THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 24, 2022
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 related to security and defence in the Arctic.
Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. My name is Jean-Guy Dagenais. I’m a senator from Quebec and deputy chair of the committee. Unfortunately, our chair, Senator Tony Dean, couldn’t be with us today. Joining me are my colleagues on the committee: Senator Anderson, Senator Boehm, Senator Boisvenu, Senator Dasko from Ontario, Senator Marty Deacon from Ontario, Senator Richards from New Brunswick and Senator Yussuff, who will arrive later.
Today we continue our study on Arctic security and defence, including military infrastructure and security capabilities. We welcome two panels of witnesses; both will focus on the acquisition of assets that can be used in the Arctic.
For our first panel, from the Department of National Defence, we welcome Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel); Rob Chambers, Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment); Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy; Lieutenant-General Eric Kenny, Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force; Lieutenant-General Jocelyn Paul, Commander of the Canadian Army. Also, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, we welcome Simon Page, Assistant Deputy Minister, Defence and Marine Procurement.
Thank you for being with us today. We now invite you to deliver your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from our members.
You may now begin your opening remarks.
Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you and to discuss Arctic security as it relates to national defence.
[English]
I am Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister Materiel at the Department of National Defence. It’s my role to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the services and required equipment that is safe, fit for purpose and available to enable the CAF to accomplish the missions assigned to it by the Government of Canada. Today, we are discussing the procurement of Arctic-capable assets.
[Translation]
The Arctic has always been a region of cooperation. However, safety and security challenges have emerged as the strategic importance of the region has increased. The effects of climate change facilitate access to resources and shipping routes in the circumpolar Arctic. Combined with demographic, geopolitical and economic factors, these factors contribute to increased interest, activity and strategic competition in the region.
[English]
Equipping the Canadian Armed Forces to be ready to respond to these challenges is an immense undertaking, spanning decades of work and involving billions of taxpayers’ dollars. For context, Canada is working with the United States to modernize NORAD and has committed to investing $38.6 billion over the next 20 years. This plan includes significant investments in the Canadian Armed Forces’ ability to support NORAD operations in the North and Arctic, including with Arctic and offshore patrol vessels, remotely piloted aircraft systems, expanded air-to-air refuelling capability, upgrades to Northern basing and increased surveillance. It also includes new funding for significant expansion of research and development for the defence of North America.
[Translation]
Canada’s priority is to maintain the Arctic as a low-voltage global cooperation zone. Canada is committed to strengthening its domain awareness, surveillance and control capabilities in the Arctic; working closely with allies and partners on Arctic issues; and maintaining the rules-based international order.
[English]
With that, we’d be happy to take your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Crosby. We will now go to questions, but before we do that, honourable senators, please note that Mr. Crosby and Mr. Chambers will be with us until 5 p.m., whereas commanders Topshee, Kenny and Paul will stay on to continue answering questions until 6 p.m. To allow for as much interaction as possible, I ask that you keep your questions short.
[English]
Senator Anderson: My apologies for being late.
You spoke about ensuring that communities in Northern zones have adequate equipment. As you’re aware, we just finished a tour, and what we saw was a lack of equipment. What we heard was that there was a lack of equipment. For example, in Inuvik, we heard that the hangar the Hercules sat in is no longer being utilized and that the Hercules is now being serviced outside. What is your time frame to ensure that communities are adequately and effectively provided the resources, equipment and structures that are needed to provide a vital service?
Mr. Crosby: Thank you for the question, and I’ll ask Mr. Chambers to add to this in a moment.
Consultation with the communities as we move forward with a program of investment for the defence of North America and for NORAD modernization will be key to fully developing the program of work that will occur over a period of time and has already actually begun. With that, we’ll look forward to the input on how we can make those investments in a way that they’ll maximize their return for the Canadian Forces requirements but also for the communities that are impacted by that.
Rob Chambers, Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Part of my job is to help work with the service commanders as they generate operational requirements, and then I help convert those into real estate and infrastructure solutions. Working closely with them is critical, because they’re the ones who are saying, “This is what I need to be able to do.” So, this hangar, that kind of runway, et cetera.
Equally important in this particular NORAD modernization moving into the region is the partnership with communities, as I think you were suggesting. That work has started from the minister’s engagement at the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, down to the individual planners of my team. We’re engaging with First Nation, Métis and Inuit groups in the region to begin identifying where our needs converge, where they overlap and then focusing in there.
We’re not alone in this. National Defence, from an infrastructure perspective, is one player among many in the region. It’s really important that we maintain that government-wide, whole-of-government approach as we’re engaging with communities so we’re able to respond to those needs, and not in a siloed manner.
Senator Anderson: Is there a time frame to address some of these deficits that are clearly apparent in the community? You also spoke about who you were consulting with, so can you advise if you were also consulting with the municipal governments?
Mr. Chambers: I’m happy to take that question. I do not have a 20-year timeline for you. The government has announced some investments on an accrual basis over a 20-year period. I don’t have a detailed project plan by initiative to populate that 20 years yet. It’s still early days in that regard.
You were mentioning the hangar. I can speak to that specific hangar, since you were on site there, if you like, now or later. I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of the day-to-day, we have people who live and work in these areas as well, so we’re constantly talking with municipal governments and territorial governments. In fact, I just had an exchange with my counterpart in the Northwest Territories before coming to the meeting about the Inuvik airport, so we’re in constant communication about those needs.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I’d like to point out that Senator Audette from Quebec has joined us.
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to the witnesses. We just got back from the Arctic. It was a very useful trip. I think we realized just how far behind the Canadian Armed Forces were in relation to Russia and even China.
Something that comes up a lot is our submarine capacity. It’s a saga that goes back nearly 20 years, since the contract to purchase submarines was cancelled in the 1990s, as everyone recalls.
Can you tell us where things stand on the renewal of our current submarine fleet? There seems to be quite a contrast between Russia’s presence in Arctic waters and Canada’s. Can you give us a quick update on the condition of Canada’s submarines and the plan for their renewal? We heard that we might not see any progress until 2030.
[English]
Mr. Crosby: On the question of the project to replace the submarines we currently have in service, the Victoria-class submarine, I would leave that question to the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, who is currently leading that effort, but I can say at this point that a project has been established. It’s early days, but that work is commencing.
With respect to the sustainment of the Victoria class, that work is ongoing. We continue to invest in the maintenance of those submarines to make sure that capability is available to the Royal Canadian Navy. As well, we have a project under way right now that we refer to as the Victoria-class modernization which will bring investments in improving the habitability of the submarine and its ability to support joint operations as well its survivability. Those projects are brought into the submarines as upgrades as they go through their docking work periods so that these submarines can remain a viable and important operational capability for the Canadian Armed Forces.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Even if we modernize the submarines we have, the technologies are worlds apart, a bit like F-18s versus F-35s. It’s a fact that the Russians have much more sophisticated submarine technology than we do. If war breaks out — anywhere there’s a war in the world — it all comes down to technology. It’s no longer about soldier-to-soldier combat, as it was in the 15th century. Today, technology is what matters. Keeping that in mind, even if Canada invests in old submarines, it will always be behind the technology of today. It’s like investing in F-18s: The capability will never match that of F-35s. As far as submarine modernization is concerned — other than spending money on used submarines to keep them in operation — what is your plan to equip Canada with cutting-edge submarine capability so we can be on equal footing with the Russians, among others?
[English]
Mr. Crosby: Investments in all of our capabilities on an ongoing basis is really critical to maintaining relevant operational capability throughout the life of what we refer to as a platform, whether it’s a submarine, a surface ship, an aircraft or even an armoured vehicle.
To the point of the question, the ongoing investments need to take into account how technology is evolving in order that we can remain operationally relevant both with our allies and to maintain an operational advantage over any potential adversaries. That work is informed through a force development effort that looks at how technology is evolving over time so that we can make the most consequential investments when they’re needed to maintain the capabilities. It’s much less today about the platform, as I say, than it is about the computers, the sensors and the integrated weapons systems going forward.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Does Canada plan to build new submarines?
[English]
Mr. Crosby: It’s early days with the project. Exactly how that will move forward will be investigated as the project moves through its various phases.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The effort to renew the marine fleet began in 2015. We are in 2022 now, and we still haven’t hit our stride in terms of equipping the Armed Forces with state-of-the-art ships. We are even behind on that front. What year do you think the Royal Canadian Navy can expect its first top-of-the-line submarine delivery?
[English]
Mr. Crosby: The timelines for the replacement of the submarine have to take into account the continued sustainment of the Victoria-class submarine capability. It will be a number of years before we see the delivery of a replacement submarine, and, of course, that all depends on decisions about the future of the submarine capability. The commander of the Royal Canadian Navy can speak more eloquently than I can about the importance of that capability for the Canadian Armed Forces.
Senator Boehm: Thank you to the witnesses for being here in person.
One of the things that really struck me on our trip to the Arctic was the weakness of connectivity and the internet in particular. When we were meeting with the Chief Superintendent of the RCMP, he could not even connect with colleagues in Ottawa to join our meeting. I think we all agree that a strong, reliable internet is important for everyone. In the Senate, of course, we voted in at least two budget implementation acts on funding to ensure that across the country, and obviously, into the Arctic.
My question is, given the focus in the Arctic as it relates to our national security, would the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces view poor internet as a national security concern?
Second, what sort of infrastructure do you use in the Arctic, and what do you have in place to ensure that there is smooth operation? Are you working closely with the department responsible for this, ISED, in terms of more roll out and more reliable roll out?
My last question really goes to the first. Has there been any impact, because of the poor state of connectivity, on your operations in the Arctic?
Mr. Crosby: Mr. Chair, I’ll say up front that I’m not the individual responsible for the acquisition of space-based solutions or much of our IM and IT backbone. That would be one of my colleagues at National Defence. What I can say at this point is that investments in command and control communications and satellite communications are part of the plan for NORAD modernization and will roll out over a number of years.
With respect to the impact of the current state or an assessment of the current state, I think I would leave myself in the hands of the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force who may have additional information to provide.
Senator Boehm: He is not with us today.
Mr. Crosby: He’ll be with you in the second hour, senator.
Senator Boehm: Maybe I will come back to that.
I would assume, and correct me if I’m wrong, that there is a fair amount of consultation in the context of NORAD modernization with our American friends to ensure that there is connectivity that is good beyond Alaska. Is that fair?
Mr. Crosby: We’re in continuous conversation with the U.S. on the solution.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
Senator Boisvenu spoke to my concerns, and I might be echoing them a bit, but I think there’s a bit of frustration because of the slow restoration of Canadian capability over the last number of years. How long do you think it will take for Canada to have the ability to defend its broad range of territory across the board? How is our ability now compared to being able to not compromise our Canadian sovereignty?
Mr. Crosby: Mr. Chair, since the defence policy Strong, Secure, Engaged was released in 2017, we’ve made very significant strides on a large number of major capital project investments, and we’ve seen important milestones met in those projects. You’ll be aware that we have three Arctic offshore patrol ships of six that have now been delivered. We’ve released and are now assessing bids on a number of competitive processes. Noteworthy would be the future fighter capability and remotely piloted aircraft systems. We’re seeing a lot of progress, and I can offer that my group, the Materiel Group at National Defence, is currently leading 72 projects valued at $10 million or more, cumulatively worth well over $100 billion in definition and implementation. It’s an immense undertaking.
