Evidence of meeting #11 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I have another question, but it's for General Nixon.
Let's talk about the operational forces. We know that, in Canada, various task forces have regular brigades and more sizable reserves.
In terms of the North, right now, most of your task force is made up of Rangers. To do our evaluation, we need to know some things. We know there are not a lot of threats, but we want to ensure that some sort of sovereignty is being enforced. In your view, are the resources you have for your Joint Task Force North sufficient? If not, what would your needs be?
BGen Mike Nixon
Thank you.
If I may, I will answer in English.
The force posture in the north is small, very small when you relate it to the geographic size, but relatively speaking, it is sufficient when you relate it to the population size, the population density. There's a total of 110,000 people in Canada's north, in all three territories combined.
Those Ranger elements that are in nearly every community, less 10, are the Canadian Armed Forces presence, if you will, 365 days a year. When we conduct operations, as General Bowes mentioned, for example, such as Nanook 2016, which will be an earthquake scenario in Yukon—it's not the High Arctic by any stretch, but a population density area—the resources to support the response to that incident will be from the south. That's the case with virtually every operation we conduct. We exist as a planning and execution agency headquarters with supporting elements, but then we're augmented with operational control over elements that deploy north. They can be air force, navy, or army. In most cases, it's a combination of the three.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
You said that offshore vessels were required for your operations.
Is there a pressing need?
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I am referring to offshore vessels.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Yes, do you need them as soon as possible?
BGen Mike Nixon
I believe the construction procurement process is in line with the changing focus of the navy when it comes to maritime patrolling in the north.
I don't know a lot about the ship itself. I'm not in that realm, but I do know that it's not an icebreaker. It's ice-capable, which means it will extend the time that the navy can operate in the north from what it now is, with the current maritime coastal defence vessels primarily.
LGen Stephen Bowes
The fuelling station in the north will allow it to stay longer as well.
Last summer we had four maritime coastal defence vessels and I had the pleasure of going aboard one in the Beaufort Sea. They provide great capability of putting a presence in the north and going into communities all across the north.
The Arctic offshore patrol vessel will just take it another level, especially with a helicopter integral to its capability. It will be a tremendous step forward when we bring it online.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
That's your time. Thank you very much, sir, for your answer.
I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Garrison.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thanks to the witnesses for appearing today and particular thanks for the comprehensive look at our presence in the Arctic.
I am going to take the chair seriously, as I always do, when he talks about air readiness. In the context of the Arctic, it seems clear to me that air readiness is about more than just a response to foreign threats. In fact, on a daily basis, it's about the kinds of things you talked about: surveillance, search and rescue, and disaster response.
I started my career working in the north. I volunteered on search and rescue. The way we did it was to lie down on the ramp of the Hercules and look out the back. I did that several times. I am interested in search and rescue and how far we've come since those days.
Could you talk a bit more about search and rescue and the air part of search and rescue operations?
LGen Stephen Bowes
Our search and rescue technicians are still prepared to do that if they need .to They'll do what they need to do to get the job done. They are an incredible class of Canadians, and I've watched them on video jumping into locations where the average service personnel would say that takes a special brand of courage.
For our SAR posture, we keep and analyze statistics. We use operational research on an ongoing basis to ensure that we have the optimum posture going forward. But it's a complex environment. Only 4% of search and rescue incidents occur north of the 55th parallel, so if you draw a line among the northern provinces in the west toward Fort McMurray and just a little bit north, and draw it along and cover off northern Quebec and a little part of northern Ontario, only 4% occur beyond that. However, every one of them is complex just by virtue of the environment.
We have a SAR posture across the country that is optimized toward where the majority of incidents will occur, but with a capacity to surge forward, depending on the scenario and the circumstances, in response to a crisis in the north.
The reality of our geography in Canada is that most of the people live in the south, which means that even routine miliary operations are almost expeditionary in nature in our own country. We project over long distances. To fly from Winnipeg to the high north is like flying from St. John's, Newfoundland, across the Atlantic.
