National Defence Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence, studying Canada and the defence of North America.

Welcome back to Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd.

With him today is Commodore Donovan and Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Michel Vigneault.

Thank you for coming to talk about the Canadian navy, naval readiness, and the defence of North America. It's nice to see you again. I don't think I saw you on the Hill on Navy Day, but I know you were probably somewhere around town.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Bonjour. It is a pleasure and a privilege for Chief Petty Officer, 1st Class, Michel Vigneault, Commodore Casper Donovan, and me to appear in front of you today. I'm happy to be back on Parliament Hill.

Just this Tuesday the RCN was welcomed here for Navy Day, a unique opportunity organized by our friends at the Navy League of Canada. My thanks to all of you who came out to formally recognize the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy. It was truly an honour.

On behalf of the Royal Canadian Navy, I'd like to thank the committee for its leadership and its wish to get a better understanding of the factors affecting the security and defence of Canada, and in particular, the readiness of the Royal Canadian Navy.

As commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, I work with the defence team to set the course for the navy within a government policy framework and I provide advice to the chief of the defence staff on how to enable that plan.

The RCN prides itself on being a rapidly deployable force. This is a significant and visible reflection of Canada's commitment to not only contribute but also to lead in times of global crisis and conflict.

I'm very proud of our history as Canada's first responders. We are a navy that has been parati vero parati, or “ready, aye, ready”, to respond when called upon during the most significant events of the last century, including World War II, the Korean War, the first Gulf War, and 9/11.

Readiness is about our ability to provide credible naval options to government for employment not only today but, equally as important, tomorrow, and preparations for readiness must begin long before yesterday.

For example, the Halifax class modernization, which will be completed shortly, was announced by the government in 2007. Absent that program, we would not enjoy the readiness that we do today. Instead, as a result of obsolescence, we would soon be marginalized in NATO, with a limited ability to contribute to coalition operations, but that is not the navy I am privileged to command today, thanks to the exceptional vision, leadership, dedication, and commitment of previous governments and naval leadership.

Today there are 13 Royal Canadian Navy ships deployed globally, making a difference on behalf of Canada and Canadians. In addition, our submarines have become a crucial element of our international co-operation. HMCS Windsor recently took part in a major NATO exercise in the Norwegian Sea. Once that exercise was over, NATO requested the submarine extend its deployment to conduct real-world operations in the North Atlantic.

Your navy is a highly respected force, capable of operating across the full spectrum of operations, from humanitarian assistance through to coalition operations. However, we know we have challenges.

From the RCN's perspective, there are two capability gaps that you are well aware of—the ability to sustain forces at sea, and the ability to provide long-range air defence.

The replenishment gap is anticipated to be partially mitigated next year, with the interim auxiliary oil replenishment vessel currently being fitted out at Davie shipyards, but the gap will not be fully resolved until the Queenston class achieves full operational capability at the beginning of the next decade.

To ensure that our personnel do not suffer from skill fade, we have organized dedicated training windows with the armadas of Spain and Chile. Unfortunately, the air defence gap is more problematic. It will not be lessened until the first of the Canadian surface combatants enters service around the middle of the next decade. I am extremely happy to acknowledge that the request for proposals for the Canadian surface combatant was released at 00:01 Eastern Standard Time this morning, and as I speak, a technical briefing is taking place on this important milestone and achievement.

This program is crucial to the RCN's future, and the milestone could not have been achieved without the extraordinary leadership and hard work by Public Services and Procurement Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; the Department of National Defence; and Irving Shipbuilding.

When I spoke with industry representatives at Euronaval in Paris last week, I was heartened to hear them characterize the requirement for the Canadian surface combatant as “demanding but achievable”. This was a validation that the 2,000 hours dedicated to refining our requirement with a third party during an intensive reconciliation last summer and the 50 hours of testimony before the independent review panel for defence acquisition last winter was time well spent. I am confident that the ships to be delivered under the national shipbuilding strategy will meet Canada's requirements.

What gives me this confidence? This is not a new undertaking for Canada. Canadian industry has repeatedly built and delivered world-class warships to the Royal Canadian Navy since the 1950s. These were innovative solutions that were world-leading at the time—the Protecteur class replenishment ships, the St. Laurent and Iroquois class destroyers, and the Halifax class frigates.

Canadians have much to be proud of. If we use our past success as a reference, I am confident that Canada and the RCN are on a good course as we sail into our future.

During previous testimony for this committee, there were many questions about the future of the RCN. Specifically, how many and what types of ships should Canada have?