We know the job will never be done. We’ll have to continuously assess what is happening in the strategic environment. That is ongoing. That reflection is happening now. That will bring the need for additional investments in the future, NORAD modernization and whatever may follow after that. I would offer, Mr. Chair, that the job will never be done, but we are making good progress on the work that we know needs to be prioritized.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
I’m wondering about this bidding on projects that come from other countries. Why don’t we sustain our own technology and create our own basic platforms for our own defence? We’re bidding on F-35s, just like we bid on the F-18s and the Voodoos, and we threw the Avro Arrow in Lake Ontario, which seems rather despicable to me when I think of it. I was just a kid. Why can’t we make our own proposals and create our own Canadian technology that isn’t interdependent on people from Norway or the United States or Britain?
Mr. Crosby: Mr. Chair, I may turn to my colleague from PSPC in a minute to see if he would want to add.
I would say that we do have Canadian companies that are delivering remarkable technologies that we’re using within the Canadian Armed Forces. Light armoured vehicles would be an example. We have a great number of aerospace companies and, with the National Shipbuilding Strategy, a growing marine industry now that is delivering capability.
We look at the acquisition, and we tend to buy in relatively small numbers compared to our allies, perhaps, so we have to look at value for money there, but we also very much consider the long-term in-service support of all of this equipment, and there is value in having a domestic ability to do that.
Senator Richards: The Irving frigate blueprint isn’t the blueprint that comes from Canada, is it? Doesn’t it come from some other marine country?
Mr. Crosby: Mr. Chair, what we refer to as the parent design, which is the fundamental design for the Canadian surface combatant, is from the United Kingdom. They refer to it as a Type 26. The ship is being adapted to meet the needs identified by the Royal Canadian Navy, and much of that work is being sourced from Canadian companies.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: I’d like to apologize to my colleagues and to the panel for being late. Thank you very much for being here in person.
Mr. Chambers made several references to “the region” and specific community issues quite rightly heard by the committee and raised by the community. In the interests of time, I wonder if the committee might receive, in writing, the breakdown or the intentions with regard to not the region but community by community.
My specific question — perhaps Mr. Crosby wants to answer this, I’m not certain — is that consultation with the community was referenced. “Consultation” can be translated and interpreted by custom in a number of different ways. Is there a protocol for community consultation? Let me give you an example, if I might. In Yukon, with settled First Nations, there is a very clear protocol for government-to-government-to-government consultations and discussions, First Nations to Yukon to Canada. It’s a very clear protocol. Does a protocol like that exist for consultation with communities regarding National Defence or whole-of-government responses to community desires?
Mr. Chambers: Thank you for the question.
I would be happy to provide as much information as we have regarding a community-by-community breakdown. The only concern I would have is that that story is in the process of being written with those very communities. There is a considerable emphasis, for all sorts of reasons that I’d be happy to talk about, why that partnership with Indigenous communities, Indigenous organizations and Indigenous people is critical to the success of this initiative. I won’t be able to give you all that much yet because we’re in the process of doing that work with these organizations.
Senator Duncan: Even having that process and which communities you’re talking to would be useful. My specific question is what is that process for involvement with the communities? How does the Department of National Defence, with a whole-of-government approach, define consultation with communities?
Mr. Chambers: Thank you for the question. Again, there’s a lot to say on this topic. I’ll try and be brief.
To some extent, we are breaking new ground within DND, so we’re very cognizant of wanting to define that process with our partners. I don’t say that lightly. We don’t get to stipulate exactly what the process is. We’re sitting down with partners — they’re not stakeholders — and we design that together. Likely, it’s going to end up looking a bit different, depending on who we’re talking to. With the Northwest Territories, for example, we have a particular kind of relationship there. With the city council in Iqaluit, it will look a little bit different. When we’re talking about work that is being done in Alert, it will look, again, a bit different, depending on if we’re talking to ITK or an individual municipality. Again, I’m happy to share whatever we have, but as I said, it’s a story we’re writing right now with these communities and with these groups.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here today. It’s been said, to repeat, that it’s interesting meeting with you, having had the opportunity to have a lot of face-to-face conversations with the folks in the North over the past few weeks.
As I’m preparing the question, and as you talked about collaboration and integration, I’m trying to figure out some silos and some information that we want to ask you about that actually is directed to your area as opposed something else that we think it is. I have to say that up front, because there were so many pieces and conversations.
I’m going to start off by carrying on with something Senator Boehm started off with, and this does continue to concern the communications infrastructure in the North. He referred specifically to the internet. Specifically, with these undersea cables, in prior testimony, we’ve heard more than once that Russia and China are developing systems that could cut these underwater cables and sever communications across this part of the country. I’m wondering to what extent you can discuss and elaborate on this. What are we doing to detect and deter, frankly, such threats that could impact due to these cables?
Mr. Crosby: The question would be best answered by the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy. He would probably have better insight into the operational needs and the threat assessment that would be appropriate.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that.
I’m hoping this might fit in a lane here. Let’s look, then, at the issues around climate change and defence and how it affects our existing defence infrastructure in the North. We did talk about this quite a bit on site. I’m wondering if you see any threat with the melting permafrost, as one example. What kind of plans do we have moving forward to adapt to this continuous and fast-paced changing landscape?
Mr. Chambers: Thank you for the question. I’d be happy to respond to some of your question.
From an infrastructure perspective, you’re absolutely right. Accelerating climate change is having an effect on the permafrost and, of course, that impacts not just us but anybody who has infrastructure in the Inuit Nunangat. I could talk at a tactical level about some of the construction techniques we use to mitigate some of that, but I suspect that’s not what you’re interested in. I’d be happy to do that, if you’d like.
What we are doing at a more strategic level is looking at our holdings in the region as a whole and going asset by asset to identify the local conditions, the condition of the asset, who our partners are in the management of that asset and literally coming up with a cumulative plan — we call it a master real property development plan, if that’s worth anything to you — and rolling that up to come up with a strategy that recapitalizes the portfolio in that area over time and mitigates the impacts that you’re describing.
Senator M. Deacon: I think you used the word “tactical.” Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Chambers: I’d be happy to. I’m not a civil engineer, but I know enough to be dangerous. I can describe some of the techniques you would have seen, perhaps, on your site visit.
When something is frozen in the region, we want to keep it that way as much as possible. You might have seen buildings on stilts. We’re literally trying to separate the building from the permafrost, keeping the heat from the building in the building and away from the ground. You might have seen thermosiphons. Those are large metal rods that have fins sticking out of them. They go along the side of a building. You’ll see them at airports. These are passive refrigeration units that essentially draw heat out of the ground and dissipate it into the air. I’ve certainly seen them in Iqaluit. I assume they’re used in Inuvik. Whether you recognize them or not, they don’t necessarily stand out, but they’re low-cost, passive techniques that we can use to keep the permafrost as frozen as possible.
The last thing I’ll mention is that we’re not alone in this, even on the federal side. National Research Council, Public Services and Procurement Canada — a number of different organizations have expertise and are doing research and development in this area, in particular, again, in partnership with local partners and Indigenous communities, for all of us to be able to benefit from these insights.
I don’t want to harp on Inuvik, but since you were there, there’s a project under way right now at the airport to deal with the permafrost thawing under the runway. It’s a project that we’re not involved in, but that Infrastructure Canada is assisting the territory with. There’s a fair bit of work going on in that regard as well. I’d be happy to talk more about that, if you like.
Senator M. Deacon: Somewhere there’s a coordinated effort here that everything that’s been done is tied in a common document, even though it’s different organizations or different departments.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Indigenous language spoken] from Wendake. I’m from Mushuau-nipi. We get a lot of visitors, Quebecers and Canadians, and they are always shocked to see the abandoned Armed Forces bases. I’m not criticizing or complaining, but my wish for all of us is an investment to remedy the situation, which has never been called for.
Since we are now in a cohabiting relationship, do any of your long-term plans include a commitment to retrieve everything, to not abandon sites with significant contamination that end up ruining our land? I’m speaking from a governance standpoint in Quebec, which is home to Cree, Inuit, Naskapi and Innu, who cohabit the Far North. When it comes to Indigenous communities, have you considered the economic opportunities that type of work would represent? I’m thinking of local micro-businesses and companies in Southern Canada that could export their expertise. Why not train young people in those communities, young people who could become leaders at your facilities or lead the work you are doing in the North?
The technology at those sites or facilities is very advanced, as compared with our internet service, which is extremely slow. We cohabit the same land, but we don’t enjoy the same access to information.
I believe we saved lives in the Innu nation during the COVID-19 pandemic. I have no doubt that we can also contribute to the protection of a vast land, one that is home to the communities I just mentioned.
Mr. Chambers: Thank you for your question.
[English]
In terms of former Canadian Armed Forces sites or DND sites, where they are still in our inventory and they haven’t been divested to someone else, we absolutely are tracking. We have a legacy program that deals with whether there is contamination or cleanup that needs to be done. We do like to divest properties that we’re not using anymore if we’re able to do so, but in cases where we can’t because of contamination or some other reason, we do have a program in place to address that. In many cases, we have treaty obligations to address those things as well, so we’re absolutely seized with that.
In terms of the economic opportunities for Indigenous people, it is one of the pillars behind the current approach, so not only working with Indigenous communities and Indigenous people to identify projects, but being able to share information with Indigenous businesses in a fair and transparent way, in advance, so they can take advantage of those opportunities, and to continue to incorporate something we call Indigenous benefit plans in our procurement, where we ask people who are bidding on a contract to explain to us how they will ensure that benefits will accrue to local Indigenous people, whether that be employment or, as you said, training. Those two points in particular are points that are front and centre in our conversations with the Inuit as we get further and further into NORAD modernization.
I think the only other thing I would add is that the horizontal government-wide approach is very critical when we’re having this conversation because National Defence doesn’t pull all of the levers — training, employment and labour market training, that sort of thing. It’s very important that I am connected to my counterparts and colleagues across governments so that, when we sit down with a community, we are focused on meeting their needs and not saying, “I’m sorry, that’s not me; you have to talk to someone else.”
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here.
When I was appointed to this committee last November, procurement was a really big topic. I thought, wow, this is really big, the procurement issue, and now we have a procurement team here. It’s great to have you here to talk about procurement, but it’s not easy to know where to begin on the topic.
I’m going to begin with the $38.6 billion investment in NORAD. I would like to understand how much of that might be new investment versus commitments that had already been made. I’m interested in how much of this might have been prompted by the post-February situation with Ukraine and Russia. I’m also interested in how much of this money has already been put out for RFPs, for contracts, and how far along you are. Maybe you could break it down a little bit. How far are you in the process of contracting out these assignments? I think you said it’s not all DND and some of it is other departments. Maybe I misheard you. In any case, I’m looking for a little more detail on the NORAD investment in particular.
Mr. Crosby: Thank you for your question and for the opportunity to come here and answer your questions about procurement. They are clearly important.
The investments in NORAD modernization are an extension of the work that was undertaken under Strong, Secure, Engaged. At the time that Strong, Secure, Engaged was published, there was a recognition that more needed to be done for NORAD modernization. The analysis of those requirements continued, resulting in the recent announcements that are focused on increasing our ability for surveillance, command and control, to be able to respond to threats, infrastructure and, as I mentioned in my opening comments, research and development as well.
A number of these new investments are going to build on what’s already been undertaken. For example, the acquisition of additional advanced weapons for our future fighter capability would be part of that. Some of the investments in satellite capabilities are just now really being built as projects with all of the attendant analysis, options analysis, and determining how best to move forward. Those projects will take place over a number of years.
