Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 11 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, February 26, 2007
The Standing Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 9:41 a.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. I am Senator Kenny, Chair of the Committee on National Security and Defence. Before we begin, I will introduce committee members. On my immediate right is Senator Tkachuk, from Saskatchewan. He is Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Selection Committee. In his life outside Parliament, he has worked as a teacher and businessman. Beside Senator Tkachuk is Senator Tommy Banks, from Alberta. He was called to the Senate following a 50-year career in the entertainment industry. He is Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Beside Senator Banks, is Senator Wilfred Moore, from Halifax, Nova Scotia. He is a lawyer with an extensive record of community involvement. He has served for 10 years on the Board of Governors of St. Mary's University and sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and on the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Beside Senator Moore is Senator George Baker, from Newfoundland and Labrador. He has had an extensive career in Parliament, beginning in the House of Commons and continuing in the Senate. At the end of the table is Senator Consiglio Di Nino, from Ontario. He sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
On my immediate left is Senator Norm Atkins, from Ontario. He came to the Senate with 27 years of experience in the field of communications. He has served as senior adviser to former Progressive Conservative Leader, Robert Stanfield, former Premier Bill Davis, of Ontario, and to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Beside Senator Atkins is Senator Joseph Day, from New Brunswick. He is the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and is a member of the bars of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, and a fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. He is the former President and CEO of the New Brunswick Forest Products Association. At the end of the table is Senator Terry Stratton, from Manitoba. He is the government whip in the Senate and, before being called to the Senate in 1993, he was a businessman and a teacher.
We have before us today Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff and Commander of the Land Forces. Lieutenant-General Leslie is an artillery officer by trade, who has commanded all levels from Commander 1 Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, Commander 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, Commander Task Force Kabul and his present position, Commander of the Canadian Army. He has served senior staff tours in Canada and Bosnia. Lieutenant-General Leslie is the recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal for his actions under fire while fighting in the former Yugoslavia in 1995 and the Meritorious Service Cross for his actions in Afghanistan in 2003. He is accompanied by Chief Warrant Officer Greg Lacroix, Army Regimental Sergeant Major.
Gentlemen, welcome to the committee. Lieutenant-General Leslie, please proceed with your opening statement.
[Translation]
Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, National Defence: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see you again.
I have followed the committee's work with interest, including its recent visit to western Canada. During your hearings, you touched on a number of substantive issues. I thought I would address some of those, after which I will be pleased to answer all your questions.
Many of you have expressed an interest in the transformation of the Canadian Forces, in our new command structure and in the question whether that structure is producing valid results for the army.
First, I would say that our transformation, that of the army, has made us more efficient in establishing a force. Our system of information on the army's state of managed readiness enables us to monitor our resources much more efficiently than previously, and also to establish a much more stable and predictable calendar of our units for the benefit of our soldiers and their families. This improvement in the management of our resources enables us to respond more effectively to the requirements of our missions, in particular to increase our forces in Afghanistan, as we were asked to do last year.
The army continues to establish forces for the duties and missions decided on by the government and chief of defence staff, precisely as it has done in the past.
In my opinion, the army has adjusted very well to the new command structure. Of course, it has felt some pain over time, as is the case of any evolving organization.
Communications are better in certain sectors than in others, but, on the whole, are improving. In general, communication channels operate properly, and the new system is increasingly efficient. Since we form a single large team, over time, we are finding ways to make the new commands even more efficient.
If the Canadian Forces believe that we can improve the system by making certain structural changes, I am convinced we will do it. If we detect structural weaknesses, we will correct them.
Since the army continues to establish the required forces, it does not feel it is mainly experiencing a problem of operational efficiency or information transmission. Each of the new commands expresses personnel needs, and that is normal.
The problem is more the following. By making those demands on the army, we are soliciting the same pool of soldiers. That is why it is imperative that we prepare plans to expand the ranks of the armed forces.
I do not intend to reiterate the remarks I made before you last November. However, I will repeat that we need that kind of growth in order to honour our commitments and also to provide our military personnel with a better balance between their assignments, instruction periods and the time they spend with their families.
In short, the Canadian Forces are effective under their new structure. However, we are imposing a new burden on an already limited number of soldiers. A continuing increase in armed forces personnel is the only way for us to relieve the pressure currently placed on our ranks.
Thank you for the support you are showing toward our military personnel, particularly those who are posted to Afghanistan and who are doing an excellent job there. I will now be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
Senator Banks: Good morning general and thank you for your statement. Good morning chief. I want you to know that we know who really runs the army and we are delighted that you are here today. We know that because we sometimes had the honour of being accompanied on our visits to army bases by CWO Dessureault, who once occupied your position. One time we arrived at a base and were escorted on to a ratty bus while the general's car was sent for the chief who arrived long before and in better shape than we did. We understand priorities chief.
General, we are delighted to hear you reiterate the necessity for increases in the number of people in the forces because we have been arguing that for a long time.
The last time we talked, you were very much involved in the design of strategic planning having to do with foreseeing the change in the structure to which you referred and in particular the defence capabilities guide which became the defence capabilities plan.
While we have not seen it yet, can you comment on it and do you think that in its present form it is going to do what needs to be done, particularly in respect to your force generation job and your present role.
Are we there yet? Is it going to do what you want it to do? I am asking you that because in essence, you wrote it.
LGen. Leslie: Senator, in my former job as Director General Strategic Planning, which has since been separated into two jobs, one of Chief of Force Development, the other Chief of Program, I was responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff for the initial drafts of the consequence capability plan. My tenure in that former job ended about eight months ago. Since then, my involvement as a senior officer in the Canadian Forces has been there, but it is not intimate.
To be honest, I have not seen the latest amendments to the defence capability plan and of course they are just drafts up until such time as the minister signs them. Essentially, though, there are quite a large number of drafts that are written and rewritten, certainly during my time eight months ago, and I think we were on draft 13 or 14 by the time I left that position. The drafts change depending on a variety of circumstances and indications, government funding, a variety of priorities, allocations of national procurement funds; the list goes on. In my former job as Director General Strategic Planning, I was intimately involved in the priorities and capabilities outlined in the defence capability plan but my input into the new command structure in my former job was minimal. That was not handled in my office, in the Director General Strategic Planning.
Senator Banks: I would imagine that the tabling of that plan in whatever form is of great interest to you. Do you have any indication of when that might be? There was some indication it would have happened last summer. Do you have any date in mind?
LGen. Leslie: No, I am sorry, I do not. I am not part of that inner team that is actively working on the full defence capability plan. I really do not know. Of course it is statement of government intent, so it is beyond my remit to comment on possible contents. Once again, these documents do not mean much, if anything, until the government of Canada actually affixes its signature to it.
The Chairman: General, are you telling us, then, that is it just you or is this the case for all three environmental commanders? Are you not part of developing the defence capability strategy or the Canada First defence plan?
LGen. Leslie: We are part of the process, senator, but my main focus is on the portion which directly affects the army. The drafts of the defence capability plan, which I last saw in some detail several months ago, is a rather holistic document that quite naturally covers the entirety of the Canadian Forces.
The Chairman: You are, however, current on the army portion of it.
LGen. Leslie: Yes, I am.
Senator Banks: We are very hopeful of hearing about that as soon as we can because it is cogent to our interests as well as it is to yours, general.
When we were in Calgary, we met with 41 Canadian Brigade Group and all of its component parts and its commanders. The army is, quite rightly in our view, working hard at making sure that the militia is an increasingly important part of what the army does. We have learned that the militia makes very significant contributions to the army.
How is that going with respect to recruiting? I will give you perhaps the most egregious example: The Calgary Highlanders, who, if I recall correctly, have a total complement of about 230, are sending 90 of their people on the next roto to Afghanistan, which is obviously a pace that they cannot possibly keep up if they are going to be training and replacing.
Is that an extraordinary example or is that the level at which militia units are contributing, and what does that do to their capacity to function when they lose 90 out of 230 people?
LGen. Leslie: Thank you, senator. I believe the deployment date of the Calgary Highlanders is February 2008. The next rotation on deck is actually mainly based on Sector du Quebec, and they will be deploying in August.
Senator Banks: You are right, it is early 2008.
LGen. Leslie: In February of 2008, the numbers will be somewhere between 70 and 90 from the Calgary Highlanders. As you know, I have spent many years out West and I know the Calgary Highlanders very well. They are a tough, fierce, proud unit who enjoy an enormous amount of popular support in the local community. The numbers that they are producing are extraordinary, matched perhaps only by the Regiment de Voltigeurs and perhaps one or two others. It is an extraordinary effort and I commend them for it.
I do not really care where the soldiers come from, be they regular or reserves. And ever increasing numbers of our young men and women who have actually been in combat do not care either. It is not where a soldier is from but what the soldier can do for us right now. We are not losing these soldiers when they decide to vote with their feet and join us in expeditionary missions overseas such as Afghanistan.
Without the reserves, I cannot do my job in terms of force generation. If every reservist decided to stay at home, I would have to go to my boss and say stop; we cannot do this anymore. By the time February rolls around, we are looking at somewhere between 400 to 600 reservists out of the total strength of 2,500 being included in the mix.
I am sorry Senator; I missed the first part of your question.
Senator Banks: If my number about the total complement of the Calgary Highlanders is correct, when you remove 90 people from it, can it continue to function? You are sending a lot of people there who know how to do the job. They cannot be in Calgary, training a batch of reservists. They are not going to be able to deal with the next rotation.
LGen. Leslie: In times past, there was a building block approach based on the sub-unit level. We have recently changed that, so we want to send affiliated battle groups overseas. Those battle groups will be focussed on one geographic region of Canada, from one of my land forces areas. There are some anomalies. For example, the current deployment, based on 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, has a company from each of the land force areas that are included as part of the mix. It is not bad, but it is not perfect. It creates a whole bunch of extra work and some tensions within some of the areas because no one ever gets a period in which he or she can focus exclusively on training or reconstitution.
Starting with the August deployment, based on the Van Doos, 90 per cent of that force will come from the Secteur du Québec de la Force terrestre. In February, 90 per cent of the force will come from Land Forces Western Area. Why am I going on at some length trying to describe this? It means that the Calgary Highlanders, to go back to your example, will be sending somewhere between 70 and 90 soldiers overseas in February. They will not be on deck again until 18 months to two years in the future, wherever they might be sent, keeping in mind, as you know so well, no one has given me any instructions that the mission will continue past February of 2009. It is logical to assume that we may have to be ready to go somewhere, to do something. They will be out of the operational loop for international operation operations, for at least an 18-month to 2-year period following that. This will allow them some time to recruit new members, to reconstitute and be ready to do it again, although 70 to 90 is an extraordinarily high number.
Senator Banks: As a proportion.
LGen. Leslie: It is.
Senator Banks: If they had 500 soldiers, it would not be a problem.
LGen. Leslie: Right. It is a remarkable performance by the Highlanders.
Senator Atkins: Using the example of the Calgary Highlanders, once the 90 are deployed, what is the financial arrangement for the regiment that allows them to rebuild? Are they penalized by the fact that they have made this contribution?
LGen. Leslie: I do not think they are penalized. Their soldiers, young men and women, are gaining invaluable experience. When they get back from their tour, they will be able to transmit their experience to the other soldiers.
Senator Atkins: I am talking about the regiment.
LGen. Leslie: The regiment itself has a budget. When those 70 to 90 soldiers go through their preparatory training, the regiment no longer pays for their full-time service. That in turn allows the regiment to use the funds that they have been allocated to try to recruit more soldiers. When they are overseas, and I know you are well aware of the distinction between class A, B, and C, they are doing their full-time training. They are on class B, not paid by the regiment. This is in the immediate work-up phase. When they go overseas, they are on class C, which is the same as regular force wages. That still leaves the commanding officer of the regiment a healthy pot of gold with which to recruit others.
The Chairman: General, it was characterized to the committee that their budget would decrease as they went on deployment, and they saw that as a penalty to their operations.
LGen. Leslie: I would have to drill down into the specific issue of the Calgary Highlanders. They have a brigade headquarters over there, and an area headquarters over them. Perhaps I should know the budget figures for each of the 147 units.
The Chairman: The way it was characterized to us, general, is that their funding was driven by their numbers. If you do not have an answer, perhaps you could provide it to the clerk of the committee because we would be grateful to have a better understanding of this subject.
LGen. Leslie: Mr. Chairman, there is a parallel issue as well, if I may, and that is I am hopeful that a significant number, to once use a specific example of the Calgary Highlanders, those great folk, will decide to transfer to the regular force while they are on active duty. This in turn would mean those that leave and join the regular force, should be replaced within the Calgary Highlanders. But what numbers those are yet, I do not know. It is up to them. But I owe you an answer, sir, and I will get back to that to you.
Senator Meighen: Is that a seamless transformation now?
LGen. Leslie: We want to make it as seamless as possible. In the past there have been a variety of horror stories about young reserve sergeants who have acquitted themselves well under combat conditions, electing to joint regular force and being offered a job as a corporal. The understanding is if you are doing a sergeant's job overseas in the infantry, as a reservist, you will join as an infantry sergeant in the regular force. There are one or two small issues that have to be resolved case by case. For example, maybe the reserve sergeant in the infantry does not have the small arms instructor's course. Maybe he is missing the live crew commander's course because he was not employed in a hard infantry role in Afghanistan. We are going to sort this out.
Senator Meighen: If memory serves me well, one of the complaints was paperwork, and I guess we all know the horror stories dealing with paperwork, the difficulty transferring from, in many cases, from the reserves and back again. Records were mislaid and other problems.
LGen. Leslie: Senator, I am usually a very calm and rational fellow. When you mention paperwork, it will probably launch me on a rant, on a tangent. The billions of dollars we spend on information technology seem to do nothing more than simplistically extend the time of processing. The amount of bureaucracies that we, in our wisdom, have instituted over the last 30 years is truly a wonder to behold. So yes, I sincerely hope for everyone's sake that the transfer time is a lot faster than it has been in the past.
Senator Meighen: Can you fix that, or does some taskforce have to come in from outside? I am not being critical of the army when I ask.
LGen. Leslie: One of the options is to arm the army sergeant major with live ammunition and send him down to deal with some of these issues.
Senator Kenny: We thought he did it with his bare hands.
Senator Banks: Just to pursue that, this is a problem that we both have been addressing, since this committee was formed. So far, the sort of cutting through the spaghetti bowl has not happened yet, we do not think. You say it is getting better.
Is it going to be solved, or does something along the lines of what you were talking about have to be done? We really want to ask that question. Can this be solved? Can we get to some practical management practices which would allow things to go ahead?
LGen. Leslie: There will always be individual horror stories for one reason or another. Papers go missing; computer files go wherever computer files go when they can never be found. In the main, I am confident that we can do an awful lot better job than we are doing now. Are we doing a great job? I would say no, we are not.
Senator Banks: Are we doing a better job than we used to?
LGen. Leslie: I think we are doing a slightly better job than we used to. It is not going to be until the next three or four months goes by, when we see a whole bunch of these young folk who will be offered this letter from me, saying, you have done the job as a soldier serving your country overseas. We now want you to try it with the regulars. Come on across. That is when the true test will be.
We will find individual horror stories, not because anybody's ill-intentioned or evil, but because the large cumbersome bureaucracies involved will slow the process down. That is when the army RSM and I will try to sort it out. It is extraordinarily frustrating for everyone concerned.
Senator Banks: Everybody always complains about the boss, whoever it is. There is a sort of undertaking, when somebody goes overseas, particularly if they are going into a shooting war, that when they come back, there is going to be a certain amount of time that they are going to be okay, and they are going to be at home and they are not going to have to leave their family.
We have heard, and I am going to ask you just to comment on it, that sometimes people are asked to sign a waiver. I guess someone is always asked to sign a waiver if they want to go back into that situation earlier than would normally be prescribed, and that, sometimes failure to do so is a career-hurting action.
As a corollary question, sometimes when folks come back from overseas, they get to spend time at home, but sometimes they are sent away on a course somewhere, which is, as far as the family is concerned, the same thing as them being in Afghanistan. We have heard that this is a problem.
Have you heard that, and do you think it is a significant problem, or are we just hearing normal beefing from folks who get angry about stuff?
LGen. Leslie: All soldiers, myself included, like to engage in what you call ``beefing''; but almost invariably at the core of such beefing is that kernel of truth. It has been a problem and it will continue to be a problem. I have issued orders that every soldier is to spend 90 days at home after returning from a mission, keeping in mind that waivers can and have to be signed occasionally.
One example I have recently dealt with is a combat experience. With the now returning battle group, based on one RCR, we have done very good work. That give us a pool of about 5,000 soldiers that we can use to train the others in terms of the low-level teaching points of how to survive in combat. There is only one real cadre of expertise, and those are the veterans who have done it.
Up until very recently, most of our expertise was based on the great folks from the 1PPCLI Battle Group. It is not only the infantry; it is the armoury, the artillery, the engineers and combat logistics patrols that made up that team. We have had logisticians out there fighting for their lives delivering supplies to the troops.
On occasion, we have had to ask folks who have not been home for 90 days yet to go to Wainwright from Edmonton and give us a hand running the next generation of soon-to-be veterans through their paces. Is that an additional burden on the family? Yes, it is. Is that tough? Yes, it is, but think of the alternative, which is we lose soldiers we might otherwise not have lost because they did not have that hands-on experience transmitted to them by the recent crop of returning soldiers.
In time, it will get better because of the critical mass of the army. By February 2009, just about every soldier in the regular army and 20 per cent of the reserve force will have gone through that same experience, so we will not have to keep going to the same ones. It will get better, but there are still some anomalies.
Do you want to comment, Chief Warrant Officer Lacroix?
Chief Warrant Officer Greg Lacroix, Army Regimental Sergeant Major, National Defence: It is certainly something we are trying to achieve, and I am sure the chain of command is aware that we are trying to achieve this goal. Again, sir, there are ``onesies'' and ``twosies'' out there who have these stories. Sometimes these onesies and twosies grow into 30, and platoon size and regimental size. We understand how this can progress to that level, but the effort is there.
Are there career implications for people signing waivers? Absolutely not. They understand the rules. There are people who wish to sign waivers and go back as soon as possible. It depends on their present employment situation.
No one is being forced here. The perception of could your career eventually be better down the road, with the amount of operations available, the more you do, learn and qualify yourself in your particular training and role certainly will have benefits in the end. However, will it deter you? Absolutely not. This is something we will be taking a stringent look at in the future.
The Chairman: This really drives home a point. The issue that was leading to burnout was precisely this. The dilemma that the committee saw was wives who were very unhappy about the fact that their spouses were being sent off and they were not having days at home in their own beds. The spouses, conscious of the needs of the army and the fact that their career depends on getting these courses checked off, were saying fine, I will go and do it.
I understand what you are saying, Lieutenant-General Leslie, but the bottom line is we are stressing people in a way that we thought we had a commitment from the CF was not going to happen anymore.
LGen. Leslie: We need more soldiers to do all we have been asked to do.
The Chairman: From the looks of it, you will not get the soldiers until 2016. Can you make do with a CF at its current size? Can you manage with the tempo of operations you are dealing with if you are not going to hit 75,000 until 2016?
LGen. Leslie: The 75,000 addresses the requirements of the Canadian Forces. I will just focus my comments on the army. I need 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers over the next three to five years. That is above and beyond our current figures.
Those numbers come as no surprise to anybody who has been paying attention to the issue, which is to try to do three things. One is to purchase a certain degree of equilibrium for the men and women we ask to go overseas between operational tours. There is the increased training we are putting our people through, not decreased training. In the past, certain people were badgering on about how they wanted us to reduce training time. Guess what? Training is taking longer; it is more expensive and consumes more live ammunition. I think we are seeing the results overseas; soldiers are acquitting themselves very well.
The Chairman: Also, soldiers are coming back alive because of it.
LGen. Leslie: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is equilibrium for the families and the ability to generate the critical mass of boots on the ground required for domestic and international operations.
I know you gentlemen know a great deal about this subject, but there was a time that technology was seen as the panacea. When we had to line up and slaughter large herds of Russian tanks on the Westphalian Plain, we could start to attack the size of our manpower pools because the numbers of boots on the ground was not seen to be as important as firepower or intelligence.
Now, in some of the counter-insurgency asymmetric threat responses we are dealing with, the single most valuable weapon system we have is large numbers of men and women with a rifle and a radio out there, exerting a calming influence on the local population. The more of those you have the better. Therefore, we need a certain critical mass, much more so than in the past. We used to send 800-manned battalions overseas and 1,000-man missions; now they are anywhere from 1,500 to 2,500. As we have seen, our NATO allies are reinforcing some of the other troops in Kandahar to bring up those numbers.
The third issue is to ensure we have enough to populate our training systems, so we can get away from the cycle of sending folks from regiments and battalions to our training cadres, which is yet more time away from home — three or four months — and then they have to go back to their parent unit.
The Chairman: Can funding solve this problem?
LGen. Leslie: Funding would certainly ameliorate some conditions but the main issue is capacity.
The Chairman: Do you mean training capacity?
LGen. Leslie: Yes, but it is not only the infrastructure and the vehicles; it is also the instructors that we need. It takes 15 years to become a sergeant, and for a warrant officer, one who is actually hands-on at a platoon troop level, it is 20 years.
We are getting an enormous amount of experience, not only in Afghanistan but also in Kosovo, Bosnia and at home, for regular and reserves. We will see some young folks moving through the ranks quickly because the experience that they have earned will put them further ahead than their peers were five or 10 years ago.
Money is an issue, but the main block is instructional, institutional capacity to handle the large numbers. We do not want to give one iota on the quality of training that we give those folks. In the past, we could; at the height of the Cold War, if the balloon went up, probably it was going to be over very quickly anyway.
The Chairman: If you had the money, could you send the troops directly to units to be trained there?
LGen. Leslie: It is an option. However, we could not do that right now because the units are so short in terms of people as compared to what their strengths are overseas. Let me explain. When we send a 150-man rifle company overseas, LAV based, their peace-time strength is probably no more than 100, of which 10 or 15 are left out of battle on courses that can no longer be deferred, or they are injured or whatever the case may be. That means to send one company overseas you have to go to a company-and-a-half of your peace-time establishment. Right now, we have five companies of infantry overseas, four manoeuvre companies and the core of a company in the observer mentor-liaison team. That is equivalent to nine or 10 rifle companies. The entire table of organization in the regular army has 27 rifle companies, which is why we have to go to the reserves so often and we will continue to do so in the future. It is capacity, capacity and not willing to give one inch on training standards.
Senator Day: Thank you for being here. General, I have difficulty in sorting out your role as Chief of the Land Staff, chief of the army, and the Canada Command operational role. The navy offers support to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is a federal agency. Is that a Canada Command function or is that something that comes under one of the chiefs of the environmental commands in terms of training and activity within Canada as a force generator?
LGen. Leslie: For training that would fall under the remit of maritime command. My knowledge of the details of preparing for fishery patrols or support to Transport Canada is lower than a snake's belly.
Senator Day: Do you in the army provide support to any government agencies that would come under your command, your Chief of the Land Staff responsibilities versus Canada Command activity?
LGen. Leslie: On occasion we do, senator. The most recent example is the preparatory work for the death of the last World War I veteran. We provided support to Vimy Ridge parades and ceremonies, all of which have national significance.
Domestic operations fall under Canada Command and not under my command. The ones who do the work, more often than not, are the area commanders who report directly to me, wearing one hat. Wearing the other hat, as required, there are also, in certain cases, joint force regional commanders reporting to Canada Command.
Senator Day: The example of Vimy Ridge or participating in the death of the last World War I veteran living here in Canada, that comes under your command? You would do that, your people?
LGen. Leslie: Yes, in part. The Commander of Land Force Central Area wears another hat as Joint Task Force Commander Central who does the detailed work.
