National Defence Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

What we did was a pilot—this was about a decade ago—to see whether or not this would work. It was actually done by another government department, not by the Department of National Defence, which came with us into the north as part of Operation Nanook and put a cable under the water to see if the technology in itself would be successful.

To be fair, you can talk to the wisest person in the world—Mr. Google—and quickly find out that this exists today. It exists with our allies across the Atlantic, who know exactly what is coming across the Atlantic at any time, with a lot of detail and a lot of preciseness.

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

What should our response be to, say, a foreign submarine that penetrates our territory? How would this differ from Russian bombers that buzz our airspace to play something of a game, perhaps? It's not even a game, but to explicitly test our response time and whatnot.

Does this have an equivalent in submarine terms?

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

I'll answer that really quickly and turn to my colleague.

I'm happy you brought up the bomber aspect. We have something we can do in response to the bombers coming close to Canadian territorial or sovereign space. What do you have in your tool box right now to address the submarine that's passing through the north that you may not be aware of? There is nothing.

What would you do? I think to start with, there would be diplomatic elements and different kinds of pieces that would come into play, but beyond that, what could you do from a military perspective? Probably not much. If it has under-ice capability, it could stay under ice for as long as it wanted.

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

In the previous panel, time didn't allow for me to follow up on a point that was made.

We were told that Canada has absolute domain awareness on surface ships in the north. The question I wanted to ask is whether that awareness depends on the ship using a transponder.

It seemed from earlier testimony that if you take off your transponder, it's a whole different game. We've had other testimony that suggests that, no, we don't know all the vessels that are operating in northern water. Can either of you address that from your experience?

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

“Absolute” is a big word. Do we have absolute certainty we see everything that sails?

First of all, we know there won't be ships where the ice is, so that limits the area. Most of the detection is through AIS, the identification system for ships, which commercial ships need to have.

I don't think we have 100% awareness of everything that sails in the Arctic during the time when they can sail. There's a period of time when they can't sail at all, so that's easy. It's time-dependent.

I think the biggest problem is probably under the surface. You know what you know, and to know it, you need to have persistent surveillance. If you have a physical presence to observe it once a month, there are 28 days between the passes you do.

As far as the space systems are concerned, at the pole, it's still limited. It's not like a geosynchronous satellite that can look at an area all the time. They're passes that go up, and it depends on the rate of passage, so I don't think we have absolute awareness.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

I thought the wisest person in the world was Mrs. Google, not Mr. Google.

Ms. Bradford, welcome to the committee. You have five minutes.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate the perspective that you bring to this discussion.

I'm going to shift the focus of discussion for a moment. I'm going to raise a question that I think is on the minds of all Canadians, and I'd like to hear each of your perspectives on it.

Canada has a range of military applications and faces pressure to be involved on multiple fronts, including in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the north.

Can Canada significantly contribute to security in all of these regions? How should it balance its efforts?

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

I would build on that and ask whether Canada can participate effectively and efficiently in all of these commitments. I think the short answer is no, but to be fair, I think the answer has been no for a very long time. It's not driven by any particular government being in power, to be fair and to provide some context.

At the end of the day, remember that it's dependent on the Government of Canada to decide and direct what its military will do, and it always has been, based on advice from the chief of the defence staff, who says, “Here's what I have ready that can deploy or can't deploy.”

Being able to play in everything, with the emerging and increasing numbers of activity, requires a larger military with more capability and more effectiveness.

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

I would start by saying that page 81 of “Strong, Secure, Engaged” talks about the concurrency model. You're giving me flashbacks from my previous job.

It is an aspiration, but the policy is still valid and it's still an aspiration. What we've had happen in the meantime is what the CDS describes as the need to reconstitute the force, and all the shortages. Steps need to be taken after reconstitution to have the concurrency model that allows us to do the Indo-Pacific, NATO and NORAD.

In the meantime, I think the Canadian Armed Forces do what they can with what they have. It's a big balancing exercise for them.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

As it was mentioned before, remember that it's the elements of national power that are used.

