National Defence Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

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

We are credible in some aspects and not in others.

For example, not being part of the anti-missile system costs us in credibility, because it means we are choosing what we want to defend ourselves against, when our defence should be total.

On the other hand, we have to understand what is important for us. When the Americans talk to us, they talk about defence and security. That is their psychological nature. When we, Canadians, talk to them, we talk to them about economics. The two things go together. If the Americans don't feel secure with their Canadian ally and friend, they are less inclined to talk about economics. So it is in our interest to invest in defence so they feel secure.

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

I would like to come back to a question I asked the previous panel of witnesses.

When I asked how much time it would take to upgrade the infrastructure in the north to receive the F-35s, they waffled a bit. Then I reminded them that two weeks ago, we were told that it would take eight to ten years in the public sector to upgrade the facilities, in the case of the green hangar, for example. Then I was given a somewhat rosier answer, that the facilities were going to be ready and only needed slight alterations to be made.

I would like to hear your comments on this.

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

There are existing facilities to receive the fighter planes. Those facilities will not be going away. A majority of the changes to be made relate to the security of the fighter planes, particularly the F-35, which has special needs because of its cutting-edge technology.

In an emergency, or if needed, we will take what we already have in place and make arrangements. During the period while the facilities are being built, that is what will happen: we will make arrangements. There may be movements between the various sites while work is progressing. For example, with the purchase of refuelling tankers, aircraft can be based in Yellowknife or another site where the work is more advanced, while the facilities in Iqaluit or Inuvik are being built.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

I think time is still the most important question. When should we start it all? It should start today.

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

It should even have started yesterday.

Thank you.

People sometimes wonder whether Canada should arm Canadian Coast Guard vessels. That way, Canada could include those costs in calculating its defence expenditures so they would represent at least two per cent of its GDP, which would enable it to meet the target set by NATO.

You were talking more about the strength we should have with the Royal Canadian Navy. What should Canada rely on more? Should we equip the Canadian Coast Guard or the Royal Canadian Navy better? Do the two have equivalent needs?

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

The decision to expand the role of the Canadian Coast Guard or keep it as it is, is really a question of government policy.

You undoubtedly know that in the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard is a service branch of the armed forces. That is not the case in Canada. The Canadian Coast Guard deals with fisheries and oceans, in particular, and plays a small law enforcement role.

We have to decide what we want our Coast Guard and our Royal Navy to be. Once the direction is given, both organizations will handle responding to demands.

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

Might there be a deterrent effect if the Canadian Coast Guard were better armed? You talked about the importance of maintaining a presence. We already have boats patrolling those waters. Would it be beneficial to arm the Canadian Coast Guard?

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

Yes, absolutely.

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

I have asked witnesses before whether our marine response capacity was adequate, given that we had no nuclear submarines. I was told that it was not particularly serious, since we had satellite and surveillance capacity, and my reply was that this did not necessarily give us any response capacity.

So Canada is focusing on its surveillance capacity and less on its potential response and interception capacity. Do you see that as a problem?

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

It's a great question. At the end of the day, is surveillance about sovereignty? I would pose the question to this committee. It would have been a great question to ask the last group. I know the answer for when I was there.

Does the United States of America advise the Government of Canada whenever its nuclear submarines pass through our Arctic? The short answer is no. Would it be great to know that they're there? They usually provide us with a block of 100 square kilometres. It could be found somewhere in there. My colleague might know. He was south of the border at the time. Beyond that, there's not a lot of detail.

Is that about sovereignty? Is it about surveillance? Yes, they tell you that they're up there in this area, but I think we need more. In 2010, we did a pilot. We put some underwater cables through a very small part of the Northwest Passage, from a surveillance perspective, and it worked.

Part of the challenge in the north is that a whale gives off almost the same echo that a submarine does. I've been there. I got a call in the middle of the night once, saying they'd found a submarine. I think it turned out to be a whale at the end of the day.

All that is to say that it comes back, seriously, to the question of whether it is just about surveillance, or is it also about sovereignty? It's not about just knowing; it's about how this is Canada. This is ours.

Internationally, the United States of America still argues that from an international point of view.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

That was a whale of a submarine.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

That was another lame dad joke.

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

It's interesting that you talked about that in terms of the difference between surveillance and sovereignty.

