THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 24, 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: Honourable senators, I declare this meeting to be in session. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I am Tony Dean, the chair of the committee, from the province of Ontario, and I’m joined today by my fellow committee members whom I welcome to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator R. Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, senator from Ontario.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac, from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: For those watching today’s session, we are wrapping up our study on security and defence in the Arctic, including military infrastructure and security capabilities. Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Anita Anand, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence, who will provide the final testimony for our work on this topic.
Minister Anand is accompanied by Bill Matthews, Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; General Wayne Eyre, Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; Vice-Admiral J.R. Auchterlonie, Commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; and Jonathan Quinn, Director General, Continental Defence Policy, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
We thank you all for joining us today.
Minister Anand, welcome, and I now invite you to present your opening remarks.
[Translation]
Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Good afternoon. I am very happy to be here with you in person, in this building.
As you know, climate change is increasing access to natural resources and shipping routes in the Arctic, rapid technological advances are enhancing states’ abilities to project military force in and through the region, and a growing number of states, including strategic competitors, have made it clear that the Arctic is key to their economic and security interests.
We have seen this in Russia’s efforts to bolster its already significant military presence in the region with modernized infrastructure, additional nuclear-powered icebreakers, and long-range precision-guided weapons, including hypersonic missiles.
We have also seen this with China’s self-declaration as a “near-Arctic state,” with aspirations to increase its presence and activities in the region and import energy and export goods to Europe through the Northern Sea Route.
And just last winter, the North American Aerospace Defense Command — NORAD — detected, identified, and tracked a high-altitude surveillance balloon from China in Canadian and U.S. airspace that entered the continent through our northern regions.
[English]
It is clear this region is becoming increasingly vital in strategic competition in this century, and I applaud your work and your efforts to ensure a greater understanding of the strategic importance of this area of our great country.
To that end, we are ensuring the Canadian Armed Forces has the equipment and resources it needs to operate and maintain its presence in the North. We are investing in six Arctic and offshore patrol ships that can operate in thicker ice, allowing unescorted access to areas of the Arctic previously inaccessible to the Navy, and they can operate in the Arctic for a longer portion of the year than the military could have previously.
[Translation]
We are also acquiring a new fleet of 88 F-35 fighter jets through an agreement with the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin with Pratt and Whitney.
The F-35s will provide pilots with enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, improved situational awareness and survivability in today’s high-threat operational environment, as well as better navigation in the Far North.
[English]
Further, we are investing in infrastructure to continue supporting existing fighters and enable future fighters to operate across Canada, including in our northern and Arctic regions.
We are also improving satellite communications platforms, which are central to conducting all northern operations, including emergency response and search and rescue.
We are pursuing remotely piloted aerial systems, which will enable real-time flow of information that is so critical for domestic operations.
Let’s turn to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. NORAD, our binational military command with the United States, is also vital to ensuring the Arctic remains secure and well defended.
I was pleased to know and learn that you visited Colorado Springs as a group to understand better the depth of the joint binational military command that we have with the United States.
We saw the efficacy of NORAD’s capabilities recently when it detected and shot down an unauthorized aerial object flying over the Yukon in February.
While NORAD is a powerful and effective command, we know it needs to be modernized to meet future threats.
[Translation]
We have committed $38.6 billion in funding for the modernization of Canadian NORAD capabilities over 20 years, in close collaboration with the U.S. This will improve our ability to detect, deter, and defend against evolving aerospace threats, including those that can reach North America through the Arctic. NORAD and its modernization are very important to us and to our allies, especially the United States.
[English]
Mr. Chair, National Defence is committed to working in partnership with and including Indigenous perspectives, and our work to modernize NORAD will be undertaken in consultation and in the spirit of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. My team and I have had consultations with Indigenous peoples, and we believe that it is part and parcel of our work to modernize NORAD, but also to ensure that economic benefits accrue to Indigenous peoples.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we take our northern sovereignty and security seriously. Today, the Canadian Armed Forces has a permanent presence in the North with hundreds of personnel stationed with Joint Task Force North, and with important infrastructure such as Canadian Forces Station Alert, and the CAF Arctic Training Centre.
[English]
Our far-reaching presence is enabled by the 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, which includes 1,750 Rangers organized in 61 patrols. With the initiatives that I have described today, and ones that I’m sure we will be discussing, we will continue to bolster our defence and security of the Canadian Arctic. We will do all that we can to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the right equipment, resources and infrastructure needed to protect Canadian interests in the North, in the water, on the land and in the air.
Thank you so much. I’m so pleased to be able to take your questions today.
The Chair: Before proceeding, on a health and safety note, I would like to ask participants in the room to please 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 the committee staff in the room.
I would also note that Minister Anand will be with us until 5 p.m., and we will do our very best to allow time for each member to ask a question during this first hour. The second round of questions with our officials will take place from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.
With this in mind, four minutes is going to be allotted for each question, including the answer. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible.
I would like to offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Madam Minister. My colleagues will think I am repeating myself, but I am beginning my twelfth year as a member of the Senate Committee on National Security, Defence, and Veterans Affairs.
My question will be about equipment. I must admit that the government’s behaviour in terms of acquisition for defence and the Canadian Armed Forces has not impressed me over the last 12 years, I would even say that it is a disaster. The delays in action have been unacceptable. Years have been wasted to finally order the famous F-35s that Prime Minister Trudeau had previously cancelled.
Worse yet, in 2016, you cancelled the purchase of search and rescue aircraft and then purchased 16 C295 aircraft from the Boeing Company in a $2.2-billion acquisition program. These aircraft were delivered in 2021, but are grounded due to technical and computer problems.
I have three questions regarding the questionable purchase of these C295s. Is it true that the use of these aircraft is now delayed until 2030, nine years after their delivery? How much will it cost Canadians to make adjustments to these aircraft? Is it true that Transport Canada has refused to grant flight certification for these aircraft, which we would badly need for homeland surveillance?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question as well as your dedicated service to the Senate.
First, I would like to respond about our procurement in general. We have some very important supply projects that are critical to our country. For example, our future fighter capability project: 88 fighter aircraft, and we have signed and confirmed a contract for those aircraft. We are going to do it, unlike the other government.
We’re also going to continue to upgrade our CP-140 Aurora fleet. This is a very important project for the Canadian Armed Forces, and the government will do it. We have other projects, and I will be looking to the deputy minister to discuss the C295.
However, I would like to add that we will be doing a lot of work on the procurement side. We have work to do; it’s important to recognize that. We are doing that work and we will continue to do that work.
Bill Matthews, Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Unfortunately, we don’t have anyone with us today from the Royal Canadian Air Force who could speak to you about the status of the fleets with respect to the Transport Canada regulations, so I’m not in a position to offer any information on that. We will follow up on that after the meeting.
I believe, however, that in your question you mentioned Boeing. Was that the case?
Senator Dagenais: In fact, the C295s were ordered from Boeing, but they arrived with technical difficulties.
Mr. Matthews: I think that Airbus was the manufacturer, but I’ll check on that information.
[English]
We can return if there’s time. I can offer something on that, but when I heard “Boeing,” I did a double take. I apologize.
The Chair: Okay. Perhaps we can come back to this later in the meeting.
Senator Boehm: Welcome, minister. I’m going to start in Sudan, but I’ll come to the Arctic. In Sudan, we’re seeing what looks like to be an international coordinated operation to get citizens of countries out of the conflict zone, and I think that has been honed by years of practice in crisis. I recall myself being involved in the evacuation of Canadians out of Lebanon in 2006.
