National Defence Committee on Feb. 1st, 2018

[Patrick Finn]

It's not protocols that they apply to the allies.

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

Okay, I've got it.

I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. O'Toole opened up the question of naval procurement as it relates to NATO, I'd like to go back to that question. Now that Asterix is in service, of course, and Canada has agreements with some of our other naval partners, have there been any concerns expressed to Canada about our ability to meet our commitments to NATO in terms of naval support and—as a result of the questions that Mr. O'Toole was asking by implication—our ability to replenish ships?

[Patrick Finn]

Sir, not that I'm aware of, but I perhaps would not be the person who would know. It would maybe again be a question for our operational....

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

Let me make it a little more specific, then.

Mr. O'Toole raised the question of delays. Are you aware of any concerns, or have concerns been expressed to you, about delays in the shipbuilding on the west coast, which will provide the next supply ship, in terms of our ability to meet our naval commitments at the current time?

[Patrick Finn]

Sir, I would say that internally, amongst ourselves, there are some concerns. The reality is that if there are delays, the impact will be particularly on domestic operations and Canada's sovereign ability. I think that is how Admiral Lloyd has expressed it to me. As for gaining access to refuellers and things of that nature through NATO in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and other places, more nations provide it and therefore can do it.

It's really about the ability of Canada to operate on its own, and that's where this commercial ship provides some capability. It is quite different from the warship that will be the joint support ship, to be clear, and that is why it is so important to us. We are working very closely in recent weeks with the shipyard in looking at what we can do to advance projects. We're seeing some success there.

Much as we look at the shipyards, I would say that sometimes the government side, as well some of our behaviour, approaches, or demands, actually inject problems and delays. We want to make sure we are being coherent on this strategy and in what we do.

There are no two ways about it: for the next half-century, having a naval task group with warships are combat capable is about having a military warship that not only can do replenishment but can also be part of a task group in terms of command and control, helicopter operations, etc.

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

When you say “military warship”, you're making a distinction here between the capacity the Asterix offers in the interim and the capacities of the new ship that's to be built.

[Patrick Finn]

I am, sir. I mean, the Asterix has provided exactly what we asked them to do. I think the shipyard did a really good of delivering it and doing it.

I often give people this analogy. If we could go on land operations with heavy SUVs or with armoured vehicles, we'd rather go with the latter. This is similar. Fundamentally, in terms of shock, damage, stability, and a whole bunch of areas, we do work there, and the joint support ship, from stem to stern, will be designed for that purpose. We did not impose that upon a commercial ship, because of the speed at which we needed it. What it needed to do, what kinds of areas it could go to, and the things it can do are quite different. The Asterix, in the context of that service contract to us, is delivering exactly what we asked of it.

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

In other words, it's filling a gap rather than filling the capability in the long term.

[Patrick Finn]

Exactly, sir. It's five years, plus options. There are things we want to do, but again, as the admiral has said this many times, and the minister and others, the road forward is through the joint support ship.

In army bases right now, we're trying to deliver wreckers and large tow trucks. We're in the process of delivering them but we don't have them, so we're turning to industry for heavy wreckers in some of our training areas. We would not deploy with commercial heavy wreckers. We need to resolve that, and it is the same thing here.

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

In terms of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's it.

I'm going to have to cut you off, Randall; that's your time.

We do have additional time, though. Predictably, I'll go to five-minute questions to see where we're at. I'll go Liberal, NDP, and CPC.

The first five-minute question will go to Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will not need the entire five minutes. I'd be happy to delegate my time to Mr. Rioux.

I have a very quick question to the two of you.

With respect to the current landscape of NATO requirements, I want to ask about force protection, and in particular force protection aimed at counterterrorist threats. Is that an area of NATO procurement, or is that an area that's primarily addressed by what member states supply to protect their own armed forces? If there's a trend or a change, in which direction is that trend going?

[Patrick Finn]

Sir, thank you for the question.

In the context of procurement at NATO, like Canada, it responds to the requirements that are set. I have to say that I'm not aware of specific procurements in that area.

I don't know if you know of any specifically.

[Jennifer Hubbard]

The NSPA does offer force protection services, either through NATO nations who provide the service or through contracted support. For example, in Afghanistan, it offers force protection services.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

So both options exist.

[Jennifer Hubbard]

Both options exist.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll delegate the rest of my time to Mr. Rioux.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Hello, Mr. Finn. It is always a pleasure to receive such specific and concise information from you.

Since I have just two minutes, I will be brief.

In the new defence policy, $1.6 billion is allocated to innovation over the next 20 years. Can Canada use its ties with NATO to develop products that are more international?

Further, under the new procurement policy, the Department of National Defence will be able to award certain contracts without having to go through Public Services and Procurement Canada every time. That could help Canadian defence companies.

[Patrick Finn]

Thank you for your question, sir.

As to science and technology, my colleague Ms. Desmartis manages the innovation component of the defence policy, which is known as IDEeS. Canada has ties with NATO and is already involved in smart defence initiatives. We are trying to innovate in different areas.

The $1.6 billion will be used for initiatives not only in Canada. It will also allow us to share our knowledge and talk about our approach. In addition, there are other innovation programs within the federal government, such as those for which our colleagues at ISED are responsible.

You also touched on contracts. The new policy will give us greater procurement powers. We will be able to award contracts of up to $5 million, which account for over 90% of the contracts we award every year. That will afford us greater flexibility in our approach to innovation and in other areas such as information technology, which has been discussed.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

Mr. Finn, you made comments about the Aurora as it links into the future platform that's going to be used for aerial surveillance in NATO to replace the AWACS. I know “Strong, Secure, Engaged” never really put forward a long-term view of what we're going to do in replacing the Auroras.

Is that because we're looking at what NATO might do and how that may impact our sub hunters, those being the Auroras, in doing that long-distance surveillance?

[Patrick Finn]

I think there are a couple of different things.

Let me speak to the Auroras. We still have some years ahead as we add more capability to the aircraft. We're just finishing the life extension of the aircraft to 2030, which is a pretty significant capability investment. We've seen it operate in northern Iraq to great effect. As the commander of the air force calls it, particularly as upgraded, it is still probably a premier anti-submarine warfare aircraft in the world.

There are a lot of investments in that capability, a lot of positive outcome. We've seen its performance on training and what it can do. “Strong, Secure, Engaged” talks about a maritime multi-mission aircraft. It is later in the investments, but that is because of what we're doing with the Auroras today.

In the context of NATO, the big thing is that NATO at this point is not looking at what aircraft replaces the AWACS, but at what the capability should be: how do we do it? Is it more satellite? Is it more allies? Is it a network of things? NATO is also looking at the maritime multi-mission aircraft. A set of countries is looking at that. We're contemplating joining that group of like-minded nations.

That is really about the multi-mission capability. What we do post-Aurora versus NATO is still in the infancy of what we do post-AWACS. The two could wind up aligning if it becomes a network of things. Does our Aurora and its replacement then become part of that network?