National Defence Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2016

[RAdm Art McDonald]

Mr. Bezan, thank you very much. That Pacific pivot got a lot of attention, and of course, as you know, our view in the Canadian navy is that we pivoted probably two decades before the U.S.

We have a balance of forces, roughly, between Admiral Newton's fleet on the east coast and ours on the Pacific coast. In some cases we have a predominance of a particular class out here whereas he has perhaps a few more frigates over there.

The bottom line, however, has also been not about where we base our forces but where we employ them. As you know, we employ our forces around the world, he routinely providing forces to operate in what one would consider our neck of the woods. I note that we provided ships from Victoria as recently as this year to the reassurance missions off Russia.

The engagement with the U.S. is as strong as it's ever been. You mentioned both elements, the U.S. Coast Guard and navy. I've met with my colleagues and counterparts and I've been in the process of meeting a variety of them, having just taken over, over the last few months, to ensure that we continue to be aligned going forward.

They, like us, have taken this case with the engagement in the Asia-Pacific and with the opportunity and the need to enforce rules-based order in the Southeast Asia and Oceania area. They've been really pushing further west in the Pacific. That lines up perfectly with what I described in my testimony as generating forward, us pushing forces earlier, faster, and further west, where we will provide maximum opportunity to government to respond to things that could be of a man-made nature or a humanitarian response, such as in New Zealand.

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

Congratulations on the work that we did down in New Zealand. We got there fast and were able to assist. That was a great operation.

Admiral Newton, do you want to follow up on that?

[RAdm John Newton]

Yes. What we seek in our navy is to be globally deployable from any of our two major bases. There's no restriction on a warship from Maritime Forces Pacific ending up in the Mediterranean Sea on the NATO Reassurance mission. Likewise, there's no restriction on the east coast fleet. Ships of all fleets went to the Korean conflict.

We see the world as really big. The intellectual pivot and our relationship-building pivot is Indo-Asia Pacific. Just this last week we finished preparing Commodore Haydn Edmundson, a Canadian commodore in the Royal Canadian Navy, and a predominately Canadian navy staff, augmented by Australians, who have experienced the conflict zone in the North Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean, for deployment right around Christmastime to command Combined Task Force 150, which is responsible for maritime security operations and counterterrorism operations in the north Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, Horn of Africa-type regions. This again reflects on our attempt to build relationships and have influence. Our expertise and our respect is not taken for granted. It's accepted over there that we are capable commanders of that task force. This is our third round of command with Australia as a key partner.

Here we're using people as capital to have influence in this very broad ocean area and building those foundational relationships.

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

I wanted to go back to the comments about operating forward and the role that our Victoria class submarines play in that. Their modernization and upgrades have definitely made them even more valuable to the Royal Canadian Navy. Has there been any planning in the long term on the replacement of those submarines, especially considering the number of submarines that are being used and developed by Russia, China, and others?

[RAdm Art McDonald]

Like a number of our allies, we operate diesel submarines. We've been in discussion with our allies for many years over the performance of our submarines and where we want to go in the future. A number of countries are looking at their potential options going into the future. Australia has recently decided, and we're being informed by that.

In the meantime, I think our greater perspective is that we still have some very good use left in the Victoria class. We plan on demonstrating their relevance, building on the fantastic 200 days at sea that Windsor had this past year, including two large NATO exercises and two NATO operational tasks, with follow-up employment by the other ships of the class over the next little while, and then looking at sustaining that capability through the remaining life and possible life extension of the boat.

As many of your colleagues have talked about, there are a number of requirements for us in the navy and the Canadian Forces as we go forward and adapt to the context. Taking full advantage of the useful life remaining in the boats is important so that we can buy the right resources at the right time as we go forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you for those responses.

The floor goes over to Mr. Peschisolido. Welcome.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Admiral Newton, Admiral McDonald, thank you for your testimony here today.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Bezan's question on the South China Sea, Admiral McDonald, and their reaction to the recent UN decision on the South China Sea when it comes to navigation rights and islands, man-made or otherwise.

[RAdm Art McDonald]

I think the response from the foreign minister with respect to Canada's embrace of the rules-based order is really what we've been engaged with in the Canadian navy for the entire time of my career. We are encouraging of the use of a rules-based order by following that regime ourselves and encouraging our allies, with co-operative action and exercise in deployments and presence, to do the same.

Of course, we also see, conversely to that, where nations don't adhere to the global rules-based order or demonstrate they're willing to challenge that order, introducing some uncertainty and tension, that needs to be managed. The Canadian navy, with our allies, has been aligned in making sure that we have presence, are supportive, and embrace working in coalition together to establish, endorse, and enforce that rules-based order.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Admiral McDonald, earlier you brought up the concept of “great power politics”. The rise of the People's Republic of China is on everyone's mind, particularly with President-elect Trump's focus on China and its role in the international system.

As you know, the government has started a 10-year process with the People's Republic of China that may or may not lead to a strategic relationship with them.

