National Defence Committee on March 30th, 2022

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

The project is in the final stage, where it has been given authority to negotiate for the price. Part of that negotiation, as was alluded to earlier, is understanding the implications of COVID, etc., and therefore what the value for dollar would be. Equally true at the same time, the Royal Canadian Air Force is looking at how to sequence the training of pilots in the same way. It's absolutely factored. I'm unable to give you specifics as to what that looks like in terms of the next number of years, but I know it's absolutely a consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

Mr. Spengemann, you have three minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being with us.

General Kelsey, thank you for your service.

I'd also like to thank our colleague, Alex Ruff, who's with us today, for his service.

I'd like to spend my time on a brief discussion of the threat setting in 2022.

In very broad strokes, we have moved from the 1990s, the collapse of the former Soviet Union, into and through the post-9/11 era and the Arab Spring. We're now at a time when, once again, one of the great powers has exercised military aggression against another country. We're having discussions about cybersecurity. We're having discussions about technology, geopolitical threats, secondary and tertiary implications and also a lot of intersection points between the military and civilian sectors.

Could you each give us a brief assessment of how you see the threat environment in 2022 and what the key priorities are for Canada? Perhaps you could sum up some of the points you made earlier, but maybe add some new ones as well.

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

I'll start, with your permission, Jon.

I would characterize it this way. It's a very sobering understanding not just to watch as a military planner where the investments are being made, what advancements in technology are being implemented, but it's also the will that threat actors have to actually act and do such things as what we've seen in the past related to cyber and misinformation, and now specifically with Ukraine.

In terms of our specific threats and vulnerabilities, it reinforces the need for Canada to modernize, particularly as it relates to North America and continental defence, so that we protect our national interests and the security of the north. It comes back to people. We do have a challenge. We're short. We want to attract and retain the best that Canada has to offer. People are the key to success to any mitigation of threats and vulnerabilities in the future.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Quinn.

[Jonathan Quinn]

Mr. Chair, I think General Kelsey captured it pretty eloquently.

The one thing I would add to his response is that Canada had the luxury of relying on our geography for much of our history for our defence, basically. We can rely on that less and less. You mentioned cyberspace and the information domain. Obviously, geography has no impact on these kinds of activities at all. As well, we've talked about military modernization and some of our potential adversaries in terms of Russia and China developing faster missile technology that can be launched from further away, that is specifically designed to challenge our defences

Definitely, as General Kelsey said, it's a sobering environment. We are, I think, legitimately entering a new era of global competition. We need to make sure we're prepared to confront that.

I mentioned climate change at the outset in my opening remarks—I'll be really quick—which is another real, key driver for Canadian defence and security, in particular. It has very practical implications, including for the melting permafrost and the impact that has on our northern infrastructure, but it's also enhancing interest in the north and the resources that are there in a way that could affect Canadian interests over the long term.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

[Jonathan Quinn]

That's another thing that we're obviously watching closely—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

We could squeeze out one question per party if we do it at one minute each.

The Conservatives have one minute for a question.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I still want to go back to my earlier question about the importance of our integration with the U.S. If that gets compromised, i.e., they determine that security integration is no longer reliable due to us taking on technologies that they view as compromised by China, Russia or other state actors, what would be the implication for us in being able to do our part in the defence of North America?

[Jonathan Quinn]

Really quickly, maybe I'll take that one, Mr. Chair.

I think you're absolutely.... I think that if we weren't able to enjoy that degree of integration it would have profound implications for Canadian defence and security.

There's no doubt about that, but I would point to the recent joint statement on NORAD modernization signed by the previous minister of national defence and the U.S. Secretary of Defense as an illustration that this doesn't seem to be happening. We're moving ahead full speed on the modernization of NORAD with confidence that it will continue to be our mechanism of choice to defend our shared continent.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The Liberals have one minute.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Building on the last question, in this highly interconnected world, and maybe particularly looking at the Ukraine crisis at the moment and its aftermath, how important is it that we are connected not just to the United States but also to the rest of our allies, both in operational planning and in budgetary questions and procurement and acquisition questions?

[Jonathan Quinn]

That's a great question, Chair. I would say that it's vital.

In the western world, I think our allies, friends and partnerships are one of our key advantages over our potential adversaries, who tend to operate more unilaterally. By all means, across the board, whether it's through information sharing, intelligence sharing or collaboration on technology, operational training and exercises, collaboration with allies continues to be absolutely critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

Ms. Normandin, you have one minute, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

There has been a lot of talk recently about Arctic sovereignty. Many people have mentioned that one of the ways to crystallize our sovereignty in the Arctic is through effective human occupation of the land.

Is the approach of an increased human presence in the northern territory part of National Defence's plan?

[Jonathan Quinn]

If I understand the question correctly, Mr. Chair, I think I would say that having a presence in the north is fundamental to asserting sovereignty over it.

I'm not sure if it was my comment or General Kelsey's that you were referring to, but I think the idea there is that socio-economic development in the north and continuing to support northern communities and allowing them to flourish are as important to Canadian sovereignty in the north as having the military capabilities to actively defend it.

I'll just take a moment here to briefly say that as we pursue potential investments in NORAD modernization, we've conducted a fair bit of informal consultation with northern communities in advance of that and would continue to do so once decisions are taken as we get into implementation, in order to make sure that in every investment we make in the kinds of things we're looking to do, we're seeking out opportunities for dual benefits and to support the needs of local communities as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave that question there.

Madam Mathyssen, you have the final minute.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of that NORAD modernization, it comes with a hefty price tag, of course, which is understandable, but some are suggesting that Canada might be required to pay up to 40% of that. Is that realistic? Is that correct in terms of the suppositions? Is that what you're planning?

[Jonathan Quinn]

Chair, on this one, I think the 40%-60% split that has been talked about is in relation to the north warning system. There was an MOU in place that divides investment in that system along those lines. We'll wait until we're able to share more details on the minister's plans for NORAD modernization and broader continental defence. I wouldn't want to speculate or presuppose any decisions that haven't yet been taken on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

That brings our time for questions to an end, unfortunately.

I appreciate your patience with our having to accommodate the votes.

This concludes the formal part of our study. The testimony has been uniformly excellent. Having both of you here has been an excellent way to finish off.

Thank you, Mr. Quinn, and thank you, General Kelsey.

The meeting is adjourned.