National Defence Committee on Dec. 6th, 2011

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Well, it means that as part of the Arctic offshore patrol ship program we will be increasing or improving upon the infrastructure in Nanisivik, and creating a refuelling capacity there to sustain operations in the Arctic.

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

The problem up in the Arctic is that it's rather “come as you are”. That is, if you don't have it in the bottom of the boat, it's not going to come for you. How does that affect the very large procurement process that you've engaged in? Are you in effect making all of your assets, if you will, Arctic-capable?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

The Arctic offshore patrol ship is designed to be able to operate in first-year ice, which is about three-foot thick. This gives that class of ship the ability to patrol in the high Arctic and not be limited by what the ice is doing in any particular navigable season.

Other ships—the joint support ship and the Canadian surface combatant, both programs that are being delivered through the national shipbuilding procurement strategy—will have an ability to operate in the Arctic, but in the marginal ice zones. Of course, the Victoria class submarine is well equipped to operate on the ice edge.

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

Are you becoming, in effect, far more dependent upon icebreakers?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

The ice-breaking capability in Canada is with the Canadian Coast Guard.

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

I know, and that's the issue.

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

My view is that as we move forward, the Arctic Ocean will become exactly that, the Arctic Ocean. The focus really needs to be, I think, upon operating in that blue water and in the green water, namely the archipelagic straits, and bays, etc.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We are moving into our five-minute round.

To kick us off, we have Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you for being here today.

As I've said before, I haven't served myself. My grandfather was in the navy in the 1950s. He served on the Athabasca and on the Skeena in the boiler room, among some other ships. He has the tattoos to prove it. I grew up admiring those and his service in the navy.

As a result of that, this summer I chose to participate in the Canadian Forces program for parliamentarians, and I was able to sail with Commander Jamie Tennant on HMCS Montreal. I would just say to my colleagues here that if you haven't done that yet, you need to take that opportunity. If you're lucky enough to get on the first leg of the Great Lakes deployment, as I was, you should choose that—the Halifax–Trois-Rivières segment.

I want to talk about that a little, and about the Great Lakes deployment, and Operation CONNECTION. Could you perhaps describe that operation, its goals, and the positive benefits you've seen as a result of it?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl, for the question.

Canada is unique in one respect, that one in every five and a half or six Canadians lives in the Greater Toronto Area. Yet, just because of history, we do not need to sustain a persistent naval presence in the Great Lakes. So, going back to Mr. Norlock's question about how we attract Canadians to the navy, we have something that I refer to as Maritime blindness in this country. Most Canadians just haven't had the opportunity to make that connection between their country, the quality of life they enjoy, and the relationship of that quality of life to the economy, and how the economy, as I said, floats.

The whole intent of the Great Lakes deployments every year is to bring the navy to Canadians the way we can do on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but which is a real challenge here in the heartland. The intent is that we take a frigate like the Montreal, which is well led by Commander Tennant, and we say to the crew, “You are ambassadors for the Canadian Forces first and for the navy second. This is an opportunity for you to go out over the next six weeks or so and visit these great communities”—the larger cities like Toronto, Hamilton, and Montreal, and the smaller places like Trois-Rivières, Matane, and Cornwall—“and to connect with Canadians.” It's an opportunity to connect with leaders across the corporate, academic, political, and philanthropic sectors to sort of deputize them and energize them along their lines of influence to bring the naval message to Canadians, but also to attract students, cadets, educators, their parents, and families on board to see and to hear the message of what the Canadian Navy does that really matters to Canadians.

Inevitably, what I see happening is that folks are initially really impressed by the technology—by this 5,000-tonne warship with a helicopter on the back. It very quickly arcs to their being impressed with the men and women who are standing there so enthusiastically telling them about what they do for Canada. For me, that's always a win. That translates into attraction. We actually measure that. People come on board and say, “I'm intrigued. I'm 21 years old, and I like what I'm seeing here. What choices are available for me?” We get that person's email address and give them some vectors towards a recruiting centre, or we follow up. We've been able to measure that these Great Lakes deployments every year have actually helped us on the recovery journey we're on in bringing the distressed trades back to health.

Next year, in 2012, of course, our Great Lakes deployment will also be aligned with the bicentennial celebrations around the War of 1812. It's another very powerful opportunity for the navy to be there in those communities, to be persistent with those messages, and, for example, to tell the story about Libya. It's a very powerful opportunity for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Ms. Moore, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to the issue of submarines. The four submarines that Canada acquired were used and cost $2.5 billion. That was $750 million for the purchase, $1 billion for refitting and $1 billion for relaunching. We have invested a lot, at least more than what we originally thought, and these are used submarines.

I would like to know their lifespan. When do you think they will have to be replaced?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you for the question, madam.

First of all, I would say that the submarines are excellent warships that have quite a complex system. They will last until 2030.

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

That's good.

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Around 2015, I will have to establish a program to replace those submarines so that we have new capacity and to replace the Victoria-class submarines in the 2030s.

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

You mentioned that those submarines could go up into the Arctic, but not at just any time. That's limited by the seasons. As none is permanently stationed in the Arctic, I would like to know whether there are currently any submarines that could remain permanently in the Arctic and not be required to come back to other coasts in winter.

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you, madam.

Our submarines have previously been deployed to Arctic waters on two occasions, in 2008 and 2009. Some countries have submarines that can carry on underwater operations in the Arctic.

