National Defence Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

I think it's critical that we have an armed coast guard. It's a better use of resources to move in that direction, toward an armed coast guard that would then have Canadian Forces personnel on it.

The reason I say that is that in an ideal world we would have Arctic/offshore patrol vessels and coast guard vessels. But given resource constraints, I think it's more sensible to go with an armed coast guard and to focus on those maritime assets that are useful both in the Arctic and in trouble spots around the world. That's why I mentioned the submarines. So in the ideal world, we'd have the AOPS, but given resource constraints, that's the direction I would go in.

As for threats in the Arctic from other countries, yes, all these southern countries are building icebreakers. A Chinese icebreaker went through the Arctic last summer, I believe. So there are many threats from other countries around the world in the Arctic. The reason they are all up there is economic. Keeping a regime in power requires a strong economy, and economics demands that they have shorter transit times around the world. That's driving activity in the Arctic.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

One of the other issues that you discussed was cyber-security. There are those of us who believe that cyber-security has to do as much with military security as it does with our national interests surrounding, for instance, some of the investments we're making in various areas. One of the tremendous investments is our ability to protect those businesses that we are investing heavily in, as well as universities, and I'm talking about research and technology advancements, etc.

When it comes to cyber-security, what are your suggestions? Number one, in what direction do you believe Canada is heading as far as cyber-security goes? Are we investing as much as we should? Should we increase our capabilities there? How much of that cyber-security should we be sharing with our neighbour to the south, which very well may have other concerns?

I'm talking about the protection of intellectual property, because the two overlap.

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

Yes. Because I focus mainly on defence issues, I don't have a good answer for the amount of investment that's being done with respect to cyber-security, banking, finance, etc. I have read that it's not enough, but how much is enough?

My concern is that there hasn't been, at least in the public domain, enough thought as to the role of defence in the cyber-realm. If there were a cyber-attack that resulted in the loss of life, then what would be the role of defence?

That's an issue that NATO has grappled with because of the attacks on Estonia. The United States has created its own cyber-command. I think this House committee could usefully look at that topic of exactly how much involvement defence should have in responding to cyber-attacks that create loss of life here in Canada.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

While we're dealing with cyber-threats, etc., you did mention that in Canada, of course, most of our financing towards that falls under the Department of Public Safety. You've made the suggestion that we might want to consider the Canadian Armed Forces. Have you given a thought to perhaps—I'm just thinking outside the box—CSIS being in control? There's a combination there between the RCMP, which is the civilian side, and the Department of National Defence.

Because we're a small country and our resources are limited, where do you believe is the appropriate place for the cyber-command, if you will, the department we're placing most of our resources in?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

For consistency with the United States, it would probably make sense for cyber-command to be within National Defence. The Department of Homeland Security does have cyber responsibilities, so that's consistent with Public Safety here, but then they have that extra dimension.

At this point, I don't have a good answer to that. I guess I'm identifying that as an area that needs to be researched and that this House committee could look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Ms. Murray, please, you have seven minutes.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you for your presentations before the committee here.

I have a big question in my mind as to how our study of the defence of North America can really focus so that we can do justice to some of the big issues that are imbedded in that.

It sounds, Ms. Sloan, like you've identified what you see as the top two issues for the defence of North America as being cyber-security and the Arctic, the north. When you talk about moving beyond our issues with the United States, having better collaboration with them, and partnering to address the funding cuts in both countries, are you suggesting that it would be through NORAD and the next phases in NORAD, or would NORAD just be one tool for that?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

With respect to the Arctic, conceptually I think it makes sense. Already there's surveillance information that's fed into NORAD, so then, if you go to the control side, you're dispatching ships to address whatever the unmanned aerial vehicle picked up on in the Northwest Passage, and it would make sense for it to go through NORAD. This is what I'm arguing. Canada and the United States, perhaps initiated by Canada, need to get together and figure out how to work cooperatively in the Arctic, which is a huge leap, really, from where we've been for decades.

If that were done, then you would want to have a coordination cell, if you like, to deploy these ships. Why not NORAD? Otherwise you'd be looking at Northern Command working with our new joint command, a new amalgamated joint command. NORAD might make more sense, especially since the surveillance information is being fed into that organization already.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lagassé, I think you've commented that you wouldn't advise extending NORAD to include Mexico, or maybe it was simply a trilateral agreement. So given that the Prime Minister has announced the intent that there will be strengthened bilateral defence relations, and the declaration of intent on defence cooperation, do you think that it's an important priority for the defence of North America, or do you think that it is a secondary priority, given the other priorities?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I would say that if we look at the history of North American defence relations and how they developed, you initially begin with a bilateral approach. So when we look at the Second World War in the 1940s and the early 1950s, the way that Canada and the United States began their cooperation was primarily bilateral to start with.