So there are best practices, and there are ways to work together with other countries. Of course we have one, hopefully two, countries from the Arctic joining NATO, who also have search-and-rescue experience in the Arctic. Nuuk is about two hours by air from Iqaluit. As you look ahead and as the forces look ahead in terms of search and rescue concerns or scenarios — what with more cruise lines going through that area and adventure tourism, all facilitated by climate change and the opening of waters — do you see a prospect for planning more consistently and more closely with other countries that have Arctic experience?
Ms. Anand: Thank you, senator, and thank you chair. I appreciate the question. I myself have had that thought a number of times, especially given the frequency with which I have been attending NATO meetings, and at those meetings, Finland and Sweden are often present.
I will say that I took the initiative to invite all Arctic countries other than Russia to join a meeting that I convened. We have had a number of subsequent meetings to discuss this very issue — to discuss our future cooperation on global peace and security in the Arctic, to discuss climate change consequences to all of our countries jointly and individually and to discuss the idea of continuing to meet collectively. We have met a number of times. Our officials are in close touch. By all means, we will continue to ensure that we are addressing the issues relating to Arctic sovereignty and Arctic peace and security together.
I know my Chief of Defence Staff has also gathered his counterparts in these Arctic countries. In fact, he has invited them all here. They attended a meeting in Labrador last year to have that very conversation. So your question is very well placed.
We take the collective action very seriously. We have excellent relationships with our allies on this issue. They see Canada as a leader because of the seriousness with which we take climate change and security of our Arctic. They saw proof of that in terms of our NORAD modernization project that we put on the table last year in the amount of $38.6 billion over 20 years. Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, minister, for being here. Minister, the situation in Sudan is very serious, and many Canadians are anxious to leave. Canada has five C-17 aircraft and 17 CC-130 transport aircraft. We also have five Polaris transport aircraft. Will Canada be sending any of these aircraft to evacuate Canadians from Sudan, or will we be relying on our allies?
Ms. Anand: Thank you, senator, for the question. Indeed, this entire team was engaged all weekend and last week on this very issue to ensure we are doing our utmost for Canadians and for the situation on the ground.
Let me give you a little bit of an update. We have temporarily suspended Canada’s operations in Sudan. Our diplomats are safe. They have been extracted and are working from outside the country. We’re looking at every possible option to support our locally engaged staff. We’re also looking at every possible option to support Canadians in Sudan.
We are extremely concerned by the dangers and rapidly evolving situation on the ground. So your question is very well placed. Our officials are staying in touch with Canadians who are affected.
I will say that we have Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, personnel in the region who are working very closely with allies and partners on options for evacuation assistance, and Canadian officials are in touch with Canadian citizens in Sudan.
I can turn to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who can provide more information, if you like.
General Wayne Eyre, Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you, minister and Mr. Chair.
We have been consumed with this over the last 96 hours to ensure that Canadians are safe. We have to be very mindful of the challenges that Sudan poses for non-combatant evacuation operations. It’s a contested environment with much fighting going on. The main international airfield in Khartoum is closed. Any other airhead in the locale of Khartoum is very limited, so infrastructure is a challenge. Roving forces from the Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, are a challenge as well. We can’t underestimate the challenges.
That being said, we are extremely well connected with our allies. Planning is ongoing. We have moved forces into the region. We have more, as we speak, in the air, including some of the capabilities that you listed off, so we are doing much to do what we can to protect Canadians.
Ms. Anand: If I could just add, the point that the Chief of the Defence Staff made about our relationship with our allies, in these moments we see the importance of Canada’s excellent relationships with our allies. We were engaged with our allies all weekend, including myself with the United States Secretary of Defense.
This is incredibly important as a moment, not only for the safety and security of Canadian citizens, but for us to continue to work together across countries.
Senator Oh: Minister, have our embassy personnel all evacuated? They have all left Sudan?
Ms. Anand: Our diplomats have been extracted and are working from outside the country, and we are looking at every possible option regarding the remaining Canadian citizens.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome, Madam Minister. I would also like to thank the senior military officers for their presence and service in protecting Canadians.
Madam Minister, I am going to take advantage of your presence to aim a little wider than just Arctic security and defence. I have the privilege of also being a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and I note that the Main Estimates for the coming year are just over 15% of the pre-pandemic level. If adjusted for inflation, this would indicate that the Defence budget has not actually increased over 2019, unlike the rest of the government.
By the way, when you also look at military spending, the percentage of GDP is just 1.3%, well below what NATO recommends. Last week, there was an article in La Presse where former ministers and senators as well as retired generals mentioned that the country’s security and defence were in jeopardy.
Can you reassure us, Madam Minister, that national security is not at risk?
Finally, when are we going to hit the 2% of GDP target? There are leaks, apparently from The Washington Post, saying that the Prime Minister is not very eager to reach the 2% target.
Ms. Anand: Thank you for your question, Senator, and also for your dedicated commitment.
Our commitment to Euro-Atlantic and global security is unwavering, and we are making historic investments to equip our forces.
First, I would like to say that we continue to increase our defence spending. In fact, that’s 70% of our forecast in our 2017 defence policy. Second, we are also investing $38.6 million to modernize NORAD and for continental defence. Third, we also announced $8 billion in spending in the 2022 budget.
So you can see that we are continuing to invest in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). We are currently in the process of updating our defence policy and we will look at the capabilities and needs of the CAF going forward.
So, there’s a story here, and it’s a more positive one than what we saw over the past weekend. Thank you very much.
Senator Gignac: My colleagues and I visited NORAD headquarters in Colorado.
I was surprised, during an afternoon briefing, to learn that the procurement policy was different from ours.
If we have a joint U.S.-Canada command from a military perspective, why is our procurement policy different from that of the U.S. military?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question, senator.
That is not necessarily the case. We have to recognize that at every opportunity we have a conversation with our U.S. counterparts on this topic. Now, with NORAD modernization, we have had and continue to have critical conversations to ensure that procurement for NORAD modernization will contribute to the inputs needed for both countries. For example, to maintain the North Warning System, we have a contract with Nasittuq Corporation for $6 million. This is important for both countries. We have these conversations on a regular basis to make sure we are making the necessary investments for both our countries.
I will now turn to my deputy minister who can complete my response.
Mr. Matthews: I have two points to add. First, it is the operations that are similar to those of the U.S., but the processes to purchase the assets to support the operations are the responsibility of each country, independently.
It is clear that the assets and equipment required to allow the two countries to work together must be purchased. However, it is the regulations or regime of each country that has the force of law to acquire these assets. There will be times, eventually, when there is a real need to purchase the same type of assets; at that time, we can engage with the United States to resolve this issue in concert with them.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much, minister and officials, for being here and for that update on Sudan. I’m amazed and delighted that you have the time to come here and be with us when such an urgent issue is taking place.
No option? Okay, that’s good.
I want to pull up a little higher and ask you a wider question about the next five to ten years. I look at the issues you talked about in the Arctic, the shipping routes and the uncertainty with Russia and China. I’m thinking of all the dynamics out there, the threats to democracy worldwide, the rise of autocratic leaders, threats to cybersecurity, climate change and mass movement of people.
Over the next five to ten years, what do you see as your priorities, working with other departments like Global Affairs Canada and your colleagues in other countries? How do you see the world going in all these threats, and what is your role in the Department of National Defence in linking with all these things? Sudan is huge, but it exists in the context of so many different things happening.