We are mindful of that in everything that we orient toward the posture, but we have a whole range of assets. The way that we work, even beyond the immediate response search and rescue posture, which I know you've been briefed on.... At least, I believe Admiral Ellis was here. No, excuse me, he was at the Senate. My apologies.
It's a subject that is worth a deep dive on its own. We can get from Winnipeg with a primary Hercules in four to eight hours depending on where the incident is in the Arctic; with a Cormorant in about 12 to 16 hours depending on where it's at; and we can work through some of our hubs in the north to extend assets over range. Working off of Baffin Island, we had many of the assets touch down in Iqaluit, refuel there, and then carry on to station.
It's a complex posture and a lot depends on the circumstances, the nature of the incident and what we have to throw at it.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
In terms of the recapitalization needs generally of the Canadian Forces, where do the Hercules, the Cormorant, and the search and rescue planes fit into that recapitalization program?
LGen Stephen Bowes
It's a great question. I'm a force employer, and so I just ask and ask and ask. I'm not in any way trying to be humourous, but the Commander of the RCAF is responsible for force development to the Chief through the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, who is, overall, responsible for capability development. Then at that level, they'll link in with the deputy minister in terms of prioritizing, consistent with government policy, which projects are in order.
I don't focus on that. I don't deal with it at all. My focus is down in operations. The ADM(Mat), Rear-Admiral (Retired) Pat Finn, who was here at this committee, could tell you where the projects are.
If necessary, I'll take a supplementary question and get an answer to you on that.
NDP
LGen Stephen Bowes
I haven't made, nor has my headquarters made, a request regarding capability. Statements of capability deficiency can be generated by CJOC but tend not to be for large items like that. It's part of a routine capitalization plan, and that's squarely in Lieutenant-General Hood's lane.
It would, frankly, be inappropriate for me. He's the master of understanding his air assets and what needs to be recapitalised in order of priority.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I guess I'd ask kind of the same question about the Twin Otters. I'm a big fan of Twin Otters, having flown in them a lot. They have four based in Yellowknife, I believe. Is there a need for another base that might have more Twin Otters, or are things adequate as they are?
LGen Stephen Bowes
I don't know about that. I love the Twin Otters and I hope we get if not a life extension then a replacement of the capability. These are the things we simply want.
I deal with an air force commander. The commander of 1 Canadian Air Division wears multiple hats. He works for me as the joint force air component commander, and so when I have a requirement, I define an effect. We call it an RFE, or a request for effect. He determines the platform that's suitable to go forward to do this. So in the same vein, if we were looking at the Arctic and we needed more of something, we would describe an effect, not an airframe. We describe a capability or a niche that needs to be performed, and they conduct the analysis and determine what's necessary.
As to the future of the Twin Otter, I'm not certain about.
BGen Mike Nixon
I do know that the Twin Otter life extension project is in process.
The Twin Otter is a phenomenal airframe, a phenomenal piece of equipment. It has a secondary search and rescue, or SAR, role. It's primarily for transport in the north, because that's exactly what it was designed for.
In fact, when you talk to some of the pilots from 440 Squadron who reside in Yellowknife and you ask them if they were king for a day and could replace the Twin Otter what they would replace it with, they'd say with a Twin Otter, because it is one of a kind. The only four are the ones we have in the inventory of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Gerretsen.
I think you were indicating that you are going to split your time.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Spengemann.
General Bowes, I just want to go back to a comment you made earlier, because I think it underscores the whole discussion about defence in the north. I believe you said you don't recognize a threat in the north, or you don't currently recognize a threat in the north.
What do you define as a threat? Is that something that's real or is that something that's potential?
LGen Stephen Bowes
What I said was that we don't recognize the existence of a direct military threat to the north. There are all kinds of threats and challenges everywhere to our ability to control our space, from a CBSA perspective, etc. There are other government departments dealing with challenges, but I'm talking about a direct military threat.
There is a very low probability that another foreign nation is going to apply military force against Canadian territory.