National Defence Committee on Nov. 18th, 2014

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding our current fleet, we can say that

about half are dry-docked right now. Is that correct?

What would be a typical scenario? Would it be about 5 dry docks for 30 vessels?

Could you please give a quick answer?

[VAdm Mark Norman]

Our system is based on the idea that surface vessels have a readiness period of five years. For submarines, the readiness period is....

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

I just want a ballpark figure.

[VAdm Mark Norman]

We are talking about a six-year period.

With a five-year period, every vessel must go through a graving dock or a shipyard once every five years. That's typical. In a fleet of 12 frigates, for instance, it is normal for a quarter of them to be in a shipyard or at....

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

So it is about 5 out of 30, or a little more.

[VAdm Mark Norman]

It is about a quarter.

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

So we cannot currently say that our fleet is operational, even if you compensate in terms of training. The Arctic is currently melting. We know that maritime space is expanding and, as you yourself said, the current scenario is based on the situation from 50 years ago.

I am having trouble understanding, even if we take new technologies into account. How can you say that we are currently ready, even with the new technologies?

Perhaps you could help me understand something. If we need new vessels with new technologies, it is because a need currently exists. How can we compensate now, given that the maritime space is much larger than it was 50 years ago and that it will certainly grow even larger 50 years from now? We all know that the Arctic continues to melt. What can be done to compensate? Should subcontractors be used? Should we work with the Americans?

You talked a lot about training. Beyond that, what are you doing to be ready in terms of your naval capabilities? What are you doing to compensate in that area? You currently do not have a full fleet; you have only half a fleet.

[VAdm Mark Norman]

I can try to explain by telling you about the difference between individual competencies and the competencies of a navy crew, instead of explaining the full capacity of a marine fleet.

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

Before you explain that, I would like to share my concern about the water extent and our presence, as we have no aircraft and have very few vessels. I understand the issue of technological competence, but we are replacing our fleet because its technology has not been updated.

[VAdm Mark Norman]

The issues you described are based on the idea of fleet size and capacity. It is inevitable that frigates would make up over half of the fleet, but there is more to the fleet than just frigates. The smaller offshore patrol ships are very important to our current operations because they provide us with a capacity....

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

A larger capacity?

[VAdm Mark Norman]

Exactly. We have to find effective ways to deploy as many vessels as possible.

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

Of course, given the limited number of vessels we have, their use

is somewhat overextended.

So that affects those vessels' wear and tear.

I am asking you again what we can do to compensate for that. The few vessels we have are currently overused. They are also already old. You are overusing them because there aren't enough vessels. So we end up with foreign ships that ensure support, like the American vessels, but at what cost?

The other issue is that cuts have been made in your department. There is no allowance for new vessels. Cuts have also been made to civilian positions providing logistical support. So I am having some trouble seeing anything positive in this situation.

[VAdm Mark Norman]

One way to address the issue is to use more effective caps. That is why we use frigates instead of destroyers, as well as small offshore patrol ships instead of frigates. They are more efficient, simpler to repair, and their daily maintenance is less expensive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Admiral, that's time.

Mr. Preston, please.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you for allowing me here today. Mr. Williamson has told me he's got urgent things he'd like to do, so I'll give my time to him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Mr. Williamson.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you.

The Royal Canadian Navy has indicated it is in the midst of its most intensive and comprehensive period of recapitalization in peacetime history, touching on all elements of the fleet.

Can you tell us the last time our navy or any element of the forces for that matter engaged in such investments in its capabilities?

[VAdm Mark Norman]

Based on the historical work we have done from the navy's perspective specifically, my understanding is we have not seen the degree of recapitalization in terms of its broad impact on the fleet since the Korean War. We have replaced one class over a relatively short period of time on a cyclical basis. As a result we've had these boom and bust cycles.

We have not engaged in such a widespread recapitalization since that time. The modernized Halifax class is a new class of ship, notwithstanding the fact that it's the recapitalization of an existing capability. At the same time we brought the submarines to their operational state and are now looking at the introduction of three new classes of ship at the same time that we're going to deliver a number of these other major projects that I referred to in the response to Ms. Murray's question around missile systems: underwater warfare systems; tugs, which are not exciting but are important; boats; and a whole bunch of other things that are all happening over a relatively short period of time. This is why when I speak to the sailors in the fleet I talk about two decades of continuous transition. In non-wartime we've never seen anything like this.