Ms. Anand: I think the question is very well taken, because what we are seeing is a very different global environment in terms of the strategic environment and the threat environment than what we have seen, really, since the end of the Second World War.
It is not only the illegal and unjustifiable invasion by Russia of Ukraine that should grab our attention, but also increasing aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. The situation in Sudan raises another issue for us to examine. We must stand back and say to ourselves that it is important to be ready not only for next month or next year, but for the next five to ten years as well.
It is for that reason that we are undertaking our defence policy update. I mentioned it in my opening remarks, but it is a recognition that the defence policy that we put in place in 2017 called Strong, Secure, Engaged was based on an analysis of a threat environment that has changed significantly. Therefore, we need to undertake an examination of the current threat environment, understand that the global security environment has changed significantly, and that there are new threats that need to underpin our thinking on defence and security.
This defence policy update will do just that. We are speaking with external stakeholders. We are undertaking a vast assessment of our security needs in the short and the long term, including in the area of cybersecurity, to ensure that we have a Canadian Armed Forces that is well capitalized in the short and long term. This is a whole-of-government approach, and we need to make sure that the security issues that we are focusing on will address the urgent needs that our government will be addressing for our country domestically and for our operations internationally. Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to the officials for being here. Thank you for all your efforts, especially on the Ukrainian file. The country is obviously seized with this matter, and I know this has taken a lot of effort, including all of the commitments we have made, but this is an effort that we can’t fail on because it is not only to do with us but with the security of our country.
We’ve been hearing a lot lately about the readiness of our military. When we were up North, we witnessed some things that I need to share with you. Last winter, I was taken aback by the military runway that we visited and the hangar that supports that runway. I was not impressed by what I saw. A plane coming out of the hangar had to do a complete U-turn to get on the runway in order to take off. As we know, with the most recent spy balloon up North, our military aircraft was stuck because the runway had ice on it. It took some effort to clear that and get the plane in the air. This speaks to a bigger challenge and why we have to renew our commitment, especially in the North, given the readiness of our forces in that region. It is going to take a tremendous effort on our behalf.
What we also heard in the North is that our First Nations communities want to be partners with us in how we do this. This is critical because they don’t just see the military base as serving military needs, they see it also serving their needs in the community. Maybe you can comment on some of the shortcomings we have with regard to readiness in the North, and equally on how we respond to this effort to make sure Canada is not caught flat-footed, given the hostilities faced from Russia and other countries in the North.
Ms. Anand: Thank you so much. I’m going to start general and get specific in terms of some of the assets that you mentioned.
I mentioned off the top that we are investing about $38.6 billion to modernize NORAD and for continental defence more broadly. Approximately $500 million of that allocation is going to be attributed to infrastructure upgrades, including at bases in the Northern part of our country. This was announced by the Prime Minister during President Biden’s visit. In fact, we recognized the importance of having that infrastructure in place for the very reasons that you put forward in your question, and the need to have the infrastructure in place when we receive the F-35s. Bagotville and Cold Lake will be very important in terms of those infrastructure upgrades, but they are going to be allocated to bases across the country, as I mentioned.
That is to come and it recognizes the importance of maintaining solid and, I would say, interoperable infrastructure. There will be technology installed at those bases to ensure that we can be communicating with our allies and that command and control and decision making relating to command and control can be relayed to the decision makers more quickly.
In terms of the assets that you mentioned, let me first say that we are very seized with the need to maintain assets in that support operations and, where possible, benefit local communities. We routinely reassess our needs to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the appropriate facilities in place to support these Northern operations, and we have to continue to do our work on that front regarding the Inuvik hangar and the Nanisivik Naval Facility, as well as the operation of those assets. Operating in the High Arctic is, of course, of central concern to us. We are working on a longer-term plan to lengthen the operating season once success and capabilities have been established with the current model. I’ll ask the Chief of Defence Staff if he has anything to add on these issues.
Gen. Eyre: I just want to correct the record on one piece with regard to taking off in an ice storm. It doesn’t matter how much investment you make into readiness if you’re in the middle of a freezing rain storm, it will be dangerous to take off with any type of aircraft, especially if you are going after a target that is not a kinetic threat. It is Canada. These are the climatic conditions and the reality we have to deal with. It’s not particularly a readiness investment issue for that one case.
Ms. Anand: Just to conclude, as part of our efforts to enhance our capabilities, we’re not only setting aside that $500 million for base infrastructure, National Defence has also committed about $230 million for a runway extension at the Inuvik airport. The announced increase in the project is as a result of delays from COVID-19, supply chain issues and rising materiel costs, but National Defence is very pleased to be supporting this infrastructure project, recognizing the importance of the region and for local communities, as your question suggested. Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, minister, officials and the team for being here. This is greatly appreciated. It is also reminding me as we speak of the importance and privilege we have had to be in Colorado Springs and in the Arctic. So many things came to light. In a comment that my colleague Senator Cardozo made, I did wish to add that when we look at the challenges from 2017 to now, one of the most impressive presentations in Colorado Springs was the last part of the day when they recognized what is different in our world now, what the big things or the buckets are that we’re having to face and what our plan is. It was a most impressive presentation.
I’m going to go back to something you highlighted a little bit in your speech at the beginning, and that is with respect to the Canadian Rangers in the North. In earlier testimony and in person, we heard that the Rangers’ presence and role could be bolstered by some improved infrastructure in the communities that they serve. Something like a heated multi-purpose building, for instance, could serve as a location for training, safe storage and operational needs, and could even serve to accommodate more and other federal departments, depending on the needs.
My question is: Will such investments in the Canadian Rangers be part of the government’s spending plans in the Arctic? I’ll have a follow-up.
Ms. Anand: There is no question that the Rangers play an absolutely critical role in our country, especially in support of remote and Indigenous communities, in the wake of natural disasters and COVID-19. Whenever there is a crisis, they are our eyes and ears on the ground, and they rise to the challenge every time. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Canadian Rangers, especially as we pass their 75th anniversary, for their contribution to the Canadian Armed Forces and to the security of our country. They’re an essential part of our broader team, and we take their role very seriously.
We are making sure under Strong, Secure, Engaged that we have a Canadian Rangers enhancement team, and we’ve stood that up as of June 2022 to enhance the efficacy of the Rangers. What this is going to do is enhance their functional capabilities through a holistic view of their role, their mission and their tasks as required. We’re going to continue to support the Canadian Rangers as they help to safeguard our communities, especially in sparsely settled remote and northern and isolated communities.
I would ask the Chief of the Defence Staff if he would like to comment on anything relating to the Rangers.
Gen. Eyre: The minister is absolutely right. The Canadian Ranger enhancement program will help us move forward and further develop this capability. Every patrol is slightly different, and so the facilities you talked about are existent in some patrols and not in others. So we have to take a look at that.
We also have some more fundamental questions. The underlying assumption is that Rangers come in with the training they need based on traditional knowledge and living off the land, et cetera. That assumption needs to be revisited as times change, and maybe that traditional knowledge doesn’t exist, so looking at training as well as looking at the financial aspects that the minister talked about and looking at the equipment. Those are all aspects of enhancing our Ranger capability, but there is no doubt the Rangers, as our ears and our eyes and our guides in the North, are a vital part of the security solution.
