National Defence Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

If you look at the AOPS, I think the answer is in what it can do. It cannot operate in the Arctic throughout the entire year. I think that answers your question right there. What happens if a threat surfaces or develops at some time when they're not available? The short answer is that they don't meet the need.

Secondly, on whether they are armed enough, I'm not in the navy, but the short answer is no, in my opinion.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Okay.

General Parent, what about above ice and below ice?

[LGen (Ret'd) Alain J. Parent]

My idea is that you equip yourself so that nobody wants to attempt to go weapon on weapon on the ship. It's about deterrence.

The best deterrence in the north would be an undersea-capable submarine, and hopefully a nuclear submarine that could stay there. If a submarine is there and it's known, nobody will come forward. There we achieve deterrence because the cost inflicted would be too high to come and have bullets of ice breakers against bullets of ice breakers.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I appreciate that.

General Semianiw, I believe you were also commander of the reserves at one point in time. You did talk about making sure that we had more Rangers and possibly more reserve units, which I agree with. When you talk about changing the training of Rangers, are you thinking about training them up to a reserve unit class? Are you just saying that they need more training than what they're currently getting and to increase the number of Rangers we have currently?

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

Thanks for the question, Mr. Chair.

It comes back to what the need is. What would we want them to do, from a surveillance perspective?

If you just look at it from a logistics perspective and as one small part of what's provided, that would be one area. I think if you go into the details, if you've had witnesses here to say what Rangers are provided with, you'll find that they're provided with very limited support. They provide their own ski-doos and the like. They are reimbursed in part. It's not ideal. From a logistics perspective, if they could improve that in itself, it would improve the capability of what the Rangers could do in the north.

I'm just looking at the Government of Canada, if I may here. This is from the Government of Canada on the 1st Canadian Rangers. The 1st Canadian Ranger patrol group—that's 2,000 Rangers—are “responsible for Nunavut Territory, Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories, and...British Columbia” in the north.

When you look at it from the perspective of pure numbers, clearly it needs to be expanded, because they only have about 60 patrols on the ground right now. Again, what you want them to do is based on the threat.

Aside from that, you're right that they probably need to do other types of military training to improve their capability.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

My last question will go to General Parent.

You talked about the ability to defend against air-breathing missile threats that are coming in. What exactly are you talking about? Is that in not just Canada's north but in all approaches to Canada? Are you talking about a Patriot missile system or something along that line?

[LGen (Ret'd) Alain J. Parent]

Is that to defend against what's coming at us?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes, it's to defend. It's what's coming at us.

[LGen (Ret'd) Alain J. Parent]

For what's coming at us, you need an integrated air defence system. It's layered. You can have an initial fence of an anti-missile system and you can have interceptors, but in the end, and where we are in Canada, you actually need a point defence, which is a ground-based air defence system that protects your critical infrastructure, protects your command and control nodes and protects your government from an explosion on our soil.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Ms. O'Connell, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you both for being here today.

Just following up on that last question, what would be a timeline to design, develop and implement the type of program you just described?

[LGen (Ret'd) Alain J. Parent]

Based on our procurement system, it takes time. If you build up north, it takes time. I would say that you would do one thing per season up north to build a specific system. The idea is to have systems that have persistent surveillance. You could have a combination of manned and unmanned patrol aircraft providing surveillance. Then, from queuing, you move forward.

It takes time. We're late to see the need. I'll leave it at that.

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

Well, that's precisely my question. Your answer is that it takes time, and I understand that, but the challenges in the north are not necessarily new. Successive governments have clearly not taken that time. In addition to that, successive governments have avoided joining the U.S. ballistic missile program. Is that something that should be re-evaluated?

[LGen (Ret'd) Alain J. Parent]

I think it should be re-evaluated, because if you want to move to a North American defence command, you have to have one with a partner that doesn't have a caveat. Right now we have the caveat that we will not defend against ballistic missiles. Therefore, that makes us not part of a full partnership.

