Ms. Charron.
Evidence of meeting #33 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 arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #33 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 arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I agree with Jim. There are so many threats that are common to Canada, Russia, and the U.S. There's ISIL. There's North Korea. There are all sorts of threats like this, and we need Russia, being a Permanent Five member on the UN Security Council: the more we can do with them and understand with them.... Remember that in the Cold War the U.S. was big on having exchanges so that you'd get to see the other side's perspective. That's what things like the Arctic Council and others do.
That said, I think that in most cases when we're talking about security in the Arctic, we're talking about things like a mandatory polar code. We're talking about things like having the Northwest Passage actually charted for all vessels. In many ways, Russia and Canada have the very same perspective on our respective passages. We have a united front, in fact, against the United States, which sees the Northwest Passage and the northern sea route as potential international straits, whereas we classify them differently.
We also have the recent search and rescue agreement that requires the five coastal states to meet on a regular basis and share information about security and rescue assets and to start doing some joint activities, whether they're military-to-military, because they're the ones charged with doing search and rescue, or other agencies. But if we tone down the rhetoric and work with Russia on the areas of interest, we may actually find, then, that on areas like the Ukraine, we can start to chip away at what they're doing there, which we're condemning.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I've been in the Arctic. There's a big development, a mineral deposit in the north end of Baffin Island, as you're probably aware, and there are probably going to be more. It's very important to the commerce of the area, but it's also very important from an environmental standpoint that we do it right. There's no doubt about it: the north is going to be developed.
With this in mind, does that change the game? Should we be doing something different because of the spinoff from what development does? We all know that the good and the bad come with development. Could you comment on that a bit?
4:50 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Well, I think one of the things the Cold War taught us is the incredible pacifying force of commerce, if done properly, and this is where the focus of the Canadian chairship of the Arctic Council on economic opportunities for northern communities is really important.
Russia feels exactly the same way. Russia is going to benefit I think the most from any sort of economic activity that happens, but we need to make sure that, as you say, this is done to benefit northern communities and protect the ecology, and for that, you can't be lone wolves. You have to work together. In this globalized economy, it means that we're going to have to work with Russia in the Arctic because physically they're our closest neighbour when it comes to doing business in the Arctic.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
October 28th, 2014 / 4:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to carry on with the theme of the Arctic and the increasing importance it is clearly playing in Canada, not only economically but in every other aspect. A major theme of this discussion, I think, has been the interchange between old technology and boots on the ground and hard technology on the ground with some of the current technologies that are available to us. I'm just wondering where you see the intersection in terms of having an actual physical presence in the north militarily. Do you have any advice for this committee on what Canada should be doing to enhance our presence in the Arctic, if in fact you think that needs to be the case?
4:50 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
We have Joint Task Force North, which is based in Yellowknife, and we have the Rangers program. So we do have military presence in the Arctic, but arguably, again, it's not military threats we're faced with in the Arctic, it's really safety and security issues, which are often best done by other agencies.
I was on the C-130 coming into Resolute Bay when the First Air crash happened. What is often forgotten is that the locals were there first. Even though we had Operation Nanook about to start, and we had soldiers on the ground, it was still the locals who responded most quickly. The locals and the Rangers are instrumental in guiding the military on such threats as polar bears, which have often been seen; we have to make sure we worry about them.
Whenever the military is in the Arctic, they are there with that local knowledge. We can't get around having some military presence because of this unlimited liability—it's terribly dangerous in the Arctic—and until we have the sort of infrastructure where we can have more local services, we're going to have an element of the military in the Arctic. But again, it's more for aid to the civil powers than it is to guard against some defence threat.
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I largely agree with Dr. Charron. I understand why governments turn to the military to do these things. They have a capability to do what no one else in the government system can, and it's a natural desire to look at what you have and see what you can use.
In terms of the military side as the defence side of this relative to assistance or aid to the civil power, I think you really are not talking about boots on the ground; it really should be undertaken by other agencies in Canada. There are also issues about whether government is organized properly to deal with the nature of the Arctic.
For the military question relative to the type of threats, when thinking in military terms, I think you're trying to look at cost-effective high-technology solutions to surveillance and reconnaissance rather than taking the boots-on-the-ground approach. That's RCMP, that's coast guard people, and those resources probably should be devoted towards their presence up there.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I realize that this may be venturing a little bit outside of your areas of expertise, but perhaps you would comment on the degree of presence of those related services—i.e., the RCMP and the coast guard. Should we be beefing up our presence in those areas?
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
When it comes to the RCMP, they're sort of in onesies and twosies throughout the Arctic. They have been for decades, and they still are. Increasingly they're dealing with not just constabulary issues but also social issues, because there's a lack of other services being offered in the north, mental health services and things like that. Certainly that's one of the questions to ask: do we need more constabulary or do we need mental health and other services available in the north?