Senator M. Deacon: On that note, comments made by Colonel (Ret’d) Pierre Leblanc were recently in an op-ed, and those comments suggested that the Rangers should get some sort of maritime capacity to assist in what will be an increased activity we can anticipate in our Arctic waters. Do you envision anything like that in the future, or is that part and parcel to the response you just started to give?
Gen. Eyre: Yes, I believe it needs to be as we take a fundamental look at the role of the Rangers going forward and exploring the option of putting the Rangers on the water as well.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister and witnesses, for being here today.
I want to thank you, minister, and the government, for its support for Ukraine, steadfast support over this last year. It means an awful lot for our allies and for the world. I’m very grateful, and so are all Canadians.
Among other things, the war in Ukraine has, from what I’ve read, exposed some weaknesses, the weaknesses of Russia, in their military and in their society. It has been exposed that they have poor resources, their military is poorly trained and poorly motivated. You mentioned that they bolstered their presence in the Arctic, but could it be that those Arctic resources are just a bunch of Potemkin Villages? It’s not a coincidence that the term “Potemkin Villages” is a Russian term that means bravado and a facade. This is a hypothesis I want you to speculate on. As the war goes on, Russia may be weakening, just reading what I read in the media every day.
Could it be that they’re actually less of a threat in the North now than they might have been because of the war and the fact that they’re weakening and not able to fight or defend the way they should to achieve their goals? I ask you that as a question for your comment. Also, just to take a step back and to ask you what your prognosis is for Ukraine, what you can tell us regarding what you see over the next several years, year or so, in terms of what you see is going to happen, as much as you can. Thank you.
Ms. Anand: Well, thank you so much for that insightful question. First and foremost, I want to stress, as I’m sure you’re all aware, that the Arctic threat is not just about Russia. We are seeing greater activity in that region by, for example, China that has declared itself a near-Arctic state. So without drawing attention to that nomenclature, we need to understand that the threat and potential threat in that region are not going to be posed by one country alone. Our analysis of the threat is going to proceed on the basis that we need to do whatever is necessary in terms of capabilities in human resources to undertake a defence of that region, both individually through NORAD and collectively with other countries that are, in fact, Arctic countries.
That is, perhaps, the most important point — that this is an ongoing analysis and an understanding that the threat environment is rapidly changing. You will recall that we retrieved buoys from that region and interdicted those buoys that were put there by an aggressor country, namely, China. That is something we are very cognizant of, and I want us to understand that the global threat environment is changing rapidly. We need to be cognizant of those threats, not only in our own backyard, but also in the Indo-Pacific, recognizing that Canada is a Pacific nation itself. That is the reason why we put forward our Indo-Pacific Strategy at the end of last year. That is the reason we are enhancing our defence presence in the Indo-Pacific. That is the reason we’re adding a third frigate. That is the reason we’re enhancing our training, capacity building as well as our cyber operations with partners and allies in that region.
This time in the global strategic environment is very much about building and cementing our relationships with our allies, whether we’re talking about our Five Eyes allies, NATO allies or NORAD. At this point in time — and I can say this as I just returned from Germany where we met with over 50 countries who are all in support of a collective response in support of Ukraine — our relationships with our allies are very strong, and we need to continue to ensure that is the case.
In terms of Ukraine’s future, that is for Ukraine itself to decide. Our role will be to continue to put on the table military and other aid so that it has the resources it needs to defend itself, its sovereignty, security and stability and rebuild once it wins this war. That is why Canada has put on the table over $1 billion in military aid, and over $8 billion in humanitarian, economic and military aid combined, including a $2 billion loan to Ukraine through the facilities of the IMF in our last budget. This is the type of effort we’re going to undertake in recognition of the importance of the response to an illegal invasion. Ukraine’s democracy is Canada’s and the allies’ democracy also, and we will continue to stand strongly with Ukraine in the short and in the long term.
Make no mistake, we are fully cognizant of the changing global strategic environment, and our defence policy update will be very much about how Canada should respond in light of those changes. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator R. Patterson: I’m going to be fairly concise, and I am going to pull on the people thread. The investments are good, especially in the Arctic as we talk about infrastructure and equipment and our development in NORAD as well as using contracted solutions for maintenance on certain lines. We also know there are some activities that fundamentally require humans and humans that often wear a uniform, because even to get people to live in the North is extremely challenging, as you say high North, and the response is, “Heck, no.”
Minister, we were just on a NATO interparliamentary tour, and some people spoke “knowledgeably” about the personnel situation within the Canadian Armed Forces. As we know, fundamentally, things change rapidly in the military out of necessity. I must admit that, having recently left, I found some of the messaging quite troubling, especially in terms of the inner challenges that I know we have moved on.
I have a two-part question for you. The first part is this: What messaging should Canadians be hearing about where we are right now in terms of progress in creating the cultural environment people want to be in? Second, along with that, as we move to the North, we can certainly look at improving the range of our footprint and presence, but there is likely going to be a requirement that we need other humans who do not normally live that far north to work in the North.
So what do you anticipate your footprint will look like, and how do you see that occurring in terms of the mix between military, civilian, et cetera? Thank you.
Ms. Anand: [Technical difficulties] the question that allows me to address one of the most important endeavours of the Canadian Armed Forces and the broader defence team in its history, and that is ensuring that every person who puts on a uniform can do so with the protection and respect that they need to do their jobs in serving this country. That means addressing sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, discrimination and ensuring we have an institution that welcomes everyone.
I want to assure this committee that this entire team here takes this matter extremely seriously. That is what is broadly referred to as culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is also institutional change and growth so that the institution of the Canadian Armed Forces reflects the demography of our country and ensures everyone has a place; everyone who wants to serve can do so with protection and the respect they deserve.
Now, that requires reforms. We are very seized with reforming the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure that broad objective occurs, including implementing all of the recommendations we received in the report of the Supreme Court justice last year — all 48 recommendations. I put a plan before the House of Commons that indicated how we are going to undertake that task.
It’s not just words; it’s actually action. You will see that action continue to occur in order that we build the Canadian Armed Forces of the future.
In terms of reconstitution, that is one part of reconstituting the Canadian Armed Forces, but there are other aspects to it: retention and recruitment. We have strategies to address both of those, as I’m sure you know. Why? Because building a Canadian Armed Forces that has more and more individuals serving is necessary to ensure a robust military for our security and defence.
Since my appointment, I have been clear that we need to grow the Canadian Armed Forces. We’re asking more of our military, and we need to grow more personnel. We ask more of our military, domestically, in forest fires and in floods. We did so even in COVID-19 in terms of being in long-term care homes and delivering vaccines. Internationally, our forces have trained over 36,000 Ukrainian troops. They’re in Poland. They’re in England now training Ukrainian military members.
All of that suggests the need to continue to grow the Canadian Armed Forces, not only in terms of capabilities and procurement, but also in terms of our numbers. Those two things are interlinked, because as Canadians see that we are acquiring, for example, new capabilities — the 88 F-35s — my hope is they will see that the Canadian Armed Forces is a place where they can build their future.
I will now ask the Chief of the Defence Staff if he has anything to add.
Gen. Eyre: In terms of cultural evolution, we are addressing those aspects of our culture that need to change. You would be hard-pressed to find another organization in this country that is putting as much effort into making sure that it is an organization in which all Canadians can see themselves and in which we can attract and retain talent from all segments of Canadian society. There are aspects of our culture we absolutely have to hold on to, including selfless service and willingness to put yourself into harm’s way to protect others and the willingness to go to the other side of the world to do good.