Senator Day: That commander of central command has two hats, one reporting to you and the other reporting to Canada Command.
LGen. Leslie: That is correct.
Senator Day: I am not sure my mind is any clearer now than it was. Do you have difficulty in working between chief of the army and Commander of Canada Command in terms of who should be doing what?
LGen. Leslie: At times.
Senator Day: From whom do you receive your direction?
LGen. Leslie: I receive my direction from the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Senator Day: That person who is the Canada Commander likewise receives direction from the Chief of the Defence Staff?
LGen. Leslie: That is correct.
Senator Day: Is there an assistant chief of the defence staff between you or does it all come directly from the Chief of the Defence Staff?
LGen. Leslie: It comes from the Chief of the Defence Staff. I work for one person and that is the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Senator Day: Is the Chief of the Defence Staff building up a group of people who support his activities as well?
LGen. Leslie: He is building up a team calmed the Strategic Joint Staff, which is a new construct. Its time of origin is the same as the four new operational level commands. The best person to speak to about the Strategic Joint Staff is either the CDS or the director of staff.
Senator Day: Director of that staff?
LGen. Leslie: Yes.
Senator Day: Strategic Joint Staff.
I would like to follow up on the defence capabilities plan that we discussed with the Chief of the Defence Staff. I think we are initially told that was coming last year or maybe last summer. As you said, you were through 16 or 17 reiterations of it when you were on that strategic planning side of things.
I have a sense that our strategic planning is being driven by something closer and that is our Afghanistan operations. We read in the newspaper the decision to send tanks, when three or four years ago, we thought tanks were outdated and we went through the difficult time of decommissioning tanks and telling the soldiers we were not going to use them any longer. Now we are back trying to buy surplus tanks from Germany and leasing the more advanced Leopard 2 tanks. We are going into a new phase with the armoured core. We cancelled some of the artillery that we had that was no longer used. Now we are acquiring long-range artillery for the Afghanistan operations.
I hear what you had to say with respect to individual soldiers, as a stabilizing force, but we are also involved in artillery and in tank warfare from the Taliban especially when major offences are on going. All of this strategic change becomes a tactical item at the same time.
Is it fair for us to be thinking in terms of what you have been working on two years ago in this defence capabilities plan, or Canada First defence strategy, when we are into a situation like Afghanistan where things are changing weekly, daily?
LGen. Leslie: Senator, the army is focused on producing well-trained and well-equipped soldiers for Afghanistan. We have to train the leadership right down to the riflemen, send them off for a temporary period to work for someone else and then we get them back and the cycle begins again. It is not necessarily the paradigm on which our future force structures are being built. Having said that, most threat estimates which I have seen, unfortunately they are all classified, and most threat scenarios, which are classified because they are based on real world country developments, assume that if there is a hostile attempt or there is insurgence or opposing forces, the tactics and techniques being demonstrated in Afghanistan will be replicated elsewhere.
The idea of the military no longer being a blunt instrument but one of a series of instruments in a toolbox that can try and achieve a security set solution has caught on in large measure. The 3D approach is certainly resonating.
Senator Day: I do not mean to interrupt you, but I have heard the new term, ``comprehensive approach.''
LGen. Leslie: It is probably a better word picture.
How do I relate this back to tanks and guns? As you have implied, it is not only the infantry who are carrying the burden of the hard work in Afghanistan. It is the combined arms team. We spent a great deal of your tax dollars recently to harden the army, wrap our soldiers in more armour so they can have a better chance of survival against the suicide bombs, the rockets, air artillery shells, and allow them to do their business not only at short range but at longer ranges.
Very often if you have these medium- and heavier-weight capabilities, it sends a variety of signals which means that you do not always have to use these tanks and guns because once the opponent finds out you have them and are willing to use them, sometimes, not always, they back off.
We have invested money in guns and that is a true success story, helped in some measure by the work of this committee in getting the requirement very quickly through town and out to the field.
The tank issue is to better protect the soldiers. We have problems with the current tanks. They are very old. A variety of options are under review. You mention that we are doing a variety of things with them. I think you know this, but the Government of Canada has not made a decision on the way ahead for the tanks.
Senator Day: I understand there was a negotiating group in Germany last week.
LGen. Leslie: There are teams all over the world as part of the larger NATO construct doing a lot of work in trying to see what other nations are doing with respect to tanks. I am not saying we will not do the things planned. The government has not made a decision.
Senator Day: I am suggesting that it might be driving our strategic planning more than it would have a year ago.
LGen. Leslie: When I was intimately involved in the larger construct and not just in the army vision, the strategic plan looked out 15 to 20 years. It took into account such missions as Afghanistan, but they were not based on Afghanistan. There was a balance between domestic and international.
I do not see a disconnect between the focus or the priority in Afghanistan and longer-term thinking. What is starting to have an impact on my level, which is below that of the team crafting the DCP, is the bright skilled staff that should be looking out 10 or 15 years are now in ever-increasing numbers focused on dealing with today's and tomorrow's problems. I do not have a solution for that problem. It takes years to produce these people.
Senator Day: That is what I was trying to get at, using that well-known metaphor of the Afghanistan tail wagging the strategic planning dog. That is a concern we should have, but I am not sure how to get around it either, because Afghanistan is an all-encompassing part of your activity at this time.
If I can go back to the tanks and artillery issue, because those couple of examples would fall under your training side of things as a force generator for the army, is that part of the infrastructure, capacity and importance of training?
Now we are training in new equipment, and the operators of this equipment have to be trained here before being sent into the theatre.
LGen. Leslie: Yes, senator.
Senator Day: Because we were away from that, it must be even more difficult to find trainers for that kind of environment.
LGen. Leslie: It is difficult, as well as with some of the equipment.
In short order, Ottawa rallied PWGSC, the Treasury Board, PCO, DND, and the CF — and acquired the M777 guns, which are doing excellent work overseas. We bought six of them and might have to buy more because we have a small number on which to train. We are continuing to move this small number of guns around the country to train the gun crews to go overseas.
With respect to the number of tanks, we caught it just in time. We had about 66 hulls, of which maybe no more than 30 or so are actual vehicles that we can use, and 20 of those are overseas. There are a variety of issues with those tanks, some of which are classified. The reason why I will not go into too much detail is that I trust you but not necessarily everyone who might hear this testimony. We do not want to provide unpleasant elements a chance to figure out how to kill a tank. Any weapon system can be killed, unfortunately. You want to make them as tough as possible.
Some information is not classified, such as the heat issue, which has already been articulated in a variety of venues. Does that answer your question?
Senator Day: Yes, it does. I think we have had enough discussion so that we understand you have a challenge. I think it might be a little bit unfair of us by asking where this Canada First defence strategy is right now.
LGen. Leslie: That is outside of my sandbox, I am afraid.
Senator Day: With all of the discussion we have had, are 3,000 to 5,000 more soldiers over the next three to five years enough for you to do the job, assuming the task level we see right now will not likely diminish significantly?
LGen. Leslie: I think it will be enough if I can continue to rely on the good work of the reserves. One way we may be able to get the 3,000 to 5,000 over the next couple of years, as I have already alluded to, those whom we send overseas from the reserves will be offered the chance to lateral arabesque into the regular force. I do not know if that is a compliment, keeping in mind we want to make this as easy as possible. There will be horror stories, but we will try to sort them out with the paperwork.
Is it enough? I think most generals will always ask for more.
Senator Day: It does not sound like enough to me.
LGen. Leslie: On the other hand, the army is not of much use unless it has enough money to run its fleets and you have a navy and an air force that can carry us to where we have to go. Therefore, in the larger resource picture, you have to have a sense of the team and be willing to see the bigger picture given the resources that are likely to be assigned.
Senator Day: You raised the importance of the reserve from the militia. I agree that maybe one of the attractive measures might be to facilitate the transfer to the regular force, but not all reservists will want to do that or find that attractive but are prepared to serve their time and provide support to our Armed Forces and to Canada.
Do you have any difficulty in your discussions with the reservists being concerned they might lose their job or they do not have priority to be rehired when they come back? Should we go further to protect the employment situation of reservists who do not want to become regular force members?
LGen. Leslie: There are a variety of policies that can and should be discussed. I think they are being discussed at the national level.
I perhaps once a week or so are asked to make a phone call to an employer because soldier A or captain B cannot seem to get the okay from his employer to go overseas. You can imagine that by the time it gets to me, it has gone through the reserve brigade commander, the area commander and the Canadian Forces liaison counsellor, who does great work. By the time it gets to me, my record of accomplishment is not terribly good. However, in my conversations with usually the presidents of small firms, they have good reasons why they cannot let a sergeant go because he may be the only one who has a certain skill set and the company has just won an enormous contract. I will not tell you the soldier's name, but this occurred at an oil tar sands facility that could not afford to lose anybody. He really wanted to go, and it was not a question of money. It was a question of, if they did not have this particular individual, they would not win the contract, and then the ripple effect kicks in.
I wish I could report a better success rate. I am batting no more than 50 per cent, but the numbers of calls that get to my level are small.
Senator Tkachuk: You mentioned that you had some issues in the transformation but that you believe you are getting over the problems. What were those issues?
LGen. Leslie: Transformation is happening. Of course, transformation is not new. Armies evolve or die. We are undergoing the next stage of evolution which all thinking armies are paying a great deal of attention to.
You have transformation at the level of the battle groups, which is the core output of the army; you have transformation at the brigade group, which is the way information is managed, but that is tactical; and you have transformation within the army itself or change, for want of a better word; then you have Canadian Forces transformation.
Regarding some of the communications issues, which I referred to in my opening remarks, when we stood up the four new headquarters from nothing, there is inevitably a little bit of tension between what was and what is. If you consider the army, for example, which is a fairly big, powerful machine, and the new headquarters that have stood up and are seeking to carve out their responsibilities and their terms of reference, at a variety of levels there will be friction. The dialogue between smart captains and majors is like this, ``We do that now. Yes, sir, but we have always done it that way.'' ``Yes, but we do it this way now.'' You can just imagine the dialogue.
Over time this will get better and, by the way, if you accept the premise that smart armies or smart Armed Forces are going to change continually, then the command structure we have now is the first step. Who is to say that two or three years from now there will not be some tweaking done to those command structures to make them better, more effective and more efficient? Likewise, who is to say two or three years from now that same logic will not apply to army headquarters. There are many studies underway right now. I am not privy to them, but I know the Chief of the Defence Staff has asked a number of persons to study the interrelationships between the new command structures and the environmental chiefs. That will be the first step in where we go next.
Senator Tkachuk: What were the most significant changes, if you could rate them, or even the most significant?
LGen. Leslie: Probably the idea and it is a very good one, by the way, of splitting force generation from force employment. It is very simple to say, but quite tough to do. That is the true transformational idea. Having me trying to run the operation overseas has not been done for a long time. The Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff used to do that. Instead of having the army trying to run the operations overseas and do domestic response, the army does force generation, which is tough. A variety of my peers have heard me say this before. Force generation is tough; force employment is relatively easy. I know that because I have been a force employer for a long time. Others might disagree with that, by the way. Based on what I have just said I will get some growls back from my peers, and that is okay.
The idea of splitting force employment from force generation is a good one. What is meant by the split? Do we have sufficient resources to actually man two command streams? What is the tempo of the change? When do we achieve a relatively steady state of equilibrium between force employment and force generation?
Senator Tkachuk: Who coordinates that?
LGen. Leslie: Right now, it is the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Senator Tkachuk: When talking about the defence capability plan and you said, you were not part of the inner team. Could you tell us who is part of the inner team?
LGen. Leslie: Yes, sir. By ``inner team'', I did not mean to imply I was a second-class citizen. The army commanders and the army sergeant major are not necessarily second-class citizens, in the sense that our remit is to focus on the army portion of whatever options are being discussed for the defence capability plan. I have not been involved in the totality of the defence capability plan since I left my former job as Director General, Strategic Planning almost a year ago.
Those who think about the totality of the plan, and this is a question better answered by the Chief of the Defence Staff, of course are the CDS, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of Force Development, the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister of policy. I am relating experiences from when I was Director General of Strategic Planning. That team would worry about the totality of the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence. That is their remit to do so. Sometimes the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, especially for financial implications we would be part of that team.
Senator Tkachuk: Are you happy with the process? Is there a process for input? How does that work? Do they all just sit separate from all the army, navy and air force? Do they sit in a meeting and talk about this or is there a process for gathering input or do they just leak a document and everyone sends an email?
LGen. Leslie: There is the core team, which comes up with a draft based on inputs, constraints factors, and they then invite the principals, which are the army, air force, navy and a couple of others in to provide comment and what is the impact and how does this fit into that, which is probably why it is such an iterative process. As I say, I honestly do not know how many different drafts are out there and have been out there for a long time. These are only drafts and documents, and of course because they are drafts and documents I cannot and I will not comment on any of the detail, but they do not count until the minister signs them.
Senator Tkachuk: We were talking about training. I am not well-equipped to talk about the details but only to talk about general public policy, which should be our concern.
Two significant things have happened since 2001. They were happening before but we realized it after November 11. It is where we are dealing with a different kind of enemy and we have a first-hand experience of how NATO deals with a threat. It has not been a happy family from what I have been able to tell in reading the papers from just a policy perspective in Afghanistan.
How are you reacting to that? What significant training changes have taken place? It seems we have an enemy that can easily be an enemy here, and an enemy that we are fighting in Afghanistan that is related to an al Qaeda network, which in 2001 had operatives working in the country.
How have we changed how we train our soldiers? How do we talk to the fact that we may have attacks within the country that we have to deal with and coordinate with RCMP, and all these other things that are taking place now, that are different from the way they were before September 11, 2001?
LGen. Leslie: Job one is defence of Canada and Canadians, so at any one time the Canadian Forces probably has approximately 10,000 people in the uniform who are helping in that regard.
Some of the teams at Canada Command, but more importantly at the Joint Regional Task Force Headquarters, some of which are my area headquarters are working more closely than they have done in the past with various provincial authorities and first responders and emergency preparedness organizations.
Vis-à-vis the training to prepare young men and women to go overseas, it is getting longer and more complicated. The tempo is picking up. Instead of only working during the day they now go 24 hours a day, seven days a week because most of our unpleasant work takes place at night, in which we hold a distinct advantage because of technology and training.
We are probably amongst the fastest in the world at determining lessons based on incidents that have happened overseas, getting them back to our training centres in Kingston and Wainwright, and passing them out to field forces. However, it is still not as fast as having a recently returned combat veteran teach our soldiers within a couple of weeks or months of getting off the plane.
We are investing a great deal of money into hardening the army, putting more armour around all our troops and capabilities as much as possible based on lessons learned overseas. That has a training bill.
We have incorporated Afghan-Canadian into our training cadres at Wainwright and in some of our smaller bases. They have agreed to be hired by us to come out and give us a hand.
I have already alluded to the fact that the training is getting longer. Instead of focusing purely on the kinetic, on the killing, we are teaching our soldiers, much more so than in the past, how to work with the village councils, which are called Shuras; how to work with international organizations and non-governmental organizations; the role of the Canadian International Development Agency and how they can fit in with that construct. That is why the training is becoming longer and more expensive.
Senator Tkachuk: With respect to the transformation, you said that thinking military people around the world were changing. Is this transformation happening in other Western democracies as well?
LGen. Leslie: Yes, senator, it is.
Senator Tkachuk: Are we learning from them; are they learning from us? Is there a way for us to share information? Can you explain how that transformation took place?
LGen. Leslie: At the level of the Canadian Forces, there is much exchange of ideas. I suspect that other countries are not doing exactly what we are in terms of our new headquarters, but each country has its own national attributes and way of doing business.
At the army level, in the last two months we have had training teams in Poland, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Afghanistan and France, among other countries, either learning lessons or teaching them. We sent a team to Poland, when the Polish government was not yet sure whether it was going to send a 1,000-man battle group to Afghanistan, to pass on some combat lessons and suggestions on force composition and structure, with very good effect.
We have teams we are learning with and from, as well as teaching our British and American colleagues. As we speak, we have 2,200 soldiers using American facilities in Fort Bliss, because it is very cold in Wainwright right now. They are teaching their American colleagues mainly how to deal with suicide bomber threats, mines and counter-insurgency operations.
The network of Western armies is getting tighter because we are driven by the operational imperative of what is happening in Afghanistan, so I am quite reassured. Although our lessons-learned process is not perfect, it much better than when I was a brigade or area commander.
Senator Moore: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I have a number of questions that arise from those others have asked.
With regard to the 90-days-at-home period, do you attempt to schedule the courses such that returning soldiers can have those 90 days at home? Is that given priority when scheduling courses? I understand the importance of training, but we heard from soldiers' spouses that this is a very important issue for them.
LGen. Leslie: Some are, senator. As you would appreciate, there are a variety of levels of training within the army. For courses that are run at the regimental or brigade level — in other words, units or unit parents — a great deal of consideration is given to when soldiers return home.
Senator Moore: There is more control?
LGen. Leslie: Absolutely. Courses that have to be run at a centralized location such as Gagetown, Ottawa or Borden are usually programmed a year or two in advance because the students come from all across the nation and a certain critical mass is required to run the courses.
We are probably not as smart and flexible and we could or should be. The Commander of the Land Forces training system is currently closely studying who runs and schedules courses. The true owner of the course is the one who controls the scheduling and the funding. The commander is investigating whether the courses are doing what we want them to do or whether they are running on momentum. Is it simply because a particular course has always been run in February that we continue to run it in February? We have to think this through.
There are many changes. I am the first to admit that it is not perfect.
Senator Moore: You are working on that.
LGen. Leslie: We are.
Senator Moore: The issue of family is at the core of how soldiers perform and what their attitude is toward the force. If they do not have support at home, it is a very difficult struggle for them.
LGen. Leslie: None of us wants to piss off a soldier unnecessarily, because he or she will vote with his or her feet. Unless soldiers in Edmonton really like what they are doing, it is very attractive for them to go 100 kilometres north and double their salaries. I do not want that to happen because we need the people who just got home to teach the next generation and to go elsewhere in three or four years.
Senator Moore: Another issue related to families is the cost of acquiring a home. People who are working in Fort McMurray are buying homes in Cold Lake and commuting, which is driving prices up. I do not know how the army can deal with that, but it is a very real concern. Our troops do not make that kind of money.
LGen. Leslie: Ten years ago, Edmonton was a deal, especially if you were moving from Calgary. If you were lucky enough to purchase a home as a young corporal in Edmonton, and you are now a sergeant or a warrant office. The temptation to sell now is powerful.
Senator Moore: We heard stories with regard to capacity. We heard that a recruit who is athletic and passes all security inquiries might get in within a couple of months, but that for others it could take 16 to 18 months. I take it this is some of the extraordinary frustration you are experiencing.
LGen. Leslie: Yes, it is.
Senator Moore: I was amazed to hear that. How do you streamline that? Do you have any ideas of how to avoid putting someone who is keen through such a paper delay? In order to achieve these numbers, you have to do something. I do not know how you will achieve the numbers you are hoping for in this climate.
LGen. Leslie: Without being critical, the recruiting system is outside of the army's chain of command. I do not recruit and I do not train the basic recruit, which is what I think the chair was referring to earlier when he asked about the possibility of bringing young men and women in off the street, as we did in the mid-1980s.
Senator Moore: Are you considering reinstituting the youth training and education plan?
LGen. Leslie: It is an option. We must keep in mind that the shortage now is in the instructional cadre in each of the units, because they are busy ramping up to go overseas. I am hopeful that a lot of reservists will elect either to do full- time service to the army or transfer to the army, which will, in turn, feed the instructional cadres at the reserve units so that we can grow new reservists and some instructional cadres at our schools, which will free up capacity such that we can get more people in off the street. I am told that the response to the recruiting advertisements has been very good. The problem is in actually processing these people without causing that fatal delay to which you have alluded.
Senator Moore: Do you say that Strategic Joint Staff is a new entity?
LGen. Leslie: Yes, senator.
Senator Moore: Who is it? Where is it? How often does it meet?
LGen. Leslie: I can give you what I know, which is a fair bit. It is led by Rear-Admiral Murphy. He is located on the 13th floor of National Defence Headquarters, the same floor as the chief of defence staff. They meet with the chief every day. They act as the lubricant in the various interface points between the chief, three environmental service chiefs, four operational level commands and the chief of defence intelligence and all the rest of the key players in the building.
Senator Moore: Are you one of those players?
LGen. Leslie: No, I am not a member of Strategic Joint Staff.
Senator Moore: However, you are running the army?
LGen. Leslie: Yes.
Senator Moore: That is extraordinary.
LGen. Leslie: Sir, I do not wish to be a member of the strategic joint staff. I am very happy being the army Commander.
Senator Moore: Do you ever meet with the Minister of National Defence?
LGen. Leslie: Yes.
Senator Moore: How often?
LGen. Leslie: Our next planned meeting is tomorrow. I would say we meet once a month, on a specific issue. Usually the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff calls me in.
Senator Meighen: Is it a regularly scheduled meeting or is it as-and-when-needed?
LGen. Leslie: It is not regularly scheduled, sir. There is some thought that it will change, but I do not know any of the details.
Senator Meighen: Is this face-to-face, Lieutenant-General?
LGen. Leslie: It is face-to-face, yes.
Senator Meighen: I meant face-to-face rather than a phone conversation.
LGen. Leslie: It is face-to-face.
Senator Meighen: Are there a number of people in the room or is it possible for you to be alone with the Minister of National Defence?
LGen. Leslie: To my recollection, I have never met alone with the minister; the Chief of the Defence Staff or the vice- chief are usually there.
Senator Meighen: Does the Chief of the Defence Staff have the same arrangement as you have? In other words, does he meet alone with the minister from time to time? Does he meet on an as-and-when-needed basis with the minister?
The Chairman: Does someone from the director of parliamentary affairs go with him?
Senator Meighen: That is what I am getting at.
LGen. Leslie: I would assume that the chief meets with the minister alone and with others, but I do not know.
Senator Meighen: We will ask. Do you have somebody from the director of parliamentary affairs of the Canadian Forces at your meetings?
LGen. Leslie: No, senator.
Senator Moore: What is the army's total budget? What percentage is it of the total DND annual budget?
LGen. Leslie: Sir, the operating budget of the army, excluding pay, which is paid for out of the central pot of gold that is assigned to DND, is approximately $1 billion. I can send you a copy of our business plan for the exact figures, should you wish. It is unclassified.
Senator Moore: It might be useful to have it, yes.
LGen. Leslie: It is a completely unclassified document. I would be delighted to send it to you. That will give you the breakdown of how much money the army has allocated, where it goes, and what we do with it.
Senator Moore: Does it include the cost of personnel and equipment?
LGen. Leslie: That number does not include the wages of the regular force soldiers. That is paid for out of the central fund.
Senator Moore: Is that paid by DND?
LGen. Leslie: Yes.
Senator Moore: The total DND annual budget, for the interest of Canadians, is around how much?
LGen. Leslie: It is around $14.5 billion.
Senator Moore: Somewhere in there is the pay for the army, the navy and air force?
LGen. Leslie: Yes.
Senator Moore: What is the cost of the Afghanistan mission per year?
LGen. Leslie: The simple answer is: I do not know. If you will bear with me, I will try and explain why I do not know.
Senator Moore: You had better.
LGen. Leslie: Are you including the delta between what our soldiers would normally consume in terms of resources if they were at home as compared to overseas, or when Andy Leslie goes to Afghanistan, do you now say the cost of the mission is my salary and everything that I have consumed?
Senator Moore: You said the salaries are looked after by the central treasury, still in DND; is that right?
LGen. Leslie: Right.
Senator Moore: Of the billion dollars that you are personally responsible for as the head of the army, what percentage goes toward the Afghanistan effort? Is it one-half? Is it three quarters? Is it 10 per cent? Does that help give you guidelines?
