National Defence Committee on May 8th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you, Mr. Robertson.

Mr. Chisu, for five minutes.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Professor Braun and Professor Robertson, for your presentations.

In the context of the defence of the North American continent, I will go to the Arctic. Also, in a different context, Professor Braun, you mentioned about Russia not being a superpower, but in all this equation, we are eliminating China. The defence relations between China and Russia are excellent at this point, and we have seen in history a lot of axis alliances, which created a bigger problem for us in the last century.

Speaking about the Arctic, how do you see that the United States and Canada will embrace, let's say, a better cooperation in the Arctic? You can say I don't know anything about the policy of the United States regarding the Arctic, and obviously, as you mentioned, we are a little bit concerned about the buildup of Russia in that part of the world.

[Prof. Aurel Braun]

Thank you, Mr. Chisu.

It's an important question which is very difficult to answer. You ask about China and I don't think I have the time to go into great detail, but China does cooperate with Russia. It acts indirectly in the Arctic. It is a country that wants to ensure energy supplies. China also has a lot of funds. Russia does not have anywhere the funds that China has. I'm not entirely convinced that cooperation is that close. There's also a lot of suspicion between the two countries, but they do cooperate, definitely.

We have to understand the nature of the threat. Mr. Harris, I think you made some important points when you said, “Is there a direct blatant threat? Can we believe the United States would not act if Canada is directly threatened?”

With the greatest respect, that is not the issue. If Russia were to grab Canadian land, if it were to attack Canada blatantly, of course under the agreements that we have with the United States, the United States would have no choice but to act. But that is not what happens often in international relations.

Threats can be subtle; they can be piecemeal, and that's where we need to have, a response. This is why when I talk about the three layers of defence, we must not forget about the third layer. It's not a matter of percentages—we spend 1.1%, 1.5%, 2%. Do we spend what it takes to guarantee our sovereignty? Do we make sure that we are sufficiently secure? Can we rely on an ally that has proven to be not particularly reliable in many instances? Do we strengthen that third layer, while we continuously work diplomatically to strengthen the other layers?

Yes, we do have good cooperation with United States, but is that across the entire spectrum? We don't know in what ways we will be tested. So can we afford not to have a capacity in the Arctic to defend certain crucial interests ourselves directly, not to have the air power? Can we afford not to have the icebreakers that are necessary to ensure passage? This is what we have to ask ourselves. Do we take seriously our sovereignty? Do we take seriously the danger in the Arctic, not just over military force being used there but over exploration?

The Russians are making claims of the entire Lomonosov Ridge, and now they called a claim in to the United Nations for the Mendeleev Ridge as well. That covers much of the Arctic. The track record of Russia in exploration on land is disastrous. Can we imagine what would happen in the fragile ecology of the Arctic? That would not be a direct military threat, but we need to have that capacity in there.

This is why we need to look at Russia's attitude to international law, the misuse of international law. What happens in the case of Ukraine? The Orwellian language, the twisting, the undermining of international law.... If anyone cares about international law, we need to be concerned.

We talk about proliferation. What is the message? What is the message you get from Ukraine? Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, because they were told not just by Russia but by the United States and by Britain that they would assure the integrity of its sovereignty. Had Ukraine retained its nuclear weapons, it is highly unlikely, I would put it to you, that Russia would have risked an invasion of Crimea. What is the lesson? The lesson internationally for proliferation is if you have nuclear weapons, keep them; if you don't have them, get them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Professor Braun.

Next is Ms. Murray for five minutes.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm going to ask about a different set of issues.

Mr. Robertson, you mentioned, I think, the key aspects of defence: land, sea, air, space, and cyber. In terms of defence of Canada and defence of North America, I want to ask a bit about cyber.

There has been some controversy recently that Communications Security Establishment Canada has been tracking Canadians through their IP addresses as part of creating a framework for analysis. Also, there has been some concern that there are large amounts of data that are being gathered by the government without warrant, and potentially under ministerial authorities. There's also controversy that there is not really a mechanism that's accountable to the public through Parliament for the activities of CSEC.

In our attempts to have a good balance between information privacy, so people don't feel that Big Brother is watching over their every move, and having security so the kind of intelligence gathering that we need to do for real security needs can happen, are there improvements needed in reporting and in authorization?

What are the pros and cons of allowing this system now that is so much an outlier compared with the other five eyes, in terms of no need for a warrant and broadcast authorizations and lack of clear accountability to the public?

[Colin Robertson]

I'll just say a word because I know that this is an area where Professor Braun has a certain expertise. I'll just say, ma'am, that the questions you raise are all questions that not just Canadians are dealing with, but also Americans and Europeans. They're being dealt with around the world, particularly in open societies.

In closed societies it's a different fashion how they deal with this. They collect....

I think these are all good questions for debate, and I think ultimately the decisions will be made by Parliament. The laws we pass to decide—because this is a new area; this is something that 10 years ago really wasn't an issue, but it has certainly come to become a major issue.

My own personal view with security and privacy is you have to find the balance. I tilt more towards privacy personally, but I think you have to ensure also that the collective security needs are met. I think that the debate we're seeing in the United States is quite reflective of that discussion that is taking place now as to how far the state should go. Certainly some of the examples you hear when you're listening to foreign leaders or you're listening to people up at summits would strike me as going too far.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Do you personally believe that we have found the right balance, or is there some work to be done to rebalance?

[Colin Robertson]

I think we're still in early stages. It's like after the invention of the telephone. It takes a while before you figure out what all the implications are. I do not believe we are there. I know that in the United States the Supreme Court has been looking at this issue, and courts have been looking at it, and I know that you as parliamentarians will be faced with this as well.

I don't know the answer. There has been a lot of work and research.

I'll now defer to Professor Braun who I know does look at this.