In terms of our relationship with the United States, in that partnership, there's been a lot of discussion, especially about the Northwest Passage. Who owns it? How do we defend...?

With Russia, their identity is being formed by the Arctic. How are they defending, as opposed to being seen as the aggressor?

In that relationship with the United States, are we, in fact, as we are being pushed more and more—and it was said today—in that partnership to sign on board with the anti-ballistic missile defence system, or treaty or defence system...? I'm sorry.

Is it truly about our sovereignty, if it's in that partnership?

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

When you have sovereignty, you have an element of control. You act in your own interest. When you don't have sovereignty over certain items, you depend on others.

In the case of the ballistic missile system right now, NORAD is a common-law relationship that is sealed with a NORAD agreement. You're married, and it has obligations in a common-law sense.

USNORTHCOM and CJOC are good neighbours. As good neighbours, you have the choice of whether you're going to help your neighbour or not. The decision to engage, when it comes to Canadian territory, is entirely within the purview of the United States. Their own interests determine whether they're going to do it or not.

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

In terms of being in that marriage with the United States and even in terms of the relationship with China, you were talking about submarines, and China has 66. Again, getting back to Canada, providing that level of sovereignty, as you've said, requires a great deal of time and even more money, so is that legitimately where we need to go?

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

As a Canadian, I have a tolerance of risk in all the aspects of my life. In terms of defence, we have a tolerance for risk. Before February 24, my personal tolerance of risk was much higher, because I thought the President of Russia was a rational actor. With what he is doing in Ukraine, to me he is now an irrational actor. It's dangerous. When we have irrationality in charge of things, the insurance I pay for defence is going to cost me more, because I worry more about my security and safety.

It's all about the amount of insurance we're willing to pay to safeguard ourselves. We're not going to safeguard ourselves by ourselves, but we have to increase our level of reliability. Deterrence was once enough at this level; now it has gone to this level, and to fill the gap between this level and that level requires time and investment.

Yes, it will cost more money, but I think it's worth it, given where the world is going geopolitically.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

Yes. Just from an information perspective, if my colleague was within the U.S. chain of command, kind of, and I was outside of it, and let's say we were there at the same time and I was working with another U.S. commander, he would know a lot more than I would, and he couldn't even tell me. Just to boil it down, the passage of information about what we can and do know is very problematic in and of itself.

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

That burdensome technological or information transfer will never change between the United States and Canada.

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

When you are part of the NORAD agreement, it's transparent. With the mission assigned to NORAD, I had full access to everything that related to the NORAD mission. From time to time, some staff officer would come and say it's not foreign, especially when there was a new event coming from another command outside NORTHCOM. I would raise my hand and go to the commander and say, “We have a NORAD agreement. It says here that I need to have knowledge”, and right away the conversation would change to full access to what was required to perform the NORAD mission.

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

Yet General Semianiw just said that they often didn't tell us about the submarines that were in our waters.

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

No, our mission is not about.... We don't have a North American defence command right now. We have a North American Aerospace Defense Command with a maritime warning, a maritime aerospace warning, and aerospace control, so we have a vote and we get to find out what's happening in those three mission sets. When you walk across other mission sets and other domains, then it's in the purview of the United States and its sovereign interest to decide whether Canada is in or not on the information.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

Advances in AI haven't really developed as much as I think someone may have said, which is why I came to the committee today. It's still too problematic to do it from home, which is why I came in person. I would challenge the idea that AI is now developed to a point where it's amazing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Kelly is next.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

I thank you actually for mentioning the risk premium that is a function of the irrational actor we have with Russia, but this goes to when General Eyre was here and talked about the threat of nuclear attack. He was quite specific. It is higher than perhaps at any time in many decades, because we are dealing with an irrational actor, but we're also dealing with an explicit, declared intent of China to be a near-Arctic power.

Right now, could a foreign power deploy a submarine capable of launching a missile from Canadian waters and go undetected by our present ability to detect a subsurface penetration of Canadian waters?

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

I don't think that can be discussed. You would be exposing a vulnerability, or not.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Fair enough. I'll accept that and back off into a completely different line of questioning, then. I guess one could see how one would want to know the answer to that question.

General Semianiw, you were involved in operations using underwater sensors to detect foreign submarines. How long were they...?

Can you tell us a bit about your time with that?