LGen. Leslie: Yes, it does. Now I can better answer the question.
In the preparatory phase of training, when we are building battle groups of 2,000-strong to go overseas, the army out of its billion dollars allocates certain funds to get them ready to go. The final phase of their training is the culminating point; we call that phase levels 6 and 7.
Senator Moore: Over how long a period is that training.
LGen. Leslie: It takes a year to build a battle group and another year to train it.
Senator Moore: Are we talking about the last quarter?
LGen. Leslie: Essentially, it is the last three to four months. The vice-Chief of the Defence Staff pays those operations bills.
Senator Moore: Why would that be so?
LGen. Leslie: It is to ensure that critical resources are kept centralized and only given to those people who need them, at the moment they need them.
Senator Moore: You know that.
LGen. Leslie: I do.
Senator Moore: You have the approval of the other monies, I expect.
LGen. Leslie: I do.
Senator Moore: You know that better than he does. You are probably telling him that it is okay.
LGen. Leslie: Absolutely. For example, he has to prepare for a contingency should we be required to send some ships. Should we be required to send additional aircraft or some fighters somewhere, he has to manage that pot of gold. Right now, most of the effort is on the army, but that does not negate the good work that the navy is doing and will do, and that the Hercules are doing in Camp Mirage and elsewhere. The list goes on.
He has to manage that. We are reimbursed for the actual costs of the mission. For those troops we send overseas, the Government of Canada tops up our coffers, but I do not know the percentage of the actual top up cost. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff is better able to answer that question.
If the Canadian Forces spends a million dollars on fuel for its light armoured vehicles in a month, that money would be reimbursed to a certain extent, by the Government of Canada to DND.
Where it starts to eat into the allocation of army funds is when my training gets longer. As well, we have the rebuild costs of vehicles that have been hard used and are going through spare parts at a much higher rate.
Senator Moore: Those are vehicles that are damaged or lost in battle.
LGen. Leslie: Right.
Senator Moore: Of the $14.5 billion that is spent each year at DND, the army is getting $1 billion plus these other reimbursements about which you talk, plus the salaries. What do all those pluses add up to? Do you ever sit down and figure it out?
LGen. Leslie: I have but, to be honest, I cannot remember the number right now.
Senator Moore: You cannot?
LGen. Leslie: No. I think it is probably in the order of $5 billion.
Senator Moore: Is that on top of the $1 billion?
LGen. Leslie: No, that is inclusive.
I am being so hesitant because I used to own some of the books that outlined all these numbers. Numbers damn numbers. There are so many different ways to answer your question.
Senator Moore: I believe the Canadian public should know where the money is going, without having to go through all these reimbursements, and so on. Someone must have the books that say there it is; it is that much.
The Chairman: Senator Moore, perhaps I could ask Lieutenant-General Leslie to provide us with the best numbers he can on this subject. We are getting very tight on time and we have two more senators who wish to ask questions.
Senator Meighen: Thank you, Lieutenant-General Leslie and Chief Warrant Lacroix. I want to go back to the recruiting, if I could, because I am sure it is a subject that is dear to your heart.
Why is it that you are not responsible for the recruiting process? Is this something we changed a few years back? Has it always been so? Would not it be more efficient if you were?
The Chairman: The navy has press gangs.
LGen. Leslie: In a sense, we are all responsible for recruiting, because it is a Canadian Forces issue and not just an army issue. I know you are well aware of this: Under the National Defence Act, the army is not a separate entity from the air force and the navy. We are all one in terms of certain aspects of the National Defence Act. As resources were incredibly scarce 15 or 20 years ago, the drive towards centralization was more focused on efficiency and not necessarily effectiveness.
Senator Meighen: Is that when the change occurred?
LGen. Leslie: I would say yes. Once again, I will have someone much smarter than me give you the exact answer as to when we went to centralized recruiting, but I suspect it was at the time when the three services unified.
Senator Meighen: I hope I am not interrupting you — and I do not want to speak for my colleagues, either — but I think this committee is continually labouring under the impression that the recruiting process, critical as it is, has not been fixed. The stumbling block may be just what you said, namely that it is outside of your control. Can we not explore this a bit and come up with a solution that you think would help? If you do not get 3,000 to 5,000 recruits within the next couple of years, your problems will be even more severe than they are now.
LGen. Leslie: Much of the current effort, sir, has been focused on by some really great folk, making the current system better, faster and smarter. I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with critical debate and a good, hard look at our recruiting system. I cannot look you in the eye and tell you I have an optimal model.
I will tell you an anecdote. When I first joined the reserves 30 years ago, I showed up on Monday. By Wednesday I was wearing black coveralls, and by the next week I had a medical and someone said that I had no discernible police record and I was good to serve.
Senator Meighen: And no one discovered that you had once studied in university abroad and were possibly a security risk and had to have an A-to-Z security clearance? They did not discover that and you got to where you are today? No wonder you are a general. Congratulations.
LGen. Leslie: I think there is some scope for some good, hard, critical review of our current recruiting system and who does what to whom. Especially for the reserve half of the army, there are many extraordinarily frustrating tales about lack of flexibility and a certain lack of responsiveness. You will hear folk who are equally impassioned at defending the current system. Somewhere in between those two points of view lies the answer.
Senator Meighen: Would it be possible to get one of those people to come before the committee?
The Chairman: We will recruit one.
Senator Meighen: That will take too long; I may be dead by that time. I am still hoping that Lieutenant-General Leslie will give me his view — that is, if he were head of the army, what he could do to change the system. I am being unfair.
LGen. Leslie: Not at all.
Senator Meighen: Sometimes we find the higher up the chain of command we go, the fewer complete answers we get, not answers that are incorrect, but answers.
LGen. Leslie: If I had the mass of critical people in the battalions and regiments, I would be making a very hard pitch to the Chief of the Defence Staff to allow me to recruit right off the street into the same battalions and regiments.
Senator Meighen: Thank you. That is very helpful.
Senator Banks: So that we understand the nature of the problem, what we are talking about is an increase to 5,000 soldiers?
LGen. Leslie: Yes; 3,000 to 5,000.
Senator Banks: What is the real number, given the losses we are going through now in the army? In order to increase by 3,000 and 5,000, how many must we recruit? It is a much larger number.
LGen. Leslie: Yes. The attrition rate is between 6 per cent and 7 per cent for the Canadian Forces-wide. Of the army trades, for example infantry, it is anywhere from 10 per cent to 12 per cent. Some will say that is permissible because it is a young person's game and you do not want necessarily a whole bunch of 50-year-old riflemen.
Senator Banks: You want a few.
LGen. Leslie: Yes, you do. There is nothing wrong with 50-year-old riflemen, but they must be extraordinarily fit to survive the rigors of that.
Senator Moore: Like the regimental sergeant major?
LGen. Leslie: Correct. Riflemen are privates. I am sure that 50-year-old men serving in the infantry is possible, but I am sure there is one who will then read these testaments and snarl at me. That is fine. It is a young person's game. We probably need 6,000 or 7,000 folk each year to come into the army to cover attrition and to give us a sustainable glide path of growth.
Senator Moore: With regard to the recruiters, are the people who staff the recruiting stations members of the Canadian Forces or are they from the private sector?
LGen. Leslie: They are members of the Canadian Forces. There is a civilian component to it, civil servants, both temporary and casual workers. There are an increasing number of reservists who are on full-time service inside the recruiting centres. In the case of the army recruiting centres, we are taking some of them out of those centres to send them overseas or back to battalions and regiments.
The Chairman: Colleagues, a two-star admiral in the navy is in charge of recruiting and training. I will undertake to see that we schedule him at a convenient time. Senator Meighen, you have the floor still.
Senator Meighen: When the CDS calls us up for advice, we will be sure to tell him that recruiting off the street would be helpful.
Can we ask you a question about the militia? We touched on it, the importance of it and the extent to which you depend upon it, Lieutenant-General Leslie. This committee has mused on the question of a change in the commitment of the militia, whether it should be envisaged, given the fact that no militia person is obliged to deploy, as we understand it. Would it not be more helpful to you if the top class, if I can express it that way, of the militia would be required to deploy when called upon to deploy? They would receive the top benefits; top pay; top everything. Could we create a militia with levels and have a cadre there of people who have a job but if the call goes out, they go? You never know how many you will get now.
LGen. Leslie: True. On the other hand, I have been involved in the ice storms and the floods. The numbers that showed up from the militia regiments was nothing less than extraordinary. When the chips were down, they were there. If the domestic response required is not quite as urgent, for example, if you are looking for lost persons or fighting a forest fire, sometimes you have amassing numbers of reservists to come out. I am not saying that it is a bad idea; I am just turning it over in my own mind. If you have obligatory terms of service for reservists, then what would be the difference between them and the regular force? Why would not I just ask them to join the regulars? Presently, there is that 15 per cent pay differential between full-time reservists and their regular counterparts. That factor is to cater to the requirement that the regulars have that they can be sent anywhere at any time.
If you have reservists who are willing to do so, then bring them into the regular forces and we can plan and use them and manage their careers, just like we would any other full-time person who is willing to be sent overseas at short notice. I am not saying it is a bad idea. I just have to think about it.
Senator Meighen: Fair enough. It is much like the question of whether, as occurs in other jurisdictions, there is an obligation on the part of the employer to keep the job for the reservist. We have adopted this approach with respect to maternity and paternity leave. Fighting for one's country abroad seems to me to be almost equally as important. I have felt for a long time that we should not have a law, but with the demands increasing, I wonder whether there should not be some requirement on the part of the employers.
Let me end by giving you the opportunity to answer, if you would like, the classic question of what keeps you awake at night, as Chief of the Land Staff.
LGen. Leslie: There are four issuesr.
Senator Meighen: You do not spend much time sleeping, obviously.
LGen. Leslie: We need more regular and reserve soldiers to do all that we have been asked to do. The good news is that they are coming. Something that keeps me awake at night is balancing the imperatives of sustaining the Afghanistan mission of transformation and growth, because growth comes with its own costs. They are costs that we all willingly bear, but I have already alluded to the instructional cadre issue and others. The second issue is the capabilities that our young men and women need overseas. I would like to see medium- and heavy-lift helicopters in theatre as soon as possible.
Senator Banks: As well as something to protect them?
LGen. Leslie: Absolutely. Either from a coalition partner or us, but sending a medium- to heavy-lift helicopter off by itself over bad-guy country can have tragic consequences.
Senator Meighen: Could we not have a trade-off? There seems to be reluctance on behalf of some of our partners to send additional troops to the south. Maybe they would send helicopters.
LGen. Leslie: It is an option which is being discussed. As a matter of fact, the British, the Americans, and the definitely the Dutch, because we have seen them there, have their own attack helicopters.
Senator Meighen: The heavy-lift helicopters?
LGen. Leslie: Some American helicopters are there, but they are about to go through significant rebuild. The British have a limited number, and the Australians, I think, have one or two as well.
Senator Meighen: The Dutch have some familiar-looking helicopters.
LGen. Leslie: Yes.
Another issue is hardening the force, more soldier-level equipment that will keep them alive. I would ask for more mass, more Kevlar and more steel around our young men and women when they are travelling on those dangerous roads.
What will we do about our old Leopard tanks? Thank goodness, we have them there, because they have saved innumerable lives, but now we have to deal with the issue.
The last issue would be finding the right people in terms of succession planning. One of the principle remits of persons at my level and those of the RSM is to find not the people who will immediately replace us, but five or six years out. How do we shape them and give them the right experience?
Senator Meighen: Thank you, General. Do you have any view on the ability and the efficacy of spending additional funds that were placed in the hands of our troops in Afghanistan?
The committee's understanding is that the army had $2 million and then it went up to $4 million to spend for aid in Afghanistan. This committee has recommended a substantial increase in that aid. This committee also heard evidence that this is what the Americans have done, with some success. I am not asking you to enter into a policy debate, but could you spend more money or would it just be a distraction, in your view, from the operations of the troops?
LGen. Leslie: I think more money can always be spent in countries such as Afghanistan which are so desperately poor. Having said that, the details and some of the nuance that you are alluding to in your question is probably best addressed by General Gauthier, Commander of CEFCOM.
Senator Atkins: General, I think you are always an excellent witness, and I appreciate you being here today to answer questions.
LGen. Leslie: Thank you, senator.
Senator Atkins: In terms of the attrition, for a 20-year member who is thinking about whether he or she will come or go what would you recommend as the incentive to keep those service individuals on board? We have run into this everywhere we have been.
LGen. Leslie: One of the things we can do is learn from our friends and allies. As I mentioned earlier, all Western armies, thinking armies, are worrying a great deal about how to keep those priceless 20-year veterans whom they need to populate their schools, educational facilities or even headquarters. The idea of a retention bonus is one that I am not saying is the solution, but it certainly deserves discussion. There is a financial implication to that. As I was discussing with my American colleagues, what is the cost of producing someone like Mr. Lacroix?
Senator Atkins: It is a lot cheaper.
LGen. Leslie: Absolutely. As is natural in any profession, you have a variety of gateways at the 3-year, 5-year, 10- year, and 20-year point, commensurate with normal family demographics and where one is at that stage of life. Maybe we should take a hard look at all the gateways you have alluded to in terms of such an idea. It is only an idea, but it deserves to be explored and discussed to determine what the pros and cons are.
Senator Atkins: In the American terminology, it is a re-up bonus.
LGen. Leslie: I think they made 106 per cent last year of the U.S. army's recruiting goals and re-up bonus goals.
Senator Moore: With the bonuses?
LGen. Leslie: Yes, sir. It was very expensive. However, it is worthy of being kicked around for a second- and third- order consequence study, absolutely.
Senator Atkins: The other concern that I have, which you touched on, is whether we are getting enough equipment on the ground here to prepare people for overseas.
LGen. Leslie: We have some shortfalls, sir, specifically in RG-31s, which are the new mine-protected vehicles. We do not have enough of those to train adequately here in Canada. More are coming, but they are not here yet.
I am concerned about the number of Leopard 1 tanks that we have to train with here in Canada. I am concerned about the number of M777 guns. There are bottlenecks for all the new ideas or old things that are being reinvented in new ways. The good news is that many people, such as you, are talking about them. We will see what the Government of Canada decides to do vis-à-vis ameliorating the tank issue. More M777s have been ordered. Some of the RG-31s will be coming back from theatre because we are sending tracked M113s overseas. A limited number of RG-31s will be coming back to help us train here.
Senator Meighen: Could you tell us what M777s are?
LGen. Leslie: M777 is the new lightweight 150-millimeter howitzer that was purchased by the Government of Canada to protect our soldiers in Afghanistan. They fire an artillery shell weighing roughly 100 pounds, to a range of somewhere between 40 and 50 kilometres.
Senator Atkins: What is the timeline, though?
LGen. Leslie: For the tanks, we will have to see what options are finally decided upon, but I hope over the next couple of months; for the new artillery guns, the additional ones, once again, over the next two to three months; for sending some lighter-track vehicles overseas, they are already en route and will be introduced to service sometime starting in early March.
Senator Atkins: My final question: You are both wearing jump wings. Where is the airborne these days?
Senator Meighen: Scattered.
LGen. Leslie: The paratrooper capability is still very much alive in the army and will be as long as I am army commander. That is resident within the jump companies of the 3rd battalions of each of the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Royal Van Doos Regiment, and the PPCLI.
The Canadian Special Operations Regiment also has a jump or a paratrooper requirement. It is one of those adages where, much like the tank, everyone thought we would never do that again, and here we are.
The Chairman: Thank you, Lieutenant-General Leslie and Chief Warrant Officer Lacroix. We have found this to be a very constructive meeting. We appreciate your coming here under trying circumstances. I suspect you should be on leave and not in uniform, but thank you for coming in any event. The committee is grateful for the information that you provided.
Our next witness is Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas, Chief of the Air Staff and Commander of Air Command. Lieutenant-General Lucas is a navigator by trade, having served primarily on air mobility aircraft during his operational tours, culminating as Commander 435 (T) Squadron, a Hercules aircraft squadron. Staff positions have included Director Joint Operations, Air Force Support, Air Division Winnipeg; Chief of Staff, Canadian Forces Human Resources; and Special Adviser to the Chief of Defence Staff on Homeland Security.
He has commanded at all levels of the Royal Canadian Air Force, as Wing Commander, Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay, Commander 1 Air Division/Canadian NORAD Region; and, for the past two years, Commander of the Air Force. Lieutenant-General Lucas, welcome to the committee. Please proceed with your opening statement.
Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas, Chief of the Air Staff, National Defence: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for inviting me to appear before this committee to speak with you about Canada's air force. I know that you have taken the time to become familiar with how the Canadian Forces contribute to Canada's economic, environmental and physical security. I know that you have met many of the talented men and women who serve in Canada's air force, both at our Wings here in Canada and in operations overseas.
[Translation]
This committee has done a lot to raise public awareness of the Canadian Forces, and I would like to express my appreciation to you for that. It is vitally important that Canadians know the value and relevance of its military and understand the significance of the tremendous heroism being displayed by the Canadian men and women in uniform, heroism that sometimes goes unseen by certain parts of our society.
[English]
As the Chief of the Air Staff and Commander of Canada's air force, I am responsible for what we call ``force generation'' of air capabilities. This means ensuring that commanders who employ air power in Canadian Forces operations have the right equipment, policies, standards and doctrine, combined with the highly-trained and motivated personnel who are needed to achieve success in the no-fail jobs assigned to them by the Government of Canada. For the air force, these jobs are wide-ranging as we focus on Canada's security needs.
[Translation]
Day to day, we maintain surveillance and control of the aerospace enveloping the second largest country in the world. We assist the navy in monitoring the maritime approaches along the longest coastline in the world. And we respond to calls from Canadians in need, providing immediate assistance through our Search and Rescue squadrons. Our personnel are on duty around the clock, integrated into Canadian Forces operations, contributing to Canada's economic, environmental and physical security.
[English]
Air force personnel have also been making a tremendous contribution to Canadian Forces operations around the world, especially in Southwest Asia, where the air force has been present since Canada First became engaged in the region over five years ago. Today, you can find air force personnel almost everywhere you turn throughout the theatre of operations — at the Theatre Support Element, which is largely run by the air force; with Joint Task Force in Kandahar, both on the airfield and outside the wire at the Forward Operating Bases and with the Provincial Reconstruction Team and elsewhere throughout Afghanistan. Many of them work side by side with their colleagues from other services, some in fully integrated units.
[Translation]
As you can well imagine, I am tremendously proud of the outstanding work our highly skilled people perform, every day, both here in Canada and in dangerous places around the world — contributing to the safety, security and well- being of Canadians.
[English]
While this is my first opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence as Chief of the Air Staff, the air force was represented before the committee two years ago on February 7, 2005. At that time, my predecessor characterized the state of the air force as fragile because increased pressures were on the air force to protect Canadian interests in the post-9/11 world following an extended period of funding challenges. He said that the air force faced a sustainability gap in its ability to generate operational capability as it transformed to fulfill its role in Canada in defence of Canada and Canadian interests. At the time, the air force had just begun its much needed transformation guided by a strategy entitled, Strategic Vectors, which had been published in the fall of 2004. Shortly afterward, the transformation of the air force was paused and then later synchronized with the transformation of the Canadian Forces inspired by General Hillier, who was appointed Chief of the Defence Staff in early 2005.
[Translation]
So what has happened since then? Since February 2005, two successive governments have reinvested in defence. And the Canadian Forces has begun to transform into a more effective and relevant, integrated and operationally focused force, to meet Canada's new security needs.
[English]
Canadian Forces transformation is taking place in three key areas: organizational transformation, capability transformation and transformation to become an expeditionary air force.
Organizational transformation has been underway for almost two years and much has been accomplished. The organizational transformation saw the stand up of a Strategic Joint Staff, the creation of four new operational level commands and the separation of force generation from force employment.
Within the new structure, I still retain my responsibilities for airworthiness, maintain strategic links with like- minded national forces and remain the senior adviser to the Chief of the Defence Staff on aerospace issues. However, I am now solely responsible for air-related force generation and force development activities. My primary responsibility is to provide the operational level commands, primarily Canada Command for operations in North America and CEFCOM, or Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, for international operations with combat capable aerospace forces.
It is important to note, however, that Air Command assets still conduct operations. Every day, aircraft are generated from our Wings across the country in support of both force employment and force generation activities. In some cases we conduct force generation, the upgrading of skills for instance, at the same time as we conduct force employment, such as during fishery patrols under the command of Canada Command in support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have now reached an understanding that when forces are employed in mission essential tasks related to defence and security, they do so under the command of a force employer.
The changes to the organizational structure of the air force have not been significant. Before CF transformation, we provided combat capable forces to the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Land Forces Command, Maritime Command, NATO and NORAD. Today, Air Command continues to support the army, navy, NATO and NORAD plus the four new operational commands. In order to accommodate this increase in demand, 1 Canadian Air Division, which serves as the focal point for the management of air resources allocated to the supported commanders, has been reorganized along with force employment and force generation lines.
Following the long-established air doctrine of centralized command and decentralized execution, 1 Canadian Air Division was set up to also serve as the combined force air component to support the new operational commands. The command of 1 Canadian Air Division is accountable to me for force generation, while the same general officer, as Commander Canadian NORAD region, reports to the Commander of NORAD for aerospace control and defence. As the combined force air component commander, he is responsible to Commander of Canada Command for domestic force employment, and is responsible to Commander of CEFCOM and Canadian Operational Support Command for aerospace planning support. To assist him in these functions he has staff co-located with Canada Command and CEFCOM and has a regional air control element embedded in each of the Joint Task Forces Headquarters located across the country.
[Translation]
In other organizational changes, we have seen a number of our squadrons consolidated into more robust and flexible formations. And we have witnessed the creation of the Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Centre, which has become the engine of transformation for the air force. Our wing structure remains relatively unchanged for now.
[English]
The second area of air force transformation centres on capability. Using capability-based planning, we are identifying the types of capabilities the Canadian Forces need to accomplish its mission. We are beginning the process of recapitalization. The acquisition of urgently required strategic and tactical aircraft and heavy-lift helicopters will begin to deliver much needed airlift capability to the Canadian Forces. Other capabilities, such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and search and rescue will be addressed as the Canadian Forces continues through this phase.
The third phase of the transformation centres on the shift from being a static based portion to becoming more expeditionary. For the air force, this is in its early stages but is quickly picking up momentum. For instance the air force used to deploy its support people individually. Now we are deploying formed units of support personnel called Mission Support Squadrons, or MSS.
I recently met with members of the first such unit, 17 MSS, from 17 Wing Winnipeg, as they were completing their six-month tour of duty in Southwest Asia. Their rotation out of theatre, when they were replaced by 14 MSS, from 14 wing Greenwood, marked the attainment of full operational capability of something that had only been a concept just a couple of years ago.
In the future, the MSS units will be joined by tactically self-sufficient units as well as operational support squadrons which, when formed together, will become air expeditionary wings.
[Translation]
Over the upcoming months, a new air force strategy will be developed to guide the air force vision through its transformation into an agile and combat-effective aerospace force, with the reach and power essential to Canadian Forces operations at home and abroad.
[English]
With the promise of new equipment and increased funding we are now riding a bow wave of good will and expectation, but following an extended period of underfunding, it will take some time before we can declare that we are in good shape.
Although much work has been done over the past two years to keep our aircraft flying, and more will follow over the next three years, our aircraft have been getting older and continue to run out of hours.
While we are slowly beginning to recover from the fragile state described, the need remains urgent, as time runs out on our legacy fleets of air craft. The most critical situation we face is with the air mobility fleet, in particular with the CC-130 Hercules fleet. Four of our fleet of 32 aircraft have already run out of hours and are sitting on the ground in Trenton. By 2010 we will only have 18 flyable aircraft remaining from the original fleet of 32 Hercules.
