National Defence Committee on Dec. 12th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I call the meeting to order.

Colleagues, it's 8:15 and I see quorum. We're on time, and time is always the enemy here.

We have the first hour directed to the changes, if you will, in the threat assessment as they've happened in the last few weeks.

We have before us familiar witnesses. We have Eric Laporte, executive director of the international security policy and strategic affairs bureau at GAC. From the Department of National Defence, we have Major-General Greg Smith and Major-General Robert Ritchie.

You've agreed among yourselves that Major-General Smith is doing the five-minute opening statement, and then we'll go to questions after that.

Major-General Smith, go ahead.

[Major-General Gregory Smith, Director General, International Security Policy, Department of National Defence]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, as stated, I'm Major-General Greg Smith, director general of international security policy at the Department of National Defence. With me, I have Major-General Bob Ritchie, director of staff of the strategic joint staff, and Mr. Eric Laporte of Global Affairs Canada.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the international security situation and how National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are responding.

The events from last week in Syria with the fall of the Assad regime proved to us once again how the security situation can evolve quickly and unexpectedly. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, alongside Global Affairs Canada and others, will continue to monitor what this means for Syria, Russia and Iran moving forward.

Russia is currently escalating its attacks on the critical energy infrastructure that Ukrainian citizens depend on.

The fast-paced evolution of drone warfare and the ongoing introduction of new capabilities require constant adaptation, which presents significant challenges to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

We also see Russia's persistent cyber and disinformation activities, which frequently target countries that provide support to Ukraine. These efforts are intended to interfere with democracy and erode public support for Ukraine.

We are seeing competition between the great powers in the Indo-Pacific that includes actions below the conflict threshold, increasing tensions and the risk of error. China is an increasingly capable and assertive actor that seeks to reshape the international system to advance its interests and values.

China is escalating its assertive and coercive behaviour in Taiwan, the East China Sea and the South China Sea. Recently, the China Coast Guard rammed, blocked and used water cannons against Philippine vessels.

North Korea's threatening rhetoric, ballistic missile launches, nuclear weapons development and deepening military co-operation with Russia are very concerning and in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Looking to the north, strategic competition, climate change and technological advancements are making the Arctic more strategically important than ever before. As receding ice from climate change renders the Arctic more accessible, we are seeing increased interest from non-Arctic states and more assertive postures from strategic competitors. For instance, both Russia and China, sometimes in collaboration, are demonstrating a more assertive posture and using a broad range of military capabilities and assets to collect intelligence.

As we navigate the geopolitical landscape, Canada's committed to upholding the rule of law and promoting democratic principles in our multilateral security efforts. Working together is an integral part of peace and security efforts, which is why Canada continues to co-operate with Ukraine and the multinational coalition to meet Ukraine's most urgent needs. In addition to the NASAMS air defence system, Minister Blair announced $64.8 million in new donations and contributions to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group's drone and information technology capability coalition.

In the Indo-Pacific, we are increasing the Canadian Armed Forces' presence in multilateral exercises and expanding training partnerships, senior leadership engagement and new bilateral agreements. In recognition of the strategic importance of the Arctic, our defence policy, “Our North, Strong and Free”, recognizes Arctic and northern approaches as critical to global deterrence.

Our increased spending will boost military readiness and expand capabilities in direct support of these priorities.

National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to adapting and working with our allies as the international security landscape evolves. More than ever, our actions today determine the consequences of tomorrow, and we must be ready.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Major-General Smith.

The first questioner is Mr. Allison. You have six minutes.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

To our guests, thank you for being here today.

You talked about China being more aggressive toward Taiwan. What do you make of this latest aggression in the last week? Is this a bit of posturing before there's a change in government in the U.S., or is this just more of the same?

[MGen Gregory Smith]

Mr. Chair, I'll start with a response.

With regard to China, sometimes they call it a revisionist power. It is trying to change the world order so that big powers can do to smaller powers what they want. This is why the Canadian Armed Forces wants to be more present, and it's why we have Operation Horizon, which puts a lot more Canadian capability in that region to demonstrate that we're contributing to security and that this is not the right way to make changes.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Given that there's going to be a change in government in the U.S. in the new year, do you feel that this is going to change the relationship at all, or is this going to be more of the same?