What are your thoughts on the two narratives? There are those who say we need to deal with the People's Republic of China, and others who say, yes, but we also have to focus on our other allies like Japan, and on new allies such as Vietnam.

[RAdm Art McDonald]

It's a great question. I think this is where governments really realize the value of their navies—on the one side, for being prepared, and on the other side, for engaging to help establish intentions up front. We have, in fact, with our allies been working well with the Chinese to try to encourage them and ensure they are embracing that global rules-based order we talked about before.

China was for the first time a participant in the Rim of the Pacific exercise that happened last summer, a significant step to enhance the dialogue between mariners, between warriors, and between nations. Of course later on, I guess next month, we're going to receive a Chinese task group visit to Victoria, as their navy does what our navy does: reach out around the world to try to establish those relations upon which to build.

I think that is where the emphasis is going to remain for us, a good opportunity to engage with China and help to ensure that we as a navy and a nation understand their application.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I'll ask you one final follow-up question, Admiral McDonald, and then I'll move over to Admiral Newton. My neck of the woods is Steveston—Richmond East. As you know, in Steveston we've had a history of helping in the war effort. Our fish and our canneries fed the men and women who fought. Also, it's had a strategic location for our war effort. That's historically, but do you see a role for the south arm of the Fraser and that part of Vancouver in naval preparedness in the next five to ten years?

[RAdm Art McDonald]

There is always room for coastal communities to be engaged in supporting naval preparedness, and certainly your area of Vancouver has done so, as you have highlighted—thank you for it—and will continue to do so. We have major shipbuilding programs ongoing in Vancouver, of course, but beyond that, just in terms of providing defence and security in Asia-Pacific, both human and national, your area, as mariners contributing to the surveillance of our region, is very key.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Both of you discussed the Indo-Pacific region, that it isn't just about Asia but also about the subcontinent. The rise of India is also a very strategic development geopolitically. Traditionally it has relied on Russia or the Soviet Union to arm itself. Now it's going more towards the United States and other countries. Do you see a role for Canada in this rise of India as a naval power?

[RAdm Art McDonald]

I'll take that one as a start, if you don't mind, John.

I'll just highlight the fact that, as John mentioned, Indo-Asia Pacific is a focus of our re-engagement under the generate forward policy. We've already had extensive staff discussions in Ottawa between the commanders of our two navies about opportunities to be exploited going forward. Building on that, we recently had a visit of Winnipeg, as she was returning from Operation Reassurance employment in India, and we're planning on an opportunity to visit India again in our 2017 sailing program, as well as an opportunity to work with some Indian navy assets in the Southeast Asia area, again building step by step our collaboration as a network of navies at sea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We'll have to leave the answer there.

Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, being from the west coast, I've been trying to encourage this committee that a visit to MARPAC would be a good idea, despite the tendency to believe that Esquimalt's a long ways away—although I'm not sure what the point of reference is.

I want to follow up on this question we've been dancing around here, of readiness and sovereignty, and ask about two things. One of those is an increasing tendency for DND to look to contracting out for what some would call routine maintenance facilities for the Canadian navy, for purported short-term savings. The second is the tendencies of suppliers of new equipment to argue that only they can do the maintenance. I guess I want to know if you would share the concerns that many have that, when we do this, we may find at times of crisis that those private suppliers are busy, unavailable, or bankrupt, and therefore not able to provide in a timely manner the service that was originally expected.

So it's a concern about the privatization of existing maintenance services, and then about some of the new equipment coming in the new ships being arguably so complex that we can't do our own maintenance.

[RAdm John Newton]

Sir, it's a great point, and it's a great point of concern for our ship repair men and women, and I don't...I'll never reduce that. In fact, one of my roles is always to promote the fleet maintenance facility, ship repair, and other trades personnel to show the value proposition of their specialized trade competencies and all the times they have enabled our ships to remain operational. Whether it's following a fire in a ship in theatre off Kuwait or the breakdown of a frigate in the NATO Reassurance mission, these people go forward, meet our ships, and help our sailors keep the ships on station. I'm always on the job of valuing that proposition.

What we have is three levels of maintenance. The first line, the ship's company will do; the second line is when you have to come back to port and you need the specialized care of either a contractor or the ship repair unit; and the third line is the maintenance in dry docks, where you really get into the ship and do the most difficult and complex repair efforts, which can't be done over a week or over even a month with a ship in its second-line period.

We already have, at the second- and third-line maintenance levels, contractors doing an extensive amount of readiness for our ships. The whole Kingston class fleet, 12 patrol ships, has an in-service support contract with a civilian industry. We performance-measure them and we hold them to the guns, and our ships stay on station, adequately supported by a civilian agent.

We have a long-term third-line maintenance contract for the submarines in Victoria, and that's why the preponderance of that fleet is near that yard.