We welcome the government's decision to move quickly to acquire four strategic airlifters and 17 replacements for the CC-130 Hercules aircraft which will restore our ability to support Canadian Forces operations at home and abroad well into the future.
However, an even more critical concern is ensuring we set the right conditions that will make us the employer of choice for Canadians who are willing to serve their country and put service before self.
Canadian Forces operations are no-fail application whether rescuing a stranded hiker from the mountains of British Columbia, saving lives over the stormy Atlantic, providing essential life-saving supplies to Canadian communities in distress or supporting humanitarian or combat missions around the world. We must succeed, often under extreme conditions, and we need to continue to have highly motivated and skilled people in our ranks in order to do so.
My role, as the force generator of aerospace forces, is to ensure that we have the right equipment and the qualified personnel in order to carry out the tasks assigned to us by the Government of Canada to a standard that will permit them to succeed and survive to carry out these tasks another day.
[Translation]
We will need to have the continued support of a government and people of Canada in order to succeed.
[English]
In conclusion, I believe that air power enables the Canadian Forces vision of the future. The transformation of the Canadian Forces is well underway and the initial results are positive. We are a more integrated force and the separation of force generation from force employment has enabled us to put the right focus on the right areas at the right time. Our critical challenge, over the next few years, will be to have the right number of people with the right skills in the right job at the right time. Meeting this challenge will ensure Canada will have an expeditionary, effects-based air force that can continue to make a meaningful contribution to Canada's defence needs in the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Day: Thank you very much for being here and thank you for that detailed presentation. It has been difficult for us to divide the line between force generation, which is your responsibility, and the Canada Command, the operational side of things.
As I understand your presentation, the Commanding Officer of 1 Wing in Winnipeg wears at least four hats.
LGen. Lucas: He is busy. The new construct has focused a lot of attention on that officer. When I spoke to this committee last I was occupying that position so I have a bit of knowledge of the job.
It is way of ensuring that centralized command remains and who better to apportion the air assets than an airman who has an understanding of all of the capabilities.. It looks complex, but I think it has proven itself over the last year to work well.
Senator Day: Are you satisfied that the division of labour between you and Canada Command is clear? Who makes a decision, with respect to the employment of air assets? Are the different functions clear?
LGen. Lucas: On a day-to-day basis, force generation activities are the ones going on. In Canada, for instance, we do not have a flood every day. We do not have an ice storm every day, but we do continue to require training our people to meet that high standard that we ask of them.
They need to be ready, should something happen and so General Bouchard has a wonderful understanding of what needs to be done. If an event requires force employment to take place, he turns his assets to that. We can do that because we know that it will not happen that often, but when it does, it is the most important thing we need to do. Having that in one location and under one commander makes it easy for him to understand what decisions need to be made in that regard.
Senator Day: If there were a flood in Winnipeg or a natural emergency that required air support, would he turn to you and ask for aircraft.
LGen. Lucas: He is the commander, and he simply shifts hats. If he thinks there will be a long-term impact on force generation, at some point in time, probably not in the first hours of the crisis, he will let me know that there will likely be a potential impact on force generation over the longer term and propose a mitigation measure. We need to take care of the emergency before anything else. I understand that the force generation impact will take longer for it to have an impact. We have lots of time at that point to discuss that issue.
Senator Day: If there is a recurring activity, we are talking about a requirement for an immediate response because of some emergency that has arisen. If there is a recurring activity, like coastal patrol, is that considered a training force generation function or is that an operational function?
LGen. Lucas: We have standing commitments for instance, one to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that requires us to perform certain patrols. Those are usually done under the force employer's hat. Normally we will try to do some negotiating to ensure that we might be able to derive some force generation activities out of those force employment activities. This is to make the best use out of each flying hour we do.
The present Commander of Canada Command was the Commander of Air Division. He has an appreciation of the importance of those things and therefore, we have not encountered a situation where we have had a disagreement. It is negotiated and at the end of the day we are able to maximize the value out of each flying hour by doing it this way.
Senator Day: You used the term force employer and I was using the operational side of things. We are talking the same thing.
LGen. Lucas: Yes senator, we were talking about the same thing.
Senator Day: Force employer could be Canada Command or expeditionary force but your area is training and getting the airmen and women ready for whatever operational activity may be required.
LGen. Lucas: Indeed.
Senator Day: When we were in Cold Lake recently, we learned that there is a crisis in that location. It is not overstating it to suggest there might be a crisis developing with respect to trained technicians for the air force. You talked to us about that when we visited you in Winnipeg. I am not sure that the crisis is any better, where the pressures from the private sector at Fort McMurray are hiring away your personnel. What are you doing to meet that very serious situation?
LGen. Lucas: You quite rightly identified this as a regional issue. You are correct that our people in Cold Lake could be lured away to Fort McMurray. Our highly skilled personnel are highly sought in Fort McMurray. One of the things that we have done is change the training system. It used to take a long time to train our technicians. We have already shortened that period, and are working to shorten it further. We bring technicians from the moment they come in the door and make useful to us as soon as possible.
One of the challenges we have is with empty spares bins. Many of the technicians have been frustrated because all they have been doing is moving parts around between aircraft, robbing one aircraft to be able to get another serviceable. That increases the workload significantly to simply generate a single operational aircraft. As the money has become more available, and we have gone into longer-term contracts with spares producers, we are starting to see less of that. It is not quite fixed yet, but we are trying to increase the quality of work life. Technicians are keen and enthusiastic about their work, but by virtue of spares and other factors, it has made it easier for them to take that step outside of the organization. By and large, if you look across the country, the wage we are paying is a good one. There is no doubt, that in particular areas those with skills are attractive to other organizations. It would not perhaps go so far as to say it is a crisis but it is a matter of significant concern.
Senator Day: It seemed to me it was getting close to a crisis situation from our previous discussions. Maybe that is overstating it, but I am glad to hear you have some plans towards this important, and I think growing situation, from what we have been learning.
Are you doing any training outside of the military? Are you using private sector educational areas for training of military personnel when you cannot find someone from inside the forces?
LGen Lucas: We are looking at doing many things differently. We talked about transformation and the expeditionary transformation. Part of that is trying to create a work force, of the right balance, between people who are capable of deploying and people who are involved in the more static operations.
If we can find ways of getting people with community colleges, and locations such as that to be involved in our training, we are looking at those people seriously. That reduces the number of people we have to have in uniform if we can find people to come in and do that.
That being said we want to retain the military ethos and culture, so we cannot farm this whole business out to a civilian, because at that particular time it is a shock if they have been spending all that time outside the military, and then come in and try to work in the military culture. You have to have some of that acculturation take place during the training process.
Senator Day: Do you have any aircraft sitting on the ground because of a lack of technicians to work on them?
LGen. Lucas: I could characterize it more of the spares problem. We have been proactive over the last two to three years on the training side. Our previous training methodology did not give us a very quick response in turning people from brand new folk to trained technicians in a rapid time. We put aircraft on the ground and dedicated them to technician training and that has helped us. That has happened with us in locations like in Greenwood, where we put an Arcturus on the ground and technicians have been involved in working the program in that location. One of those grounded C1-30s is being used for technician training. The same thing has occurred with the Sea King Squadron and the F-18s.
This has been very successful from our perspective, recognizing that it is not the final answer. We are moving in the right direction. One of the challenges we face in the area of technicians is that the economy is doing well these days. We are competing with many other industries for the same people. We are experiencing the same challenges in the recruiting area for one specific occupation, the air technician. We are working with a recruiting group to find ways of more targeted recruiting, and trying to make it more attractive to those people to come into the air force.
Senator Day: It seems that the air force more than the navy and the army, has more highly trained personnel, and recruitment and retaining is a recurring problem. We understand that you have problems with technicians, or at times, you have outside demands for pilots. You have to devise various means of keeping them when their initial commitment is over. You have a similar situation with navigators.
LGen. Lucas: Yes, in fact, the air force is more focussed on retention than recruiting. I mentioned the air technicians, and that occupation concerns us. When I look to my naval and army counterparts, I see that they are concerned with specific occupations as well. It takes so long to train our people that when we have them, we want to keep them. Retention is the focus of my concern right now and finding ways of keeping people in the organization.
Senator Day: You also have a demographic problem. Your technicians are getting older. In fact, the entire Armed Forces is getting older.
LGen. Lucas: Some of that is because of the downsizing practices in the 1990s. During that decade, we deliberately stopped recruiting and let people leave the forces. That accounts for the older personnel of today. Although we were fair at the time, we stopped recruiting and that is the problem we face today. The challenge that put on us is that the people that I need right now, with five to 10 to 15 years' experience, are those people we stopped recruiting during that period of time. That has made it challenging.
Senator Day: My final question is more an observation. With the number of new aircraft that you will be acquiring — announcements have already been made, and there are hopes for others where announcements have not been made yet — that is going to put even more pressure on you.
LGen. Lucas: Yes, but it also does something else. You talked about pilots a few minutes ago. One of the challenges we had was the adverse publicity about the age of our fleets. Some of the young men and women of action in the country that we would love to have joined us were reading the newspapers and saying, well, I would like to join the air force, but why would I want to fly an airplane that is almost as old as my dad?
We now have a much different situation. We are moving into a time where, when I speak to brand new folks coming in the door who are interested in a career in the air force, I tell them that this is a great time to join. Virtually all of the kit is either being revitalized or will be brand new just about the time that they start to arrive. This is the other side of the coin. It brings its challenges, but it also brings significant rewards to us as well.
Senator Banks: On that same subject, the problem is you are flying some airplanes that are as old as my dad. With respect to keeping folks in, we found and heard that Canadian Forces members serving in Toronto receive a supplement because of the cost of living in Toronto. Forces members serving in Cold Lake, Alberta, do not. That does not seem right.
LGen. Lucas: We have a supplement to the wages, which is designed to try to level the playing field for Canadian Forces members. We try to figure out the average cost. Those who are paying more than the average cost receive a supplement.
Senator Banks: Do serving members in Cold Lake receive that supplement?
LGen. Lucas: At this point in time, they do not. If you look at the basket of goods, there are four different areas, one of which is taxes. Alberta pays the lowest taxes in the country. I know you got an earful when you were out there. I get an earful on a regular basis from the same group when I visit. I keep asking the question to make sure the answer is valid — and it is. When you add the four different categories of items that are looked at when we determine who gets a supplement and who does not, Cold Lake consistently is better off than most other places in the country and for that reason, they are not entitled to that supplement.
Senator Banks: Does it take into account the fact that if you transfer somebody from Greenwood to Cold Lake, they are going to sell their house for $125,000 and pay $400,000 for a comparable house?
LGen. Lucas: Even accommodation costs, when you look at all the places we are across the Canadian Forces, Cold Lake is about the average. It is not significantly more. When you add in the other factors, that factor is not enough to get them above the average.
The Chairman: Would it be possible for you to provide the committee with a comparison of Greenwood, Toronto and Cold Lake so we could see how the figures compare? We are sure you are right but we would like to understand them in some detail.
LGen. Lucas: In providing this information, I am speaking on behalf of the Chief of Military Personnel, because it is essentially his system and he owns the figures. I will do what I can to ensure that you receive that information. It is not just the air force locations, because it is not just an air force comparison, it is a Canadian Forces comparison. We have certain figures and the methodology is one that I believe is appropriate. We are doing our best to look after our people.
The Chairman: I understand what you are saying. If the staff would note it, and please make sure that we get the figures.
Senator Atkins: In view of the situation in Cold Lake — and we pick this complaint up everywhere — is there no flexibility, especially when you know that many of the technical people are being enticed to go to places like Fort McMurray? Why would there not be some flexibility in our system to keep people who have had 20 years of service in the air force?
LGen. Lucas: I think that perhaps we are talking apples and oranges. The PLD, the post living differential, which is the name of the particular supplement that I was talking about, really is a separate issue from the issue of having some flexibility to be able to find a way of keeping people with certain skills in the organization. We have done that before with other occupations. I would probably try to separate that out from PLD, because I think PLD is really about trying to level the playing field and, for most people, it does that.
We have demonstrated flexibility in the past. We did that with pilots. It helped us in some ways. It taught us some other lessons in other ways. It is not a perfect tool because it brings with it problems of another nature. However, I do believe we have some of those flexibilities today. As we move into areas where certain occupations get more and more difficult to fill, we already do some of these flexibilities. Some of them include bonuses for skill people bring into the organization.
Senator Atkins: Where you are facing it is with the 20-year member of the force who is weighing his or her options.
LGen. Lucas: Yes, that is a concern and especially when, at the 20-year point, they have the potential to leave with a 40 per cent pension. When they add that to whatever they can make elsewhere, it can make that quite attractive. Certainly, I am aware of that situation.
Senator Meighen: General, I am sure you would probably like to get off the subject of recruitment and retention, but I have one question in connection with that subject.
There are the skilled trades that Senator Day has explored with you, and then there are the pilots themselves. It has seemed to us over the years that every time the commercial airline sector is in a boom period, you lose pilots. Then when the commercial airline period goes into a bit of a quieter phase, some of them want to come back. That surely should be an area of interest to us all.
If my memory serves me well, the problem of coming back seemed to be an administrative problem. Can you give us any comfort that if a well-trained, highly qualified pilot left for whatever good reason and joined a commercial airline and then wanted to come back five years later, your internal procedures are such that he or she would not be discouraged from doing so because of inability to find their records or lengthy wait times?
LGen. Lucas: I believe it is important enough that I am devoting resources to the issue. I have a small team of people who actively search out these people and do everything they can to reduce any of the administrative roadblocks. We have recognized the problem and are working hard to reduce the administrative problems to zero. We are not waiting for people to ask to join or re-join, we are actively going out and looking for them.
Senator Meighen: That is good to hear.
The Chairman: That is an admission of failure, though, is not it, general.
LGen. Lucas: In what way?
The Chairman: You are filling in a gap, but it is a job that has been assigned elsewhere in the CF and you have to patch it up because it is not working well enough in your area. If it were working properly, the people who are responsible for recruiting would have that program themselves and they would be providing you with the people you need. Recruiting and retention is not your job.
LGen. Lucas: I feel that my investment of one or two people to facilitate problem is a sound decision.
The Chairman: I can understand why you are doing it. You do not want to point fingers at somebody else, and I accept that.
LGen. Lucas: I think you also must understand that our recruiting organization is in a period of dynamic change right now. We have, by virtue of that period I talked about in the 1990s when we were not doing much recruiting, essentially that organization went into a bit of an atrophy mode, because they could. We had adequate people showing up at the door to fill our needs, so there did not need to be a lot of energy put into that process. Certainly, I know there were many devoted people who did good work but, overall, I would characterize the recruiting organization during that period as a bit of a Sleepy Hollow. I think you can say that has changed significantly. We are putting dynamic people into our recruiting centres. I have heard a tale of an air person up in Quebec City right now who is setting the world on fire. That is the effect we are trying to have right now.
My sense is that some of the administrative difficulties are being changed and the CDS sent out a challenge there that people showing up at the door, we should have a certain percentage of them hired within the first week, another percentage within the first month, and then a very short time thereafter for the remainder.
All of these are indications of a system in change because this is a much more important area than it was in the 1990s. My investment here of one or two people right now is perhaps a stopgap measure. As we move along, the changes to the system will mean that I do not have to do that anymore.
Senator Meighen: I hope you are right. Forgive us for being a little sceptical because this is the Queen Mary waiting to be turned around. As far as this committee can determine, the recruiting system is still filled with delays. I can speak from personal experience as recently as six months ago.
LGen. Lucas: We have had anecdotal evidence that the system is working.
Senator Meighen: Anecdotal evidence of somebody enrolling within a week?
LGen. Lucas: Yes.
Senator Meighen: Good.
LGen. Lucas: Yes, we are achieving success. The trend line is a good one, and we are moving forward. Yes, I continue to be frustrated every occasionally by the things that I hear too. Commodore MacIsaac briefs us on a regular basis and he understands the importance of this to the organization.
Senator Meighen: You are hopeful, if not confident, that you will get the additional personnel you need. How many additional personnel do you need in the next three to five years?
LGen. Lucas: That is another question altogether. I am confident that our recruiting needs, based upon the present establishment will be met. I am a bit concerned about the AVS technicians. We obviously have to do something different and special concerning that occupation. For instance, we are having some difficulty in recruiting people into the medical system. That success was accomplished through targeted recruiting. We want to use some of the same methodologies such as going out to campuses where we know people with these skill sets exist and paying them for the fact that they have already done some of the training themselves. We do not have to pay to train them so we can offer a bonus. There are a number of different tools available to us. From that perspective, absolutely, I am confident.
Senator Meighen: Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is fair to say that when one environment or one aspect of the Canadian Forces is on deployment and getting press focus, recruiting tends to become easier. I suspect that since our involvement in Afghanistan, the level of applications has increased.
LGen. Lucas: Yes.
Senator Meighen: If you disagree, say so.
LGen. Lucas: I agree that our enlisting numbers grew, but they are also influenced by our advertisements.
Senator Meighen: I must say, I think your ads are excellent.
LGen. Lucas: You have to know that the period of time when we were forbidden from advertising was the most significant reason why recruiting fell; it is that people stopped thinking that we needed people.
Senator Meighen: That was the same era that you were forbidden from wearing a uniform off site but that is another story. Tell me about the CF-18s and the possible deployment in Afghanistan.
When we were in Cold Lake we were told that they could, if asked, and would gladly, if asked, deploy to Afghanistan and thought in an operational sense they could be of great use in providing close ground support to our troops.
LGen. Lucas: The short answer is: absolutely. They have the right equipment, the right training. Not only that, they have leaned forward and gone out and done a lot of the pre-deployment training. They are ready to go.
The real issue is, in respect of all the things that we need to make this mission a success, what is the next thing that we would put into service? When I went to Afghanistan in December, I went interested in what commanders on the ground needed to be successful. With the support of countries such as the U.K., the United States and the Netherlands, that is not at the top of the list of things we need. ISR, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is the item we need more of and sooner. We are certainly looking at ways of trying to provide that. We have this one, it is ready to go, and should one of our allies, for reasons of their own, withdraw and create some space there, then our CF-18s are ready to step into the breach. That comes down to an issue of prioritization. I am keen to see them deployed because I think they could make a difference if the need is there. Right now, I think that is probably not the highest priority need.
Senator Meighen: It is not your decision to deploy.
LGen. Lucas: It is not my decision. As the force generator, it is my responsibility to ensure they are ready and I have done that. The force employer, in concert with the Government of Canada, because this is a Government of Canada decision, has to determine the required capabilities in order to make this mission a success. Right now, that is not the highest priority on the list.
The Chairman: It may not be highest on the list, but do you know if we have made it clear to NATO that we are ready to go and that we could send a six-pack over for a period of time and perhaps another six-pack perhaps later on?
It seems like a relatively low-risk operation and it seems like an opportunity, from a career point of view, for our pilots to develop a hands-on experience that will be invaluable to them as they move forward.
We know that NATO asks for things, but we also know that they check first to see if the answer is going to be yes. If you are saying it is not in your lane then this committee is registering that we think it would be a very constructive thing to happen. If necessary, we will invite General Gauthier to come in and hear from us himself.
LGen. Lucas: You are quite right in terms of ``lane.'' As the force generator, I can say that we are ready to go and that we have the equipment and the pilots. I acknowledge and agree with you that the experience that they would gain would be quite beneficial. The issue, however, is in respect of the success of the mission and the next thing that might be needed to make it successful. I am aware that right now, that is not the highest priority on the list.
The Chairman: By implication, you are saying they would displace something else that needs to go, and that is not necessarily so, is it?
LGen. Lucas: In respect of any of the capabilities that we want to supplement with, there are costs associated with them, and those costs need to be balanced off against a number of different things.
I think we have demonstrated that we will provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen with the tools they need to do the job. I think they are extraordinarily well equipped right now to do that particular mission, and we are always looking for ways to give them things that they need to witness the arrival of tanks in theatre with great speed and dispatch.
The issue comes down to the need. When I came back from my visit to Afghanistan, I did not get the sense that this was an overwhelming need. In fact, the NATO commander was more interested in more C-130s than he was in more fighters.
The Chairman: One sense we got was that when we had assets as part of the air component in Afghanistan, that you perhaps got a better response rate when requests were made for support.
LGen. Lucas: That can happen. There is no doubt that if it belongs to your country, you sometimes get a better response rate.
When I spoke to our army folk, they did not indicate that this was a pressing need compared to the ISR requirement, for example, and mobility in the sense of the big helicopters that General Leslie is so fond of speaking about. If they could have them tomorrow, they would want them. If we had them, we would be delighted to deploy them into theatre as well.
Senator Meighen: Speaking of helicopters, I must ask you this question: When will the tail rotor be fixed?
LGen. Lucas: We have said for some time that the long-term fix would be a redesign, and the company is working on it. We are working with them on it. As you are probably aware, this helicopter has been selected to fly the President of the United States. When it comes to that, they will want a tail rotor that works. They are working on it.
The short-term fix is one in which we replace a component every 100 hours or so. The challenge for the Cormorant is more a spares issue than it is a tail rotor issue. The tail rotor certainly is an issue, but right now we face the challenge of finding the spares. That is one of the reasons why that helicopter, which has done some great things for us already during its short life in the Canadian Forces, is not as available as I would like it to be.
Senator Meighen: You are a man of great patience, and I hope you will get a fix.
LGen. Lucas: I have had some great conversations with the company in respect of how great my patience is, or not, as the case may be.
Senator Meighen: It seems to me that you are the victim of a state of suspended animation in a couple of respects. You were quoted recently as saying that you were considering re-engineering the Buffalo and keeping the C-130 in a role that would preclude the necessity of buying fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. Correct me if that is incorrect. That is presumably because you have to do this if the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft project does not move ahead soon.
LGen. Lucas: One of the challenges we face is trying to do so much in a very short time. Announcements have been made and movement is already taking place in respect of strategic lift. We are moving quickly in respect of replacing the oldest of our C-130s in the tactical mobility role.
Fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft are in the same community. It would be very difficult for us to do all three things at exactly the same time. We are trying to stagger them a little bit with strategic lift being first and the C-130 replacement second. Fixed-wing search and rescue, when it occurs, cannot occur at the same time. The community simply could not absorb all that change at the same time. Natural sequencing needs to occur.
Senator Meighen: Where would the re-engineering of the Buffalo fit in?
LGen. Lucas: The Buffalo is scheduled to leave service in 2010. Where we are right now and with the tactical lift, we will not get there by 2010. We have to extend the life of the Buffalo. There are a couple of things we would need to accomplish that goal. I have some experts in the engineering area providing me with some things that would need to be done. We recognize that we would rather have spent the money somewhere else. At this point in time, providing service to Canadians has to be at the top of our list of things to do. We have to find a way of keeping that essential search and rescue system going. What makes most sense for us to do is some short-term bridging, keeping the Buffalo alive between now and when it is replaced by a fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. Similarly, we have a number of C-130 aircraft that will have some life left in them. Those will be the ones that we use for search and rescue. Once again, it makes sense to do so. This is an issue of sequencing and an issue of prioritization in respect of dollars.
Senator Meighen: On that same line of having to make do until things come into your possession, we have been waiting for the Canada First defence strategy for a long time. The minister told us last May it would be out at the end of the summer. Here we are in February, and we have seen only the leaked version.
How is that affecting your acquisition schedule? Do you have to put things on hold? How is it affecting your operational capabilities?
LGen. Lucas: I would say that operational capability in the short term, the lack of a defence strategy is still being worked on is not having an impact. I would be very pleased to see it implemented, but I recognize that there are certain complexities associated with that plan.
As the force generator, I have had an opportunity to influence the shaping of it. Now I simply wait for it to make its way through the rest of the system and to be released.
