National Defence Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

If you had asked that question 20 years ago about the superpowers--and you wouldn't have been wrong, or it wouldn't have been for lack of information--I don't think too many people would have thought the Soviet Union wouldn't be a superpower today, but we found out they were broke. What impact does the current situation, with the United States having a huge debt load, have on that possibility? The funds required to maintain a force like that are just incredible. Is there a real possibility that the United States is in a weakened position because of its huge debt load? Is that something you'd consider?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

It is actually weakened, and there is no question that the U.S. maintains a structural deficit, where its military expenditures are largely contributing to that. One means for the United States to extricate itself and get itself out of its current financial dilemma is to take a serious look at its military expenditures.

But I am still not overly concerned, because even if we saw a 25% reduction in overall military capability of the United States, it would still be the predominant military power in the world. We need to really bear in mind that even if the U.S. goes from eleven carrier battle groups down to six, that is still a massive world power. So by any measure and by any projection, the U.S. will still maintain a sizeable military capability and will still be the largest military power in the world.

What it does say, however, is that it is time for allies such as Canada and Great Britain to look seriously at how they can work with the United States through this transition. This is exactly the type of conversation I hope we're going to have, because necessarily, as the United States has already said in its own defence strategy, it knows it needs to reduce its capability. If we can do our part, let's say in the Arctic or elsewhere, to backfill what the U.S. won't do, that might be an opportunity we should look at.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Warfare has changed. We used to just go in and blast the smithereens out of the enemy. It's precision warfare now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Excuse me, but the time has expired.

Mr. Labelle has temporarily left the room, so I'm going to move on to you, Mr. Williamson, until he returns.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like my colleague, I'm not a permanent member of the committee, but I appreciate being here today, and I found your answers to the questions, as well as your presentation, very informative.

Two years ago, days after the earthquake in Haiti, Canadians could turn on their televisions and could see two of our warships leaving the port in Halifax, heading down to Haiti. At the same time, C-17s were already landing in the country. At the same time, Canada had troops in Afghanistan. We're capable of doing quite a bit, actually, when one looks at the DART mission as well. There seemed to be multiple levels doing different missions around the world.

This is in contrast to where we were more than ten years ago, when troops were sent to Afghanistan without even the right camouflage. Maybe that's an urban legend, but it's certainly something one hears often. As well, we had to hitch a ride with allies to get around.

In an uncertain world—and the key word is “uncertain”—going forward, I'm curious to know what choices you would make. We have six core missions currently that we try to maintain. Is that feasible? Where would you look to put resources? Where would you look to make changes? I'd like some specifics, actually, on going forward, please.

I have no other questions, so you can take the whole time.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Let me first add a caveat to this, which is that we've already made certain decisions, as you point out, so there is a certain path dependency that imposes itself. We have already chosen to build up our airlift capacity. The question then becomes, given that airlift capacity, whether it is also necessary for us to invest in a joint support ship, which would give us sealift capacity. Perhaps that money might be better used augmenting our C-17 capability so it's up to six aircraft that are fully operational at all times, precisely for those types of missions, and relying on other allies or the private sector when it comes to our sealift capabilities. Those are the types of decisions I think we can ask sincerely.

Similarly, when it comes to the army, does the Canadian army really require, over the long term, the type of mechanized direct-fire support capability that it is currently planning to acquire or that it has acquired? As you recall, in 2005 General Hillier called that into question and sought to have more lightly deployable forces. I don't think that issue was ever fully discussed, and therefore that is another area where I think we can have more serious discussion about what kind of army we need and how light or how heavy it should be.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Does that mean tanks?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Yes. My apologies.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I'm not saying that decision was the right one or incorrect one, but clearly there was debate within the CF about what kind of capability we needed at that time. Therefore we can ask the question: what kinds of operations do we see the Canadian army undertaking in the future? Are they going to be the higher-end more mechanized forces that we are now building? Is that really what we see the army doing in the future, or could we get by with a lighter force doing more specific types of operations at the lower end of the spectrum of conflict?

