National Defence Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

If we look at the numbers the government has put forward, it becomes a function of numerators and denominators. With the escalating cost of the plane, the chance of your getting 65 airplanes is becoming exceedingly remote.

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

From the information I have, this project not only has the cost of the acquisition and whatever infrastructure changes we have to make to it, but it also includes a 30% contingency. Again, when you're dealing with the kind of technological evolution of an aircraft of this nature, it is appropriate.

Indeed, it depends on when you buy the aircraft off the assembly line, which kind of determines the cost as well. From the information I have, one of the reasons that government over the years has upgraded our CF-18s is that they could last until 2017 to 2020. So we were buying the aircraft off the assembly line when the cost actually fit for us.

From my standpoint—and again, the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force can get into more detail—65 is the minimal operational requirement for us. We need to have these aircrafts, both for the sovereignty of Canada and to meet our international obligations as set by the Government of Canada.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're going to move on to our five-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

General, we're delighted to have you here today.

Mr. Chair, I've had the pleasure of serving under the general in the past as my contingent commander in Bosnia, and I'm delighted to have an opportunity to continue to work with you in the future, sir.

Sir, in talking about readiness, what are some of the metrics you use to define a ready force and how would you define those gaps? General Vance was in the other day. He talked about his role at the SJS and some of the contingency planning that he proposed to you. So within that construct of the SJS's role and the contingency plans that you may formulate because of a changing situation in Canada, how does that factor into the measurement of readiness, metrics, and anticipation of where Canada may be going, because I presume that these contingency plans would be reviewed on a regular basis, assuming the world events that would be affecting Canada at that time? Would that be correct?

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

Mr. Chair, I'd say first of all, Canada is a very lucky country because North America is almost like an island, in the sense that we have great neighbours to the south and there's no conventional military threat to Canada from any external player. In that regard, we are quite fortunate. That's why we have contingency forces that are ready for our sovereignty missions at home, which I just described earlier, whether these be the immediate response units, the ready-duty ships, the aircraft on alert in Bagotville and Cold Lake and, as mentioned, search and rescue, all of which are ready to go anywhere because, internationally, we never know what the future will bring.

It's been my experience—and I've been wearing this uniform for 37 years—that we've never been able to predict where the next conflict will be. None of us thought we'd be in Afghanistan or in Libya. I'm going to be welcoming the fighter pilots back to Bagotville tomorrow afternoon, when they're coming home. When I was visiting those guys in Trapani I was fascinated, because they had just finished visiting the Commonwealth cemetery. This was the

425 Squadron from Bagotville, the Alouettes.

The Alouettes de Bagotville were launching from bases in Tunisia, lining up on Mount Etna to drop bombs in Sicily 67 years before. Yet there they were, launching from Sicily today to drop bombs on North Africa and lining up on Mount Etna to come home. You can never predict the future. So indeed our mission is to make sure that we have those sailors, soldiers, airmen and women who are ready to go out the door, and how we do that is by ensuring that those units that have been identified for high readiness have all of the equipment in the best possible condition. They have the equipment first of all, and that equipment is well maintained with all the spare parts and all the ammunition—but they also have all the personnel with the right skill sets.

Not only that, when they deploy, they have replacements back home because stuff happens. Everyone has unique family circumstances and issues, so we need to have some depth. But then that team has gone through a very deliberate training and validation cycle so that the commander of the army, the navy, and the air force can tell me that the unit is good to go.

So the metrics that are being provided with regard to the maintenance of those assets.... And, indeed, each one of those assets is different whether it's a Cormorant helicopter doing search and rescue; or HMCS Charlottetown ; or as we have today, where the essence of the training mission in Kabul is third battalion PPCLI. That they are good to go out the door to achieve their missions is due to all of the equipment. And it's the personnel and their training, but also the validation that they're ready to go. We track all those units in normal readiness, and a normal readiness unit like the second battalion of the PPCLI slung sandbags on the Assiniboine River in Portage la Prairie. They were ready to go out the door with no notice, and the way they can do it is also in being able to send

the 3rd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment, in Haiti. It's the same situation there, we save lives.

So it's all about the metrics in terms of equipment availability, equipment maintenance, personnel availability, all the training, and then a certification and validation of the training they've completed.

I know some of you visited Wainwright recently and were able to see some of the training that was happening out there. Part of that was the validation of training for that entire brigade out of Petawawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has just expired.

Madame Moore, s'il vous plaît.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General, thank you for being here.

My questions will deal mainly with the assessment of the armed forces' needs. For example, with reference to the new generation of fighter jets, the initial call for tenders went out in 1996. It was before Afghanistan, before September 11, 2001. A needs assessment was done at that time.

