National Defence Committee on Dec. 6th, 2011

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

Thank you.

What is the minimum number of warships that Canada must keep? What is the lower limit?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

That's a good question.

I would answer that we have enough. However, Canada is a large maritime country that has a very large coastline.

I would say that we need to maintain the current fleet mix of 3 destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 submarines, 2 underway replenishment ships, 6 Arctic offshore patrol ships, and 12 minor coastal defence vessels. That number of ships is the right size for Canada. I would be uncomfortable going below that, because it would affect my ability to have a persistent presence and surveillance on the coasts.

Merci, madam.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Can I get a clarification? You talked about the number of vessels. How does that compare with, say, Australia?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

It compares very well, sir. It's very comparable. It's very interesting to compare Australia and Canada as what we would call a medium power navy, with our similar populations and resources assigned by government and the same sort of national interests. They are much more seized by what's happening in southeast Asia currently, because of geography, than perhaps we are. We are going through a similar type of recapitalization, so there are real parallels.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McKay, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Like Mr. Strahl and Mr. Kellway, I too was on a boat this summer, the St. John's. I quite enjoyed the experience and was exceedingly impressed by the quality of the crew. They were very thoughtful people and they too showed me, as in Mr. Kellway's case, pretty well every square inch of the place. I thought they were going over the edge when we got into the stores. One freezer, fine; two freezers, okay; but—

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

They love their job. They love what they do.

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

They do indeed, and they're very proud of what they do. And from what I could see, they do it very well—although I felt sorry for the captain, because pretty well anything that could go wrong did go wrong, and that was all part of the experience.

The chair anticipated my question regarding the conversations I had on the ship about the frustrations about personnel and trying to.... So I won't go there, because I thought you gave a good answer to the chair.

There's an article in this morning's paper about charting, saying that the Soviets have far superior charts of the Arctic than we do. From what little I know about sailing, you live and die by your charts. Apparently in the Arctic we had three groundings, or some sort of accident, over the course of the summer, which arguably could be blamed on the inadequacy of our charts, both at surface and I guess at depth. The article says it would take us 300 years to catch up in hydrological charting and that there may be a buying opportunity from the Soviets with respect to the quality of the charts.

I'd be interested in your views with respect to the quality of our charting knowledge in the Arctic.

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you, sir. That's a really good question.

I haven't read the article you referred to; I wish I had.

I would say that the Russians certainly have put considerable effort over several decades into their Arctic capability, obviously including their hydrographic services.

When I talk to my captains and navigators, they share your concern. There are areas in the Canadian Arctic archipelago where charts are not to the standard, or areas that have not been explored recently, so there are challenges. When our folks deploy, this plays very much into the captain's risk reduction calculations concerning where he is going, at what speed, and under what conditions.

I agree with you that there needs to be a greater effort here in future, as the Arctic opens to greater human activity, to see surveying move forward to a much better level.

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

Whose responsibility is this? Is it a civil or a military responsibility to obtain that kind of information?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

It is a civil responsibility, but of course we rely heavily on those charts.

Your question about access to Russian charts is a very good one. I recently had the opportunity to meet the commander of the Russian navy at the International Seapower Symposium in Rhode Island—which, by the way, was the largest gathering of heads of navy in history. There were 90 heads of navy. It was a very powerful meeting. I had an opportunity for a bilateral meeting with the head of the Russian navy, Admiral Vysotsky.

So I thank you for your point, because I will raise it, hopefully, when I visit Russia in 2012.

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

Now that we're still talking to them, that's probably a good time to raise it.

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I was on the icebreaker Amundsen, a coast guard vessel, in the Hudson Bay a couple of years ago, and they were doing mapping of the seabed at that point in time. I know that every year they're trying to bite off another part of the Arctic and to do as much mapping as they possibly can with new technology. It's good to know that they're out there, but there's a lot of water up there, a big amount of space that needs to be charted already.

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Yes, sir, I agree with you that the whole-of-government capacity that we have is being applied to full effect here. It's just a matter of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you, Vice-Admiral.

When I was on the Montreal for those few days, there were some army and air force personnel on the ship as well. As we've done our study on readiness, we've heard about the improved relationship between the army and the RCAF.

