THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, January 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, a senator from Ontario and the chair of the committee. I would invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gignac: Senator Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador. Welcome.
Senator Klyne: Good afternoon and welcome. Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
The Chair: We will also be joined later today by Senator Dagenais, representing Quebec; Senator Dasko, representing Ontario; Senator Yussuff, representing Ontario; as well as Senator Jaffer, representing British Columbia.
For those watching today’s session, we are continuing our study on security and defence in Canada’s Arctic, including military infrastructure and security capabilities.
Today, we will hear from two panels of witnesses. In our first panel, we are pleased to welcome, from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Paula Isaak, Associate Deputy Minister; Georgina Lloyd, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs; and Wayne Walsh, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Northern Affairs.
Thank you very much for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. Ms. Isaak, I understand that you are leading off, so whenever you’re ready.
Paula Isaak, Associate Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada:
[Indigenous language spoken]
Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the work of our department as we support the Government of Canada, and particularly the Department of National Defence, on issues of security and defence in the Arctic. This is CIRNAC’s second appearance before the committee on this study.
[Translation]
The Department of Northern Affairs is responsible for coordinating the Government of Canada’s activities in the North.
[English]
The Minister of Northern Affairs has also been mandated to work with federal colleagues to implement international and defence-related aspects of the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework to ensure that Indigenous peoples and northern communities are meaningfully consulted on its development and benefit from this work.
I would like to express to committee members today the importance of Canada’s consultations and engagement with northern and Indigenous communities and of relationship building with Indigenous peoples in the North.
[Translation]
The co-developed framework, released in 2019, presents a long-term vision that incorporates northern voices to ensure that northerners have a say in what happens in the North, including in Arctic Indigenous communities. The framework’s international and defence goals set out jointly developed priorities for our commitment to a safe, secure and well-defended Arctic and North.
[English]
A collaborative approach and its implications for self-determination are at the core of this work. Framework partners have made it clear that their definitions of safety, security and sovereignty go beyond traditional defence considerations. They include personal and community safety, mitigation for the effects of climate change, investments in critical infrastructure, health care, housing, transportation and education. What we have heard is that Canada’s sovereignty is expressed through the well-being of northern and Arctic communities.
Many of CIRNAC’s current programs and activities are focused on elements of this broader approach, including investments related to housing, climate change and food security.
[Translation]
We continue to work with framework partners to ensure that their perspectives are reflected in the implementation of policies and programs. The Northwest Territories Leadership Council meeting in Yellowknife last September served as a significant opportunity for the Department of Northern Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to hear directly from partners.
[English]
Northern security and defence were among the top priorities noted by partners at that 2022 meeting, including decisions related to the development of multi-purpose infrastructure, as well as links to education and economic development. Indigenous partners emphasized their desire to enhance partnerships with National Defence, both to ensure their needs and priorities are reflected and to contribute their unique knowledge.
[Translation]
Infrastructure investments have been identified as a priority through community engagement by National Defence, particularly in Yellowknife, Inuvik, Iqaluit and Goose Bay. They will be an important component of NORAD modernization and could provide opportunities for multi-purpose infrastructure that could be open to community use when not required by the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
Research activities by the Canadian High Arctic Research Station and Polar Knowledge Canada’s support for research activities across northern Canada in the Canadian Arctic contribute to the development of new dual-use or multi-purpose infrastructure as well. The design and construction of the station and its integration with the local community are an example of implementation that supports self-determination and a broader definition of sovereignty and security.
Climate change increases risks to existing infrastructure, safety and well-being in northern communities. When climate change-related events happen at the same time, the effects become even more severe. CIRNAC is working to help communities take leadership in adapting to climate change. Climate change impacts will affect military infrastructure as well, which is all the more reason to work on this issue together.
[Translation]
Our department will continue to support and work with National Defence to facilitate consultation with northern Indigenous communities, and to ensure that NORAD modernization is informed by Northern perspectives on Arctic security and delivers broader benefits where possible.
We also continue to deliver programs that address human safety and security issues, and to work with other departments and agencies on this broader approach.
[English]
I am optimistic that, through the framework process, progress in jointly making decisions and taking actions in priority areas will enable us to achieve our shared goals.
Thank you for your time today. My colleagues and I are available to respond to any questions you may have as they pertain to our mandate. Meegwetch, thank you, qujannamiik.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Isaak.
Before proceeding to questions, I would give our ordinary reminder to ask participants in the room to refrain from leaning in too closely to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’d like to welcome our witnesses. My question is about the mandate letter provided to the Minister of Northern Affairs over a year ago. Can you tell us what commitments he has made since taking office with respect to Arctic security?
Ms. Isaak: Thank you for your question. I think the most important thing for Minister Vandal is to work in collaboration with other departments, like National Defence, to support infrastructure, community safety, community self-determination, support for food security, those things that affect communities when they work with other departments like National Defence, on the issue of security. So it’s a question of working on what supports communities in general.
Senator Boisvenu: I have before me the October 2022 report of the Auditor General of Canada. How does your department respond to the Auditor General’s report when he states that overall, the government has not taken action to improve security in the North?
Ms. Isaak: Is it part of the Arctic monitoring study?
Senator Boisvenu: What is the overall response?
Ms. Isaak: Overall, most of the responsibilities, including the security in the Arctic, fall under the purview of National Defence.
So the Minister of Northern Affairs’ role is to support those communities and to bring National Defence and other departments forward in terms of engagement and consultation with the communities.
However, we do not play a direct role in security and defence, but rather a collaborative role with other departments, such as National Defence.
Senator Boisvenu: During our time in the Arctic, which was most enlightening, we met with leaders of Indigenous communities.
I was surprised, when listening to these leaders, to learn that the department’s approach has not changed in the past 50 years, in that decisions are made in Ottawa; there is very little consultation. This is a very bureaucratic approach to managing northern issues. We know that managing issues in the North is not the same as managing issues in the South.
I would like to hear your perspective. Are things changing in this department in terms of the treatment of Indigenous peoples, or is there still a very paternalistic approach, as there always has been?
Ms. Isaak: Thank you for the question, senator.
I think the way government works with communities has changed a great deal. We now have an Arctic and Northern Policy Framework that was developed in close collaboration with the communities. It’s a major shift that it was developed in a collaborative way.
We also have several agreements in place with the northern communities. We work with governments on a nation-to-nation and government-to-government basis, instead of having a relationship between a department and communities. This is a drastic change that has taken place over several years.
The strategic framework launched in 2019 reflects the changing relationship between departments and communities.
Senator Boisvenu: I was struck, when we visited villages, by the dilapidated state of the housing. In my opinion, this poses a huge risk to the health and safety of families, given that these are mainly wood houses and that there is usually no fire department.
Does the department have a strategic plan to improve the quality of life of what I will call “our Third World”? I saw muddy streets, dilapidated houses. People told us that they had been completely forgotten. Do you have a strategy to improve the quality of life of these people, who occupy the territory and play a role in terms of security, but seem to have been completely abandoned?
Ms. Isaak: Housing is a major challenge in the North and in some Indigenous communities. That is why since 2016, the government has provided significant funding to address the housing situation. Now, we recognize that this is not enough, and that the housing issue was not resolved, but we have made a number of investments over the years to improve this aspect. We are going to move forward in collaboration with the communities.