On the element of time, my experience is that when there's a will from the government, there's a way, and it goes really fast. We went from zero to combat in Afghanistan with Chinooks inside a year. We acquired C-17s very fast. It's a matter of the funding and the will.

Our forefathers had the will to quickly build Cheyenne Mountain. That would cost billions, but if your survival is in doubt as a country, then you find the means and it goes faster. Political will makes it faster.

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

Thank you.

Sir, I saw you nodding. I'm not sure if you wanted in on that question.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

Yes. I think it's probably one of the most important questions for this committee: When should the Government of Canada begin to actually do what it needs to do in the north? I don't think it's been addressed or discussed much in the committee.

The short answer, given what my colleague said, is that if it takes much longer to build in the north and you are limited to one season, and if you want to do something, it takes 10 years and not five years, I think the time is now. However, to be fair, it's going to cost a lot of money. Therein lies the issue. Our geography has historically provided us with an element of defence. That is slowly being eroded, based on what my colleague said, and many others facets and factors.

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

Thank you.

Following up on that and your earlier response about the Rangers and the need there, we've also heard testimony that it's been very difficult to recruit and retain. Do you have any suggestions or advice on some of the things we could do differently to actually recruit more? It's certainly not a lack of wanting to. How do we encourage more people to step forward? We've certainly heard testimony about indigenous partnerships, and that's been very helpful.

Do you have anything to add about how we could actually recruit the numbers that we would need?

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

It's a great question. I think you could have asked it of the last group that was here, particularly the commander of Joint Task Force North.

Part of it in the north would be to increase the capability and support to the Rangers. I've talked with them, and my colleague as well has worked with them. They take a look at what we provide to them, and it's an outdated weapon. Yes, it's been updated, but it's really not a combat-effective weapon in some cases. If we improved what we provide from a mobility point of view, I think that in itself might improve recruiting, as they see a greater commitment from us, the government, to what they do.

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

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have a minute and a half.

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

Thank you very much.

NATO was talking about the north in relation to their northern sovereignty and protection and connections. Do you think there's a relationship that Canada needs to play with our European allies in terms of any aggression or movement from China or Russia? Would our European counterparts see that and interact as well? What coordination do you think is needed, if any?

That's to either one of you.

[LGen (Ret'd) Alain J. Parent]

I happen to be a senior mentor for NATO, so I'm in regular contact with NATO.

When I was in NORAD, we would say the Canadian Arctic is Canada-U.S. You have to remember that Canada-U.S. is part of NATO. Now we're going to have seven out of eight countries of the Arctic Circle in NATO. The plans have to make sure that there is no gap or seam between the European portion of the Arctic and the North American portion of the Arctic. A seam and gap provides the potential enemy with a seam and gap to take advantage of because of command and control. There has to be complete coordination between Europe, SOCEUR, and the commander of NORAD to make sure that it's taken care of as a whole.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

The challenge becomes when you look at the north very quickly in the Arctic. The Arctic Council is not military at all. It doesn't want to touch it. It doesn't want to talk about it. If you look on their website at all of the subcommittees, you'll see it has nothing to do with the military.

As I'm sure my colleague would mention, to be fair, NATO in itself has perhaps not deterred Russia from invading Ukraine, but it has helped to prevent its total overrun. However, there is nothing in the north aside from bilateral treaties and agreements that we have mostly with the U.S. Do we now need to sit down with Norway, with Finland and others in the north? How do you do that?

It becomes a complex issue, as I said earlier in my comments. We need to join any other kinds of organizations that come together, and perhaps some military ones, across the Arctic.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell. We're going to have to leave it there.

Madame Normandin, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you , Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank both witnesses for being here. I am pleased to see them again.

Lieutenant-General Parent, I would like to start by highlighting a remark you made in your opening address. You said that in terms of interoperability, Canada had to be credible to the United States, and that caught my attention. I might imagine you would not have said it if you thought Canada really was credible.

Could you tell us about this in a bit more detail? What makes Canada not credible? What would need to be improved?