Those, we absolutely have to retain, but it is the ability for this organization to make everyone, all segments of Canadian society, believe they have a place, which they do.
The message is that “this is a fantastic organization filled with fantastic people doing fantastic things, and there is a place for you in it.” Every time we travel the world and see our people doing business, it is inspiring. It is purposeful and meaningful work. That is the message.
In terms of your second question regarding a footprint in the North, as we look at some of the challenges, especially in terms of infrastructure, I don’t see large bases of permanently staffed capabilities with families in the North; I see a persistent presence where we move capabilities from the South to the North, depending on what the demand is. That could be for a search and rescue — as was brought up before — something coming in terms of a domestic emergency, or if we have to preposition air assets for a threat. It’s about being intelligence-informed to be able to preposition those forces to create that more enduring persistence as opposed to a permanent presence.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Minister, I’m going to go back to the C295s. They say that the configuration changes made inside the aircraft require you to be 5 feet 4 inches tall to stand in them. That is well below the average height of men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces.
In addition, the aircraft is said to have gravity issues for those who must parachute out. This type of mission is crucial in search and rescue operations, and the safety of service members is paramount.
Do you honestly believe that our military will agree to use the C295s if they are ever cleared to fly? You can send a written response if we run out of time.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Minister, I don’t want to put you on the spot, but with all due respect to your commitment to changing the military, I’ve heard that for decades about the RCMP, and we are still in a crisis about how women are treated in the RCMP.
We are now living in the most diverse country in our history. If you’re going to attract young people from those diverse communities to join the military, the first question they’re going to ask is this: How am I going to be treated any differently?
Second, you’re dealing with a tight labour market. People have other options than joining the military, so if you don’t improve the pay for people who join the military, this problem is just going to get worse.
I think my colleague asked the question about the North in the context of the Rangers. They have been an integral part of our history. I met many of the Rangers when we were up there, and they’re also aging. The bigger question is this: How do we attract young people to join the Rangers as an important part of our military presence in the North?
Those are not easy questions; I know they’re challenging. I don’t expect you to solve them overnight, but I do expect consistency in your approach to change culture — culture doesn’t change — I come from the labour movement, so don’t tell me about culture change. It doesn’t happen overnight; it happens with a consistent approach to keep that effort going. Ministers come and go for the military, as you know. How does that presence stay to say that what was started has to conclude? Otherwise, people lose faith.
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the two questions. First, I know my colleague has an answer for you now. I will wait for him and he will answer when I leave the room, if that is possible.
[English]
With respect to the question of Senator Yussuff, my very experience in every institution I’ve worked in, including universities and on Bay Street prior to coming to government, has been one answering this question: How do we make people feel welcome?
As a racialized woman, I feel uniquely placed to understand the need to reform the Canadian Armed Forces and to implement the recommendations we have been given. That’s the first point.
The second point is that as far as I can understand, the leadership of the defence team has never been more united in terms of the need to undertake these reforms. We understand that it’s going to take a village and it’s going to take hard work, year after year, to ensure that we have an institution that is free from discrimination and sexual harassment.
What you’re seeing is a team that is willing to do the work, follow a plan and institute reforms, backed by a financial commitment from our government, to ensure that these changes take hold.
One example is the way in which we are now accepting applications from permanent residents. We have seen thousands of applications come into the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to ensure that we listen, experiment, take risks and adapt to a new generation of expectations.
You are exactly right that labour shortages are affecting various sectors across our country. We are fully cognizant of that; in fact, we are feeling that ourselves. However, it requires us to be even bolder in order to address a potential shortage of absolutely crucial personnel that we need for the security and defence of our country. We’re fully cognizant of the issue you’re putting on the table and we want to do whatever we can to address it as soon as possible.
In terms of incentives, again, you’re exactly right. That is why we are moving to reform some of the benefits that are going to be attributed to the Canadian Armed Forces in ensuring that there is an incentive to stay for thousands of our Canadian Armed Forces. I’ll ask the Chief of Defence Staff if he would like to speak to that.
Gen. Eyre: Mr. Chair, part of the question was how will you maintain momentum as we leave? You start with why — why is this important?
As the face of our country changes, for us, this is existential. It’s a paradox that, as our population increases, our traditional recruiting pool is shrinking. If we don’t do this, we are going to wither away and die as an institution. Given the ever-increasing dangerous security environment, we cannot do this. The country needs us more and more. The imperative is there.
It is so important to have an understanding of the purpose, the “why,” right down the chain of command. For those who come behind us, this is vitally important. Part of the decision-making process as we bring in these reforms is to have that buy-in so that the momentum continues. It’s essential.
The Chair: Thank you. This brings us to the end of our time today with Minister Anand.
Before you leave, minister, I want to, first of all, thank you for inviting us early, as a committee, into your Defence Policy Review. We certainly had an opportunity to give our best advice. I also have the privilege — on behalf of this committee, on behalf of my colleagues in the Senate and, indeed, on behalf of Canadians — to thank you and to express our gratitude for the work that you do 24-7 as you travel around the globe on our behalf and your defence and security colleagues.
Thank you for keeping us safe and for promoting the interests of those who need our help in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. I was in Latvia recently and visited the forward operating site Adazi. There are a lot of people who are very grateful for the work that you and your colleagues are doing, and that Canadians are contributing to. Thank you so much for all of this.
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: Thank you all for your work. It is very important for our country.
[English]
The Chair: For those joining us live, we are continuing our study on security and defence in the Arctic, including Canada’s infrastructure and security capabilities. This past hour, we have had the pleasure of hearing from Minister of Defence Anita Anand on this topic. We now continue our questions with the General Eyre, Deputy Minister Matthews, Vice-Admiral Auchterlonie and Mr. Quinn, who joins us at the table. Mr. Quinn is Director General, Continental Defence Policy.
Before we continue, is it agreed, colleagues, that the committee allow the Senate Communications Directorate to take photographs and video recordings of the remainder of today’s meeting? I see no dissent, so we’ll consider that agreed.
We’re going to start by going back to a question that Senator Dagenais had asked that was going to be answered by Mr. Matthews.
Have you got the question still?
Mr. Matthews: Yes, I do.
The Chair: Over to you, then. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Matthews: Thank you for the question, Senator Dagenais. I apologize for misunderstanding the question the first time.
With respect to the search and rescue aircraft project, we did meet the timeline. There are two reasons for this. First of all, COVID; everybody understands that the pandemic impacted a lot of projects, but there are also some aspects of this project that are developmental, so IT related.
When a decision is made to develop a project, there are risks and we communicate frequently with vendors to express concerns and resolve technical issues. The Canadian Armed Forces also has a plan to mitigate risk; there is a mitigation plan to ensure we don’t have a variance.
[English]
I’m not sure if that’s General Eyre or Vice-Admiral Auchterlonie.
Vice-Admiral J.R. Auchterlonie, Commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you for the question. It is complex. I’m the national SAR commander, so I am responsible for search and rescue, and aeronautical and maritime SAR throughout the country.
In order to mitigate the gap of the 295 aircraft, we now have Hercules CC-130Hs throughout the country. All of our SAR regions are covered by CC-130H aircraft from the Royal Canadian Air Force. We do not have a gap in fixed-wing aircraft across the country.