There is no single strategy for the North, but there are a number of strategies around the North. For example, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) has a strategy for Inuit Nunangat, the four Inuit regions, focused on housing and infrastructure. We are making investments together with the Inuit to address the housing situation over the next few years. That is one example.
We know this is a major challenge and we have begun to make significant investments to address the situation.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thanks to our witnesses for being here. I’m going to continue a little bit along the lines of Senator Boisvenu’s questions.
I think you’re aware of the special Senate committee report from June 2019, Northern Lights: A wake-up call for the future of Canada. That is all about the alignment of policies with the needs of the residents of the North, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. The ultimate goal was to see this eventual devolution of decision-making powers.
In a national defence sense — and I appreciate what you said about how working with government departments, and certainly the Department of National Defence, will be very important — there are issues that intrude. One of those is climate change. When we were up there in the Arctic, there were concerns about permafrost in foundations or even underneath runways, which are the lifeline for many communities.
My question also goes to the mandate letter that Minister Vandal — and Senator Boisvenu touched upon that as well — about finalizing and co-developing a Nunavut devolution final agreement. I would be interested in the status of just how those discussions are proceeding. Then, on the other side, as a former bureaucrat myself, I think there must be some sort of a consultative committee or approach that would work that would bring all actors around the table — certainly CIRNAC, but also DND and the regional leaders at all levels and in the communities. That is no easy task, and it’s an ongoing one. I’m wondering if you could elucidate on those points.
Ms. Isaak: Thank you for the question. I’ll start with Nunavut devolution and then ask Mr. Walsh to talk about bringing the parties together.
As you mentioned, Nunavut devolution has been going on for a while. Negotiations are coming to a close, so we feel like we are quite close to that. It’s an important step, as we have completed devolution across the other two territories. We are very close to hopefully completing devolution in Nunavut. Concluding that arrangement is a clear priority of the minister and the department.
Maybe I’ll have Mr. Walsh talk about bringing the parties together, what went into that and how that works.
Wayne Walsh, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Northern Affairs, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you.
You can appreciate the complexities involved in bringing so many partners together, not only within the Government of Canada but all the partners involved in the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. We have done that using two tracks. The first is internal. We play an important coordinating role in organizing the federal family. We have over 30 federal departments and agencies with whom we meet regularly at the working level. We also have a structure of an assistant deputy ministers’ committee and a deputy ministers’ committee that meet regularly to track the progress against the priorities and objectives of the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework.
We have a similar, parallel system with our external partners. Those external partners include the three territories, the Government of Quebec, the Government of Manitoba, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as a number of Indigenous organizations across those jurisdictions. We meet at the working-group level and also at the regional level. What I mean by that is there is a recognition within the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework that solutions and priorities in Yukon may be very different than in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have separate tables with those partners regionally, as well as we have our separate table with Inuit through the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee.
Finally, Minister Vandal brings all partners together every year in what we call a national leadership meeting. That is an opportunity for all the leaders from across the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework partners to articulate their views and priorities, but it also gives the other partners a sense of what’s going on in the other regions and what their views, priorities and ambitions are.
Senator Boehm: Can I ask you one quick point? What we’ve learned, of course, during the pandemic is that we can consult and meet virtually. That makes a lot of sense when you don’t have transport links to bring people to central places, whether it’s Iqaluit or somewhere else. On the other hand, you have another challenge in the North, namely, bandwidth and accessibility. Is this being overcome? I may have asked the same question at the National Finance Committee.
Mr. Walsh: It is a huge challenge. Frankly, what we have found through the pandemic is that we’ve been able to meet and keep those relationships going. There is nothing like meeting in person; that goes without saying. When it comes to broadband, the strain is on things like e-learning, advancement in the education system and in telehealth, and economic development. That’s where the real pressures are. We’re being asked by our partners to consider investments in those areas.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome, deputy minister. Welcome to your colleagues as well. As the former minister responsible for the Northern Plan in Quebec, I am particularly interested in what you are doing in the federal government. Like my colleagues, I had the privilege of travelling to Canada’s North last fall. We visited various places, including Cambridge Bay and Iqaluit.
One thing in particular struck me, and it took a trip like this to realize it: In Ottawa, we take internet access and communications for granted, assuming that the standard is the same across Canada. This is far from being the case. In Iqaluit, we had a meeting scheduled with the RCMP, and there were communication issues. In Cambridge Bay, someone told me that it sometimes takes three hours to transfer documents because there is no high-speed internet. The situation is different in Denmark. The population density is high and they have fibre optics, so there is no issue.
It is 2023. If we want to drive development in the North, we have no choice but to increase economic development. Where do we currently stand? How do you plan to improve communications in the North and the different Arctic regions?
The situation really struck me. It took a trip like that to realize how dependent we are on communications, which are of course a tool for economic development. Can you tell us a bit about this topic? Do you have some authority in this area or is it another department that deals with this?
Ms. Isaak: Thank you for the question. It is a major problem. As you said, and as Mr. Walsh also said, it is difficult to address and creates a barrier to economic development and in other areas such as health. It is a bigger issue in Nunavut, although it also exists in the other territories.
It is up to the Government of Nunavut to decide how best to deal with the situation. They are working with us and other departments, such as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, which has programs to support connectivity. I know they’re trying to figure out the best way to do it, but it is a complex situation.
We are supporting the development of options for Nunavut. However, it is up to the government to decide how best to do this. Matters are being analyzed, but the solution is not yet apparent.
Senator Gignac: When you say that you are supporting, do you mean financial support or support in terms of sharing technical knowledge? Ultimately, are you considering a partnership between the private sector, the Government of Nunavut and the federal government? If I understand you correctly, all options are on the table.
Ms. Isaak: It is support in terms of funding, but often also in terms of the feasibility of options. Some departments, such as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, may provide expertise. However, the main support consists of project funding.
Senator Gignac: I’d like to move on to something else. I wasn’t around this table at the time, being newly in the Senate, but unless I’m mistaken, I believe that in 2019, the Arctic Committee recommended the creation of an infrastructure bank for Arctic development.
You have presumably had time to consider this. Is this an option that was considered? If not, why was it not pursued? Was it your department that was involved?
Ms. Isaak: Actually, it was the Infrastructure department. I do not know if that option is on the table, but the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is a separate entity, takes a very strong interest in the North. It is working with partners and communities to develop a project for that bank.
This is not a separate bank for the North, but I know that the bank works with the North and is interested in supporting several northern projects. I have no further information, as this is handled by Infrastructure Canada.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
My question to you is this: Have any of the Government of Canada activities designed to strengthen Arctic defence and security had unintended negative consequences for local populations or Indigenous communities? If so, how could such negative consequences be avoided in the future?
Ms. Isaak: Thank you for the question.
It’s an interesting question, for sure, because I think communities would say that, in the past, activities of defence and security have caused harm to communities. That includes cases of relocating communities to exercise sovereignty, which was done in the past. The influx of people and money without actually having communities benefit from that has happened in the past, absolutely. I think communities are very concerned about any future investments having similar impacts.
One of the key features — and what we were talking about before around the framework that was developed — is the idea of doing things together with communities and getting the advice of communities as activities are undertaken. As new investments in security are made, it is definitely the intention of Defence to work with communities in order to develop those activities so that the benefits of training and education — if there’s connectivity that comes with that, or if there’s infrastructure — can accrue to the communities and they feel part of it, not like it’s done to them but that it’s actually done with them.