I'm wondering if you can talk a bit about your interaction with the Canadian army and the RCAF. What do you do in terms of joint training? And has that relationship perhaps changed at all over the last five years so that you are capable of conducting joint exercises? How do you interact with the other parts of the Canadian forces?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you, sir. That's an excellent question.

The relationship between the heads of service is extremely positive right now and it has been for several years. From a joint perspective, the Canadian navy and the Canadian air force have been operating together for decades. Ever since we in Canada perfected the technology necessary to embark Sea King helicopter detachments and fly them off ships in sea-state 5 conditions, and to be really integrated into our ships' companies as an integral combat system in that ship, we've had that very close joint relationship with the air force.

In Afghanistan—where we had an air-land campaign in that landlocked nation—I still generated 50, 60, 70 sailors for every rotation, sailors who were there in Afghanistan on the ground, dressed in CADPATs and looking very much like soldiers. They were clearance divers who were outside the wire playing a key role in the counter-IED mission. They were junior officers in the intelligence joint operations centre in Kandahar. They were supply technicians. They were cooks. And so we were there. In fact, today I have a commodore, three captains, a chief petty officer, and about 40 sailors all part of the training mission in Afghanistan. So there you see that joint and integrated culture moving forward.

From a land and navy perspective, how we operate together is a bit of a challenge. General Devlin and I talk about this frequently. We saw it clearly in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti, where we saw our ships operating off the coast of Leogane and Jacmel. We were going ashore to do good in support of the Haitians who were suffering, and we were working alongside soldiers and airmen and airwomen there and actually bringing the soldiers back to the ships for some respite and then taking them back into the mission ashore.

General Devlin and I, and General Deschamps, are working together on how to increase our interoperability and integration from a platform at sea. When we deploy next into the Caribbean, for example, I will invite an army sub-element or a small platoon or section to come on board and to work with my team, our sailors, and to go ashore in some of our partner nations in the Caribbean and work there.

We also are working very closely together with special operations forces and our well-trained naval boarding parties to take it to the next level in our capability, which is the ability to engage, from the sea, a vessel that is non-cooperative. For example, this could be a vessel that might be involved in a terror-type mission, involving hostage-taking, or in a piracy-type mission. There are a whole number of means by which we are pushing that joint and integrated capacity forward.

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

Thank you very much.

I just would like to return for a moment to the Arctic. We know that we have friends, we have foes, and we have the usual suspects. We also have the Chinese, who are emerging as a naval power and, personally, I'm concerned. From my background, I am concerned about the Chinese and I don't trust them in the military sense.

Are you planning more exercises in the Arctic or training exercises with, let's say, friends or allies in NATO? We had the incident with Hans Island. I'm just asking if the Royal Canadian Navy is concentrating on doing some more exercises in the Arctic?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Well certainly, sir, we exercise in the Arctic every year, and this is led by the commander of Canada Command. My responsibility is to train and generate ships and sailors to participate in that exercise, and each year, hopefully, to make it incrementally more challenging and to introduce more capability and knowledge and to identify new lessons that need to be applied. I continue to see the Arctic area as a great opportunity to be a forcing function for international dialogue, cooperation, and partnership.

To go to your question about China, I share your concern. Here is a country that is clearly emerging as a very influential world power, which has every right to bring a very capable blue-water navy into being, like Canada and our allies. The key will be to see how China employs its navy as it moves from a more coastal to a globally deployable capability, and to ensure that its intent is always to enable the system of the world as opposed to complicating it.

In my view, the key here is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and ensuring that all who use the sea respect this treaty, this very powerful convention, and that when nations act against the way that we have all agreed it should be followed, that we be prepared to stand up alongside one another and make sure everyone gets the right message and is encouraged to be part of the international community.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Vice-Admiral Maddison, Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Laurendeau, I want to thank both of you for your participation today in our hearings on readiness. These are exciting times for our Royal Canadian Navy. Again, please pass on our congratulations and appreciation to all members of the Royal Canadian Navy, the sailors and the officers, for such a great job in Libya and the great job they're doing every day, day in and day out, across this great expanse we call Canada, the country we love so much.

With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

It is so moved.

The meeting is adjourned.