National Defence Committee on March 1st, 2018

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

Okay. We know that, obviously, the United States is a target of this North Korean aggression. We now have partnerships in the Asian region, through NATO. Are Canadian Forces exercising with NATO's Pacific partners? Do we have anything planned specifically in that region to make sure, in that NATO capacity, that we're preparing for that particular threat?

[MGen William Seymour]

I wouldn't necessarily link our activities in the Pacific with NATO. We're actively involved in the Pacific. Most recently we had a couple of warships that had been operating out in the Pacific to show Canadian presence and to work with selected allies and partners out there. A number of those countries have relationships with NATO, either bilaterally or in other ways. I wouldn't necessarily link our activities there to formal activities with NATO. We're actively involved with our Asian partners, but not necessarily in a NATO role.

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

Right, because within NATO there was this large concern over the pivot to the Pacific. Of course, our European partners were very concerned about that. Given the threat that North Korea poses, NATO is not exercising in that region whatsoever to protect one of its major allies and founding partners against that type of aggression, do I understand that correctly? In a NATO capacity, they're not exercising.

[MGen Derek Joyce]

Perhaps I can respond. I'm not within the operational realm, but as General Seymour mentioned, we're not conducting NATO exercises within the Pacific region.

What I can say is that NATO, and the alliance, and individual countries have recognized the threat from DPRK. I can say that the threat is recognized as not just directed at the United States. They have the capability to hit European countries as well, and European countries are very aware of that. All of our NATO allies are in the same situation by recognizing what this DPRK threat is.

I think it's safe to say—and perhaps this answers your question best—that from a deterrence perspective NATO is always ready to protect its alliance members, so that's where we are with that.

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

What about the interoperability—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Your time's up, Mrs. Gallant. I'm going to have to yield the floor to Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. Most of my questions were asked, but I want to make a comment.

You used the terms “reliable ally” and “solid reputation”. I certainly can say that when we were walking through the camp military base with Colonel Rutland, we certainly felt that from the other members of the other countries' contingents.

I have one quick question, though, and then I'm going to pass my time off to Ms. Alleslev. We were told that our best estimation was—and this might be a little off the NATO conversation, but we did talk about Ukraine—we thought there were around 250,000 Ukrainian military members. Is that number growing, or has it levelled off, or have we even confirmed, roughly, what the numbers are that we are working to train over there? Then I'll pass the remainder of my time over to Leona.

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

Certainly I'm aware of the number of Ukrainian armed forces members we have trained through the Operation Unifier enterprise. I think it's just north of 5,500. We've delivered about 120 particular serials of training. Is that your question?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

No, I was wondering about how many members of their military.... I think it was Lieutenant-Colonel Rutland who said it was somewhere around 250,000.

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

I don't know what their end-state armed forces are to look like in terms of numbers, but we could certainly get that to you if it's of interest.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to meeting our NATO obligations. Could you give us an idea of how we arrive at our NATO obligations? Is it not up to every country to say what contribution they're going to make, and therefore then follow up on making it, so we can tell them what our contribution will be?

[MGen Derek Joyce]

I can start off and then perhaps pass to my colleagues.

There is a specific methodology within NATO for both defence expenditures and equipment required. The allies have to report their expenditures annually through a standard process that we have. It really hasn't changed since about the 1950s.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

No, I was referring to our operational commitments. In the example of Latvia, we told them that we would lead the force. NATO didn't say, “You must and you must contribute 455 people and you must lead the battle group.” That was something that we said. Is that a true statement?

[MGen Derek Joyce]

Sorry. I misinterpreted your question. I thought you were talking about the equipment that we actually procure.

In this area, I would comment that it's a negotiation. When Canada volunteered to become a framework nation in Latvia, per your example, we determined—of course through our normal processes—what capabilities and numbers we were able to bring to the fight, to the operation, that would meet our budgetary restrictions and our personnel and equipment resources. As a result of that, we've gone through this negotiation process with our supporting allies that are participating in Latvia with us to bring on other capabilities that we didn't necessarily bring.

Each one of the framework nations has a taken a slightly different approach, naturally, given the resources they have. I can safely say that our commitment to Latvia is probably one of the most unique, in that we have the most diverse number of supporting nations, and it truly is a strategic messaging in terms of having so many different allies all committed to that operation.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Perfect.

If we could talk a bit about interoperability, I know that NATO has a mechanism for determining how effective we are collectively from an interoperability perspective. What kind of metrics do we in Canada use to evaluate where we are in terms of our meeting NATO interoperability requirements?

[MGen William Seymour]

You're going to push hard for metrics on something that requires activity on a number of levels, from procurement to procedures, tactics, and documentation. In NATO the interoperability is enhanced by a well-greased series of things that bring interoperability to bear. We're a part of all those dialogues. We participate in meetings. We participate in writings of the STANAGs. It's a fundamental level.

This is what we saw in Latvia. It comes down to people as well—people being interoperable with each other. That's something Canada does really well, with Wade Rutland again, bringing six nations together to work with each other: there are different languages to overcome, and different tactics, techniques, and procedures. Even at the parade at which they started their operation, there were different marching skills, some brought weapons, and all those things. We made it work.

It's a complex problem. In terms of metrics that make it easy to understand, it requires some time to explain in the right way, because of the complexity.

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

If I may, I would point—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Actually, I'm going to have to leave it there. We're a little bit over time. My response is always that we might be able to circle back on that, and I really mean that because we do have time, but I'm going to give the floor to MP Yurdiga.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you.

Canada, through NATO, contributes to ballistic missile defence of Europe, but contributes zero dollars to defence against ballistic missiles aimed at Canada. Should we do more in regard to ballistic missile defence to protect Canadian soil?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

I think if you read our defence policy, you'll see it's quite clear that vis-à-vis ballistic missile defence it has not changed, but certainly we're committed and we recognize that our first job is to defend Canada. As our policy indicates, we're going to collaborate in a very detailed way with the U.S., to contemplate all of the threats that are presenting themselves, including some in the hybrid realm that were raised earlier.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

What is the current U.S. policy? If there were a ballistic missile shot at Canada, what is the current U.S. policy regarding intercepting it?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

I'm not an expert on U.S. policy so I wouldn't want to hazard to offer up my opinion in that regard.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

From previous witnesses, they would not respond, so that's concerning and that's why I brought the question.

We, as Canadians, need to know. If something does happen, how are we protected?

As it sits now, if there is a ballistic missile threat inbound, how would Canada respond, as we sit now, as a nation?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

Certainly, through NORAD, one of the missions that the binational command, Canada and the U.S., executes 24-7 is to provide strategic warning to the capitals in Washington and Ottawa. Any missile launch globally is immediately assessed, and if it is assessed to be a threat to North America, within the treaty the obligation is that the command centre will advise both Canada and the U.S.

Of course that is a command-and-control process. That information would certainly be shared into the command centres in Ottawa, and we would share that information with our government partners and the national command centre here in Ottawa specifically.