National Defence Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

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

In terms of that defeat mechanism, I've had it explained to me that ultimately it's like hitting a moving bullet with another moving bullet. That's why it's been so problematic, to say the least.

When we say it has a 50% failure rate, that's a big deal. How has that improved?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I don't have the expertise to be able to talk about specific missiles and specific intercepts. However, as we can see from the war in Ukraine and the number of Russian missiles that are being intercepted, yes, there is efficacy in having an air defence counter-missile system.

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

The idea of modernization is absolutely necessary and clear. It's the assurance that our men and women in the armed forces have what they need to do the job, which is a very dangerous job, but that is very different from a larger weaponization, that growth. A lot of people, when they were talking about the ballistic missile defence, didn't want to go down that road, because when we get bigger guns, they get bigger guns. When we get bigger systems, they get bigger systems.

How are we avoiding that now?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, what the question gets to is the essence of deterrence. Right now, we are seeing efforts by Russia to use nuclear coercion to further its national aims. Make no mistake about it: Other nations are watching. Other nations are seeing if it's worthwhile investing in nuclear arms or other forms of mass destruction to see if they can coerce neighbours and other actors from interfering in their national aims.

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

Is it a problem that Canada didn't play a role in the nuclear non-proliferation talks over the summer?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, from my perspective, I have no opinion on that.

Again, I'll ask our policy expert, Mr. Quinn, if he has anything.

[Jonathan Quinn]

Mr. Chair, for this one, I understand that the committee may hear from colleagues from the Global Affairs department later in the study. I think they would be better placed to answer that.

I'm not trying to dodge the question—it's a very good one, Mr. Chair—but I suspect our colleagues from the Global Affairs department would be better placed to answer that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. That is correct.

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

Is that my time?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No, not yet. You have a minute.

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

Maybe we'll leave that, then.

Could you please talk about those other forms of deterrence, those collaborations with Five Eyes and the idea of working multilaterally with our partners without contributing to that idea of an increasing arms race?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, this speaks to what deterrence means in a Canadian context.

From our perspective, deterrence for a country like Canada is best effected through the broad grouping of allies, friends and like-minded nations so that we can have that collective deterrence. In the U.S. they're calling it “integrated deterrence”.

There are two aspects of deterrence: deterrence by punishment and deterrence by denial.

Deterrence by punishment is being able to retaliate by holding what the adversaries consider valuable at risk. We don't have a lot of that in Canada, but by working with our like-minded partners we can be part of that larger deterrence.

Deterrence by denial means that what the adversary wants to achieve will not be possible. That means being resilient. Even if they attack, they will not achieve their aims, so it's avoiding or removing those single points of failure in our system so that we can continue to operate even after an attack.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Ms. Kramp-Neuman, welcome to the committee. You have five minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your service and your commitment to Canada.

I'm going to start with acknowledging that there have been lots of recent comments with regard to the Canadian Armed Forces and the personnel crisis directly affecting how we're able to do our business. The way I see it is that this is directly impacting our ability to defend the Arctic. We can't defend the Arctic without people. It seems to me we need to up our game.

Should we not be specialists in Arctic warfare? Compared to 10 years ago, how do our abilities to operate in the north differ? Are we making progress, or are we regressing?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, the first part really speaks to readiness, which has me very concerned. Readiness has four components: the people, the equipment, the training and the sustainment. We need to focus on all four of those to be able to conduct operations in the Arctic. We have to have the right people.

Yes, you've heard lots of commentary about the people situation in the Canadian Armed Forces. This is something I am extremely concerned about. We're addressing it through a reconstitution plan for the Canadian Armed Forces to rebuild our numbers.

We also have to continue to invest in equipment that is relevant for the north. We have to invest and continue to train in the north and increase training in that harsh environment.

That training has a number of purposes. Going back to the deterrence question, if we can continue to project capabilities to the extremities of our country, it shows potential adversaries that yes, we have the capabilities and we are exercising them, and it changes their decision calculus. That needs to continue.