With respect to the specific amounts spent at these points, each individual investment will go through the normal governance processes in order to access the funding. It’s been set aside in the investment plan. We have to do our work before we approach authorities to be able to actually get that money. At a proper point in the process, there will be a discussion about the acquisition strategies that will ultimately lead to delivery of the capability. Some of those expenditures will take place a number of years in the future.
Senator Dasko: Over how many years is this spending plan?
Mr. Crosby: The $38.6 billion is over 20 years on an accrual basis.
Senator Dasko: On an accrual basis. They are at various stages of implementation?
Mr. Crosby: That’s correct.
Senator Dasko: I have a question that came up in our trip to the Arctic. There is a lot of concern about Russian activity in the Arctic, what they’re doing and why we should be concerned and make more investments. On the other hand, it was also suggested — said, in fact — that since they’re so preoccupied with Ukraine, they’re actually spending less time in the Arctic. I heard that said as well. I wonder if you can tell me anything about Russian activity in the Arctic. Up, down, same, sideways?
Mr. Crosby: Mr. Chair and senators, I think that would probably be best for the second half of the session today.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before moving on to the second round, I want to follow up on something Senator Boisvenu said. I have been on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs for over 10 years, and I remember that, about five years ago, we submitted a report on the renewal of Armed Forces’ equipment. The focus was on Griffon helicopters, submarines, the infamous F-18s and frigates. I’m not sure what came of the report, but I’m always shocked by the lengthy amount of time between when ministers and the Prime Minister promise equipment to the Armed Forces and when the promise is fulfilled.
It’s almost as though someone, somewhere, is holding things up. I’m not blaming anyone. What is the main reason for delays in these types of projects? I mean the government said it was going to buy Australia’s old F-18s to fix our F-18s while we wait for the F-35s.
I’ve been in the Senate 11 years, and all that time, the government has been talking about studying the F-35s. The studies probably cost more than the F-35s, themselves. What’s the holdup? Is it politics? Is it funding? Is it the military or is it the people in charge of the file who can’t move any faster? I realize that, over the past 10 years, things have been done, but in all our recommendations, in our report — I recall a reporter asking me whether I thought the report would be taken into account, and my hope was that it wouldn’t end up on a shelf.
I realize that some investments were made, but why is this holding us up as well as our allies? We are supposed to contribute 2.2% of GDP to match what our allies spend, the U.S., for one.
Why is it taking so long? Without Canada being singled out by its allies, I think the Arctic is becoming very important. Can you explain what is causing the delays?
[English]
Mr. Crosby: I imagine that Mr. Page would like to add something here.
I’ll start with Strong, Secure, Engaged laying out not only what we needed to accomplish from an acquisition perspective but also a sense of where the priorities lay. We have made, as you’ve acknowledged, progress on a vast number of those projects, and I listed some earlier in answers, but they are long and time-consuming. I acknowledge that. They’re very complex. There’s not just a piece of equipment, an aircraft or vehicle at the end of the procurement. We also have to deliver the infrastructure, with my colleague Mr. Chambers as part of that, the weapons, the integration, the training and publications. The entire capability has to be thought through from the beginning before we even release a request for proposals.
There’s always an extensive engagement with industry as part of that process of exploring how best to proceed, and then typically a competitive process with a request for proposals. Industry needs time to respond to these. As I say, they’re complex. There’s quite a bit of risk involved with them that they need to understand before they take that on.
Once we’re into the implementation process, it can take a number of years — depending on the complexity of the project — to deliver the capability and declare an operational capacity, whether the initial or, ultimately, the full operational capacity over time. We’re moving, as I said earlier, 72 projects right now within the group.
I may have created some confusion among some of the senators here. My organization is focused on equipment: vehicles, airplanes, ships, personal equipment for soldiers and these sorts of things. We have another organization that’s focused on satellite communications and IM/IT-type projects. That’s why I am afraid that I can’t always answer your questions to a great degree of satisfaction, although the fundamentals are very much the same in the process.
I don’t know if Mr. Page would like to add anything.
[Translation]
Simon Page, Assistant Deputy Minister, Defence and Marine Procurement, Public Services and Procurement Canada: Public Services and Procurement Canada receives requests from departments, clients like the Department of National Defence, as in the case of Mr. Crosby, from the Canadian Coast Guard, and Mr. Smith later. We take those requests, and we establish procurement processes.
The procurement process is complex, so we need to do things right. Each process is built around three pillars. First is performance, which comes from the client, and second is what we call value for money.
We want to do things right to ensure that the investment yields a good outcome. We also need to take into account what is happening domestically in the industry. The third pillar focuses on the economic benefits for Canada, both industrial and technological. In the case of major procurement projects, that tends to include a value proposition. We have to balance all of those factors.
Take, for example, the Canadian surface combatant project, or the current fighter jet project. They are both highly complex projects, so we need to do things right. We start with a draft request for proposals, and we ask the industry for feedback on the request for proposals. Then, we consult again and we come away with new requirements to consider. Eventually, we publish the request for proposals, and we have to provide enough time for people to respond. In many cases, the industry asks us for more time to respond, so we have to extend the deadline for submitting bids. Next, we have to conduct an evaluation, which means going through thousands of requirements one by one, methodically and carefully. It’s a significant amount of work.
I think that, overall, the processes are going well. It’s just about doing everything properly. If things are done right, progress is made in what I, personally, consider to be an acceptable amount of time. The request for proposals for Canada’s future fighter jets was launched in 2019. It’s now 2022, and we are getting close to the end. Looking at the overall process, performance-wise, I would say it delivers good results.
The Deputy Chair: Since I became a senator, we have been talking about F-35s. I have a few years left in the Senate, so do you think I’ll see an F-35 before I retire?
Senator Boisvenu: You’re about as likely to see an F-35 as you are a submarine.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boisvenu: I think the biggest hurdle for the Canadian Armed Forces is Canadian bureaucracy. The Russians and the Chinese renewed their marine and air fleets in record time. When you say process, I hear bureaucracy and red tape. In a world as fast-paced as this, given the huge challenges we face, any delay in keeping up with people who represent a threat to our security is, well — If we can’t renew our fleets in record time, we will always be lagging behind, always.
Here’s my question for you. The future joint support ships, the MV Asterix, among others, were supposed to be delivered in the early 2000s, but it turns out they won’t be delivered until 2025, or maybe even later. Why have a timetable that says the ships will be delivered in 2020, when we are finding out that it won’t be until 2025?
I don’t think the Armed Forces changed the requirements so much that it delayed the delivery of the ships by 10 years.
Can we, as a country, give ourselves the benefit of a streamlined process, one that removes as much complexity as possible, so we can move quickly in response to a threat? Do we have that ability? The question is for the department officials. I have a lot of friends in the Canadian Armed Forces, and what I’m hearing is that the bureaucracy is hindering the Armed Forces.
[English]
Mr. Crosby: We have demonstrated the ability to move very quickly when the operational requirement is there. With respect to donations that have been made to the Ukraine, for example, I think people within National Defence and those we were working with moved very quickly to enable equipment to be delivered in a matter of days. For our typical acquisition —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’m going to stop you right there. According to what I heard about the equipment we gave Ukraine, we emptied our warehouses of equipment that wasn’t being used, equipment that was outdated. Yes, we had some cutting-edge weapons, but we used it as an opportunity to replenish our inventory. Yes, we responded quickly in the case of Ukraine, but what we sent over wasn’t equipment we had built; it’s what we had in our inventory.
[English]
Mr. Crosby: An example of something that was not in our inventory that we were quickly able to put on contract and have delivered were the drone cameras that I’m sure you’re all aware of. I acknowledge those are exceptional under exceptional circumstances and typically our processes are long and arduous.
Where we really need to be able to focus and where we’re concentrating our effort right now is in consideration of — I mentioned it earlier — how do we continuously deal with obsolescence that’s emerging on the platforms, on the aircraft, on the vehicles and on the ships that we already have in service? That doesn’t tend to get as much attention, frankly, because they’re not always addressed as projects. We have access to other money through our investment plan that allows our capability managers to recognize those obsolescence issues that will emerge in consultation with the operational services that define the requirements and to make sure we’re making those investments in a timely way. I think we can do better there. I do. The acquisition of a surface combatant that we will have in service for 30 or 40 or 50 or more years is something that we have to approach, frankly, carefully because of the consequences.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Mr. Page, I have quite the question, or quite the comment. It has to do with the pillars you mentioned, and I’d like you to get back to us in writing. If an Indigenous-owned business in the community wanted to provide its expertise, submit a bid, as a business — I’m not talking about manufacturing aircraft — what barriers would prevent it from being successful? Its performance wasn’t up to par? It was too young or new of a business? Its sales were lower than those of a multinational or big company in the South?
Mr. Page: I’ll keep my answer brief, since I’ll be following up. A very real effort is being made within government to support Indigenous procurement, including in the defence and marine sector. It’s not the ideal sector for Indigenous procurement, but significant efforts are being made, and we are seeing results. Thank you.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: One more to add to that area is the pillars and strategy you talk about. This is a complex piece for sure that you’ve outlined a little bit. While that work is going on — and it’s procurement at its finest — what is your landscape or how are you looking at the rest of the world? For example, are there some projects in a partnership? Are there some projects you think strategically we should be moving forward on based on our North American presence? For the landscape when you look outside the country internationally in the collective intel for procurement, if you could share any insight there, I’d appreciate that.
Mr. Page: Thank you for the question. I think that’s a great question because it touches on the defence procurement strategy, which brings three departments to the table: ISED, the client department — let’s say DND in this case — and ourselves at PSPC.
When a specific requirement comes our way, there’s a specific discussion associated with that requirement about how to actually procure it and what is the best approach. Sometimes when it’s a partnership, this will actually be decided ahead of time. The partnership or the consortium may exist before the project comes our way. But this is when the three pillars are well balanced; what can Canada do, what is the performance desired by the customer, and what is the best procurement strategy to bring these three things together? Sometimes it will be looking at a partnership, sometimes it will be focused in-country and sometimes it will be a wide-open and transparent competition.
Senator Richards: I’m going to save this question for the next panel, so I’ll let you off the hook. I just wanted to tell you how much I admire the Canadian Armed Forces and the men and women who serve there. If the questions are a little heated, it’s probably because of that.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: That brings us to the end of our first panel, Mr. Crosby and Mr. Chambers. Thank you for making time to meet with the committee.
We will suspend momentarily so that Vice-Admiral Topshee, Lieutenant-General Kenny and Lieutenant-General Paul can join the meeting.
Thank you for staying on, gentlemen. We’ll continue the question period with Senator Richards.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
We live north of a military monolith, and I’m wondering if that sometimes contributes to a feeling — among the population, maybe not the military — of our blaséness towards our only military expenditures and what we might have to do to protect our own territory. Does that ever creep into the feelings that since the United States is our greatest ally, we really don’t need to be prepared to protect our territory in the north or our sea or whatever? I’m just wondering if you feel that’s a problem within the Canadian commitment.
Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you very much for the question.
I’ll turn it over to my colleague from the air force to talk about NORAD in a second, but being surrounded by three oceans and with the United States to the south, Canada is in a privileged place. We’re grateful for that, but we are mindful of the fact that this is a dangerous world, and it’s our job to be prepared for the threats that might come in the future, as well as those that exist today. While we’re in a relatively good place strategically because of our geography, that doesn’t change the fact that these threats can reach out and touch us across all the domains of warfare. I’m also very mindful of cyberspace and space as threat environments. I think NORAD in particular is one of the things that helps us.