We implemented that as soon as the Buffalos retired on the West Coast, which was the old Buffalo aircraft. We now have fixed-wing and rotor-wing aircraft throughout our SAR regions to cover until the 295 comes online.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to return to Senator Gignac’s question about The Washington Post mentioning that Canada would miss the targets required by allies on military investments. I won’t talk to you about the Prime Minister’s reaction, but do you think that placing orders for equipment that we will receive in four, five, or ten years — that can be quite a long time because of technical problems — will make Canada a more or less responsible ally to our allies?
With respect to this information that came to us from The Washington Post, can you tell us whether the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces learned about this in the newspaper last week or whether they had already been informed?
Mr. Matthews: I’ll answer the first part of the question in terms of suppliers and projects for the purchase of assets for the Canadian military. The defence industry in Canada and around the world is an area that requires long-term planning.
[English]
If you are picturing a world where there are many military assets sitting on shelves waiting to be bought, that is not the world we’re in. The vast majority of our projects that require sophisticated capability, you have to make your plans known in advance. You go through, and you look at the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces, which sometimes are the same as our allies, and sometimes they are different because of the size of our Armed Forces. It is, then, important that industry have clear ideas of what our plans are.
Regardless of the spending level the government wishes to achieve, long-term planning is critical, and also communication with industry about our plans so that they can appropriately organize themselves. Projects will take 5, 10, 15 years to reach full operational capability. That’s just the nature of the defence industry.
The second part of the question was more directed to the leadership of the Armed Forces, so I will turn to General Eyre.
[Translation]
Gen. Eyre: Thank you for the question. Our competitive advantage is that we are part of an allied system of nations with similar values to ours.
[English]
There is a non-stop demand for more Canadians around the world. I get requests continually of our allies wanting more staff in their headquarters, more Canadian officers, more Canadian units. We are well appreciated around the world. Everybody wants more Canada.
Working with allies, we have to continue to maintain those relationships, maintain our standing, maintain our influence.
[Translation]
For me, this is paramount. Thank you very much.
Senator Gignac: I have two questions. My first question is for the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Eyre. There is a lot of talk about the state of the submarines. I understand that Canada does not have a nuclear-powered submarine; it is the only major player that does not have one, if you compare it to China, the United Kingdom and the United States.
To go under the ice, the polar cap, you need that kind of nuclear-powered submarine. Is this the case? Is it the intention of the Canadian Armed Forces to eventually get one?
Gen. Eyre: Thank you for the question. I have to admit that I’m not an expert on ships or submarines, but I have to say that the characteristics of future warfare are a component, but there’s also signature management. It’s very difficult to find a submarine under the sea, so for us, it’s a very important asset to have ours, but also to have the ability to find submarines under the sea. That’s very helpful.
[English]
For the under-ice capability, my understanding is you can have something called an Air Independent Propulsion, or AIP technology, that will take you under the ice.
[Translation]
I’d like to turn the floor over to Navy Officer Vice-Admiral Auchterlonie.
VAdm. Auchterlonie: Thank you for the question. This is a very complex question, as I am not a member of the submarine forces, but I am a mariner.
[English]
The capability of submarines in terms of that force posture, in terms that detection, in terms of that ability to act on behalf of the government, is paramount, so the need for submarines is obviously made clear by the government.
In terms of the actual capability to go under ice, it’s always a very topical question, because even if a nuclear submarine may not have the capability to operate and come through the ice, it may have the capability to operate under the ice. But as the chief noted, there are other capabilities today that exist in terms of air-independent propulsion that gives you the capability to maintain long periods of time under the water, which is key.
We all have the notion from the 1970s and the 1980s of a submarine piercing through the Arctic shelf. They, ironically, can’t do that today because their towers are no longer made of stainless steel. They are made of other composite materials, so they would actually crush their towers or their fins going through. So that image we all have is actually quite an old image.
We do participate with our allies in the ice. ICEX is an exercise in the North with the U.S. Navy. You do see that, where they actually come through the ice. It is a bit of a misnomer. The fact is, operating under-ice capabilities, there are other capabilities today.
In terms of other capabilities, what you also want is to have the domain awareness, which is key. It’s not just the submarines. You want to have the domain awareness as well.
Thank you very much for the question.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: My second question is this. We had a chance to go and visit different radar stations, including Cambridge Bay.
I understand that $5 billion has been invested in upgrading the North Warning System. Can you explain whether or not these new radars that are going to be installed will be able to detect the supersonic cruise missiles that Russia uses in the North Sea?
Jonathan Quinn, Director General, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you very much for the question.
[English]
I think you’re referring to the Over-the-Horizon Radar capability that is part of the NORAD modernization announcement that the minister referred to earlier.
From a Canadian perspective, the contribution we would make to this would be a radar site located around the Canada-U.S. border that would see out and over to the further outreaches of Canadian territory, plus another system that would be much further north, located in the High Arctic called the Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar system that would actually see over the pole. Taken together, both of these would drastically improve the Canadian Armed Forces and NORAD’s ability to detect aerospace threats coming to Canada.
In terms of the infrastructure for those, I think that in her previous testimony, the minister referred to a maintenance contract of the current North Warning System, but we’ll also be doing significant upgrades to NORAD’s Forward Operating Locations in the North.
Senator Gignac: That will include the supersonic missile, which will be detected with the new equipment? Okay. That was basically my question.
[Translation]
Gen. Eyre: I’d like to add a few important points to answer this question. It must be said that technology is changing rapidly. The characteristics of warfare are changing rapidly and our adversaries are investing heavily in research and development. That is why we are investing in research and development, to find threats like hypersonic missiles; it is very important.
[English]
Senator Dasko: I just wanted to continue the questions I had for the minister with regard to Russia and its strengths and weaknesses. They have embarked on a war, and they have not had the successes that they expected.
Are we looking at a Russia that is considerably weaker than it was a year ago? What is your assessment of the situation in that country? Have they been seriously weakened by their unsuccessful efforts and with all of the lives lost, equipment and so on?
Gen. Eyre: I’ll take this one first. Your previous question also asked in the context of the Arctic and the threat that presents up there, so we need to look at all the domains of warfare: land, air, sea, space and cyber. In the land domain, they have been mauled. The Ukrainians have inflicted tremendous casualties in the land domain.
In the maritime domain, they are relatively unscathed with the exception of a number of vessels in their Black Sea fleet. Indeed, we’re actually seeing slightly more submarine activity than we have in the more recent past.
In the air domain, yes, they have lost some fighters. They have lost some transport aircraft and some helicopters, but their longer-range bombers, no, they are still quite capable.
In the space domain, we have seen troubling anti-satellite capabilities, and we have seen the testing of anti-satellite capabilities — in fact, extremely irresponsible testing — littering low-earth orbit and creating hazards for others.
In the cyber domain, we have seen how active they continue to be in that domain.
In terms of a diminished threat across the board, arguably, in land, yes, absolutely, but not in the others.
Senator Dasko: We’ve been studying cybersecurity, and the committee hears disinformation that’s coming up down the road. Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for being here. These questions might have been answered because I came late. If they were, I do apologize.
Did Canada see the coming Sudan conflict? If so, when did it issue an advisory of travel or evacuation?
What type of robust contingency plan does the CAF have when these crises such as Sudan arise? Why is it that we often must rely on our allies to help us evacuate our own citizenry? The state of the world is in continuous fluidity. Do we have the insight of programming to challenge this? I’ll leave it open to whomever wishes to answer those.
