Evidence of meeting #6 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was systems.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Madeleine.
Thanks for coming.
I was recently in Finland at some Arctic parliamentarian meetings. Finland has a term for readiness. It's “valmius”. It's more than just a term. It's a culture, because of the proximity of their 1,300-kilometre border with Russia.
In terms of Canada being able to defend itself against our adversaries, especially with Russia and China building up in the Arctic, are we ready in Canada?
Chief Operating Officer, CanArctic Inuit Networks Inc.
First of all, I'd like to remind you that Canada actually has the largest border adjacent to Russia. It's in the Arctic, and we are not ready. We are nowhere even near ready with respect to everything that Rob and all of the witnesses have said with respect to maritime, our air or our ground. There isn't any area where we are ready for any type of incursion, let alone a war type of act.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thanks, Madeleine.
Dr. Shadian, it's good to have you here. I will commend you as somebody who very much cares about our Canadian Arctic sovereignty. With Arctic 360, you've done great work just to bring about awareness of the Arctic. You've often been instrumental in heightening the awareness in Canada.
You mentioned the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. I was there a month ago. It's a great project that was initiated by former Conservative prime minister Harper.
You mentioned multi-use infrastructure being critical. We've talked about the Grays Bay project. We also are looking at other projects in the north as key infrastructure points. Shadow minister James Bezan and I drove the Inuvik-Tuk Highway this summer, seeing how important that kind of infrastructure is to national security and sovereignty.
What multi-use infrastructure projects would you have us put at the top of our list, Doctor? You can name one or two. I know time is short.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Arctic 360, As an Individual
Yes, to be placed out of charge you're saying...?
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
No, just any multi-use infrastructure project in the north. What would you prioritize?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Arctic 360, As an Individual
I would say anything that's related to critical infrastructure, because it's cold weather, and there's still a lot that we need to learn. Even though there are a lot of countries that are far more advanced than we are, we absolutely should be in this space. This goes to national security all the way down to social infrastructure.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Right. I think it's instrumental too. It's one thing to talk about planes in the air and boats in the water, but if you can't have highway access to certain areas in the north, that's severely limiting.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Arctic 360, As an Individual
Yes, and also ports. It's interconnectivity. We talk a lot about maybe putting in one port, but it's the interoperability, because soon we're going to have autonomous ships, and road is going to be autonomous vehicles. Everything is going to be interoperable, and we're not even thinking in that headspace when it comes to the Arctic. It's like maybe we'll get a concrete slab and call it a port.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Yes, and even those are delayed.
My next question is for Dr. Huebert.
I was up in Inuvik with James Bezan this summer at the forward operating location. What we didn't see was a busy construction site preparing those hangars that house the F-18 currently to house the F-35s. The F-35 capability is not only necessary for our own fleet, as you know, Doctor, but for our southern NORAD allies and also for our NATO allies that operate the F-35s.
Currently, we can't even land our aerial refuelling tankers in Inuvik, as the runway extension won't be ready until late 2027, or maybe even later, and that's at least $80 million overbudget currently. As a colleague from the European Parliament said at our meeting in Finland, Putin sees weakness as provocation.
Dr. Huebert, do our adversaries see Canada as weak?
Professor, Centre for Military Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, As an Individual
That's super easy to answer—of course. Consider this fact. Going through the element of Russian development of its Arctic security capabilities, throughout the period of the post-Cold War, we see Russia's GDP roughly is in the ballpark of Canada's GDP. We get to the conversation of looking at the agony—and this committee dealt with it. I remember listening to the testimony from the former owner of the hangar in Inuvik, and remember how we couldn't figure that out until the Chinese threatened to buy that hangar, and the Americans put pressure on us. We think in terms of what's happening in Nanisivik and then compare and contrast to Russia. Now, how you count it varies, but there are about 22 Arctic bases that the Russians built, revised or extended. Again, on the GDPs it's hard to have any formal comparison, but we're not that far off in the ballpark. Remember, we were all part of the G8 at one point, because we had similar economies.
We come back to the fact that the Russians look at what they have and what they're capable of providing. They look at us and say, “Oh, look at Canada sitting on relatively similar resources. It has done absolutely nothing and refuses to think about this issue.” That's the critical point. We don't see anybody talking of the strategic rather than the tactical, or the “in the weeds”, as one of your colleagues put it.
Again, look at Russia in terms of what it did to Georgia, what it did to Ukraine in 2014. I want to hammer that point again. What are they doing? Again, they've always acted whenever NATO has refused to take either Georgia or Ukraine in, so if they see a weak point, they will act. We know that. That's obvious to everybody.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Mr. Huebert and Mr. Zimmer, the time is up. I'm sorry.
