National Defence Committee on Feb. 14th, 2017

[Peter Jennings]

We have none at all.

At least twice in the last 20 years, it's been considered, but given our scale, the decision has always been that we're better off to maintain one highly capable maritime enforcement capability in the navy. Personally, that's a decision I'm very comfortable with. Therefore, the navy does perform a large part of our coast guard functions. It is actually the training ground for junior naval officers before they move into more capable vessels.

The one footnote to that is that our customs area does maintain a small maritime capability, now called Border Force. That's taking on a range of civil policing roles directed against drug movement and illegal people movements, the things that are well short of the serious conflicts that navies deal with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings, for being here today. I've appreciated listening to what you've had to say. It's a breath of fresh air to understand that we're not the only ones who have a lot of the challenges that we think are unique to Canada.

One thing I found particularly interesting in your discussion and in your submission, which I read in advance, is that it seems that in Australia, the public will is perhaps a little bit more behind defence than what we're experiencing in Canada—at least, that's the way it came off in what I read.

You also talked about bipartisan support, a point Mr. Bezan raised. If you go around this table, with three different political parties sitting here, we will all tell you that, yes, we believe in defence; yes, we believe in sovereignty; yes, we have to defend. It's the degree to which we do, because some of us will say, no, it's more important to invest in this than it is to invest in that one. It's about where you fall on the spectrum.

Do you find that there is strong public support for defence and building up the navy, as you've been talking about? In particular, I noticed in your comments that you spoke briefly about our “proximity” to the U.S. I quite often feel as though perhaps a lot of the political will in Canada is lacking as a result of our proximity to the U.S., but this is obviously my personal opinion.

Could you comment on that?

[Peter Jennings]

My sense of it, Mr. Gerretsen, is that there is a more ingrained sense of threat in terms of Australian community perceptions. It was once explained by a former Australian foreign minister when he said that Australia feels “the hot breath” of Asia on its neck. I think that kind of goes to our different strategic geography and an ingrained Australian sense of there always being some potential vulnerability on the strategic front.

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

Is that a general feeling among the public, do you find? Does that resonate with the public, or is it just folks like us, sitting in this room?

[Peter Jennings]

It resonates with a significant part of the public. I would explain that by saying that if you look at opinion polls, the support for our alliance relationship with the United States routinely gets 80% support.

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

Wow.

[Peter Jennings]

Maintaining defence spending at 2% of gross national product, which is roughly double yours, doesn't have quite that high a level of support, but it has a high level of support in that 60% of Australians would say that it was about right, or that indeed we should spend more.

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

I think in Canada we've been trying to sound the alarm, so to speak, with respect to the activity in the north. With the opening of the Arctic and the more sophisticated vessels that can travel through there now, that sovereignty becomes more and more questionable in terms of what's needed to retain it. However, it's interesting to hear you say that.

You talked about the bureaucratic football passing between departments and the 40 or so recommendations that had to go to cabinet per year. I didn't hear you talk about how you would streamline that. Is it about delegating more authority? How do you get away from that?

I would agree that it's just a recipe for stalling things over and over. How do you move beyond that?

[Peter Jennings]

I'd suggest two strategies, which government is looking at to one degree or another.

The first is deciding sensibly what threshold of dollar value a government should take to cabinet. In our case it's been very low. It's been $200 million. If you look at defence expenditure, that is, I think, a ridiculously low level of expenditure to require a cabinet decision, so you can lift the threshold. We call it “two-minister approval”. The Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance can themselves take on a lot of the decision-making, which would free up cabinet time.

There's a second thing that I think is worth mentioning. A lot of that football comes down to warfare over cost estimates. What the defence department is trying to do now is maintain a much stronger capability for realistic costing of defence projects to undercut the football matches that they then play with the Department of Finance and others when costing is called into question. You do that by having stronger engagement with the private sector on cost analysis and an almost permanent standing capability of defence and finance officials who fight the fight before you get into the lodging of cabinet submissions.

I think those two things could help streamline the process somewhat.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison, you'll have the last question. The floor is yours.

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

Thanks very much.

I guess if we cast back to Ms. Gallant's comments about what we could do together, if I were doing Let's Make a Deal, I'd ask you to build our submarines and we'd build your icebreakers and replenishment ships.

That leads to my question. You talk about some things being built offshore, an icebreaker and replenishment ships. Are those contracts already let? Are those under way, and who are they with?

[Peter Jennings]

Yes, they are. They've gone to Korea, and they're based on civilian designs. They're soon to be delivered.

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

They're not being based on military designs.

[Peter Jennings]

That is correct, yes.

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

That leads to my second question. It's another remark that you made, and I couldn't quite find it—

[Peter Jennings]

Sorry, can I perhaps slightly correct the record? There are two navy vessels, which are basically fleet oilers, being built in Korea. We have a requirement for an icebreaker, which will not be part of the navy; it will be run by our Antarctic establishment. I'm not able to tell you where that is being constructed, I'm afraid.

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

Okay.

Somewhere in your presentation you talked about the tendency of somebody—and we're never quite sure who's responsible—to keep redrawing the plans before you start building and to keep changing the design and modifying it further. Certainly I understand that people want to do the most current thing, but at some point that defeats actually getting things produced. I think you've had experience with that in Australia.

[Peter Jennings]

Absolutely. The government's sacred icon is this idea of off-the-shelf military procurement, which I don't think is really deliverable in terms of Australian requirements.

With the navy in a situation of wanting a French design, an American weapons system, and Australian radar, as soon as you start talking about those things you blow off-the-shelf military procurement out of the water. I think there is partially a solution here through this idea of spiral development, so that every ship of a new class comes along with some degree of improvement.

Then I think it's also that you just have to put the absolute laser demand on the navy and on the capability developers in the defence department not to get carried away with aspiration—the idea that if you can have one hangar, why not two, because two helicopters are always better than one in a ASW ship, for example. It's actually having the discipline to say, “No, we're not going to do that. We'll save the $600 million and just go with one hangar.” They are tough discussions, but I think defence is now much more accepting that you need to do that in order to get projects actually ticking through on time.

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

This is my last question. When you talk about opportunities for co-operation in the systems part of things, are there also opportunities for more co-operation in training?

[Peter Jennings]

Absolutely. I think the big challenge is getting to each other's locations. Of course, one hears that all the time, but it seems to me that both our armed forces are increasingly using simulators, which ought to deal with a significant amount of that.

Ultimately, the challenge for the Australia-Canada defence relationship is that if we think it's worthwhile, we have to be prepared to put in the effort; otherwise, let's not fool ourselves. My own sense, particularly in these troubling times, is that it is worth the effort, but it will require some people sometimes to get on an aircraft and make the long journey.

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

All right; thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Jennings, thank you very much for spending some time with us today and sharing your perspective on how Australia is conducting its way forward with its navy and naval recapitalization.

I'm going to suspend, say goodbye, and then we can resume with committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]