Lieutenant-General Eric Kenny, Commander, Royal Canadian Air Force, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you for the question. It is a great question.
Within the NORAD context, as you know, it’s the only binational command in the world where two countries have agreed to work together on aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning, most recently in 2006. To me, as the Royal Canadian Air Force commander, Canada has an obligation to generate the capabilities to sustain domain awareness and capacity to do the control of aerospace and work with the commander of the navy on maritime warning. We remain steadfast in our resolve to make sure that we have the capabilities to protect Canada, number one, as that is the first portion of Strong, Secure, Engaged, and then working with the U.S. At the same time, I believe it’s really important that we remain interoperable with our closest ally, the United States, to ensure that we can meet the mission in a synchronized fashion, respecting the requirements of Canada.
Senator Richards: Thank you for that.
We’ve been speaking today about the Russians, their Northern intentions and how close they are to Canada. I’m wondering if we have the same concern about the Chinese, who are now making inroads mapping the geographical floors of the North. Are we keeping an eye on that and seeing what their intentions are? Because I don’t think their intentions are entirely friendly to Canada.
VAdm. Topshee: Thank you for the question.
The major involvement by China into the Canadian Arctic has been the transit of the Xue Long, one of their Arctic research vessels, through the Northwest Passage a couple of years ago. I will note when that ship went through our waters, they requested our permission, which they received. There were scientists on board, and the ice pilot was a retired Canadian admiral who was the one responsible for navigating them through our waters.
In a sense, there’s a strong regulatory regime that ensures that vessels and people who come into our Arctic waters comply with our regulations, make sure they preserve the environment and do no harm with their presence. Of course, we are very mindful of the fact that China has declared itself to be a near-Arctic nation, which is an unusual statement from our perspective, and we know that they have an interest in the potential resources of the North, so we monitor that very closely.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much for being with us.
I asked a question of the previous panel and was encouraged to punt it to you, so I will ask it again. It’s about connectivity in the Arctic. On our trip, we noticed there were tremendous gaps and problems. In another context, of course, we in the Senate have voted on funds through various budgets for greater infrastructure in terms of connectivity. My question is a rather basic one. Is the lack of that a national security concern? In terms of your operations, can you work with what you have now? Do you have to rely perhaps more on our American partners than you might want to? Is this a threat in terms of the response capacity that you would need to have?
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question.
As you know, we’ve been operating in the Arctic for a long period of time. There remains a challenge when it comes to communications, whether that be internet or other forms of communication. We have, as a military and within a national defence perspective, looked at how we can increase our capacity and capabilities when it comes to connectivity. As the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, one of my priorities is to make sure that we’re able to operate anywhere in the world, ideally seamlessly. It’s not always going to be through internet, for example, or at least through different mechanisms, whether that is 4G, 5G, satellite-based, land-based or fibre optic.
When it comes to our forward operating locations, we have developed capabilities and capacity working with the local townships, municipalities and territories to increase bandwidth specifically, but it remains a challenge. As we move forward with NORAD modernization, part of the funding stream looks to address our infrastructure and our IM/IT backbone, which in many cases in the Arctic will be through a satellite-based perspective. We need to be aware that our commercial providers are rapidly developing space-based capabilities, which are going up. We need to not just think through the lens of using military satellites to address the solution, but rather, what can industry do, whether it be within Canada or around the world, to provide that connectivity that we all need? We’re partnering with industry, we’re partnering with our allies and we’re looking at specific military capabilities that would help enable us, especially in times of conflict, to ensure our operational advantage.
Senator Boehm: Are you speaking as well in terms of best practices with other countries of the North and the Arctic? We’ve got Sweden and Finland coming to join NATO. Norway has a long tradition with its more northern archipelagos in terms of readiness and operational capacity. Is this part of the discussion as NORAD renewal takes shape?
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question.
The Chief of Defence Staff recently attended an Arctic Chief of Defence forum. Russia was not part of that discussion. Within that, they talked about how we can better collaborate within the Arctic. I would have to defer to him in terms of what specifically was discussed.
I do work with my air chief counterparts, as you’ve just laid out, of those very specific countries to see how we can better collaborate. As a NATO member, and working with our partners within NATO, we do look at this from a holistic perspective. We still have lessons that we can share and learn from each other. We’re also looking at what some of those countries’ commercial industry partners can provide. We’re going to leverage that where it makes sense as we move forward.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to our witnesses from the Canadian Armed Forces. I have great admiration for the work you do. I realize the country has huge challenges to overcome in order to provide you with the best response capabilities. We have a lot of catching up to do, and I think that, as a nation, we have an obligation to meet your expectations. That’s my main concern.
Although I didn’t visit every community, the first thing I can say after visiting the North is that the Armed Forces don’t have a presence there. Apart from having seen an F-18 and the Coast Guard, I walked away with a sense that the military doesn’t have a presence there. I realize it’s different a bit farther south — Yellowknife comes to mind, with its more visible, more permanent facilities — but when you get to the Arctic Sea, there is absolutely no presence. When you look across the way, though, you see a much stronger presence. I realize the Russians aren’t going to launch an attack tomorrow, but I find the military — not just civilian — presence in the area very concerning.
I appreciate that you’re between a rock and a hard place. You have to consider the policy side as well as the military side.
When Canada purchases an aircraft, it’s not the military that does the procurement; it’s the bureaucratic arm of the government. Is the relationship with the bureaucratic arm of the government efficient enough to meet the challenges we face in the short term? By short term, I mean a decade. Conversely, do you think we’ll be able to respond only in the long term? By long term, I mean two or three decades.
Is our military and civilian decision-making structure adequate in 2022? Does it give us the ability to respond to needs that I would call urgent and pressing?
VAdm. Topshee: You’re right that the procurement process is frustrating at times, but I think the bureaucrats whose responsibility it is are good people who are doing their best to meet our needs.
Senator Boisvenu: I have no doubt. My issue isn’t the people. My issue is the process.
VAdm. Topshee: It’s difficult because we are talking about billions of dollars in spending. In order for the Canadian Armed Forces to acquire the capacity it needs, that money has to be spent wisely, in a way that benefits Canada, while giving me the ability to do what I need to do as Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy. Mr. Page gave an excellent answer on balancing the various objectives of the process.
Senator Boisvenu: [Technical difficulties] the world, in Canada. The capacity at the Davie shipyard comes to mind, as does Vancouver and the Maritimes. Does it make sense that there was a plan to review the marine fleet in the 2010s and we are still so ill-equipped in 2022? We are still waiting for ships that should’ve been delivered five or six years ago.
VAdm. Topshee: Absolutely. The problem is that it was a boom and bust process. All the frigates we are using today were built. All the coastal vessels were built; a fleet for the Canadian Coast Guard was built. Then, shipbuilding stopped. Building a warship is a very complex undertaking.
Today, the Irving shipyard is doing an excellent job building the fourth, fifth and sixth vessels for the Arctic. Building the first one was a challenge, though. It was extremely hard to establish the right production methods to meet the quality standards. Irving learned a lot in the course of the project.
At the same time, Seaspan, on the West Coast, had a similar problem: figuring out how to build ships for the Coast Guard and, then, navy supply ships. A lot of lessons were learned, but it took time.
Senator Boisvenu: I understand. It’s somewhat like the coronavirus. We’re building a plane while flying it.
VAdm. Topshee: Exactly, and now, we have the opportunity to build ships. It is the best preparation to build surface combatants for Canada.
I am certain we will continue to develop and perfect our processes to build the fleet that Canada needs, but it is frustrating because it takes a lot of time.
Senator Boisvenu: Is Quebec’s Davie shipyard operating at its full capacity?
Mr. Page: Before addressing that subject, I would like to add on to Vice-Admiral Topshee’s answer. It is no secret that we are dealing with bureaucracy. That is what we do when carrying out a solicitation process. It is a bureaucratic process, of course, and that process must be well executed.
The Canadian combat ship is a collection of over 200 systems on an integrated ship, ready for combat. This type of ship cannot be designed overnight. We have to consider the scope of the problem, we have to understand the scope of the situation.
Thanks to the National Shipbuilding Strategy, Canada is in position with two strategic partners to make long-term investments. This means we will avoid what the admiral described, the famous boom and bust of previous years. We are committed to these shipyards over the long term. In the case of the East Coast, at the Irving shipyard, it will be for 30 years.
Senator Boisvenu: Do I have reason to believe that countries like Russia and China have processes that seem faster? China renewed its naval fleet in record time. I am certain that they must have cutting-edge technologies.
Mr. Page: Our shipyards have matured significantly since the start of the national strategy. They will need to mature some more. We are expecting better performance, but in our Canadian shipyards, we probably will not reach the level of South Korean or Scandinavian shipyards. We are not yet at that stage. We had momentum before COVID. We have to get back up to speed, but there is no doubt that at some point, we should be at a level to produce ships at a good pace.
As for your last question about the third shipyard, a great deal of work is being done right now. There was a conversion project for the Canadian Coast Guard’s medium icebreakers. There was refit and maintenance work on the Halifax class, and there is also the ferry project for Transport Canada.
Senator Boisvenu: Has work started on the Obelix?
Mr. Page: No, the Obelix was not considered.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much.
Senator Audette: Have you ever read the book La casquette de mon père, written by Innus in Labrador, on the impact of low-altitude flights? I encourage you to read it. The story is touching. Will we continue to fly in these territories? If so, what are the relationships with the Innu?
LGen. Kenny: I have not yet read the book. In locations like Goose Bay, we have a lot of discussions. We work hard to create a transparent and open dialogue. Yes, there are still flights. Most of the time, we try to hold consultations and discussions in advance if flights are going to get close to those regions, but it’s not always the case. When an ally comes for training, it is important to work with the province or the territory and local communities. We make sure everyone knows we are conducting training, and that we are taking their needs into consideration to ensure everything is done with respect.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here today for questions.
I have one very functional, practical question in my mind. I am very passionate about lighthouses and the role lighthouses played and continue to play. I’ve read it’s become continually difficult to staff these remote outposts due to salary and morale and other issues. I worry, with the navigable season becoming longer in the Arctic area, that ships and navigators will increasingly need these stations staffed given how important they are to navigation and them being the first people, really, to spot trouble, challenges and problems.
I’m wondering what the Coast Guard is doing to work through this and remedy this situation, or if it’s even the concern that I think it might be. Are there ways to make these roles more attractive, or is automation and use of technology an option?
VAdm. Topshee: Thank you very much to the question.
I’ll defer to the Coast Guard for answers specifically about staffing issues for lighthouses, but speaking with a mariner with 30 years’ experience at sea, I would say lighthouses are absolutely essential aids to navigation. In an era where we never know if someone might try to deny us a global positioning system or other navigation aid, the ability to see something on shore is very helpful, as long as visibility supports. They can be automated in most cases, so the value of a response capability with someone there gets into the area of search and rescue. Between the commander of the Air Force and the Coast Guard, and search and rescue commanders on both coasts, we’re always conscious of how we make sure we’re in position to be able to respond to Canadians should they find themselves in need on any of our coasts.
Senator M. Deacon: So the automation piece is the big chunk solution part as long as there is someone for search and rescue aspects.
VAdm. Topshee: There are many different systems today that will help in terms of automating a response, sending a signal of distress and other things. A lighthouse has a very limited field of view. I love history, I love lighthouses. If we could afford to put people in all of them, I would love to do that. But as we contemplate the best use of the resources of the Government of Canada, automation is something that is very valuable. There are other ways to ensure the safety of people in the area.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that response.
