National Defence Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Redfern, during this study, we've heard of the benefits that dual-use technology and infrastructure can have on both the security of the Arctic and the well-being of those living and working in Canada's Arctic. However, we've also heard in previous testimony at this committee that there is a lack of a whole-of-government approach to the Arctic.

Can you describe where you see federal departments and other levels of government working well together on the north and on northern development? Where do you see those gaps, specifically?

[Madeleine Redfern]

Recently, we're starting to hear Government of Canada departments recognize the value of dual-purpose infrastructure. I think the military gets it the best, but I can tell you that departments like Environment and Climate Change, ISED and Indigenous Services seem to not understand how to do it in practice.

The instant that something like a SMART cable can do climate change or environmental protection, provide telecommunication services for the communities, for mines and for defence, and develop a blue economy, it's as if the federal government's various departments start short-circuiting. They simply do not know how to take bits of different mandates and different pots of money and integrate them to support one smart investment that does lots of things.

We need to get the deputy ministers and the ministers much more aligned in understanding that they need to work together. This is why there is value in having strategies other than proclamations, visionary statements or just a pot of funding that we're supposed to apply for but that may not be funding the smartest or most strategic investments that are good for dual purpose and multiple users.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you. You answered some of my follow-up questions.

I'm going to shift gears here for a minute to Dr. Shadian.

You talked a little bit in your opening statement about Arctic360, and it was very fascinating to hear about the work you were doing to be able to create that back channel with the Russians specifically on Arctic issues.

A number of us were in Washington a couple of weeks ago, and we met with folks at the Pentagon as well as the Wilson Center. They were very clear across the board that there is no appetite whatsoever to speak with Russia right now on any of these issues, including the Arctic, and they were referring, obviously, to the Arctic Council and Russia's being the chair of the Arctic Council currently and how they work around that.

Could you expand a little bit on your experience with Arctic360, how that worked, and whether there are future engagements planned right now with Russia?

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

We had the Arctic ambassador to Russia planning to be on that session along with the other Arctic state ambassadors, and we also had the head of the trade consulate to be part of that conference as well. Ten days before the conference, the war broke out. At that point, we had a lot of discussions, largely with the seven other Arctic states and with Greenland about how to proceed and move forward.

It was kind of organic the way it played out, because it was before the Arctic Council put the pause on its work, so we had to navigate that organically and little by little, and we ended up having to disinvite the Russians in order to have a conversation about Arctic co-operation. It took a while to get there and for everyone to agree that it was not possible or palatable for everyone to sit there next to Russia.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

In my last 30 seconds, very quickly, when this conflict is over in Ukraine and when we see victory for the Ukrainian people, I think the Arctic will be one of those areas where we can start to normalize relations. Is there a conversation happening right now about how to do that?

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

I think where conversations happen is mostly within academic circles, because the first step is to try to figure out how we can continue on with the research projects that have been ongoing. Russia is half the Arctic, so that's the first step to diplomacy.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you. I think we could talk a lot more about this, but the chair is going to cut us off here, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That chair is terrible.

Madame Normandin, you have two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll come back to the last few questions, but from a different angle.

Ms. Redfern, several other witnesses have mentioned, as you have, that when you use the expertise of indigenous-owned companies for infrastructure in the Arctic, it is more efficient, faster, and less expensive. However, we have often heard from other witnesses that the government has ruled out some projects altogether.

Are there any arguments that are given for the rejection of these projects or is it really only due to a lack of organization or logistics on the part of the government in awarding projects?

[Madeleine Redfern]

I think it's important to understand that, in Canada's north, especially in Nunavut, we have a highly transient bureaucracy, and this is also why indigenous organizations and indigenous leaders are really pushing to see more indigenous participation in these projects and get these contracts, because we provide that level of stability.

There's also, interestingly, a growing problem of high transiency within the federal government. I'm someone who has been mayor for two terms and someone who's back in business, and it is not only challenging but incredibly frustrating that you finally start to get awareness with people who are in policy, program funding and senior management, and they finally start getting it—it takes about two years—and they're gone. That's a huge risk for Canada in developing or deciding who gets investments.

There's an inclination to invest in the very large, mostly southern-based companies rather than work with and develop northern and indigenous business capacity and award contracts to us, even when we have partnerships.

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

Thank you very much.

I only have 30 seconds left, so I'll stop here.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

We can pass it on to Ms. Mathyssen.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

I'll take three minutes, if they're available. I have a lot of questions.

Ms. Shadian, you talked a lot about infrastructure. You talked about specific telecom. Both of you did. Could you talk about the other forms? You briefly mentioned transportation and housing. Can you talk about the investments in those and what's necessary, in your view?

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

The infrastructure we're talking about is transportation infrastructure. Housing is also a big issue, of course.

All of these things are interrelated. As Madeleine was saying, they're multi-purpose and multi-user. You can't have a SMART cable without having the adequate energy supplies. It goes all around. Telecommunications rely on energy. You need to have the infrastructure set in place, from ports to everything else, to be able to function.

This goes back to how we're missing the bigger strategy. We need to figure out how all of these pieces go together. We don't even know what we have. We need to figure out what we want and then how we get there. The gaps just go on and on. It's roads, airports, telecommunications and energy. All of those rely on one another to function and exist.

It's difficult. Other countries put together annual infrastructure reports and they provide information for investors on things that are going on. We have the Wilson Center carrying out some of what we should be doing ourselves and deciding for ourselves what we'd like to build and what's going to follow it up.