Since the process is taking 15 years, how do we know whether this call for tenders still matches the needs of the armed forces?

Since our needs evolve, how do we adjust this needs assessment?

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

At present, the fact that there are not many fighter jets on the market is a challenge for us.

In my opinion, the modernization program met with a lot of success. We prepared this fighter jet for sovereignty operations and even for NATO support operations, like in Libya. The CF-18, our crews and pilots were ready for sovereignty missions and joint foreign operations with NATO.

The problem coming generations will have to deal with is that there are not many aircraft on the market. The fifth generation of fighter jets is really different as far as technology is concerned. There's been a real revolution in technologies, as a result of stealth aircraft technology.

To my mind, there are only a few good products on the market. There are F-22s, which are no longer being made, and F-35s. I feel that, to perform sovereignty operations undertaken by Canada, in the context of North American Aerospace Defence Command, with our partners in the United States and NATO operations, we really need the F-35s, which a lot of other countries want to buy.

As I mentioned earlier, it's very difficult to predict the future. But, if we had these revolutionary technologies, we would be ready. As I've already mentioned, there are conflicts in Kosovo and in Libya. We have no idea about future expeditionary operations. Even with the threats Canada will be faced with, we can't really say what future threats will be. It's essential to have a fighter jet with better technology for the next 30 or 40 years.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

What are the operational needs that absolutely require this technology?

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

In view of the evolution of radars, it's essential to have a fighter jet with better technology in order to protect our aircraft and, above all, their crew.

The stealth aircraft, all the command, control and radar systems are included in the F-35 fighter jet.

This would be a good question to ask the Commander of the Canadian Air Force. In my opinion, the F-35 is the best product for meeting our sovereignty needs and for international operations.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have another question about the command.

The report mentioned that there were numerous duplications within the Canadian Forces, notably within Canada Command, the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command and the Canadian Operational Support Command. It was recommended that these bodies be brought together under a single command structure.

Do you think this is possible? Would it compromise operational readiness? Are there other consolidations to be made in Canadian Forces command, changes that wouldn't affect operational readiness but would avoid work being duplicated?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll let you respond very briefly, General.

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

I asked General Leslie to report on the efficiency of our command and control structure. I've received his report and right now we're working on planning with my team of commanders so that we can submit our recommendations to the department.

As I have already mentioned, our priority is first to maintain the current readiness of the forces and second to make sure, for the future, that the forces are modern and well prepared. We also want to take care of our soldiers, sailors and air force members.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Strahl, it's your turn.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General, it's good to see you again. I can't compete with Mr. Chisu or Mr. Opitz in terms of their personal experience, so I live vicariously through my cousin who is serving in Kabul right now. I can tell you that I take great pride and reassurance from the fact that he's been so well prepared for the mission he's been asked to do.

We hear about operational tempo, which is a new term for a civilian like me. Over the past 10 years you've been working at an unusually high operational tempo. Now that we are almost out of Afghanistan, is there going to be a necessary recovery period for the Canadian Forces? If so, how will that affect our readiness?

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, I would just say that this is one aspect of the little anecdotes that people hear about in terms of fatigue and high operational tempo, and so on. I just want to assure you—and again, the Canadian Forces' chief can come in here and pile on—that when we visit units from coast to coast to coast, the sailors, soldiers, airmen and women have all joined or signed up because they want to go somewhere, and they want to want to make a contribution to Canada, a contribution here at home and a contribution internationally. When we go and give our little talks, the chief and I, and we hand out a couple of coins and we do a town hall. The first question, no matter where we go is, “Sir, where are we going to go next? We want to go somewhere, where is it going to be?” And even when we're welcoming those folks home—they're on their way home and they haven't seen their loved ones yet—their first line to us is, “Sir, where is the next mission? I just want to know.”

I just want to say that it's not unique to this generation, but it's ever been thus. For every conflict to which this country has answered the call, Canadians have been coming through the doors saying, “We want to go somewhere.”

I still remember talking to a soldier from PPCLI , who was on the back side of Whistler during the Olympics on a snow machine providing protection. His question to the chief and I was, “How do I get from here to Haiti? I want to go from here to Haiti right away. How do I do that?”

A year and a bit ago, the chief and I were in Valcartier avec 5^e Régiment du génie talking to a sergeant who was a counter-improvised explosive device operator, basically a bomb disposal senior NCO. He was identified because he was going on his fourth tour, but he had manipulated the system. He had done everything he could to get onto that tour.

