National Defence Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

Sir, I agree that we expect an increase in activity. I would agree that climate change is making new opportunities for resource development. I think that is going to cause pressures on the Arctic in terms of volume of activity, different types of activity, and the environmental and human consequences of that activity. When we look at that problem, it's not really a military problem. The Government of Canada needs to have a clear regulatory environment, needs to have the ability to monitor and control activities, and needs to be able to respond when activity threatens that regulatory environment or threatens northern peoples or the environment.

I agree that this will probably entail a larger maritime presence, but I think it will entail a larger government presence in the north. I think that's been recognized; we're working toward that. We have three exercises per year that are designed not to increase military capability in the north per se, but to create that whole-of-government ability to know what's going on and respond to it in the high north and in the western and eastern Arctic.

I agree with you that this is a work in progress, and we need to be anticipating what we'll need downstream and we need to be working on it now. I'm of the view that we're doing pretty well at that, that it is very challenging to be able to forecast exactly what things will look like. I'm not sure I have seen a consensus on what the Canadian Arctic will look like ten years from now. I think there are a number of different possibilities. We have to be prepared to respond to all those possibilities, not pick one and invest in it. So we're being very careful in the way we maximize the opportunity to create capabilities across the board, not just within the Government of Canada but with our Arctic partners, to make sure we're ready to respond to whatever future we may see in ten years.

Does that address your question?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes. It is clearly an unknown, but obviously having different scenarios before you as we move forward over the next ten years is critical. Also in terms of being able to exercise those capabilities, you need the right tools, and given the most screwed-up procurement program of any country I've ever seen.... This is a whole different topic. In terms of wanting something but it doesn't go through the channels I would consider to be logical, there are too many fingers in the pie. Then we announce things that never get delivered until well into.... By then they may become either obsolete or considered to no longer be needed because of the process we have. I think that having those strategies on paper is important, but then having hand in hand, ordering what we need based on certain factors—presumably we can't be that far out in terms of what we think will happen down the road. Watching what our neighbours are doing and why they're doing certain things is important.

I thank you for your answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

The floor is to Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here this morning.

I wonder if I could start with a general question to help set the context. Could you describe the class of submarines the Canadian navy has in the Arctic, the approximate number we have, and the capabilities of those submarines?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

We don't have any submarines in the Arctic at the moment on a permanent basis. We send submarines to the Arctic periodically. Our submarines are not under-ice capable. The class of submarine is the Victoria class, which is a very capable patrol submarine.

I'm not sure that really answers your question as you intended it, but we don't really talk very much about where our submarines are and what they're doing.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Understood.

Regarding the new Arctic offshore patrol ships, what's the status of that initiative and what capabilities will those ships have?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

I'm not the right person to update you on that, sir. We can take that on notice or I could ask the head of the navy to come and talk about those vessels and their capabilities.

They are vessels, generally speaking, that are designed to operate in all of our ocean spaces to deliver value throughout, but they are really focused on giving us the capability to operate in the Arctic during the navigable season. Beyond that, I'm certainly happy to take that on notice and get some more information from the right spokespeople.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

How does the Canadian navy contribute to help promote and protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

The Canadian navy, operating as part of the Canadian Forces, establishes a presence in the Arctic, so there's a physical manifestation of that. The Canadian navy and the Canadian Forces have the ability to work with the whole of government to deliver a range of capability that is not necessarily naval capability, but it is bringing together the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, NRCan, INAC, and a bunch of other partners in the north to make the best use of the capability that exists in Canada and to be able to focus it. Rather than the Canadian navy, it's far more my organization in Canada Command that helps the whole of government deliver that, where Canadian Forces capabilities are involved.

I would say that the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian navy, as part of that, have a very good ability to manage relations with our Arctic neighbours in order to understand what they're doing, what they're working on, and to work together on creating capacity in the Canadian north and in the Arctic, as a region, so that we can exchange information, we can exchange awareness, and we can be prepared to deal with current and future threats as they emerge. I think all of that promotes Canadian sovereignty and responsibility in the Arctic domain.

I'm not sure I've given you an exhaustive answer, but off the top of my head, that's what I would say.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's very helpful, thank you.