Using contractors has even worked its way into specialization areas over time. We don't maintain a great workforce of welding and cutting plate. That's a very agricultural-style maintenance capability, and we go to industry because there's so much of it in industry that we can compete for the price on a case-by-case, contract-by-contract basis.

There are areas in which naturally we should gravitate towards in-service support or local contracting. There are areas, though, as you say, with old legacy equipment or high-tech, high-end warfare capabilities for which there aren't a lot of users in the world, nor many industries adapted to that specialization, for which we want to maintain the long-term competency and evolve it as the capability grows older.

There's our role, with that very specialized area. What we have to do is take our approximately 900-person ship repair units of today and make sure that those general-sized workforces of civilian public servants—highly technical, highly operationally related—evolve into the right domains as we get the most complex warships, whether they're submarines, the Canadian surface combatant, or even some of the capabilities in the joint support ship.

But the Arctic offshore patrol ship and the joint support ship are not among the high-end, uniquely difficult systems to maintain. What we're trying to find is the right balance between a commercial solution that is responsive, based on our lessons with the Kingston class fleet, to the specializations needed in the high-end warfare areas.

I'll leave my answer at that, Art, and give you 10 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Someone might want to circle back on that point.

Given the time we have remaining, I'll divide evenly and give every party five minutes. I have to leave some time for committee business in camera at the very end.

Having said that, Ms. Romanado, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to touch upon something that my colleague Mr. Bezan was talking about concerning our Victoria class submarines. We heard, when we were briefed at NORAD, about the emerging importance of protecting our Arctic and so on. We've seen that our colleagues in Russia, North Korea, and China have some interest in our Arctic.

What are your thoughts in terms of replacing our Victoria class submarines with nuclear, to have that capability to patrol the Arctic? I'm curious about whether you have an opinion on this. Of course, we're talking about the complexity of acquiring nuclear submarines. We heard from ADM Finn last week. Perhaps you would elaborate on what your thoughts are on nuclear class submarines.

[RAdm Art McDonald]

If you would like, John, I'll jump in on that one.

I think as opposed to focusing it on nuclear, the real piece, and the approach the navy normally takes with respect to developing the statement of its requirement, is on the requirement that we're trying to get there. You've touched on it. People often say nuclear because they're talking about the ability to operate under ice; air-independent propulsion, if you will. There are a number of potential methodologies for delivering that, with more advanced ones growing each day in addition to the nuclear option. Certainly I would say that this will be a consideration we need to have as we look at continuing the submarine service with follow-on classes.

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

Admiral Newton, do you want to add to that?

[RAdm John Newton]

There is a role, a place, and a time for every type of submarine, whether it's a conventional boat like the Victoria class or a Japanese boat with air-independent propulsion or a nuclear platform. There is, in the alliance and partnership world, a really valuable contribution to every type of submarine, and therefore a space for the Canadian submarine.

The north is not an easy operating environment. It is not necessarily the domain of undersea warfare, either. When you go forward and work above the Arctic Circle, you are going to the sea lanes that foreign services must use to come out of the Arctic as they attempt to use their navy to influence global affairs. Navies influencing global affairs, for good or for bad, aren't necessarily steaming toward the North Pole or into the Arctic Archipelago.

There is a role in the north; there is a role for all types of submarines; but where we tend to go is where potential adversarial forces are trying to come out of the Arctic to influence global affairs. That's today. I cannot tell you what it might be in the future, but my reality today is to send the boat I have under my employment forward toward those sea lines of egress from the north.

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

Based on the fact that there is a long timeline between the SOR, the RFP, the acquisition, and the readiness of the vessel, should we not be starting to think about what capabilities we're going to be needing in 10 and 20 years, because it takes a long time to acquire and get our equipment operational?

[RAdm Art McDonald]

We touched on that in the sense that there is dialogue ongoing with respect to all of our capabilities and how they need to evolve. Certainly all of it will be informed again once the DPR, the defence policy review, comes out and resets the context and the lens through which military planners are going to need to look into the future.

I think Admiral Newton's point and my point together is that employing our forces now as a force generator today—and tomorrow in the shorter term—is making sure that we get full value and demonstrate the relevance of the capability. That's easy to do in the current environment, as HMCS Windsor demonstrated last year.

John?

[RAdm John Newton]

I'll just finish, ma'am, by saying that our role as force generators has been to review the cycle program of the submarines, which is a very complex maintenance and operational cycle. Our role has allowed the cycle activity of the boats to be refined, and the endurance of the boats, in a lifetime, to be extended. We've learned from high-end use of the boats, high-tempo use, what the boat is capable of doing; what kind of maintenance demand it is placing on it; what kind of supply chain is required; what kind of long-term contract with a third party, in-service support contract, is required.

We're doing really well at informing the process that leads to the future capability discussion, because it allows the future capability discussion to have a time and date when the programmers in Ottawa and all our allies in government are able to align the stars to get that replacement program onto the books. We're creating the space—that's our job—and the value proposition that Mr. McDonald just spoke of.