Senator Oh: I was up in the Arctic in 2017, and I had a chance to visit the High Arctic Research Station. It had just opened. I was told it would be open to scientists from all over the world to come study and do research at the station. So far, how is it running? Is it fully utilized by scientists all over the world?
Ms. Isaak: Thank you for that question.
I don’t have direct knowledge of all the activities because it’s not under my responsibility, but I can say that since the research station opened, they have gradually started to have more activities. Unfortunately, the pandemic occurred right after they formally opened so the travel of scientists up north didn’t happen. However, they certainly are working to broaden the activities of the station and bring in those scientists from all over the world as they had hoped. They have been able to do some science on the ground. I can’t speak to their full suite, but I know they are on their way to getting there.
Senator Oh: When I was up there, I went to a gallery to buy a painting, and it took 20 minutes for my credit card to go through. I say that just to echo what the other senators mentioned. They told me that high-speed internet is important up there. Otherwise economics will not grow. Thank you.
The Chair: I will add that on our Arctic tour at the end of last year, we had the privilege of visiting the High Arctic Research Station, which is now getting rolling. We met with the director and the chief scientist, and I think I can confidently say on behalf of the committee members who were with me that we were hugely impressed with the capacity there and with the ambition of the people, as well as with the integration of the organization into the community.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses.
I was just wondering to what extent Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has impacted international cooperation on Arctic security. I was in Greenland, and we had several conversations there about a richened experience between Indigenous communities on the Russian side as well as particularly on the Swedish side — the Sami. There were concerns expressed at that time that if the war got more grievous, there would be negative impacts on Indigenous communities. We also got a sense of vulnerability as the Russians were really beefing up in terms of their munitions and infrastructure. The Chinese were expressing interest as well, particularly in Greenland. I’m wondering where Canada stands in all of this and how our cooperation continues with our allies.
Ms. Isaak: I can speak to a small bit of that. That’s more the responsibility of Global Affairs Canada, but I can speak to part of the Arctic Council work that we are directly involved with.
As you know, the Arctic Council is a key organizing body for Arctic nations. It put a pause on its activities when the Russian invasion occurred and has subsequently found a way to continue some work. Where Russians were not involved, they were able to do some work. We play a role on a couple of key committees around sustainable development in particular. There’s been a delicate balance over the last year to figure out how to continue some of those conversations — not under the formal title of Arctic Council — with nations to move some activities that do not directly have an impact with the Russian Federation. It has been a delicate balance, and I would say it has probably slowed down the progress — for sure — of the Arctic Council members and the Indigenous permanent participants.
Wayne, your group has responsibility for that. Would you like to add something to that?
Mr. Walsh: I think you captured it really well. The Arctic Council is really the premiere body where Canada undertakes its Arctic engagement. The fact that Russia is currently the chair of the Arctic Council complicates things, and so there’s been some — as Deputy Isaak has mentioned — really careful considerations and conversations that have happened among the remaining parties outside of Russia. Again, this is really under the purview of Global Affairs, but it will be interesting to see the evolution of the body once Finland takes over the chairmanship in May and discussions do take place among the partners in the Arctic Council as to what the next steps might be.
Having said that, I know that in my area, we’re responsible for participating in the sustainable development working group. Our work has somewhat continued, particularly on a bilateral basis — whether it’s with the Americans, Greenland or Iceland, for example — on things like suicide prevention, renewable energy or things like that. We’re continuing to leverage our relationships at the working-group level, but the larger existential question will evolve over time.
Senator Ravalia: At the present time, then, is communication with the Russian Federation at a complete standstill, or in some of these bilateral sidebar conversations are you still able to communicate some of the parameters referring to the Arctic Council?
Mr. Walsh: As a result of the Russian invasion, there was an announcement on March 3, 2022, that all activities would be suspended. On June 8, 2022, there was a statement regarding limited resumption of Arctic Council activities, but they said that it would be solely on project-level activities that did not include the participation of the Russian Federation.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: Thank you for your remarks and your questions and answers so far.
You mentioned engagement and framework processes a number of times, as well as the coordination of information. The historical and modern-day connections between the Arctic and the Inuit people are strong, and I have a couple of questions — not necessarily specific to that, but the first one is.
I recognize that engagement is not directly related to security or defence, but to what extent does the federal government rely on the historical knowledge of the Inuit in the region? Does that knowledge and partnership help to inform the government’s efforts to maintain our Arctic sovereignty? Could that relationship be strengthened?
Ms. Isaak: For the activities that we undertake — so those are ancillary activities that support communities — we’re very much influenced by the views and knowledge, traditional and otherwise, of Inuit and other Indigenous partners. For example, I had mentioned a little while ago that the Inuit, through their organizing body Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, have developed an infrastructure strategy that relates to the four Inuit regions. They developed it based on their knowledge and interests. We then take those strategies and invest in those kinds of strategies. So while not directly related to security, when we work with our Indigenous partners, we do operate under their guidance, and they develop their own strategies and ways of designing solutions to problem. Not directly related to the security issues, I can tell you that in the way we work with the communities in order to support them, we do that definitely using the knowledge, interests and guidance of Indigenous communities.
Senator Klyne: In that context — or more so the context of the surveillance of the Arctic — has collaboration with Indigenous communities been productive in the development of Maritime Domain Awareness of the Arctic waters, or are they just there as communities?
Ms. Isaak: It’s difficult for me to answer that because we don’t do the surveillance. It’s difficult for me to answer whether they are directly involved.
Senator Klyne: So there’s no engagement in any Arctic surveillance?
Ms. Isaak: There may be; I just don’t know because it’s not under Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada’s mandate.
Senator Klyne: Do you think there should be some involvement and engagement?
Ms. Isaak: We’re working with Defence and other departments to provide advice and guidance to them. When they’re asking about how they should operate in this environment, we do provide guidance and help. I have every confidence that Defence and other departments will be taking on board the views and will be engaging with communities. That’s what we understand when we talk to Defence. They’re very much open, interested and willing to have those conversations, so I have no doubt that is happening and will happen.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here.
Senator Klyne kind of asked what I was going to ask, but I’ll ask it in a slightly different way. Mr. Walsh, many of the conclusions declare that the government has not taken adequate measures to respond to the safety and security risk from icebreakers to frigates, to defence, to our air defence and to mobile defence. Can that ever be rectified within the next 10 or 20 years, or will it be?
The second question is something like Senator Klyne’s. How does the structure of command among the Rangers work? Is the Ranger command Inuit? If it is, how is recruitment managed among the Rangers? Is the morale good? Is the recruitment adequate?
Maybe you could answer those two questions quickly.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you for that question, senator.
The short answer to both questions, frankly, is I don’t know, and the reason I don’t know is because it doesn’t fall under the purview or mandate of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs.
The longer answer to your first question is the Department of National Defence, along with the Department of the Coast Guard, would be better placed to talk about some of the findings that the Auditor General, who I understand will be the next panel after us, has found in their report in terms of what their response is to those things. Anything that I would say as to whether the problems could be solved in the next 5 or 15 years would be purely speculation on my part given my role within the Government of Canada.
