National Defence Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

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

We see that drones, in addition to our new Cyclone helicopters, are being employed by the navy. After that terrible EH-101 order cancellation, we finally got Cyclones being delivered to our ships down east. Now we're starting to see the emergence of driverless vehicles. In Amsterdam, for example, there are different ferry-type boats they are testing in the canals.

In your capacity, in looking into the future of the navy, do you see driverless vessels as being a part of our overall complement in the Royal Canadian Navy?

[Cmdre C.P. Donovan]

I would say that in general, uninhabited vehicles, unmanned vehicles, and autonomous vehicles are clearly in the future of most navies around the world.

In the context of the Royal Canadian Navy, in terms of what you referred to as driverless vehicles, we have been operating with vehicles like that for many years to date. In fact, we've used them predominantly as targets for gunnery systems. You have a vessel, a small boat, with no one in the boat, which is remotely operated by operators on another ship. We conduct gunnery and weapons firings on those boats because they simulate one type of threat that a warship may come up against in a real operational theatre.

We have looked to the future and we currently have other procurement projects under way to deliver systems that are autonomous or remotely operated in nature. We're continually looking at that entire space to find the right capabilities that sailors will need in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's your time, Ms. Gallant.

I want to welcome Ms. Blaney. The floor is yours.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your dedicated work and commitment to this country. It's tremendously important, and we all appreciate it.

I also just want to make a quick comment on what you were talking about with regard to attraction and retention.

I had the privilege of going to see the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets in Powell River recently, and the commanding officer, Lieutenant McLennan, chatted with me about some of the challenges they have around getting uniforms in time to really keep those kids involved.

I was impressed by the number of young people who were there, working really hard. I continue to see a lot of retired naval folks surrounding them and promoting the greatness of what you do. Thank you for what you do, and thank you to all those who work hard to make sure we have a strong navy.

I'm really interested in maintenance, so my question is for you, Commander Lloyd.

In a letter dated June 8, 2016, titled “Fleet maintenance facilities strategic capabilities statement” and signed by you as rear admiral and deputy commander of the RCN, it was outlined that a new NEM, a naval engineering and maintenance strategic capability decision model, had been assessed and deemed worthy for the purpose of providing the RCN with a sound and repeatable process to validate present and future fleet capability needs.

There were four models outlined. The D models have the FMF—fleet maintenance facility—as the primary. The CD model is a hybrid, and the contractor is the primary. It's this point that I would like to pursue a little bit.

This hybrid model outlines that the contractor will take the lead in most areas of responsibility. This will require the contractor to co-locate on FMF sites. New buildings, rearranging current personnel, or sharing tools and equipment with existing sites will be an issue. There will also be a need to have rigorous accountability systems established to determine who will be in charge, and when, on each task and job.

I just have a couple of questions that come to mind. Have you studied other allied nations' navies that have gone to a greater reliance on contractors to identify whether there have been any negative impacts in terms of efficiency, meeting operational readiness requirements, IP conflicts, authority strains, and security?

I'll let you answer that one, and then I'll follow up with a second question.

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

Obviously the maintenance of our ships is really important. As a country, we're very fortunate to have our fleet maintenance facilities because of the second- and third-line maintenance activities that they're able to provide to us in terms of delivering readiness.

Three years ago we had a paper commissioned by Captain Don Smith, who was a commanding officer at one of the fleet maintenance facilities. He basically took a look at these four broad options that you articulated and put forth a number of recommendations that we, the navy, needed to consider to ensure that we had the best maintenance framework to look after our platforms.

Working with the chief engineer of the navy, Commodore Simon Page, who also works for assistant deputy minister Pat Finn, the team has done a great amount of analysis to come up with the right model and the pros and cons of the various aspects. In doing their analysis, they've taken a look at other models used by some of our allies in order to understand their best practices and what was successful and what was not.

I've also had conversations with a number of my peers about what has worked well for them, or not, in terms of going forward. I think, as I signed my name to, that the best model is one in which we leverage the strengths of both, putting us in a win-win situation going forward.

Simon Page and the commanding officers of our maintenance facilities are working very hard with our maintenance facilities to assure them that there is a future in terms of what the fleet maintenance facilities deliver from a strategic capability. I don't think that contracting out all of that maintenance is in our best interest. There are definitely strategic capabilities that we need to retain, particularly on those systems that are unique to warships.

Some of those aspects, in terms of a marinized diesel engine...I think everyone here would be comfortable in recognizing that those competencies exist elsewhere.

What we're trying to do is make sure that we're as effective as possible where we need to be and as efficient as possible where we need to be. We also have to recognize that there's a difference, so we're trying to leverage those efficiencies to make sure we get the most out of every dollar we're given.