Senator Meighen: As I said, you are a patient man.
The Chairman: General, you talked about the C-130s vis-à-vis a continued role in search and rescue, but they cannot perform the same job that the Buffalo's do. The Buffalo's are there to fly in the mountains and the C-130s are not equipped to do that job.
LGen. Lucas: Our existing search and rescue system has Buffalo's servicing just the West Coast. The other three areas are serviced by the C-130. We will simply continue to do that until the new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft comes in that can do both.
The Chairman: You are expecting a single platform that would handle both the job of the Buffalo and the C-130.
LGen. Lucas: That is correct.
The Chairman: What is the time line?
LGen. Lucas: That piece of information that will come out as part of the defence strategy.
Senator Tkachuk: When you were relating to us the organizational structure changes that have been taking place, I have to admit that I got a little lost with this transformation.
How has the future of the air force been affected by transformation? From your point of view, what is the future of the air force? Do you see the future of the air force involved in more jet fighter capability, strategic airlift or a mixture of both?
LGen. Lucas: The future of the air force involves a balance of capabilities. We need a platform to do aerospace control and one that can deliver precision weaponry abroad. Mobility is important in terms of strategic, tactical and with the Chinook helicopters that we are going to receive here in the next three to four years. That is an important capability as well.
A key area is the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability we have in bits and pieces right now. We need to focus on this as an area for the future. It will involve some complementary systems. The UAVs that we have been talking about, the uninhabited area vehicles, and some manned platforms will give us significant capability in that area. It is the kind of thing that makes sense to do from the air because you can certainly get to areas that you cannot get to in other ways.
Senator Tkachuk: Is part of the future driven by our commitments and our military agreements we have with other countries such as NORAD and NATO. In other words they need things so we have to supply them, or do we tell them what we have and they get to use them? How does that relationship work?
LGen. Lucas: To some extent, when you belong to an alliance, there is agreement to contribute to the security and defence of the whole, if you will, and successful countries like Canada are expected to contribute in a number of areas.
In North America, within our NORAD agreement with the United States, we base a number of radars on our soil and they provide us with a number of things that we do not have, including air-to-air refuelling aircraft that we do not have in our inventory. In addition, during the period of time when we were concerned about Russian aircraft flying over our territory, they provided us with a number of enablers that assisted us in protecting our sovereignty.
Senator Tkachuk: Many nations belong to NATO and they all have particular capabilities, strengths and weaknesses. Surely we are not as general as you make out and say we have an air force and they get to use it. How does that all work? Is that not part of the plan where they would say this is what we need and we expect this of you?
LGen. Lucas: Our defence starts with the defence of Canada and then we step out to the defence of North America and then, in a larger sense, we have our more international commitments.
NATO sets force goals for us and ask us, based upon the overall defence requirements of the alliance. We respond to that request. In many cases we have capabilities that we can contribute. In other cases, we have gone back and said this is not an area in which Canada will participate. As a nation, we have an ability to shape those things that we contribute to and those things that we do not.
Again, as part of an alliance there is an expectation that we will make a contribution. We take some of those capabilities that we need for our own national requirements and we can turn those and help in the more broad alliance requirement.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Meighen and I have been on a committee that examined demographics. Are you looking forward to people as old as we are? That will be an issue in recruiting young people for sure, from what we have been able to study. It will start in about 25 years from now.
LGen. Lucas: Demographics are of concern, not only the age demographics but also ensuring that we represent the country we serve. We now probably more correctly represent the country as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. We do not look like the Canada of today and that is of concern to us. By doing that it will begin to make it easier for us to meet the numbers requirements to which you refer. If we only focused on 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the population, we would with be in trouble in respect of recruiting. We would like to look at 100 per cent of the population and we recognize there are some recruiting challenges in that area. We are working to address those challenges.
Senator Atkins: Are you responsible for the reserves in the air force?
LGen. Lucas: I employ and essentially manage the system of air reservists, yes.
Senator Atkins: How many reserve units are there in the country?
LGen. Lucas: The air force runs its reserves differently from the army and the navy. Our reserve units tend to be associated with regular force units. We have a system wherein air reservists have to meet the same standards as our regular force people and tend to be employed, with the exception of a couple of units. We have 400 Squadron in Borden and 438 Squadron in Montreal and 402 Squadron in Winnipeg. There are some regular force members on those units but the bulk of the units are made up by reservists. Most of the other air reservists tend to be working in total force units or total force environments.
Senator Atkins: Is there a conversion from regular to reserve or is there conversion from reserve to regular?
LGen. Lucas: We take most of our reservists from the regular force and a number of people then transfer back. Certain courses are so long that many people join the regular force and get their training, achieve a certain level and then leave the regular force to join the reserve and work in a total force unit. That does not occur in all cases but that is probably more the rule than the exception. I would like to see us grow more reservists, although that will take some time. Overall, we are still going to have a large number of our people in the reserve force that had previous regular force experience.
Senator Atkins: Do you have any information on whether the reserve air force attracts new recruits? I would think it would be an area that would be of interest to a certain element of our population.
LGen. Lucas: It is and it comes down to what occupations are available. If I only have a certain number of training openings on a course, my preference would be to train a full-time person who I then have much more control over than I do over a reservist who may get halfway through and then decide to do something else. My inclination at this point with a scarce number of training billets is to use those for regular force people. As we move downstream and I have a little more flexibility, in line with my desire to grow a higher percentage of my reservists from the ground up, we will probably move in that direction, but the training billets are currently filled mainly with regular force people.
Senator Atkins: I must ask this question since Senator Forrestall is not here. What is the status of the Sea Kings?
LGen. Lucas: The Sea King continues to do good work for us. There are many myths about the Sea King, as well as many truisms. One myth is that they do not fly much. In fact, we have some great people getting those aircraft in the air, and we have had some high serviceability rates for aircrafts deployed on missions.
That being said, the number of people-hours required to ensure that a Sea King can fly for one hour is way out of line with what we would like. However, some changes we did with the engine and transmission a couple of years ago have improved the serviceability. There is no doubt that whole community is looking forward with great excitement to the arrival of the Cyclone, the first of which is expected in early 2009. Between now and then, the Sea King will continue to serve.
We stripped the back ends of a number of the aircraft recently and used them in a experiment to see how we might use the new Cyclone, which will have the capability of doing anti-submarine warfare missions as well as move troops.
A great part of the air force is the Sea King community, which provides much of our leadership.
Senator Atkins: How many Sea Kings are there?
LGen. Lucas: There are 28 to 30, but at any one time a number of them are undergoing maintenance.
The Chairman: Could you provide us with the figures of how many hours of maintenance you would expect for every flying hour on a Cyclone, on a Cormorant, and a Sea King?
LGen. Lucas: I do not have that information with me, but I will get it to you.
Senator Atkins: Are Sea Kings used on frigates?
LGen. Lucas: Absolutely. HMCS Ottawa, which is currently returning from its support mission in the Gulf area, had a Sea King on board, and it provided great service.
We do continue to employ Sea Kings. There is a Sea King detachment on most frigates. Frigates deploying on major missions such as the standing naval force and support in the Gulf all have Sea King detachments.
Senator Atkins: They will be phased out by 2009?
LGen. Lucas: No, that is when the first Cyclone will arrive. They will not be phased out for two or three years after that. There will be a phased withdrawal of the Sea King beginning about the same time as the first Cyclone's arrive.
Senator Atkins: What is your priority in terms of recapitalization?
LGen. Lucas: The first priority is air mobility. The C-130 is the most significant challenge we face. Having parked four of them already, with another 10 to follow over the next three years, that is the greatest priority. The good news is that we have a program with which we are proceeding quickly. Having the four C-17s is a great mitigating measure. It has both a strategic and a tactical capability. It would be difficult to continue to support our troops in Afghanistan until 2009, and perhaps beyond, or in any other location, without the C-17s because of the significant reduction in the numbers we will have. The C-17 capability is a real blessing for us.
Senator Atkins: When do you expect delivery of the first C-17?
LGen. Lucas: It is scheduled to arrive in August-September of this year. We currently have a number of crews in training. In fact, the United States Air Force has been very good to give us opportunities to ``season'' some of our pilots and loadmasters. We are taking people off the operational training unit and sending them to American operational units, allowing them to fly to gain experience in order that we will have some trained air crew when we receive our aircraft.
In addition, we have at least one exchange pilot with a couple of thousand hours on the airplane. He was just about to leave the air force when he heard we were buying C-17s. When he heard that, he pulled his release and is staying in. He will be a great asset to us.
Senator Atkins: The home base of the C-17s will be Trenton?
LGen. Lucas: These aircraft will probably be on the road more than in Trenton, but Trenton is where we will operate from.
Senator Banks: You said you have reduced training times for technicians. I presume there has been no reduction in the capability of those technicians at the end of their training. How have you accomplished that?
LGen. Lucas: The people who are on the old training system are clamouring to get on the new one. In the past we used a lot of on-the-job training. In order to learn how to change an engine, when a regularly scheduled engine change came up, a qualified technician would take one or two new people along and show them how it was done. That is not a very efficient method of training because it took twice as long. Two or three engine changes may be required to become qualified. Sometimes these events are scheduled so far apart that the second time the trainees would be relearning the lessons of the first time.
Now we dedicate an aircraft to training. In two days' of lessons they change the engine three times. That is very reinforcing and people come out of it much more comfortable with that skill.
We must dedicate an aircraft to that, as well as technicians, so an investment is required. We are making the investment now and are seeing the results from it.
Senator Banks: One gets different answers from different people, depending upon where they are in the hierarchy. We are used to hearing majors, colonels and generals tell us that everything is fine, while sergeants and corporals tell us that there is a terrible mess.
You spoke about the bins. We have heard, from the air force in particular, that spare parts have not been available, and that is very frustrating when you need to fix something.
Is it only a shortage of money that caused the lack of spare parts needed to keep airplanes flying?
LGen. Lucas: There are a number of challenges associated with this. In some instances, with the old aircraft that we fly, it is difficult to get a company excited about producing spares parts. The company that produced the aircraft originally is now focused on newer and different things. Therefore, just getting someone to produce these parts can be a challenge.
However, it is not only an issue of money. It is also having a guaranteed supply of money. It can take companies two or three years to produce certain kinds of spare parts. I need to order a specific number of a specific part for the next two to three years. If halfway through the year I suddenly have a shortage of money and have to cancel that contract, companies get a little gun shy and are not so enthusiastic the next time we knock on their door.
One challenge we faced during the period of difficulty with funding is that we sometimes had to turn the taps off in order to remain within the Financial Administration Act. That has challenged us as we now start to move beyond it with some of these companies.
Senator Banks: When you were talking to Senator Day about outsourcing, you talked about people going to an institution. When we were in Cold Lake we found that a significant part of the training of fighter pilots is being done by a private firm — Bombardier, I believe — comprised to a large degree of ex-military officers, but that function is fundamentally important and it is being provided on a forces base by a private contractor.
LGen. Lucas: Had you visited Moose Jaw, you would find that the early part of the pilot training process is now a joint arrangement between ourselves and that same Bombardier, which provides the aircraft. They essentially have technicians who fix the aircraft. They provide the simulator pilots. We provide the pilots who fly the missions.
Yes, in fact we are probably further down that than either the army or the navy at this point in time.
Senator Banks: Is it working?
LGen. Lucas: It is.
Senator Banks: When you re-engine the Buffaloes, the West Coast aircraft, are the air frames okay? Are we getting into hours problems with the air frame? Are they still good?
LGen. Lucas: We are talking about a relatively short extension here of, I am hoping, somewhere in the order of five years.
Senator Banks: is the re-engining a temporary stopgap and not a permanent replacement?
LGen. Lucas: I have not had the briefing on what would need to be done to extend the life of the Buffalo. The re- engining part was something that a lieutenant somewhere said might need to be done if we were to extend. It may well be something but I have yet to confirm that re-engining is required. We will need to do a number of things but I am not sure that putting new engines on that aircraft is one of them. It might be, but I have yet to receive the briefing on what is needed.
Senator Moore: You mentioned the function of the Cyclone is anti-submarine surveillance work and troop transport, medium lift.
Do you have an aircraft to protect the Cyclone in the theatre? Like the Americans, we visited Afghanistan in December. We were travelling in a Black Hawk but we were escorted by an Apache. Do you have plans for an aircraft to provide that sort of escort for the Cyclone?
LGen. Lucas: I believe there is a requirement for an armed reconnaissance function. I do not think we need to have an attack helicopter. That is a very specialized helicopter. An armed reconnaissance capability can be done with something like the existing Griffin helicopter with a sensor and weapons package on it.
In circumstances where an escort is required, we could put some of those capabilities on a Cyclone, so one Cyclone helicopter could perhaps escort another. If the threat level was high we might require something more, but my sense is that for the kinds of things we are doing here, one Cyclone with a weapons package on board could provide that escort capability.
Senator Moore: Are Cyclones or Griffins built such that they could take the installation of this kind of equipment?
LGen. Lucas: Yes, we are talking about something of the nature of a 50-calibre machine gun.
Senator Moore: I am from Nova Scotia. I am interesting in Greenwood and its welfare. What is the total number of aircraft in the Aurora fleet?
LGen. Lucas: We have 18 Aurora aircraft. We have three Arcturus, one of which is being used on the ground for technician training. Essentially, we have 20 aircraft. They are not all at Greenwood. Some are at the West Coast in Comox.
Senator Moore: How many are in Comox?
LGen. Lucas: I believe there are six in Comox.
Senator Moore: Do you intend to maintain the fleet at those numbers?
LGen. Lucas: I spoke earlier of a requirement for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, which is what they do, but that particular platform is coming to a point where we will need to make a decision about whether to extend it or not. We may decide that we will not extend it because it is too expensive to do so. It is like owning a car. At some point, do I continue to fix all the bits and pieces on it or do I buy a new one? We could be at that point sooner than later if we want to maintain this capability, and I believe we do.
Senator Moore: You have indicated it is a priority.
LGen. Lucas: It is a priority, but there are other options than simply fixing up the old car yet again.
Senator Moore: You had some dates where you talked about the aircraft. What are you looking at in terms of the Aurora?
LGen. Lucas: Unlike the C-130, which will take us four or five years to see all the aircraft arrive at the stage in life where you want to put them on the ground, the Aurora fleet has been managed more homogeneously and as a result, by about 2013, if we do not fix the aircraft, we will start to park them.
We have several choices available to us. I expect within the relatively near term we will make decisions about whether we go with something new or fix up the old Aurora.
Senator Moore: With regard to recruiting, do any females sign up to train to become pilots?
LGen. Lucas: Absolutely and we encourage them.
Senator Moore: Do you get many responses?
LGen. Lucas: Yes, although not as many as we did when there was a barrier there and we had many who are looking to become the first of the female pilots. We found there was an initial surge there, but we certainly do get women who wish to join.
Senator Moore: Can you provide some numbers to the chair?
LGen. Lucas: I will provide them.
Senator Moore: Flying commercially, you often hear that the pilot is female. I was wondering if we are having the same success in the air force.
The Chairman: General, the Chinook helicopters are coming forward. They are badly needed and people are waiting for them with great anticipation.
In the information that we have received for the defence capabilities plan or the Canada First plan, the closest we see to protection for them is reconfiguring Griffins with presumably some sort of submachine gun out the side door. We do not see any attack helicopters there to provide for the security of the Chinooks. Why not?
LGen. Lucas: An attack helicopter is a specialized weapons system. It was largely designed to kill tanks. At this point in time, it is my estimate, as Chief of the Air Staff, that from an air force perspective in respect of providing protection to our Chinook fleet that an armed reconnaissance helicopter is adequate to do the job. You do not need that extra specialization. An armed helicopter reconnaissance helicopter could well have additional flexibilities.
We are now at that point. If the army says it needs attack helicopters, we would be only too delighted to provide them, but our assessment is that that is probably overkill from an escort point of view.
The Chairman: You say that but they do not have the same range as a Chinook and cannot acquire a number of targets like an attack helicopter can. Please explain why you arrive at this position.
LGen. Lucas: I said we need an armed reconnaissance helicopter. I did not specify which kind it would be. In my view, it could at least have as good a sensor package on it as an attack helicopter. It probably would not have an all-up weapons system like an attack helicopter would, but it should have a good sensor package on board. Certainly, the Cyclone helicopter will have an excellent sensor package on it already. It comes with it.
The Chairman: You have not ordered enough Cyclone helicopters to do that job, have you?
LGen. Lucas: Certainly, as we shape the Canada First defence strategy, we try to incorporate a package of capabilities based upon the resources we think we will have available. I am trying to ensure we build that armed reconnaissance capability in there to provide adequate support for not only the Chinook helicopters but the Cyclones as well when they perform that troop transport role.
The Chairman: That is based on the resources that you will have available or based on the needs that you think are necessary to protect the transport helicopters?
LGen. Lucas: It starts with the needs, and then obviously, as with everything we do, it is shaped by the available resources.
The Chairman: There is not much point having Chinooks flying into hot spots if we cannot protect them.
LGen. Lucas: I do not dispute that at all. In fact, that is the reason for me being an advocate of an armed reconnaissance capability.
The Chairman: Thank you, sir. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much for appearing before us today. It has been useful for us. We do not have you here often enough. We have a great many questions. You have been very helpful with your answers today. We are all grateful to you for being of such assistance to us.
LGen. Lucas: It is my pleasure to be here. I will ensure that those additional pieces of information that you have asked for are provided to you.
Our next witness is Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson, Chief of the Maritime Staff and Commander of Maritime Command. Vice-Admiral Robertson joined the Navy in 1973 and progressed through training as a maritime service officer. He has commanded at all levels of the navy as Commander HMCS Annapolis and HMCS Athabascan; Commander of the Canadian task group deployed in Southwest Asia for the first six months after 9/11, and his present appointment as Commander of the Canadian navy. Staff appointments include time working in the offices of the Minister of National Defence and, most recently, of the Director General, International Security Policy. Commodore Andy Smith, Director General, Maritime Personnel and Readiness and Captain Ron Lloyd, Director General, Maritime Force Development accompany Vice-Admiral Robertson.
Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson, Chief of the Maritime Staff, National Defence: Thank you very much, gentlemen. It is my pleasure to be with you again today, although for the first time in my current capacity. It is a pleasure almost entirely because of the interest you take in national defence and security issues, but in this case national defence specifically.
Joining me today is Commodore Andy Smith, Director General, Maritime Personnel and Readiness. I would characterize his job as being charged with addressing the issues related to today's navy. He is not exactly a novice, having appeared before the committee when he commanded the fleet maintenance facility in Halifax.
Also present today is Captain Ron Lloyd, Director General, Maritime Force Development. As his appointment would imply, he is charged with addressing force development issues related to the navy of tomorrow.
I propose to give you a quick review of naval operations over the past year before turning my attention to the issue of Canadian Forces transformation.
Gentlemen, your navy is working hard to secure Canada's interests, both at home and abroad. As I think you are well aware, these interests are truly global in extent, reflecting Canada's position as a leading economic power and Western democracy. As mariners, we understand that our economic security depends on the freedom of the seas. The majority of the world's commerce must pass through only a handful of oceanic choke points, making our just-in-time economy highly sensitive to disruptions, disruptions that many who oppose our policies, or indeed the very values upon which we built our society, would visit upon us if they could. The world's oceans no longer act as a barrier to those who would cause us harm. They need to be deterred or dealt with. This is why many navies cooperate for the common good, principally through their ability to exercise control over ocean spaces and to deny the same to any potential adversary, conventional or asymmetric.
Accordingly, our first priority is clearly to defend the nation at home. As part of the broader transformation effort, the navy led the Canadian Forces in creating Joint Task Force Atlantic and Pacific, as you examined with Rear- Admiral Girouard during the committee's recent hearings in Vancouver.
We are also leading the Canadian Forces in working with other government departments to achieve a more effective security framework in Canada's ocean approaches, beginning with an enhanced understanding of all maritime activities under our rubric, which we refer to as maritime domain awareness. I think Admiral Girouard spoke about that as well.
Defending our nation in this era means much more than protecting our territory or sovereignty just off our shores, which is why HMCS Fredericton deployed for nearly two months last spring in a counter-drug operation in the Gulf of Guinea on the west coast of Africa. That led to the successful interdiction by embarked RCMP of 23 tons of illicit cargo worth about $.25 billion bound for a gang in east-end Montreal.
As we speak, HMCS Ottawa is on her way home from a highly successful deployment to the Arabian Sea in the Persian Gulf region, where she operated for several months as a key element of a coalition force. HMCS Ottawa is the twentieth deployment of a warship by Canada in the global war on terrorism since 9/11, and indeed the thirty-third deployment to the region since the end of the Cold War.
HMCS Ottawa deployed there, like many of her predecessors, for a variety of complementary reasons: to underscore Canada's enduring interests in the region; to interdict those who would use the seas for unlawful purposes, including terrorists; to further Canada's objectives in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially given our participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative; to further Canada's relationships with regional powers and coastal states; to reassure regional friends and security partners; to deter those who would act against our interests; and finally, to prepare for potential follow-on operations were that required. In other words, HMCS Ottawa deployed to both project maritime power and to help build maritime security.
[Translation]
In the past year, Commodore Denis Rouleau has taken over command of the NATO premier rapid response maritime group, a responsibility that he has exercised from his flagships Iroquois and Athabaskan. This shows once again that Canada is still recognized for its professional skills and abilities in exercising international leadership.
It is important for me, as Chief of the Maritime Staff, to give you this brief overview of the navy's activities in the past year. I am very proud of the success of our maritime forces. They have validated our Force Generation used by the operational commands.
[English]
While we call it force generation, my role consists of far more than the daily challenges of generating proficient maritime forces that are equipped and trained for any mission in a highly uncertain and troubled world. It also consists of helping recruit and train talented people, establishing the policies, standards and doctrine that translate into tactical excellence in maritime operations today, as well as the setting of requirements to ensure the tactical success of maritime operations in the future.
Moreover, the appointment of the three environmental chiefs of staff remains distinct from all others in the department, with the exception, of course, of the Chief of Defence Staff. Specifically, my colleagues and I represent national institutions in the army, the air force and the navy, within the context of a single force called the Canadian Forces, each of which is steeped in our individual and collective histories, traditions and past accomplishments from which the fighting spirit of our joint and integrated combat forces ultimately derive.
In short, I view my job, as the steward of maritime capabilities for the Canadian Forces, as a role that is fundamental to successful transformation at the strategic, operational and tactical levels.
At the strategic level, I remain the CDS senior maritime adviser, and my staff continues to retain most of the cognizance into naval operations that currently resides at the national level. Commodore Smith's team continues to play a critical role in providing maritime advice to the joint staff in the strategic direction of the Canadian Forces, as well as supporting CANCOM and Expeditionary Forces Command. At the same time, Captain Lloyd's force development team works closely with the vice-chief's team to shape the future force structure.
At the operational level, Maritime Forces Atlantic and Pacific were well positioned to evolve towards Joint Task Force Headquarters and take on new responsibilities well inshore of the high-water mark. This was possible due to the decades of investment by the navy in operational command and control, as well as given the deep relationships that they have had over many years with key defence and security partners at home, relationships that Rear-Admiral Girouard quite rightly identified as the key to our future success.
[Translation]
Since September 11, maritime security has given rise to the need for unprecedented cooperation between security and defence agencies, both nationally and internationally. Maritime security also requires us to develop a more detailed work framework. The objective is to ensure cooperation between departments, to orchestrate government instruments, to create a merger of all available means of detection, even the integration of defence data bases with those of intelligence services, environmental services, police and trade services.
[English]
The requirements for maritime domain awareness have expanded from simply needing to know a vessel's location and its identity to a need for much more information, including its point of origin, last port of call, flag, state, commercial ownership, crew, manifest, drawings, and so on. This is a huge challenge, admittedly, but progress has been achieved in the last several years under the auspices of the Interdepartmental Marine Security Working Group, in which Commodore Smith's staff represent the department.