I'd like to reframe that discussion by contending that these specific types of questions may only be answered once we take a broader look at how Canada may wish to employ its navy. Indeed, this committee has touched on many of these wider questions in its past studies of Canada's continental defence. These questions include the following.

Does Canada understand that its navy is one of its most flexible and persistent instruments of national power—in effect, our nation's first responders?

What kind of leadership role does Canada seek in contributing to global defence and security?

Does Canada fully appreciate the range of threats that exists in the world today?

Are the resources assigned to our armed forces well balanced to support Canada's defence and foreign policy objectives?

Finally, how much risk is Canada willing to accept when balancing resources and capabilities?

I am confident that these important questions are now being considered in the ongoing defence policy review.

When I spoke with you in camera, I discussed the Royal Canadian Navy Executive Plan and our four priorities: to ensure excellence in operations at sea; to enable the transition to the future fleet; to evolve the “business of our business”; and to energize our institution. Implicit in all these priorities is our commitment to our people, who are the basis of our readiness: “People first, mission always.”

In fact, this commitment was recently strengthened with the issuance of the Royal Canadian Navy Code of Conduct, which includes the principles of Operation HONOUR, launched by the Chief of Defence Staff. A respectful, professional working environment, free of sexual misconduct, is essential to enable our staff to concentrate on achieving our priorities.

We have also instituted strategies to better recruit reservists, to better track our sailors' sea/shore ratio, and to bring our training system into the 21st century.

From my perspective, the future is bright and the opportunities will be plentiful. By 2018, the RCN expects to introduce the first of the Harry DeWolf class Arctic and offshore patrol vessels, with its sister ship, HMCS Margaret Brooke, following close astern. We also hope to soon be cutting steel on the first of the Queenston class auxiliary oil replenishment ships.

I believe the rest of this decade will see all hands on deck to deliver the largest recapitalization of Canada's navy in its peacetime history.

In conclusion, despite our challenges, which we are working to mitigate, the RCN remains parati vero parati, or “ready, aye, ready”. We are transforming our systems and processes to ensure that we are a 21st-century organization, while remaining committed to “people first, mission always”.

The RCN has confidence that Canadian industry, under the national shipbuilding strategy, will deliver world-class warships, just as they have in the past.

When this bright future is shared with young Canadians, I believe they will be prepared to join their navy and serve Canada proudly, knowing they can make a difference at home and abroad, on, above, and below the sea, day and night.

I am optimistic that the plan we're executing is the very foundation of readiness upon which the maritime defence and security of our nation, from coast to coast to coast, will be achieved. This is critically important work.

As we discuss the RCN's future today, on the eve of Canada's sesquicentennial, we do so with the knowledge that some of the surface combatants to be delivered under this strategy will still be in service on the eve of Canada's bicentennial.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you again for coming.

I think I mentioned this last time, but we can't say it enough: thank you, gentlemen, for your service to the country.

We'll start with seven-minute questions.

The first question goes to you, Mrs. Romanado. You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their participation today, and the public for their attendance.

I want to reiterate what our chair just mentioned. I want to thank all of you for your service to Canada. I know that the RCN is known as “the force generator”. I have that nickname here on the Hill myself, as my two sons are currently serving, so I am a force generator.

That said, I have a couple of questions regarding your testimony.

We have heard a lot about procurement and the needs of the Royal Canadian Navy. I'm sure my colleagues will elaborate on that, but I want to go into a different thematic.

We are studying the defence of North America. The first component was our aerial readiness. We visited NORAD. While there, we heard a bit about how right now our commitment with NORAD is for maritime warning, but not for control. I'd like to get your thoughts on that. As part of the defence policy review, we are looking at our defence policy and our commitments to both NORAD and NATO. What are your thoughts on revisiting that control component? Could you elaborate a bit on what you think of that?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

In terms of maritime warning and maritime control, I know that as we look at the evolution of NORAD, we have a number of factors and considerations. As for where we currently find ourselves right now, I just had a conversation with Commodore Angus Topshee, who is currently working in NORAD and is taking a look at what that command and control structure would look like if we moved more from maritime warning to maritime control, as you've articulated.

The challenges of dealing with complexity at sea and what that would mean in a naval context are a little more demanding and challenging than what we typically have experienced from an air perspective, but in terms of the way the system is working today, I'm comfortable with the lines of communication and dialogue between our two coastal commanders and the articulation of what's taking place, both domestically through our maritime security operations centres and in sharing the information more broadly. It's currently working. I'll wait to see what the further analysis of the team provides as they do their ongoing work in the analysis of options going forward.

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

Thank you.