So I just want to say that operational tempo affects people differently, because all men and women who are in uniform have different backgrounds and different family circumstances. Those who are young and are not yet married want to go somewhere right away. Senior NCOs and some of the officers who have had multiple tours have different family circumstances, and you have to moderate that somewhat.

But also, every time we come up with an operation, we have to ensure that we have the right kinds of teams going out the door to do the business.

I also want to comment on the fact that, as we talk about the Afghanistan mission nearly done, at this moment in time I have almost 2,000 men and women in Afghanistan. I have north of 1,200 in Kandahar still doing the mission transition task force. There is a lot of risk in what they do, and I never want to underestimate that risk.

Similarly, we have 925 men and women in Kabul, Mazar-e Sharif, and Herat, who are doing an essential mission, a priority mission in the training of the Afghan police and the Afghan army. As your cousin knows, it's a tough mission. As we just learned tragically this past weekend, it has high risk.

I just want to say that the men and women are doing a great job, whether it's at home.... And let me just say that I met a lot of search and rescue technicians on Saturday as we had the repatriation ceremony in Trenton for Sergeant Gilbert. They are all enthused about their mission, and they're courageous when they jump out the back of the aircraft into circumstances that one can only imagine, and at the same time they're saving lives.

But also, your cousin and all of those other folks in Kabul and in Trapani right now are defending Canada from 10,000 kilometres away. That's equally important. All of them want to be in uniform as volunteers to do the job for Canadians so that we can sleep well at night.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Time has expired.

Mr. Kellway.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General, thank you for being here. It's a real pleasure to be able to talk to you directly today.

I heard in your conversation today your praise, in effect, for the Canada First defence strategy, and how it's been a useful blueprint for the forces. I wanted to look a little more closely at that. When I look at the three broad missions set out here, the two missions of excellence at home, and being a strong, reliable defence partner are ones that I think I get. They seem to be, in a sense, containable, understandable concepts.

The third one--projecting leadership abroad--strikes me as a bit problematic for the purpose of readiness, in the sense that in this document at least there seems to be very little definition. I heard you say that this is helpful as a blueprint, but I also heard you say how unpredictable things are. You said a number of times how one can't predict the future, that we don't know where we will be going, etc.

As a very simple question, in your discussions with the government, which inform policy, do you go through a process of drilling down a bit on what projecting leadership abroad actually means, or is it left very open?

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

I would say that in international operations, Canada has a significant commitment to NATO through that alliance and, indeed, to the United Nations as a founding nation of both organizations. But in international operations, again, government has a call in what we do internationally. In support of the United Nations, we have missions that are carried out throughout the world, and we don't talk about them enough. We still have people in Haiti today, we have people in the Congo, people in the various regions of the Sudan. We have people as part of a multinational force of trainers in Sierra Leone, and we have people in the Middle East with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization, UNTSO, all wearing blue berets. So we have all of those missions.

Indeed, the Canada First defence strategy was produced while we were ramping up into Afghanistan. One of the key lessons of Afghanistan is that we have a level of self-reliance and that what we do is to ensure that we have a strategic effect for Canada. Again, I was with some here on tours in Bosnia. In Bosnia in 1994, I was on two tours, the first one a year long in 1994, and we had 2,200 men and women committed to Bosnia. We had one battalion in Bosnia itself, just west of Sarajevo, in the area of Visoko and Kiseljak.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

General, I don't mean to be rude, but we are all conscious of our time limitations when asking questions.

I get the fact that we've been all over and have multiple missions around the world. I guess my point is that that is the point: we have multiple missions around the world. With such a broad mission of projecting leadership abroad, how do we ensure readiness? What we've got here in this Canada First defence strategy is a $490-billion plan for the next 20 years that, if I understand the concept, ripples across all four pillars to make sure that we have balance, and on and on we go. So how does one contain this for the purpose of readiness?

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

To answer the first question, let me say that when we go somewhere in a major operation, we put all of our men and women in a team such that we are projecting leadership into that operation, just like General Bouchard did in Naples in running the operation for NATO, and as we did in Afghanistan in having a great leader like General Vance commanding, or General Milner, and all the rest of those commanders, all of whom command a cohesive, coherent force of Canadians that is taking care of Canadians, just as we did in Haiti with General Laroche, as well. At the same time, in doing so, we've got a big Canadian flag in each place. There's a Canadian flag parked in Port au Prince, a big Canadian flag parked in Kandahar, and a big Canadian flag parked in Naples. In each place we have had a strategic effect because we have projected that leadership abroad, while at the same time having the coherence of Canadians taking care of Canadians in an operation.