At the tactical level, the navy successfully transformed at least twice since I joined back in the early 1970s, most recently around the introduction of the Halifax Class frigates and modernized Iroquois Class destroyers in the early 1990s. The success we have enjoyed since, as a general-purpose, globally deployed navy, has depended on a number of factors, a number of activities that we changed in the late 1980s and early 1990s: a complete top-to-bottom analysis and restructuring of our occupations, that is, our military manning in the ships in the years preceding the delivery of the new frigates; the complete retooling of shore-based industrial and training establishments; and a much tighter coupling of the feedback loop between operational test and evaluation, exercises and operations, training and tactical development.
Turning to the future, I have little doubt that the necessary modernization of the Halifax Class and the arrival of the maritime helicopter and the joint support ship will position us for the next major tactical transformation of the Canadian Navy, which will necessarily take place when the future surface combatant joins the fleet sometime late in the next decade. We are beginning even now to lay the foundations for their successful introduction into the fleet.
By way of a broad introduction, that covered a bit of everything. We would be pleased to answer questions in any direction you are interested in going.
Senator Meighen: Welcome, Vice-Admiral Robertson and gentlemen. Thank you for being here. Where to start. Perhaps you could go back and hone in on how your life has changed during transformation and the formation of the four new operational commands. The concept of the different environments is difficult for me to grasp. I would like to hear your take on it. What are you doing that you were not doing before? What responsibilities have you been able to get rid of under this new organization?
V.Adm. Robertson: Let me start with transformation. To clarify one point, at least more than eight years ago, we transitioned to the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff of the day. As you know, that position no longer exists and is replaced by CANCOM and CEFCOM. The Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff exercised command of operations and employed the Canadian Forces, certainly in a naval sense, whenever there was a use of force contemplated. Although there has been a change in the structure for naval forces, there has only been a slight change in force employment. That is, for any employment not of a routine nature where we contemplate using force to enforce Canadian sovereignty, the forces that were in Maritime Forces Atlantic or Pacific would have been placed under the operational command of the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff. Now they are placed under the operational command of the commanders of CANCOM or Expeditionary Forces Command. Those two officers have a great advantage over the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff. They are not trapped in the cycle of corporate responsibilities that used to afflict the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff. Their responsibilities focus on how, at the strategic level, to employ tactical forces and make all the necessary arrangements with the two coasts for that employment.
What has changed for the Chief of Maritime Staff? There are some operations that we used to run that we would have referred to as ``routine operations'' that are now run entirely by Canada Command. A classic example would be the conduct of fisheries patrols, up to the point where a use of force had been contemplated. As I think you will know, we have over 100 days allocated to Department of Fisheries and Oceans patrols on the East Coast, and it is very seldom that force is actually needed. That is why ships are deployed, so that force is not required; mere presence deals with issues of sovereignty. Routine operations are run now by Canada Command, again through Joint Task Force Atlantic. Very little has changed for my staff and me. It is a bit more complicated in that some of our staff supports Canada Command with advice and liaison at the national level. They are not in the same building but they are in the same town. We also support the joint staff in the work they do in the maritime environment.
The greatest change in transformation is the creation of Joint Task Force Atlantic and Pacific. Nevertheless, for the commanders in the employment of maritime forces, there is relatively little change except that they train and produce effective forces for me under the hat of Maritime Forces Atlantic and Pacific. Those forces then work for Joint Task Force Atlantic or Pacific, typically for CANCOM, when sent on operations. The change for JTFA and JTFP is related to all of the work above the high-water mark, and the better integration of forces to deal with emergencies on the coast.
Senator Meighen: In the recent past, on the West Coast there has been a cannibalization of personnel and perhaps equipment too, in order to get a vessel ready to go to sea. I assume this is the same for you as it is for the air force and the army in that the highly trained trades people are most vulnerable to employment opportunities elsewhere. Are you doing anything in particular to attract and retain these people? Correct me if I am wrong, but are you still suffering with the internal cannibalization that you used to experience?
V.Adm. Robertson: Let me start with the issue of pier head jump — cannibalization sounds a little rougher — that is short notice, pack your bags and join another ship. We have a way of manning in the naval environment that is quite similar to the army and air force. That is, for all the jobs on board a ship, we have one person. In any ship's company, there are about 10 per cent, perhaps as many as 15 per cent, who are on course of varying lengths, or who have some kind of medical condition or injury which means they cannot go to sea. That means we start looking for people to fill billets. Countering that, we have a small manpower pool on each coast that has been set up precisely to deal with this issue. Of course, the manpower pools are modest in size. That means it is a good place to go if you are looking for people with basic skills, leading seamen, boatswains or engineers. The more specialized they are, the less likely they are in the manpower pool and the more likely they must be found ashore or on another ship. Often they are found on another ship simply because we have trained effective strength of 8,100 and we have close to 4,000 serving in ships. For a Western navy, I would hazard a guess that we probably have the highest ratio of people at sea compared to those ashore.
For the United States Navy by comparison, when people go on course of any significant length, they are replaced before they go off on course. That is a luxury that a service of 400,000 people can afford that one of 8,000 people cannot. What matters most for the system to work is to keep it as fully manned as possible. I said we had 8,100 trained effective strength. That is on an establishment of about 8,600. We are about 5 per cent under strength at the moment. That is common, I believe, for the three services.
The challenge comes in the areas you highlighted, the highly specialized individuals, where industry would be delighted to hire them and is hiring them. The result is that our numbers fall and the people that remain with us have to go to sea more often. That can become an unhealthy cycle. At the moment our schedule of operations is not as demanding as it was five years ago. That helps mitigate slightly, but there are occupations that cause concern. Our key problem areas are with the highly valued technical traits, especially naval electronics technicians.
Senator Meighen: What are you doing to keep them?
VAdm. Robertson: You might have heard from others that our recruiting campaign has been successful overall, but I characterize it as having been very successful except in precise areas where the Chief of the Defence Staff said that we have enough men of action, we now need a few geeks of action. He followed it up by saying that we are looking for a few ``rocket scientists with personality.''
Getting them through the door is more of a challenge than retention. Our retention is even across the board. Once folks go to sea and make a career of it, we do not have a problem keeping them. It is getting them through the door. One of Commodore Smith's remits to me in the coming weeks is a tailored program to get those highly skilled brains through the door.
Commodore Andy Smith, Director General, Maritime Personnel and Readiness, National Defence: To amplify, attrition has been constant in the navy. It is higher in some of the technical trades that have been in high demand in the private market.
For graduates of community colleges, select community colleges across the country, there is an enrolment-signing bonus, if they would like to join the technical trades. In addition, we have a wonderful subsidized education program, at the Marine Institute of Memorial University in St. John's Newfoundland that trains some of the technical classifications. Those are two examples of some of the additional efforts that are underway to address the short falls in the technical trades.
VAdm. Robertson: We are broadening the range of institutions where we can send folks for subsidized education, including Algonquin College here in Ottawa, where we will subsidize students through a two-year program.
We have to get that news into the high schools so the students are aware of the programs before they start dreaming of going to other places. We need them to dream about going to sea.
Senator Meighen: Do you get your claws into them, so to speak, right away because recruiting is not your direct responsibility, is it?
Cmdre Smith: That is correct. Recruiting is the purview of the Chief of Military Personnel. The navy works hand in glove with them to promote and attract individuals, but the Chief of Military Personnel recruits and enrols them.
However, for example, this summer, as an additional initiative, we will be sending a frigate into the Great Lakes to highlight the technical aspects of what the navy brings to a series of communities, high schools and community colleges.
Senator Meighen: Suppose I am a bit of a hobbyhorse, I am a young college or graduating high school student and I am impressed with the HMCS Halifax. I join up and then I do not hear anything for six months or I am told, because I studied abroad, I will need a full security clearance that will take two or three years. This is a turn-off. Is there anything you can do to expedite the process and remove those hurdles?
Cmdre Smith: Those enrolment issues are the Chief of Military Personnel's purview, not the navy per se.
Senator Meighen: I know. Is there anything you can do? Do you just sit back and take it?
Senator Day: Are you aware of the problem?
Cmdre Smith: Certainly we are aware of the problem. We work very closely with the Chief of Military Personnel to address those issues and if there are special cases, we can go back into the application to examine the problem.
Senator Meighen: That problem is not just in the navy, it is throughout the Armed Forces. That is the common complaint. It takes so long to be accepted into the CF that if another opportunity presents itself the person grabs it.
I am sure my colleagues will want to go into this in some detail, but let me open it up. How have you gotten around the Rush-Baggot Treaty?
The Chairman: It has the do with how many pallets of gun powder you can take on board a vessel.
VAdm. Robertson: This is a treaty that provides work for Foreign Service officers. We will give notification to the Americans when the HMCS Halifax goes up the St Lawrence. They are building their first littoral combat ship on the Great Lakes and we were notified that they would be putting a war ship to sea on the Great Lakes and sending her outbound.
The Chairman: Are both sides going to a higher state of alert?
Senator Meighen: We are concerned about the gaps that we perceive will arise anyway, and even more so, pursuant to the Canada First defence strategy. I am thinking of the loss or the alleged and speculated loss of the destroyers and no replacement. I am thinking of the retirement of the replenishment ships prior to the JSS vessels coming on stream.
How will you bridge those gaps? How will you protect our coastal waters, with what, since we have not heard anything about cutters and the like, and the MCB are not suitable for that work, as far as I can determine. Finally, what role do you see for our blue water navy up in the Arctic and tell about your experience there?
VAdm. Robertson: Let me begin with the Canada First policy. As I said, earlier, Captain Lloyd's staff, Captain Lloyd himself and others have been involved with the Vice Chief of Defence Staff as we moved ahead on defence strategy. Certainly, no decisions have been made yet on issues of force structure of the kind you are referring to, gaps for the future. The strengths of the platforms you referred to, the destroyers and the tankers, broadly acknowledge the importance of having the capability that the destroyers bring, the command of control and the area air defence capability is well acknowledged especially given the use of those ships in the past year. Two of them were the flagships to Commodore Rouleau when he commanded a multi-national force in European and Mediterranean waters. It is well understood that not only do they bring a great capacity, but those capabilities cannot be put into a HMCS Halifax class satisfactorily. Certainly, the area air defence capability cannot be without a major modification that is not contemplated. The command and control capability can be migrated to a certain degree although it would come at the expense of other capabilities, since we need room for the staffs and planning spaces and so on.
Senator Meighen: Outside the mid-life refit, if you did it in that context of the mid-life refit of the frigates would there be less cost?
VAdm. Robertson: We would still need some real estate for the task group commander and his staff, both in terms of accommodation and planning spaces. The only way that we can see to do that, given the layout of the ship is to compromise on some other capability, which is to remove some capability and free up space in the ship.
Senator Meighen: It is not an ideal solution.
VAdm. Robertson: It is not but it would give us a capability. For the most part, what countries are looking for from a country that wishes to command is not just the commodore and the command and control capabilities, but also the area air defence capability that provides a broader protection to all the forces if that is what is required.
With respect to the supply ships, I would have acknowledge at this point that they are closing on 40 years of age, and still certainly still both able to do what they were designed to do, but closing on 40 years. The capabilities they represent, are not only well understood and appreciated, but will be enhanced significantly in the joint support ship. The current timeline to industry would see the lead ship in 2012, and follow on ships, over the following couple of years; three joint support ships.
At some point, now speaking specifically of the replenishment ships, we will retire our areas of responsibilities, AOR, so that the crews are able to begin the training required for taking on the joint support ship.
It would be customary for us to do that somewhere between six, 12, 18 months depending on the class of ship. In this case, 12 months prior to taking on the first, to have joint support ship, one would decommission one of the two supply ships. One would follow decommissioning the second, at an appropriate pace to get ready for taking on the second of the class.
That is not an issue that we will address until we get to the next phase of the joint support ship process. That is down selecting to a single contractor, signing a contract, and heading us definitively toward a ship in the water. That is still a year and a half away at this point.
I would agree that February is not a good time to put a maritime coastal defence vessel, MCDV, on the Grand Banks. It is time to put a frigate or a destroyer hull out, and that is why we have the Fredericton, that is there today. There are not a lot of foreign ships on the Grand Banks, but it does not matter. What is required is presence from time to time, to remind them of who is sovereign. You cannot do that with an MCDV in some of the weather we have had in the past three weeks. Additionally, even in slightly more moderate weather, you can put the MCDV there, but not be able to send a boat away to allow the Department of Fisheries Oceans officers to do their work. However, for large parts of the year, the MCDV in those waters is fine and certainly, in closer, not out at the 200-mile limit in some of the worst weather of the world, they do fine as well. The fact that the MCDV does not have helicopter capability, it has a speed that allows it to keep up with a target vessel means that there is a role for a larger vessel in our waters. The question then becomes one of a trade off between a new class of ship or continue to use the frigates and destroyers, from time to time, in those waters. There are merits to both. The expense of a new class of ship is something I would be very careful about for that duty exclusively. We have quite a program coming over the coming decade.
You asked about the role of the navy in the Arctic. The navy needs to be able to be present in any of our waters. Certainly, we have been present, over the past couple of years. We had HMCS Montreal there last summer with two coastal defence vessels, all the way up to Lancaster Sound. We had a deployment of several weeks in the Arctic waters last summer, and I believe two years before that, one of my officers was in the same waters. This summer, there was a submarine and a frigate were up in the Hudson Strait region. In the late July, early August, time frame when conditions are appropriate for those kinds of platforms, we gained some experience about operations in the Arctic waters. We gained additional experience, by working with other government departments including the Canadian Coast Guard, Canadian Border Services Agency and a few others, in an exercise to bring the government teams together in those waters.
I think that tells you what our intentions are for the coming year, at least.
The Chairman: Just to touch on that, when Admiral Buck appeared before us, when he was Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, he talked about the MCDVs being without helicopters. As you mentioned, they are slow, beamy and not suitable for guarding the coast. They were training vessels and Admiral Buck made it clear that they were training vessels.
When you talked about an all-government role, I did not hear you mention the Coast Guard. Clearly, Admiral Buck was thinking about the envelope that he had to spend, and that if there was going to be a new class of a cutter, say about the size of a frigate, but not with all of the bells and whistles that frigates have on them, that it could do the job. We are looking for an all-government approach, or an all-government response to this. Have you had any discussions with the Coast Guard regarding this role, the brown water navy if you will?
VAdm. Robertson: Brown water has a particular characterization in navies. The waters that are the most demanding are clearly, in our world, blue water, several hundred miles off the coast.
Is there a role for cooperation? Yes, absolutely. I am not sure I would be happy to follow the question.
The Chairman: Its does not sound like the only equipment you will have, is very expensive equipment, if it is a frigate out there. That is not well suited for the job, just because of its cost.
In that role, if we are going to have a Canada First defence policy, this is obviously of some consequence to us. You want to have a capacity for interdiction year round. Is that a role for the Coast Guard? Have you had a discussion with them, in that regard?
VAdm. Robertson: It is certainly a role for the navy to play. There is a role, potentially, for a larger off-shore patrol vessel, something of the size that the U.S. Coast Guard is pursuing. I would not look at a frigate being employed in our coastal waters as a waste of money or too much of a ship for the job.
Our ships need time at sea and we tend to rotate those deployments in support of the Fisheries and Oceans through the ships on both coasts. Any ship's captain will take advantage of a 15- or 20-day patrol in support of Fisheries and Oceans both to do that job and progress other training that is required on a ship. Sea time is valuable for them. It does not take away from your point that a larger version of some coastal patrol vessel would certainly be useful for us.
The Chairman: Virtually everyone wearing the dark blue uniform tells me that the right number of vessels is four, not three, for joint supply ships, if you want to have a vessel available on each coast year round. Why have we chosen three vessels?
VAdm. Robertson: Given all of the work that we did to develop the requirements for the joint support ship, and that included high-level design work, it was clear that the amount of money available would not allow us to pursue more than three ships. It will accommodate only three ships with the enhanced capabilities.
Our experience over the past 30 years has shown that with three ships, we can provide capability to a certain level. A fourth ship, while welcome, would be a modest, marginal increase in capability. It comes down to how much money we have available for the defence program. I am not disputing that four ships would be useful, but I think our experience with three has shown us that we are able to respond.
The Chairman: With three ships, looking out a number of years, how long would we expect one coast or the other not to have a vessel available to it?
VAdm. Robertson: We do not know what the serviceability rate will achieve. We expect it to be better than the serviceability rate of current ships. Nevertheless, there will be periods where one coast will have its ship in longer-term maintenance and that is something we have managed, certainly over my career. We have maintained an ability to reinforce with a ship from the other coast for any international operations that require a supply ship.
The Chairman: How long does it take to get a vessel like this through the Panama Canal?
VAdm. Robertson: It would be more than a 20-day trip to get around and into the other ocean. What we have done, and what we may well do in the future, is have that ship meet halfway around the world; so it is not a question of going through Panama, but perhaps going through the Suez Canal.
The Chairman: Would you anticipate that the new single surface ship would have sufficient fuel to get halfway around the world, or would it have to go into port somewhere to refuel and replenish?
VAdm. Robertson: It would be customary to replenish a couple of times en route going either through the Mediterranean or across the Pacific; but it is certainly useful to have the supply ship, I agree.
Senator Atkins: In our travels, we have found that there is a critical stage in terms of retirement at 20 years of service. The army and the air force are facing this problem. For some strange reason, all of a sudden we are facing a time where many of our service personnel have to make a decision to stay or leave the forces.
I know we talked about personnel, but is there any real incentive to keep our navy personnel on board? It is much cheaper to find a way to keep them than it is to recruit new ones and replace them. Am I correct that you said there are 8,300 naval personnel altogether?
VAdm. Robertson: There are others in dark blue uniforms in places like the Chief of Military Personnel or some of our training establishments. However, on the two coasts, and in Ottawa running the navy, there are about 8,100 in total.
The issue of retirement is aggravated by the force reduction program we went through back in the mid-1990s. Those who naturally chose to leave at that point would now be coming up to that 20 to 23 years of service. It is a more pronounced effect for the army, in terms of both officer and NCM leadership, than it is for us. However, there were people who chose to leave and what it means for us is, while it is natural for some to want to leave now as they fulfill their 20-year obligation, we would like to keep as many of them as we can.
We have an Armed Forces model that is not based on the American system of —
Senator Atkins: Re-enlistment and bonuses.
VAdm. Robertson: Or, indeed, of youth, and a high turnover and narrow skills taught to individuals. We have a model premised on experience and age, and a broader knowledge base taught to individuals whom we want to retain for as long as possible.
What incentives do we have to have people stay beyond 20 years of service? One incentive needs to be a navy that is active and employed. That is what sailors want to do. If our navy is not busy, has too much time alongside, then people will not stay. The number one issue is meaningful employment; that is clearly a motivator.
I would not discount the fact that beyond that, people need to look at the options that are available to them. Yes, there are certain things they can do if they retire, but if they stay with us, advancement continues, pension grows, et cetera. There are incentives to stay, although some people reach a certain point in their life, for family reasons, when it is time to go.
Senator Atkins: What is your priority regarding recapitalization?
V.Adm. Robertson: The challenge is that our programs are all large, complex and expensive. Most of them unfold over at least a decade; at least eight to 10 years where they are quite active. This means they necessarily overlap. Navies cannot do projects sequentially because you simply cannot deliver the capabilities that are required by only tackling one platform every seven or eight years. We have to do them in parallel. At this point, then, the first priority — and I think I can fairly say this must be the first priority — is the Halifax class modernization.
Senator Atkins: Are you talking about the frigate?
V.Adm. Robertson: Absolutely, yes. They are very capable ships, but they are now the oldest. HMCS Halifax is coming up to 15 years of commissioned service. We need, in about five years' time, to begin replacing those equipments that are technologically obsolescent. We have to upgrade from the computer technology of the 1980s to the computer technology of today. The command and control suite in the ship, if you stand in the operations room, all of the equipment that allows the ship's company to fight the ship, is verging on obsolescence and certainly will be in 10 years time, so certainly must be replaced beginning in five years.
Senator Atkins: We are talking about 12 ships?
V.Adm. Robertson: Yes. The same would apply to the radar suite in the ship. We can keep those radars, we believe, running until the ship approaches retirement, but of course there is a trade-off point at which it is actually cheaper to replace with new than it is to try and run the old system out to 30-plus years. Additionally, with new, we will get enhanced capability. Halifax class modernization needs to move ahead. At the same time, we have to get ready to receive the joint support ship and go through the process of paying off the old ships.
Senator Atkins: You are talking three of those.
V.Adm. Robertson: Yes, I am referring to the three ships we will be receiving.
Senator Atkins: When will these ships be ready?
V.Adm. Robertson: The lead ship will be ready by 2012, and the other two will be ready in 2013 and 2015. The history in maritime procurement for most navies is that the lead ship, if it arrives on time, you then spend a year-and-a- bit bringing it up to full operational capability. Traditionally the program, by the time you reach the last ship, as the ship is received, it is fully operational and in service.
The next priority, what we must be doing in parallel with preparing for Halifax class modernization is preparing for a future surface combatant. We must replace the capabilities that are in the Iroquois class and eventually replace the Halifax class in the period beginning 2016-17.
This summer, my intent is to stand up a small team to begin the requirements definition work for the replacement. You may have also have heard it referred to as the single class surface combatant or SCSC.
Senator Atkins: It is a destroyer.
VAdm. Robertson: It will probably be the same size as our current frigates and destroyers; both classes displace almost exactly the same amount of water. In fact, I believe Halifax class displaces a tiny bit less than the Iroquois class. The frigates are actually a little longer. A couple of per cent is the delta between the class displacements.
That points out that internationally there is really a convergence towards a ship of about a 6,000-ton size which has either destroyer or frigate capabilities, depending on what one wants to put in the hull. The destroyer capability that is most valued is the area air defence capability for the long-range protection of a task group as well as command control. One can have either kind of capability in a hull of about 6,000 tons.
The Americans do the same thing and perhaps the Australians will pursue the same route in a hull of something close 9,000 tons for a destroyer. That is too expensive for almost any navy except the United States Navy.
Senator Atkins: How many of those ships are you referring to?
VAdm. Robertson: It remains to be determined. That is a decision to be taken in probably four to six years time. We need to work on the requirements for the lead ships of the class. It would be useful if we had a single class of ships; that is, common engineering plan, common hull form, common habitability galley, mess decks and so on and change the war fighting capabilities of the ships so that the three or four lead ships had the ability to replace our current destroyers' capabilities and the follow-on's would be more like frigates.
I think it is important that we go about replacing our ships, not duplicating the batch-build process of the early 1990s where we built 12 ships in six years. The industry did a great job building those 12 ships for us and delivering them in six years, but we should develop a process of sequential build of hulls spaced perhaps a year, a year-and-a-half apart such that industry does not face a boom or bust, feast or famine approach in the future.
Senator Atkins: It would apply the new technologies as you went along, instead of having to refit?
VAdm. Robertson: Certainly if one was looking at building them in flights of three or four ships, at that kind of year, year-and-a-half spacing, the way technology is evolved it is relatively straightforward to take advantage of the build process, to put the new technology into those ships. It still gives you common hull forms, common engineering plans and so on meaning simpler training in the schools in Halifax and Victoria, not a requirement for people to be trained on several classes of ships. It would still be a requirement to train people on different weapons systems that were fitted in the ships.
Senator Atkins: You have given us significant priorities. Could you provide the committee with your vision for the future of maritime force?