This is why it's so important that we work out not just the acquisition part of it, which is challenging in itself, but what I call the back end of the business because we can't continue to do business the same way. In order to make maximum use of these huge investments by the taxpayers we've got to sort out some things that we're doing on the back end, which speaks to the CRS report, which speaks to a whole bunch of other things that we're openly attacking.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

That's a very good answer, particularly your concern for how we're going to pay for this.

You and I spoke to one another just before the start of this meeting and you mentioned Saint John Shipbuilding— at one time it was located in the port—and the boom and the bust; the cost to the government to ramp up shipbuilding in the 1980s and then ramp it down. The company at the time said they were done. There is the cost to ramp it up and of course there is the cost to ramp it down. Can you talk about that a little more because that's important?

As a government I do want to press the navy and the forces as well as other departments to get value for taxpayers at the end of the day. The idea that there won't be that oversight I think is perhaps lost on the opposition in committee and to me it's important. When I see how procurement has been done in the past on shipbuilding in particular, my view is doing it this way is the right way to do it. Over 25 years, it's a generation of work, and we hopefully will avoid that boom and bust.

Could you talk a little more about that because I think it's a very good point?

[VAdm Mark Norman]

I think the way I'd like to tackle this is to first off say that, as it relates to the economic benefits and industrial policy, there are people far more qualified to speak to that. I would invite your committee...just don't tell them that I said you should invite them.

I would say from the perspective of somebody who was part of the commissioning crew of the first ship, I spent 18 months plus scattered over my career in Saint John, New Brunswick, delivering that ship, to the guy who has the great fortune and honour of sitting here as the head of the institution looking ahead 20 years, that I think one of the things we have to recognize is that there is an enormous advantage to predictability in planning and it's not just the fiscal predictability associated with planning, but it's also what I would characterize as capability insertion. When you look at some of the most successful shipbuilding programs around the world they are constantly updating the productivity of their yard. They are constantly evolving the specific capabilities that they have in certain classes of ship and they're tweaking their designs and they're on the leading edge almost on a decade-by-decade basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, we have reached time for that slot, Admiral. You can come back to this if you wish. I'm going to take the final slot in this round. You spoke in your opening remarks, Admiral, of your determination to maintain the navy's “ready aye ready” status. I personally would like to, and I suspect it's on behalf of all members of this committee, commend the personnel of the HMCS Toronto who on shore leave in Turkey intervened, took time off to save lives, and in fact fight and quench a serious fire. To me that suggests a reflection of the training both in capabilities and leadership, but I seek your thoughts on this event.

[VAdm Mark Norman]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly I don't think you'll find anybody who's prouder of those sailors and airmen than I am. The brand of “ready aye ready” is a powerful statement. It speaks to who we are as an institution. We're increasingly using it as a rallying cry for our sailors recognizing that ultimately that's what we're there to be. We're there to be ready for Canada no matter what. The translation is equally powerful.

In French, we say the following: “Toujours prêts, toujours là”.

It speaks equally to the essence of who we are as a navy. I'd like to ask maybe the chief to speak to some of the cultural aspects of where the chair's coming from, from a grassroots deckplate leadership perspective.

[Chief Petty Officer, 1st Class Tom Riefesel, Command Chief Petty Officer, Royal Canadian Navy, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, “ready aye ready”, as the admiral said, is part of what we are. That translates across every generation of today's current navy. From those of us with more past than future and our responsibility to those of our junior members who have more future than past, particularly at this critical time where we are transitioning to the future fleet, this period truly energizes all our sailors, all our officers, our workforce who put us to sea, and our families who put us to sea. It's examples like that of sailors knowing what right looks like and being prepared to take the right steps to ensure that others know what right looks like and what those right reactions are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you.

Admiral, again coming back to your opening remarks and given that tomorrow's navy is going to be much more active in the Canadian Arctic than it has ever been in its historic past, you spoke of crewing models and mentioned the Canadian Coast Guard. The testimony that we've heard, evidence that we've heard, during our continuing study of the defence of North America talks more and more about interoperability between the coast guard and the Royal Canadian Navy, and other elements of the Canadian Forces. Were you hinting perhaps of days ahead where RCN members would be regularly stationed aboard coast guard vessels?