Many of you have heard me say that we're trying to run the navy like a business now, but rather than measuring our profits in dollars and cents, we're trying to measure our profits in materiel, technical, personnel, and combat readiness.

We are working hard to find out what that best model is. I think what you will see as we go forward is that we'll have higher levels of serviceability because we're leveraging the strengths of what industry can provide and the strategic asset that those maintenance facilities represent.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Will you be able to provide the committee with those reports?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

I can't see why not.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Have you determined how current levels of FMF trades and support staffing will be affected in five years, 10 years, 20 years?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

It's a challenge.

In the last three years, we've done an extraordinary amount of work in terms of trying to baseline the numbers currently working at our fleet maintenance facilities. Right now, we're currently at about 900, plus or minus anomalies from each of the two coasts.

Then, as we project into the future five or 10 years, we need to have an understanding of where industry strengths are and where our strengths are, and then we have to balance the workforce accordingly. Once these large in-service report contracts go out for the Queenston class and the Arctic/offshore patrol ship, we'll begin to have an understanding of what that new paradigm will look like.

Once we have that information, I think we'll be in a much better position to specify or define what that report should look like.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Am I still good for time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have time for a quick one.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Okay.

Will the FMF lose its capacity and the DND lose its flexibility if staff member numbers in trades and equipment are lost?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

It's not black and white like that. We can't say that it's going to be lost.

From my perspective, what you'll see is a reorientation of the focus to leverage the strengths of what our fleet maintenance facilities can deliver. We'll lean into their strengths in terms of that new model.

However, we can't afford to lose our ability to deploy ships. That has to be stated. At every period of decision-making, the readiness of our ships is paramount. The decision-making that will take place as we look at that will be to ensure that when the Government of Canada calls its first responder, that we're “ready, aye, ready” to deploy. All of that will be taken into context as we make decisions going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thanks for that.

Mr. Gerretsen, you have the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I echo the comments of my colleagues. Gentlemen, thank you for being here, and thank you for your service to our country. I genuinely believe that it's because of our military personnel and what they do that we have the amazing quality of life that we do and we don't have a lot of the problems that are found throughout other parts of the world. Thank you for your service.

Admiral, you were talking about the Arctic in particular in response to some of the questions from my colleagues. I'm curious as to what you see as the real threat in the Arctic. Is it a military presence? Is it economic opportunities? Is it exploitation of resources?

What do you see now, and what do you foresee into the future, as being the real threats that we face in the Arctic?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

To begin, safety and security obviously is a concern in the Arctic.

In terms of threats, there are two elements to threat. There is capability and there is intent. As you take a look at the capabilities and intents that currently exist out there, that begins to frame your assessment of the threat.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Sorry to interrupt, but is it safe to say that the capabilities will be changing as a result of the changing environment in the Arctic? The opportunities will change, right?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

The opportunities will change. You will need the capabilities to operate in the Arctic. I think the competition for resources in the fullness of time is something that we'll need to continually be aware of as a nation.

Given that we have the fifth-largest economic exclusive zone and the second-largest continental shelf in the world, those are areas of sensitivity. In terms of the sovereignty aspects, as you know, there are only a couple of claims against the sovereignty in the Arctic.

From those perspectives, both with key allies.... I have every expectation that they'll be dealt with through international law in the fullness of time, and then, as you say, we'll monitor intent going forward.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Do you see a naval arms race in the Arctic?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

I think what we're seeing globally, as people understand the links between the sea and prosperity and security, is increased naval presence on the world's oceans. You're seeing increased proliferation of forces in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. You're seeing other navies increasing their capabilities more broadly. I think you're seeing an increased importance being placed on the global maritime commons.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The majority of Canadians, when we talk about the Arctic and sovereignly, relate the security threats in the Arctic to the ambitions of Russia.

Do you view that as being the case? What other potential actors do you see having an interest, if any? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

No. With the Arctic, as we say in Leadmark 2050, just as all lines of longitude converge in the Arctic, so too are a number of nations' interests converging on the Arctic. Other than the five Arctic nations and the Arctic Council, you're seeing other nations operating in the Arctic. From that perspective, we need to continue to be aware of who's demonstrating that interest globally, what their interests are, and what could motivate their interests.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Can you comment as to who is demonstrating those interests now?

[VAdm Ron Lloyd]

You just have to take a look at the nations that are operating icebreakers and the like in the Arctic. They might obviously have interests there, but for more detail, I guess the Coast Guard would probably be the ones to ask.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair.

If there's any time remaining, I'll turn it over to Ms. Romanado or Mr. Fisher.