Evidence of meeting #5 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was exercise.
A recording is available from Parliament.
VAdm D. McFadden
I would probably need to get back to you on that. Its measured in hundreds. I wouldn't say we're too far off if I were to say 200 people, but I can give you a precise answer to that.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I thought it was in the thousands.
I have one other quick question. Do I have time?
VAdm D. McFadden
The integrated security unit is an operations centre. There are other places around the outside of that that stand up, that analyze, and stand back down again, but the ISU itself functions 24/7.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
What's the biggest lesson you've learned from the last Olympic Winter Games in terms of security?
VAdm D. McFadden
That coordination needs to be exercised beforehand. In other words, what you do is put in place a fairly rigorous exercise program to allow you to work what are the seams that exist among many agencies.
There is a normal process that exists within the country for security concerns and how those security concerns would match up with what are then safety implications. An event occurs, there are security implications to it, but it will have consequence management plans that are put in place by municipal, provincial, and, as necessary, federal agencies.
What we have realized from observing past Olympics is that once you stand up such a major activity as the Olympics, it then changes how you're doing your consequence management. As a very simple example, normally in Vancouver if you needed to do consequence management there's a plan for the ambulance service that knows what bridges they'll shut down and what routes the ambulance would flow through. Once you impose the requirements of the Vancouver Olympics on top of that, you want to make sure you have an effective response. You also want to ensure that you don't inadvertently or unnecessarily impact the conduct of the games by the plans you've put in place. So instead of having two pillars--security and safety--you have a third pillar, and you need to make sure that from event to completion, the consequence management takes into consideration how you would go about solving the problem, given that it could affect the normal functioning, the good conduct of the games. That's probably the biggest lesson we learned from previous games and one of the things we're driving into our exercise program here.
Rear-Admiral R. Davidson Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff, Department of National Defence
If I may, Mr. Chair, I can answer the question on numbers. There are just over 360 in the ISU.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You've talked today about a whole-of-government approach to this particular operation. I'd like to talk about the joint operation, should it become necessary, between Canada and the United States.
In the past, prior to 2006, there had been such joint exercises conducted between the Department of Homeland Security and what now falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Safety in Canada. In support of those civil agencies, the military came into play. In the past, on the Canadian side, these exercises were abject failures. When Canada chose to participate in the exercise, and when there was a minister to be found at the time it began, our computer system in the Office of Critical Infrastructure crashed, for example. The computer system was the basis upon which the entire critical infrastructure mechanism was to work.
Would you share with this committee the types of experiences that you've had recently, in the lead-up to the Olympics, in terms of joint exercises with the United States?
VAdm D. McFadden
I could probably give you a fair amount of detail of the military-to-military exercises that we've done in preparation. I'll give you one example of the level of complexity, in keeping with the changed circumstances of the modern reality and the threats that we address today.
We were always very good at doing military-to-military exercises with the United States, for example, in my own line, navy to navy. We did lots of those. We are now conducting combined exercises, on both coasts, that will bring in not just Canadian Forces and the United States Navy but also coast guard resources. How those conversations now occur is a matter of course. We address not just the defence relationship but the means by which military forces can be brought to support security requirements as well as requests made appropriately by law enforcement agencies. Many of the exercises that we're doing now in a military-to-military relationship automatically bring in for certain the United States Coast Guard, so there is at least a three-way conversation. That becomes an opportunity for a broader discussion.
Every year there is the Rhode Island war game chaired by the United States military. At the Rhode Island war game that will occur, I think in April of this year, the scenarios that we will play will be scenarios appropriate to the Vancouver Olympics. We will have the participation of the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, Public Safety Canada, Transport Canada, and Health Canada. They will participate in both observing and contributing to how that exercise unfolds. A war game sounds like quite an aggressive term, but it means you can create a fantasy world in which you can play and add levels of complexity.
That movement of engaging far more partners in what are very complicated discussions is indicative of where we are going with respect to that type of inter-agency joint and combined exercise program to both develop understanding and ensure that when there is a request for military forces to be engaged in support of law enforcement, we've actually thought through lots of the things, not just from our perspective but from the perspective of the agencies we will be supporting. In the security realm, we will always be operating in support of someone else's regulatory authority. Not just for the conduct of the Olympics, but simply as a matter of course, that dialogue is becoming much more sophisticated than it ever was.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
We have one more slot in the second round, and that's for the government. Are you guys good?
If we get into the third round, and we get through that, then I think we're going to be just about out of time. That goes to the official opposition, the Bloc, the New Democratic Party, and then back to the government.
We have five minutes for the official opposition.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Madam Chair, my question was to the vice-admiral, and not to the person who dreams of being a witness one day, my colleague, Laurie Hawn.
I would like to ask some more detailed questions on radar. It is quite true that NORAD is there and that we can protect ourselves, but occasionally I feel you are being somewhat optimistic about some of our equipment. That is why MERX said we need those TCRs for 2009.
Do we have all the equipment we need? I'm not asking whether we would like that equipment. Can you give us a guarantee that we will have all the equipment we need—and that includes airborne, land and seagoing equipment—to protect Canadians and their guests during the Olympic Games?
VAdm D. McFadden
Do the Canadian Forces have all of the stuff we need to be able to do the job to the greatest degree we can? Do we have all of the people we want? Any admiral or general who sits down in front of you and tells you that we are not stressed needs his head felt. The specific question is, do we have the capacity in place to be able to have an appropriate degree of confidence that the mission sets required for ensuring a safe Olympic games are in place? The answer to that question is yes.
As far as aerospace surveillance, there is a multitude of means by which that is done. On the tactical radars you're talking about, it is undeniably true it is most difficult for them to operate in mountainous regions. They're based on the ground and therefore they don't go through the mountains. Given the mechanisms by which we want to establish the most effective aerospace surveillance regimen we can, there is always going to be a need for that to be done from some airborne capacity as well, simply given the geography of the west coast.
Do I perceive limitations with respect to ground-based radar to be substantive in our surveillance of that space? No.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
When I was a cabinet minister, especially after 9/11, I had some exercises regarding dirty bombs and all that, and I was part of the ad hoc cabinet committee for anti-terrorism. I know that all agencies have to work together, but I'd like to ask more specifically about dirty bombs and chemicals, because Claude asked a few questions on that.
What kinds of exercises are you having right now? We all know that you might have a situation through Seattle that will touch Vancouver. What kind of strategy are you using right now with all the agencies to make sure we prevent those kinds of problems?
VAdm D. McFadden
There is the national response team I referred to before. The RCMP lead and bring together a great many levels of expertise to sense the environment and determine whether a problem is developing. We provide forces to that from an analytic perspective. We also provide special operations forces to be able to respond, should that be required.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
So you're telling me that the RCMP is calling the shots and you're there as support.
VAdm D. McFadden
The RCMP lead the national response team. It is probably one of the most rigorously exercised capabilities that exists, and will be more vigorously exercised throughout 2009.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I've witnessed that.
Is military intelligence working with CSIS too?
VAdm D. McFadden
On the role of military intelligence and the request by the RCMP as to what capabilities we could bring to bear, one of the fairly substantive discussions that goes on between us and the RCMP is the legal basis for the use of military capabilities in a domestic environment. Those are complicated discussions. We need to make sure we are operating entirely in accordance with the law, as it's set at the moment. If there is any need to bring resources to bear, it is appropriately requested through the federal agencies by the RCMP to bring Canadian Forces capabilities online.
It's a complicated discussion space with a degree of complexity that we have not experienced up to now, which is why those discussions need to be fairly indepth. They have been ongoing and continue.