National Defence Committee on April 10th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you.

Mr. Williamson, please....

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

I have two lines of questioning, but on the first one, I don't want to dwell on it too long. I'm a bit perplexed by your statement on cooperation with Russia, at a time when they're literally seizing territory in Europe, and alluding to positions that Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher might have taken. We cooperate because it's mutually beneficial, but it's difficult to cooperate with a state that is threatening our allies and operating in a manner that is not civilized.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

Let me just give you a clear example of that. Lavrov and Kerry are still talking daily when it comes to negotiations on Iran because there is no choice but to have it. In fact it's absolutely essential because what has happened, sadly, in Crimea and in Ukraine generally, could have thwarted that kind of negotiation, which is essential for world peace. Here I'm not talking about the actors. I'm talking about the really fundamental issue of the Iranian nuclear capacity.

To me, there is no contradiction. The problem is that it's very annoying to meet the guy who's doing mischief there. You want to punch him in the nose, but at the same time you still have to smile, and that's what diplomacy is all about. You have to talk to those with whom you have major difficulty because at the end of the day there are some even higher objectives that have to continue to be pursued.

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

I disagree. I'm going to leave it at that because I don't want to get into the sanctions and the reviews we're taking, but to me, to be effective, they have to be thorough.

I actually want to move on to the issue you raised about sovereignty and the importance of sovereignty. In your early comments about BMD...and the CDAI report indicates that a “full review is in order” for the BMD program. You also indicated that “a joint BMD program with the United States might be a strong expression of our sovereignty in our participation in the defence in our airspace.”

Can you elaborate on how joining this program would be an expression of our sovereignty? We often hear, for example, opposing arguments that joining BMD would in fact be a loss of sovereignty for Canada.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

To me, the answer is very simple. If you have some missile coming above our territory, the Americans won't ask our permission to bring it down, and that will be an aggression against our sovereignty, but at the same time it might save us and save the Americans by doing so. To me, it's a very simple answer. We are in it together. We are doing North American defence together, and we participate in the means that are available to do so. It is utterly contradictory to do it in Europe and not to do it within our own territory, and it's an expression of our sovereignty. We take a fundamental decision in sharing our sovereignty on an issue of fundamental defence.

[George Petrolekas]

It's no different from what we do with NORAD right now, and I would even go so far as to say that de facto we're getting a free lunch because one of the U.S. missile sites is in Fort Greely, Alaska, 70 miles from the Canadian border.

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

Why then change our stance? I like a free lunch as much as the next guy.

[George Petrolekas]

It's precisely because of what Ferry just told you.

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

If they're going to do it, they're going to do it.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I would find it horrifyingly offensive to not be sharing with the Americans something that they would be doing anyway. There you are just a pawn. If you exercise your sovereignty by saying we'll do it together, then you feel you are a participant and the free lunch will come anyway, as you said, with the Alaska base, but it will also involve us sharing the decision the way we do with NORAD. We share the command. To me, it's a no-brainer. That's why I also want a maritime expansion in NORAD.

[George Petrolekas]

If we are a freeloader, I guess they'll have to take care of the border on their own, won't they? Therefore it is self-defeating in terms of other strategic aims of the country, which involve being an equal partner with them in order to free up things that are in Canada's strategic interest, like trade across that border.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, for the questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you.

Madam Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have several questions on the missile defence system and Canada's participation in it

On March 25, 2014, Philippe Lagassé from the University of Ottawa said the following when he appeared before the committee:

If we maintain the condition whereby Canada's participation does not involve any costs, the staff already on site is used and no facilities are planned on Canadian soil, we would just be using the existing resources.

In your view, is it a realistic idea to simply use existing resources to increase Canada's participation in such a system?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

In my view, if we work with the Americans, I would find it surprising if we were not called on to contribute in one way or another, whether on a technical and financial level or in terms of staffing, the same way we do with NORAD. Clearly, the relationship would be asymmetrical, given the dominant American presence.

In terms of choosing long-term sites in other parts of Canada, I must say that I do not have enough expertise in that area. I do not like this free-market concept in which we would contribute nothing. There will certainly be a specific way to contribute, so let's talk about it with the Americans.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I believe the idea of maintaining the position taken in the past by Prime Minister Paul Martin, which was to make no additional contribution and to still benefit from all the advantages of fully participating in the system, is quite unrealistic. It is rather unrealistic to think that we could operate like that in the future.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

It is funny that you are asking me this question because I wrote many speeches for Mr. Martin, when I was with the Department of Foreign Affairs and when Canada released its international policy statement. That debate was quite difficult.

Honestly, I think there was a political dimension. It was a political decision and I was a simple public servant. In other words, it is up to politicians to make their decisions, and good for them, but I don't think that position is realistic in the long term.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Do you have an idea of how much it could cost Canada to join the missile defence program with the United States, both financially and in terms of human and materiel resources? Have you assessed those costs?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I have not, personally. We will try to give you an answer later. I know that studies have been done, in particular the one by Philippe Lagassé. In terms of determining whether the assessment he did is realistic, I think we should ask the people with more expertise in the area.

[George Petrolekas]

I will answer your first question.

In terms of the number of bases and the personnel needed, it all depends on the source of the threat, the magnitude and the number of missiles. Right now, as mentioned, the system is designed to defend itself against rogue missiles launched by rogue states. So the system is not intended to defend itself against large-scale attack. Countries that represent such a threat, especially North Korea, do not have missiles of that range. At present, there are no such missiles in Iran.

I think the existing facilities are sufficient, but that might change in the future.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

The Patriot system—

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

My understanding is that it depends on the threats and everything that can happen internationally.

Thank you for your clarifications.

At a previous meeting, Professor Elinor Sloan, from Carleton University, told the committee that Canada should consider having an armed coast guard, like the United States, first, in an attempt to save money, but also to ensure security in our territorial waters.

Could you comment on that option, which was submitted to the committee?

[George Petrolekas]

I agree with that. I am not sure what Ferry thinks, but I am completely influenced by the American model. We must make good use of resources.

Coast Guard vessels patrol some Canadian coasts and northern Canada. If we could arm the Coast Guard, that would be an effective use of resources.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I remember when we wanted to board Spanish vessels that were fishing illegally off the coast of Newfoundland. At the time, I said to myself that if we had had an armed coast guard, perhaps we could have been able to manage the situation more effectively.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, sir.

Ms. Gallant.