[MGen Gregory Smith]

Mr. Chair, from my perspective, we have an excellent relationship with the U.S. I, of course, wouldn't speak to the political changes, but from an officials-to-officials perspective, we have an excellent relationship. We held what's called the Permanent Joint Board of Defence recently. It was the 242nd time that this board was held. It's an excellent relationship, obviously, because that's the way the U.S. system works. Many of those officials will change out post-January 20, but we—I could throw it over to my director-of-staff colleague here—have excellent defence-to-defence relations, so I don't have concerns from that perspective.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

As we look at what's going on over there, do you feel that North Korea is working with China when it comes to Taiwan? Obviously, there are a lot of challenges when we deal with those types of countries, but do you feel that they're actively aiding China? What would your thoughts be on that?

[Eric Laporte, Executive Director, International Security Policy and Strategic Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

It's an excellent question. I would say, though, that North Korea and China's co-operation is not centred on the issue of Taiwan. I think their co-operation is more related to maybe a nuclear program, to fuel transfers or to supporting the DPRK economy. I think North Korea really, at the moment, is actually—maybe in early days—focusing a lot of its relationship and its attention on working more closely with Russia. That's what we're seeing in terms of deployment of North Korean personnel into Russia to fight in the war in Ukraine. In exchange for that is maybe a technology transfer from Russia as well as other supplies.

To answer your question, I'm not seeing the China-North Korea-Taiwan nexus.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Okay. That's great.

You talked about Syria just a little bit and the fact that a number of troops and individuals fled to Russia. How do you see that playing out in the next weeks and months as you look into your crystal ball?

[Eric Laporte]

I'm not sure that my crystal ball is that effective, sir. I do say that, you know, obviously we welcome the end of the Assad regime, a brutal, murderous regime that has been there in power for over 50 years. What we are wanting to ensure is obviously the destruction of chemical weapons and that there's an investigation and documented evidence of the regime's crimes. It is, obviously, still early days. Things are still very fluid in Syria at the moment, so our focus at the moment is encouraging an inclusive and political process under the UN framework to allow Syrians to have the dignity and ability to run their country as they wish.

From a security perspective, there are maybe some silver linings here in terms of reduced access for Russia to the Mediterranean as a result of that, and also a reduction of Iran's influence in the region following that. However, again, it is still very early days. It will take time to stabilize, and there may be still some very big hiccups along the way.

[Major-General Robert Ritchie, Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, if I might just add some military perspective as well, the HTS leader, al-Julani, signalled the desire for a normalized tone, so what we might see is working alongside other parties and other minority groups going forward.

Israel has seized the opportunity to move into the Golan Heights in observation posts to ensure that no Syrian threats enter Israel. Then, additionally, what we've seen from Israel is targeting of the regime forces. The Syrian navy has been degraded, and 350 strikes have destroyed what we think is 70% to 80% of the former regime's capability. We're specifically talking about air and ground platforms, and we've also seen efforts from Israel and the west around securing the chemical and nerve warfare stockpiles.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Maybe I'll ask one final question, which I'm sure needs a lot more explanation, so maybe other people will pick it up.

You talked about concerns in the north, the Arctic, with regard to climate change and the fact that it needs to be more accessible. There's just so much that needs to go into how we defend the Arctic. I mean, this is less than a 60-second answer. What are some of the things that we need to start doing to be able to have a presence up there and to start being able to defend the Arctic, so to speak?

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Yes, that's true.

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

First off, we do have a significant presence in the Arctic with our Rangers, the Alert station on Ellesmere Island, the 440 Squadron and then the Loyal Edmonton Regiment.

More importantly, we need to invest as we have in the northern operational support hubs, which will provide responsiveness and agility to the north.

Additionally, we're investing in expanding the capacity of the forward operating locations that allow us to surge more capability into the Arctic region to respond.

In terms of domain awareness, Arctic over-the-horizon radar is in progress with our U.S. colleagues and integrated with NORAD headquarters out of Colorado Springs. We're—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave the answer there. I'm sure you'll eventually get an answer there.

Mr. Collins, you have six minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our guests.

I'll start with Russia.