You really need this in order to understand developed common doctrines, common understandings, and common points of communications between the countries before you can really jump into something that's either binational, let alone tri-national.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

A first step....

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Right. So before we even discuss going down a truly tri-national approach to North American defence, we first need to—at least in the Canadian context—properly build up the bilateral defence relations that we have between ourselves and Mexico.

Similarly, if we were to make it a tri-national approach, that could only work if we have the buy-in from the United States to do so with Mexico.

So, we would first need to gauge their own interest on that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thanks.

I'm going to just stop you there, because I have one last question and probably not much time.

Given the reductions in the National Defence budget, which one defence analyst says have been in the order of $30 billion from what the Canada First defence strategy had intended by this time, can you comment, Ms. Sloan, on where the cuts have fallen, and whether the balance of personnel, equipment, maintenance, and operations is one that helps support the defence of North America in these key issues, or whether you would suggest a rebalancing in how the cuts are falling?

That's a big question for a short time.

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

Have the cuts impacted the continental defence more than operations abroad, and in what balance? The thing really is that large platforms have not moved forward. I don't know that the cuts mentioned in the budget will have impacted the shipbuilding, but in my view, that's absolutely the priority that must go forward.

It's good that the joint support ship is first into the dock in Vancouver. I say that even though that's pushed back the icebreaker.

The cuts have not impacted the AOPS, so basically nothing has really moved forward, and this has, in essence, influenced continental and international operations evenly. If you look at page 12 of the CFDS, it says that all of these things were going to be purchased. In fact, none of them have been purchased.

The ones that are indicated as having already been in place are still in place, like the C-17s, but none of the new things have gone into place. So whether these platforms are needed for oversees or at home, things haven't moved forward. There has been equal non-movement forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

You still have one minute, Ms. Murray, if you wish.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So you're saying they haven't moved forward, but you don't think the cuts are the reason they haven't moved forward, or are the cuts the reason?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

I apologize. Are you mentioning the cuts from the budget in February, that...?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Well, there were cuts in this recent budget, but there was also $7 billion in equipment lapsed funding in previous years. So is that part of why they haven't moved forward as they've been...?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

No, the cuts will have had a direct impact on unmanned aerial vehicles, for instance, the JUSTAS program—joint unmanned surveillance—and other small programs like that, and that is important for the Arctic.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

How about all the capacity to actually do the projects of procuring these platforms—is that potentially an unintentional consequence that has led to nothing coming forward in terms of the equipment you're referring to?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Could we have a short answer, please?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

Project management has been an issue since 1995 with the Chrétien government, and we just don't seem to have gotten beyond those cuts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you very much, Professor.

We're moving now into the second round of questioning. We'll have five-minute segments, beginning with Ms. Gallant.

Go ahead, please.

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

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I get started, I just want to correct the record and what the previous member said. Since taking office, our government has increased military spending by 27%.

We can compare that to the decade of darkness, back in the days when our soldiers actually had to take off their fragmentation protection vests on the tarmac as they entered a plane to leave the area of theatre, and the incoming soldiers had to put them on at that time. We saw our soldiers go into Afghanistan in forest greens as opposed to arids, when those from other countries were wearing arids. I remember General Andrew Leslie saying at the time that it was so our soldiers would “stand out”.

That's not to mention the aspect of the lack of strategic lift. We saw that once we had the Chinooks in place the level of casualties decreased dramatically, because our soldiers weren't walking along the road where they were struck by IEDs. That all goes back to the cancellation of the EH101 contract by the Liberals, because there were three different helicopters in that contract, three different versions of the same one: the one that was search and rescue, another being the maritime replacement for the Sea Kings, which we still haven't seen yet as a consequence of that cancellation, and of course the utility, the strategic lift. By having variations of the same one, we wouldn't be stuck with the problem of not having parts. They would have been more interchangeable.

Today we have far better access to programs as well as equipment, and we're protecting our soldiers for the jobs we ask them to do, but with respect to Professor Sloan, the questions I have are with respect to cyber-security.

We've been told in this committee that the Canadian Armed Forces are focused with respect to their own assets, so instead of being offensive, they're mostly concerned with taking care of our own infrastructure as well as communications systems. Are you suggesting that we use cyber-security or cyber-technology in a more offensive manner as a part of our offence?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

As I understand it, National Defence's cyber-capabilities are only for the defence of defence networks. That's in the cyber-security strategy, so the issue is around what role National Defence would play in defending civilian critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure is largely civilian: the oil pipelines, the electricity, etc., and even water systems. That's the aspect that needs to be examined. What role does National Defence play in defending civilian critical infrastructure? Because National Defence automatically is protecting its own stuff.