Finally, could you provide us with a bit more detail on the water space management regime and Canada's role in that?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

I'll ask Commander Mulholland to fill in the blanks on this, but essentially this is an agreement amongst allied nations to exchange an awareness of the presence of submarines and the routing of submarines so as to avoid mutual interference. Where submarines are operating in the same area it's to arrange for their separation so that there is no mutual interference during operations.

I'm not sure we can get into too many of the details of how we go about that, but in principle that's the idea. It's to make sure you don't bump into someone by accident when you're travelling around the world. When you're operating together you can do so with the confidence that there's no one else, at least no other friendly submarines, that are within the space that you've been given to operate.

Do you want to add anything to that?

[Cdr Dermot Mulholland]

I'd just like to say that there are two safety threats to submarines at sea, under water: one is from collision with another submarine, and the second is from interference from a surface ship conducting certain types of operations involving underwater equipment and so on.

The SUBOPAUTHs around the world act as the referee to keep all these components apart safely. The submarine movement advisory authority does so on an international scope because, of course, submarines often operate outside their own territorial waters, and it acts as a sort of an independent clearing house in that way. The system is very straightforward, actually, and it has worked very well for at least three or four decades that I know of. Everybody participates voluntarily but willingly.

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

I would say, sir, that submarines are inherently vulnerable platforms. Their efficacy is drawn from the fact that they can remain undetected. Once detected, submarines are highly vulnerable. They're incredibly effective, but generally speaking, only if they remain undetected. That is the reason that submarine movements are so highly classified and so highly compartmentalized, so as to protect that ability to maintain the effectiveness of the submarines wherever they are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I will now go to Mr. Bachand for five minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral, I want to continue on the issue of detection. Analysts who have appeared before us have suggested setting up detection stations at both ends of the North-West Passage. I don't remember the second suggestion, but I remember they suggested setting up a listening station in the Lancaster strait. That station would also recognize submarine signatures. Perhaps you could explain to us how that would be done. They probably have a specific sound that can be picked up.

Do you think that strategically placed detection stations in the north could help detect the presence of foreign submarines in our waters?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

We are experimenting with different technologies in the north to determine, when the level of activity goes up, how to keep track of not just potential submarine activity but also surface ship activity remotely. Underwater detection systems work on a number of different possible bases. They can detect and measure the noise emitted by vessels as they go by. Every piece of machinery has a frequency associated with it. The water flow past a hull makes noise. The cavitation of a propeller makes noise. So there are ways of listening to the noise in the water and detecting the presence of vessels.

Submarines tend to be optimized to put out as little noise as possible in the water. Submariners, being particularly sneaky people, spend their entire lives reducing the amount of noise they make in these quiet platforms. It's very challenging with the modern submarine, particularly a Canadian submarine, to detect through acoustic means the passage of a submarine that doesn't want to be detected.

There are other methods that can be used. For example, the pressure changes when a vessel passes. Some sea mines use this principle. They sense the water pressure change and know that a ship has gone by. That's another way, particularly in a narrow passage, that you can measure the presence of a vessel. Most vessels also have magnetic signatures, so when they pass close to a magnetic sensor the magnetic signature of the earth that the sensor detects changes because of the presence of those vessels. Other technologies have been tried for years to enhance the possibility of detecting submarines and monitoring the presence of surface ships.

Would these be effective in the Canadian north? Potentially, and we're experimenting with them. But the Canadian north offers a number of challenges to these types of detection systems. There is a high degree of other noise up there. When ice is present and moving around, it makes a lot of noise. The patterns of marine life are changing as the waters become navigable, and that is going to affect the amount of noise in the water as well.

When you're looking at a very silent platform it's sometimes very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, with the background noise and those discrete, quiet noises you're looking for from a vessel. So we continue to experiment up in the north. Even if we found the perfect solution, it might not be the perfect solution two or three years from now.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

All right, thank you.

Give me a yes or no answer. Since they were acquired, have the Canadian submarines been equipped with an air-independent propulsion system?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

Our submarine does not have an air-independent propulsion system. The Chief of the Maritime Staff would be a better spokesperson on this. We have investigated the feasibility of that, but we have a lot of other work going on to make these effective platforms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

I will now go to Mr. Boughen.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly let me add my voice in welcoming you gentlemen and thanking you for taking time out of your day to spend with us.

I have a couple of questions.