Just as another aspect of communication, and piggybacking on my colleague Senator Boehm, I’m looking at another part of the communication infrastructure in the North, specifically undersea cables. In prior testimony, we continue to hear Russia and China are developing systems that could cut these cables and sabotage this part of our work, severing communications. To what extent do you have insight on this? Can you discuss what we’re doing to detect and deter such threats to underground cables?
VAdm. Topshee: It’s absolutely a concern. We pay close attention to the capabilities that the Russian navy has in particular with respect to undersea cables. That is one of the areas that all of us together, our allies and partners, look to make sure that we’re aware of what their actions are to the greatest extent that we possibly can be. Part of our mandate under NORAD’s maritime warning mission is to make sure we’re aware anytime someone comes into our waters or into the approaches who might put these cables at risk. We maintain the capability to be able to survey them as well. Should it seem as though there was a specific threat to them, then we would offer options in terms of a response to them.
Senator Dasko: I want to get back to my question earlier about Russia and pose it a bit more generally. The north of Russia seems to be much more developed than our north in terms of resource development, population centres and so on. When it comes to the military, can you describe to me what their strengths are? Is it on the ground? Is it in the air? Is it in the water? Is it in any aspect of their technology or training? I just put this in an observation. Looking at Ukraine now, they seem to have shown that they’re not well trained or not well motivated, and even if you have good resources and technology, if you’re not well trained and motivated, then what can you do? That would be one of my interpretations of why they haven’t done so well. That’s a side comment. But what are their strengths particularly in the north but since we’re talking about Arctic?
LGen. Kenny: I’ll give my colleagues an opportunity if they wish or so choose to expand upon my points. Thank you for the question.
Mr. Chair, as we’re seeing in Ukraine right now, Russia is suffering and having many defeats. I think we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from that when it comes to their overall capabilities. Russia has capabilities in the airspace, maritime as well as land, that are not currently being used in Ukraine, as well as nuclear weapons, as another example.
So, what are the threats to us? Right now there’s no immediate threat, from our perspective, in the Arctic for an attack in the next day or next year, but it is something we’re watching very closely and we need to be prepared for that, not just Russia, but in the future China as well, as was mentioned earlier.
What capabilities do they have? What concerns us from a NORAD perspective — you would have heard this from the commander of NORAD — is primarily related to their upgraded cruise missiles and hypersonics, as well as their capabilities underwater when it comes to submarines, and the commander of the Navy can expand upon that.
Our focus is on domain awareness. We need to be able to see the threats be able to deter or defeat them. Until we have that full picture, we are not able, based on our size and our geography, to be able to address all the threats out there. That’s why I’m excited about NORAD modernization, where we will have over-the-horizon radars that will give us some of that domain awareness, as well as increased satellite capabilities in the coming years, integrated into a digitized command-and-control system that will see upgrades to our operation centres in the air defence sector, all based on what we expect would be the latest technology, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, so we can take the domain awareness and turn it into information dominance and, ideally, decision superiority. That will take time. In the meantime, we do have very capable assets and crews that are able to respond.
I’ll leave it there to see if others wish to add.
VAdm. Topshee: My colleague from the air force has described the situation very well. All I will add is that the Russians were very careful to preserve their submarine capability as the focus of their investments when it came to maritime capability, so the Russian submarine fleet remains one of the best in the world. Of course, that is what we monitor most closely.
[Translation]
Lieutenant-General Jocelyn Paul, Commander, Canadian Army, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: I would like to add that, from a land operations point of view, I would say that where the Russian forces in Ukrainian territory distinguish themselves, is probably in long-range engagement.
I would like to remind everyone that military capacity requires you to combine three things correctly: training, equipment and people. So, we must make sure that we do not focus too much on just equipment. What we are currently seeing in the Ukrainian theatre of operations clearly shows that even if you are less well equipped, you will be able to defend yourself and sometimes make progress as long as you are well trained and well led.
[English]
Senator Duncan: I’d like to thank the panel for being with us today.
Senator Dagenais introduced me as Senator Duncan. I would elaborate that I’m the senator from the Yukon, to put it into context.
I have tremendous admiration and appreciation, as has already been expressed, for your work, and recognition also of your need for resources. This is a very large country to serve and protect. Senator Richards mentioned that there seems to be a dependence on the south for military presence, and there was mention of the coast. No one has mentioned the West Coast and the Northwest Coast, specifically the Yukon-Alaska border. I would like to ask, first of all, if you could elaborate. I’m acutely conscious and grateful for the American presence in Alaska, including their F-35s, which are a lot closer than the ones in Cold Lake. Perhaps Lieutenant-General Kenny could address the interoperability of the Canadian and Alaskan American air force resources, please.
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question.
I’m able to look at it through the lens of NORAD, which is, as I described earlier, a binational command focused primarily on the air domain, as well as the maritime warning, as you heard earlier.
We often go to Alaska to do our training, and the U.S. comes to Canada to do training as well. We talk daily between the Canadian NORAD region and the Alaska NORAD region to ensure that we’re tightly aligned and seeing the same picture, working through the NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs.
We recognize that they have F-35s now in Alaska. They are using their F-22s and, recently, F-16s to do that NORAD mission. Those F-35s are not currently being used for that NORAD mission. However, we do exercises once a year in Alaska where we fly with our F-18s and F-35s, as well as other assets, to make sure that we remain interoperable. We need to be aware that the F-35 provides a very specific capability for that generation, often described that way. There are many nations, including Canada, that continue to fly the F-18s, F-16s, F-15s — what we would consider fourth-generation aircraft — and they will be there for a long period of time. We need to be able to operate fourth- and fifth-generation fighter aircraft seamlessly, because that is what will be there in the decades to come, irrespective of what our final decisions will be on future fighters.
I realize that is a long answer, but we’re well integrated with Alaska, primarily through NORAD but also through exercises that we do at least yearly. I’m just talking fighters. I could go on with other aspects beyond fighters.
Senator Duncan: Perhaps I focused a little too much on the F-35. To build on Senator Dasko’s questions about Russia and the importance of the current situation, there have been recent news stories of interception by the Americans of Russian aircraft, preventing their entry into North American airspace, and there are also Russians seeking asylum after reaching remote Alaskan islands and Russians being stopped at the Canadian border. That interoperability is through the Yukon, and I would like to hear from you an emphasis on how Canada, specifically the Yukon, also fits into this picture. We seem to be almost a flyover territory as opposed to being part of the solution and part of the Canadian military presence.
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question.
We are doing routine operations over the Yukon, over the Northwest Territories, as well as over Alaska.
The recent intercept you talked about with the Alaskan NORAD region intercepting Russian aviation as entering into their identification zone is correct. Not that long ago, we also had aircraft flying into the Canadian air defence sector. Russia does this on a regular basis, yearly. We’ve seen less of it since the Ukraine conflict has occurred, but it does continue to occur.
We operate out of Whitehorse, often with our tankers and transport aircraft. I’m talking from an air perspective, because we can cover fairly large areas in a short period of time. There are other aspects, and, if you wish, we can talk about the Rangers and other components within the different territories and in the Yukon that might play a part in overall military defence.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you all for being here. I apologize for being a bit late. I have a couple of questions. I’m not sure I will get all of them answered.
Let me start with our visit to the North. I have a deep appreciation for the challenges that you folks are charged with protecting and, equally, the challenges in dealing with the communities in the North, recognizing that we haven’t done things very well. I think there’s an openness to do it better, as we go forward, with the communities there.
The NORAD upgrade in capabilities that our governments are committed to, both Canada and the U.S., I see as a major opportunity to have a conversation with Canadians as to what this represents. If you ask most Canadians what this represents, most will probably scratch their heads, to a large extent, and say that it’s something to do with Colorado maybe. They’re not sure what that is.
Given that there are three levels of the military, I assume it’s not just about the satellite capabilities and what we may develop to replace the equipment that we have there. If we don’t have a properly functioning navy to respond to the sea challenges, we’re not going to be able to defend the North, and the same if we don’t have a proper air force. We did see part of our air force and the capability. I wasn’t exactly impressed, but given the reality of life, we’re making do in the meantime. Of course, working with the Rangers in the North will play an important role in our presence.
In all of this, how do we get Canadians involved in this conversation? This is not just a question of money; it’s a question of our security. We have seen with Ukraine, I think, that more Canadians will be morally heightened about what our Arctic security represents. I don’t think we’re having that conversation. I’m honoured that my colleagues and I were able to travel to see some challenges we face, but this conversation is needed for Canadians to appreciate why we are spending this money, why we may have to spend more of it and what are we involved in regarding the country’s future. Climate change is changing how we’re going to deal with the North. We have to think 10, 15, 20 years out because of the reality it is changing at a speed we have yet to appreciate here in the South.
I’ll start with those general comments, and then I may have some about hypersonic missiles that you may or may not be able to answer.
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question. It is a great question.
I believe that what you’re doing right now is helping to speak to Canadians about the vastness of the Arctic, the opportunities within the Arctic as well as the security concerns through the Arctic. We are blessed by geography and a strong partner to the south. We recognize that, if you look at our history, most Canadians would not necessarily believe that there’s much to be concerned about when it comes to their security, at least in the short term. The reality is that our adversaries have developed capabilities that no longer make us a sanctuary that we once subscribed to. Therefore, NORAD modernization, as one example, is how we’re looking to address, from a defence perspective, how we can detect and deter those types of threats from escalating. It is a constant discussion that I believe is necessary to ensure that we holistically understand. In particular, with the Ukraine conflict, there’s been more of a discussion.
I’ll defer to my colleagues if they wish to add anything.
VAdm. Topshee: I agree with my colleague from the air force that this is helpful to creating the strategic conversation that we need to have in Canada.
I would say that we are seeing an investment in that. We are in the midst of the largest recapitalization of the Canadian Navy since the Second World War. We have taken delivery of three of the Arctic and offshore patrol ships that give us a capability we haven’t had to patrol the Arctic and respond since the 1950s. We’re in the process of developing the Canadian surface combatant which will make sure that Canada has the ships it needs to meet the threats of the 21st century. We are continuing to make sure that the Victoria-class submarines and the Halifax class remain capable and sufficient to meet the threats of today. It’s never ideal. As commander of the navy, I always want more and better ships. What we have at the moment is sufficient to meet the needs and, more importantly, the plans that we have to build the force we need are in motion now.
LGen. Paul: When it comes down to the Rangers and Canadian Army, I would like to remind everybody that this year we are celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Rangers. With the army, we do have lots of publicity about it. We are going to have the Army Run over the next few weeks here in Ottawa. They will be the main feature of this year’s Army Run.
When it comes down to the capability within the army right now, we are working hard on what we call the Canadian Ranger enhancement program. Between now and the next few years, 2025-26, we will be having a second look at everything that has to do with the Rangers: policy, manning, human resources, training and equipment.
As we are working and planning at enhancing the Rangers’ capability, let me reassure you to the effect that we are doing that hand in hand with the leadership of the Rangers, and not only the leadership located in the south but also the Rangers Patrol, the people who are doing that not for a living but the people who are truly committed to delivering this effect. I would like to leverage the opportunity to highlight the amazing work done by the Rangers community, people basically giving about 10 days on average a year to help the local community but also to help Canada. All of that is being done with, sometimes, limited means.
