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.
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Huebert, I have one last question. In hopefully the near future, Canada will be purchasing 12 submarines. You're saying today that these submarines must be fitted with hypersonic systems to counter the current threats. Is that right?
Furthermore, what strategic options do these submarines provide for NORAD's defence strategy?
Professor, Centre for Military Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, As an Individual
If I could jump in on this, remember that we are not talking about the need to put hypersonics on submarines. This is something that the Russians are, in fact, doing and the Chinese are doing because they are thinking in an offensive context.
What Canada needs to be doing is developing and getting these submarines as quickly as possible to eliminate those submarines coming close to our waters. It's not a question of us having hypersonics. You're not going to use a hypersonic to sink a submarine. However, you will use a submarine to sink those submarines before they are able to launch those hypersonics. That is why it's so critical that we get the submarines as quickly as possible.
Liberal
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their remarks. I must say that they provided valuable insight into a key issue that continues to make headlines.
Let's talk about hypersonic technology, Mr. Hickey. First, where does Canada rank in the development of hypersonic technologies compared to its peers?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Canada lags far behind its peers.
For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, Australia developed facilities for conducting hypersonic testing. Europe did this in the 1990s, while the United States did this in the 1950s. Canada is several decades behind.
As far as I know, Canada currently has no facilities for conducting tests in high‑enthalpy hypersonics. This means that we lack the resources to make progress in research or to truly test its effects. As I said in my remarks, very little hypersonics research is being carried out at Canadian universities. This is an issue in itself.
Canada isn't represented at the hypersonics conferences currently taking place. I'm the only Canadian representative on the NATO committee. There isn't any representation commensurate with our international presence in other areas.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
However, the expertise and infrastructure are still there.
In geographical terms, where can we find all this in Canada?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
The Defence Research and Development Canada, or DRDC, research centre in Valcartier has always played a major role in developing the hypersonics fields. It has been carrying out a number of research projects in these fields for a long time. As far as I know, the expertise is really based at DRDC in Valcartier. The DRDC research centre in Suffield has also always had a great deal of expertise in these fields. However, when it comes to hypersonics, the expertise is really in Valcartier.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
In Quebec, the National Research Council Canada also has useful facilities for the hypersonics field and may have some skills. However, in my opinion, most of the expertise is really in Valcartier.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
I understand that we have Valcartier, but that it isn't as well developed as it should be.
What could we do? How much should we invest and for how long? If we have the infrastructure and expertise, what are we waiting for to hit the jackpot?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Let's take the example of testing a supersonic combustion ramjet, which is a hypersonic propulsion system. Right now, no Canadian company has the means to develop a technology and bring it to market. We really need to look in other places.
I contacted some of my colleagues who manage hypersonics facilities at the German Aerospace Center in Germany. They're a year and a half behind schedule. This means that, even if a company wanted to run tests right now, it would have to wait a year and a half before it could use these facilities. In short, the lack of infrastructure is putting companies that would like to grow here, in Quebec and Canada, at a disadvantage.
There's also the issue of highly qualified personnel. We don't have any training programs. If we can't train highly qualified personnel, people in these industries will have less interest in pursuing development in the hypersonics field.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
You briefly gave Germany as an example, so I'll frame my question around that.
Are there any examples of hypersonic research programs abroad that could serve as inspiration?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Let's take Australia as an example. In the 2000s, Australia developed the HyShot program. The Australians invested $1.1 million and saw a return on their investment and absolutely magnificent results in hypersonic research. This led to another investment. It resulted in the HIFiRE program, a collaboration between the Defence Technology Group in Australia and the Air Force Research Laboratory in the United States. Australia is a perfect example for us. With a limited budget, the Australians managed to develop hypersonic propulsion technology and attract American interest.
Australia is one example. Germany is another. Germany really has infrastructure on a national scale in both research facilities and universities. For example, there are hypersonics facilities in Stuttgart, Ahrens, Munich and Brunswick.
We could draw inspiration from these examples.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
I see all this and think that our allies have this technology and that the west is already quite well equipped in terms of hypersonic wind tunnels. Why would Canada need its own?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
In my opinion, the main issue is that, without the infrastructure to develop a skilled workforce, our level of expertise in hypersonics won't improve. On the one hand, we have the workforce capacity issue, but on the other hand, we have the fact that, in order to develop hypersonic propulsion or hypersonic threat detection, we must have the means to conduct tests.
