Evidence of meeting #38 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was requirements.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

D. Robertson  Chief of the Maritime Staff, Department of National Defence
Terry Williston  Director General, Land, Aerospace and Marine Systems and Major Projects Sector, Public Works and Government Services Canada
R.W. Greenwood  Director General, Maritime Equipment Program Management, Department of National Defence
A. Leslie  Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I recognizie that your immediate requirements are based on individual sustainability--and I hope that something for the lower extremities to make surviving more possible for soldiers who walk on anti-personnel landmines would be included in that--and that you need the trucks immediately and more armour, more mass, etc., right away for this mission that we're on.

I recall a number of years ago in Wainwright, one beautiful spring day, that we were going through an exercise and you were calling in the notional attack helicopters. Looking into the future, because right now we're almost behind the eight ball--we could use the equipment we need right away--do you see any possible future requirements for an attack helicopter within our suite of vehicles in the air force?

10:55 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

Thank you, Madam.

I've been on a large number of missions internationally, and attack helicopters or small armoured machines that can survive a hit from the ground have a variety of impacts on the people below them, not the least of which is that by having them, sometimes you deter those unpleasant elements who are trying to attack you. Of course, when an attack does occur it's a lot easier to find them and deal with them if you have that responsive capability.

If I may just bring the discussion up to a level involving the medium- and heavy-lift helicopters, when we get the medium- and heavy-lift helicopters, we are going to want to ensure that as they progress, as they travel across relatively hostile terrain, there will be other machines, smaller machines, around them to protect them. Does that happen in a multinational context? Do members of the coalition provide that capability? Do we add onto the existing Griffons? What will we do with the H-92? What is the future of the EH-101? I mean, there's a whole bunch of air-force-related questions that the chief of air staff–and I know you've talked to him–would be better able to articulate to you.

In terms of the army requirements, is there a need for a direct-fire and surveillance capability to better help the soldiers on the ground? Absolutely. It's a question of available resources and a certain degree of prioritization.

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

And getting back to the medium- and heavy-lift helicopters, I'm not sure whether or not the opposition disputes the requirement for that. Would you explain, from both a domestic standpoint and missions overseas, why that is crucial to our suite of equipment?

10:55 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

The medium- to heavy-lift helicopter, from an army perspective--and all my air force friends will get cross when I say this--is a big flying truck that can take off vertically. That's how I see a helicopter. By being able to do that, it can assist in casualty evacuation in those unfortunate moments when we have more than one or two people, both domestically and internationally. It could have delivered sandbags or food supplies to those citizens who were cut off during the Manitoba floods. It could have assisted in the removal of large pieces of debris from roads, for example, during the ice storm. And when the roads where completely shut down by this layer of death glâce, we would have been able, perhaps, to have better positioned soldiers and generators than we actually were able to. Most of the time it was either by snowmobile or track vehicle. We had our Badger tanks there ripping down some of those pylons.

Internationally, of course, the less time you spend on the road when you don't have to, the better. The vertical resupply is an extraordinarily valuable instrument. It is the idea of being able to deposit a medical team in a remote village in Afghanistan, or wherever we're going next, without necessarily telegraphing the fact that you're not going, but coming back, because it's the coming back that's dangerous, because the bad guys have time to react after you've done your good work. Doing it by helicopter, you're plunking the team down, picking them up, and moving them to another village, without exposing those medical personnel to risk. The list of possible utilities goes on.

11 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

From the army perspective, on the C-17, both domestically and abroad, what are the advantages to having that particular plane?

11 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

Once again, Madam, as the army commander, my portion of the requirement is the ability to lift tens of thousands of pounds of equipment long distances so we can actually be of use. On the actual technical specifications for the C-17, I'm way outside my lane, just as I wouldn't expect the Chief of the Air Staff to provide a whole bunch of detailed comments on our light armoured vehicles.

11 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

So you need aircraft of that size, regardless of the brand, to do the work and to keep you safer.

11 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

Yes, ma'am.

The army sergeant major and I were in Afghanistan a little while ago, and we saw one of our Badger armoured tanks--it's essentially a huge armoured bulldozer--doing its work in Afghanistan. And the only way it was delivered to Afghanistan was by a C-17 that was not owned by Canada, which is.... There we go.

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Monsieur Bachand.

11 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

I would like you to expand on what you are saying regarding the MMEVs so we have a complete answer. As you know, this is very important to us. So I am patiently awaiting your answer.