On the second question with respect to the Rangers, my understanding is that the Rangers are from members of the community, so where the Rangers are set up in Inuit Nunangat, they are predominantly if not totally Inuit, but we do have First Nation and Métis members as well as members of the Rangers. That is my understanding. Again, it would be speculative on my part to opine as to what the recruitment or morale issues might be. I think that’s a better question —
Senator Richards: I do apologize for asking you those pointed questions. I’ll save it for the next panel. I thought you might have an opinion on that. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I read the Auditor General’s report, which is quite substantial, incidentally. It criticizes some of the current government’s shortcomings in terms of its responsibilities, including Arctic security.
I also looked at your curriculum vitae, which is most interesting. I see that you have been working on northern affairs for 23 years and that you have been President of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency since 2018. Now, were you personally aware of the shortcomings outlined by the Auditor General in her report, or was this new information for you?
Ms. Isaak: The recommendations are not new to me. I was aware of the issues, but the solutions are quite complex. I know that some gaps have existed for years, but I also know that solutions are neither obvious nor straightforward.
Senator Dagenais: Since you were aware of certain shortcomings, did you take any action to try to improve the situation? As you say, it is complex.
Ms. Isaak: It is difficult, because it is not the department’s speciality; I have no direct knowledge of the situation. These are my observations, but I do not have first-hand experience in surveillance.
Senator Dagenais: Correct me if I am mistaken, but did Ms. Diane Lafleur precede you in this position?
Ms. Isaak: Yes.
Senator Dagenais: Did you meet when you were appointed?
Ms. Isaak: Yes.
Senator Dagenais: Did she leave you a report about the situation, or did she make recommendations as to certain aspects to be dealt with urgently?
Ms. Isaak: Could you please repeat the question?
Senator Dagenais: When you met, did she bring you up to speed about certain issues that needed to be resolved? Did she provide you with a report on any subject?
Ms. Isaak: Yes, some information and issues were shared, but there was not really a direct transition between us, that was not the case.
Senator Dagenais: Did she leave you anything that resembled a written report?
Ms. Isaak: No.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Isaak, I’d like to go back to my first question. Have you reviewed your minister’s mandate letter? I reread it and tried to understand, from this letter, how the mandates given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada will improve quality of life for communities.
The letter refers to climate change and gender equality. This is a lengthy letter, but in concrete terms, I am thinking, among other things, of the 2014 report tabled in the Senate on transforming the use of heating oil in communities. We know that Indigenous villages rely on heating oil for their homes as well as their schools. This has a direct impact on children’s health. At the time, it was recommended that these furnaces and generators — because these are large generators that power the entire village — be powered by natural gas.
We know these communities are sitting on land with enormous reserves of natural gas. I see nothing in the mandate letter to the minister about improving the health of children nor the quality of life for Indigenous people.
There is little mention of this subject. Is that your perception as well? Do you see any recommendations in this mandate letter that address the problems faced by Indigenous communities?
Ms. Isaak: I believe the mandate letter recommends that the minister work with communities to address the challenges within communities and territories. The established framework has several pillars describing the steps and activities that were developed in collaboration with communities.
So there are many initiatives and activities determined by each community. The minister works with the community to invest in activities and initiatives such as housing, and investments related to climate change, education and food security. So this is a multi-year investment plan.
Senator Boisvenu: If we are talking specifically about heating: Indigenous communities in the North — having made my first trip in 2014 — consume millions of litres of heating oil, which produce gases that are harmful to children’s health. At the time, a switch to natural gas was proposed, as it is significantly less harmful. Has anything been done about this?
Ms. Isaak: Yes, the department has invested in a handful of community hydro projects to improve heating and power systems in the territories and in the community. There are currently projects in Nunavut, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. These are direct investments by the minister and there are other projects in the North, undertaken with the communities, to address the issue of heating costs and how to reduce them.
So, some projects were undertaken and there will be more projects in the future for the minister and for other departments that make such investments.
Senator Boisvenu: I visited villages that have no way of using hydroelectricity or marshes, for example. The only option is natural gas. We know that your government is reluctant to use fossil fuels such as natural gas. Will these villages be able to harness the natural gas that lies beneath their feet or are they condemned to keep importing heating oil, which is quite harmful to children’s health?
Ms. Isaak: There is a community in the North with a natural gas project. This project was supported by the government. It’s up to us to find solutions for each community because, as you said, hydroelectricity is not available everywhere in the North. We must work with communities to find the best solutions.
Senator Dagenais: My question is very brief. I want to come back to the transition between you and Ms. Lafleur. As you mentioned, you had some conversations, but it seems a bit vague. Don’t you find it strange that two people such as you and Ms. Lafleur, who hold important positions, did not hold a briefing session to discuss what needed to be done?
Ms. Isaak: Ms. Lafleur left the department before I arrived. She left for personal reasons. There was no opportunity for a briefing session between us, but I was briefed by officials, assistant deputy ministers and several other people. In my opinion, I was sufficiently briefed for the transition.
Senator Dagenais: If there were any written documents mentioned in these briefings, and if you can locate them, I would appreciate it if you could forward them.
Ms. Isaak: Sometimes there were oral briefings. There were not always written briefings, but perhaps it is something that is ongoing. This is not really a one-day transition, but rather a transition that is ongoing.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: A number of times in this meeting, we have touched on our observations of the North that there are burgeoning expectations of the broad, positive impacts of military infrastructure spending. At the same time, it became evident to us, particularly when hearing from our military advisers, that that spending was not going to have as broad an impact as the expectations of the potential recipients. There will be some gaps. Broadband is obviously a crossover, and runways, but not a military installation in every community. We are going to have to think about that as we develop our report. One of the questions before us will be: Who is thinking about the misalignment of those expectations with the reality of the spend and where it will go?
Would you send us a note or something that would help us better understand the governance and where the responsibility lies for making those assessments as this infrastructure spending occurs? It’s something that I think we collectively came back with some concern about — the expectations of people on the ground and the perhaps narrower range of social and economic goods that would accrue from the military spending.
It remains only for me to thank you, Ms. Isaak, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Lloyd, for spending time with us today. Your presence here is greatly appreciated. You’ve helped us considerably. You’ve had some tough questions, and you’ve provided some very helpful answers. We’re grateful for your time, and we’re grateful for the work that you do every day on behalf of Canadians, and particularly those who reside in the North. This is not easy work. This is an incredibly complex field of policy and delivery. We have the opportunity to thank you for the work that you do in that respect, and we’re glad to do that. Thanks for joining us.
Senators, for this second panel, we turn our focus to the recent report of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada entitled “Arctic Waters Surveillance.” From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, we welcome Mr. Andrew Hayes, Deputy Auditor General; Nicholas Swales, principal; and Chantal Thibaudeau, director.
Thank you for joining us today. Your visit has been much anticipated. We have a very eager group of committee members in the room waiting to hear from you. We invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. Mr. Hayes, whenever you’re ready.
Andrew Hayes, Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our report on the surveillance of Canada’s Arctic waters which was tabled in the House of Commons on November 15, 2022.
I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Joining me today are Nicholas Swales, the principal who was responsible for the audit; and Chantal Thibaudeau, the director who led the audit team.
In recent decades, Canada’s Arctic waters have become more accessible as summer sea ice has declined and navigation technologies have improved. This has generated interest and competition in the region, significantly increasing ship traffic and affecting local communities. Growing maritime traffic increases the risk of unauthorized access, illegal activities and safety and pollution incidents.