Similarly, when it comes to the navy, do we need forces that are able to interoperate as part of U.S. carrier battle groups, or should they be able to undertake different types of operations focusing specifically on a particular region of the world, such as the Caribbean or Arctic? Is that the type of force that would be helpful to our allies?

For example, last year at the Ottawa conference on security and defence, the president of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who was a former deputy secretary of defense in the U.S., made the point that perhaps it would be wiser for the Canadian navy to become a truly Arctic force, so the U.S. would not have to be preoccupied with that region of the world.

So these are the types of discussions I think we can be having, as opposed to saying we need exactly the types of forces we have now. I don't find that's very creative. It doesn't really take into account the different types of possibilities that are out there.

I don't want to outline specific capabilities we could do away with, or not. I'm not a military planner; I'm more of a policy analyst. That ultimately comes down to a policy question about what the government wants the forces to do. Then let the military tell us what capabilities they need to be able to do it.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Do I have any time remaining?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You may ask a very short question.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Looking in your crystal ball, what do you perceive as the big threats going forward over the next ten years?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Do you mean threats facing Canada specifically?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Yes.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I think it is fair to say that the cyber-threat is a very significant one. Similarly, disruptions to major lines of communications at sea are a major cause of concern. In the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Malacca, if those sea lines of communication were ever interrupted, the effect on our economy would be absolutely devastating. Therefore we need to be very clear: do we want to maintain the ability to defend those sea lines of communication, or do we want to do other roles that allow our allies to invest more heavily in that, and help them in other ways so they can focus on it? That's what I see as the largest possible threat to Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Monsieur Labelle.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I am going to give my floor time to Tarik Brahmi.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, both to the chair and my colleague.

Professor Lagassé, you touched on cybersecurity and threats in cyberspace. There are two sides to cybersecurity: cyberspying and cyberwarfare.

I would like to hear your view on the role the Canadian Forces should play in the years ahead when it comes to cybersecurity, specifically, counter intelligence in cyberspace and protection from cyber attacks.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

The issue is figuring out where the most vulnerable areas are. I would point to critical infrastructure as being the most vulnerable. In order to protect that critical infrastructure, we absolutely have to work with the United States and our allies. We have to identify the areas where our critical infrastructure is the most vulnerable.

Again, since we are talking about a field of shared responsibility with the private sector, we must work earnestly with our private sector partners if we truly want to protect this infrastructure. To be frank, if one of our enemies had the capability to mount a cyber attack on NATO's facilities or military resources, Canada would not be the first target. The main targets would be the U.S., Great Britain and others. As I see it, we should address the threats we face within our own borders and in North America, first and foremost, if we wish to safeguard the infrastructure that is in place to protect Canadians.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Do you think we should opt for a system where that responsibility falls entirely on the shoulders of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence? Or do you think we should take a shared accountability approach, similar to the United States, for instance, where a number of organizations have a role to play? In the U.S., you have, among other organizations, the NSA doing the intelligence gathering and processing, and the CIA performing more of the intelligence response function.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I don't think we should have offensive cyberwarfare capability. We have to eliminate that from the outset. That being said, this is a responsibility that, by its very nature, requires cooperation among Public Safety Canada, Transport Canada, Industry Canada and the Canadian Forces.

You could put the Department of National Defence in charge of the entire mandate, but I don't think that would make sense. Every department should, at the very least, be capable of protecting its own network. You have to be realistic about it. The military should not be protecting every piece of data in the city of Ottawa or in the country. You have to adopt a comprehensive approach, meaning that all the departments should work together. In order to centralize this responsibility, I believe you would need a cybersecurity advisor to the prime minister at the Privy Council Office.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Do you think a new agency should be set up to deal exclusively with cybersecurity or at least to oversee the function? Or would that be excessive given Canada's overall potential?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I am always a bit leery about setting up new agencies or new commands. I would say it is preferable to start by creating an advisor position at the Privy Council Office. If it subsequently comes to light that we need a new structure in place to adequately protect our networks and to implement policies, we could explore that option at that point. But we should start by establishing a position or a team over at the Privy Council Office that would be responsible for coordinating all the departments and ensuring each does its part. In my opinion, that should be the first step, rather than trying to create a new agency with all the costs and red tape that would entail.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Alexander.