11 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

The multi-mission effects vehicle, which, as you know, was to be an evolutionary step for the ADATS system, is predicated mainly.... Well, it has two roles. One is direct fire against pinpoint targets, such as tanks. The second is to knock down incoming aircraft at relatively short ranges.

11 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Is it also for command and control of your operational field?

11 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

Absolutely. It is a tool to provide surveillance of the air space and to assist in the command and control network.

But if we look out over the next five or ten years, a variety of decisions have to be made in terms of priority of effort. It's not only money; it's the skilled people, which Jean-François is in desperately short supply of, as are the folks at PWGSC, to manage these issues in a coherent fashion.

My immediate priority is hardening the force. And the current concept of the multi-mission effects vehicle does not have a great deal of survivability in the type of scenario that we see happening overseas. So no decisions have been made, as I mentioned earlier.

The Chief, the Chief of Force Development, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, and I have to figure out what the requirements are to support the Olympic Games. We have to figure out what are the likely chances of a reasonable possibility for success in terms of investment, either into ADATS or where are we going with MMEV. And no such decisions have been made.

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis

We'll go to Monsieur Coderre, and we'll just wrap it up.

11 a.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Thank you, general.

I have two brief questions.

I think in my mind it's pretty clear about the trucks. I truly believe there's a conflict of interest for General O'Connor. But I want to ask you some other questions.

Were you part of the requirement when the Canadian Forces wanted to decide about the strategic and tactical planes? Of course, if we had to transport LAV IIIs, you had something to say about it, I guess.

You or those working for you.

Were you part of the process of what the requirements were, for example, for planes?

11 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

Yes, sir, the army was part of this. I myself was not the army commander—

11 a.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

But as your department—

11 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

—when the requirements were defined. My predecessor, Lieutenant-General Marc Caron....

I know that you know him well.

He is a superb officer, and whatever decisions he was involved with I support fully and absolutely.

Is there a follow-on to your question on that issue?

11 a.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

It seems they made some changes on the weight listing, on the capacity. I'm annoyed by the 90% solution that might be problematic. But just for the purpose of the LAV III itself, it seems that we changed the capacity from 43,000 pounds to 86,000 pounds within weeks. As you know, when we're talking about an SOR, it takes several times. We had a plan at the air force for six years, and besides the certification or the delivery schedule, we were aiming at load capacity. It was changed from 43,000 to 86,000 pounds.

So my question clearly is, if you participated in the requirements, could it be that your department participated also in that kind of change of requirement—or Mr. Riffou maybe? For six years we had those same requirements, all the time; and now, in a matter of weeks, it changed. Why?

11:05 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

Well, sir, my apologies. Neither I nor François Riffou were part of the meetings that defined the armoury requirement, but I now owe you an answer, which I will get for you.

I will say, though, that 43,000 pounds is a very familiar number, because that's the weight of one LAV. So I'm assuming that the 86,000 is two LAVs. I think the army has been saying for some time that it makes sense to have an aircraft that can carry more.

But that is not a sophisticated answer, and I apologize.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

I have one final question.

It's about tanks.

I am a civilian. You'll have to help me understand.

Why is it that we can buy a C-17 aircraft but that we need to rent tanks?

I can put that money and buy you more tanks, but that's a political discussion. But for the purpose, would you just explain it to me? It seems we have to replace and need some tanks. My colleague Dawn was pretty eloquent about the issue of tanks, but how can we rent tanks? Do we need them so badly that you have to rent them? I'm just trying to understand.

11:05 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

Well, sir, as I mentioned to Madame Black, no decision has been made by the Government of Canada. In terms of rent, lease, or buy options, it's logical to assume that whenever we talk about purchasing types of equipment, a pretty thorough analysis is done, not only by DND and the CF, but more importantly, because they're the ones who sign the cheque, the good folks from PWGSC.

Sometimes the urgency of the issue—and Madame Black, based on our experience over there, has seen what some of our tankers may be facing—dictates a certain sort of flexibility that we ask PWGSC to consider—

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

I am not questioning the necessity for tanks. My question is the following: Is it a usual practice of the Canadian Forces to have to rent tanks?

Have we ever rented tanks before? If it's an option, did we do that before?

11:05 a.m.

Chief of the Land Staff, Department of National Defence

LGen A. Leslie

We have rented equipment, sir. We have leased equipment.

Colonel Riffou just reminded me of the ARTHUR counter-battery radar, which the former government very kindly sent over to me and my soldiers when we were Kabul. That was done right away, bang, thank God.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

There's not so much darkness after all. We were there too, to help you a lot.