For this audit, we wanted to know whether key federal organizations built the maritime domain awareness needed to respond to safety and security risks and incidents associated with increasing vessel traffic in Arctic waters.
No federal organization is solely responsible for the surveillance of Canada’s Arctic waters. In our audit, we included the five organizations that are mainly responsible: Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, National Defence, and Environment and Climate Change Canada.
We found that over the past decade, those organizations have repeatedly identified gaps in the surveillance of Arctic waters, but they have not taken action to address them. Those gaps include limited capabilities to build a complete picture of ship traffic in the Arctic and the inability to track and identify vessels that don’t use digital tracking systems, either because they don’t have to or because they are not complying with requirements.
Collaboration is important to mitigate gaps in maritime domain awareness. Coastal communities contribute information through direct observation. Federal initiatives, such as the Marine Security Operations Centre in Halifax, also play a key role. However, we found that weaknesses in the mechanisms that support information-sharing, decision-making and accountability affected the centre’s efficiency.
[Translation]
Surveillance of Arctic waters relies on various types of equipment, such as satellites, aircraft and ships. We have found that much of this equipment is aging and its replacement has been delayed to the point where some equipment will likely be taken out of service before it can be replaced.
Such is the case for the Canadian Coast Guard’s icebreakers and Transport Canada’s only patrol aircraft: they are nearing the end of their useful life and will likely be decommissioned before new equipment can be delivered. The satellites are also nearing the end of their operational life and do not meet current surveillance needs. In any case, replacements are not expected for many years.
We also found that infrastructure projects to support surveillance aircraft and offshore patrol vessels have been delayed. For example, the Nanisivik Naval Facility project to support government vessels in Arctic waters has been delayed and reduced in scope to the point where it will only be operational for about four weeks a year. As a result, Royal Canadian Navy ships may not be resupplied when and where they require it.
Our 2021 audit of the National Shipbuilding Strategy raised concerning delays in the delivery of the combat and non-combat ships that Canada needs to meet its domestic and international obligations. That audit also noted that further delays could result in several vessels being retired before new vessels are operational.
In this audit, we found that those delays persist. Effective surveillance in the Arctic relies on marine vessels, aircraft and satellites, all of which are aging. The government urgently needs to address these long-standing issues and put equipment renewal on a sustainable path to protect Canada’s interests in the Arctic.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. It was very helpful. We will now move to questions, starting with the committee’s deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Hayes. I read the Auditor General’s report. I have to tell you, it’s pretty troubling. Having been on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs for the past decade, I’m not at all surprised.
One of the issues you mention in your report is the fact that numerous pieces of equipment are at the end of their useful lives, satellites, icebreakers, surveillance and refuelling aircraft. Anyone who has been paying attention to the issue is aware of what’s going on. The issue has been discussed repeatedly, but little has been decided. What’s more, the government has not adhered to any timetable.
What’s the way to change that, do you think? Given the disrepair of the equipment, what would be an appropriate timetable for the government to rectify the situation?
Mr. Hayes: Given our audit findings, as well as the Auditor General’s findings regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy, there is little room for further delays. In our view, tangible measures must be taken now.
As for a timetable, it’s hard for us to say what the deadlines should be. That’s up to the government. There are currently deadlines and delays, so the government needs to take action now.
Senator Dagenais: Are you able to tell us whether the government used the services of outside consultants regarding Arctic security matters? If so, which consultants and how much did it cost?
Mr. Hayes: I’m going to ask my colleague, Ms. Thibaudeau, to answer that.
Chantal Thibaudeau, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: We didn’t look at that specifically in the audit. What we tried to do was examine the measures in place and the plans for the future. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more information than that.
Senator Dagenais: In your examination of Arctic surveillance, were you able to ascertain the expertise of department staff responsible for managing security risks in the Arctic? Did they know what should have been done in recent years in order for Canada to be more effective? Perhaps the political will was lacking.
Mr. Hayes: I would say that, over the past 10 years, department staff have identified the gaps. Strategies and plans are in place, but no action has been taken. In our view, the issues are known.
Ms. Thibaudeau: That’s exactly it. I would add that some very specific gaps have been identified. Planning was also undertaken to better understand certain gaps, and as the report shows, further studies are planned. As Mr. Hayes mentioned, it’s time to act.
Senator Dagenais: There seem to be more studies than achievements. I will have follow-up questions in the second round.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.
Your report at the outset clearly states that the focus is on domestic activities and you did not audit the international collaborative aspects of maritime surveillance. I know that could be a report all on its own, but for comparison’s sake, it might have made some sense to look at the experiences around maritime surveillance. We’re not alone up there; there is Denmark, Greenland and Norway. The Americans are probably in a different category. Why didn’t you do that? It seems to me that making comparisons might make some sense.
My other point, echoing Senator Dagenais, is that the conclusions reached in your report are rather disheartening, especially considering the significant emphasis we have now, and will have into the future, on Arctic security and defence. The five federal departments cover a wide array of mandates and responsibilities, and some of those might be changing as there is increased vessel traffic in the Arctic. That brings in as well responsibilities that Canada has through international conventions like the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, or IMCO, and responsibility for search and rescue.
My question is whether your office intends to audit any other federal departments on this subject, such as CIRNAC, to delve into the impacts on Indigenous peoples and the Inuit. Do you anticipate any positive outcomes for these peoples in terms of the impact of increased vessel traffic in our Arctic waters, such as economic opportunities? Of course, we do hear about the negatives, the environmental impacts, et cetera.
Those are my questions. I know they’re abrasive questions, but if you could address some of that, I’d be grateful.
Mr. Hayes: Dealing first with the scope of our audit, we chose to focus on the domestic aspects of this. I would put it this way: If we could get a complete picture of the Arctic from our domestic surveillance, we’d then be able to look at whether or not we were properly sharing information with our allies up North. Our audit findings identified significant gaps in terms of the ability of our departments to get a clear picture of what was going on up there. There is collaboration with our international partners that will happen and that happens already. As these gaps become larger over time, we will probably need to rely on our allies even more. That will become even more important. Our focus was to get an idea of where the government sits right now, with its own abilities, to monitor and surveil the Arctic.
With respect to your question about the benefits and impacts on people who live in the North — the Inuit, Indigenous people — we covered some of that in our report. We talked about some of the interactions that the government has had. We are in a privileged position in our office, as we are the auditor for each of the territories as well. We have a few angles into looking at impacts up North. At this point in time, we are looking at all of the options for audits up North, including the involvement and engagement of Indigenous communities in a reconciliation aspect but also in their own self-determination and participation with the federal government.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here.
I don’t know what to ask. I asked a question to the last panel and they suggested I put my question to you. Your report is fairly disheartening. I was going to say what you already know: We don’t have the frigates, the icebreakers, the aerial surveillance or the infrastructure. Your audit paints a pretty gloomy picture about it all. I’m glad it was a domestic audit, because I think that’s what we need.
Do you have any idea of the timeline in how to rectify any of this or what it might cost in monetary or fiscal determination to do so? We’re about 20 years behind the ball now. Maybe you could answer that.
Mr. Hayes: What I would say is that when we report and say that there are long-standing, known issues, that is code for us that we are disheartened or discouraged by the fact that, for example, we’ve made recommendations in the past or the government has identified important things to act on in the past, but progress hasn’t followed. We use those words in this audit: “long-standing, known issues.”