At the same time, when you look at the Canada First defence strategy and the $490 billion included there, over half of that is for people. A significant slice of that is for infrastructure, including bases coast to coast. Another significant slice of that is the future, buying the right equipment for tomorrow, and it's also the readiness, which is all the ammunition, all the training, all the rations, so that the force is ready.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Norlock, it's your turn.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming today, General.

As the MP who is sort of responsible for Trenton, I once again want to offer my condolences on the loss of one our very valuable SAR tech officers. It's just terrible that Sergeant Gilbert will no longer be with us. We just toured CFB Trenton with Minister Fantino a couple of weeks ago, where we saw the SAR techs and were immensely proud of them. Of course, Trenton is where we repatriate all of our sons and daughters who are lost in the world, and we are very sensitive to those losses.

I would like to go back to one of the questions. We're talking about aircraft purchases. In 2005, I put my name forward to run for the Conservative Party because we had a plan for the Canadian armed forces. Part of that plan was for a strategic and tactical lift that no one else had on their books. We were talking about planning for the future in aircraft. You know, people were churning about this, because these planes are expensive; all planes are expensive. Anything to do with equipping our military is expensive, because we want the best for our sons and daughters who go overseas to do the dirty jobs we ask them to do--and it's not just overseas, but right here in our country.

When the world came to the aid of Sri Lanka, we had to shop around and wait until one of the Antonovs was ready to take our DART team over there. Compare that to Haiti, when we had the C-17s at Trenton and we were right there in 24 hours. So maybe the folks who get all wound up about what we need for the Canadian armed forces need to think about what we had before, what we have today, and the kinds of jobs we're able to do.

I'm sorry for the editorializing, but I have to admit that it winds me up. I apologize if I get a little excited, but having worn a uniform for 30 years, though not a military uniform, I know how important it is to equip the people you ask to do a job with the right kind of equipment, because then they can do a better job. They will feel better about the job they're doing and realize realizing that the people who pay the freight care enough about them to give them the best.

How would you rate the readiness levels of each environment—and here I'm talking about the army, the navy, and the air force? Is there a need for growth in the army, navy, and air force?

Then I have a few follow-up questions, but I doubt I'm going to get to them.

[Gen Walter Natynczyk]

Let me first say thank you for the editorial, because I indeed still remember that when we were trying to get our forces into Kosovo back in 1999, the country from whom we were trying to rent strategic airlift would not allow us to land the aircraft where we needed to land. That was a wake-up call to people that we actually needed to have grey tail military aircraft to carry us to far-off places. And similarly, we launched troops

in the case of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment, in

East Timor in 1999. Again, we were looking for wide-body aircraft while everybody else was looking for aircraft as well, so we couldn't get the aircraft until much later on.

But that is just to say that I agree with you. Everything's expensive, and we in the Canadian Forces, working with all of government, try to find the best value for Canadians, whether it be a helicopter or a transport aircraft like the C-130J. It was great being in Trenton and seeing all the brand new C-130Js on the ramp and the C-17 on the ramp. Indeed, we try to look for the best value for Canada overall.

In terms of the details of the readiness of the services, I'll just say that this information is secret. So I won't go into detail on this kind of thing. I'll just say that the air force is always at the highest level of readiness, because for an aircraft to be fully safe from a flight safety perspective, it has to be at 100%. Whether it be a commercial aircraft, or a C-17, C-130J, helicopter, or fighter, it's got to be at 100%. Everything's got to work right away, because of the tolerances demanded of that aircraft in pulling three, four, or five Gs in combat. So generally, from a flight safety perspective, the air force is always at the highest level of readiness.

The navy and the army are generally similar in their percentage of folks who are at high readiness. In the army, generally, there's a battalion that is ready to go internationally. Similarly, as a factor in overall percentage, the navy with its ready-duty ships is generally at the same kind of percentage.

The army, because so much of its assets are in people, really doesn't have low readiness. It has normal readiness, whereas the navy's key assets are its ships, and the people, obviously, but the people don't float on their own, but need a ship. So when a ship goes into long-term maintenance, it's into an extended lower readiness period. So the navy, unlike the army, has this low readiness or extended readiness. For example, if you look at the HMCS Halifax, it will be in refit for a year. Indeed, when the submarine HMCS Victoria was dry dock and shipyard workers were working on it, the refit took years. Again, we'd not had a lot of work done on submarines on the west coast.

So I would say the most ready force is traditionally always the air force because of the high readiness requirements of flight safety. The army and the navy are about similar; but the navy, because of its business, is so equipment-oriented with regard to its ships that it actually has a low readiness status, while the army does not.

Hopefully, that answers your question, sir.