National Defence Committee on Feb. 28th, 2019

[Jody Thomas]

General Wynnyk would love to.

[LGen Paul Wynnyk]

If I may, I'll give you two examples.

The first one certainly wasn't obvious to us, but when we conduct operations now both domestically and internationally, GBA+ is actually part of the operational planning process.

A good practical example close to home is that of the floods we had in Gatineau recently. You're well aware of the magnitude of the flooding and the number of troops we needed. We had to be very selective in where we deployed troops.

In the Gatineau region, by applying a GBA+ lens—and we compared this afterwards—we deployed the troops to help people in areas where we probably wouldn't have done so if we hadn't done that assessment. We think we were more effective because of it. That's a practical application of applying it.

In terms of procurement, for every project now that we go through the program management board, there's a GBA+ assessment of things. Take, for example, ejection seats in fighter planes based on the average weight of pilots. We have to take into account the fact that it's a little less than than it used to be. It seems obvious, but we hadn't been doing this in the past.

For everything—trigger pull weight, how clothing is designed—I can assure you that in every project we do, because these fall under my...there is a GBA+ assessment: have you looked at this and what have you found out? Some of the things would seem obvious, but we've overlooked them in the past.

[Julie Dzerowicz]

I have one question on cybersecurity, and then I'm going to give the two minutes left to our chair.

On cybersecurity I think we're spending $2.7 million. I think that's in the supplementary estimates; I'm assuming we're spending more overall.

How do we evaluate how much we spend and whether the funding is enough? How do we know it's enough? Cybersecurity matters. Wherever in the world we go, it's a huge issue, and everybody talks about its priority.

[Shelly Bruce]

Thanks. That's a very interesting question.

The government has invested over the past several years in CSE specifically around cybersecurity. Our mission has been bolstered over the past few years, with $155 million last year, into designing the cyber centre and setting it up. We've been able to pull together cybersecurity operational expertise from other departments and bring it together.

Much of it is about consolidating this and making sure it's operating under one roof so that we can get the efficiencies and the effectiveness of having a singular space for consistent advice and guidance not just to Canadians but to small and medium enterprises as well as to owners and operators of critical infrastructure.

There has been some work, then, to pull things together in that space. We have a broad base of online programs, whether for training or all the way through to our social media platforms, to make sure we can use cost-effective ways to get information out to Canadians through our Get Cyber Safe program and through our regular programs.

It's very difficult to measure impact in this space.

[Julie Dzerowicz]

Okay, I appreciate that.

The rest of the time is over to you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

My question is for Pat Finn. There's a lot of discussion about the Australian aircraft that are arriving in Canada, and there's a rumour going around that we're sending the engines back. I'm pretty sure that's not the case, but I wanted to ask you directly whether it is the case and we're unaware of it.

[Patrick Finn]

We are in fact sending the engines back—that model of engine. We have sufficient spare engines, so we dropped the engines, put the aircraft in for paint, and we're using our spare engines to re-engine the aircraft.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I know that seven are spares and 18 aircraft will be flown. Out of the 25 aircraft, how many engines are going back to Australia?

[Patrick Finn]

We're still looking at whether or not we actually take the seven at this point. What we're finding is that the number of spares they've been able to provide to us is more than adequate. Rather than take aircraft apart and go through that cost, we're taking the spares. We may not in fact, at this point, look at any of the seven.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

And the 18...?

[Patrick Finn]

Of the 18, we will return all the engines, again because of the kind of the model or the nature of them. It's the same thing we're doing with ejection seats and ANVIS lighting and targeting pods. We're trying to create exactly the same aircraft, so that pilots, maintainers—everybody—has the exact same airplane. We had a significant number of spares because of the original fleet and what was existing.

That's the approach we're taking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

The $90 million, then, was for the 25 aircraft minus the engines, and then we start to add up paint, ANVIS lighting and seats and get to the numbers we're familiar with.

My other question is this. I know there hasn't been a significant combat capability upgrade of the aircraft for a number of years and that there is some work being done.

Can you comment at all on what you guys are looking at for a combat capability upgrade until we receive our new aircraft?

[Patrick Finn]

Mr. Chair, to your previous statement, the overall acquisition, as we have said at this committee, is about 360. I just want to be clear that the 90 is about the aircraft and the spares. There are other things we're doing. Some of the soft work, sensors and things like we're doing, are all encompassed in there.

We have a road map that we're looking at, such as the immediate upgrades I just talked about. We're looking at some upgrades around IFF, Link-16, and that's across the entire fleet. That is the next wave that will happen. The air force is in option analysis right now to look at what we would do, but also looking at numbers of aircraft.

As you'd well appreciate, it's not the number of aircraft that we're acquiring here; it's hours in a fleet of aircraft that we can consume. As we go forward in anticipating the future fighter—the first delivery will be in 2025—and we look at the follow-on upgrades, it's unlikely to be against all 94 aircraft that we'll now have. That work is under way.