Moreover, a lack of this infrastructure in Canada will adversely affect industries seeking to make progress in these fields and our ability to understand threats posed in other places.
Liberal
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Yes. I would just like to add that I think the unique nature of the Canada-U.S. relationship in regard to the defence co-operation sharing agreements and the subsequent agreements through NORAD as well, allows a pretty large opportunity for Canadian industries, if they are developed and cultivated in the way that Dr. Hickey suggested, to enable industrial opportunities that are far in excess of those of other countries. The U.S. industries are able to support and utilize their relationship with Canada in order to give a much greater market access than any other country would be able to.
To add to that point, if it is effectively cultivated, there are significant opportunities in this area as there are in others.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you.
That was beyond the six minutes, Monsieur Savard-Tremblay.
Cheryl Gallant, we're in the second round, and you have five minutes.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Thank you.
The defence minister promised a decision on the F-35s by the end of the summer, but the procurement minister seems to be dragging the decision out.
Mr. Shimooka, what are the additional risks posed to Canada over this indecision?
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
They're significant.
If you are looking at the age of the CF-18 fighters, they are at the end of their lives. Even with the current HEP, phase two, to upgrade for their avionics, they are at the very cusp of their operational relevance. Going forward, if we think about our ability to mobilize in a potential war-fighting scenario or to deal with even a very low level of threat, our CF-18s are not really commensurate to the challenge that we face, not just domestically. You could think about what's going on in eastern Europe with continual incursions by the Russian Federation over our NATO allies, and you could look at what's going on in the western Pacific. This aircraft needs to be replaced now and—
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
I'm sorry. What do you think is behind the indecision or the refusal to announce what the decision is?
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I can think of several.
I think there's a reticence, given the comments of the current administration, specifically the president, on what he has said, which has certainly put a pause. It makes it potentially look politically unpalatable from his view. I also think there is potentially some effort to make it a bargaining chip on a broader discussion on trade negotiations, that this is something Canada could force on.
However, I would say this. For at least the last three years, Canadian officials have gone to the United States and said that they are committed to NORAD defence, and the F-35 program is part of that. They've basically been a partner for over 25 years, in some form or another.
Utilizing this as a bargaining chip, when you've already promised and used this as an example that you are seriously committed to the sovereign defence of North America, and then turning around and saying that you're not too sure about it because of some of the comments.... This goes beyond just this administration. It goes to previous administrations, but it's also a wide variety of bipartisan leaders within the United States, including strong Democrats who are raising these very concerns that Canada needs to do more.
To go back on this sort of decision, honestly, it's really problematic. It defies some logic, given the deep need for capability modernization in this area.
Professor, Centre for Military Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, As an Individual
To answer your first question, there is a direct threat right now coming from the Russians and increasingly one from the Chinese, so we have to have a modern capability.
Remember, when we see that each of our Nordic neighbours has actually purchased or is in the processing of purchasing the F-35, it takes time. Even when you get them delivered, you have to learn how to use them. You have to learn how to integrate them. You have to have the pilots. Even if the Americans turned around and said, “Hey, we have 88 of them built for you right now; make your decision and here you go,” we are still talking about a lag.
There is an operational lag, and that's a threat. There is also a threat, building on what Richard said, when we see every single one of our Nordic allies saying, “Yes, we need the F-35 because it's the integrated system that is so important.” It sends a message to the Russians. When they sit there and see us without it—and this goes to the second part of your question—they then see us as a weak link.
It also gets into the issue of why we keep making ourselves the weak link. It's because we are so complacent as a nation. I mean, the helicopter replacement for the navy stands out as one of the worst sights for how not to do it. We don't seem to take this seriously.
Once again, I go to my main point in my opening comments. We are facing the very real possibility of a coming war. This is something where Canadians have said that no, it's not possible, or that if it does come, the Americans will take care of it and therefore we don't have to do any of this heavy lifting or thinking or anything like that.
That is at the heart of why we had the helicopters, why the submarines have been so difficult and also why we haven't built an icebreaker: We said in 1985 that we were going to do it and now we're building four in four different shipyards, which means that it is about the most inefficient way that you can do it. The Coast Guard needs it, no question about it, but the question arises: Why does it take us so long? We simply don't think the threat is real, and I think that is going to be a disaster for Canada.