National Defence Committee on June 17th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is it all right?

Okay.

Mrs. Gallant, you have two minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to the DPU, even if we purchase all the equipment today, as you said, we are still short of people to operate it. As we heard, out of 70,000 people, only 4,000 were accepted and made it through.

Have you done any studies—or are there any studies at all—that suggest there is a relationship between the implementation of DEI in our military and the resulting recruitment numbers?

[Dr. David Perry]

I haven't personally done research in this area. My colleague Charlotte has.

I would offer that recruiting seems to be working quite well. We're getting tens of thousands of Canadians and permanent residents interested in joining the military. We just can't get them in and employed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay.

With respect to the OECD and our GDP increasing—making the contribution to NATO as a percentage even less—where do you see us getting the wisest, most effective spending completed, if we were to get serious about security in this nation and allocate the money?

[Dr. David Perry]

I would say it's in procurement and personnel reform. There's plenty of money on the table. If we could spend that more efficiently and effectively, our numbers could increase significantly. That's the most meaningful thing we could do in the short term.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

This may be for our admiral.

I understand there's been a planning group under way for a number of years with respect to submarines. Even if we made the decision, it would still take eight years to get our first submarine delivered, at best.

My question is this: Once the military is eventually given the go-ahead, how long will it take for them to even decide what we get in terms of a submarine? Then we can add eight years to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Excuse me.

That may be an important question, but Mrs. Gallant has gone through her time, so you'll have to work in an answer at some other point.

For the final two minutes, it's Madame Lalonde.

Before I ask Madame Lalonde to do her two minutes, can you explain the lights, Mr. Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

The House was suspended and now it's back. It's just calling members back. We're all good.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. We don't have to worry about it.

Madame Lalonde, you have two minutes.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much. I'm going to try to be as quick as possible.

We heard a lot at the committee today, certainly, about the defence policy update focusing on the defence of Canada here at home. The defence policy focused a lot on the north and the Arctic. What's the significance of this, and why is this the right moment to focus on our Arctic?

Could I hear from all three of you?

[Dr. Youri Cormier]

I'd give two little points.

I think the Americans are looking to us to show more leadership and vision for the Arctic, so I think it's a very good check mark for improving Canada-U.S. relations.

When it comes to communicating to Canadians the importance of spending on the military, reminding them of the great white north is pretty important.

[Dr. David Perry]

I would offer that I think it's the most pressing threat to Canada. If we want to look at where to focus, we should be focusing there more, because we're not spending enough to do everything. We should protect our own backyard first and foremost, and the Arctic is our backyard.

[VAdm (Ret'd) Darren Hawco]

The closest point of approach between Russia and Canada is through the north. There are contested United Nations claims for resources in the north. Our relationship with indigenous peoples, governments and communities are key in northern portions of Canada.

These are all positive reasons, in addition to what my two colleagues said.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Very quickly, what are our NATO allies doing on NATO's northern flanks, and how can Canada meaningfully contribute?

[Dr. Youri Cormier]

It's already a big contribution to open—

[VAdm (Ret'd) Darren Hawco]

I'm sorry, Youri.

Seven of eight polar countries are NATO countries, so we are collaborating in a different and more meaningful way over time.

It's over to you, Youri.

[Dr. Youri Cormier]

I was going to say that there's a bit of a transition, and it's nice to hear from the Canadian government that there's a willingness to engage NATO in the north. We used to be much more protective of our north and did not want to share responsibilities with NATO. Presenting this as the northern and western flank of NATO is an important step in the right direction for co-operation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Lalonde, you're out of time, but because I'm such a nice fellow, Mr. Perry, go ahead.

[Dr. David Perry]

I would say that at present we can do very little, since we have almost no modern military capability we can send to our north. Hopefully we'll get some soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you all, colleagues and witnesses alike.

I apologize for cutting you off at the beginning and at the end. It's pretty frustrating, given these realities we have to deal with. On behalf of the committee, I just want to thank you.

With that, we'll suspend for a minute or two for the next panel and hopefully get somewhere through our second hour. Thank you again. The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

This meeting has now resumed.

We have two witnesses familiar to the committee, Dr. Charron and Dr. Boutilier. We are really hard pressed on time. I'm going to ask you for just three minutes of opening remarks. I apologize for this, but it is what it is. We're in the last week of Parliament, and things happen.

With that, I'm going to ask Dr. Charron, who has been waiting patiently, if she can summarize her remarks in three minutes, and then we'll move to Dr. Boutilier. We'll have to shrink the rounds of questions as well.

Dr. Charron, please go ahead for three minutes.

