National Defence Committee on March 1st, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to have to hold it there just to end the formal questions. The good news is that we'll have more time.

I see about 45 minutes on the clock. We'll do five-minute rounds. I'll divide the time evenly amongst all parties.

Just before I get to that, I want to ask a quick question now that we're done the formal ones. From the lens of the value that Canada adds to NATO, I had asked a question that I kind of already knew the answer to, but I wanted to quantify it a bit more. It was about our ability to integrate with NATO with land, air, sea, special forces, and command. I think I asked one of the last two panels that question. They thought that there are only a handful of countries that can do that within NATO. The number I was told was six.

I'd like to know if you agree that that's an important and valued thing within the organization. We're not that big, but we can basically be inserted anywhere NATO wants us. Maybe I could get your comments on what kind of value that adds to the alliance.

[MGen William Seymour]

I can start off with an example yesterday.

We had a two-day joint operations symposium here in Ottawa. One of the attendees was the three-star German commander of multinational core northeast, which is the superior organization to which the Latvian brigade reports. His ask of us was...we have a number of Canadians working for him already. He specifically asked for more Canadians because we plug in and we play and we make things happen so effectively. That's one great example.

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

I think institutionally when you compare us to other militaries, and I go back to Mr. Gerretsen's mention of RMC. We have one military academy, and it's a joint academy. We raise our members with that kind of consciousness up front as opposed to other systems where it's kind of bespoke and it's kind of taught later in their career. I think it's part of our approach to building leadership in the Canadian Forces.

[MGen Derek Joyce]

If I may, I'd pile on one more. We all have these experiences we've taken part in. Much along the lines of Ms. Alleslev's question, interoperability is absolutely key. I had the opportunity to be the commander of the air task force during the Libyan war. We arrived, and our fighters arrived, and 48 hours later they were operating over Libya. This is 2011.

Examples like that are very tangible examples of how important interoperability is within the NATO context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Sure. That's an excellent example. If Canada as a small country can integrate in all those areas I mentioned.... Libya is a primary example. The U.S. could have led that campaign. They didn't need Canada to do it. As we know, NATO is somewhat political, and there are political reasons why different nations can or will lead different NATO missions. The fact that they can rely on Canada to do that I think is very important so I'm glad we recognize that.

The first five-minute question is going to Ms. Romanado. Then we will go to Ms. Gallant, and then Mr. Gerretsen.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you for being here today.

I want to follow up on a question my colleague, Mr. Yurdiga, was asking regarding ballistic missile defence. This committee travelled to NORAD in April 2016. I recall receiving testimony with respect to the efficacy of BMD in terms of hypersonic missiles. We heard this morning about Russia using hypersonic, and so on, and so forth.

I just want to get clarity because when Mr. Graham was here earlier, our former minister of national defence, he opened up the conversation with respect to how Canada needs to have that conversation regarding BMD and joining BMD. But we also have different testimonies saying it's not effective against, for instance, Russia.

I know as part of our “strong, secure, engaged” we said our position has not changed with respect to joining BMD. I just want to get clarity on that because we have conflicting testimony saying that it's not effective against Russia and Russia is a threat, but not in that capacity.

What would be the value in Canada joining BMD?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

Again, we're here to talk NATO. I'm not an expert on the U.S. BMD system so I wouldn't be in a position to provide you any context as to the effectiveness of the system versus evolving missile.... I can't answer that question. I don't have that information.

Some of that perhaps is available in the public domain. I think you may find some of the information on the testing of the system, etc., but I don't have that information, unfortunately.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Switching gears, you mentioned in terms of NATO's hybrid strategy that we will have an intelligence officer in their new intelligence division at NATO headquarters.

Is that the only position we are going to be allocating towards cyber or intelligence hybrid warfare with respect to our NATO commitment, or are there other positions planned?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

I'm not tracking the numbers of folks we have. The point I might offer up to the committee in response to your question is if you take a look at how NATO has evolved over the last 10 years, some of the structural adaptations that are under way, new subordinate commands, one of the interesting elements is the creation of what are called NATO centres of excellence. I think by my last count there were some 25 or 30 of these centres of excellence. It's very interesting. You can find this information certainly online. It shows you which particular countries, and they are not always NATO countries. They are very open to who may partner with that particular centre of excellence.

You will find these centres focus on things such as strategic communications. We talked about that today. I believe the hybrid warfare centre is an EU centre, but it is supported strongly by NATO currently located in Finland. We have a NATO strategic communications centre of excellence in Estonia. I recently had one of my team members as part of a whole-of-government visit, so we're looking at that.

What I would note for the committee is these centres cluster together academics, researchers, and military members. I think they're a great incubator for sharing ideas, discussing risks, and looking forward 20 years. I think what we will find is that work will no doubt infuse itself into the way NATO may approach certain challenges moving forward.

My response is really a suggestion that I think these are entities that ought to be supported. Where we can, and where we see the value, certainly we will intend to do that from a Canadian Armed Forces' perspective.

[MGen Derek Joyce]

If I may add to that with a couple of tangible examples, the efforts we have under way in Ukraine, a country that is experiencing hybrid warfare, is an excellent opportunity for us to learn from an actual operational situation. We're working with Ukrainians in that area.