We've heard that our defence of North America and the defence of our own sovereignty really takes a system of systems. We heard about the fact that the north warning system is going to expire in 2025. Given the realities of climate change, the accessibility of the Arctic passageway, and Russia's and China's interest in our north, could you elaborate on what you would recommend for us in terms of the northern passageway and surveillance in the north and its importance?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

The surveillance of all of Canada is important.

As you indicated, it's very much a system of systems. It's a whole-of-government requirement in doing that. That's why I was really happy that Commissioner Jody Thomas and the navy were standing side by side on Navy Day. I don't know if she was quite happy with that title, but as I said then and as I'll say now, we're two sides of a coin and indivisible in looking after the safety, security, and defence of our country.

We need to start that system with space-based capabilities, which we're currently moving out on, and then we have to make sure that the lines of communication are enabled between the government departments responsible for those types of activities. I'm happy to say that there are many navies around the world that are looking at our maritime security operation centres as a model by which they can look after the safety, security, and sovereignty of their nations. I think that's a great story for Canada.

Also, we need to work with the army, navy, and air force under the rubric of all the exercises that we are currently taking part in in the Arctic. I think those are foundational to understanding the challenges. I say to people that what's interesting when we're operating in the Arctic is that in many respects it's almost more demanding than deploying overseas. The distance from Esquimalt to Nanisivik, the naval base we're constructing, is about the same distance from Esquimalt to Japan. To go from Halifax to Nanisivik is about the same distance as going from Halifax to London.

There are many challenges. In many respects, although it's a sovereign operation, it's almost expeditionary in terms of going forward.

There are a number of aspects. I'm really happy that Admiral Norman had the vision to appoint the command team for the HMCS Harry DeWolf. They have been working with navies around the world and our own Coast Guard to understand how to operate in the Arctic. They've actually done a number of reconnaissance trips into the Arctic to better understand how we can sustain and maintain those platforms going forward.

To end where I started, I guess, it's a full team. It's the whole of government and it's a system of systems, and the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard both have important roles to play there. I'm really happy that those lines of communication exist. We're pressing on with that.

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

Do I have some time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Yes.

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

At the moment, the Royal Canadian Navy is the smallest in terms of members, with 13,500 in total. Can you talk to us a bit about the challenges in recruitment and retention for our Royal Canadian Navy?

We recently announced the reopening of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean as a degree-granting institution, and if that will assist us in terms of the recruitment, not the retention.... For the retention, we've heard about the fact that they need to be out at sea and practising and so on. Could you talk to us a bit about your recruitment and retention difficulties?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

There are two aspects to recruiting.

There's recruiting for the reserve force, and we're takings steps with the Canadian Army to expedite that activity. The commander of the army and I are working with our teams to come up with a model by which, in our perfect world, someone would be able to enter the door of a militia unit or a naval reserve division and within a month be recruited. That's what we're really working hard to try to accomplish.

We recognize that the recruiting for the regular force is done by the chief of military personnel. The chief of the defence staff and General Whitecross are working extraordinarily hard to try to streamline those processes as well, so that we can recruit sailors expeditiously.

I think when young Canadians take a look at their navy, much as they would a stock, they want to see if it's on the rise or the fall. If there's a bright future for the institution and for the army or the air force, I think they're willing to invest themselves. From my perspective today, the request for proposal for the Canadian surface combatant acknowledges that there's a bright future for the Royal Canadian Navy. The fact that we're building the Harry DeWolf Arctic offshore patrol ships is real. The great imagery on the Internet to reinforce that fact portrays that bright future.

As it pertains to retention, that's something we own. That's why you'll hear us refer to “people first, mission always”. It's why we're trying to take our training system out of PowerPoint and into hands-on experiential-type training activities.

We were actually putting our sailors to sea too long. We were putting them in a position of having to choose between their family and the navy. As I've said to them, if I had to choose between the navy or my family, I'd choose my family, so why should they be any different? We're making sure that we can track their sea/shore ratio. Where there's a requirement that we have to break the number of days allocated, it will actually be a flag officer making that decision.

When I was at sea on board HMCS Vancouver during RIMPAC, I asked a number of sailors how many had been attach-posted. In an attach posting, we take you from one ship and move you to another ship, or we take you out of your shore posting and send you to a ship that needs that skill set to go to sea. Some people had been attach-posted, or taken away from their family at short notice, up to five times. Once again, that's problematic. We're forcing them to choose between their family or the navy. We've implemented a process by which we'll also track the number of attach postings our sailors are doing.

