Thank you very much.
Evidence of meeting #21 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was canada's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #21 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was canada's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We talk about our Arctic, and we talk about our defence parameters on the Atlantic side. What I'd like to hear from you are your comments about how Canada should also address our third frontier in the north Pacific. I'd like to hear how we should address our role with some of our biggest trading partners, such as China, Japan, and South Korea. At least South Korea and Japan are aligned with the United States. China is not, and China also has ambitions in the Arctic.
Given all of that, should we focus some of our defence investment on the entryway to our Arctic Ocean through the north Pacific?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
This is really interesting because the Pacific side of Canada is probably where we have one of our biggest intellectual gaps, in the sense that we rarely pay attention to it. It's rare that you will find in defence documents or white papers a real concern about this. Considering what you said, and I fully agree with you, Canadian interests in the Pacific are growing. Sooner or later, but I think it's going to be sooner, we have to pay attention and have to develop a strategy regarding it. For now, the Arctic receives much more attention than the Pacific, but in the current situation, the Pacific is more important for Canada.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
I think I have to agree with that, too, but then we also have this attempt to open up the Pacific gateway. We're going to be putting up fairly large port facilities in Prince Rupert right down the Vancouver coast. Our shipping lanes in the north Pacific and our air lanes are much more travelled. With the United States, they have blue water capability for defence from aircraft carriers. Should we also not have the investments in the north Pacific for similar types of investments, whether it's blue water navy or a land based defence?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
On this, my view is that it's too expensive. We don't have the resources to do it, unfortunately.
What we should first try to do is probably to develop more robust diplomatic networks and try to develop partnerships with other countries in the Pacific, other than the U.S., to see exactly which countries we can eventually rely on to develop some partnerships. Diplomacy comes first in this case, because we don't have the resources.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Now if we do that, do we then do that in alignment with U.S. policy, or should this be via independent Canadian treaties—mutual co-operation ones, etc.—with South Korea, Japan, China, and so on?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Again, we should probably be aligned with the U.S. on this because we're starting almost from scratch. So aligning with the U.S. is certainly the best strategy for Canada.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
There is almost nothing.
11:50 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
We need to build from scratch. There were some attempts in the nineties, but there is almost nothing. Everything remains to be built from a Canadian strategy point of view.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
The reason I mention it is that when we look at all of the potential flash points around the world, they are the Middle East, Russia, North Korea, and very often we do not know on which side China is going to lie with respect to North Korea.
What is your opinion on how we should address this issue with defence in the way we dance with the Chinese on this?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
As in the Middle East, Canada has very little leverage in this region. Again, supporting the U.S. is probably still the best strategy for Canada.
There is no equivalent, for example, of a country like Israel that we can support, as the Canadian government is doing right now. If you compare it with other regions of the world, the same strategy cannot be applied there. Again, that's why I'm recommending sticking with the Americans on this.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Roussel. Thank you for joining us today. Your remarks have been extremely insightful thus far.
Is there another country whose economic situation, extensive military capability and climate are comparable to Canada's and who is well positioned to defend its territory, a country that isn't in the shadow of another nation? Norway perhaps; it has a very effective army and a clear strategic policy.
11:55 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
People often look for countries whose situations are comparable to Canada's and it's very tough. The country most often compared to Canada is Australia.
11:55 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
If you're talking about Nordic countries, it would be Norway, but there are major differences between Norway and Canada. Norway is much smaller than Canada, both in terms of its geography and population. Norway is extremely good at taking advantage of its position. It has a gateway to the European Union, without being a member, and it's part of NATO. Norway is a country that plays the role of mediator or link between countries.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
But it does retain a certain degree of independence.
You talked earlier about the implementation of the Arctic strategy and the difference in our approach to recognizing threats and that of the U.S. They are two completely different realities, with some similarities. Could you identify what they are as well as the differences?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Do you mean in terms of the Arctic?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
As I was saying earlier, Canadians are usually the ones who identify more threats in that regard than the Americans do.
11:55 a.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
The typical list contains threats to Canada's sovereignty. In my view, that isn't a real threat in that only a very small portion of Canada's territory is vulnerable.
