Evidence of meeting #23 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 industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
What would you say right now our capability gap is? It it all of the above?
2 p.m.
BGen Jeannot Boucher
We have several capability gaps. We do provide—
2 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
What would they be, please?
You've mentioned it several times. I would be interested in what those capability gaps are, since you brought them up.
2 p.m.
BGen Jeannot Boucher
There are capability gaps and we look at them, I guess—
2 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Again, what are those capability gaps? You brought them up. What are they?
2 p.m.
BGen Jeannot Boucher
We look at them in range of our ability to understand what's going on in the current environment and our ability to decide. You can think in terms of command and control and our capability to act, which is through a lot of the capabilities we already have in the program. Then we also look at some gaps in our ability to sustain. Think in terms of logistics—
2 p.m.
Conservative
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, General.
We'll go to Ms. Thompson for four minutes.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I'm going to begin with you, Mr. Quinn, and go back to something you spoke about a moment ago. It is the near-Arctic state, and China having spoken about this.
Would you elaborate, please, on what China can realistically do in the near future to project militarily into the Arctic regions? Also, what about Russia? What capability and capacity do they realistically have to threaten Canadian interests?
2 p.m.
Director General, Continental Defence Policy, Department of National Defence
I'll start with China. With China in particular, I would say it's the long term rather than the short term that we're looking at. China is modernizing their military across the board, investing in really high-end technology in all kinds of domains, in space and cyberspace. They're also investing in icebreaking capability as well. You mentioned the Arctic specifically. I think the Chinese government has been fairly clear in terms of its long-term plans. They have talked about a polar Silk Road to complement their belt and road initiative. They certainly see the Arctic as a bit of an untapped region, which they think can contribute to their search across the world for additional natural resources and that sort of thing.
As you know, there's a well-managed, long-term process in place to define continental shelves of Arctic states. That process is, as I mentioned, being well managed. From a Canadian perspective—and Arctic allies and partners—I think we would be concerned about the tension that exists between what China has stated as its long-term ambitions for that region and what our own interests are in terms of securing our own resources.
Really briefly, Mr. Chair, Russia, a very capable Arctic actor, is a bit of a different case, in that Russia is an Arctic state. They have ambitions of opening up their own northern sea route for shipping. From that perspective, Russia's investing in Arctic capability is perhaps more justifiable than China. Obviously it's clear, based on recent events, that they have very little regard for the international rules-based order on which Canada and our allies depend. Russia's capability, combined with that lack of respect for international law, is what concerns us there.
With all of these things, as I said, there's no immediate military threat in the Arctic from our perspective, but we need to watch these developments very closely, to make sure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the ability to defend Canada, our interests and our sovereignty.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
What does this mean for co-operation versus competition between the two countries, China and Russia? Could you elaborate on that?
2:05 p.m.
Director General, Continental Defence Policy, Department of National Defence
I watch China carefully in terms of the areas of responsibility that I have, but I would not characterize myself as a China expert. What I would say is that certainly in the Arctic, in cyberspace, in space, the areas that do fall in my portfolio, we look at things from a competition perspective at the Department of National Defence, in making sure that Canada is well defended against evolving threats.
It's really other parts of the government that focus on the co-operation side of things.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
Would either of the other witnesses like to comment?
2:05 p.m.
LGen Alain Pelletier
I'll just add to the comprehensive answer by Jon Quinn.
Obviously, the co-operation between Russia and China remains a high interest item here in the command. We are also monitoring the current Ukraine crisis conflict in terms of potential co-operation moving forward between Russia and China, given the isolation of Russia following their invasion of Ukraine. We understand that there is co-operation at the economic level in the exploitation of resources, and we're tracking that. So that's an element of interest.
As Mr. Quinn pointed out, Russia has a high interest in the Arctic, given that it derives a fairly significant amount of its GDP in the region and therefore sees the region as a potential national security interest item. They have generated an investment in their infrastructure in the north over the last five years that we've been able to witness. It's an element that we monitor closely.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, and thank you, General.
We'll now go to Mrs. Vignola for two minutes.
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Quinn, I will be brief.
Your division is responsible for policy development related to continental and Arctic defence. I'd like you to talk about the capabilities of the future F‑35 fighters in terms of continental defence. What is their range, particularly in the Arctic climate? What structures would be needed to ensure that they cover the entire territory, which is huge?
2:05 p.m.
Director General, Continental Defence Policy, Department of National Defence
I'll pass this over to General Pelletier, who will likely be able to speak more credibly on the capability that's embedded in the F-35 fighter.
I would just say that infrastructure across the north is very important. It was one of the key priority areas for investment outlined in the joint statement on NORAD modernization that I mentioned. NORAD has three forward operating locations in the Canadian Arctic, and we do anticipate that some infrastructure upgrades will be required in those locations to accommodate not just the F-35 fighter aircraft but other aircraft as well.
If it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, I'll pass it over General Pelletier to add more to the response.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you.
General Pelletier, we have roughly 30 seconds.
2:05 p.m.
LGen Alain Pelletier
I thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.
Of course, the most important capability to meet our needs is the interoperability of the F‑35 weapon system. It is compatible with the U.S. weaponry and that is an important element.
I'll talk quickly about the infrastructure. I see the network architecture as another important element, given the amount of data that modern aircraft can transmit to the command and control element.
We are working to increase the capacity of the network, of the architecture, to absorb that data.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, General.
We'll now go to Monsieur Boulerice for two minutes.
June 3rd, 2022 / 2:05 p.m.
NDP
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thanks so much.
Just following Ms. Vignola about the north, can you talk about what additional infrastructure is required to support fighter jets in the far north year-round, and should Canada be making these investments?
2:10 p.m.
LGen Alain Pelletier
We have infrastructure already. What we need is to modernize the infrastructure in order to enable, as I pointed out, the network, the architecture that will enable the transmission of data that is crucial for today's command and control against very fast moving potential competitors or adversaries.
We're also looking at the infrastructure across the north, not only in Canada but also in Alaska and Greenland, because both of these locations offer an opportunity to present forces close to the archipelago in Canada that sits very far up north. That infrastructure requirement has been captured as part of the force development process, and we believe that it's part of the intent of the government to modernize NORAD.
2:10 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Can you speak a little bit about the procurement process?
Obviously, the five per cent threshold is critical, but in a place like Nunavut, where 85% of the population are indigenous people or Inuit, do you have a different threshold in terms of the procurement side of things.