Now, we have to recognize that some of those attach postings are good cholesterol and some are bad cholesterol. If it's taking a sailor who actually wants to deploy into the Asia-Pacific region and go to Vietnam, then that's good cholesterol. If we had to rip that same sailor away from his family with 24 or 36 hours' notice, then that's bad cholesterol. We need to make a differentiation between those types of attach postings.

We're very much trying to leverage business intelligence tools in order to be able to provide those reports and to be able to identify where we may have challenges or issues as we go forward. As you've indicated, we need to retain those sailors. As the chief of the team will say, how long does it take to get a petty officer with 15 years' experience? Fifteen years. That's why we're very much focused on retention.

Chief, do you have anything to add?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I have to move on to the next questioner. We'll be able to circle back on that one.

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

The chief always gets seen off.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

It was interesting, so we'll circle back on that.

Ms. Gallant, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I get started, today is once again another time that the CDS has stood us up. I would like to find out whether or not we have rescheduled him to come to our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I believe it's the 15th.

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

You mean the 15th of November.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Yes.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

It's not that we are not excited to have the vice-admiral back; we are thrilled to have you back to put your commentary on the official record. Welcome, Commodore Donovan, as well as Michel Vigneault.

Rather than go over some of the things we've talked about before, I'd like to use this opportunity to first thank Admiral Lloyd for the kind invitation he extended to all parliamentarians. Both Pierre Paul-Hus and I took him up on the offer to go on the submarine. While we've toured submarines in the past, we've never had the opportunity to go to sea and go under the water. It's truly an extraordinary experience for any Canadian, and it will really enrich the study we're doing right now.

Thank you also to Commodore Donovan, who in the past has been my captain for about a week on the frigate Vancouver. I understand that you've been decorated for putting up with me for an entire week.

With that, I would like to focus on the position that you're in now, which is the director general of naval force development. It is my understanding that you're considering what the navy of the future, decades ahead, will look like. My first question, since we're mentioning the great procurement that is being announced today through our Conservative national shipbuilding strategy, is whether, in your current capacity, you were consulted in the preparation of the request for proposals for the surface combatant.

[Commodore C.P. Donovan, Director General, Naval Force Development, Royal Canadian Navy, Department of National Defence]

Thank you for the question.

It's a good one, because what I think many people may not see or appreciate is that requests for proposals are the reflection of a massive team effort. The Royal Canadian Navy does have a team of individuals who represent the navy and its development and defining of the requirement. However, we work hand in hand with the Department of National Defence, particularly the assistant deputy minister for materiel's team, who are responsible for turning what would be a statement of operational requirement into all of the contractual documents that go out to industry.

In the case of the CSC RFP, because of the procurement approach that's being followed, that team also includes Irving Shipbuilding and the other two key departments in any major procurement for the Department of National Defence, Public Services and Procurement Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

“Consulted”, arguably would be a bit of an understatement. We have collectively had a big team, with their hands dirty, working hard for months and months on that RFP.

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

We know all about the government's plans to eventually phase out the use of carbon-based fuel. Are you looking at different fuel types for the vessels of the future?

[Cmdre C.P. Donovan]

There are specifications that would be met in the Canadian surface combatant project, and all of our ships, pertaining to the fuels that are required in those ships. Typically those specifications and the details of them are more the purview of our materiel group, because they get into very specific types of fuel items, such as flashpoint and viscosity. While I can't speak to the specifics, I know there's always work done to specify the proper fuel.

Basically, if there is a fuel that can be used in those ships that would be greener than the fuel today, then I have no doubt that those ships would be designed to accommodate that type of fuel. I'm just not aware of the specifics of whether we're pursuing a certain type of greener fuel.

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

I know that in general we have biofuels. There's a company in my riding, Ensyn Technologies, that's looking at different naval...actually, I believe they have a project they're working on for one nation's navy. That's why I asked.

At the last meeting, Admiral Lloyd talked about the necessity of submarines, the growing concerns in the Arctic, and how we need to have eyes above the water, on the surface of the water, and below the water. With this international concern about the Arctic, especially with the buildup by Mr. Putin across the pole, it would look like the submarines are procurement we're going to need in the future. Perhaps you're already looking at that in your capacity.

Diesel engines are not suitable for under-ice navigation. Since it's of critical importance that we continue to have the submarine capability, for our future sub acquisition, does it make sense to include nuclear-powered subs when developing the request for proposals on that procurement?

[Cmdre C.P. Donovan]

Right now I would say there's no specific procurement under way. The Department of National Defence is looking at submarines and submarine capability and where that needs to go. As we work through that analysis with a view to the future, I'm convinced that we'll look at all the different angles and look at the challenge of operating in the Arctic, look at the challenge of that environment, and provide the best advice we can in the future.