National Defence Committee on Nov. 17th, 2011

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

When CANOSCOM stood up, we were already in Afghanistan. Can you tell us about standing up that transition. In 2006 we have a different system in place. We're in the thick of Kandahar, and you're implementing this new system. Can you describe that?

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

At the time transition happened, I was south of the border, so I wasn't involved in the day-to-day activities. General Benjamin was the first commander of CANOSCOM, so he was in place when that happened. I can only give you a bit of an overview of how the transition happened.

I consisted in standing up a small cell that started to build capabilities. The first was Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, then Canada Command, and then Operational Support Command. You ended up pulling pieces primarily from DCDS group, but also from ADM (Mat), and then from some of the other ADMs. We pulled those matrix positions and then they were formed together. That was essentially the “walk and then run”, in terms of their capability.

So it was a transitional period at the front end, but I believe that a lot of their focus was on movements and sustainments. One of the first aspects they focused on was the coordination on the long lines of communication. The materiel management piece was probably one of the first focal points of that operation. Later on, there ended up being additional functional reviews and a concentrating of some capabilities within CANOSCOM to better manage resources in support of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command and Canada Command.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Moving right along, Mr. Alexander, you're batting cleanup in the five-minute round.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witness.

We've heard from you about the deployment capabilities under your command. Can you give us a sense of the number of people who are under CANOSCOM's command?

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

There are about 1,800 personnel within the command. You then have the six depots that are essentially domestically based. The pieces that do the forward deployment include the Canadian Forces Joint Support Group in Kingston and the Canadian Forces Joint Signal Regiment. Then I have an engineering capability in Moncton. I also have close protection capability within the military police. On the medical side, the Chief of Military Personnel and the Canadian Forces Surgeon General operate and work there. The medical pieces we bring together are a coordination function I provide. The force generation comes from there.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Would we be correct in saying, on the basis of your testimony, that you are the only command in the Canadian Forces that is both a force generator and a force employer? From your slides and from what you said, it struck me that you had both roles, to some extent.

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

If the commander of Special Operations Forces Command were here, he'd say he was both a force generator and a force employer. So yes, those are probably the two formations that provide both. Very clearly, the services focus on force generation. The Expeditionary Force Command and the Canada Command focus on force employment almost specifically. These two smaller dot-coms have a dual role.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Does that place any particular pressure on you as far as readiness? The way forces are generated and trained is absolutely critical to ensure the readiness of individual units and the capabilities we need to have available for deployment. Obviously deployment has additional pressures associated with it, and some of them are quite acute.

How do you cope with those two roles from the perspective of readiness?

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

In simple terms I look at force generation as having capabilities ready to support operations, whether that is contracting expertise, engineering expertise, or supply expertise. It's almost a functional checklist, and that reverts to people and capabilities inherent in that.

That is not a challenge, whether I provide that leadership and/or expertise to provide support to a deploying task force in support of Expeditionary Force Command or I provide that capability for security at the Olympics in support of Canada Command. Managing that readiness piece is a constant refresh, as far as what we do.

The force employment aspect really refers to me using that capability inherent to my own command and control. We talked about things such as third-location decompression, where we do intermediate staging terminals on a line of communication. Another important one is the casualty support team. It's a very small eight-person team that sits in Landstuhl Medical Centre. It is employed by CANOSCOM, generated by the CMP and the health services people. Those are examples of employment.

So do I have the challenge of force generation and force employment? The short answer is no, because my force employment focus is really on the strategic line of communication, and that is separate from the focal point of Expeditionary or Canada Command, which is a named operation usually in a very specific piece of ground that we would call a joint operating area.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Are the army, navy, and air force commanders supported by you as well?

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

They have a lot of capability inherent to themselves. So when I talk about service capability, we all understand that a unit, a squadron, or a ship has what we call integral support. That belongs to the services. Likewise, if I were talking about a brigade, a wing, or a naval task group, all those capabilities and support capabilities exist within those services.

What I have are those pieces. When you step back from that, whether the army, navy, air force, or a combination of them are deployed, there are capabilities they will need to support that. I'm that cross-service joint enabler in terms of supporting operations.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you.

My final question—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. You had only five minutes. You'll have one more chance, Mr. Alexander.

