National Defence Committee on March 30th, 2022

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

I'll answer briefly, Mr. Chair.

One of the great enviable things about the Canadian approach is the seamless integration of CSE, CSIS and Defence in this domain. That's not to say that no challenges remain, but it's certainly an example of how within government the cohesion between those three entities allows Canada to lead and innovate in ways that may be unexpected.

As far as collaboration with our partners in the States goes, we have folks embedded in their cyber command. The collaboration between CSE and the U.S. agencies as well as Defence for our specific role when we're outside of the country continues on a day-to-day, week-to-week and minute-to-minute basis.

It's a challenging environment, particularly in terms of attribution of who's doing what, and therefore elevating other tools or instruments of national power to act, and it is a growing domain.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Madam O'Connell, please go ahead for four minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here.

I want to speak about the recent agreement for the north warning system in partnership with indigenous communities. Can you elaborate on that?

We've heard different things from witnesses, and they've spoken a lot about the work that the rangers do, but we haven't heard a lot about this program, at least in the testimony I've been part of. Could you elaborate on that program?

[Jonathan Quinn]

Mr. Chair, I'll take this one.

Absolutely, replacing the north warning system with a more advanced technological system as soon as possible is a really key priority as reflected in the Joint Statement on NORAD Modernization by Canada and the U.S. that I mentioned.

More recently, PSPC awarded a contract on behalf of DND and CAF to Nasittuq Corporation. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly. It is an Inuit-owned company and it will maintain the current north warning system for an initial period of seven years. That contract was valued at $592 million.

The intent is to continue to maintain the current north warning system until that new technology is in place. We anticipate that a layered system of systems will be required, rather than kind of a radar-for-radar replacement. These details will be available soon, once the minister has announced the plans for NORAD modernization in more detail.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you for clarifying that it was Inuit, because I said indigenous.

I want to follow up on that, too. There have been some talks as well—maybe this is a bit of a hypothetical or theoretical question—on the question of northern sovereignty, defence of the north and whether or not Canada should look at it as the defence of Canadian interests. Of course, that's always going to be our number one priority, but we are also looking at it as more of a North American defence system with our allies in the U.S.

There's some debate on whether or not we want to do that. I think our interests in terms of safety and security will always be aligned, but we've seen different administrations with different priorities. Have we given much thought to a North American approach versus a solely Canadian sovereignty approach to defence in the north?

[Jonathan Quinn]

Absolutely. I would say that one great thing about our relationship with the United States, as administrations come and go, is that the ties in the relationship on the military and the defence side seem to remain strong regardless of the different political administrations that are in power. NORAD has a long history, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. We have full confidence in NORAD's ability to defend North America from aerospace threats. They also have a maritime warning function.

At the same time, there are certainly Canadian interests in the Arctic that fall well outside of the NORAD mandate. We certainly need to have domestic capabilities. We need the Canadian Armed Forces to be able to launch and sustain operations across the north across the full spectrum of operations, from safety and security, search and rescue, to protecting our sovereignty and Canadian interests in the context of an increasingly competitive geopolitical environment.

It's really about finding the right balance and making sure we have domestic capabilities, but also, I think we can rely with full confidence on the binational NORAD command to defend North America in—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. Normandin, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the two witnesses for being here.

Over the past year, we've talked a lot about purchasing new fighter jets. More recently, we've been talking a lot about protecting the north, in the context of the war in Ukraine. My questions will be about those two issues.

I would like to hear what you think about the capacity of F‑35s to fly in Arctic weather. Some people have said that the aircraft might have some deficiencies in that regard.

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is absolutely essential that the F‑35s be able to function in the Arctic.

One of the clear requirements of that aircraft is to meet and conduct all of the tasks and missions that Canada wishes, as well as those that we've signed on to as partners. It's absolutely true that this aircraft can function in the Arctic.

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

When it comes to the distance that F‑35s can travel, some have said that their range is more limited. Since the bases in the north don't have the capacity to land these aircraft, they wouldn't be useful, and the planes would have to be refuelled in flight, which would make us more dependant on the Americans for that.

Are these legitimate concerns?

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

I don't believe so, Mr. Chair.

In fact, we rely on three systems. For our F‑18s, we use a strategic tanker system, a command and control system, and the fighter aircraft themselves. It is essential that we plan for this capability in the Far North.

Regardless of aircraft, to be able to interdict any incursions in Canadian or North American aerospace requires the close co-operation of strategic tankers, fighter aircraft and command and control systems. It's not just looking at the capacity of any given fighter that has been selected; it's how those three systems interplay.