VAdm. Robertson: What we have to be able to do is operate at home. By ``vision,'' I am now talking about a decade from now out to twenty years from now, and that is the period over which we typically have to work, a period when our ocean estate will only be larger. Under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, we will go from having an offshore estate that is approximately 70 per cent of the size of the country to one that could potentially be the same size as the country's land mass. There will be work to be done at home. The international situation is going to require that a country like Canada have a navy that can operate in an ever-more complicated littoral environment around the world.
Bear in mind the developments of a decade from now. Perhaps I could provide you with an example. If you think back to last summer, we saw Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in Lebanon, attack an Israeli frigate some miles off the coastline with weapons that had been proliferated, according to the press, from Iran. At any rate, proliferation from a terrorist organization is a sign of things to come. That proliferation was a missile that travels slightly less than the speed of sound. We anticipate that a decade from now, anti-ship missiles will travel at twice the speed of sound. We have to prepare future ships to operate in that environment where we can see ballistic missiles being used against maritime platforms and where the kind of weapons system displayed by the Iranian navy, a Russian derivative torpedo that travels at almost 200 kilometres an hour short range. It is difficult to use, and one needs quite a bit of training. Nevertheless, it gives you a sense of what the littoral environment will be like a decade from now.
In East Asia, an environment where France, Germany and Russia are proliferating submarines, they are selling them to a variety of customers in Asia at a rate that means a decade from now; there will be far more than there are today. That gives you a sense of the environment we have to develop forces for.
Going back to the vision, those forces would continue to be task group based integration of submarine, ships, helicopters and patrol aircraft able to operate in that kind of contested littoral environment around the world. That will be required.
All of the pieces that I spoke of are needed in some measure, or one cannot field a task group with the balanced capability. It is not good enough to field individual ships. One has to put to sea a task group that is a team to be able to operate in that kind of environment.
Senator Atkins: Is a submarine part of that package?
V.Adm. Robertson: It certainly is, to be able to deal with the threats we expect to see in littoral waters a decade from now.
The Chairman: How long is the risk with the absence of Iroquois class?
V.Adm. Robertson: It very much depends, sir, on how quickly we are able to move on the lead ships of a future surface combatant class.
We will be taking steps this summer to bring together a team and complete the work to head us along the programmatic path. In the years to come, we will see what resources are available. I would like to see the Iroquois class last until 2015 and then hand off.
The ships have done marvellous work over the last couple of years. I have an engineer on my right-hand side who will scold me if I get out of line, but they are in very good shape at this point. The engineering plants are robust. They are doing well. I do not think there is an issue of them not being able to last. The question is how much money the Armed Forces has to continue all of these capabilities into the future.
The Chairman: Admiral, are we talking about four years to seven years, something like that?
V.Adm. Robertson: To procure another class?
The Chairman: For the rest between when you have to pay out the Iroquois class and have the new ship up and functioning properly.
V.Adm. Robertson: My aim would be to reduce the gap to a normal handover between classes, but that of course will depend on the resources allocated to the department.
The Chairman: Are you planning for an even longer period because you are aware of the risks of funding?
V.Adm. Robertson: At this point, I am planning for a hand-off, but we will see what resources are allocated to the department.
Senator Day: Admiral, I am not sure that you concluded your reply to Senator Atkins when you were going through your priorities; you listed three priorities.
Did you have any other priorities in terms of new capital equipment acquisition? You listed Halifax class modernization, a joint support ship, and then we got bogged down on the future surface combatant, the destroyers and the frigates. Are there any other priorities?
V.Adm. Robertson: Just to make sure I was clear, the future surface combatant and the so-called single class surface combatant are the same.
Senator Day: Yes. Was that your third item?
V.Adm. Robertson: Yes. I have left off the integration of the new maritime helicopter into the fleet, which we are eagerly awaiting. There is a question of what additional capability we will have for offshore patrol. As we had discussed earlier, another priority is what might replace the maritime coastal defence vessels in due course, since they too are a product of the early to mid-1990s, and at the 20-year point, it would be appropriate to look at their replacement.
There is the question of how best to provide a capability for operations in the Arctic, which is of course, something where the government is considering options under the Canada First policy.
Senator Day: With respect to your last priority, there have been some recent announcements in newspaper articles that suggest a downgrading of that priority from the government's point of view. I have read that the potential ship should be able to operate in the Arctic at certain times of the year but is not an icebreaker class ship. Are you aware of that recent change in government policy?
V.Adm. Robertson: The government has not made any decisions on what capability to use. That sounds like speculation in the press.
From a naval engineering point of view, there are trade-offs to be made in the design of vessels that can work in the ice. The more robust the vessel's ability to work in the ice, the more the hull form is optimized for work in the ice and the less that hull form is able to deal with heavy weather off any coast. You end up with a question of specialization, and that may be what is causing speculation. One cannot have, in one hull, all the capabilities one might like. It is a question of incorporating speed, endurance, ice ability, and stability for helicopter operations and boarding operations with boats, et cetera. That is a matter of optimizing for whatever employment one wishes for the vessel.
Senator Day: There was a recent announcement that the Russian government has offered icebreakers to escort liquid natural gas, LNG, ships into Hudson Bay. What do you think of that idea in terms of sovereignty in the North?
V.Adm. Robertson: I saw some reports about using Churchill over a longer period of the year. I think commerce will do what makes sense. Business will go where business is. I do not see that as a question of sovereignty in that there is no dispute over our control of Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait or our Arctic waters. Any ship coming into our waters for the purpose of trade, specifically to go to Churchill, would be even more circumspect in its compliance with any Canadian regulations since its intent is to come repeatedly.
Senator Day: It would be done with the support of another government's icebreakers operating in the Arctic where we cannot operate and using ships that may not meet our standards.
V.Adm. Robertson: You made several points.
Senator Day: The one point was sovereignty.
V.Adm. Robertson: The Coast Guard operates in our Arctic waters. Up to seven Coast Guard vessels were in our Arctic last summer keeping open those routes open for commerce.
Going back to your particular example of icebreakers leading LNG vessels into Canadian waters, there are vessels designed in the Baltic ship-building industry to operate in first-year ice. They have a normal bow and an icebreaking stern and can operate in both directions. One can combine those into one platform, so that is just a matter of commerce.
Coupling an icebreaker with merchant vessels is merely commerce, if they comply with Canadian rules and regulations. That is not a matter in which the navy becomes involved, so I am a little outside my lane here.
Senator Day: Is there, within National Defence and within the navy element, a group of people working on specifications for naval vessels to operate in the Canadian North?
V.Adm. Robertson: We deal with it on a project-by-project basis. For example, the joint support ship included considerations of ice capability, because we want the vessel to be able to get to Montreal in the middle of winter in order to be able to load and unload the joint support ship there.
Senator Day: You can load that in Halifax without an icebreaker.
V.Adm. Robertson: It is a question of flexibility, especially given where the Canadian Forces is able to recondition, assemble and so on for deployment. You are right that the joint support ship has a capability of around 0.7 of a meter of first-year ice. That gives it a capability in our Arctic waters better than our MCDVs or frigates. That is modest capability, but capability nonetheless. Any future vessels that the navy builds would probably include the same level of modest capability.
Senator Day: The sixth item on your list of priorities for recapitalization is capabilities in the Arctic. Am I correct that you were not talking about another platform but rather ensuring the application of icebreaking capabilities to platforms that appear in your other priorities?
V.Adm. Robertson: I was being a little circumspect since it is up to the government to decide what platform it chooses to pursue in the Canada First defence policy, and that may well be a new platform. Although I listed that as the sixth item, as I originally said, it is not my sixth priority. Navies need to progress all of their requirements in parallel, so I would not read anything into that.
Senator Day: Your answers have been very helpful in terms of these priorities. I have a point of clarification with respect to the joint support ship. Did I understand correctly that you are still one and a half years away from issuing a contract to acquire this ship?
V.Adm. Robertson: In December 2006, two contracts were awarded for the next phase of development work. In late 2008, we will select one and provide an order to build. Their input to us is due in the spring of 2008, I believe. If I am incorrect in my comments, I will get back to you with the exact times.
Senator Day: There have been no contracts issued for actual work that will result in something being built for you right now on any of these priorities; these are all down-the-line thinking of what we would like to have?
V.Adm. Robertson: The approach used for the joint support ship is that the two industry teams will submit their proposals. The government will choose one, sign the proposal, and we will then be in contract. There is a clear expectation that we will move ahead on the joint support ship. For the others, at this point you are correct.
Senator Banks: My question, too, is for clarification. From what I understand, when we tried in the past to put command and control capability into a frigate, it did not work all that well. I believe someone told us that it was thought that the joint support ship would be a platform on which command and control capability would be placed.
Maybe I have that confused with joint task force control. Is that where I made my mistake?
VAdm. Robertson: Yes. That is nicely put.
Senator Banks: The future surface, all-singing, all-dancing ship is, in sort of a modular sense, where the interoperability type command and control centre will be put?
VAdm. Robertson: Exactly.
Senator Banks: Thank you for straightening me out. You said the Iroquois class is likely to be down by 2015 or so, when you would like to see the handover. Given where we are now with the design plans and the letting of some kind of contract in 2008 that you just talked about, will we have a ship that will make a handover and have a bit of an overlap by 2015? Can it be built by then? Do we have the shipyards capable of building it in this country?
You spoke as though you assumed that those ships would be built in Canada.
VAdm. Robertson: I should take a step back when it comes to shipbuilding and merely say that we are seeing with the joint support ship how the global shipbuilding industry works. That is to say, the ships will be built in Canada, but they will take advantage of the best skills around the world. When the team leaders built their teams, they went looking for particular skills to give their team a clear advantage.
I will talk for a second about the Dutch version of a joint support ship. They looked at the ALSC: afloat logistics sealift capability ships. They looked at some development work we did in the 1990s, decided that that kind of vessel made sense and Schelde and the Dutch navy pursued building one. They are ahead of us. There was some suggestion that maybe the fastest way for us to get a replacement joint support ship would be for us to go government-to- government and, through the Dutch navy, engage with them to obtain the design to save time, and turn that design over to Canadian shipyards.
Senator Banks: Maybe the hull could be built in South Korea.
VAdm. Robertson: I will come back to that in a second, because in fact the fastest way to get that intellectual content is to let industry do it. Schelde formed a partnership very quickly with one of the team leads. Whatever the state of the art is, that is what will be brought into these teams. At present, of course, the Canadian shipbuilding policy says the government fleet is built in Canada. That happens to be, to my mind, good for the navy. It is the construction work that helps ensure we have a viable shipbuilding industry, not just to build but also to do all of the repair and maintenance work on government fleets as is required.
Senator Banks: Do we have a shipbuilding industry that can build those ships?
VAdm. Robertson: I will use the JSS as a good example. It was clear to industry several years ago that the government was serious in its intent to move on a competition. Industry formed teams, because the joint support ship project was very transparent, with websites, briefings and the like. Industry built teams and developed a capacity. That does not mean the capacity to cut steel is there today. It is in some respects but, as discussed earlier, we will not actually be cutting steel for another couple of years. Various industry teams came up with a plan for how they would build the capacity to satisfy the government's stated requirement. We will see the same thing with Halifax class modernization and other surface ships.
The industry has the capacity at the moment. The Shipbuilding Association of Canada would provide the same information. Certainly the industry has the capacity. It faces a number of challenges, as do all industries, one of which is the predictability of the shipbuilding industry, which would allow youth to see a future in becoming attached to one of the shipyards. If they see a future of a steady government building program, there will certainly be a viable industry.
Senator Banks: So far, it would be a pretty saw-toothed graph if you drew one. That is another question.
VAdm. Robertson: It is important, and that is one reason why I would like to see a steady building program.
Senator Banks: You described it as lasting for a long period of time. Would it last as long as obsolescence so that you would start the next generation after that? That is a silly question, I am sorry.
VAdm. Robertson: No, it is one consideration. Why start down the path if it does not actually bear out in the long run? You can take the total government demand including the Coast Guard, ferries, the RCMP and so on.
Senator Banks: You talked earlier about taking a submarine and a frigate to the Arctic. Will we have a submarine that is capable of doing it by this summer?
VAdm. Robertson: Yes, indeed. We will be up there again in the late July-early August time frame.
Senator Banks: Will it be okay?
VAdm. Robertson: It will be just fine. We have had great success with the submarines that we have been operating. For a period throughout the fall we had two boats operating off the East Coast. You will know that HMCS Chicoutimi is laid up awaiting her turn in the cycle to be Canadianized and brought in. HMCS Victoria is in the dock in Victoria. HMCS Corner Brook and HMCS Windsor participated during the spring and fall in international and national exercises. The navy worked with army Pathfinders doing the kind of things that Pathfinders find entertaining which is insertion to the submarine from an aircraft by parachuting down, joining the boat and then the boat inserting Pathfinders onto a coastline covertly in the middle of the night.
Yes, we have had success. There will not be a problem sending a boat up north in the summertime. It is to an area where we operated O boats in the 1990s and 1980s, up into Labrador Strait. One of the officers on my staff, to whom I was talking just before coming over, spent the better part of six weeks sitting in an Oberon class off of Hudson Strait in a post-Cold War period where there were still submarines in that area. Our O boats were out on patrol.
Senator Banks: Going back even further, you were talking about Arctic capability for the navy and its role. Is it simply old salts being nostalgic when they wax, as they do, ecstatic about HMCS Labrador? Was that not the perfect Arctic ship?
VAdm. Robertson: She certainly was in commission in the then-RCN, very capable and, of course, transferred to the Coast Guard for the final stage of her employment. She was an icebreaker and an ideal ship if what one wants is an icebreaker, but not with the hull form that allows wider employment.
Senator Banks: Does the navy need to have an icebreaking capability if it is to perform a role in the Arctic?
VAdm. Robertson: There is utility in having a hull form that lets one operate in ice, which is not quite the same as having a high-end CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent icebreaking capability. The question is: What is the best way to put military capability into the Arctic waters?
Senator Banks: Is the thinking that the Coast Guard would lead the way, followed by an ice-capable ship?
VAdm. Robertson: One can have an ice-capable ship operating on her own up to certain levels of ice, yes.
Senator Meighen: Did I hear you correctly, Admiral, that we now have two fully operational Victoria class submarines.
VAdm. Robertson: We operated two throughout the fall. One of the two is in a longer-term maintenance period and the other is about to go to sea for another set of work.
Senator Meighen: If I may say so, I do not think many Canadians realize that we have ships operating in the sea. Their mindset is still stuck in the zero capacity.
VAdm. Robertson: I have a great photograph sent to me by Admiral McFadden of two boats coming up the harbour one after the other. He took great joy, when I was in Halifax and a boat sailed past, to say to me that I could not tell him which one it was.
Senator Meighen: Maybe you get those PR geniuses in DND to get that into a newspaper.
The Chairman: Can you tell us if either of the boats can fire torpedoes?
VAdm. Robertson: They can fire torpedoes, but they have not completed the full range of operational testing which would be required for me to say that they are fully operational.
The Chairman: When will they be fully operational in a combat sense so we could deploy them if we wanted them to do the full range of their work?
VAdm. Robertson: We can deploy the boats in Canadian waters to do their surveillance work, which we find valuable, and that is why one is going to the Arctic in the summertime. When HMCS Victoria comes out of the work period that she is in, we expect that she will then complete the class trials to be able to certify fully prepared. That will be in early 2009. The focus that we are placing between now and is on the training required to maintain skills of submariners. If we were to focus on those trials at this point, it would be at the expense of training the submariners and maintaining a healthy submarine service.
The Chairman: Do you have a risk of running out of people who have that skill?
VAdm. Robertson: If we were to not do the training, yes.
The Chairman: Is it fair to say that the mid-life refit for the Victoria class should roughly match the time of the Halifax class and that you should be looking at a replacement about the same time as the Halifax class?
VAdm. Robertson: The mid-life refit will be done slightly differently. The current approach is to get us into a long- term in-service support contract for the Victoria class, and each submarine would be spending approximately 18 months in a contractor's hands. During that period, we would do the mid-life upgrade, during one of the 18-month availabilities for each boat. It will not impact submarine availability in the same way that Halifax class modernization will impact on the numbers of Halifax class we have available.
Early in the next decade, we will begin modernizing the Halifax class, and at times, we will have three or potentially four in the hands of the contractors. We need to do that because the class was batch-built and we have to get through the mid-life refit at the same rate at which the ships were built.
The Chairman: The percentages will be pretty close.
VAdm. Robertson: In that sense, yes.
You asked another question about a replacement of the submarine capability in due course. At this point, we are seeing submarine hulls operated by the Royal Navy being operated well beyond 30 years, as is the Royal Navy's plan. We will be looking for a replacement in due course sometime in the 2020s.
Senator Moore: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
The chair asked a question about the HMCS Corner Brook and the HMCS Windsor, with regard to their being fully operational with torpedo capacity. I do not think you answered that question. You said the HMCS Victoria would be fully operational early in 2009, but do you have an answer with regard to the other two boats?
VAdm. Robertson: It is a question of doing the first-of-class trials with the torpedoes. If one conducts trials for one boat, then one has the information required for the class.
Senator Moore: The second boat will not take as long?
VAdm. Robertson: In fact, very little time is required for the second boat.
Senator Moore: Do you have a date?
VAdm. Robertson: Indeed, what really matters here is taking advantage of the Nanoose range, the calibrated range, in a deliberate trials setting, and putting HMCS Victoria through her paces firing the Mark 48 torpedo, a torpedo that was not used when the boat was in British service; they used British torpedoes. That is the work that is required.
Senator Moore: You are saying that the HMCS Corner Brook and the HMCS Windsor will be fully operational with torpedoes after the HMCS Victoria.
VAdm. Robertson: Very shortly thereafter. I do not have the details, but it is within 2009.
Senator Moore: With regard to the Arctic and the capability over the years of the Coast Guard, why do we not use the Coast Guard? I always thought that the Coast Guard should be under the DND. I do not understand it being under Fisheries and Oceans.
Why would we not use the Coast Guard for Northern work? As opposed to designing a building an icebreaking ship with a gun on it, why would we not use the Coast Guard? We already have these vessels. We know how to build, man and crew them. If we have to put a gun on it, so be it; it is a lot cheaper than doing the rest of it. Why do we not do that?
VAdm. Robertson: There are discussions between the navy and the Coast Guard about cooperation in the Arctic. For example, I have asked Maritime Forces Atlantic, under Admiral McFadden, to look at how we can go about putting a naval boarding party on board a Coast Guard icebreaker if required. That would imply not sailing permanently but having the ability to operate with the Coast Guard, and that strikes me as a way of bridging to any future capability we might have.
Senator Moore: I think that would be a smart approach.
I was a bit confused with regard to the single class destroyer. It would be designed to replace both the Iroquois class and the Halifax class. Is that the idea?
VAdm. Robertson: We would like to have a single class surface combatant.
Senator Moore: Which would replace those other two classes?
VAdm. Robertson: Indeed.
Senator Moore: I believe you said that given the modernization of the Halifax class and the phasing out of the Iroquois class, a decision with regard to proceeding with a single class destroyer would have to be made in order to have ships built and operational by 2015, or when the Iroquois class is wrapped up. What does a ``hand over'' mean? Does it mean decommissioning the ship?
VAdm. Robertson: As I described with supply ships, it means not decommissioning the day one gets the new joint support ship but rather at some appropriate period in advance to allow for the training. In the same way, I would see at some point decommissioning Iroquois class to be able to conduct the training required for future surface combatant. The onus is on the maritime staff to do the work to define what we need in a future surface combatant, what the future security environment will require and then push the programs through the department and out to industry.
It is conceivable that we could have a lead ship by 2017. This will be like the joint support ship in the sense of the international industry seizing on the best teams for competition. In the case of the JSS, initially there were four industry teams competing and those were down-selected to two teams. The prospect exists that industry would be able to respond to a requirement to build some future combatant.
Senator Moore: The first onus is on your command to develop a concept of the vessel that meets your requirements.
VAdm. Robertson: Exactly.
Senator Moore: Do you have a team doing that conceptualizing?
VAdm. Robertson: We have some people doing the initial work but we will stand up a small team this summer that will focus exclusively on delivering that future class of ships.
Senator Moore: I am from Halifax, Nova Scotia and I have great pride in the navy. Earlier this year, we did not have $5 million to send our ships out for the fisheries patrol. How could that happen? Shortly after that, we did not have the $25 million to participate in NATO, yet we are in Afghanistan asking NATO members to help us out. Can you tell me about that?
Those were embarrassing situations and the $5 million was delivered quickly after the story went public. How it went public, I do not care. It seems to me that somewhere, somehow we should have been able to manage those patrols and have the fuel for the ships to do them. Certainly, there is something not right about lacking the money and the fuel to send out our patrols.
VAdm. Robertson: Well, Admiral Girouard summed it up well when the committee was out west. It was simply a matter of how we budget for the year. The expectation at the start of the year, as in previous years, was that there would be more funds. Funds were tight this year and we had to live within our means. At the end of the year, there are few ways to remain within budget and one of those ways is to curtail sailings because fuel consumes a fair amount of the budget available for the end of the year. It was no more complex than that.
Senator Moore: If it is so finely tuned that you cannot find the money to buy fuel for the ships, then something is not right. I will leave it at that.
Admiral Girouard said that the NATO exercise did not provide the value that we might like to see. That may be but I consider Canada's obligations and NATO command is here this year. I do not understand why those priorities would not have been set in at the top of the list. I think we let the side down and I am embarrassed.
Senator Atkins: Have you had any difficulty in recruiting submariners?
VAdm. Robertson: I do not believe we have had any difficulty at all. It tends to be a service that has a certain cache to it, thereby attracting people who are looking for that kind of environment in which to work. I do not believe we have had any difficulty with that recruitment.
Cmdre Smith: Almost by definition, submariners are a fiercely proud lot. Once we begin to generate submariners, the process builds momentum and interest in the service.
Senator Atkins: The accident did not prevent recruitment.
VAdm. Robertson: From that point of view, not at all. In fact, in that response, you saw the degree to which we train submariners to be able to deal with whatever comes their way. In the same way that we train folks in the surface navy to be able to do damage control, they reacted exceptionally well. They did a great job so that has not had a bad effect, to my knowledge.
The Chairman: Thank you, Vice-Admiral Robertson. Your comments have been instructive and have helped to clear up a considerable list of issues before the committee.
To members of the public, who are viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments please visit our website where we post testimony and confirm hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the Clerk of the Committee at 1-800-267-7362.
Senators, we have further business. It is my sad duty to read a letter that the clerk received earlier today. It is addressed to Ms. Jodi Turner, Clerk, Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Senate of Canada, Ottawa.
It reads:
Dear Jodi and members of the committee,
I have been requested by my parties' leadership in the Senate to tender my resignation as Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence effective at noon, February 26, 2007. I do so with considerable regret.
I was particularly honoured to have been elected last year to replace the late and much respected Senator Michael J. Forrestall as Deputy Chair and since then, have striven to carry on his unrelenting dedication to the well-being of the men and women of the Canadian Forces.
To my valued colleagues on the committee and to its hard working staff, I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation for the unfailing support and assistance they have given me as Deputy Chair.
Yours sincerely, Michael A. Meighen Q.C.
Copies go to the government whip in the Senate and members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Senator Banks: Can we discuss this letter?
The Chairman: The floor is open if you have something to say.
Senator Banks: I heard rumours to this effect but I did not credit them. I do not know if this is appropriate, legal, in order, or according to the Rules of the Senate, but Senator Meighen, could you be convinced to reconsider this resignation. I am asking this because, although it comes as a surprise notwithstanding the rumour, you have been a member of this committee since it was formed. Before it was formed, the Senate did not have a committee that addressed, on any regular basis, questions having to do with national security and defence.
You have been, in many respects, our conscience. When we lost our way you kept us on the right track. When we were going off half-cocked someplace, you got us back on the straight and narrow again and you have done that often.
