National Defence Committee on Nov. 29th, 2011

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

The drawdown speaks to the issue of the coast guard looking at its centres. It's a question you're going to have to present to the coast guard and pose to them.

I would come back and tell you that as we mentioned here earlier, as we move ahead in time what we are finding is that we can get to where we need to much quicker, given that more and more vessels and vehicles are carrying beacons. So we're confident that where we are located we can provide the support that's needed.

From a drawdown perspective from the Canadian Forces, as I mentioned, I haven't been advised of any drawdown when it comes to search and rescue, to reducing the resources. We've been told to continue to provide that support to Canadians in the future.

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

Thank you for that clarification.

The opening up of the Arctic presents the government with quite a dilemma. You rightly say that any impact in the north is a long-lasting impact. Yet you want to assert sovereignty. You also want to assert your ability to defend. You also want to assert your ability to do search and rescue. When you look at the coastline, particularly the east coast, but also the west coast, it seems to me that the utility of drones becomes a bit more obvious.

I'd be interested in your comments on the utility of drones.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

First, to provide a little bit more context, if you take a look at the entire spectrum of what we need to do, it covers from safety and security into defence.

Most of our effort right now is focused on that safety side, and that's supporting other government departments and agencies, being it a fuel spill or the like. For example, in Operation Nanook, in 2010, we worked with the coast guard on the scenario that was focused on oil spills. So there are many different scenarios that could happen across the north. That's what we're trying to do to ensure that we provide that same support in the north that we do in the south.

When it comes to drones, one way to have better situational awareness is through UAVs, or through drones. We did actually bring a drone up to the last Nanook--the Nanook 12. We brought a drone up to Nanook 12. I was there. Actually, I watched it being launched. It was used to provide reconnaissance--iceberg reconnaissance, some reconnaissance out in the areas. We found it to be very useful and beneficial to what we needed to do. Given the broad expanse of the area, given that, as some would say, 40% of Canada's terrain is actually in the north, many people have never stepped on much of it.

So drones, UAVs, could provide a good capability to support our different requirements. It's something we are looking at as we move ahead, as perhaps a capability that could better support us in the north.

As you look at this issue on UAVs, the challenge, I would throw back to the committee, is that there are certain laws and regulations that bind the use of UAVs within a civilian construct. So when using them within a city, there are clear laws that have to be respected. In the north there have to be as well. But given population expanse, with very few people, they do and have provided us with some real benefit in the north, as we saw in--

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

Just out of curiosity, what are the legal constraints on the utility of drones?

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

The legal constraint is the issue of gathering information that may have been used in the case of a crime. So we're working with the RCMP to ensure that perhaps as we do this we try not to gather that information, which we're not, but if somehow we stumble into it we have the right mechanisms in place to be able to get that information where it needs to go.

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

You're concerned about the expansion of a footprint, and yet you're still concerned about the necessity of not only surveillance but also situational readiness, etc. The more boats and ships, etc., that start going up there, the more you're going, almost inevitably, to be there.

What is the military's thinking in terms of actually opening up a modified base, or working with other authorities to have a presence? It seems to me you should be well north of St. John's. St. John's is a long way from Baffin Island.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Again to provide a framework, the first is that we actually have a headquarters in Yellowknife. It is one of the regional joint task forces commanded by a general, and he's responsible for that big area and responsible to maintain good and effective relationships with his territorial counterparts across the north. The Department of Public Safety is in Yellowknife as well, so there actually is a framework in place, and the RCMP and others.

Building on that, in the last number of years we have actually put a detachment in Whitehorse and a detachment in Iqaluit to build on an even deeper relationship. As you may be aware, the government did announce that we are building a northern Arctic training centre in Resolute, which is moving ahead. We actually used it last summer as part of operation Nanook. Resolute is very far north. If you look at Resolute, I believe you'll see that it's the second most northern community in the world, the most northern being Grise Fiord.

We are already very north. We're there throughout those busy periods, as is the government; it's not just the military. If you go into Resolute, NRCan and other federal departments and agencies are there and are ready. We're one of a number. We actually have this centre built. It will be fully completed by the end of this year. It will have—and already has, in part—the capacity to put 200 to 300 soldiers in place with communications. If you take a look at the Resolute landing strip airport, you'll see it can accept C-17s—we had them there last year—Hercules aircraft, the J models, and helicopters we brought up. We already have that node, that far northern node, developed and ready to be used if needed in whatever scenario were to arise.

As we saw last year, we were there during the tragic event up in Resolute with the crash, again because we were up there training at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We're going to go to our five-minute round now, with Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General, thank you. It's good to see you again. Welcome.

General, what were some of the precipitating circumstances that led to the creation of Canada Command? In essence, why was it deemed important to have a centralized command structure?

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

I will answer the second question first.

