Evidence of meeting #14 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ships.
A recording is available from Parliament.
April 8th, 2022 / 1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, MP Jowhari.
Thank you to the chair and our witnesses who are joining us today.
My question is coming from Richmond, British Columbia. The shipbuilding strategy is extremely important to our marine sector here on the west coast.
My question is for Mr. Choi.
Between 2012 and 2021, we heard from the PSPC that the national shipbuilding strategy has contributed an estimated $21.2 billion to Canada's gross domestic product and created or maintained over 18,000 jobs a year.
What has been the national shipbuilding strategy's contribution to the Canadian economy in recent years in your opinion?
1:45 p.m.
Consultant, Research Fellow, Doctoral Candidate, University of Calgary, As an Individual
To be honest, I don't have a good answer for you on that.
I look at it more in terms of our doing our part in building a capacity and capability in this country to provide this very important strategic capability for this country and our allies.
In terms of this contribution to our economy, every single dollar spent in Canada to pay these shipbuilders goes back to Canadian workers. It comes back to the question of...if we bought ships from abroad, obviously, they have an 100% ITB obligation, but that's not going to go to the same places that it would if we build ships here.
When we build ships here within our own country, the entire supply chain within this country benefits. That ranges from the blue collar workers on the ground up to the engineers sitting in front of their computers. Everybody along the supply chain gets some part of that shipbuilding money, whereas if you're building these abroad, they have no obligation to fulfill their ITB requirements anywhere near as fairly or equitably across all of society, so—
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, Professor Choi. If you have anything further that you'd like to add to that, you could put it in writing and submit it to the clerk. We will distribute it to the members.
Thank you very much.
I will now go to Mrs. Vignola for two and a half minutes.
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Choi, earlier you mentioned the Arctic. I feel the need to work with the Arctic and have vessels for the region is a no-brainer. That said, the offshore and Arctic patrol vessels to be built will not be able to operate in the low Arctic from September to April, because the ice is too thick for those vessels' capacity. However, only two polar icebreakers are potentially being built.
Will two polar icebreakers be enough to supply the materials needed by communities in the Canadian Far North?
If there were a break in service, what would the impact be on these communities' safety and economies?
Also, for over two years now, we've been waiting for a third shipyard to officially qualify to be part of Canada's national shipbuilding strategy. At the end of the day, will this delayed decision cost all Canadians more?
1:45 p.m.
Consultant, Research Fellow, Doctoral Candidate, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Thank you, Madame Vignola. Those are great questions.
Are two polar icebreakers enough for our capacity in the north? Well, it would be a fairly straightforward replacement of our current capacity. It wouldn't be a real expansion of the capacity. Right now we have two heavy icebreakers, or at least that's how the Coast Guard rates them. One of them, the St-Laurent, is more powerful than the other, but they're both rated as heavy icebreakers.
Right now, to the extent that our Coast Guard is able to meet the requirements of the north, replacing them one for one would suggest that it's also enough, but of course we'll have increased traffic in the north and an increased need to have more capacity. If I had it my way, definitely three heavy polar icebreakers would at least be a good start.
It's worth noting that a lot of this depends on the quality of the medium icebreakers that are also going to be built. Will they have an increased icebreaking capability compared with the current medium icebreakers? More importantly, will they be more available because they'll be newer? In essence, that will provide greater capacity to carry out important operations up in the north.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
I apologize for interrupting you, Professor Choi. Unfortunately, we have time commitments. If you would like to provide to the clerk a written answer to the other questions, it would be appreciated. We will distribute it at that point in time.
Mr. Johns, you have two and a half minutes.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Professor Choi, I'm going to go right back to you about the Arctic. You spoke earlier, in answer to a couple of questions, about ensuring that the military and civilian vessels help support Inuit and the communities in the north. Can you speak about the importance of consulting the Arctic communities on ship procurement? What considerations do you think should be raised?
1:50 p.m.
Consultant, Research Fellow, Doctoral Candidate, University of Calgary, As an Individual
One of the most straightforward aspects is, well, should they break the ice at all? A lot of Inuit use iced-over water as their transportation routes as they go from point A to point B. Of course, that also feeds into how they hunt and how they gather local resources.
Consulting them on how we use these icebreakers is absolutely vitally important, but as for consulting them on exactly how the ships will be built or on particular characteristics, I'm not so certain of that myself, unfortunately. That's about all I can tell you.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Do you feel that Canada is doing a good job of consulting them?
1:50 p.m.
Consultant, Research Fellow, Doctoral Candidate, University of Calgary, As an Individual
I don't think they feel that it's a need, but I think it's something we should absolutely go and consider, just to see if perhaps they have some additional insights or opinions on how the icebreakers should be operated and which particular technical aspects may or may not be helpful in their own livelihoods.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Vice-Admiral Norman, I have a quick question. You've probably heard me speak a lot about pushing for more shipbuilding capacity, given dry dock space and the premium of it and demand on the west coast. Do you feel there's a disconnect between Transport Canada and investments from Canada to create more capacity to take on projects and be able to deliver?