In terms of what I can add about costs, we’ve seen since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic that aspects such as the supply chain and availability of resources — whether it’s physical or human resources — to achieve the goals of a construction project, for example, have become scarcer. We noted in the audit that the departments say this is one of the reasons that costs are increasing. At this point in time, that, to me, is a signal that urgent action needs to be taken.
We haven’t been able to outline expectations on a deadline for the government to act. However, I’ll say that when you look at things like the time frame to replace satellites that the government knows will degrade and that runway is 15 years out, that is a significant potential gap in the ability to monitor what’s happening in the Arctic. These things all come together and create a bigger problem. If you have ships that are not going to be useful after a certain period of time and there is a gap between when you get the next ones, or you have satellites or airplanes that won’t be replaced in a timely way, we lose the ability to get a complete picture of traffic in the Arctic.
At this point in time, the best I could say is that whatever levers we all can push on to get action to happen, we need to do that. The Arctic is becoming a lot more active.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much. Just as a comment more than a question: I’m almost afraid that at points the government or Southern Canada — and not only this government but previous governments as well — doesn’t seem to have the knowledge or will to care about the North. Your report kind of stipulates that. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. I went through the report on the weekend, and I think what you’re saying is very troubling. However, for the benefit of those following today’s proceedings, I think it’s important to understand something. You highlight that no single federal organization is responsible for the surveillance of Arctic waters. It involves a number of departments.
For those watching and following today’s proceedings, I want to point out that, in your report, you refer to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, National Defence and Transport Canada. Even Environment and Climate Change Canada provides information on water and climate conditions. Lastly, Public Services and Procurement Canada is involved on the procurement side. That’s a lot of people.
As I understand it, no one authority has been entrusted with the responsibility. It comes as no surprise, then, that, a little later on, you flag the lack of integration among organizations as an issue. You acknowledge the work of the Marine Security Operations Centre in Halifax, but you also note weaknesses in its governance and information-sharing mechanisms.
Here’s my question. Should a single department be in charge? I don’t have the expertise to say which one, but whichever one is appropriate. Each organization passes the buck from one to another, so do you think the responsibility should rest with one department, one organization that would be accountable?
Mr. Hayes: That’s a political question. The way the government is set up, the responsibilities of departments and ministers are laid out in the Canadian Constitution. As auditors, we spend a lot of time examining projects and initiatives that bring together many departments and organizations, each with their own share of responsibility.
We have noted problems when it comes to collaboration and integration. The government has rules for horizontal initiatives. This isn’t one of its initiatives, but when there’s a major impact such as in this case, I think it’s important for the government to find ways of collaborating more effectively.
Senator Gignac: If I may say so, Mr. Chair, as far as airspace control is concerned, it’s quite clear that NORAD is in the driver’s seat. Soon — within a few weeks, in fact — we’ll have a chance to visit NORAD headquarters, in Colorado.
With respect to surveillance of Arctic waters, everyone seems to be passing the buck. We don’t even have any nuclear-powered submarines right now. We have satellites, icebreakers and surveillance aircraft, all at the end of their useful lives. It seems to me that we may need a single organization in charge.
I realize it’s a bit of a touchy issue. Perhaps we should look at how Norway, Denmark and Greenland do it. Are they a bit all over the place, like us, or do they have a more centralized authority overseeing Arctic waters?
Mr. Hayes: I’m going to ask my colleague to jump in, if necessary. I do want to say that we’ve seen instances where National Defence and the Canadian Coast Guard have worked together to improve communication, for instance. However, I don’t know what the situation is like in other countries.
Ms. Thibaudeau: Indeed, this audit focused on domestic mechanisms and domestic waters, not on international mechanisms.
I would like to add something about interdepartmental collaboration, if I may. Obviously, what makes the surveillance of Arctic waters so complex is, as you know, the fact that the information is multi-faceted and comes from a number of sources. That’s one of the factors that makes the issue so complex.
Senator Gignac: Satellites play a major role in the Arctic given how vast the area is. You said that the RADARSAT Constellation Mission satellites cannot accommodate all of the demands made by federal organizations, that they will reach the end of their useful lives in 2026, and, if I’m not mistaken, that it will take at least another decade to replace them.
I don’t think we’ll be asking China or Russia to help us out. Should we ask the Americans to share their satellite images with us? We will be reliant on them for a period of time. The area is so huge that satellites are needed to track vessels, from fishing boats to cruise ships.
Did you get an idea of where things will stand post-2026?
Mr. Hayes: As mentioned in our report, the government is reviewing its options. Commercial satellites could supply the information, as could our allies. Arctic waters surveillance relies on satellites, ships, aircraft and coastal communities, so the government should have a plan to replace the satellites, in our view. What’s worrisome is that there may be a 10-year gap before new satellites are deployed.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to Mr. Hayes and his team.
I was at the video presentation when you released your report back in the fall. In fact, I’ve read the report more than once, and I want to commend you. It’s an excellent report. It’s a valuable source of information for the committee, and it’s quite timely.
There’s one topic you didn’t address in the report, submarines. Was there a specific reason why you didn’t examine the state of Canada’s submarines? According to the government’s website, our submarines are covert, well-armed and capable of patrolling vast distances.
We know that we currently have four Victoria Class submarines, the Victoria, the Corner Brook, the Windsor and the Chicoutimi. What we don’t know, however, is whether they are in service.
Is there a reason why you didn’t examine the state of the submarine fleet? It is, after all, important. If we compare ourselves to the Russians and their submarine presence, are we in trouble?
Nicholas Swales, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: We focused on changes that were current and visible. More vessels are entering our Arctic waters. From our standpoint, then, the first question we need to ask is where do things stand in the context of this growing presence. That’s why our focus was on the surface, not on submarines. That’s another area for examination, possibly down the road.
Senator Boisvenu: My problem is that we are conducting a study on security in the Arctic. That means we don’t really know whether the submarines are seaworthy right now. You did a good job of examining aircraft and water-borne vessels, but submarines are an important security component. My understanding, then, is that your study does not provide an update on the current situation.
Mr. Hayes: No, we did not examine that aspect.
Senator Boisvenu: I understand. The other question I wanted to ask has to do with something you mention in your report, infrastructure — beyond submarines and aircraft. The fleet navigating Arctic waters is going to triple, as we know. You mention this in your report. Does Canada currently have adequate infrastructure to accommodate those ships in the next 40 years?
Mr. Hayes: Some of our findings pertain to the Nanisivik infrastructure project. It’s quite a shocking story, really. Initially, the budget was $260 million, but it was cut in half. Currently, the project is delayed, and the facility may be operating by 2024 or 2025, but only for four weeks out of the year.
Senator Boisvenu: Those massive ships navigating Arctic waters could break down.
Mr. Hayes: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: Will there be a system for towing the vessels to the south, or will there be facilities where the vessels can be repaired if need be? They might have struck an iceberg or another vessel, for instance. As we speak, we don’t have any real facilities in the North with the capability to repair these vessels in the event of a major breakdown.
Mr. Hayes: I don’t believe so, but Ms. Thibaudeau may have more information.
Ms. Thibaudeau: Our understanding is that the Arctic and offshore patrol ship has been able to rely on allies’ infrastructure for refuelling.
Senator Boisvenu: Does that include repair work?
