National Defence Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You may continue.

[Capt(N) Harry Harsch]

Can I add that I don't think it's an either-or concept in the sense that frigates are important. The Harry DeWolf class is important. Submarines are important. Replenishment ships are important. The problem we have frequently in the Canadian context is there's just that much money and it's just not enough to spread around. I think an additional investment is required.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That was the point of my question. Given the limited budget, if we want to ensure an effective defence, I think that the submarine is the most effective weapon we can have in terms of detection and counter-attack. The frigate has its use, of course, but choices have to be made. Today, the Standing Committee on National Defence is trying to get an idea of naval operations. Should Canada give more consideration to the submarine?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

We keep coming back to the word “balanced” capability and that's because we look at the combination of all of these platforms and what they can achieve together. We would not advocate not having maritime patrol aircraft, not having helicopters, frigates, submarines, and those capabilities. It is a portfolio approach to risk effectively, and hence balance. It would be as if we were to start playing a game of chess with nothing but knights on the board on our side and the other fellow has.... It's the balance that brings the real capability to the navy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you for that. I'm going to give the floor over to Ms. Romanado.

Welcome back. You have five minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a delight to be back on the Hill. I've been travelling the last couple of weeks for electoral reform. I was actually in Iqaluit up until about 11 o'clock this morning, so I'm happy to be back.

We've talked a lot about material assets today, which are incredibly important. I myself have two sons serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, so they're constantly telling me what they need, their shopping list.

That being said, I want to talk a bit about our personnel, the most important asset of our Canadian Armed Forces. We understand that we do have a difficult time in terms of recruitment and retention for our Royal Canadian Navy. I'd like to know if you could speak to that, where we are, where we need to be, and your suggestions on how we get there.

[Cmdre Daniel Sing]

Obviously you have in front of you retired naval officers of a few years back, but we're here representing our respective associations and, unfortunately, while we have anecdotal information about the state of personnel and recruiting in the military and in the navy, we're really not well equipped this morning to speak specifically to those issues. Those would be questions better suited for the navy and the Armed Forces.

Having said all of that, if you wish to recruit and retain highly qualified, highly motivated human resources for any endeavour in life, one key consideration of people for joining and staying with an organization is their sense of purpose, their sense of worth, the sense that their public service and duty is recognized and appreciated. One of the ways by which individuals glean whether or not their service is appreciated is whether they get a sense that the leadership of the organization has a clear vision for the future and backs that vision up with an allocation of resources that is reasonable, but which is steady and doesn't change every four to eight years.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Understood.

[Cmdre Daniel Sing]

I believe one of the many issues that would cause people who would think to join the military to either not join or to leave is when they sense, because we're taking left turns at Albuquerque too frequently, that the leadership doesn't truly believe that what it is they're calling these people to do is really worthwhile. That's just a personal opinion.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

Would you like to say something?

[Capt(N) Harry Harsch]

I just wanted to add that my experience with sailors is they like being at sea. They like doing stuff on the ocean. They like going to interesting places. They like having a sense of purpose. In fact, what really astonished me in my career was when we went to the Gulf. We were in a very hot place, a very dangerous place for six months, with very few port visits, but this crew was amazing. I couldn't irritate them. These guys were doing their business, and for sailors to go to sea and do their business is very important for them, for their own sense of self-worth, self-actualization.

Equally, though, there's another piece. In another ship I was in, when you get to the end of the fiscal year, if you don't have a ship that has a program, then guess what happens? You run out of money and the first thing to get clawed back is the fuel budget. So the fuel budget is clawed back, you have a program, and guess what? In January, February, and March you're probably not doing anything simply because of what is an insignificant amount of money, really; but it's significant in the sense that the envelope that it's in is unavailable, and you have to cancel things at the last minute.

[Cmdre Daniel Sing]

Perhaps I could just add to what Captain Harsch just said. I think it's very important. Within what we believe the nation wishes to contribute of its national treasure towards defence, we can go and get x number of planes, trains, and automobiles, we can get y number of people and stuff like that; but if, for other reasons, we don't provide sufficient resources to enable the maintenance of the equipment, to take care of the people, and to provide them with the opportunities to practise their craft and their skill, then you'll have nice, shiny ships and people alongside in Esquimalt or Halifax harbour not sailing enough, and people start losing interest.