The final component is sustainment. What I mean by that is our ability to not just supply our troops or our people at the extremities of our country, but to invest in infrastructure so that they have these lily pads of support, understanding just how distant and how far apart these nodes of infrastructure are. We need more of them in order to have much more of a perhaps not permanent but persistent presence in the north with capabilities that come from the south.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

To recap what you've said, we have to do this with a sense of urgency, because it's affecting our ability to respond around the world.

You've been quoted as saying that one in 10 positions goes unfilled in the Canadian Armed Forces. Can you identify the training activities and the operations that have needed to be eliminated as a result, or are they just being scaled back?

Furthermore, to complement that question, can you speak specifically in relation to the Arctic? Will Operation Nanook be cancelled, or will it be scaled back?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, we're looking at every activity that we're doing through the lens of reconstitution and how can we achieve the strategic effect with perhaps a lower number of people as we reallocate resources to train more, to rebuild, to conduct the basic training, etc. This applies to all of our activities, including our international operations, as we right-size our various task forces, but it also applies to training exercises here at home, where we have deliberately prioritized individual over collective training. What I mean by that is individual courses, basic training courses, leadership courses, etc., that grow our number. In collective training, you get groups of individuals—units—working together. We haven't eliminated it completely, because we do need a certain aspect to maintain our expertise and our readiness.

To the Operation Nanook question, no, that operation is not going away. That is our most visible, round-the-year presence in the Arctic, and that's going to continue.

If you have further questions on that, General Scott, who hasn't had a chance to talk yet, is eager to say a few words.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

He has 30 seconds.

[Major-General Peter Scott, Chief of Staff, Canadian Joint Operations Command, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be as brief as possible.

Certainly, as the chief has mentioned, Operation Nanook is going to continue next year, as it did this past year. This past year was a resounding success. There was a whole-of-government approach taken throughout the exercise, which basically ran from about March until the end of September. We also sought participation from the United States, France, Belgium, Korea and Japan.

It is a great exercise that allows us to touch base with a wide variety of northern communities and also to show the necessary deterrence and our presence in the Arctic throughout the year.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Kramp-Neuman.

With that, Ms. Lambropoulos, you have five minutes, please.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

When we talk about Arctic security, I can't help but think about the opportunities there in terms of development and in terms of helping our indigenous communities have better living environments as well. It solves two of our government's goals at once: not only securing the Arctic but also helping indigenous communities develop.

As my first question, can you tell us specifically how investment in NORAD would help support job creation and economic development that indigenous communities would benefit from directly?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, before I turn it over to Mr. Quinn for the specifics, it goes back to a similar response to an earlier question about having a win-win. Investment in infrastructure in the north creates jobs and creates opportunities in such things as broadband communications. Investing in expertise, such as what we find in the Canadian Rangers, also creates opportunities that are valuable for those northern indigenous communities.

With that, Mr. Quinn might comment.

[Jonathan Quinn]

Thank you, Chief.

Certainly there are lots of great opportunities for mutual benefit. We've talked a little about the enhancements to northern infrastructure that are part of the NORAD modernization plan. Those forward operating locations in Yellowknife, Inuvik, Iqaluit—and also Goose Bay, not necessarily the Arctic—will all yield indigenous employment opportunities and economic growth.

The sustainment and maintenance contract for the North Warning System was referred to. We will continue to sustain that system until the new over-the-horizon radar systems are complete. As has been mentioned, the contract for that was given to the Nasittuq Corporation, which is an Inuit-owned organization. It's $500 million to maintain the North Warning System. As we launch additional infrastructure projects in the north and establish the sites for the over-the-horizon radar, we certainly anticipate more opportunities along those lines for northerners.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

My follow-up question will be about recruitment efforts made specifically in the north. Obviously it might be a little bit harder to recruit people who don't already live in those types of environments and the harsh cold weather. Have there been additional recruitment efforts by the armed forces specifically in indigenous communities?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, this is an area where there is a tremendous amount of growth potential for our recruiting efforts. In the far north we continue to recruit into the Canadian Rangers. We are also very open for those who want to leave their communities and join us in different locations around the country.

We have a number of indigenous programs, especially throughout the summer. The deputy commander of the Canadian Army will be able to talk about those in much more detail in the next session, if you want more details.