These submarines are nuclear propelled, and this nuclear propulsion gives them the ability to remain submerged for a very extended period of time. But they are also submarines that are built, from a safety perspective, with the ability to surface through the ice in an emergency. There are only a few countries that have that capability, for instance the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

This is a very expensive capability to have. It is a very expensive capability to sustain. It requires very unique technical, operating, and maintenance skill sets within the fleet that we currently do not have. That technology does exist, but it is not planned for the Royal Canadian Navy.

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

Do you think the fact that we don't have the capability to be in the Arctic on a permanent basis undermines readiness? Does the fact that we are unable to cover the enormous Arctic coast as effectively as other countries undermine Canada's response capability?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

I would say that I'm very comfortable with the capability that our submarines have in operating in the Arctic in the marginal ice zone, that is, in the vicinity of the ice edge—which is where all the activity is occurring, including activity on the surface—in terms of surveillance, in terms of understanding what is happening in the Arctic, and being prepared to respond across the spectrum of operations whatever the contingency might be.

I think the Victoria class submarine is a very capable submarine that is now on the edge of achieving full operational capability. As these submarines work through their operating cycles, we are going to see them generating real effect—as they have already, but in a more persistent way—here at home, in the Arctic, and overseas.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Chisu, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Admiral, for your presentation.

Canada's navy is getting the equipment it needs to do its job. The latest decisions by our government were to increase the fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Regarding these contracts for the future, how will the Royal Canadian Navy members interact with the consultants and the contractors to build the right equipment and have right weapons with the right specifications?

I think it is very important for you to have input on the construction of this new fleet. How do you plan for this?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you very much, sir, for the question.

First of all, I would say that the national shipbuilding and procurement strategy is a real forcing function in helping to energize those programs with these major crown projects and capital programs that are coming forward. My responsibility, as commander of the navy, is to define the requirement, the capability, of the ships that are planned to be introduced into the order of battle. It is to recommend those requirements to the Chief of the Defence Staff, and through him, to the ministers.

The Canadian surface combatant, for example, is a class of ship that will be built in Halifax and will be the follow-on to the modernized Halifax class frigates, such as HMCS Montreal, and the replacement for the Iroquois class destroyers, which are approaching end of life.

My responsibility is to look at the future security environment. What's happening at sea today? What are the lessons from Libya and from recent operations in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Gulf? What are the trends in terms of the naval arms race in southeast Asia, and what's happening in the Arabian Gulf? Where do we think, in concert with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, that strategic national interests would really be affected in the future at sea? It includes looking at the Canadian Forces' defence strategy mission set, which includes, at the low end, humanitarian operations and at the high end, prevailing in combat. It includes looking at the threat and defining the requirement.

The requirement for the Canadian surface combatant is, first and foremost, that it be a ship that can deploy at range and can be sustained anywhere around the world, including up in the Arctic, for a sustained period of time. It must have the ability to act decisively and successfully in the increasingly complex and sophisticated operating environment in the world's littorals, such as off Libya, where we need to work with air forces and, in the future, land forces. That requires certain weapons, certain self-defence capabilities, and certain propulsion capabilities in terms of speed. It requires certain fuel and endurance capabilities. It requires habitability on board and accommodation for a certain number of sailors such that we have the redundancy on board to deal with battle damage and emergency situations.

All of that is put together into a statement of requirement. That moves forward to industry. What we are doing now with the Canadian surface combatant is going to what we call a funded-definition phase. Industry will be brought together to look at the requirement and build teams that will bid on the eventual contract for the ship. The teams will consist of the yard on the east coast, which in this case will be Irving Shipbuilding; a combat systems integrator, which is a company that brings the weapons and sensors together; a platform systems integrator, which is the marine systems side of the house, dealing with power generation, electrical power distribution, auxiliary engineering systems, etc.; and a design agent, which is a company that specializes in designing very complex, dense warships.

This consortium will come together to look at the statement of requirement and, of course, at affordability in terms of the money that has been allotted in the investment plan for the Canadian surface combatant. At the end of the day, a selection process will occur. Of course, there's dialogue with the department throughout in terms of capability and the cost trade-offs. At the end of the day, the right platform with the right capability at the right price will go into the yard for the first steel to be cut. The Canadian surface combatant will be out around 2018.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired; I'm sorry.

Moving along, Mr. Kellway, it's your turn.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, thank you for coming today, Vice-Admiral.

We actually met on the Montreal when you passed through Toronto last summer. I came down to get a sense of the frigate, because I was due the next week to head out on the Ville de Québec in the parliamentary program Mr. Strahl talked about.

This is a job that comes with very many privileges, but I have to say the greatest I've experienced so far was my time aboard the Ville de Québec with the sailors there. They were all so obliging and answered all of my dumb questions so cheerfully. In fact, they insisted on showing me and my colleague, MP John Rafferty, every square inch of that frigate, so that we understood exactly what it was that was going on there and what everybody did. So it was a wonderful experience, and I have great memories of my time with our sailors aboard the Ville de Québec.

When we were on the Montreal together—and you touched on this again today—you spoke about the global economy and how it floats. I think in the summer you elaborated a little more on the role of the navy in ensuring that the global economy kept moving. When you look at our resources in the Canadian navy, looking forward and contemplating even the new equipment, what's the view as to the deployment of these resources? What percentage or portion of those resources are going to be committed to activities that are all about ensuring that the global economy keeps moving? You talked on the Montreal about some pressure points around the world. Is the plan maybe to participate in some multilateral or cooperative ventures to ensure that some of those pressure points are kept open?