Ms. Thibaudeau: I don’t have any information on that, but when options are discussed, it’s something that’s been used in the past.
What we looked at were major infrastructure projects related to security in Arctic waters. It was through that lens that we examined the Nanisivik and hangar projects. Hangar infrastructure is also crucial.
Senator Boisvenu: Personnel was the other thing you examined. Mr. Hayes recently stated that Canada has roughly 45,000 troops, but the government’s plan is to have 70,000. We aren’t short 10,000 men and women. We are short 25,000.
Is that something you’ve looked at? Have you examined the government’s strategic plan for filling those current or future vacancies?
Mr. Hayes: That’s not something we looked at in this audit, but we did examine the issue five or six years ago.
Senator Boisvenu: Did your analysis take into account the new vessels that will be added to Canada’s fleet or just the information you had five years ago?
Mr. Hayes: I’m not sure.
Ms. Thibaudeau: I can jump in, if I may, Mr. Chair. We did a follow-up audit on recruitment in the Armed Forces in the immediate term.
However, the audit did not focus on what you are asking about. It really had to do with recruitment mechanisms and policies, as well as retention mechanisms in order to meet the target —
Senator Boisvenu: Can you provide the committee with that report?
Mr. Hayes: Yes, it’s available on our website, but we can provide the committee with the report.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests, and thank you for your remarks so far.
The recurring theme seems to be — and I’ll pile on with this as well — that this report leads to very disappointing and concerning findings. It’s difficult to understand why the audited federal organizations had not taken action required to build the maritime domain awareness needed to respond to safety and security risks associated with the increasing use of vessel traffic in Arctic waters. The gaps were identified and were known, but no sufficient measures were taken to address those gaps. I have to ask why that is. Was it a lack of empowerment, lack of conviction, lack of budget or resources or a lack of consequences? Or are there too many players without effective coordination mechanisms in place to enable federal organizations to share information and respond to safety and security risks in a timely manner?
Mr. Hayes: My colleague Mr. Swales might want to add to this after I provide a bit of an answer. The fact that these issues have been known since 2011 at the very least — maybe in some cases before that — tells us that the causes or the roots of these issues have been there for a while. The importance of making timely decisions, particularly in fleet and equipment replacement, can’t be understated when it comes to operating in a remote place like the Arctic. We’ve had audits in the past on the National Shipbuilding Strategy where we found delays. We see those delays continue to happen to the point that there is very little room for error now if we’re going to have ships there to replace the ones that are ending their useful life.
At this point, I can’t say why the government hasn’t been able to act to replace these pieces of equipment that they know are aging out. We know from the work we do in other areas that the government has money for the shipbuilding strategy. We know that costs are watched carefully. However, at this point in time, I can’t say why action hasn’t happened.
Mr. Swales: I don’t have a great deal to add other than to note that we do comment on some initiatives that individual departments have undertaken. Some of them have moved forward, but others have not. This is an issue that occurs inside the responsibilities of departments as well as in their collaboration together.
Senator Klyne: During the panel with the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, I asked about collaboration with Indigenous communities. One of the criteria that you selected to guide your audit was this: “Collaboration with Indigenous communities is integrated in the development of maritime domain awareness on Arctic waters.” Then you cited a number of sources. However, when I asked CIRNAC about the integration and involvement in the development of maritime domain awareness, they had no awareness of any engagement or collaboration with Indigenous communities. Is the answer that there is no involvement?
Mr. Hayes: We did refer in paragraph 6.27 to some of that. For example, in 2017, Transport Canada launched the Enhanced Maritime Situational Awareness initiative and worked with local Inuit communities on that. Therefore, there is some collaboration. Is it enough? Is it sufficient? I would have to defer to my colleagues on that. However, I would say that we would have liked, if this audit had been at a different time, to have been able to go up there and speak to people and understand what collaboration was happening.
Senator Klyne: When you ask the question, “Was it sufficient?”, do you refer the sources that you cited with regard to the criteria?
Mr. Swales: I think the question was whether the activities and initiatives were responding to the gaps that had been identified and were moving forward at a reasonable pace. What we mention in 6.27 is that these have taken a very long time. The two initiatives we looked at where there was Indigenous engagement had been going for ten years in one case and six years in another case, and they only got to a relatively preliminary stage. From our perspective, given how long some of the gaps they were trying to help address have been in place, that’s not rapid progress.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here, and thank you for your very important audit.
There are two ways of looking at your audit. I could be very depressed about the state of affairs. Infrastructure in this country has never been dealt with in a timely manner. Just ask the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and they’ll tell you stories that will make your hair stand on end because they’ll argue the infrastructure at the municipal level hasn’t been kept up with the challenges we’re dealing with in this country.
I will ask you to focus a bit on two areas. The Automatic Identification System, which is used for tracking large vessels in Canadian waters, is obviously very important in the case of an accident, but it also gives us a sense of where the vessels are. However, at the end of the day, it’s not applied universally to vessels in the Arctic. Has anybody provided a clear answer as to why this doesn’t apply to all vessels in the Arctic or only just to large vessels in the Arctic?
Mr. Hayes: We do know that it doesn’t apply to small vessels, and Mr. Swales might be able to answer the reasons why. I think it’s just in terms of the actual size.
Mr. Swales: Yes. The rules are universal, so it doesn’t apply to small vessels in other Canadian waters either. However, the question is whether the Arctic is special enough that a different strategy is appropriate. That was one of the things that the reviews that have been ongoing for ten years have repeatedly raised. Is that the right regime for the Arctic? A final decision one way or the other has not really been taken.
Senator Yussuff: When we were up in the North, we certainly heard stories of individual tourists on their little boats getting lost and having to be found, rescued and put back on track again. With the melting of the ice floes, we will have huge challenges if people decide to go for excursions and discovery.
The other area I’m very much interested in is maybe a work in progress. Given the myriad of departments that are responsible for overseeing the Arctic, you clearly identified that there’s no coordination about how they function as one. This is very troubling because, if we are to have a coherent strategy about how we’re going to police the waters of the North, we need all the departments to be working in a very coordinated fashion. This helps us understand, first of all, what is going on there, because everybody wants access to the water. Equally, however, why did the departments not provide a clear answer as to why the coordination hasn’t been more integrated?
Mr. Hayes: We did see and comment on the fact that there is the Interdepartmental Marine Security Working Group. There is also some coordination that happens through the Marine Security Operation Centres. However, the information sharing and the governance were concerns for us.
We bring this kind of issue up frequently in our audits — not just in this one. You could look to the pandemic health information sharing as another example of where information sharing between departments could be improved. But in this case, obviously, with a territory as vast as the Arctic, information sharing has to be effective if it’s going to allow for a better picture of what is happening with vessel traffic. With your example of small boats up there, it’s more difficult to track in the Arctic than it is elsewhere in our waters.
Mr. Swales, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Swales: I don’t think so. The concern with small boats in that environment is the fragility of the community. There is simply much less ability to deal with a problematic situation.
Mr. Hayes: It is also maybe the cost of search and rescue up there. We have an example in our report where there was considerable cost to rescue 160 or so people on a boat that ran aground.