As we note in Canada Command—and I think it very much drives home the point of the question—what you have is individuals, men and women in uniform, who come to work every day not just in Ottawa but across the country in regional headquarters, focused on one thing: Canada. The view was that perhaps it was time the military had an organization that was focused on the home game, focused on Canada, focused on providing effective support to all of the civilians in different federal, territorial, and provincial departments across Canada, and to be prepared to be there if needed, given the changing nature of what happened after 9/11 and in different areas. Bringing it together has proven to be very effective. Again, as I state, you have individuals who come to work every day doing one thing, focused on Canada.

For example, if I may, we have morning update briefings, and they are focused first on weather in Canada, what's happened across Canada from an incident point of view on the civilian side, train derailments and the like, any search and rescue, ongoing operations. What we have right now, for example, is Operation Palaci at Rogers Pass. We have artillery guns that are there supporting Parks Canada to ensure that goods and services can continue to move through Rogers Pass, which supports the movement of goods and services across the country. Canada Command was put into place for that real reason, to have Canada focused as a theatre, an area where people came to work every day and focused on it, so when the call came, we were there as quickly as we could be because we had good situational awareness and we had contingency plans ready to put into place.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just focusing on the reserves for a second, how integrated can they be? We've been through the ice storm, floods, and so forth. I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on the integration of the reserves, especially with lessons learned from deployments to Afghanistan, and how much more closely now regular forces and reserve soldiers are aligned and how they fit in overall with the plan today and in your plan for the future.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

It's an interesting comment. What we find with our men and women in uniform is that when they're at home supporting this home game, you'll find their morale is very high, as it is on any mission around the world, but they're very happy to be supporting Canadians. They really do love that.

In particular, if I take a look at Hurricane Igor, which was supporting Newfoundland and Labrador during the most recent cases of tragedies that happened there last year, many of the elements of that organization were from the reserves, so we could very quickly mobilize and bring reservists into those areas, in large part because they're already there. By having reservists across the country--as many call it, the footprint of the Canadian Forces--it allows us to get men and women in uniform on the ground where we need them very quickly. Hurricane Igor in Newfoundland and Labrador was a good example.

Another example was in Manitoba during the most recent floods, where we pushed a reserve company in very quickly to support that situation. We also have domestic response company groups. These are reserve companies that are ready to go to be able to support any type of activity. It's all part of a framework that, if needed, we can call on them, as we've seen in Operation Igor or throughout the summer and the spring in Manitoba in the flooding.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Great.

I have a particular interest in maintaining military education in a lot of various facets. You were just leaving CFC when I came to work there as a planner. So from your perspective, because you've been on Capstone, you've been on Warfighter, and the NATO general officers course, and of course you are a graduate of CFC and then commandant of CFC, how has that impacted your ability to do what you're doing today and what you've done in the past? And what do you see as the future for military education in terms of developing people like you and other officers in specific roles?

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

The first one speaks to the strength of the military education training system, which is focused on producing individuals, men and women in uniform, who in the end can think on the spot. That's what we're moving towards. Where we're moving towards and where we have moved is that, clearly, education has become very important. Why? Because with education we can take our men and women in uniform, as we've seen in Afghanistan, put them in the most complex and difficult situations, and they can come up with solutions that work.

That speaks also to the second component, which is working with other federal departments, other whole-of-government departments, which we call in some cases a combined or whole-of-government approach. Also, in Canada that's important. Education and training very much touched on much of that, how to work first, who are the different federal, provincial, territorial, municipal partners, how do we work together, what do we need to do to work together? For example, they do have a course that's conducted in the spring every year at the Canadian Forces College where we bring in all different individuals from federal departments and agencies and provinces and territories for two weeks to talk about these types of issues. Also, on our training we invite representatives from different federal departments and agencies in the provinces and different organizations, be it the OPP and others, to actually come and join.

It speaks to the training being focused in part on this issue of a whole-of-government approach, which is what I would throw out to the committee, that this will be demanded and needed more in the future. Why? There is no one department, federal agency, territorial-provincial agency, or municipal agency that has all the authorities, mandates, or capabilities to deal with any of these issues. They need to all come together very much in a coordinated and combined effort, quickly, to be able to do it.

What helps us here federally is the emergency response management committee, which comes together to be able to discuss these issues. They'll look at them, what's happening. For example, prior to the flooding in Manitoba, we'd already sat down as a committee with 36 different agencies and departments to talk about what was upcoming, the flooding. What are we going to do? How are we prepared? So we talked through what we would need to do in those cases. We very much focused on the education, and focused on what is working with whole-of-government and other government departments in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Kellway.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, General, for coming to talk to us today. I'm thrilled to hear more about Canada Command.

To date, my questions of other witnesses have really focused on the role of projecting leadership abroad. The gist of the question, in this context of readiness, is this how do you get ready or ensure that you're ready for such an ill-defined role?

