National Defence Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

Thank you for your question.

Is there a need for icebreakers in the military? As you know, we have icebreakers in Canada. The Canadian Coast Guard is world class in terms of their expertise in keeping shipping lanes open when they need to be open in challenging conditions. In fact, quite often, even the U.S. Coast Guard is uncomfortable to move in the north without Canadian icebreakers present, or at least that's my understanding.

In terms of whether we need them and how long we need them, I would be offering an opinion. I think the Canadian Coast Guard may have a much better opinion along those lines.

Do we need icebreakers in the Canadian Forces? No, I don't think we do. We need ice-capable ships. There's a difference. An icebreaker is optimized to actually create a path for shipping through conditions that would not otherwise permit ships to pass. Ice-capable ships can break through a certain amount of ice, and while different capabilities give you the ability to operate in different areas, this gives you an ability to operate where the water is frozen over again, but not to the extent where you actually have to go and smash a channel through it.

Do we need ice-capable ships in the Canadian Forces? Yes, I think we do. By the time we get them, will there be any ice in which we need to be capable? Yes, I think there will. Winter is going to come every year, and every time winter comes in the north, the water freezes. The ocean freezes.

Currently the ships we have in the Canadian navy are relatively thin-skinned because they're designed to be fast, they're designed to be light, and they're designed to operate in different types of environments. They can go up north under certain conditions, but we have to be very careful of where they go in the north.

In order to establish a naval presence in the north, I would say that ice-capable ships are a useful instrument. But do I foresee a high-speed chase through five feet of ice up in the north? No, I do not. I think this is about presence. This is about being able to go places in our north where we're expected to be. It's about seeing this as whole-of-government and making sure that the large investments we're making in capability in the north make sense for Canada and Canadians. And for the part of it that is reasonably Canadian Forces capability, we're working towards it at the moment.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Recognizing that we do not have our own submarines in the Arctic and that there is the transversing done by other countries, including NATO countries, some of which is done by nuclear-powered submarines, in your opinion, for perhaps the patrolling of the Arctic waters for friendly purposes by our allies, do you see a requirement to have any deepwater ports along that coast capable of handling an emergency with radioactivity?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

First of all, going back to your premises, you said that we don't have submarines operating in the Arctic, but we do.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Canadian submarines.

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

We don't have Canadian submarines permanently with a presence in the Arctic at the moment, but we operate our submarines in the Arctic. Our submarines are not capable under ice, but that doesn't mean they're not Arctic-capable submarines.

You say that we have other submarines transiting the north. The impression I get is that you mean they are transiting through our Canadian territorial waters. I would say that we do not have submarines doing that—at least not without our permission and careful control.

So the premise of the question leads me to believe or suggests that we're going to have a lot of nuclear submarines hanging out in the Arctic. I don't think we will. As a result, I don't see a need for a deepwater port that can deal with nuclear accidents. I think it would be a huge investment for nothing.

We do have the ability to respond to nuclear accidents if they occur on either coast. You know that we have a regime in place to allow, in certain areas, visits of nuclear-powered vessels, and we have the ability to deal with the potential consequences of that. I would say that if there is, through some remote set of circumstances, an accident in the north to which we have to respond, then we would look, between ourselves and our allies, at the capability we can deploy to respond to it.

I don't think having a permanent capability in the north would be a good investment, and it would imply that we have a level of activity up there that I don't think we will have

Does that answer your question?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I also want to thank our two witnesses, Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson and Commander Mulholland. Thank you for being with us today.

We will adjourn for five minutes and come back in an in camera meeting. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]