[Prof. Aurel Braun]

We know that another dimension to warfare in the 21st century is cyber-warfare, and there is increasing potency to that, with vast resources being devoted to cyber-warfare by all states, to an extent, but mainly by states like China, the United States, and Russia.

In a sense there is the problem that you have to guard against cyber-warfare. You have to be knowledgeable about cyber-warfare, but democracies also have an obligation to protect the rights of their citizens. This is what we are about. Democracies are fundamentally not about the pursuit of virtue but about the protection of rights. It's an extraordinarily important question. To the extent that we are resilient capable societies, we have a profound interest in guarding the privacy, the safety, and the rights of our citizens. But it's a constantly evolving field and it's not well understood even by experts, because it's very segmented.

I think one of the problems is that we do not have adequate conversation across disciplines. You would have experts in cyber-warfare, and you would have experts in electronics, but they don't talk to their lawyers, and they don't talk to the civil libertarians, or not enough.

This is one of the things we need to do and one of the things parliamentarians may do in terms of leadership, to bring together these various levels of expertise so instead of a segmentation, there's a kind of integration, so we find the right kind of balance for protecting domestic rights, protecting ourselves as democratic societies against potential opponents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Professor Braun.

We'll move to Mr. Williamson for five minutes.

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

It's good to have you both here today.

My colleague opposite seemed surprised at the idea that North Korea could slip and somehow be permitted to develop nuclear weapons in a continental capability so they could strike North America, so let's turn to a real-life example elsewhere in the world.

Is it not correct that the stated policy under the current administration and previous U.S. administrations was not to permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

[Colin Robertson]

Yes, in the United States, President Obama, like other presidents of the United States, has said the one issue that truly keeps them awake at night is nuclear proliferation. President Obama launched a couple of years ago in Philadelphia.... There's been meetings since in Seoul and Europe to try to contain the genie. This includes participation and support of those that have, including Russia.

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

How would you say that's going? There seems to be a belief now that Iran is going in that direction. They're going to be heading in that direction. The U.S. lost its mojo on this question. What are your thoughts on the direction Iran is taking?

[Colin Robertson]

I'm encouraged that the Geneva talks continue on, although perhaps not as fast as we'd like. I'm encouraged by some of the discussions I've held in Washington with experts on something called the Iran Project, with a lot of extremely well-informed, experienced Americans. The objective at the end of the day is to prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear capacity to turn it into weapons. I think that's an objective of most countries, and Canada is a piece of that. You continue to work at this, but at the same time you have to prepare for the worst, which is why in response to Mr. Harris, I said that if we have access to an umbrella and there are storms coming, you want to use that umbrella.

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

That's exactly where I was going to go next. The Americans are not developing this umbrella over North America in the hopes that North Korea will develop a missile, but to prepare for the day that might just happen.

Can you provide some more comments on that please?

[Colin Robertson]

Yes sir, that's the case. Again, the six powers, including China...China is taking the lead. China does not want to see the North Koreans advance their capacity. I think everybody understands. Nobody wants that genie out of the bottle. I don't think the Russians do. I had discussions with Russian officials. I believe them when they say they do not want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon capacity because the Iranian-Russian relationship hasn't always been friendly. This is a genie we all would like to put back in the bottle, but we live in the world as it is and we aim for the world we would wish.

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

It seems to me there are two options before us. We could revert.... We could continue with the traditional approach, the mutual assured destruction, or we could look at options, which Washington is already doing, to look at the feasibility, the possibility, and construction of missile defence. Do you agree with that? Those are really two options. Maybe there's another option.

[Colin Robertson]

I think there's a range of options, but I do think that given the assessment of threats, not by me but by experts who I rely upon, that in the Canadian instance today just as the other 27 members of NATO and our partners in the Pacific, Australia, Korea, Japan.... These are serious countries which have chosen to take out the insurance policy. There is now a potential threat to Canada, and I think because of that, we should avail ourselves of the invitation. The Americans aren't pushing us on this, but that invitation to accede to the insurance policy and use the umbrella should it come makes a lot of sense.

If I were living in Saskatoon or Edmonton—and I have relatives out there—I'd want that.

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

Thank you very much. I have no other questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much.

Merci, Mr. Robertson.

Madame Michaud for cinq minutes s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations. My first question is for Mr. Robertson.

Mr. Braun, you will have a chance to comment, if you wish.

Mr. Robertson, you spoke in your presentation about Canada's great need for military equipment and the major gaps in our current equipment. You also mentioned the need to improve the military equipment procurement process to fill those needs. In particular, you spoke at length about ships, icebreakers and frigates, for which there are currently significant delays. We are unable to meet our needs quickly.

Could these gaps in the military procurement process be considered a potential threat to Canada's security? Do you have any suggestions you can make quickly on how the current process could be improved?

[Colin Robertson]

Ms. Michaud, I would just like to say that the supply and procurement situation is very difficult around the world. I have spoken with a lot of experts. Everyone tells me that it is very difficult.

According to the former United States secretary of defense William Perry, the most important thing is meeting the deadline and buying things that are available to everyone.

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

Are you talking about items that already exist? So it is not necessarily having the capacity to build everything here, in Canada, but rather using equipment that already exists and is already being used by many allies.

Have I understood what you just said?

[Colin Robertson]

Yes, madam.

Most of our purchases come from foreign manufacturers. We are part of a supply chain. It is very important for us. That is our niche. If we are buying for the future, we are going to buy from overseas.

We have an industry in Canada, in Quebec, that is very important for us because it creates jobs for Canadians. There is a balance. Fortunately, we have had an agreement with the Americans since 1941, the defence development sharing agreement between Canada and the United States of America, which has served Canadians well.

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

Thank you.