I mean, you had great comments about the subs, but do you think there are opportunities for Canada to do more?
1:50 p.m.
VAdm (Ret'd) Mark Norman
I can't speak to what's going on inside Transport Canada, but I can speak at a general level. I do believe we have an opportunity and a responsibility to both build and leverage the capacity. Mr. Choi has made a couple of good comments with respect to broader capacity amongst the allies and how it's shrinking.
So it is in the national interest. I think we need to take a broader look at what we can use the shipyards for. A number of fleets are managed provincially, for example, and most of them are built offshore. They're built offshore because of cost. There's a real opportunity to potentially incentivize a “build in Canada” strategy, which in and of itself will help build and sustain capacity over the long term.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, Admiral, and thank you, Mr. Johns.
We will now go to Mr. Bezan for five minutes.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Admiral Norman, I want to just drill down a little bit more on the whole issue of submarines, given your experience as commander of the navy. The biggest proliferation of weapons systems in this world, of course, is missiles. The second-largest proliferation of weapons systems is submarines. What's the best way to fix the submarines?
1:50 p.m.
VAdm (Ret'd) Mark Norman
With a submarine, the....
Go ahead.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
With the challenges that we're now looking at in the Arctic, especially with Russia and of course a bigger interest by the People's Liberation Army Navy of China—they are definitely transiting through the Arctic more and more—what do we need to defend our Arctic territory with from a submarine standpoint?
1:50 p.m.
VAdm (Ret'd) Mark Norman
Well, the first thing we need is a far more robust underwater surveillance capability than we currently have. That'll give us a better sense of what's going on and who's where, and therefore what reactions we may or may not need to take.
We then need to increase the ability to respond and to be present. That means more submarines, and it means more submarines that are capable of operating in, or certainly on the edge of, the ice. That will drive us into a debate as to how much under-ice capability we may actually need for a next generation of submarine.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
In your opinion, how many submarines do we need to defend all three coasts?
1:55 p.m.
VAdm (Ret'd) Mark Norman
I'm on the record in a publication a couple of months ago as saying that when you do the math, and going back to the rule of three or four, I believe we need at least three submarines available to us at any point in time. That could be geographically logical, with one on each coast. In order to maintain that, we're going to need roughly three times that number, so we're looking at nine. That probably means that we're looking at, I would suggest, 10 as probably not a bad number.
That is an unsophisticated rough calculation. I look forward to hearing what the navy thinks.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
During your time as vice-chief of the defence staff, you got to see defence procurement up close. You saw the good, the bad and the ugly.
How do we streamline this? As you already said, the longer it takes, time is money, and there are inflationary impacts. The longer our mariners, our navy officers, our soldiers and our aircrews go without new kit, the more dangerous it gets for them. How do we speed things up? Where are the low-hanging fruit that we can actually go after and get stuff done?
1:55 p.m.
VAdm (Ret'd) Mark Norman
There are several problems intersecting simultaneously. There's a significant lack of capacity to actually move program, which is getting worse. There is a problem related to the sheer weight of process. When you combine those two, obviously that's a bad outcome. There's also a problem as it relates to the actual decision-making, typically at the front end, in order to get these things moving, so to speak.
There are other problems as well, but I think before we start throwing solutions around, we need to figure out which problem in what order we want to tackle, and recognize that the impact in one area could adversely affect another.
To me, those are the three key areas—capacity, process and decision-making. There are others, but those are the big ones that are hampering their ability to move forward.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
One of the things that sometimes gets complaints is that with a lot of our big procurement that we do, often instead of just buying off the shelf, we always talk about how, even if we're going to build it in Canada, we can then Canadianize it. Is that a necessary part of the process, the Canadianization of especially the surface combatants as a case in point? It's a different ship from what the U.S. is building, which is a different ship from what the Brits are building, which is a different ship from what the Aussies were going to build, with all of them, of course, being Type 26.
Is it necessary? Is the cost-benefit ratio significant enough to make us a better navy?
1:55 p.m.
VAdm (Ret'd) Mark Norman
Unfortunately, the answer is “it depends”. There's no one-size-fits-all answer to that question.
There are legitimately areas where rapid procurement of off-the-shelf, either commercialized or readily available, technologies at a faster rate of production make perfect sense. There are other areas where, given the significance of the asset, the period over which it's going to be owned and operated, and the degree of flexibility that we're trying to put into a single platform—other navies, for example, have multiple platforms to do the same job—Canadianization is a necessary evil. It doesn't mean it's bad.
It comes down to how we do it, and there are ways that we can be much smarter and much more agile in that approach.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, Mr. Bezan.
We'll now go to our final questions from Mr. Bains for five minutes.
Is it Mr. Bains or is it Mr. Kusmierczyk?