Today, as an example, when an F-18 is dispatched, they launch, refuel, and they move to the area where they're going to intercept. They intercept, refuel, and they come back. This is a tried and tested system that is utilized by NORAD.

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

Thank you.

Recently, there has also been talk of joining the anti‑missile shield, in collaboration with the United States. In the past, the door was closed on the issue.

I would like to know what the main advantage and main disadvantage would be for us to join this kind of initiative.

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

If we're talking about ballistic missile defence, I have a few points to raise about the 2005 policy decision, which had to do with a specific aspect of Canada's defence. Ballistic missiles do indeed constitute a potential threat to Canada.

There are a number of threats to Canada. There was a policy decision around that specific threat, ballistic missile defence, but the collaboration through NORAD against the other threats continued unabated and does so today.

Our NATO allies, as an example, consider other holistic views of threats to airspace and that planning continues at various levels either through NORAD, through NATO, as well as other [Inaudible—Editor ].

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madam Normandin.

Madam Mathyssen, you have four minutes, please.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I want to work further on Madam Normandin's questions about the F-35 jets. Currently, with the CF-18s we were told that 55% are operational. We will not see the delivery of the F-35s until 2025.

How are people on the ground doing that work and using that equipment making the operability of those CF-18s stretch until 2025?

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

Chair, I must begin by just qualifying my response by confirming that the area of expertise I have is in force design, understanding the threats and vulnerabilities against Canada. Although this is a specific question to one of our platforms, we do look at, holistically, the capabilities that we need and seamless transition between fleets. We have the assurances, through various mitigation measures, that the F-18s we have, the new ones that are coming on line to mitigate a gap, as well as the completion of the final step for the next generation of aircraft, will assure that we have seamless coverage for the defence of Canada and our NORAD missions.

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

Okay.

In terms of the cost, we heard last week from officials and additionally from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the delays in purchasing equipment was problematic because of inflation, supply chain issues and COVID-19-related issues, in terms of that increase in cost.

How will that increase the costs on the F-35 project, specifically? Do you know?

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

I can't speak specifically, Mr. Chair, to that fleet, but in general terms, we're seeing, as the wider program is impacted by the effects of COVID-19 and supply chains, it will take time. Part of the negotiation that's under way now, the final step of the acquisition of the new fighter, all of that will be laid out and we'll get a sense of what the implications are for that specific cost that the member alluded to.

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

Is it possible to get that information to the committee when you receive it? That's just a delay in terms of when you're doing that analysis. Is that what you're saying?

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

The answer is yes, of course we can provide the committee with the answer. It is not my area of expertise.

What I do know is it's going to take time to complete the analysis, but we have obligations to both internally report what those expenditures would look like, and of course, our obligations for Treasury Board and Parliament.

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

I will squeeze in one more.

One of the things that I would imagine is very important on all procurement projects is for the government to do the fiscal impact assessment, but there's also an environmental impact assessment. Under our obligations with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples regarding an indigenous impact assessment, will that be done on all future procurement? When can we expect those reports back and can they be tabled with the committee?

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

I don't know the answer to the first question. Perhaps I'll start and Mr. Quinn can help.

Every procurement that is undertaken does take into the account the need and obligation to satisfy those obligations. To talk about the wider analysis that Mr. Quinn and I collaborated on in relation to continental defence, there, again, is another good example of where the approach to how any potential decision on investments would be made absolutely has to integrate the indigenous consultation. I'm thinking specifically of those potential investments that could be in the north. Our planning and analysis absolutely factored those obligations into effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you.

Again, we have 25 minutes' worth of questions and not 25 minutes' worth of time, so it will be three minutes each, and one minute, one minute.

With that, Ms. Findlay, you have three minutes.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here today.

General Kelsey, what capabilities are we currently deficient in, in a modern combat environment?

[MGen Stephen Kelsey]

Chair, I'll answer the question in perhaps two different ways.

First of all, the spectrum of platforms and capacities that we have is sufficient to satisfy the threat and vulnerabilities that Canada has today.

What is the central element of our study related to continental defence and NORAD modernization is about the need for modernization and the need for people to be able to be ready for those threats and vulnerabilities of the future.

There are two aspects of it. We're very much focused on positioning Canada for the defence of our national interests and the security of North America in the future. That's the basis for analysis in the NORAD modernization review.