We are replenishing missiles, looking at different areas, and the air force I'd say is in the beginning of that next phase of what they would need to do. At the same time, we execute future fighters and say that at the tipping point at which the fighters will start to deliver, we'll have squadrons of fighters and therefore less of a requirement for the legacy fighters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to yield the floor to MP Cormier.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be asking my first questions at a committee meeting. I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Thank you to everyone for being here today. Thank you for the work you do. I know that it takes a long time to prepare. Thank you as well for acknowledging my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence.

I would like to raise a subject to obtain more information and also to show Canadians that the Canadian Armed Forces have many roles. As you know, natural disasters are occurring more frequently.

In 2017, in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, an ice storm caused a great deal of damage and we were without electricity for 15 days. New Brunswick asked for help from the Canadian Armed Forces, which deployed troops on an Operation LENTUS mission in the province. I think that Canadians, and certainly the people in my region, saw that the Canadian Armed Forces could do something other than take part in conflicts and combat missions.

I would like you to tell Canadians a little more about this type of Canadian Armed Forces mission. Given that natural disasters are becoming more common in Canada and around the world, I would like to know a little more about Canadian Armed Forces deployments in Canada as part of Operation LENTUS.

[LGen Paul Wynnyk]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Cormier.

Domestic operations are first and foremost. Our number one mission is to protect Canadians and Canadian interests at home. We are prepared at all times to do domestic operations. I think you're all familiar with the search and rescue operations that are conducted on a daily basis. Between the Canadian Rangers and our search and rescue teams, there are well over a thousand missions a year, obviously in support of local authorities—RCMP, etc.

For larger operations, as you've referred to, I think you're familiar with the process. It is a request from the province to the federal government. We maintain immediate response units throughout the country—units that are on a certain degree of notice to move—to respond to any domestic contingency as directed by the Government of Canada. Those are normally the first units that go in. Depending on the nature of the operation, we can bring in more troops, and we have in the past. Some of you may well recall the ice storms in 1998-99, and floods in Manitoba.

This year, for the first time, we are putting more emphasis on reserve immediate response units. It goes hand in hand with developing the reserves. We're in the process right now of developing in one of the particular divisions in Canada—we haven't picked it—an immediate response unit that, over the summer period, will be drawn exclusively from reserves.

I'm looking at the notes that the deputy minister passed to me. If we look back over the past year, there were some significant operations here in Canada—in Kashechewan; the New Brunswick floods, as you referred to; significant flooding in British Columbia, and the B.C. wildfires last August, as well, in central and northern B.C.; and the Little Grand Rapids, Manitoba wildfires.

We have seen an increase in the number of domestic operations that have been required over time. I want to assure you that the Canadian Armed Forces continues to be prepared to respond to any and all domestic operations as requested by the government.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

As I've said, I've seen it with my own eyes and the work they've done was tremendous. Even last year, with the flood that we had in New Brunswick, it was amazing.

I went to visit the base at Gagetown a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed not only with the operation going on on the base, but also with all the resources that the military personnel have. I visited the military resources centre and we also talked about the Seamless Canada program. There's a lot of good things, good work...even from the military personnel. The Canadian Armed Forces members are very happy with this program.

Can you maybe just give us some more information about the resources the Canadian Armed Forces members have when they are moved from one area or base to another? Also maybe talk a bit about the Seamless program that we have. I think it will be beneficial for Canadians to hear that.

[Jody Thomas]

Certainly, I'll start, and the vice chief can jump in.

Seamless Canada is an initiative that was started by our military personnel commander to look at the challenges to a military family moving: driver's licences, schools, doctors, accepting credits for education. Every province attended the most recent conferences. We have significant support from the Province of New Brunswick. They were leaders in it. The Province of Ontario has stepped up. British Columbia has stepped up. All of the provinces are very interested and helpful in ensuring that they don't add burdens to military families, especially military families where one spouse is often doing the move on their own while the other is deployed; and that we make things as seamless and easy as possible for the families. It is part of the strong, secure, engaged initiative to ensure that we make life better for military families.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to have to move on to MP Gallant.

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

Through you to our witnesses, General Wynnyk told Parliament on May 30, 2018, that no assessment had been done of the need for a second supply ship. The Prime Minister and the minister have said that one was done. I, for one, do not want to see the honour of another vice chief of defence staff impugned. Will the deputy minister table with the clerk of this committee by the end of day tomorrow the report prepared by the Canadian Armed Forces indicating there is no operational requirement for a second supply ship as proposed by this committee, the Senate and various other experts, with the exception of Mr. Garrison, as he so noted?

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you very much for the question.

“Strong, Secure, Engaged” is the defence policy that lays out the requirements for the Canadian Armed Forces. In that we continue to pay for the interim AOR and we are directed to build two joint supply ships at Vancouver Shipyards. The work on the first joint supply ship has begun. The analysis that was done for this is the defence policy.

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

So there is no report indicating there's no operational requirement for a second supply ship. Okay.

[Jody Thomas]

We have a January interim—

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

An interim, okay.

On January 24, Mr. Finn told the Canadian press that the front half of the first joint support ship is nearing completion. Will he table with the clerk by end of day tomorrow all evidence, including photos, to back up that statement?

[Jody Thomas]

I'd like to start, please.

I would just clarify two things, Ms. Gallant. One, it was not General Wynnyk; it was General Parent, okay?