National Defence Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2016

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

Is that it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's it.

Mr. Bezan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk a bit about the upcoming design phase of the future surface combatants. Some concerns have been expressed that maybe we shouldn't be doing this as one block of all 12 to 15 ships under one design, and that maybe we should be doing it in smaller blocks so that we can divide that work and continue to keep up with technology. There's been some concern that we are looking at a frigate-size hull, and that maybe it should be somewhat more robust, more towards a destroyer, considering that threats are changing and technologies are changing, and we need to have some ability to have modular units that can be lifted in and lifted out to more easily upgrade that technology or change the mission as need be with the future vessel.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, Admirals. What do you want to see in future surface combatants?

[RAdm Art McDonald]

I'll start, Mr. Bezan, and John can follow.

I think that all of the considerations you highlighted, sir, are amongst those considerations that went into the extent of work that I had the pleasure of leading over the past few years as we looked at defining a capability that was going to be useful from the time it arrived and then through its entire life. Certainly, we're watching as the responses to the request for proposals roll in. In the meantime, our focus needs to be on ensuring that we have relevant employment for the vessels as they go forward. Here I'm talking about using and demonstrating capacity for a multi-purpose kind of vessel and retaining it in service.

The other element, as a force generator, that really gets my attention, to come back to Ms. Rempel's questions with respect to supply chain, is with regard to the advantages that are inherent in reducing the number of platforms that we have in terms of the varieties, variations, or derivatives of a platform that require specific training elements and specific supply chain elements in order to maintain naval readiness. There is advantage to having multi-purpose vessels, but that needs to be couched with consideration of the number of derivatives that would come out of that.

[RAdm John Newton]

These are all great questions. There is a very large staff in Ottawa working on making sure we do the best, given all of the constraints that are in defence procurement.

One thing I would say from my level is that we have to prove and sustain that we are a globally deployable, valued navy no matter where we show up to do the business of the nation. “Globally deployable” means the ship has to be big. What we have today is a big ship in the world of warships. It's not a huge ship but it is a fairly big ship, a very sea-keeping, stable platform capable of carrying a very large helicopter. It has the volume for the crew size we need, which is globally deploying, and it has space for the growth in equipment and capacities as technology and finances allow the country to pursue advancements as the ship evolves. We're always looking for that capacity, which is in essence a modularity in its own right that we have added to all our warships, a modular component, as time evolves. If we hold on to the premise that we're a globally deployable navy and that we require a fairly large and high-volume platform, we're tipping toward the domain that you're speaking of.

Modularity doesn't frighten us, but it's for programmers to decide whether it's the appropriate way to go. We have experience with modularity and mission modules in the Kingston class. It has its own set of challenges that are worth study and reflection on.

I would just leave it at that, with one final comment. We're getting an Arctic offshore patrol ship—6,000 tonnes, 6,000 miles, high volume, utility space for varied missions that will grow into that ship as we realize the potential of what has been purchased—and there is a case in point for many of the things you've just mentioned.

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

Do I have a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have a bit less than that.

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

I'll ask just a short question then.

The navy has struggled somewhat with the reserve force over the years, in both recruitment and retention. How are we sitting right now in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets as to reservists, and how have they been integrated into the fleets?

[RAdm Art McDonald]

I have functional authority for overseeing the revitalization of the naval reserves from one that had been predominantly, as I testified, based on delivering a specific mission in the Kingston class, and the sustainment challenges that came with that. In the last while, we've reoriented that to a strategic augmentation mission, allowing our reservists to serve in all classes. We've set threshold numbers. We've also provided them with non-standing but targeted to citizen-sailor kind of mission opportunities, such as a naval security team. I've just spent this past weekend with our reserves doing a regional boat exercise, and I can tell you that they're jazzed, they're excited about the opportunity to contribute as citizen-sailors once again.

Recruitment has actually increased in the naval reserves—one, because of that relevance piece that I've just talked about, the opportunity we're presenting to them; and two, a dedicated effort that we've made to own reserve recruiting, to reinvest in each of our 24 naval reserve divisions. We're seeing positive results as a result of that. Just this past weekend, in HMCS Malahat here in Victoria, they talked to me about this being a banner year for the recruitment of almost 20 sailors, with the year not even yet complete.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Admiral, I'll have to cut you off on that particular question.

Mr. Garrison, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Everybody's talking about being force generators today. Like Mr. Fisher, I was a former city councillor, and we always thought we had a role in force generation in enabling people to actually get to the base. We have an increasing problem at CFB Esquimalt in terms of transportation to the base, with the expansion of employment on the base and the shipyards.

I want to go back to Admiral McDonald on the question of the use of private contractors, the question of the new high-tech equipment that may be in the new platforms, and the claim that those companies have to do all the maintenance themselves in order to keep those functional. I guess I would add one more thing, that we're in the process of signing some trade agreements which would guarantee the right of non-Canadian bidders to bid on those contracts. Again, I'm asking you about the impact on our readiness and our security and our sovereignty of this use of private suppliers.

[RAdm Art McDonald]

I appreciate your continuing to have this line of questioning. As Admiral Newton highlighted earlier, I think there's room for both. We have the knowledge transfer between original equipment manufacturers and our fleet maintenance facilities to allow us to have an in-house strategic and operational capability to do second-line and third-line maintenance of our platforms, and to reliably trust in that.

But I think there's an advantage to trying to find the right balance between industrial provision of service support and in-house support, if for no other reason than managing, as force generators, a force that has to respond to threat to the environment, to changes in circumstances, means that we often have spurious levels that appear in sort of a sine wave, and the flexibility of having multiple service deliveries for our maintenance routine gives us the greatest efficiency going forward.

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

Great.

On the question of reserves, maybe I'll go back to you, Admiral Newton. You had something you wanted to add on that question.

[RAdm John Newton]

Yes. Our job, again, is to make the reserves exciting, to make it so they're as valued as any other sailor in the navy, and stop making this distinction of reserve versus regular force. It's one navy. It's either part-time service or full-time service. It's to speed the amount of time it takes to train and gain their certifications in their units, and we're putting a ton of effort into that.

The trouble we have is not with all the trades but specific trades. Any marine industry has troubles. It's marine engineering. It's any trade that has a high level of specialization. We're working on making sure they can move quickly to get those certifications with this modernization of our training system.

Finally, we're turning up the heat on training these people as soon as they are recruited, so we can't be blamed to be the one holding them back. We're putting a ton of effort into finding how to move these people quickly through the basic training that is required to take them from a student at university to a sailor in uniform. We're not wasting any time improving that process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Admiral Newton and Admiral McDonald, thank you for appearing today. Your testimony adds value to what we're trying to achieve. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We now have some committee business to deal with in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]