Also, I must say that it is fantastic for us as an army to be able to go up in the North, to get there, to be welcomed into these communities and to be taught how to survive in the Arctic on both coasts. Most of the people in the army are youth from the large urban settings of our nation. When we do these training events with the Rangers, it’s really, “Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours,” or as we say in French, give-give. Both groups are helping, enabling one another. For m of the young soldiers I talk to when they come back from these training events, it’s almost like a life-changing type of event for them. They’re learning so much by going to the remote and isolated communities of our nation.
Senator Yussuff: I don’t envy, Mr. Page, your job in procurement. Everybody would tell you that you need to do it yesterday and you need to do it at cost. I understand the challenges we face.
One of the things we’re faced with as a country is that nothing stands still in regard to meeting our security threat. As we’re looking at renewing NORAD, we now have hypersonic missiles moving at a speed that we did not appreciate or understand, and now that is a new threat to the country.
In regard to NORAD renewal, my worry is, do we have the capabilities? How quickly can we respond? But, equally, what does this add to the challenges the country needs to also think about into the future, because this is now a reality for our adversaries in regard to how they can threaten our security?
The last point I would make is that I have a far greater appreciation for our American friends in terms of North American defence. I understand the North far better, and we couldn’t do this by ourselves. It is a vast territory, and without the Americans, I don’t think we have that appreciation. I also believe Canadians, in general, don’t appreciate this reality. Until you go there, you don’t appreciate how vast the region is but also the important role of this integration of how we defend the North. I am not doing this out of ignorance, not knowing. Now that I do know, how do Canadians connect with this reality, because we can’t separate it? It’s not the same with NATO. The U.S. relationship is very different than the NATO relationship, even though we’re all part of NATO. How do we help Canadians, in general, understand this but equally deal with this new threat in terms of hypersonic missiles that are now part of the theatre of military warfare?
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question. I’ll start off. If my colleagues wish to add, I’ll move to them.
All of our allies are looking at hypersonics and, specifically, how can you track, identify and then, if required, target? It’s a shared challenge amongst allies, as we know. As we develop new capability, so does the adversary. We’re always looking at making sure that we remain operationally effective and have an operational advantage. We need to be careful of getting into a contest of trying to go one-for-one with each new capability upgrade. We need to recognize that one way of dealing with that is to wait until it occurs and then going after multiple things, or try to get ahead of it left of launch, as was described by the commander of NORAD.
What can we do to understand the situation and share information so that we don’t get into that particular situation? Because there’s always going to be the challenge of having enough capability to defeat that specific threat. It’s an area of research and development that we’re all putting funding towards to ensure that solution sets could be found.
My point is that we want to avoid getting into a one-for-one defence against different types of missiles coming in at us. It’s a layered approach, as you would know, that involves all of the services, to include NORAD depending upon where you’re at. Thank you.
VAdm. Topshee: Picking up on the other part of the question, one of the challenges we face is that, as you pointed out, not enough Canadians know about the work that we do in the North and across Canada. That is one of the challenges all three of us feel front of mind. I’m inspired every day by the great Canadians who serve in the Royal Canadian Navy, but there are not enough. We need to try to find new ways to attract Canadians to serve in all of our armed services. That is a problem that is probably the number one ask facing us as service commanders. Any advice or assistance you can offer would be most welcome.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: My question is for Mr. Kenny. Last week, the American army intercepted two Russian bombers near the coast of Alaska.
Instead of venturing closer to American territory, what if these Soviet aircraft had approached Canada? Would we have had the ability to react as quickly, as a country, with our current equipment? In how much time? Would we have had to rely on an allied country to do it?
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question. NORAD is responsible for that mission. We are working with Alaska, here in Canada, but also with the United States, in order to be sure we have intelligence and are ready to react every day. If Russia or other countries want to enter Canada or come close to it, we can be there and make sure our sovereignty is well guarded.
Yes, if Russia wants to venture closer to Canada, we can ensure that we will be there. We would do it mainly with our F-18s and other aircraft that can provide what we need most. I think we are doing very good work. We also have a prevention plan, to make sure we have the readiness capacity for anything Russia is doing now, for everything they’re doing; it’s important for us to do it too. Thank you.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you again to our guests. We appreciate the dialogue we have with you. You talked about recruitment. Indeed, it is another significant challenge to overcome. It does not matter if we have the best equipment and more of it; if we have no one to operate it, we are not further ahead. It is quite a challenge to attract young people into the Armed Forces, and it must be done in the short term because we cannot train soldiers in six months.
Resupply is a significant challenge in the North. We have two Polaris aircraft, I think, which ensure resupply in the North. Canada committed to buying Airbus A330s. Two have been purchased, or are being purchased, and there may be four others that will be added to the fleet.
What is the deadline for the two Airbus 330s to be able to fly? They have to be transformed into refuelling planes.
Mr. Page: Thank you for the question. As you said, we are currently contracting with Airbus to purchase the A330-200. For one of the components, the purchase of two used planes, the deadline is the start of 2023, and for the second, it’s later in 2023. When I talk about the deadlines, I mean commissioning, so for the first, at the beginning of 2023, ready for —
Senator Boisvenu: It will be transformed.
Mr. Page: Yes, absolutely. As for the next four or five, the timeline is longer. It will be a combination because we’re wondering what to do with Airbus. Do we go back to buying used planes, or buy new planes from the factory?
LGen. Kenny: If I may add a point, both planes we are getting in 2023 will be used for transportation. It will take several years before we can convert them and do air-to-air refuelling. We will use the A310 until they are ready. We also have more money, as part of modernizing NORAD, to buy more equipment like what we just talked about.
Senator Boisvenu: What is the lifespan of Polaris aircraft? For how many years are they still good? Those planes are older.
LGen. Kenny: Thank you for the question. They will be around until 2026, but we have plans to ensure that they remain in use until we can convert the A330-200s.
Senator Audette: Today is a historic moment. I am replacing Senator Gignac and I can sit next to a Wendat, Lieutenant-General Jocelyn Paul. Everyone should know just how proud I am of that. At the same time, the mandate is also to make proposals and recommendations.
We saw the Rangers during the pandemic. We saw them after losing a loved one, during the national inquiry, doing research, or we simply see them on the ground.
If we had to make a recommendation to ensure we feel that the North is really well represented... Because if we don’t go to the North, we don’t know. I know that my colleagues went, and since then, they’ve talked about it in all of the committees. They’ve said just how touched they were by this visit. What should we recommend to ensure there’s more Indigenous people and more training, Lieutenant-General Paul?
LGen. Paul: First, I would like to remind listeners that we are very pleased to have around 23% or 24% of members in the Rangers program from Indigenous populations. It’s not just Indigenous people, of course. In Newfoundland and Labrador, in British Columbia, etc., we have people from all walks of life working in the Ranger group.
More broadly, when it comes to the presence of Indigenous people within the Armed Forces and land forces, we have different programs in place. The first is a yearly program for people to try out leadership at the Royal Military College, in Kingston. We offer an opportunity for youth to do a preparatory year at the Royal Military College to eventually become an officer in the Armed Forces. We also have a three-week program in Saint-Jean, where young people from First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities can get a taste of military experience, and maybe consider a career afterwards. Finally, summer programs are offered in the Maritimes, in Quebec, in Ontario and in the West.
The Navy also has a program; basically, young Indigenous people receive training over the summer for a period of seven, eight or nine weeks. It’s a very interesting program where we teach about military life and offer spiritual and cultural teaching. The idea of the summer program was to train people who would join the Primary Reserve.
Last summer, in Western Canada, in Wainwright, we trained a cohort of over 90 graduates. That’s a record number, so it was excellent. Over in Quebec, we saw great success; over 30 graduates, and some of them are in the regular forces.
As the champion for Indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, being from First Nations myself, this is near and dear to my heart. In the past, the army commander always had an Indigenous advisor to help manage these programs. With my Indigenous background, I was always looking for good advice, but I took the idea and the initiative to duplicate the program. Now, I have two advisors: one who focuses on the regular forces, and one who focuses on the Primary Reserve.
This is certainly an area where we would like to increase Indigenous representation in the Canadian Armed Forces more generally. These are deliberate efforts.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you to the three witnesses.
I’m going to start the same as, I think, Senator Yussuff — or maybe Senator Dasko — and talk about recruitment. We’re not in 1945, I know that, and we can never go back to that, but in 1945 we had the third-largest navy and the fourth-largest army in the world. Now we have about 50,000 service men and women. With the size of this country, that is rather minuscule. I respect every one of them, but I am saying that it is a little bit small for the area they have to cover internally and externally, if we have to. That’s not even a full division, really. I’m wondering about the impact of the morale in the Canadian military and certain things that have divided this country in the last four or five years. What would be the main way to get a better policy for recruitment to get more men and women into the Armed Forces? Does the Vice-Admiral have any idea of how to do this? Don’t leave it up to me, because I can’t do it. I’ll tell you that.
VAdm. Topshee: It is my number one priority as the commander of the Navy, because right now we’re about 1,400 sailors short. We are launching an expedited entry pilot program which aims to bring people into the Canadian Navy in around one sixth of the time it’s currently taking us, get them onto ships within three months of joining the military, employing them as sailors, getting them to see the world, which is the value proposition for the Navy. If they like serving in the Navy, we will align them to an occupation that will allow them to continue to serve for a full career. We see this as an opportunity potentially for someone who isn’t sure what they want to do with their lives, looking to take a year or two to have an experience, see the world, gain some skills and learn about themselves and leadership, and that’s the program we’re putting in place. We hope to launch it early in the new year.
Senator Richards: What do you think would be the optimum number for service men and women in this country? If we had a couple hundred thousand, wouldn’t that be a lot better than 50,000?
VAdm. Topshee: Quantity always has a wonderful quality, but all these decisions are really difficult decisions for Canada because any resources we invest in defence come at the expense of other programs across Canada. I do not envy the task of the government to best allocate the precious resources of Canadian taxpayers.
We’ll always give advice as to what we think Canada needs, but at the end of the day, it’s our job to ensure we employ the forces and resources we’re given to best effect for Canada.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: To conclude, I would like to thank our witnesses from the Department of National Defence, and from Public Services and Procurement Canada. You play a very important role in our country’s security. As you know, the world stage is changing due to of events in Ukraine caused by Russia, and China, who has an eye on Taiwan. I hope we will not go back to the Cold War we once knew. Your work is highly appreciated. Canadians count on you to ensure their safety. Thank you, again.
We will now move on to our second panel. I remind you that our subject today is the procurement of Arctic-capable assets. We now welcome from the Canadian Coast Guard, Andy Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Shipbuilding and Materiel; Neil O’Rourke, Assistant Commissioner, Arctic Region; and, Farhat Khan, Director General, Investment Planning, Materiel and Procurement Management. Finally, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, we have Simon Page, Assistant Deputy Minister, Defence and Marine Procurement. Thank you to all of you for joining us. We invite you to present your opening statement, which will be followed by questions from our members. Mr. Smith, you may begin as soon as you are ready.
[English]
Andy Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Shipbuilding and Materiel, Canadian Coast Guard: Good evening, committee members. As advertised, my name is Andy Smith and I am the Deputy Commissioner of Shipbuilding and Materiel at the Canadian Coast Guard. I am pleased to be here today with the Assistant Commissioner of Coast Guard Arctic Region, Neil O’Rourke, and Farhat Khan from our chief financial office. As we look to talk about procurement in the North, I’m also particularly pleased to be here with my colleague and friend, Mr. Page, who I know well and with whom I’m in daily contact as we look to work and advance the fleet renewal file for the Canadian Coast Guard. I note that I am speaking with you from the unceded territory of the Algonquin-Anishinaabe people.