Gen. Eyre: I’ll jump in here. In terms of an advisory, that’s the responsibility of Global Affairs Canada, so I can’t speak to that or when they put one out.
We don’t have a lot of military presence in that region or none in Sudan leading up to this, but in terms of being prepared to conduct what we call a Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, we have a unit of approximately 300 to 400 troops that annually prepares for this and is on high readiness to conduct these operations, likewise with our aircraft and Special Operations Forces.
Given that this is on the other side of the world in a very contested environment, the enablers that would be required for us to conduct this operation has to be done as part of a larger allied effort. Going back to my previous comments, this is why allies — friends and partners — are so important in this ever-increasingly dangerous world. So the connections we have with allies, especially with this ongoing operation, which we talked about in the previous session and gave a few details, that’s why those connections are so important.
Senator Richards: This probably doesn’t happen, but I’m wondering if any of the Canadian Special Forces would travel, for instance, with the SAS from Britain or would travel within Americans into Sudan to relieve our own citizens and bring them out. Would that happen?
Gen. Eyre: I’m not getting into those operational details.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
The Chair: You are to be commended collectively for getting an hour and a half into the meeting and saying that for the first time only now.
Senator Yussuff: Again, thank you all for your leadership. I know you will get some tough questions here because determined effort is required to fix some of the problems that we’re seeing in the military.
The one thing that we were exposed to as we travelled the North with regard to our study is the pace in which climate change is changing the environment. It’s extremely rapid. I know the military has looked at this on a time horizon. My own conclusion is we’re wrong on all of those time horizons because I think it’s happening much faster than we could possibly expect. In the domain of the military, how can we be ready, given that our waters will be free of ice much sooner than we can predict?
Second, other forces around the world want access to that water. If our sovereignty is dependent on our ability to protect the North, we have to be ready and able to do so. I recognize some of the good news is that NATO decided to set up this research network in Canada, which will be helpful, but we’re not going to prevent the time horizon that we have to respond to.
I don’t know if the military had done some calculations and if this is happening much sooner than we are predicting, but how do we respond to it?
Gen. Eyre: This is a question that keeps many of us awake at night because you need to take a step back and see the confluence of stressors that we have in the security environment. We are facing more change in the security environment than we have since the end of the Second World War. It’s the geopolitical situation that has rapidly devolved into a state of persistent confrontation across the globe. It is also climate change, rapid technological advancements and changes not all for the better in our own societies — some of the polarization that is happening. Those security stressors will combine to have outcomes that are very difficult to predict.
What that means in this uncertainty is an armed force that is ready. What I mean by “ready” is that it is able to respond at scale, speed and for the duration of whatever the crisis is. Having an armed force that is ready is a hedge against that uncertainty we’re going to face, whether it’s in the geopolitical environment or in our Arctic because of climate change. We just don’t know, but we need to be viewed as an insurance policy and having capabilities that are versatile to respond to those uncertainties. What do I mean by “versatile”? I mean that we have capabilities that can respond in different geographical locations — domestically and internationally — and can conduct a range of tasks. We have to have that agile mindset because of the range of potential tasks we could be called upon to do.
Mr. Matthews: Mr. Chair, I would like to add one or two points to that. The chief touched on this. The question pointed out correctly that parts of Canadian territories are more accessible than they were in the past and we know what that trend line looks like. The climate change impact in terms of the draw on our armed forces to respond to domestic crises is going up, so that’s a factor.
The other point I would raise is that the speed at which technology and capability are evolving is faster than ever. One of the advantages the West has traditionally had is its technology and research. Therefore, in many of the announcements the government is making or has made, you will often see that there is money for research, including the NORAD modernization. That is an important part of NATO’s advantage, and it needs to continue to get some focus.
Senator Yussuff: Going to the North, we couldn’t escape the reality that our Indigenous population has been very open in their collaboration. They want to be part of whatever our thinking is in regard to our reinvestment and investment in the North. We heard comments made — and voices have been raised — about how they are aware of certain aspects of our commitment, but they have not been consulted in an integral way.
I would simply make the argument that we’ve got to do more of it, not less of it. I think the more we can share and engage, the more it will help build a cohesive approach as to how our country can achieve its objective in the long term. I say that because where we went in the North, we heard it many times — they’re desperately saying we need to do better. Even though you may be talking to some people, you need to talk to lots more people because you can’t go wrong by doing that. I will simply offer that as a piece of advice from what I heard going to the North. I think it’s critical that we don’t lose — we went up there last month and did our consultation, but go back again because the people we talked to last month may not be the people who want to be engaged in this conversation.
They also see this as an opportunity where they get recognition for their territory. I think this is critical, given our evolution with recognizing First Nation sovereignty. This is an opportunity for us to show real collaboration in how we can build our security going forward — because we don’t have a choice.
Mr. Quinn: Thanks very much for the question, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of reactions to that. First, in terms of engagement with Indigenous communities, particularly in the North, I absolutely agree that it needs to be a continuous process. Before the announcement on NORAD modernization, we conducted some preliminary consultations with Northerners and, as you say, reached out to as many people as possible to get a better sense of what the needs of communities were and how the investments we were considering as part of NORAD modernization could align with those needs and create dual benefits or mutual benefits for everybody.
Now that the announcement has been made, we have a clearer picture of exactly which initiatives are going forward and which have been funded. I think engagement is even more important at this stage as we get into the nitty-gritty details of what exactly is going to happen at those NORAD forward operating locations in terms of infrastructure and enhancements. How can we, as we’re doing that work, try to build in as much benefit for the local communities where those forward operating locations are and, beyond the dual-use benefits, how can we maximize economic opportunities for Northerners? We’ve seen evidence of the commitment to that before in terms of the maintenance of the current [Technical difficulties], but we certainly see lots of scope for more opportunities along those lines as the work proceeds.
Mr. Matthews: I would add just a comment, Mr. Chair. This is very good advice, and it’s something we are experiencing as well. You cannot engage enough, and you need to go more broadly than you think you do. Thank you for the advice.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for hour two. I have a question, but just before I zip to it, my colleague Senator Dagenais asked a question that you responded to, General Eyre, on recruitment and the fact that the world would like more Canada. I heard what you said, which is that we get a lot of requests and you probably can’t fill them all.
I’m curious about the kinds of criteria — your filter, as appropriate — for this decision making on who gets Canada and who doesn’t at those moments and whether you’re able to leverage that into future asks, wants and needs. Could you tell us that, if you don’t mind?
Gen. Eyre: Mr. Chair, this is a difficult question because there is not enough to go around. The world is a big place. We work very closely with Global Affairs, and in many of these cases, Global Affairs has to lead because military intervention follows our foreign policy. Being well connected is very important. As requests come in, we present options to government and decisions are made through that lens of where our foreign policy leads us. Often, there might be trade offs. We can invest here, but we can’t invest there, which makes for hard decisions.
We also take a look — and I asked Vice-Admiral Auchterlonie to take a look about a year and a half ago — at all of our missions through the lens of reconstitution and where we can economize on mid-level leaders while at the same time achieving the strategic effect for the nation. It is a fine balancing act.
As the policy piece is owned by the deputy minister, I’ll see if he has any points to add.