Senator Yussuff: The Arctic is melting at a very fast pace, and in maybe five or ten years — I don’t know how long we have until these waters will be continuously accessible 365 days a year. We know that countries have an interest in using them for commercial traffic and getting their goods to market. It makes political and economic sense. The challenge, of course, is that if you should have an accident there and damage to the environment — and First Nations communities have pointed this out vividly — our capacity to deal with that is going to be a huge challenge. Have you been able to identify what our capacity would be in dealing with environmental damage should a major accident occur in the North?
Mr. Hayes: At this point, I would say the gaps and the likelihood that there will be a period of time between when some of these ships reach the end of their useful life and when replacements will be available up there point out a significant weakness in the ability to respond in the North, whether it’s search and rescue or environmental remediation or clean-up.
What we mentioned in the report is that vessel traffic has tripled since 1990, basically, and the summer sea ice melting is happening at a very fast rate. What are the chances that traffic will increase by a significant margin over the course of the next 15 years? I use that number because I’m connecting it to the satellite time frames. The reality is, at this point in time, we have concerns about the capacity of the government to get a clear picture of maritime traffic in the Arctic.
Senator Yussuff: We did travel to the North, and I have to say that it was a rewarding experience to meet with First Nations communities, visit with them and understand a bit more hands-on. I would encourage the Auditor General to seize upon that opportunity. I also think you will hear from First Nations that they would like you to incorporate their vivid story and experience in your report. It does bring a completely different perspective than being here in downtown Ottawa trying to envision the North.
Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. We do enjoy the opportunity to get to the North as much as we can. As I mentioned before, being privileged to be the Auditor General for each of the territories as well gives us another angle there. Whether it’s these kinds of audits that focus on areas that are touching on Indigenous people, or whether it’s the one specifically focused on the services and activities that the government provides for Indigenous people, we want to be speaking with them to understand what their perspectives are.
Senator Oh: Thank you, Mr. Hayes and colleagues.
My question might be overlapping. Based on the information gained during the audit, what Arctic infrastructures will be needed in the coming years to ensure that we have the ability to monitor and control the country’s Arctic maritime domain?
Mr. Hayes: In terms of infrastructure, I would connect it to the equipment that’s needed to monitor the Arctic. My colleague might want to add to that at the end of my answer.
Obviously, for the planes, they need a place where they can be fixed and stored. We talk about Transport Canada’s one dedicated plane that is supported in Iqaluit, but it doesn’t have a hangar, so it creates an infrastructure problem to fix and maintain that plane. Likewise, with the future idea of having drones or automatic non-piloted aircraft, they will also need a hangar to be able to operate effectively in the north.
With respect to the Nanisivik facility, we saw that there were functionalities and scope that was removed from that facility that makes it a lot less useful. In fact, we directly questioned the value for money in that case for that construction. Ultimately, it connects with the equipment needed for surveillance.
The satellites would be another piece. I recognize that is equipment, but I would consider that also to be part of infrastructure because of the importance that it has on surveillance.
Senator Oh: When I was up at the airport in Iqaluit, at the airfield, they did have a few hangars there. Do you mean that those are insufficient for use?
Mr. Hayes: The Government of Canada is able to use those hangars when available, but they don’t belong to the Government of Canada. At least, that’s my understanding. If the Government of Canada had a hangar that was dedicated for its use, it could deal with its dedicated plane for Transport Canada purposes, the drones and those sorts of things.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
To what extent does the advance in current technology impact the needs for us reviewing our historical infrastructure vis-à-vis surveillance in the Arctic? You alluded to drones, high-resolution digital cameras on aircraft, thermal imaging, digital tracking of vessels, remote underwater vehicles, sonar, et cetera. Can we imagine that ten years from now our surveillance will look very different than it currently does, and did you look into any aspects of that?
Mr. Hayes: Again, I’ll see if my colleague agrees with me or not after this answer, but I would say that we looked at the capabilities that we have now and what is expected to be coming in the foreseeable future.
The answer to your question is a complicated one because one could always say that technology is advancing, and if we just wait a little bit longer, we’ll get the next best option or the next best equipment. However, as you end up hitting the end of the useful life on your current equipment, you can’t wait anymore. The flip side is that if you’re making timely decisions, upgrading sometimes becomes less challenging. You see that with certain technology upgrades. I think about past audits that we’ve done on fighter jets and that sort of thing to illustrate that point. I would say that you can wait forever hoping for emerging technology and leave yourself in the position where you’ve lost the ability to operate effectively.
Senator Ravalia: Do you feel there might be a role for a public-private partnership? I’m from Newfoundland, and in rural Newfoundland, Starlink has completely revolutionized communications for remote communities for individuals in areas where internet connectivity was patchy. Could we as a government be looking at those types of partnerships with individuals like Elon Musk and his vision in terms of satellite imagery, connectivity, et cetera?
Mr. Hayes: Our past audits where we have looked at P3s, public-private partnerships, have really signalled the importance of governance and a clear understanding of responsibilities there. In fact, Mr. Swales was, I think, a principal on one of them or a director — no, okay, that was a different principal. But the recommendations that we have had in those audits have all been about governance. It’s an option available to the government. I don’t know if it’s one that they’re looking at. I would just say that learning from past experiences with public-private partnerships would be important as that unrolls.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have one last question for Mr. Hayes. I want to follow up on the icebreakers. The government plans to have two icebreakers built in two different shipyards, Seaspan, in Vancouver, and Davie, in Lévis. Aside from the fact that they won’t be delivered until 2030, and given the current situation, do you think it’s appropriate to have two shipyards?
Won’t that likely lead to higher costs? Won’t it also cause alignment issues with the two icebreakers, since they’ll have been built differently?
Mr. Hayes: I believe the government made that decision following the contract negotiations for the Seaspan shipyard. The government decided to add the Davie shipyard to increase icebreaker construction.
The polar icebreaker is a bit different from the others, and the idea came about to have both shipyards build the polar icebreakers. Perhaps the decision was made because it provides different options for building the polar icebreakers, but I’m not sure whether it results in higher costs. Do you have anything to add, Ms. Thibaudeau?
Ms. Thibaudeau: I don’t have much to add on the subject, other than to say that the two polar icebreakers are currently expected to be delivered fairly close together, in theory, at least. Beyond that, the government made the decision as to which shipyard would build which ship.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. Thibaudeau.
[English]
The Chair: This brings us to the end of this meeting. I would like to extend sincere thanks to all of our witnesses today. Thank you to you, Mr. Hayes, Ms. Thibaudeau and Mr. Swales, for a just-in-time for this committee, a splendid report. You will have noted from the nature of questions that this is a well-informed group, having been at this now for several months. Your report has added considerably to our work and our considerations, and in terms of the examination of timing of replacement it is hugely important. Thanks for the work that you do every day.
I also want to thank my fellow committee members today for bringing out the very best of terrific witnesses, which I’m sure has been enjoyed by those watching.
You would like to make a remark before we bring the meeting to an end?
Mr. Hayes: A brief closing remark based on your statement: As an office, we want to be relevant to committees. When we can deliver work that connects with studies that you have under way, that’s fantastic for us. This was fortunate timing. If there is work that you’re thinking of that we might be able to support with our work, we would be very interested in hearing about that.
The Chair: That’s very generous of you. You have an enthusiastic audience here, so we might well take you up on it.
That being said, we will draw the meeting to a close. Our next meeting will be on Monday, February 6, at our usual time of 4 p.m. eastern. With that, I thank everyone for your enthusiastic participation and wish everyone a good evening.
(The committee adjourned.)