First of all, in the great scheme of things, how important is it that we're aware of submarines? You spoke earlier about the fact that our territorial waters around our coastline are fine. There's no infringement upon that. So if the submarines are out there floating around in international waters, is it a big concern of ours? I mean, what is it they do that would be of particular interest to us? They're not like a supply ship or a rigged ship or something. They're floating around under water or under ice. Do we care much, and why do we?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

Sir, I would say that clearly we care, or I wouldn't be here today. There is a degree of angst, perhaps, associated with submarine movements that is out of proportion to what I would consider the threat they pose to us at the moment. At the end of the day, their effectiveness lies in their ability to remain undetected, and we have for years countered that effectiveness by seeking to detect submarines. Particularly during the Cold War, it was very important to us to know where potentially threatening submarines were and what they were doing. As we moved out of that, we became less concerned with the movement of submarines, except, obviously, our own.

I would say that as we look at changing patterns of activity, it's not a bad idea to be aware of what submarines are doing. We focus on that as an allied community. From my perspective as commander of Canada Command, knowing exactly what submarines are doing up in the Arctic is related far more to our potential responsibility for rescuing them if they get into trouble than to what it is they're doing there and why.

Does that answer your question?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Yes, I guess so. We don't have any quarrel with folks who have submarines. And we're not concerned about an escalation of the Cold War into a hot war, because the people we are concerned about don't have submarines floating around. I don't quite understand why we focus on them. By our own definition, they're not charting the ocean floor. I don't know that they're doing anything constructive at all other than floating around under the ice or under the water. Because we're not at war, they're not looking to shoot ships of ours out of the ocean.

Anyway, my other question, gentlemen, is whether, in your estimation, we as a nation are equipped to be in the Arctic. Are we equipped militarily, personnel-wise, and equipment-wise? What are your thoughts on that?

[VAdm Bruce Donaldson]

To finish off the first question, sir, as I've said, I'm not particularly fussed. I think submarines that are operating adjacent to Canadian areas of responsibility obey international law. I'm quite comfortable that there's not a requirement to be ready to respond to some sort of activity they may undertake that would be contrary to Canadian interests. There is not a conventional military threat up in the Arctic, but we do need to be aware of what's going on in our domain and we do need to be prepared to respond if something happens that we don't fully understand, where information has not fully been shared with us. So we retain the ability to react, if necessary, to unexpected activity in the north, whatever dimension it occurs in.

In terms of our ability to operate in the north, I'm comfortable that for the challenges we are addressing now, we have the ability to operate in the north. We are looking 10 years down the road and asking whether we will be positioned 10 years down the road to operate in a potentially transformed north, and we continue to work on different capabilities to allow us to do that. We have identified Arctic reserve companies to specialize in operating in the environment of the north, and we exercise them on a regular basis to increase their capacity to deal with the types of things that we would turn them to in the north.

We are looking at the footprint that we occupy in the north and what we may need in the future in order to stage. We look at our ability to rescue folks in the north or to respond to a disaster if it takes place in the north, and we continue to refine our capability.

We look at our ability to support incredibly important social development through things like Junior Ranger programs and cadet programs, because they do a lot in northern communities.

We are expanding the Canadian Rangers in the north so as to give a better footprint across the north and also to enhance capabilities in individual communities. The Rangers do a whole bunch of work, not in a military sense but in terms of, first of all, being eyes and ears and, secondly, being able to turn in an organized way to help communities in times of need. The Rangers supported the H1N1 vaccination program in the north by helping to organize their communities to deliver that. They had the skill set to do that, so they turned to and helped out.

Yes, I think we're well positioned to operate in the north, but it is a question of balancing the resources that we have against the need. I think we will have to rebalance on an ongoing basis toward a heightened need in the north. For today, I think we're fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much. We're out of time now.

To our last member, I will give the floor to Ms. Gallant for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the witnesses.

My question has more to do with icebreakers. For the purposes of what the Canadian military does right now, do you feel there's a need to have icebreakers on hand? If so, could you describe what their role would be and, since we don't have them, how urgently are they needed, if at all? With the reports that the ice cap and the Canadian Northwest Passage are opening, has there been discussion about the eventual need for icebreakers becoming obsolete? I ask that question because I understand, for example, that Finland procured four new icebreakers, but by the time they received them, there wasn't a need for four of them anymore and they currently lease them out.