[Translation]
We are pleased to be here today, as representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard, to speak about the role that our organization plays in the Arctic, recent activities under the National Shipbuilding Strategy and the long-term planning we are undertaking to improve marine safety and security in the Arctic.
[English]
A few weeks ago, we were pleased to host committee members in Iqaluit and provide you with additional information for the study of security and defence in the Arctic. It was a unique opportunity to discuss the Coast Guard’s role in Arctic security on behalf of Canadians, explain first-hand the implementation of our Arctic Region in collaboration with Indigenous partners, showcase our activities in the North, such as our marine communications and traffic services centre, and introduce committee members to our dedicated employees.
This year, the Coast Guard is celebrating its sixtieth anniversary.
[Translation]
Over the years, the Coast Guard has witnessed many changes in the North, partly due to climate change, changing landscape, an increased international interest and a growing domestic population.
Through these changes, the Canadian Coast Guard has, and will continue to, play a critical role in Arctic safety and security.
[English]
The Canadian Coast Guard is a mission-ready, 24-hour-a-day organization seven days a week and operates in almost any and all weather conditions during the Arctic shipping season. When extreme weather hits and other vessels are being called into port, Coast Guard vessels are often tasked to head out to sea to save lives, to provide assistance to vessels in distress, to provide safe passage for vessels transiting ice-covered waterways and to free vessels that have become trapped in ice. Our icebreaking program contributes to Arctic sovereignty through the vital resupply of Northern communities, provide support to other government agencies and organizations and maintains a visible federal government marine presence in the Canadian Arctic. In addition to icebreaking, we also ensure the safety and security of mariners through the delivery of increasingly in-demand programs and services in Canadian Arctic waters, such as search and rescue, aids to navigation and environmental response.
[Translation]
We also provide critical ship-to-shore communications and traffic services so that mariners have the necessary navigational information at hand at all times.
This maritime traffic information is helpful for our own domain awareness, and to support other government departments and agencies in support of Canadian sovereignty and security.
[English]
The Coast Guard is the most visible federal presence in Arctic waters.
I would also like to briefly highlight the critical role we play in support of Arctic science. Whether through our partnership with the ArcticNet program, where one of our icebreakers is used as a science platform, or through our surveying work in partnership with the Canadian Hydrographic Service, we are the backbone of Canada’s northern marine science efforts.
[Translation]
We are proud of these Coast Guard services, carried out by our Arctic Region, created in 2018, under the leadership of Assistant Commissioner O’Rourke.
This work will continue in the Arctic and will be further strengthened in the years to come.
[English]
Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, we are renewing our entire large ship fleet, which is a game changer for the Arctic Region. The NSS is revitalizing and reinvigorating Canada’s marine industry while also ensuring employees of the Canadian Coast Guard have effective and modern equipment to continue serving Canadians. The addition of two polar icebreakers under the National Shipbuilding Strategy will enable the Coast Guard to operate in the Canadian High Arctic throughout the year and provide a capability unmatched to date by the current fleet. These two vessels, in addition to the funding for up to six program icebreakers and two Arctic and offshore patrol ships, will position the Coast Guard to fully support government programming in the Arctic. With a keen eye to the future, we are positioning ourselves to accept these new ships, transition them into service to support program delivery and support them through their operational lives.
[Translation]
We are also working to develop our first Arctic Strategy, which will provide a strategic direction for our future services.
[English]
We’re aware that the decades to come will bring many more changes to the Arctic, and the development of such a strategy will be ever-evolving. It is with this strategic planning that we position and strengthen the Coast Guard for the long term and further improve our capacity to ensure marine safety and security in the Arctic.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
Mr. O’Rourke, Ms. Khan and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Smith.
We will now proceed to question period. I would like to remind honourable senators to be concise in their questions in order to allow as many interventions as possible. I would also ask witnesses to be concise in their responses.
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to our guests. Is Davie Shipbuilding part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy?
Mr. Page: At the moment, Davie Shipbuilding is part of the strategy under pillar 3, which is a maintenance, refit and repair pillar. If you look at the information I gave earlier about the activities of the Davie shipyard, these are the activities we are talking about at the moment. We are still in the process of qualifying Davie Shipbuilding to become our third strategic partner in the construction of large vessels as part of the strategy.
Senator Boisvenu: It was in 2020 that the government committed to recognizing the Davie shipyard as part of the strategy. When we consider all the delays in building ships, both icebreakers and naval vessels, what is stopping the government from recognizing the Davie shipyard, which has about 100 years of experience in building ships? What is preventing the government from recognizing this shipyard to accelerate the construction and not just the refurbishment of ships?
Mr. Page: We are very aware that Canada wants to accelerate the qualification of the shipyard. Nothing is stopping us. We are in the process of carrying out the process, which is relatively complex. We have to make sure that the shipyard has the technical and financial capabilities, the human resources, that it has very specific modernization plans and that it is capable of building the complex vessels required by the Canadian Coast Guard. So it’s not a question of what’s stopping us, it’s a question of completing the process and bringing it to completion.
Senator Boisvenu: In Quebec, we have been fighting since 2015 to have Davie Shipbuilding recognized in the National Shipbuilding Strategy. I find it unacceptable that seven years later, in 2022, we are still being told about a complex process. That is my comment.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here today. I appreciate it. I understand it’s a complex and long process.
I’m going to touch on shipbuilding as it connects to climate change and procurement. The National Shipbuilding Strategy was kicked off, as we all know, in 2010, and for ships as large as the polar icebreakers, it’s a long time from vision to bids to being finished and delivered. It’s become clear in the last decade that the Arctic is warming much faster than we originally anticipated, and I’m wondering how these projects that have the vision and the look ten years ago adapt to the needs and conditions in which the vessels will ultimately operate 30 years hence.
Mr. Smith: Thank you for the question. It’s a great question.
In the first instance, as we get into the deeper stages of design of the polar icebreaker, we’re taking very clear steps to future-proof the ship as much as possible to be ready for future programming. That will include at some point in time a reduction of fossil fuel engines into technology that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example.
With the program icebreakers and the polar icebreakers, we are introducing a concept called “modularity,” where, using standard International Organization for Standardization sea containers, we will be able to plug-and-play mission sets — whether they be science, whether they be environmental response, whether they be search and rescue — on the ships so that the ships will be able to offer more programming in the future.
Another thing that is interesting and maybe a little bit counterintuitive to your point about climate change is that as the Arctic continues to warm, some would say that there should be less icebreaking. Actually, it’s often more challenging now, given the multi-year ice which will break off and come further south and then freeze again, and it’s even more hazardous to shipping. I think for the foreseeable future, we’re going to be faced with that challenge as well.
Senator M. Deacon: Yes, we learned that little ice story when we were away, because that was, perhaps, a perception.
I know you were here earlier. I’m not going to reword the question, but I mentioned lighthouses. I don’t know if there is anything else you want to add to that response.
Mr. Smith: Your question is an informed one in terms of the challenges in terms of manning lighthouses. It’s well recognized within the Coast Guard. The recruitment and retention policy for Coast Guard light keepers is a challenging one. It’s not everybody who would like to be a lighthouse keeper. It’s one of the priorities that we keep working on. My navy colleague was right in that automation can help, but it won’t ever replace fully, I don’t think, the lighthouse keeper requirement. It’s a small but vocal and necessary community within the Coast Guard, which we pay attention to.
Senator M. Deacon: Any ideas on attracting and retention in 2022?
Mr. Smith: Not off the top of my head. I’m happy to take that question away. It’s something that I know the commissioner and the previous commissioner paid an awful lot of attention to. I’ll leave it there.
Senator M. Deacon: When we were in the North, the question was asked, and sometimes the answer was — I’m very speculative — but almost really specific to an area. I was wondering if there was a broader strategy.
Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much for being here, and Assistant Commissioner O’Rourke, good to see you again. You gave us quite a good briefing up in Iqaluit, as did your colleagues.
I’m following up on my colleague Senator Deacon’s question. With, shall we say, climate change and more ice melt, there’s a lot more tourism coming through, perhaps into the Northwest Passage, some coming from Europe. Of course, as the Coast Guard and Canada, we have obligations under international maritime law and practice to help those in distress. Of course, there are finite resources.
As you plan ahead, are you looking at more consultation with the Indigenous communities and the Inuit in particular in terms of helping on this front or bringing the community more into activities? They have certain skills and traditions that can be very helpful. We heard about, for example, the location of a crashed helicopter, which was really found by the Indigenous communities using techniques that they have learned over the centuries. I’m wondering if that is part of your policy thinking, looking ahead.
Mr. Smith: I would ask Neil O’Rourke to answer that, but the short answer is yes. As I look to pass the baton to him, I will also say that we are dealing with our multinational partners as well and looking to do multinational search and rescue operations, and we are learning to understand how better to address something like a larger scale search and rescue, driven potentially by ecotourism, amongst other things in the North. It is a risk area, as well.
Senator Boehm: You could see yourself working with Greenland?
Mr. Smith: Or the French or any of the other Arctic nations with whom we have great relations, yes.
Neil O’Rourke, Assistant Commissioner, Arctic Region, Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you for the question.
To build on my colleague’s comments, absolutely. The longer response to the yes is that we do, and one of the reasons we established the Arctic Region in the first place was to give us a greater capacity to be able to work very closely with Inuit, First Nations and Métis across the North.
We have over the last couple of years established a formal governance with Inuit, so with ITK, which is the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national Inuit organization, and it includes all the members that are typically at that ITK table. We meet and actually talk about joint priority setting, so we are very much committed to the process of not only the collaboration that we are doing today but increasing that into the future.
When you talk specifically about the cruise ship industry, there are a couple of other points that I would add. We do work very closely with the Coast Guard Auxiliary. We’ve grown the auxiliary in the North significantly over the last several years, and that’s an excellent way for us to tap into the local knowledge — in this case, mostly Inuit knowledge — that resides in people who live in that community and understand the waters and the area around there, and that’s very useful for the entirety of our search and rescue program. Of course, it’s very helpful when there are lost hunters from that community, but it’s also very helpful when we might have a cruise ship or other incidents that are in the North.
We also, as a part of our search and rescue team, work very closely with the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators or AECO, which is an international organization that, as you may suspect, has expedition cruise ships. Most of those that operate in Canada are part of this association, and we have been working very closely with them over the last three years. Specifically, during the pandemic, we took it as an opportunity to do a lot of tabletop exercising with the cruise operators themselves. As you’re likely aware, Transport Canada had restrictions in place where they were not able to operate for the last two years, so we collectively took that opportunity to strengthen our relationships. Our search and rescue program is able to pull those elements and that knowledge from the local Inuit through the work in the auxiliary into the work that we do with cruise ship operators.
Bringing it back to the international piece, absolutely, we work very closely with the Danish defence forces out of Greenland, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard out of 17th District in Alaska. We work with all of the Arctic partners, but that’s especially my focus, because they are our two next-door neighbours. I would note that part of that conversation that we have both in the U.S. and with our Danish defence force colleagues very much involves the circumpolar nature of Inuit. Not only is there a formal association of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, but there are a lot of informal ties between Inuit, especially in Alaska, in the north of Canada and in Greenland, and we’re very cognizant of that, not only in the Canadian Coast Guard but in our partner organizations as well.
Thanks.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you all for being here.
Mr. O’Rourke, thank you for your generous efforts in the North and guiding us through some of what your department is doing.