You have also been, in light of the substantial proportion of members of the Canadian Forces who are francophone, an effective and colloquially familiar, I am told by others who understand what you are saying, which I do not, spokesman for the committee from the time before you were elected to the deputy chairmanship.
In light of the importance of continuity of knowledge and understanding, can you be convinced and is it appropriate to reconsider this letter, to withdraw it, to whatever word would be appropriate, to apply to this? I think there are others who would agree with me that we very much regret receiving this letter.
Senator Meighen: Thank you Senator Banks. Thank you particularly for those very flattering remarks. I doubt that I pulled us back from the brink of exaggeration any more than anyone else did, but I think the short answer to your question is no. I had a conversation with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who asked me if I would tender my resignation. I have always been a loyalist to my party. I expressed my amazement to the leader. I am obviously not going to recount the nature of our conversation, but I indicated I was extremely disappointed, as I did in my letter. The leader indicated to me that her mind was made up, and I then gave her my word that I would tender my resignation, effective at noon today, and gave similar word to the government whip when he phoned me.
I hope in the future that the situation will change, whatever the situation is, and I will be able to resume that position. In the meantime as you pointed out, I have always enjoyed the work on this committee, and found it valuable. I have enjoyed working the colleagues that are here, and those who are not right now.
This hard-working committee has provided a valuable service to the country. While some to of our recommendations from time to time have been scoffed at a little bit, many of them have come true, many have been adopted and that is a tribute to the entire committee and I was honoured to be part of its leadership.
I was not the deputy chair a year ago, and I am not now and perhaps in the future I will be; however, while I am extremely disappointed at this decision, I will look forward to continuing to work with all of you as a regular member of the committee.
Senator Banks: One final question, if I may, is this the whole thing? Is there some personal reason for your resignation?
Senator Meighen: None at all.
Senator Stratton: Just a point of clarification, as I think it has been stated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate that this is a short-term position, until the end of June. We have been telling people of the changes and they would be short-term, likely to the end of June, maybe to the end of August so we can review things. It was just necessary to carry out. For your information in room 9 across the way, Senator Carstairs has resigned as Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Committee, and Senator Fraser is taking over in that capacity. That was without notification on the government side of the leadership. These things do happen. They are not unique or original; they do happen. We regret that but I think in the short-term, as I said, this is a necessary thing to do. We will be looking at it again, at the end of June or by the latest, by the end of summer.
Senator Meighen: By way of clarification, while that obviously is pleasant news to my ears, that is the first time I heard it.
Senator Banks: Senator Carstairs is resigning for her own personal reasons. Senator Meighen has told us that he is resigning because he has been asked to do so. It is not the same thing.
Senator Stratton: I do not disagree. My point is we have 23 senators, and there are changes that affect another change. There is a domino effect and we have to deal with it in the short-term. We will be looking at it at the end of June.
Senator Meighen, you were not there in the chamber when the opposition asked Senator LeBreton why the government was making these changes. The leader's reply was that it was simply for that reason. Senator LeBreton said that the decisions would be reviewed at the end of June.
Senator Banks: I was not there Senator Stratton and I know there are things you cannot talk about, but can you tell us any aspect of the party's reason?
Senator Stratton: I am sorry; I cannot go there. Not that I will not go there, I cannot go there.
Senator Atkins: Well, I am astounded. This committee has put out 16 reports. The last one I might say, received many acknowledgments, and credit for its recommendations and depth of content. This is a committee that, is in a way, is not like other committees. Senator Meighen says that he took over from Senator Forrestall. Let me tell you folks, if Senator Forrestall were here, we would not be going through the situation. When Senator Meighen took over, we needed someone to support the chair during a delicate period of time. Now, all of a sudden, for some strange reason, we find Senator Segal stepping down, for whatever reason and now for some reason, Senator Meighen is being told that he is no longer wanted as deputy chair.
I think the whole thing is unconscionable and I cannot believe that the members of the so-called new Conservative Party are addressing the committees in a way that I think, if this all gets out, will be a total discredit, not only to the committee, but to the Senate. I think it is awful.
Senator Day: Thank you and like you, I find this a very sad occasion. I have had the honour of serving on this committee since I was appointed to the Senate a few weeks after the committee was formed. I cannot say I went back to the very beginning, but I am very close. I have always appreciated Senator Meighen's leadership since taking over from Senator Forrestall. Senator Meighen was the logical person to have as our deputy chair.
I have read this letter. It seems to me that there is a leadership issue here. We have heard absolutely nothing from the Liberal leadership on this, and for that reason alone, I think that it is premature to deal with this resignation, since it is the direction of leadership of one side and we should have the position of the leadership on the other side. Secondly, we have advocated for a long time that committees should be the masters of their own fate. We choose our chair, and I think we chose well. We chose our deputy chair and I believe we did well in that regard.
My view is that we should not accept this letter of resignation and investigate this issue, find out what the leadership of the Liberal Party is saying, and then deal with it at a later time.
The Chairman: If that suggestion is addressed to me, Senator Day, I have to tell you that a resignation from a Senate committee takes effect when the senator signs it. In this case, Senator Meighen signed it as taking effect at noon today, so this has happened and at present, this committee is without a deputy chair.
Senator Day: I move that Michael Meighen be appointed as deputy chair.
The Chairman: There is a motion on the floor. Perhaps before we deal with the motion we can hear from Senator Moore. If I may, I would like to recognize him so that we hear him.
Senator Moore: I want to be associated completely with the remarks of Senator Atkins. In the case of Senator Meighen and Senator Segal, what I find unconscionable about this is that these are two unselfish men with personal, solid, national reputations. I do not know if any thought was given to them personally, but to do this to these two people will hurt whoever did it. I can tell you that as a matter of fact and record.
I gave a speech to a business investment group in Halifax this past Friday. A number of high-profile Progressive Conservatives were in the room and they were asking me about the situation with Senator Segal and the rumours about Senator Meighen. These high-profile people were upset. They are not on my side of the floor, but they recognize the national reputation of these people and the contributions they have made to their own communities and their country. I am very upset by this situation.
Senator Meighen: When I arrived this morning, I was told that Senator Stratton had replaced me on the committee.
Senator Stratton: That was a mistake.
Senator Meighen: Is that not true?
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chairman: Excuse me; my understanding is we received a notice that you had replaced him. Subsequent to that, we received another notice indicating that you are now replacing Senator St. Germain.
Senator Meighen: That is correct.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton had replaced you but he is no longer replacing you. You are sitting as a member of the committee.
Senator Meighen: I do not know if that changes what I was going to say; it probably does. I was going to say that if we are going to be discussing this in any further detail, would it be more appropriate if I withdrew so colleagues can talk?
Senator Stratton: It was purely a clerical error; it had nothing to do with anything other than that — nothing.
Senator Meighen: If colleagues do not feel constrained, then I will stay.
Senator Banks: We have never felt constrained before.
Senator Meighen: I noticed that.
Senator Tkachuk: Just a couple of points, for those people who may be paying attention to this matter. You have heard from members of the committee about the resignation of Senator Meighen, and he has given his reasons in a letter about why he has resigned. For the information of those few who may be watching, it should be very clear that these decisions are made by the leadership of each political party and their caucus.
Although we have often talked about the fact that perhaps we should not, that is the way and the custom of the Senate chamber, which has been that the selection committee takes the members and then the government leaders make certain decisions about who will be the chair. I did not get to vote for Mr. Kenny. Mr. Kenny was clear that the government leader wanted it and Mr. Kenny was the chair. They are nominated here, but it is very clear about how the operation runs; the political parties in the chamber make these decisions and the committees confirmed them.
I find it very uncomfortable to have other members of the political party discussing business that has gone on within the leadership of our party, as I am sure they would find it uncomfortable if we were discussing the business going on within their party, as if it was their business.
I want to point out that is the way the decisions are made — they are not made any other way. You may tell people that they are, but they are not. We all know how these decisions are made, so let us not grandstand here for public consumption. Let us deal with the issue, which is a very sad issue. I am as unhappy to see Senator Meighen resign as anybody else, but it has happened so let us leave it at that.
The Chairman: Just to clarify, Senator Tkachuk, you were not present or a member of the committee when I was elected chair of the committee. That is just a statement of fact.
Senator Tkachuk: I am a member of the Senate Committee of Selection and I know how these decisions are made.
The Chairman: All I can tell you is that I was elected by this committee.
Senator Banks: Senator Tkachuk, you are right in the description of the style of things. The Committee of Selection, of which you are a member, meets, discusses and arrives at accommodations, not about everything, but certainly including agreement among themselves as to who will be the chair and deputy chair of committees. Those decisions are made by way of recommendations, which are most often followed, in an election process in the committee. The Selection Committee, to which you refer and of which you are a member, decided early on at the beginning of this Parliament to recommend to this committee that Colin Kenny be nominated as its chair and that Michael Meighen ought to be nominated as its deputy chair.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not quite right.
Senator Banks: I thought that is what you just said. It must be pretty close to that.
Senator Tkachuk: I said the Selection Committee recommends the committee members that are picked by the leaders; and the leaders have an agreement about who will be the chair and the deputy chair. They argue that among themselves, they make those decisions and it is a done deal, which is then confirmed by the committee.
Senator Banks: I do not quite agree with that but let us say the Selection Committee decided that Colin Kenny would be the chair and Michael Meighen would be the deputy chair. If that is so, that was an undertaking that was made between the leaders of the political parties. Now we find, in the middle of a parliamentary session, that the deal is off. I heard rumours — and am surprised, as I said earlier, to see it actually happened — but in any case, in the short time I have been here, that is not normal. It is one thing that Senator Carstairs resigns because she has obligations that she prefers to give priority. It is another thing when, according to this letter, Senator Meighen says he has been requested by his party's leadership to resign. That is our business.
Senator Stratton: Just as a point of clarification, Senator Banks, the Selection Committee does not know who the chairs and deputy chairs will be. All they get is a list of members on the various committees. The chairs and deputy chairs are not listed when it goes to the Selection Committee. That is decided by the leadership on both sides in the negotiation. That is how it is done and has been done for as long as I have been here and before my appointment to the Senate. That is just a point for clarification.
It is important to remember that in the meeting in room 9, across the way, Senator Carstairs has resigned as deputy chair of the Human Rights Committee and Senator Fraser is taking over as deputy chair. That is the business of the Liberal Party. It is not our business. It would have been polite to inform the leadership on the Conservative side of that change.
Senator Banks: Will Senator Fraser be elected at that meeting?
Senator Stratton: Yes. I would like to put forward the name of Senator David Tkachuk as nomination for deputy chair of this committee.
The Chairman: Before you do that, Senator Stratton, I have Senator Mitchell on the list, and we have a motion on the floor. If we could deal with one item at a time, Senator Mitchell, you have the floor.
Senator Mitchell: Of course, I am not a long-time member of the committee but perhaps it gives me a certain sense of objectivity. I am struck by the process that the whip has invoked in suggesting first, that what occurred this morning was a clerical error because one would hope that this would be done much more carefully; and second, that Senator Meighen should discover in this meeting today that there was more to this process than he was originally told. Yes, it was mentioned in the Senate but surely it would have been mentioned to him beforehand that this review process might occur in July or August. The point was made that this is a public meeting and it certainly is public. It seems to me that given Senator Meighen's clear record of service on this committee and clear competence in that record of service that the public has some right to know why it is that this change has been made beyond some vague ''domino effect.'' One might consider that to be ominous. If it is that Senator Stratton is trying to argue the case that reasons do not matter and somehow use Senator Carstairs as a precedent, well, she has made it clear why she has stepped down and why that position is, therefore, vacant. The people who are watching today and the members of this committee, have absolutely no explanation as to why Senator Meighen would have had to step down. I would like to hear that from Senator Stratton for clarification.
The Chairman: Do you have any comments, Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chairman: Thank you. Then, colleagues, we have a motion before us.
Senator Meighen: If I may, chair, excuse me on a point of order. The motion has not been seconded, I believe.
The Chairman: There is no requirement for a seconder.
Senator Meighen: Thank you. I had forgotten. If this motion were to be put and if it were to pass, then we would be back in the same situation, or at least I would find myself in the same situation that I found myself in before, having met with the leader of my party in the Senate. At the very least, the Leader of the Government in the Senate would request my resignation or she would move to have me removed from this committee. In the circumstances, I would like to respectfully decline the offer and try to remember the famous saying of the American politician, ``If nominated, I will not run, if elected, I will not serve.'' Thank you but no thank you.
The Chairman: If I may, Senator Day, are you saying that you are withdrawing the motion?
Senator Day: No. I would like to speak to the motion.
The Chairman: Yes, Senator Day, please speak to the motion.
Senator Day: Senator Meighen, my reason for bringing this motion forward so quickly is that there was a lack of information upon which this committee can make a decision. There is an indication in your letter of discussion with your leadership, but we have heard nothing from our leadership. Initially, I said that we would hold off on this resignation letter until we have the information; however, I am informed that I cannot do that procedurally. I am suggesting that to maintain the status quo, Senator Meighen remain, by virtue of this motion, deputy chair of this committee until we have an opportunity to understand what has gone on between the leadership of both parties.
Senator Meighen: On the other hand, perhaps the chair's intervention is useful in saying that there is no deputy chair now; and there is a vacancy. If Senator Day's suggestion is followed up and if there is, in due course, a meeting of minds, I can always be reappointed as deputy chair.
Senator Banks: Senator Stratton, has there been some discussion between the leadership of the two parties in this respect and has an understanding been reached, of which none of us is aware, on the resignation Senator Meighen as deputy chair of this committee?
Senator Stratton: I am not so informed. My point is that I will continue to say that there are only 23 of us. There are times when you have to make difficult decisions and this is one of those times. It is deeply regrettable but it had to take place. I would like you to consider that aspect of it. We need to move on knowing that this will be reviewed. That is why I put forward the name of Senator Tkachuk in nomination for deputy chair of this committee. I know that we cannot deal with it until the other motion is taken care of but that is where we are coming from.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I have two motions before me, neither of which is entirely in order. If the committee chooses to have an election, then we will go about it in the usual way. I will see a vacancy and will call for nominations. We will proceed with those nominations. It is quite irregular to simply move that a person take a post. The usual process is for the chair to advise the committee of a vacancy and call for nominations. It is appropriate for me to follow that procedure under these circumstances. Not seeing an objection, that is what I intend to do.
Senator Day: Procedurally, in the event that there is more than one nomination for the position of deputy chair, is it your intention to proceed by way of secret ballot?
The Chairman: No, that is not the custom of the Senate. The Senate deals with public ballots and that would be the way we will proceed.
Senator Day: Thank you.
The Chairman: I am at the point where I am advising the committee again that there is a vacancy for the position of deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and I will entertain nominations.
Senator Stratton: I move the nomination of Senator David Tkachuk as deputy chair.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton moves the nomination of Senator Tkachuk as deputy chair. Are there other nominations?
Senator Banks: It is rare that Senator Tkachuk and I, both westerners and prairie chickens, do not agree on something. However, in this case, Senator Tkachuk, you have heard my reservations, which are objections to this procedure. I know that you will not be offended by my nomination of another person. I am thinking about how and why to do this.
Senator Tkachuk is a quick study on anything. He picks up very quickly, he has been paying assiduous attention to the business of this committee, and it shows in the nature of his questioning. However, it would be appropriate in the continuing work of the committee, with respect to the reports with which we are dealing, which have been ongoing for some time — the next report on which we are now dealing, deals with a myriad of issues from all the aspects of national security and defence — and meaning not the slightest disrespect to you Senator Tkachuk, I think it is important that the deputy chair has a continuity of understanding of the contents of the report. I do not know exactly when we will get the report out but it will be within the next few weeks.
In order to perform the function of a deputy chair on this committee, it usually means, as I described the job that we think Senator Meighen has done, holding us to the straight and narrow. He said that we all do that, but the fact is he has done it in the main. In light of that and what I have just said, and on the understanding that the deputy chair ought not to be a member of the same party as the chair, and looking at who is here, I place a nomination in the name of Senator Atkins as deputy chair.
The Chairman: The name of Senator Atkins has been placed in nomination.
Senator Stratton: Senator Banks when you referred to Senator Tkachuk not having the background in the reports that are being dealt with right now, I again refer to the room opposite and the Human Rights Committee. Senator Fraser is being put on the committee as deputy chair. Senator Fraser has no prior knowledge of the report that is being studied right now and will be tabled shortly, none. I do not get your drift with respect to this, with due respect.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman I will resist placing a nomination of Senator Meighen again having heard his comment and his desire to remain loyal to his word, to his leadership, but I am awfully tempted to so. However, under the circumstances and having heard his comment, I will forego making any nomination.
The Chairman: Are there any further nominations? Did I get a motion from Senator Moore that nominations be closed?
Those in favour of closing the nominations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Colleagues, we have two candidates for nomination. They were put forward in the order of Senator Tkachuk and Senator Atkins and I propose that the voting take place in that order. Are there any objections?
Senator Tkachuk: I have a bit of a problem.
The Chairman: Do you have a problem to the order that they are in?
Senator Tkachuk: No, I have a bit of a problem that we are attempting to elect a deputy chair who is a member of the governing party in the chamber.
I am sure there have been times in the past when this has happened before, but I have been here for 13 years, and I have never seen this happen. Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak with 100 per cent certainty, but I am quite certain that there was a discussion between our leader and your leader. I believe that Senator LeBreton knew. You knew last week. I told you last Thursday when we met. If you want to appoint Senator Atkins, you may do so; I have no intention of running against Senator Atkins. Therefore, you can have that nomination by acclamation and then deal with it by other means.
Senator Banks: Can I speak to that?
Senator Tkachuk: The Liberal Party is now interfering in the business of the Conservative Party and whether they like that business or not, it is none of their business. I understand what has been going on. I do not like it. I withdraw my nomination and Senator Atkins can be the deputy chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk. As a matter of clarification, you advised me when we met last week that you were going to be the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: I was told by my leadership that I would be deputy chair.
The Chairman: I am not finished yet. I advised you that I appreciated receiving that information. I asked if Senator Meighen knew. I also advised you that I was the servant of the committee and I would abide by the committee's wishes.
Senator Tkachuk: That is right. That is what you told me.
Senator Banks: Senator Tkachuk, before I determined to make another nomination, I asked Senator Stratton whether there had been a conversation between the leaders. He said, as I understood it, that there had not been. You are just saying now that there has been.
The Chairman: If we could just have one speaker at a time, please.
Senator Tkachuk: He is asking me questions.
The Chairman: Make a note, and you will have the floor next.
Senator Banks: I just wanted to say that I did ask that question, and the answer I got was ``no.'' Now you are saying that it is ``yes.''
Senator Tkachuk: I believe Senator Stratton said that he was not sure and I said, I thought they did; I was not sure either. I thought they did, however it is nothing that a phone call cannot cure.
The Chairman: Do I understand correctly, Senator Tkachuk, that you have withdrawn your name?
Senator Tkachuk: I have withdrawn.
The Chairman: I do not believe there is a question. There is only one candidate. The deputy chair has been declared. It is Senator Atkins, the deputy chair, by acclamation.
Senator Stratton: Since I am a voting member, it will be on division; I will vote against. I will voice my objection against that because the chairs and deputy chairs are always based on the governing side taking a certain number of chairs and deputy chairs and the opposition taking a certain number of chairs and deputy chairs. That has been the tradition since time immemorial. I have gone back a fair way in checking this. I believe what you are doing is taking the tradition of how this place works and throwing it out.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Stratton. Are there any other comments? Since Senator Stratton has made a comment, does anyone else wish to make a comment?
Senator Tkachuk: I also want it clear that when negotiations are taking place, as to the two political parties that deal on these matters and these issues that come before the committee, the Conservative Party does not have a deputy chair and is not a member of the steering committee.
The Chairman: I thought that was self-evident.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that.
The Chairman: Thank you. Senator Meighen.
Senator Tkachuk: I just wanted to make it clear.
Senator Meighen: I wanted to put on the record that Senator Tkachuk asked me, just a moment ago, what I intended to do if there was a vote. I intended to stay out of this and abstain from any vote. That is what I would have done. That is the fairest and the decent way to proceed. While I did not have to so declare, I want people on the committee to know that was my decision as to how I would proceed. I am sorry that it has come to this level of disagreement. I wish Senator Atkins the very best, and I hope that Senator Tkachuk will see his way clear to continuing to work on the committee because, as Senator Bank says, he is a quick study and he contributes a great deal. Thank you.
Senator Atkins: I just want to make one comment, that had there been a vote, I would have abstained too.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Banks that the Honourable Senator Atkins do take the deputy chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt this motion?
Senator Day: Agreed.
Senator Banks: On division.
The Chairman: Someone said new business. Senator Banks?
Senator Banks: While we are in an electing mood, I think Senator Tkachuk has made an important point which had not occurred to me. There should be, I think, on the steering committee of this committee, a member of the government party. I think that is prudent.
I put forward a motion, Mr. Chairman, that however unwieldy the number four is, that the steering committee ought to be comprised of the chair, the deputy chair, Senator Tkachuk, and whomever else they decide to ask.
The Chairman: With respect, I think that it would be up to the Conservatives to decide who they wanted, if they wanted. They might not want a seat.
Senator Banks: As a member of the steering committee? That is not up to anybody to decide but us, is it?
The Chairman: In the past, the selection of the steering committee has been done by consultation, where the chair of the committee has performed the consultation.
Senator Banks: Okay.
The Chairman: Any other business, colleagues?
Senator Moore: Chair, I would like to see that the meetings of the committee that are in camera be in camera. The only people in attendance should be the committee staff, with the members of the committee. I move that only members of the committee staff attend in camera meetings of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: This is not an in camera meeting, is it?
The Chairman: No, he said this is new business. Are there any comments on this motion? Those in favour?
Senator Banks: Aye.
The Chairman: Those opposed.
Senator Tkachuk: On division.
The Chairman: Carried on division. Is there any other business of the committee before we go upstairs to deal with the report, in camera? Excuse me, Senator Atkins, you asked for the floor earlier, and I missed you.
Senator Atkins: I do not know whether this comment should be in camera. I want to comment on our last report, which I think was an outstanding piece of work. One of the reasons why it was successful was the general context, although and I am sure there may be some people who disagree with some of the recommendations. We can be satisfied that the report was very well received. I think there are two reasons. One, and this is something I think we should think about in terms things we should do, is the fact that we only had 16 pages with recommendations. This was a big asset in terms of any release. The other thing, of course, was the way in which you dealt with the media. I think that is credit to the chairman and Senator Meighen. We were able to get out there, and the distribution of the report had the same kind of recognition, as Senator Kirby's committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. We should consider that, when we are preparing other reports, and even maybe break down our reporting into sections.
The Chairman: We will certainly consider that, Senator Atkins. I have to tell you that we are over 120 pages on the current report, and perhaps we will be into some serious breaking-down when we go upstairs, in light of your comments. Perhaps we could discuss it further in camera. I have Senator Day on my list.
Senator Day: I just wanted to clarify, since we are making everything clear and on the record, that this unfortunate letter that we have received dated February 26, 2007, from Senator Meighen is his resignation as deputy chair of this committee and not any other roles he has to play and performs very ably on this committee. This includes the chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. He will continue as chair of that subcommittee.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Day. Senator Atkins?
Senator Atkins: One footnote, I want it as a matter of record, that I was reluctant to accept the nomination as deputy chair because I do not think that I am the appropriate replacement for Senator Meighen. Again, I think the whole thing that has taken place here is unconscionable. It reflects, I think, in a terrible way on the Senate of Canada. I have no doubt that this is going to have some impact.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Atkins. Colleagues, we have a motion to adjourn. Actually, if we could alter that to a motion to suspend and move up to room 705, we will continue in camera on the report. Thank you very much, colleagues.
The committee continued in camera.