Thank you.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I want to thank you. Again, thank you for your service to Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Bezan, you have the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you for your service, gentlemen, and your leadership that you've given during service and after service to the Royal Canadian Navy.

First of all, I appreciate the Bugs Bunny reference. I was a big fan as a kid, too.

You talked about making investments and you talked about military personnel, and I want to follow up on what Ms. Romanado just said. Do you feel that we have enough sailors entering the Royal Canadian Navy right now and where are we at with the reserve force of the navy on both the east and west coasts?

[Cmdre Daniel Sing]

Being the youngest who is retired, and recognizing that my information is now two years dated and that was not my area of expertise, I would again ask you to ask that of the navy when they come.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

We will, when we get that chance.

[Cmdre Daniel Sing]

On the issue of naval reserves, the last I heard was that we were having challenges recruiting and retaining naval reservists. We previously had this concept whereby we would man up to 12 maritime coastal defence vessels, six on each coast, with reservists. We've come to the conclusion that we don't have enough people joining the reserve and staying in the reserve to man the numbers of ships we need to be manned, so just before I retired, the navy introduced a mixed crewing concept—or they reintroduced a mixed crewing concept, because we've had this in the past. We have just brought it back.

That is an issue, yes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Is there an indication whether that is working?

[Cmdre Daniel Sing]

I have no recent indications of whether or not.... It is working, in the sense that, with the mixed crewing option—a combination of reservists and regular force—we are now able to send MCDVs or maritime coastal defence vessels to sea. Whether or not that has an impact on changing people's attitudes towards joining and staying in the reserve, I don't know.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Okay.

The second question I have goes back to the question of submarines. Our Victoria class submarines are old, going through a refit, and going to have only a limited life extension. Admiral Robertson alluded to the fact that Australia is moving up to 12. That was part of the defence white paper they came out with a couple of years ago.

Based upon the coastline that we have and the fact that the Arctic Ocean is under ice for a large portion of the season, do you feel that the best way to patrol the Arctic would be with submarines?

Second, not just from a deterrence standpoint of having submarines, but.... Gentlemen, what's the best way to hunt enemy subs and deter enemy subs? Is it the mixed fleet aspect, or is there any one particular asset that is more important than others?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

I'll take the second part first. If they have a hunt in waters off our two coasts, it comes down to a co-operative relationship with our American neighbours and the intelligence that is shared among members of the Five Eyes, a community one small part of which is that kind of intelligence.

Anything that comes to this side of the Atlantic or the Pacific—and we've had both happen in the past—would be a team effort and would involve national sensors—national-level intelligence collection methods, in other words—and national platforms at sea, of the kind the United States Navy has that are focused on acoustics. Then it would involve maritime patrol aircraft and submarines, and potentially the use of surface ships as well, in the absence of or to complement the others.

All would be involved, and not only involved, but.... You can imagine that in certain circumstances for submarines approaching North America, you would want not only to know where the vessel is, but also, if it is a cruise missile firer, to figure out what the plan is to deal with that, which, for the most part, requires being relatively close to be able to deal with it. All of the above get used.

Now, which one would I wish to use first? Maritime patrol aircraft...and then put submarines into the right position to deal with the other submarines. As always, if you can use maritime patrol aircraft alone, they have a certain invulnerability to submarines that's quite attractive.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Can any of that be done with drone technology, from the standpoint of both subsurface and aerial?

[VAdm Drew Robertson]

If you look at the capabilities sought for Canadian UAVs, or indeed the ones used by the United States—the Triton UAV that the United States Navy is purchasing—they all carry radar, which can be useful for detecting only periscopes or submarines' raised masts, but they do not have acoustic capabilities, and that's what one really needs at sea. As Commander Sing indicated, that's how you detect something.

[Capt(N) Harry Harsch]

Can I add that ASW, anti-submarine warfare, is very much a team sport. First you have to know where to look, and that's where intelligence and maritime patrol aircraft, because they have the speed, are able to assist. They also have the weapon system, but they don't have the persistence. A frigate would have persistence, a submarine would have persistence, and it depends on what kind of weapon you intend to use. Surface ship frigates have speed. Submarines, again, don't, and the more speed a submarine uses, the more vulnerable it becomes and the more quickly it depletes its batteries, in the case of a diesel-electric submarine like Canada has, so it is a team sport.