I'll give you an example. If you take a look at Afghanistan and ask what the country of Japan did in Afghanistan, militarily, it did very little. Economically, it did a lot.

I think there are a lot of ways a country can contribute from its elements of national power toward security across the world. Militarily is only one way, but from a military perspective, can we be doing what we are in Ukraine? I could go on and on.

The shorter answer is you need more to do it.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

What do you see as some of the key enablers that improve both the military's capacity to operate in the north and the quality of life for northern residents?

Again, we're shifting from just the military. We have the other obligation up there. In other words, what kinds of investments, both military and civilian, could pay dividends for the Canadian Armed Forces and those who live in Canada's north?

I know you referred a lot to the Rangers and their capability, but we have these two things that we need to be focusing on.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

It's interesting. I've gained not a different perspective but an additional perspective, since I left the military, of the importance of not just the military.

Like my colleague, I've travelled throughout the north in that capacity, and one of the pieces that could be put into place or could continue to be put into place is developing the north with airfields and with supporting different governments within the north. There's a lot we could do. It's not all about the military. It's not about militarizing the north; it's about putting more military in the north.

There's a lot we could do economically to further support the north and northern communities to make them more effective, more robust and more efficient, which also contributes to and supports sovereignty.

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

For me, the key enabler would be the communications or IM/IT backbone to cover all the north. It can easily have a dual use in meeting the military requirements while also serving the populations of the north to better have access to information technology.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I think it all comes down to nimbleness.

Again, given how the military is traditionally under-resourced, they're experts at being nimble. I think we can probably [Inaudible—Editor].

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

The commander who spoke to you about the joint task force spoke to you from Yellowknife. The question is, does he know everything that's going on across the north from Yellowknife?

The response is that AI is here now, so we know everything. I would challenge that in a polite way. He does not know everything, even though he wants to and he strives to every day.

As my colleague said, communications and knowing what's going on and being able to talk to each other are challenges. Talking to different government departments....

I throw this out to the committee. We ran a tabletop exercise in 2011 in which we said, “A country—pick any country.” We took a small group of scientists and put them on Canadian soil in the Arctic. What did we do? What could you do?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I want to answer that question, but I'd better not.

Ms. Normandin, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to the question of territorial sovereignty, which you referred to earlier.

We know that the United States will never recognize Canada's territorial sovereignty in the Arctic waters, because that would have an impact on China's claims in the China Sea.

In the circumstances, since our sovereignty in the Arctic waters will never be recognized diplomatically, we will have to base our sovereignty de facto on territorial occupation, will we not? I just want to make sure I have understood correctly.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

Yes.

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

Right.

I would also like you to talk about joint operations. I asked the question to the previous panel of witnesses a bit earlier. In the context of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, should we increase the number of joint operations in our territory and significantly increase our participation up to our allies' levels? How should we improve our participation?

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

Are you talking about joint operations in the north?

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

Yes, in particular.

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

At the moment, the north is very inhospitable. If we want to have a real impact in the north, we have to conduct enough exercises and collaborate enough with the other forces that train there and conduct operations there.

During the survey campaign in the Arctic that I did, the aim was, for example, to discover where gasoline caches were located, or to determine what runways could take which types of planes. All that data was foreign to us. The pilots in some aviation communities also needed to learn to fly with night vision glasses, since it is dark a lot of the time in the north. Those are the kinds of discoveries we need to make. The ground troops also have to relearn how to operate in the north.

Regarding operations with the allies, I recall that my first exercise as a helicopter pilot took place in NATO's northern flank, in Norway. We had been assigned there because at the time we were experts in operations in similar conditions. However, those competences have been lost over the years, because of the geopolitical situation and years spent in Bosnia and Afghanistan. Those are competences that must be reacquired.

[LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw]

Training in northern Canada is done in a way very similar to the United States, but it is only with the army. Other countries may be on site to observe what happens, but they are not there as participants. It is important to specify that. As my colleague explained, there are no alliances in the north.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Having to cut off generals is not exactly my favourite thing to do, but I've done it in the past.

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

He loves it.