Mr. Watchorn, you have five minutes.
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses.
This week, the Government of Canada announced that it would create a single agency for military procurement. Do you see the advantage of purchasing military equipment from a single agency instead of three separate agencies involved in the military equipment procurement process?
Dr. Huebert, you may start responding.
Professor, Centre for Military Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Absolutely. You can have three agencies, four agencies, however many agencies you want. If you do not have directions from the highest political level to go on, it really doesn't matter, does it?
I point out how quickly a government was able to move on getting the C-17s when we had the opportunity. That's the golden child of how to do it. We think in terms of the agony that we faced with the F-35, and it's over governments. Again, not to blame any one particular partisan in this context, we look at the agony of the F-35s, and we look at the agony of the helicopter replacement. We compare that to the C-17s, and basically we come back to the point.
On getting into the weeds of it, if we could only come up with a procurement design that was perfect, boy, that would solve our problems. The problem is political will, and we've seen it. That's what the evidence points to.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Given what we know from the announcement and the information that's been put out, I don't believe there is an amalgamation of a lot of the capabilities going on. I think this may reflect something of how the Major Projects Office was announced last month, that this agency is going to be layered on top of the existing system. It only works for major projects over $100 million, as well, and my real worry is that this will not actually help that much.
A serious challenge within the procurement enterprise as a whole is a lack of personnel and individuals. There are project offices within DND that are at 50% manning levels. You cannot gear a job.
In key areas of technical competence such as in cybersecurity, there's just no personnel available to undertake these critical tasks. Basically, these are essential to pushing a project along, and that person doesn't exist, because we've cut in this area.
My worry is that if you're adding another layer on top of the existing system, you aren't removing PSPC, Industry Canada, or even making more of a focus on Canadian industrial development on top of that. It will not help with defence procurement; it may actually in some ways hinder it in some areas. Again, this is only for projects over $100 million. Projects below that point may still have the same challenges going forward. There is real concern that this may not actually help.
There are some regulation changes that have been made on the national security exemption and whatnot that may help. As Professor Huebert said, there is political imprimatur of the Prime Minister to push forward these projects and make this a major political commitment, which, I think, helps immensely in getting them moved forward.
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Thank you for your response.
Over the past few weeks, I've consulted with a number of procurement experts. They told me that this would help speed up the execution of these contracts.
To change the subject, I'll turn to you, Dr. Shadian. You spoke about the energy needed for bases in the north. What would be the best options or solutions for providing the energy needed to power a base in the north? Would it be biomass, nuclear power or diesel generators?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Arctic 360, As an Individual
I'll defer that over to Madeleine.
Liberal
Chief Operating Officer, CanArctic Inuit Networks Inc.
One of the problems is that we don't have, for most of the territories, any energy strategy, even for our communities that are diesel dependent.
The answer to your question would first of all start with the energy solutions or options based on geographical realities. What we learned is that, for the most part, wind and solar are supplemental energies; they're not baseload. That means it's either diesel, hydro where it is available because you have a large lake or a large river, or is more likely going to be nuclear, small modular or micromodular. It is old technology that is being redeveloped. It's not new technology in the sense that it's been used, especially in defence by the United States, for nuclear subs and space exploration. It's just a question of developing it in a way that allows for the communities, the military or the mines to have an energy source that can last 20 to 40 years as most of the lifespan.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you. That round is done.
We're into our last round, and we're sensitive about time. I may go down to four minutes, four minutes and two minutes.
Mr. Bezan, we'll go over to you first.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we're meeting here, over in the public accounts committee the Auditor General is appearing on the F-35s and the report she just did. We also have over there the deputy minister of national defence, Stefanie Beck, along with air force commander Lieutenant-General Jamie Speiser-Blanchet. They said that we should be buying the F-35s. They support the F-35s. They're going to continue to build infrastructure to support the fleet of F-35s.
Minister McGuinty said back in the summer that he would take the recommendation that comes from the Canadian Armed Forces and the department as to what we should be doing, yet Secretary of State for Defence Procurement Stephen Fuhr continues to drag his feet in this review and refuses to come forward with a recommendation based upon the experts within the department and within the Canadian Armed Forces.
I want to quickly ask each and every one of you, should Canada buy the F-35, yes or no?
Professor, Centre for Military Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Yes.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Arctic 360, As an Individual
The only thing I'll say is if, in terms of interoperability and being reliant on the United States, if there is a way then to not be, then, wholeheartedly reliant on somebody else in another party to function our own equipment....
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
It will be sovereign, as I've always said.
Go ahead, Madeleine.