Mr. Matthews: A good example of this in action is the recent Indo-Pacific Strategy, which is the government communicating intent around an important part of the world. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are just one part of that strategy, but I can tell you through engagements both on the civilian side as well as on the uniform side that countries in that region have received the policy very well, and they’re very much looking forward to more presence here — both on the civilian and the military side. Most people’s minds naturally jump to uniforms, but there is a civilian role as well. As an example, we recently placed one of our executives in a U.S.-based think tank on the Indo-Pacific for a year just to continue our presence there.
The chief bumps into a lot of ad hoc requests for extra Canadian officers to be placed, and, again, we always go back and align with where the government’s priorities are and how it fits.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for indicating that you step back and look at where everybody is, which is great.
I have a follow-up question from the first hour where the minister talked about China, which has deemed itself a near-Arctic nation. We have all seen Russia and China come closer. Right now, China has no natural access to the Arctic, but I’m wondering if there is a concern that this alliance could give China access to Russian strategic bases in the North, basically giving them a front door to the Arctic, especially in light of the current Russian regime where it sees itself significantly weakened by the invasion of Ukraine.
Gen. Eyre: Mr. Chair, the question identifies something that concerns us. As we see a Russia that is more reliant on China, almost becoming a vassal of China, this offers opportunities for the so-called near-Arctic state to become more involved.
Russia, up until recently, was somewhat reluctant to have China in its backyard, especially along the northern sea route, but more and more we’re getting indications of Chinese-Russian collaboration. This is something we’re watching closely. Obviously, I can’t get into a lot of the intelligence details, but it is of concern.
Senator Oh: The question I was going to ask about the Arctic and Russian concerns has already been asked.
Senator R. Patterson: I’m going to focus on the how, and it is very much related to women, peace and security, because we know anything Canada gets engaged in impact women, children and other marginalized people quite dramatically, but they’re also part of the recipe for peace.
I believe this is a two-part question. Canada’s third National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, or CNAP3, is due to go, and I’m wondering how the reality of a rapidly evolving geopolitical perspective is featuring in the Department of National Defence’s input into CNAP3. The second part would probably be directed to Admiral Auchterlonie on how we are integrating women, peace and security in our operations across the world to continue to project those Canadian values abroad.
Mr. Matthews: I will take the first one, Mr. Chair. It probably will not be a satisfactory answer because, as was embedded in the question, the input is going in, so there’s not too much I can say at this stage, other than to say, yes, the world is changing. I don’t think it changes our view necessarily on women, peace and security and the role women play. I think it actually doubles it down. I can’t get much more into that, but it is an ongoing topic with allies and is certainly an area where many of our allies look to Canada for leadership because I think we’re ahead of the curve in terms of making progress on this. Not to say we’re perfect, but I do feel some recognition from allies that we’re at least leading in this area.
VAdm. Auchterlonie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, senator, it’s great to see that as well. As the chief and the minister have alluded to, there has been an increased demand on the Canadian Armed Forces throughout the globe. The request for the Canadian Armed Forces was increased even throughout the pandemic internationally, and you are seeing it happen now in a deteriorating global security situation.
In all of our operations globally, we take a Gender-based Analysis Plus into consideration, including for an operation in Sudan working with our departments in Global Affairs to conduct a non-combatant evacuation of Canadian entitled personnel out of Sudan.
It is a key tenet as we look to all of our operations around the globe, whether they are operations in Europe, Africa and the Indo-Pacific, or operations in training in support of Ukraine. It has become embedded as a key tenet in our operational process ongoing today as we’re looking at those implications. We are trying to bring Canadian entitled personnel out with our allies and partners in the region, and how we take into account the gender impact is affecting not only females but also families and those in the community. GBA Plus has been included in our planning.
Thank you for the question.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Matthews, the minister has made no secret of the fact that there are problems in the procurement process for military goods and equipment. In fact, General Eyre has just said that technologies evolve very quickly. When you take two, three, or even five years to study a strategic equipment acquisition, it may not be effective when you receive it.
I noted that in England, procurement for the armed forces is such a priority that there is a Minister of Defence and a Minister for Defence Procurement. Given our performance and the occasional slowness of procurement, don’t you think Canada should consider appointing a minister totally responsible for military procurement, to be more timely and efficient?
Mr. Matthews: Thank you for your question, which is complicated. I would say no. That’s my opinion, but there are others who think it’s a good idea. In my opinion, the process challenges to purchase assets for the Canadian military could be improved.
[English]
I would start by competition is our default, and industrial benefits for Canadian industry plays an important part in the government’s procurement practices. I don’t see that changing.
I will say, though, there are circumstances where it’s important to have exactly what our ally has. There are ways one can justify not going to competition and going right to a sole source if it’s justified.
I think one of the things we’re finding out from the conflicts in Ukraine is that maybe NATO standardization, interoperability — you pick your word — is more important than ever. So when we plan our future procurements, we take a hard look at what our allies have and say: “Is it important that we have what our allies have or something very close?”
The other piece we can improve on is inside our own walls. We have very detailed processes to nail down our requirements. This is long before we actually go to industry, and we need to speed those up. I think we’re in a world right now where when we buy a ship or a plane, I know everyone thinks of the metal or the fibreglass, but in many cases what you’re doing is buying a platform that you’re going to upgrade many times over its useful life. The computerized part of these assets is more important. If you think of a system of continuous renewal, that is a much better place than some of our traditional approaches. I would offer that as something that’s changing as well.
Then we often bump into delays with industry, and, in some cases, that’s completely justified because when we take on a developmental project that has new capabilities — never been tried before — because of unique needs or a gap, it’s okay to take risks there. But we all need to understand where we take risks, and there are areas we don’t want to take risks. We need something tried and true, and we know our allies use it and it works, maybe we make the justification for that.
Those are all ideas, and it is an opinion question. You could implement all of those without a new ministerial structure. That being said, there are those who believe that a different structure would see benefits. That’s just my thoughts for today.
The Chair: Well, what a terrific and helpful afternoon. This brings us to the end of our meeting, and I would like to thank General Eyre, Deputy Minister Matthews, Vice-Admiral Auchterlonie and Mr. Quinn for your participation, help and contributions to our work this afternoon. We’re hugely appreciative of your time and expertise.
I want to echo the comments I made to Minister Anand before her departure, in saying that you’ve sat with us today and taken a large number of very direct and testing questions, and you’ve been hugely transparent, helpful and willing to share information with us that is enormously important.
I’ll close by saying that each of you and you collectively and your military and defence security colleagues in the world — and I’m looking around at them — carry a heavy burden on our behalf and Canadians. You had a busy weekend, but we also know you had a busy last week, a busy last year and you were busy before that.
On behalf of my committee colleagues, staff in this room, our broader Senate community and the Canadians who rely on the work that you do every day and every night, we thank you. I hope that you would extend that to your colleagues outside of this room. We’ve learned a lot today, and your contributions are deeply appreciated. Thank you very much.
I’m going to finish on an administrative note. Colleagues, before we adjourn, I want to alert you to the fact that two of our orders of reference are due to expire on June 30, the general order of reference authorizing the study of veterans’ affairs generally and our broader order of reference. Next week, I plan to provide a notice of a motion to extend the reporting dates for our work through to December 31, 2025, thus ensuring that we will not need another extension before the dissolution of the 44th Parliament. You’ll see me rising in the Senate to provide notice of those motions.
Our next meeting will take place on Monday, May 1, 2023, at our usual time of 4 p.m. EST.
With that, I wish everyone a good evening, and I thank everybody again for your active participation and for this great time of discussion and learning.
(The committee adjourned.)