National Defence Committee on April 10th, 2014

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

In that sense, the relationship of equipment and training should also change, correct? Right now, the majority of the time, the reserves end up with basically nothing. Budgets are not always there, nor the flexibility, as you mentioned, to use them in case of environmental disasters. For example, as we've seen, deployment is complex. Is it red tape?

[George Petrolekas]

Well, the nature is different in Canada than it is in the United States. In the United States, guards or reserves belong to the governors of the states, and the governors of the states have the ability to trigger their mobilization.

In Canada provincial premiers have that capability through their solicitors general, and the request is made to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who at that point has to respond in some way, shape, or form, and it's up to the Chief of Defence Staff to decide. That could also work well.

My whole point is that in designing a white paper, these are some of the things that we need to consider, and equally, what is the enabling legislation that lets reservists be more effective for national—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, sir.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations.

It's great to have our witnesses here.

I just wanted to go back to Mr. Petrolekas' comments...more need to cooperate in the Arctic with Russia. If we get into a situation where Russia continues to push the boundaries of having more expansion within the European context, how is that going to play out in having cooperation within our shared territory in the Arctic?

[George Petrolekas]

We cooperate because of necessity. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head, I don't know if you remember, Ferry. But it's about 150,000 flights that do the polar route every year. So irrespective of the things that occur in Europe, and I understand that influences the relationship and the dialogue, we still share space in the Arctic that may require search and rescue. I don't see the Russian hordes advancing across the Arctic to attack our part of the claim of the Lomonosov Ridge. It is a very inhospitable environment, I really just don't see a clear and present danger from a military standpoint.

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

But at the same time, George, they have been very provocative in what they're doing along NATO territory, along the Ukrainian territory, amassing troops. There's nothing to say that they won't fly a bunch of Russian bears into our territory just to be provocative, just to be who they are under the current leadership.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I'll just add to that. You realize that what Putin is doing is in a region of undefined geography of his vision of a Eurasian continent, the third pole as he wants it to be. Whilst in the Arctic other than the delimitation of the continental shelf and planting a little flag at the bottom of the sea and all of that, in fact there is no contest. In fact the only litigation remains between Canada and the U.S. Between Norway and Russia it has already been defined and we have our own delimitation process to go through.

So there is no area to be claimed for the Russians and the Russians control an overwhelming majority of the whole area. It is not as it was, an expansionary place where you would want to make mischief. And I really agree entirely and I think we say exactly the same thing, that in the Arctic it's not an area where you want to have a problem with your neighbours.

[George Petrolekas]

Will he test us? Yes. But for different reasons than a military conflict in the Arctic....

It's just another area where he can test reaction, he can test resolve—

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

—he can send a few bears—

[George Petrolekas]

—which he does everywhere else. But absolutely there will be—

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

I know our study here is on the defence of North America. But because of what's happening in Eurasia at this point in time with the moves being taken by Russia and as someone of Ukrainian descent, I've been following this extremely closely. I'm on the sanction list from Putin himself, so I'm one of the 13 Canadians.

But the reality is as you said it. They're going to continue to push the limits. And you said the west needs a very concerted response. Now I think Putin—and Mr. de Kerckhove, you've been there, you know the man—I think the only thing he understands is power versus power. So are you suggesting we need to continue to demonstrate power, although every time President Obama starts a sentence he says we won't put boots on the ground.

[George Petrolekas]

You have to have some ability to prevent power. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario from Crimea.

At about day four, day five—we knew they were within reach because they were pre-deployed for Sochi—had a NATO vessel sailed into the Ukrainian part of the naval harbour at Sevastopol, I think he would have thought twice about sinking three hulks at the entry to that harbour and in essence, eliminating the Ukrainian navy from consideration. And he has now gained for free however many ships the Ukrainian navy had based there. There was nothing in the playbook that even made him think twice.

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

If you guys could make a quick comment.... One of the things we have invested in is the ability to do heavy lift so that we can project more power and get Canadians around the world faster, as well as across Canada quicker. Do you believe those investments are enough? And I see in your tables of Australia versus Canada forces, they have six C-17s, we have four. Do you believe we need more?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

A yes or no would be good.

[George Petrolekas]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much.

[George Petrolekas]

Two more, and I think they're available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Mr. Harris, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll go back to the specific defence of North America. We have the issue of our own sovereignty, domain awareness as an extension of North America, but also, of course...Canadian air space to be patrolled, domain awareness, and potentially defended if interception is required. How important is that? What effect might the need for that have on, perhaps, a choice of a new fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18s? Is that something that could be given a priority in terms of that? I know you talk about expeditionary capability, but is there a mix of those two? If there is, should one be given priority? Would that lead to a different result?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

It's interesting because in last year's edition of the Strategic Outlook, we had proffered the idea of a mixed fleet, emphasizing on the one hand interoperability, and on the other emphasizing that since we would not be able to afford as many F-35s, assuming it would be F-35s, that maybe we would be better served by having a mixed fleet. I think that proposal got a lot of people out of joint, and I think we've approached it in a slightly more balanced way today.

Interoperability is key, but then you have to define “interoperability”, and that's where interoperability between Canada and the U.S...no problem. But the moment you go outside of that realm, interoperability is very much in the eye of the beholder. I always give the example of the Saudi air force, which is very much the same as we have ourselves, but there is no interoperability between the Saudi air force and ours, or the U.S. one. That's one part of the element.

The mixed fleet...George, I don't know where we are today on that one, but since the debate on the F-35 is not resolved, we have made proposals that the F-18 Super Hornet might be an option, might be a solution. But the sovereignty aspect in our view is essential.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That is more important, to ensure that this is done within our means.

In terms, again, of a decision made now by this government and the military to extend the life of the Auroras into 2030, at this point, I don't know what implications that may have for other things. Some, including General Blondin of the RCAF, have suggested the possibility of perhaps having a Canadian project to look at UAVs designed to meet the specific conditions of Canada's coastline, the Arctic, the proper heights, etc., with Canadian industry. From my books, we're focused on the domain awareness aspect. Is that something that would fit into your view of the future in terms of Canada protecting the outer limits of its sovereignty, as well as domain awareness and surveillance?

[George Petrolekas]

I think one of the things we mentioned quite clearly in the five options, which is fairly consistent on most of them, is how that surveillance is done. We're almost platform agnostic, whether it's a maritime patrol aircraft, or larger UAVs. The ability is to patrol our own airspace. The ability to patrol our own airspace is not limited to hunting other nations' submarines that might be encroaching. It has a fisheries application. It has an environmental application. It has a SAR application. If you don't see what's going on in your territory, how do you know you have a problem? So we're almost platform agnostic, but capability supportive, if you will, of some platform that creates domain awareness.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Would you call that a key priority—domain awareness, sovereignty...?

[George Petrolekas]

Absolutely, in my mind. Which one is much more important than others? That's again one of the reasons for a white paper that we've been asking for, because that's where the things are weighed.

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I think that Canadians will always reply that they want sovereignty to be assured in the north.