In terms of investment and the private sector, the CPPIB has a venture investment in Bluejay, in a critical mineral mine in Greenland. Other countries are becoming more attractive for Canada's pension funds to be investing in these kinds of critical mineral mines. I don't see why we haven't been able to bring our pension funds on board.

I understand this goes back to the siloed thinking in terms of ISED, Finance, Defence and NRCan. A critical mineral strategy talked about infrastructure. Northern Affairs then talked about infrastructure. CanNor talked about infrastructure. What happens is that you end up with one not being aware of what the other is doing.

We end up with money. There are these buckets of money that go out, but everything becomes underfunded. It's not thought through strategically, as Madeleine was saying. We don't have a strategy for how to build and make sure that we're being strategic about what we're doing to ensure that it actually goes for the long term.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I have to leave it there, even with Ms. Mathyssen's bonus time.

Mr. Bezan, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for being with us.

I'll start off with Ms. Redfern. I know you wear many hats involving both Arctic360 and CanArctic. You were a former mayor, as well.

Talking about the fibre optic system that you're looking at, can that be used and integrated within the North Warning System as we upgrade those facilities?

Where are you laying these cables? Will they have that connectivity to get us to those remote locations where our new and improved radars are going to be located?

[Madeleine Redfern]

Absolutely, there is an opportunity.

We've costed out the SednaLink through various phases. It could go from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Iqaluit and up along the east coast of Baffin Island, connecting the communities. It could connect Nanisivik and the mines. It could connect into EAUFON, which is Nunavik's fibre optic cable, so it would provide redundancy there. It can, absolutely, then go through the High Arctic and through the Northwest Passage to Inuvik, which would also provide redundancy.

We're fully aware of where all of the potential strategic locations are. There is redundancy to Thule. It could go up to Alert. These are all a question not of a technical issue, but of political will and the financial investments to make it happen.

The question is whether we want this critical infrastructure to be Canada-owned and Canada-led, or we want an international company to build it—which has done extremely poorly in communicating and consulting with our Canadian north, let alone with Inuit. This is why the Inuit organizations want to be the owners of this infrastructure.

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

Ms. Redfern, you talked about cost. You said you've costed it out. How much money are we talking about here to actually make that investment?

[Madeleine Redfern]

Phase one, between Happy Valley and Goose Bay, is about $130 million. The entire network all the way to Inuvik is just under a billion dollars.

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

Thank you for that.

Professor Shadian, you were talking about the need for an Arctic strategy. I agree with you 100% that it's sorely lacking. It's surprising that we don't have one, as an Arctic nation. When we look at all our allies, they have one. We do talk from the defence perspective—this is the defence committee—on modernizing NORAD and protecting our Arctic sovereignty.

When you start looking at the infrastructure needs, knowing what National Defence will be investing from the standpoint of navy assets, radar satellites, the LEO constellation, upgrading the RADARSAT constellation, and runways for forward operating locations for our air force, what would your priority list be? Could you prioritize those assets from an infrastructure base, where we can have that combined support for communities, industry and the armed forces?

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

Do you want me to pick one type, such as telecommunications?

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

What's your first priority, for example? What would it be? As a think tank, I'm sure you guys have put some research into what's most needed and what the benefit would be to our Arctic sovereignty and the defence of our Arctic territory.

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

Yes. In terms of infrastructure, it has to be telecommunications. It has to be energy. It also needs to be ports. It needs to be runways. Less and less so do we need roads these days. Communities are fly-in, fly-out.

Again, I think this goes back to how difficult it is to put one over another. You can't run 5G off windmills. We really need to have consistent, affordable energy. We also need to have consistent but state-of-the-art telecommunications. We also need that supporting physical infrastructure. We can't defend our north without any ports, or with just one or two ports. We do have a very large coastline.

As to where the most important emphasis should be put, this needs to be thought through strategically. This needs to be done in a manner that has a goal in mind. Let's say it's 2050. Where do we want to be in 2050? Then we figure out how to get there.

A lot of the energy we want to put into this is to be working with those who do smart cities. They're the ones who are talking about the infrastructure of tomorrow for the second half of the 21st century. We don't want to build a 1950s cement port if that's not what the future is.

We need to also understand where we're headed and where we're going. Then we can understand how to link these different pieces of infrastructure together. Ultimately, it's multi-purpose and multi-user, and this goes to defending—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll have to leave that there.

The final questioner is Mr. Fisher for five minutes.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here today. I'm going to ask a plethora of questions. On some you may feel that you want to add to the record today, but there may be some questions that you're not interested in answering. They're questions I've asked other witnesses in the past.

One of the future implications of climate change is increased shipping in the Arctic as a cause for concern. As well, I know it's a minor issue right now, but in terms of increased cruise ship activity in the Arctic, what are the disadvantages? What are the advantages? I did hear from other witnesses that there's an increased level of risk, but I think many Canadians think, well, everything's just going to be easier now when the passage opens up.

On the amazing opportunities for people in the north with NORAD modernization, are there labour issues, people issues and skills issues? How do we make sure that Canadians in the north benefit from those incredible opportunities, from that Canadian investment? We've talked a lot about infrastructure, but we've only really talked about a gap in federal infrastructure. Whenever we talk about provincial and municipal, we seem to not talk about that as much with regard to the Arctic. We have a mayor here as a witness today, so I thought maybe we'd see whether the municipal and the provincial infrastructure is better than adequate or whether there's a gap there as well from those two orders of government.

That's pretty much all I have. I'll let you folks take us out.

Thank you.