What's interesting in what you have told us today is that you have really focused my attention on the enormous breadth of tasks Canada Command has to take on here at home. In that context, you defined the mission here at home as a no-fail mission, which I appreciate. It's an absolute standard. I wouldn't expect any other standard. But I wonder how you ensure here at home that it's a no-fail mission. That's broadly the question. More pointedly, within military command, given that this one's described or defined as a no-fail mission, and in light of finite resources for defence, is there a way for priority to be given to the no-fail mission here at home?

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Thank you for the question.

First, when you look at how to be ready, there are two aspects. The first is to have what we call situation awareness: knowing what's going on across Canada. What that speaks to is a need to have relationships and to be connected with the provinces, territories, and municipalities.

As was mentioned here already, we have our commanders in each of the geographical areas. We're mandated to maintain those relationships. They keep in close contact with the provinces, territories, and municipalities. They push that information up. And whatever information we have, we push down. So we actually have a command that has a common operating picture, or situation awareness, of what is going on across the country.

At the same time, to be prepared to deploy forces, if needed, you need forces on standby. I have a chart, if the committee would like to see it or would like to have it, that lays out exactly what we have ready to go. We touched on it in the speech. If something were to happen, what we would have ready to go, for example, as stated, would be the immediate reaction units, which are men and women from the land forces, which we could put anywhere across the country, if needed. We have ships on each coast ready to go. We have aircraft ready to go. As we saw with the forest fires throughout the summer, we can push aircraft where it is needed once we have a request from the province. In this case, it was from Ontario.

First, we have that awareness. Second, we have the forces on standby, ready to go, which has ensured that if needed, within 24 hours, we can put forces where we need to across the country if asked to by the provinces and territories.

There is also that second layer, which is whether this is where the federal government wants to go. The federal government, in the end, will turn to the Canadian Forces and the minister and say that this is what we want you to do as part of that issue.

On the second issue, which is very much discussed in other contexts as an either/or discussion, there is no either/or. You will find, as you go into this matter from a Canada Command perspective, that a lot of resources are needed or used by Canada Command to achieve its mission, if you look at the numbers. Last year 6,421 personnel were deployed across all of our operations, and days deployed were entered at 65. But in a broader context, it actually is pretty small.

When you take a look at it, it's very much a whole-of-government approach. For example, if something were to happen across the country, the municipalities would be the first responders. They would provide capability. After that, the province or the territory would come in and do what it needs to do. The federal government might then put in other responders before it came to the military. Clearly, when you look at the numbers, the numbers aren't huge, and the percentage of the commitment by Canada Command isn't huge, which is why it's never been an either/or discussion.

I would throw out to you that whenever I've asked for or needed capability, I've always had it within the time I've needed it. There has never been a case when I was not provided or my team wasn't provided with what was needed to support Canadians.

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

Thank you for that.

On the issue of forces on standby and being ready to go, there has been some press about the departmental performance report that suggested that Afghanistan has taken the middle ranks of the military forces away from the home game. Is that affecting Canada Command at all?

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Well, I—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The time has expired, General, so if you could have—

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I was only aware of what you raised when I read it in the paper as well. What I can tell you from the Canada Command perspective is that I haven't seen it. We've always had the troops we needed. Even if there are middle-level individuals, they're always there when we need to be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Chisu, you have the floor.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, General, for your presentation.

I understand that Canada Command conducts operations to deter, prevent, pre-empt, and defeat threats of aggression aimed at Canada within its area of responsibility, so I will focus a little bit on the terrorist activities.

In your opinion, how ready to respond is Canada Command if there were to be a major terrorist attack on Canadian soil? What would be the process to respond, and how quickly? I'm asking about the quickness because we saw, ten years ago in the attack on the twin towers, that our friends in the south were absolutely not prepared, and the response time for the air force was something that was not in the books.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

When it comes to the issue of terrorism within Canada, that's clearly the responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Public Safety working together, so it's a question you'd want to pose to them in detail about how ready they are.

From a military perspective, we do provide support to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on an ongoing basis. That wouldn't change; whatever is required would be provided immediately within this context or framework. All of these assets would be brought together and provided—be it naval, air, or land assets—in any type of support.

When you look at what Canada Command is expected to do, it's across a broad spectrum. It's not just about terrorism. All of these capabilities can be used all the way from an oil spill, for example, to any other type of activity, and we would provide the same level and capability in exactly the same response time: we would be there immediately.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

In the same context, for the effects of unconventional methods of warfare—for example, bio-weapons, nuclear arms, IEDs, and cyber warfare—is there any specialized training Canada Command provides to respond to these new threats?

The effects of these new types of threats and terrorism are not the same as fire, or something that you know in time. These effects can be devastating, so I think that our readiness for them should be much greater and much quicker.