National Defence Committee on April 10th, 2014

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

To our witnesses, now that Canada has successfully negotiated a free trade agreement with South Korea, we have even more of a vested interest in its well-being. Indeed, our cattle producers are certainly pleased and looking forward to reaping the benefits of this.

I'd like to ask a question about its neighbour, North Korea. The Americans take the threats of Kim Jong-un very seriously and they're consistently preparing for a possible incursion by sea, with respect to missiles.

In terms of Canada, I don't see that as a key threat that's being listed, but I'd like you to expand on whether or not you see North Korea as being as great a threat as some of our neighbours do.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

It is a threat for Canada, to the extent that, were there to be some action by North Korea against South Korea, we have some treaty obligations that would bring us into some way of a support for the American efforts in countering what North Korea does. I think there's an issue out there that is real. However, in the broad scheme of things, I think the dialogue on what should be done with North Korea continues despite its unpredictability. What we are really trying to look at is to what extent we can convince our Chinese friends to do a bit more in controlling the young and unpredictable leader.

George, do you have a point?

[George Petrolekas]

Going back to strategic papers and white papers and acquiring naval vessels, do you put a ballistic missile defence capability on to the new generation of ships that we buy? Some of the American response to that has been sending Aegis-class ships and ballistic missile radar-equipped ships to contribute to the defence of the entire Pacific Rim, which are our allies too.

Is that a game we want to get into, or not? It has an implication on what we buy. It has an implication on cost, on capability. That's why we would like to hold that kind of strategic discussion.

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

Okay.

In your report, it mentions that terrorism seems to be less of a threat, although al-Qaeda still exists. Yet we see it metastasizing in different areas of Africa, and indeed Syria. There's nothing more that al-Qaeda would like than to have a homeland.

I guess terrorism isn't really a defence issue, until it is. Would you please explain...?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

It's interesting. We've had a very lively debate on that issue. We've concluded that terrorism is still a threat, but it is no longer a strategic threat because it tends to happen more in the countries where there is some counter-insurgency, like Syria, Libya, and where you have different attempts by different players to take control.

We've had the case of Sahara, which was probably the closest to terrorism actually becoming a means to full control of a territory. That's why we should all applaud the French intervention. All of a sudden the counter-insurgency became an attempt to control the country of Mali, and not just northern Mali, because they were going full steam ahead.

I think that's really the key question. Terrorism will continue to always be a serious threat to the western world. I think that is something we should continue to be prepared for. That's why cooperation between the various agencies is absolutely essential.

[George Petrolekas]

Ferry and I have a bit of a disagreement there. I think we've overused the word “terrorism”. I think terrorism has become a word for which we're prepared to trade off an awful lot of liberties. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that those who would be willing to trade their civil rights or liberties for security actually deserve neither. I think it's overstated.

There is a threat. Is it a strategic threat? I don't think so. Was the Boston bombing an act of terror? Certainly. But in that sense, so was Sandy Hook, with 26 kids being killed. Are we making the distinction because somebody was just self-radicalized, or somebody became self-deluded and killed 26 kids?

I think we use that word far too sparingly. If you look in our report, you'll actually see a diminution of terrorist threats, let's say, in the last 15 years—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, sir. We'll have to move on.

Mr. Regan, you have five minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In the section of your report, “2013 in Retrospect”, you said:

...the defence budget was affected to such an extent that one is left wondering what, if anything, will come out of the announced [Canada First defence strategy] review other than nice words and more cuts.

You go on to say that one would have thought that this fiscal restraint would have provided an opportunity for reflection on the size, capability, and capital program of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Why do you think this wasn't done? What do you believe the impact of this review will be?

[George Petrolekas]

It's difficult to tell.

Again, it's back to what Ferry and I have been arguing from the start. Tell us what you want to do within the fiscal framework you have, and we'll tell you what the forces can deliver for the nation.

We've seen no indication, in terms of announcements, that say this is what Canada wants to do in the world, these are the naval forces that will pivot to the Pacific, or not, or other things we will do in the Arctic, or this is what we will do with our friends and allies elsewhere.