Something even more tangible within the NATO context is the fact that Real-Admiral Scott Bishop is going to be the 2018 chair of the NATO Military Intelligence Committee. Canada will have a leadership role in this area over the next year.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

We talked a little about education and training in terms of the new position of cyber-operator.

With full disclosure, I have two sons serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, one boots on the ground and one intelligence officer. In terms of recruiting and training, we know it takes time to recruit people, but also to onboard them and get them the training they need. We've said in “Strong, Secure, Engaged” that we're going to hire 3,500 additional people. Some will be allocated directly for cyber.

In terms of getting that pipeline of talent in, how soon will we be up at full capacity in terms of our needs with respect to cyber?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to have to hold it there because that's time.

I'm going to give the floor to MP Gallant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, if I have any time, I'll be sharing with Mr. Maguire.

In our last round, you clarified that while we have NATO member countries in the Pacific who exercise together, it's not necessarily under the rubric of NATO. If there were to be a requirement that we have a fighting force of NATO countries in the Pacific, be it North Korea or for some other reason, would NATO have the capacity to have a command structure in that region, since we haven't exercised as an entity under NATO? Would we have that ability?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

A hypothetical question, granted, but I certainly would imagine NATO having the ability to forward project a command-and-control structure that would be led by a joint task force commander. That ability is very much resident into the NATO structure.

One of the benefits of NATO as an alliance is that it can pick up and move globally, and can put down a command-and-control joint structure and allow forces and nations to plug into that. I think one of the strengths of the NATO enterprise is the ability to fuse together an alliance internationally.

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

Then, the part that is of concern is our non-traditional NATO members who are our partners and the question of interoperability and communication. If that's not being exercised, how do you know that will work smoothly should it become necessary to fuse them?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

It's a great question.

With regard to any coalition...and I've heard many force commanders and commanders who have done the business say it's always sloppy. There are always challenges in integrating with teams you haven't trained with. That's why we invest so heavily in the training. We try to do the joint exercises that I described with 25,000 troops in Europe doing a scenario, working together, interacting. Sometimes it's not just the ones and zeros, having the right system to plug in, it's the getting to know one another and understanding each other. That's equally important.

It's always going to be a priority. It's not going to be easy. With pulling a coalition of the willing together that's not based on an alliance, you're going to have to work that. That's going to require discussion, rehearsals, and effort to be successful.

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

Has Canada in a NATO capacity or otherwise participated in exercises in the region of the Korean peninsula?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

The example comes to mind, we had the air force participating last year in an air mobility exercise in northern Australia. We do certainly conduct exercises of course. General Seymour would know intimately based on his service within the Pacific command. The annual RIMPAC exercise, although it's proximate to the region, it's a key activity that the Canadian Armed Forces participates in each and every time. We put Canadian leadership into that exercise which I think is important to note.

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

Spring is around the corner. Will Canada be participating in any NATO missions, in whatever capacity, in the Mediterranean area? We know that's traditionally when we see people from North Africa trying to make their way across the water to southern Europe.

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

As I mentioned in my opening comments, our frigate is seconded to NATO, and it has been for years on end. When you look at the orbit of that particular six-month journey, that vessel will move often. As it is now in the North Sea, it will go down through into the Strait of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean. It will work as part of a standing maritime group. Absolutely, Canada regularly has at least one ship in the Mediterranean that would contribute to the mission of NATO but also do concurrent exercises afloat.

The nice thing about the navy is that it can do many things at one time. They could be delivering an operational effect, yet at the same time could be exercising with a partner navy, working on those very interoperable issues that you highlighted.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you very much for your being here today and for spending the time with us.

I do a little bit of work with my colleague from the Liberal Party, Mr. Bagnell, in regard to the Arctic areas—Arctic climate change, that sort of thing. And it is changing. Our Canadian Armed Forces, through NATO, may not play the same role in the Arctic as some other regions, with the changing and potential flows of traffic in that region. Can you update us on the security levels in that area that you'd be involved in?

[MGen William Seymour]

A great activity is the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable, which we're hosting in Halifax, May 1-3. All the Arctic countries are coming, as well as a number of observers, and we're going to talk about Arctic security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask the witnesses to bear with me for a moment because I'm not to going to ask the question they think I might be asking.

There was news this morning of claims by President Putin about developing new missiles. This has not been independently confirmed, but if it is, they'd probably make the NATO anti-ballistic missile defences obsolete. If that technology were to proliferate, it would make all ballistic missile defences obsolete.

My concern, which I've been expressing in committee, is that there are two paths that NATO claims to follow: one is deterrence, and the other is to make the world a place without nuclear weapons. My concern is that NATO seems to walk, these days, on one leg, when it could be walking on two.

My question to you is, how does the expertise that is gained through operations in NATO feed into the work on the reduction of tensions and the goal of disarmament? You have a lot of expertise in operations. To me, you would have a lot to say on a practical basis about how we could reduce those tensions, and how we could move forward on disarmament. Are you asked to feed into those? What is really happening?