[Professor Andrea Charron, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.

I would like to focus my remarks on Joint Task Force North, the Canadian Rangers and, if time permits, clarification regarding multi-purpose projects, given the Arctic-focused “Our North, Strong and Free”, or ONSF.

While I disagree with the idea that Canadian sovereignty is at risk, I do agree that defence and security in the Arctic need to be assessed and that a whole-of-government approach needs to be taken.

JTFN is unique in that it is responsible for the largest geographic region of any of Canadian joint operations command's six regional joint task forces, RJTFs. However, contrary to the others, it is only a force employer, which means that any sizable military activity conducted in the north requires troops and equipment to be force-generated from the south. Unlike the Canadian army divisions or RJTFs that have the benefit of being able to pick from large pools of members of all ranks, JTFN's main headquarters in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, and its two detachments in Whitehorse, Yukon territory, and Iqaluit, Nunavut, have fewer than 100 defence team members.

These locations are considered isolated posts, which makes recruitment challenging. Northern premiers have all identified the need for careers and opportunities for northerners. All files for northern applicants for the CAF should be prioritized.

Public affairs capacity is critical in the Arctic. JTFN should have a team of four. However, as of last week, it had only one photographer. Images without properly aligned messaging will not adequately articulate the Government of Canada's intentions.

JTFN is also a low priority for staffing, with critical gaps across the headquarters. Approximately 35% of its middle manager, junior officer and senior NCO positions are vacant. This is 15% more than the national average. Consider that they are trying to coordinate Operation Nanook’s year-round activities and engagements with other government departments, our allies, indigenous governments and designated individuals. If the Government of Canada could do one thing that would benefit the entire government, resourcing to accelerate security clearances might be that one thing.

Let's turn to the Canadian Rangers. They are vital to the Arctic. That they are not combat capable does not take away from their incredible contribution. They are the eyes and the ears in the Arctic, but they need to be resourced with additional administrative personnel in their Yellowknife headquarters. Red tape on reimbursing Rangers for claims against the Crown is still overly bureaucratic.

Finally, I strongly urge the government to consider and articulate clearly what “multi-purpose” and “dual use” mean for Canadians in an Arctic context. For example, the announcements of northern operational support hubs, NOSHs, are very unclear as to purpose and function, and we're not sure what ends they will serve. They have not been the subject of a systematic assessment to identify the capacities that will contribute to operational support in the north.

The CAF is not mandated to address the housing, medical services and other vital deficits in the Arctic, but more personnel in the Arctic will put a greater strain on communities. I think now is the time for the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Transport and other Arctic responsibilities to work in an integrated fashion to optimize the effects of public expenditure.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you Dr. Charron.

Dr. Boutilier, you have three minutes, please.

[Dr. James Boutilier, Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Let me commend you and your colleagues for this exercise. It's vitally important.

I had a number of points. Let me jettison most of them and make just a few in the two minutes that are left to me.

I would suggest, without risk of being exceedingly blunt and rude, that we have become, sadly, a nation of sleepwalkers when it comes to defence. We're naive, we're complacent and we're entitled. It's a state of affairs that is compounded by the abject failure of successive Canadian governments to provide real leadership on the issue of defence.

We need some clear-eyed visions as to where the nation is going and a genuine sense of urgency. In fact, I think that was one of the messages that emerged from the earlier part of your deliberations this morning: Time after time, there is no sense of urgency.

Second, we are at war, and we should be acting and planning accordingly. In the formal notes I submitted to you, one of the issues I raise is the conjunction between war and peace. I would suggest, as outlined in the DPU to some degree, that what we have is a situation of unannounced conflict, and we should be acting accordingly as a nation.

The DPU to me is a profound embarrassment. It's a hastily contrived Liberal Party electoral document full of truths, half-truths and promises that, frankly, will probably never be fulfilled. It is a profoundly unsatisfactory statement.

With regard to Arctic defence, I deeply appreciate the professionalism and knowledge of Professor Charron. In my estimation, Arctic defence is a national fantasy. It's convenient and it's logical in terms of our sovereignty, but it's a fallback position. It's one to which, in point of fact, we provide lamentably few resources.

We're in a race against time. If you are not ready, we'll lose. I draw your attention to the huge array of inquiries that have been made and the commentaries on the state of Canadian defence. This is a true national crisis. It's not sufficient to simply collect information and debate. We need genuine action. It will take a decade to begin to turn this situation around.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Dr. Boutilier.

Again, the bells are going to start at 12:33. If I get 15 minutes by unanimous consent, we can run this to 12:48.

Do I have unanimous consent to continue through the bells?