I personally think it will be more of something that will be designed to reflect constrained fiscal circumstances as opposed to necessarily an articulated vision.

Ferry...?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I would just say I was very harsh in my comments when I referred to the post-Afghanistan amnesia. I think we've done some stellar work in Afghanistan. I think we've created a bit of a legend, and I think there's a deliberate desire on the part of the government to move on and try not to be overly influenced by the Afghanistan lessons in today's decision on defence.

That's why they have this strange lag. Whether a white paper would create difficulties from a political perspective, I'm not qualified to judge. But I think there's really something missing out there, and it's been deliberate.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'll come back to the strategy in a moment, but let me ask you something. Do you think it's rational to look at the defence of North America without examining the capacity for force projection?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

No.

[George Petrolekas]

Ferry mentioned something that might have just slid by, and I told this to the French when I was with them in the South Pacific two years ago and they talked about strategic distance. Caracas, Venezuela, is closer to Toronto than Alert is. So every time we do something in Canada, it is expeditionary. The distance of the country makes everything we do expeditionary.

So it's very difficult to draw a division between those two things given the expanse of the nation and the responsibilities that we have.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I guess what I'm asking is how important to our security is what happens in the rest of the world?

[George Petrolekas]

I think Mr. Bezan asked the question. Did we defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Did that stop another terrorist threat in North America? I certainly believe so.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

We've said it time and again. Canada relies for 40% of its GDP on trade, and if you can't provide your country with the means to defend the trade routes, to project a certain amount of power, or as George and I have said, a ship going into the area of difficulty.... But also if you can't support the international community's effort in trying to resolve some of the lingering conflict—and that's where I'm very worried about the kinds of dismissive attitudes towards what I call the political multilateral organization. Whether it's the General Assembly or the UN Security Council, we all know there are vetos being exercised.

But at the same time, some of those efforts of the United Nations, which is a gathering of countries—it's not the UN itself that decides something. We have to rely on the UN to help us out whether in Africa, where we have some mining interests, or in Latin America, where there is the drug war and where we have even more mining interests. We are a global country because of our trade, despite the smallness of our population.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Defence against North Korean missiles would be an example.

[George Petrolekas]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's been a really interesting discussion today.

We started off this committee study over a year ago. A number of us went down and visited with some of our professional counterparts in Washington. Going back to the ballistic missile defence, the one concern they expressed was over the lack of presence on the Atlantic coastline and really in the Arctic. As capabilities evolve from state and non-state players in ballistic missile defence, they are scared that the flank is open on the east and on the north.

What are your comments on it? I know you guys are supportive, but based upon your analysis.... We talked about North Korea, but if Iran acquires intercontinental capabilities—

[George Petrolekas]

It's a technical issue quite frankly. They don't decide to put something down just because is seems like a good place to put it down. It really is based on technology.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

If we participated, it would be part of the discussion we would have with the Americans. If we collectively thought it was required, a decision would be made accordingly.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

In the context of North American defence and looking to our neighbour to the south, we talked about U.S. budget restraints, cuts, and sequestration. How are those things affecting their capabilities in defence and ultimately affecting us here in Canada?

[George Petrolekas]

They're making more global strategic choices. So if you recall reading the U.S. strategic guidance of January 2012, which was the so-called pivot guidance, it clearly articulated a diminished appetite for what American contributions would be, or how they would morph. So for example, in areas of Africa where they recognize terrorism as still extant or terrorist groups, they wouldn't deploy large forces but they would still meet the problem with either special forces, direct actions, drones, or whatever the case might be.

With respect to Europe they were also very clear that they were not abandoning NATO, but they were going to reduce their contributions to NATO in the expectation that the European allies—many of them also G-7, G-8 nations—would contribute more of their fair share as opposed to the United States funding NATO from 50% to 60%. So it has had an impact, but they have a much more global view than we do.

Ferry, I don't know if you want to add to that.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

No, I'm fine.