We have time for a final round. We'll come back to Mr. Kellway.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you, Mr. Chair, General, the last time I was asking questions, we ended up talking about the implementation of the hub concept. You had indicated that, ideally, we would end up with seven hubs providing global reach. We heard your response to Ms. Gallant about cost issues, and I take it there are no dollar figures, but theoretically there are efficiencies and economies that have come from setting up CANOSCOM. I anticipate then that you are in something of a growth mode with this operational hub concept, as you reach out to set up seven of these around the world.

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

To clarify, in concept, these hubs could exist on paper only. I talked about the agreements that need to be in place with a host nation. Then you work into logistical support arrangements and then you work down to contracting arrangements. You could have a range of capability that existed on paper only and not require anything.

If a hub existed in a certain country and nothing was happening, you would probably just maintain that relationship by refreshing the paper with staff visits. Doing that is not very expensive. As named operations or as focus for the Government of Canada starts to work or be directed somewhere, that, of course, is where you would potentially use and start to occupy a hub, but I'd say they're very scalable.

As I referred in my earlier comments, Spangdahlem, for instance, today is four people. It's not very demanding in terms of people, but it's based on the levels of activity. At one point in time, Spangdahlem, Germany, was up in the range of 170, when we were doing a full range of sustainment, rotation, and third-location decompression all from that region. I highlight that to say that it is expandable, but it does not presuppose that there have to be people at those locations, once they are established. Our manning of those is very much in response to operational activities.

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

So there may not be boots on the ground, so to speak, at these hubs.

Are there costs to these hubs, apart from human resources, in the types of arrangements that are being contemplated to set these up?

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

Again, I won't say hypothetically, but right now we are planning. I would say there are costs involved. You will get into things such as pre-establishing contracts in certain areas. That costs money to do. You do that because it is much better to have a pre-arranged contract in place for a range of services and to be able to activate those than it is to go in on very short notice, and then, based on the spot market or the demands of the local economy.... If they know there are things happening, the capitalist system is alive and well, and you tend to pay a little more if you do things in quick response time. I would say, writ large, there are actually economies to be had by doing this, because what you want to do is have preset conditions and an understanding of your flexibility and capabilities, and you'll be able to put a price tag on that.

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

That sounds prudent. I have guys who come to my door offering me such deals all the time.

What kinds of contracts and services are you contemplating to set up a hub, and do you have any sense of what kinds of dollar figures? Are these being budgeted for looking forward? Does this concept, in fact, have a budget figure attached to it?

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

We're at the front end of actually confirming what that will look like in terms of dollars, to be honest, in terms of managing. What you're really talking about is what it would take to manage those. The operating concept is that once we have the agreements in place, then based on our level of ambition or need we would put resources to them. We tend to spend money in relation to named operations; so we don't tend to spend money if there's nothing happening in areas. I would add that caveat to it: to my mind, this is not a hugely expensive option to put in place.

Also implied is the concept that once we have the agreements piece in place, we can exercise it by potentially taking advantage of things that are already in place. For instance, if we had a hub in a part of the world, we could exercise that by having a ship visit, which happens on a normal yearly cyclical basis, based on what we do. Just having a ship come alongside and do a level of activity and potentially activating some contracts we would have in place is an example. There could be small-unit exchange or military-to-military engagements. We have a number of joint exercises that we run internationally. What I'm really suggesting or have suggested is that if the intent is to mature this, we have to take advantage of the resources that are already within the department and in use to make sure we benefit from activities already in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. McKay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Kellway anticipated some of the questions I was interested in, and essentially it's the difference between a camp and a hub.

What would be the difference in the lease arrangements between a camp and a hub?

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

I'm not quite sure of the question.

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

Presumably both entities, the hub and a camp, would require some lease arrangement with the entity that owns the property, whether it's a sovereign government or somebody or something else. I'm assuming when you're setting up a camp—and you correct me if I'm wrong—it's a far more permanent arrangement than a hub is.

[MGen Mark McQuillan]

What we do in a hub is something that we can ramp up or down or is scalable. There are some basics. I talked about force projection, and I talked about sustainment, so that implies there are some things we would be looking for. For instance, we need to confirm warehouse capabilities in a nation and at a location we are at. Then you can go into conversations such as—this is where you have good military-to-military relations. Sometimes you don't have to pay for anything, but you have an agreement in place that says, “If I come and I need to do something, this is the range and scope of what I would need; are you willing to support?” It could be as simple as mutual logistic support arrangements with a host nation's military that allows you to exercise or....

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

So, in theory, could a hub just exist on paper, just as an arrangement between friendly militaries?