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.
12:05 p.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
This is very common. I think there are something like 700 or 800 agreements of that kind between Canada and the U.S. just on the military side, as far as we know. So it's not a concern.
My concern actually is that it's not at a high enough level. It's only at the tactical and operational level, which I think is not enough. We should move higher than that. So my concern is the opposite.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
The other area that we talked about, maritime domain awareness, of course is important, and I think we're sharing that now through NORAD. The next step, if there would be one, potentially, is, as we now have in NORAD, a joint command. Is that something you would want to see or that we need—
12:10 p.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Sorry, excuse me. What's the—
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Within NORAD there is a Canadian officer as the second in command and an American officer in command. We're being told it's for a reason, that there was a Canadian general in charge of the NORAD at the time of 9/11 who closed the air space over North America. Are you anticipating that's the kind of thing we might get into with the U.S. with respect to the maritime domain in its entirety?
12:10 p.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
If it's still the same structure, I doubt it will change. The Americans certainly don't want to change the idea of the commander in chief remaining an American. They won't change anything on that, for sure.
To have a Canadian as the second in command is a pretty good concession for Canada.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm actually looking forward rather than objecting to the situation as it exists. What I'm talking about is the notion that on the maritime side, we might move from the domain awareness cooperation, which is what have now to a large extent, with whatever sensors and capabilities Canada and the U.S. have now being shared to identify what's out there on the ocean and potentially heading our way, including ships and potentially narcotics, etc. That's all there. But are we anticipating moving from the surveillance and awareness side to some other side? No.
12:10 p.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
I really don't hear anything about that. This is one of the criticisms that I heard about the maritime NORAD stuff, that it is used only for surveillance, with very few operational capabilities. But as far as I know, there is no discussion about changing that situation.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Professor Roussel, I appreciate your passion for the defence of Canada's Arctic and cooperation with our American allies.
I'm struggling with your comment that we don't have access, that whenever we go down to Washington, the doors aren't open for us. Yet every time we travel as a committee, as parliamentarians, when we're reaching out and talking to our American colleagues, they're telling us that the doors are open to us because of our commitment to the war on terror in Afghanistan.
I thought that we had built up quite a bit of goodwill and cooperation between our two governments because of our doing the right thing. On May 9 we're honouring everyone who fought and those who fell in Afghanistan. So I'm somewhat confused by what you said, that the Americans don't seem to care, because we keep getting told that the doors are open for us. We definitely have their attention and their appreciation for our military efforts.
12:10 p.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
In general, yes, Canadians have a very good reputation in Washington. But it's in general.
The problem is when you try to use it in terms of strategy for something very specific. Then you must be sure that someone in Washington will pay attention to what you're doing, and people in Washington must be aware of what you're looking for. If you want to use it on a tactical level, in negotiations for example—I'm using a very big example here with the pipeline negotiations—if you want some concessions from the U.S., if you say, “Let's be nice to the Americans and they will give us what we want”, it won't work for various reasons, even if we have a very good reputation. Yes, having a good reputation makes people say, “Okay, yes, it's nice to meet you. It's nice to talk to you.” But it doesn't necessarily mean they will give you exactly what you want in terms of concessions on the military side or elsewhere.
Another thing is that Canadians don't usually realize that you cannot expect to have a good reputation on the military side and expect a concession on the trade side. There's a compartmentalization between issue areas. We should not cross these lines, because in the long run Canadians will lose, for sure. So we have to keep that—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
We see that now with Keystone and everything else, such as country of origin labelling.
The one thing I want to touch on is the whole threat assessment related to North American security. We heard when we met with officials from NORAD that our airspace is tested by Russian military aircraft all the time—on a consistent basis, and not just from an Arctic perspective, but on the Pacific coast, along the Atlantic coastline, and in both American and Canadian airspace. That, I think, is somewhat of concern to the committee and should be to all Canadians: the Russians have always been at the forefront of seeing how engaged we are and whether or not we are asleep at the switch.
We have a proliferation of cruise missiles now around the world; just about all the major players have them. While most countries with leading economies have shown fiscal restraint on military spending, the Russians have increased spending by 92%. They have in recent times re-opened two Arctic naval bases that were left over from the Cold War, and they have definitely increased financing to build more vessels for the Arctic.
I wonder whether this should be sending some warning signals to us that Russia has a more aggressive stance in relation to the Arctic and to overall North American security.
12:15 p.m.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Yes, we can put it like that. If you want to be careful regarding the future, you will recognize that Russians have developed some capabilities. But capabilities don't necessarily mean that they have the will to be aggressive. The Arctic is important for Russians for more than economic or geostrategic reasons; it is important in terms of identity. It's important for the Russians to show that they are still a great power, and one of their main foregrounds is the Arctic. Even for domestic reasons they have to show some muscle there. It's part of the game.
My point is that we shouldn't overreact to this. Yes, we must be careful. We have to check them and keep an eye on them, but do not overreact to this situation.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Norlock
Thank you for your testimony today.
The committee will be going in camera for committee business, but before we do so, the chair would like to bring up a couple of items.
Mr. Carmichael, with unanimous consent you may remain during the in camera meeting. With the consent of the committee, Mr. Harris's son would like to sit in, and that will require unanimous consent.
The chair is at your disposition. Do we have consent for both gentlemen to remain?
12:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Norlock
That being the case, we will adjourn and reconvene in two minutes in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]