Public Accounts Committee on March 6th, 2023

[Arun Thangaraj]

No, it's not acceptable.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Then why is it still there?

[Arun Thangaraj]

Working with communities is part of a capital replacement plan, and addressing those things often takes time. It is not a lack of will.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It has been decades and decades, but I'll move on.

[Arun Thangaraj]

It is not a lack of will to address those things. It's just a matter of our capacity to get at each one of those infrastructure requirements.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It's a matter of capacity. That's interesting. Have you brought this capacity issue forward to the minister?

[Arun Thangaraj]

As part of our programming and our overall investment strategy in our airports as well, that has been addressed with the minister.

Through programs, such as the critical infrastructure program and the capital—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You've spoken to the minister directly in relation to how unacceptable it is to have airports that have mould in them for Inuit individuals and Canada's Arctic north?

[Arun Thangaraj]

We have spoken to the minister about the capital requirements for airports and airstrips as well.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What's the plan to ensure the airport infrastructure is brought up to acceptable standards then?

[Arun Thangaraj]

As part of our airports and as part of our analysis, we look at what the infrastructure needs are and what our funding capacity is. We prioritize projects we would undertake, with considerations of safety and security being foremost.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Do you think that is an acceptable answer for the families who are relying on that airport?

[Arun Thangaraj]

Our foremost priority is safety and security. We make the investments and address those requirements as part of our capital work.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You see, that's the problem. I hope that you take into deep, serious consideration how important this issue is. You, in your own remarks, have made comments about how you think these are unacceptable, but it's about your actions. They need to be accommodated in order to ensure that your work is urgent enough, and that the minister's understanding of this.... As you said, it's not a matter of will but a matter of capacity. If that were the case, then this would be solved.

There's obviously a gap here between my understanding and the understanding of those who suffer this system. I don't believe that your answers are sufficient. I don't believe that you believe your answers are sufficient, so I'll ask one last time. What is the plan to ensure that these communities no longer have mould in their airports?

[Arun Thangaraj]

The plan is that, as we identify and prioritize investments that are required, we action those—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Is it a priority, then?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I can't speak to that specific airport or the various airstrips that are there, but we do have a plan that is based on—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Why can't you speak specifically to it?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I don't have that information, but I'd be pleased to respond—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Please submit that information.

Those are all my questions. Thank you, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

We will now move to our second round for five minutes each, starting with Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you once again, Madam Chair.

I'll move right to Mr. Hayes.

I'm going to ask you a final question, but I have a preamble again.

On page 14, 6.37 reads, “We found significant risks that there will be gaps in Canada's surveillance, patrol, and presence in the Arctic in the coming decade as aging equipment reaches the end of its useful service life before replacement systems become available.” I'll list them. There are five: “Weaknesses in satellite surveillance capabilities”, “Icebreakers reaching the end of their useful lives”, “Further delays in procuring Arctic and offshore patrol ships” or AOPS, “Patrol aircraft reaching the end of their useful lives” and “Inadequate infrastructure for patrol equipment”. These are just the equipment aspects of the shortfalls.

I'm going to turn to page 16, which talks about satellite surveillance and capabilities. I'd say it's top of mind for a lot of Canadians. They saw a spy balloon float over the Yukon and into the U.S. and various other devices of which we're not sure where they came from. With that lack of capacity to even keep track of that kind of stuff in our Arctic airspace.... I'll go to page 16 and 6.44, which reads, “We found that current Canadian satellite-based surveillance capabilities do not meet the needs of National Defence”. That's now. They were going into a phase.

I'll read farther down. We have it good now. It's going to get worse. Paragraph 6.46 reads, “The government acknowledges that it will take another decade for the Canadian Space Agency to launch a successor to the RADARSAT Constellation Mission and that an interruption of satellite earth-observation services past 2026 is therefore a significant risk.” On the following page, 6.47 talks about these not becoming operational until 2035.

We're heading into an era of almost a 10-year gap of surveillance of our own airspace at a time when we're seeing threats like really never before—unprecedented. This is all from a minister who says, “Hey, everything is great,” and a Prime Minister who says the Arctic is strategically important. Well, prove it then, Mr. Prime Minister. I don't see it. I think even our northern premiers are voicing their concerns about Putin and the threats there and ambitions of other countries around the world. Many countries have Arctic policies now.

I'm going to finish with the conclusion and the question. It's coming, don't worry.

On the conclusion page, paragraph 6.67—and this is your office—reads:

We concluded that the federal organizations we audited—Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Defence, and Transport Canada—had not taken the action required to build the maritime domain awareness they collectively needed to respond to safety and security risks associated with increasing vessel traffic in Arctic waters. While these organizations had identified gaps in maritime domain awareness, they had not taken sufficient measures to address them.

Lastly, it says, “Furthermore, the existing satellite services and infrastructure did not provide the capacity that the federal organizations needed to perform surveillance of Arctic waters.” That's now. “Delays in the renewal of satellites, ships, and aircraft risks compromising the presence of these organizations in Arctic waters.”

This is my question to you, Mr. Hayes: Does the lack of equipment and lack of attention by this current government, and the lack of action as a result...? Are our Arctic sovereignty and security compromised?

[Andrew Hayes]

I would say in response to your question that the items that we have identified in our report vis-à-vis the equipment that is reaching the end of its useful life or the information-sharing, the ability to track non-emitting vessels, are issues that the departments identified years ago. They're long-standing issues.

In our recommendation at paragraph 6.66, we asked that the departments focus on identifying “options and take action to acquire equipment in a timely manner” and “develop and improve contingency plans”—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I'm going to interrupt you just quickly. I know the time is short. When we have a response from one of the ministries at the table today saying to pursue “options”, that doesn't get equipment built. That doesn't actually get the job done.

I'll let you finish.

[Andrew Hayes]

Our other recommendation also asks for concrete actions to be taken. For us it's important that there's a complete picture in the Arctic. The areas that we've identified as equipment that's ending its useful life without replacements coming create a big concern. Contingency plans can be developed, but action needs to be taken in addition to planning.

Thank you.