National Defence Committee on March 23rd, 2022

[Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel Group, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Matthews, for the opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The radar that's been selected in the proposal by Lockheed Martin and through ISI is in development now. It's modern, cutting-edge technology that will serve us well for the decades to come. It's also being worked on to be incorporated into the Spanish navy as part of their solution.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Can either of you tell us how it will keep up with the carrier battle group, which travels at 30 knots, when these ships can do only 27 knots?

[Bill Matthews]

I think, Mr. Chair, I'll go back to the initial answer, that we are still nailing down exact design requirements with our service providers. In terms of studies on speed, we'll know more as time passes on.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Matthews, can you confirm that the combat system for those ships has been declared for U.S. eyes only, and that all Canadians working on the combat system have been fired?

[Bill Matthews]

I'm certainly not aware of anyone being fired. I will turn to my colleague, Troy, to see if he wishes to add anything in terms of U.S. eyes only and so on.

[Troy Crosby]

There's no indication that it's U.S. eyes only on the Canadian portion of the solution. Undoubtedly, where there is technology transfer from a parent technology from the United States, there are elements of design there that I have no doubt are within the hands of the U.S. or the U.S. Navy, but we have the access required in order to bring into service our Canadian surface combatant for operation.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Is it true that all maintenance on the combat systems for those warships will be done in the U.S.?

[Troy Crosby]

No. The maintenance will be done in Canada. Some of the materiel will be returned to the original equipment manufacturers, wherever they happen to be, whether that's in the U.S. or elsewhere, because that's where the expertise lies. However, the touch labour, the ongoing labour and the sustainment of our combat capability will be a Canadian domestic requirement, in fact, for the long term.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Can I ask why we are not choosing the F-35?

[Bill Matthews]

I think on that question we've already said what we can today in terms of the fact that the government ran a competitive process. There are two bidders left in the running, and news will come in the following weeks in terms of what the next steps are.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

When will construction start on new polar icebreakers?

[Bill Matthews]

Polar icebreakers actually belong to the Coast Guard, so I'm not in a position to comment on when their construction might start.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

In your opinion, how are we going to protect the Arctic? Do we have the capabilities for UAV surveillance?

[Bill Matthews]

I'm going to likely turn to the vice chief in a moment on this one.

As we've already touched on, there is ongoing work to look at modernizing NORAD continental defence, etc. The Arctic is obviously a big part of that. In terms of exact capability, it's too early to say what will be required and what will be put in place.

Vice, do you wish to add anything?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of technologies can be used to provide the surveillance I spoke about previously. That is critical to being able to know what is happening in such a vast north as we have.

There are many technologies. There are satellite and UAV technologies. There is obviously physical presence as a representation of ships. These can all serve to provide an increased understanding of activity in the north, as well as of presence in the north.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

Mr. Spengemann, you have six minutes, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Chair, thank you very much.

I have two areas I'd like to ask about for roughly three minutes each. One is peace and support operations. The other is women, peace and security. I hope to get to both of them.

Thank you for being with us today.

The committee received information earlier in the first session that $5.6 million, I think, have been requested in the supplementaries for peace and support operations in Africa. This area is not in the spotlight at the moment, but I believe it's fundamentally important that we discharge our obligations. I think there are a dozen UN peacekeeping operations around the world, and about half of them are in Africa.

I'm wondering if you could tell the committee about our strategy for those kinds of operations. Let us know if there are any current requests from the UN to Canada that have not been answered yet. Also, what do you see as potentially Canada's next area or mission of involvement following operation presence in Mali?

[Bill Matthews]

I will start and then turn to the vice.

I'm not aware of any outstanding [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Obviously, any decision for the government to employ the CAF in a peacekeeping mission comes in concert with discussion with our colleagues at Global Affairs Canada. Africa is an important area. We've seen events in the news of the changing circumstances there.

I'm not aware of anything in the hopper on that front.

Vice, you may wish to chime in here.

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

If we're speaking about the line item in the supplementary estimates that was identified by the CFO when she spoke, this is the snapshot of captures of costs of our previous activities moving forward.

Certainly, peace support operations are important from the government's perspective. Clearly, every set of circumstances and every particular military operation gets assessed as it pertains to the requirements of the UN or of the multinational organization that is providing the peacekeeping or peace support function. Obviously, the appropriate amount of protection and security then need to be applied to ensure that CAF members or multinational forces are able to properly execute the duties they have to do.

Where and when asked by government to consider something, the Canadian Forces puts together options for the government to consider.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much, both of you.

Would these $5.6 million be additional costs that CAF would incur by going into theatre, like Africa, or would they be the proportional costs of equipment, troops and CAF personnel that's already ready to go, that are simply then reallocated to a mission?

[Bill Matthews]

Generally speaking, this cost relates to tactical airlift. It's on an as-demanded basis. It is a bit of “if and when requested”. That's the funding that has been set aside.

There are support staff involved in that activity as well. It is really just a placeholder for tactical airlift as required, generally speaking.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's very helpful, Mr. Matthews. Thank you.

In the 42nd Parliament, this committee had a chance to go to Mali. We studied Canada's role in international peace operations and conflict resolution. The committee made a number of cogent and very relevant recommendations, one of which is the following:

That the Government of Canada supplement our military contributions to peace operations with support for peace processes and with support for multidimensional programs addressing the challenges of stabilization and transition out of conflict.

Just briefly, in your assessment, is it currently the case that the Government of Canada is adopting and following a whole-of-government approach when planning and executing obligations under UN peace operations?

[Bill Matthews]

I think that when there's deployment in these types of activities, it is never just the Canadian Armed Forces. There are other players as well—Global Affairs, as already mentioned. Sometimes we involve colleagues from the RCMP and other departments as well.

When and as required, we certainly engage other departments and have those discussions, but every opportunity is unique, so depending on the request that has been made and the type of mission, that may dictate who we engage with in terms of colleagues from other departments.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Would a request for a specific amount—like $5.6 million—be developed in coordination with the kinds of international development aid we already do that would generate peace dividends? Is there lateral coordination across to the other departments that are involved in these kinds of questions?

[Bill Matthews]

There is coordination to a certain extent, and this is more of a theoretical answer. If it's largely one department that's footing the bill, we would carry the can for other departments.

If you're contemplating something where you would see other departments requiring resources, there's one of two possibilities. They put in their own request, or the money effectively sits with this department and then is transferred to the other departments when required, based on the rollout of the mission.

All is possible. The engagement is there. The funding models could vary depending upon the exact specifics.