of the ballistic goggles, which now everyone has to wear all the time, has probably saved, anecdotally, 10 or 15 sets of eyes from having fragments hit them. There is the new flak vest as well.

To answer your question--and I'm sorry I'm babbling badgering on--yes, we are actively pursuing that.

Do you have any details, François?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

We could go to the next round, because Ms. Gallant will have more time in the next round. Or if you want to continue, so not to break your thoughts or your questions, you can have more time, and I'm sure the committee will cooperate. You can finish off, if you'd like, and then we can go to the others.

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

Go to the next round, then.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

Excellent, thank you very much.

We're doing great on time, so there's some flexibility there.

We're into the next round and it's five minutes. Mr. Martin and Mr. McGuire will share.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Mr. McGuire.

Thank you, General Leslie, for being here, and gentlemen, and Madame Provencher.

I hope people who are listening know--they can't see it--you're here in a wheelchair, so we thank you very much for going the distance. Again, for what all of your troops are doing in the service of our country, we're profoundly grateful.

General, our overriding goal is to make sure your troops get what they need before they need it. That's why we're setting this. Could you give us a sense on a couple of things? One, you're perched on top, looking at the bottlenecks that you alluded to. Can you give us any advice on what we can offer to be able to remove those bottlenecks to facilitate that overriding goal?

Secondly, are you getting enough funds for your trainers to be able to get the training required for your troops to hone their skills?

Lastly, some of the IEDs coming out from Iraq, particularly ones that are able to shoot molten metal, are deeply concerning to the Americans, and you can see the movement of technology or tactics from Iraq to Afghanistan. Can you give us any advice on what we can offer to be able to ensure that you have the resources to protect your troops, given what you're seeing in Iraq and seeing the flow of nasty tactics that have been employed in Afghanistan?

Thanks.

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, thank you for your comments about the soldiers.

In terms of bottlenecks, if this had been five or six years ago, I would probably have a huge list of things that irritated the army commander about bottlenecks around town. The army's needs, in comparison to the truly large equipment projects for the air force and the navy, are much smaller in terms of the aggregate.

Can you help me out? I can't think of--

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Giving it to us at a later date is appreciated. So if it comes to you later on--

[LGen A. Leslie]

Yes, I can't think of a systemic bottleneck that has not.... One has to present a convincing argument to one's bosses, based on logic, but recently, over the last couple of years, if we need it, and we present convincing, compelling logic for getting it, no one across this town has said no.

I know you know that it's definitely not a free ride. There is a whole bunch of really tough questions asked. The Government of Canada has many priorities, but no one has said no.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

We're just trying to find ways to smooth the system for you, that's all. That's why we're studying this.

[LGen A. Leslie]

Absolutely. Keep on asking your questions. The fact that you're doing this is once again sending a clear signal across town that this is important. So all of you as a team are focusing your energies on trying to help the soldiers, and that in itself has ripples in the pond, spreading it across.

In terms of training systems, there was some thought five or six years ago that by investing in training technologies--and by the way, we want to do more of that--we could actually save money in the longer term. I do not hold that view. I think we have to invest in training systems, but that's to make our soldiers better at what they do and give them a greater chance of survival for that moment of truth overseas. So we want to invest more money in training systems, but I do not want to cut back on the number of field days that the soldiers in the army go out and do their business. Nor do I want to cut back on the ammunition we consume to give the young men and women that final edge that they might need when they go overseas.

On top of all that--I'm trying to think of an example--we are spending a great deal of taxpayers' money, and I think wisely, in doing different types of training than armies have done in the past. We've hired hundreds of Canadians who come from Afghanistan to give us a hand and play village elders, to play the roles of family elders, of shura council members. We are training our soldiers on how to work in and with the three-D construct, training them on how to work with the international organizations and development agencies, and all that's expensive.

Vis-à-vis the IEDs, the improvised explosive devices, they are gaining in lethality. With every passing month, there seems to be something new out there. I and my team do not have a solution currently in the immediate view that takes us away from mass--i.e., the idea of hardening elements of the army, big slabs of steel or armour.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

We'll give Mr. McGuire a few minutes, since we're okay on time and have some flexibility.

Mr. McGuire.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You're most generous, Mr. Chairman.

General, in Minister O'Connor's “Canada First” policy or initiative in the north, he's requesting a rapid reaction battalion for Goose Bay, among other things. How far along is that request? And do you see any problems in complying with the minister's plans in regard to the north and Goose Bay?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, the latest word I have from the Chief of Defence Staff is that the Goose Bay organization will be focused mainly on ranger support. There are lots of great citizens up in Goose Bay. Surprisingly enough, those who actually belong to the rangers number less than 20 to 30. I'm prepared and more than willing to set up an organization to go up and take a hard look at how we'd get more local citizenry involved in assisting in defending their country. There's infrastructure up in Goose Bay, which is largely vacant. There are already 500 or 600 DND employees who are there to take care of those facilities.

Does that answer your question?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Is the battalion itself in the realm of possibility?

[LGen A. Leslie]

Sir, there's a bunch of options that are being worked with. The chief of force development, who is essentially the fellow who works very closely with the minister, the vice, and the chief.... I'm not aware of the latest discussions that may have been taking place around Goose Bay, so I can't really give you any further advice.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John Cannis]

Ms. Gallant.