I have two questions, and this is, obviously, with the ongoing effort to renew the fleet and to secure new equipment.
What is the department thinking in the long-term in terms of jobs that could benefit the communities in the North? We did see, of course, your maintenance yard in Nunavut, and I have to say that it was a bit challenging for me to get my head around. It wasn’t a heated yard for doing repairs in the middle of winter, and that’s a huge problem. Equally, I think, as we’re thinking forward and as the Arctic continues to melt, how do we renew those facilities? How do we provide opportunities for the communities in the North to be able to see this as a way of coming closer to the efforts as we secure a much stronger and deeper presence in the North?
Mr. Smith: I’ll ask Mr. O’Rourke to speak about some of the inshore rescue boat initiatives we have.
With respect to your question around vessel maintenance and shipyards in the North, I acknowledge it’s a challenge. In the foreseeable future, our icebreakers will continue to be based in the South and transit to the North, operate in the North and then transit back to the South for maintenance. The establishment of a repair facility in the North that could service ships year-round, with the investment that would take by industry, I would submit at this point in time it is an insurmountable task, not something we’re actively considering doing ourselves. There is a facility in Hay River that has some limited maintenance capabilities, but for any deep maintenance on the ships, that will be done in the South.
We’re watching closely, obviously, as the Navy looks to establish its base in Nanisivik and what that might mean and how we might partner with them in terms of if it were to go from refuelling on to more of a maintenance footing, but those are preliminary discussions only at this time.
Mr. O’Rourke: Thank you for the question.
Building on Deputy Commissioner Smith’s answers, we’ve heard about the fleet maintenance. The other side of the fleet is the operation of the ships themselves. One of the things we have been doing in the last few years is looking at eliminating some of the challenges that we have right now in hiring northerners into the fleet. We have many different kinds of crewing models, but one of the ones we use for the large ships is 28 days on, 28 days off. Roughly you’re at sea for a month and then at home for a month. We see great opportunities to allow northerners to maintain a traditional life in their communities but also come and work for the Coast Guard.
We’ve been working closely with Transport Canada who has been working with the Nunavut Fisheries and Marine Training Consortium to train mariners in Iqaluit with basic marine certification which would allow us to hire them. That’s one of the challenges we had to work through. Unfortunately, during COVID, all that programming had to shut down, but it is now up and running again, so we’re looking forward to being able to leverage and bring some of those successful candidates into the Coast Guard.
Aside from the fleet, we also have an array of other jobs, everything from administrative to search and rescue technicians to environmental response. Across the board, the Arctic Region is looking at how we can bring more northerners in. We’ve been successful in hiring northerners to date. The depot, of course, that you had mentioned was the environmental response people that we have in Iqaluit, which indeed is not heated at the moment. For the first ever time, we hired five permanent staff in Iqaluit, and we’re going to build from there, including ensuring they have all the tools necessary to be able to do their jobs properly.
At every turn in the North, hiring seems to be a challenge because it’s not only about finding the people, but it’s also ensuring there can be office space and housing, which in many communities is a challenge. There are rules and regulations when you’re a federal government employee that either we can offer you Crown housing or an amount in lieu of. Those remain some real challenges, but they are things we’re committed to working through, not only in our own organization but across the federal government, working with other federal departments as well to have lessons learned.
Maybe I’ll end with the note that we’re working with Fisheries and Oceans, the other half of our department, and Inuit specifically to develop a recruitment and retention strategy for Inuit Nunangat. Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Obviously you speak to some of the offshore vessels, whether it is patrol ships or icebreakers. What other equipment would be helpful for the Coast Guard to meet Arctic security going forward or is something that might be needed? We heard a particular story about a European from Poland getting lost several times and you had to rescue him. I assume there’s going to be more of this as the Arctic becomes more navigational during the period of the summer. What else do you need in the North? I am not suggesting that you rescue one person several times, but given the reality, how do we better deal with this going forward? We must recognize, as my colleague suggested, there will be more traffic in the area, and we would have to respond to this.
Mr. Smith: I would offer a few things. In many cases, we’re looking to pre-position supplies so that we do not have to transport them with us up there, whether it be for search and rescue or environmental response. As we look to cut steel on the polar icebreaker by 2025 with a view to having it in service by 2030, we’re also looking at the very narrow market on what could serve as a polar helicopter that could fly in all conditions in the Arctic. It would really be a game changer to be able to do that. Those are some immediate thoughts.
Senator Dasko: I was going to refer as well to the Polish gentleman that you rescued four times. That story stuck with me. I think you tried to make the point about the situation that it was without remuneration.
For me, it raises the question about tourism — people adventuring to the North and tourism in all its forms, adventurers and tourists. Are you spending more of your time on tourist activities? Of course, because of environmental opportunities, people are more likely to be travelling around the North and wanting to travel through the Northwest Passage and so on. Are you spending more of your time on tourist surveillance and search and rescue, or are you actually spending more of your time on security operations, however defined?
Mr. O’Rourke: Thank you for the question.
Since 2018 and the launch of the Arctic Region, I think the Coast Guard has been increasing its focus on Arctic issues generally.
With that said, and understanding the question, are we spending more time? Yes. I don’t think it’s a tremendous amount of time. We pay attention to everything that’s happening in the Arctic, and that includes all the different kinds of mariners that are there. A lot of the services we offer, such as search and rescue and environmental response, are equally as important for local hunters, adventurers, tourists or cruise ships as they are for some of the larger vessels that are doing community resupply or Northwest Passage transits. We continue to ensure that all mariners on the water are safe and that ultimately, if there’s pollution at the ship source, that we’re in a position to be able to clean that up rapidly and/or monitor the polluter. Again, we’re very focused on working with communities.
If you look at some things like what I mentioned, the work with the Arctic expedition cruise operators, that’s something that a few years ago we weren’t doing necessarily, but as they grow in presence in the Arctic, we have invested a bit more time in that relationship, understanding that building the communication, understanding how each other works and being able to better prepare them for their voyages in the North goes a long way towards mitigating these potential situations.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before we get to Senator Duncan’s comment, I too would like to ask you a question.
We know about the current recruiting problems in the military; we hear that there is a shortage of about 14,000 soldiers and we talk about a labour shortage in Canada. I think it’s widespread across the country.
Can you give us a picture of your situation? How is your recruitment going? What are the opportunities for parity in your organization? Do we have the resources in Canada to train your future members?
Mr. Smith: Thanks for the question. This is also an issue for us, as it is for the Navy, as the admiral described earlier.
We have some regional difficulties. In the west, for example, there is a lack of engineers, while in the Atlantic region there is a lack of navigators. We are very aware of this.
There is the Canadian Coast Guard College in Sydney, Cape Breton. If you ever have the opportunity to visit this college, take the time to do so, it’s a jewel; it’s a little-known academy in Canada, unfortunately. The training that is offered there and the quality of education for navigators and engineers is world class. There are ice navigation simulators and real craft simulators for cadets to use.
Currently, our fleet consists of 26 large ships. With the renewal of the fleet, there will be 31. We will need to increase our crews and we have an active recruitment plan. The college, in the last two years, has received larger recruiting classes than ever.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: I’ll try to articulate this the best I can. We had an opportunity to visit the North. That does not make us experts, but it did allow us to have some candid conversations across all aspects of life, whether it’s political or the Coast Guard or the RCMP or local folks or the Rangers, you name it. Some of these trips were on site, and some of them were bringing experts together.
I remember one in particular in Iqaluit, in their cadet hall. We had a day of presentations, and then it finished off with a ministerial presentation on Zoom. As I looked around the room, the feeling was — you could palpate it — that the political announcement piece with numbers and what we have done for you and all the list of things that the government is doing to try to help the Arctic didn’t match up with the feeling in the room, the sort of “by the North, for the North, with the North” connection. I’m not saying one is right or one is wrong.
Through your work, how is it that you are working to ensure that the things that you’re working so hard at are seen on the ground as authentic needs that respond to the needs on the ground? I can’t find a better way to ask the question, but I hope you can understand where I’m coming from.
Mr. O’Rourke: Thank you for the question.
I absolutely understand exactly where you’re coming from. I can maybe say a couple of different things. “By the North, for the North,” as I’m sure you heard multiple times over your journey, is something that we’ve really taken to heart within the Coast Guard and within our department.
To start off, in launching the Arctic Region, we spent 2019 essentially listening to what partners in the North — Inuit, First Nations, Métis and others — wanted and how they wanted to work. We came up with a summary report from the conversations with our Indigenous partners, and we came up with six pillars. One of those was the concept of “by the North, for the North” and not having the conversations that I’ve heard many times, “People in Ottawa are making decisions about us, and they’ve never been to the Arctic.”
Within our department, not only at the Coast Guard level but at our Coast Guard Management Board as well as our departmental management committee — so for all of DFO — we actually adopted that concept as the way that, internally, DFO and the Coast Guard are going to do business moving forward. What that means, fundamentally, is a bit of a change in culture. Typically, there are some defined ways that headquarters and regions work together. In the Arctic, it’s a bit different in our department to make sure there’s a voice from at least the senior management of the department that’s in the North at the management table in Ottawa. The other part of that, of course, is that senior managers and someone like me aren’t going to speak on behalf of northerners. The second part of that equation is to ensure that we are plugged in and working closely with our partners to make sure that, as we’re planning the future of our services and programs and what they’re going to do and what things are going to look like, we actually listen and do that in partnership.
I come back to what I mentioned earlier. We’ve set up a formal governance in that regard with Inuit where we meet quarterly. We have a terms of reference that has been adopted to make sure that we do those kinds of things together on everything from talking about the future of environmental response — the reason we opened a team in Iqaluit was because when we worked with NTI, for example, the comment that was made was that the biggest concern they had was about our capabilities and our footprint on the ground in Nunavut with regard to environmental response. We listened and took action, and we now have a team there. That’s exactly the kind of example. Again, the recruitment and retention strategy might be another one.
I’ll stop there. Hopefully, that has answered the question. We do take it very seriously, and it is something I’ve seen personally as a public servant — an internal change in culture as a result of this concept.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before I conclude with Senator Duncan’s comment, I want to thank our witnesses. I think your explanations are lucid and very clear. With the melting ice and the development of the Arctic, you will play an essential role and we will need your services. I would like to thank you very much.
I will now allow Senator Duncan to make a final comment.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Thank you to the panel. I’d like to thank my colleagues for this moment. I won’t keep you.
The three territories in Canada’s North are as different — if you think of a bowl of fruit — as apples, oranges and bananas. They are completely different. The Yukon is as different from Nunavut and Northwest Territories as Nova Scotia is to British Columbia. I understand the committee’s focus has been on the coast, and we’ve had many witnesses from the Coast Guard and the military presence. There is not a Coast Guard station in the Yukon. The coast is very small. Please understand this is not a criticism of the committee or the committee clerk or anyone involved.
I’m asking you and making a submission in writing to the committee to seriously consider visiting the Yukon in person. You’ve recognized and heard me speak of our proximity to Alaska, and we would be remiss, as the Canadian Senate, if we were to become more fully aware of the military presence in Alaska without also recognizing the Yukon and our proximity and close relationship with Alaska. I’ve made my argument, in both official languages — I apologize for not speaking en français aujourd’hui — to the committee in a personal letter, and I would respectfully submit it for your consideration.
Thank you very much for your time.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Duncan.
This concludes our meeting. The next meeting will be next Monday, October 31, at 4 p.m. ET. Thank you to our witnesses and to all senators.
(The committee adjourned.)