Major-General, you talked about defence relationships. You said you weren't going to venture into the political arena. I certainly understand and respect why that's the case, but defence relationships can be changed by political decisions. We're seeing that with the whole question of U.S. support for Ukraine. There's an open question right now in terms of whether this is just political bluster and/or whether the new U.S. administration really means to bring an immediate and quick end to that conflict.

That can happen in many ways. That can happen with a withdrawal of support, as has been hinted at for the last year in the lead-up to their election. If, in fact, the new U.S. administration holds firm on its public statements that this is going to come to a quick end that will mean a withdrawal of support in whole or in part—whether that's military intelligence or whether that's actual armaments that are making their way over to Ukraine—how long can Ukraine survive in its conflict without U.S. support?

I'll start with that and I'll have some supplementals.

[MGen Gregory Smith]

Mr. Chair, obviously the U.S. is a key contributor. We've seen over $60 billion in the most recent release of funding to them, so it's a key contributor.

That being said, Canada has equally contributed a lot—over $4.5 billion—in lethal aid and the training we're doing under Operation Unifier. There are a lot of different ways that we're continuing to do that. There will be forward announcements as we do that.

The U.S. is critical, but Canada has also been an important part of the contribution to keep Ukraine going.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

If they pull their support, Ukraine could decide to turn then to its other allies to say that it needs more. I'm certain that we would look to try to provide more assistance, but I think that call would certainly fall on the shoulders of Europe in terms of those who have as much or more to lose with an aggressive Russian advancement beyond Ukraine's borders.

Can I get an understanding in terms of where the conversation is between President Zelenskyy and his administration and European officials in terms of supplemental support in addition to what they've already provided?

[Eric Laporte]

I think there's an active conversation that is currently going on between President Zelenskyy and European allies. I heard in the media this morning that France and Poland are discussing a potential peacekeeping operation after the conflict.

All that is to say that I think the original comment of your question is that we actually don't really know where the U.S. administration is going to go on this. There's been a lot of talk. Part of it is probably election posturing, while part of it is trying to shape the ground. What we do know is that President-elect Trump has nominated the former national security adviser to the vice-president, General Kellogg, to be his Ukraine adviser.

What General Kellogg has said in the past in terms of the peace plan is it's freezing the battle lines, linking U.S. military aid to Kyiv's participation in peace talks, delaying Ukraine's NATO membership—putting it on pause to allow Russia to come to the negotiating table—and then lifting sanctions on Russia only after an agreeable peace has been agreed to by Russia.

All that is to say that it's a bit speculative. Your ultimate point is that if the U.S. were to withdraw its support in part or in whole, I certainly would see Ukraine looking to others to come forward. That certainly means European allies, but Canada too, given what we've been doing thus far.

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Mr. Chair, if I might add, militarily, as late as two days ago, we had an opportunity to meet with elements of the framework nations. Those are 14 nations, including, most importantly, those from Europe. We see opportunity as we work on contingency planning together for the post-stabilization scenarios.

Additionally, both the conventional and special operations forces commanders have been in Europe examining what could be contingency scenarios to make sure that we're agile in response to post-inauguration events.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Our chair opened the meeting saying that there's a lot going on. I think that's one of the statements he made.

I'm fascinated by the relationship, not new but stronger, that's formed between North Korea and Russia and certainly by their participation in the war. What does the future hold in that regard?

That seemed to be a silent partnership in the past, something we didn't read or hear about until they inserted their foot in the door of the war effort. If this war is coming to a conclusion, that relationship will still exist.

No one has a crystal ball, but I'm wondering what your assessment is in terms of what that relationship will look like after the Ukraine war.

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Maybe I'll open with my characterization of the military interactions and then provide the opportunity to colleagues to answer your question.

We've seen 12,000 North Korean troops deployed into Russia as well as, importantly, equipment: 50 howitzers and 20 multiple-launch rocket systems, which are a pretty sophisticated capability. They've gone, as this group knows, to the Kursk oblast. Russia, in turn, has also used 60 ballistic missiles from the DPRK against Ukraine.

To what my colleague earlier said, we think that there's an exchange through which Russia is providing the DPRK with fuel, money and, most importantly, technology, which does have the propensity to destabilize the peninsula.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there. I think we're going to have this pattern for the entire meeting. We start to get into the meat of things, and I have to cut it off.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.