For the coast guard, of course they're only going to operate in the summer months, so giving the coast guard more money doesn't mean they'll be there for a longer duration. They may just have more presence during the summer months. But again, things like navigational aids, hydrographic information—that's also what we need, and for that there are different agencies.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Dr. Fergusson, I'm pleased you suggested for a second that we turn to the military because they can do so much, but in fact their capabilities are limited when we're dealing with domestic issues. I think you're right to put the emphasis on the RCMP and the coast guard to be the boots on the ground in the north.
With that in mind, as well as some of the questions my colleague Mr. Davies raised, when we think of the defence of North America, I'm wondering if we really do need to be on two tracks. I'd like both of you to comment on this.
On the one hand, we can strengthen NORAD's capabilities and continue to work with the Americans in areas of shared jurisdiction, but when it comes to the Arctic, given the size and the scope, it really is up to Canada to play the primary role, because it is our front yard and our backyard. It's our territory and it is so large, so on the one hand, it's important to have the onesies, the twosies, and the communities there to have a vigorous coast guard that is able to patrol the north, but also to at the same time have that military overlap, where the air fighters are able to move quickly should there be a marine or an air threat.
What are your comments on that? I believe it's not just a question of working with the Americans. In fact, there are areas where we do work with the Americans, but at the same time, there are other areas where it's up to us to be the pointy end of the spear.
I'm curious to hear comments from both of you, if you have any.
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Quickly, what I would say is that there may be areas.... I would add as an aside here that when we're concerned about Russian rhetoric about the Arctic we should take a look at our own rhetoric about the Arctic. That's just a side note. It's a little bit of a bugaboo that I have about this.
On those areas of national jurisdiction, this really becomes a question of costs and the expense, and what's the most effective way to do it. You can imagine that if the Arctic moves forward very rapidly, as some people predict it will, how much and where these funds, out of fixed government revenues, are going to come from.... There are always winners and losers in that context.
But no matter those areas where we think we have a national capability and we can respond nationally within national territory and waters, it is still vitally important that the United States be informed, because we still need to have them in a bilateral type of arrangement on these issues. Perhaps binationalism is too much for us right now in the Arctic, but certainly they need to be part of the picture.
Did we lose Dr. Charron?
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Okay. Let me follow up on that, then.
I take your point. I think what we've seen from Russia is, as I think Dr. Charron said, typical. It's not necessarily enhanced now. These are practices that they've done before and that they'll continue to do.
I represent eastern Canada. Even in a territory that is relatively small, resources are limited, whether it's coast guard or navy, and when I look at northern Canada, I see a huge territory. I wasn't speaking so much of jets to be used in terms of any foreign threat. I'm just thinking about what happens up there if there is an incident with a foreign ship coming through, for example. While radar installations and satellites are helpful, so is having the ability to scramble a fighter jet quickly to cover a vast territory very, very quickly.
That's my thinking on it. It wasn't so much the foreign threat that is there, but how are we going to police our own territory?
Dr. Charron, I see that you have returned, so I'll turn things over to you if you have a few comments.
5 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
My apologies for that. I missed a little of the conversation, but I'm guessing that what you are asking is if we should have jet fighters pre-deployed further north. I'm guessing that it was the direction of the comments and—
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
If you'll allow me, it was actually about how we patrol that territory. Ships and personnel on the ground are good, but the point I was trying to make is that fighter jets, or jets of some sort, will play a role for eyes on the ground, if you like, in a territory that is so very large. That's where I'm going in general. I didn't get to the level of where they would be deployed, but they would be available.
5 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Well, we have a number of systems up there tracking various movements. We have the NORDREG traffic vessel system. We have RADARSAT-2, and we're hoping it has further capabilities in the near future. We also have the north warning system. So we actually have quite a few mechanisms for surveillance. We also have things such as Operation QIMMIQ, which Joint Task Force North operates on a regular basis, with the Auroras that go out to have a look at what's happening.
I think we have a lot of surveillance information, and that's why NORAD has always been so key in the Arctic. I guess the issue is whether these are sufficient for the threats that we are seeing now or anticipating in the future.
My concern is that if something happens to the north warning system—and remember, we've already had one of their radar sites burn to the ground—or if there is an interruption of the feed by the north warning system, that really would impinge on the ability of NORAD to see what is going on. That's why I am drawing the committee's attention to the need to start thinking about paying for a future north warning-like system. We can leave to the engineers the question how best to configure it, but it has been and still is one of the best sources of information for NORAD.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fergusson, could you provide more details about the options you are proposing in your report? One of them is to maintain NORAD's operational status quo. However, my understanding is that decision-makers could then give more weight to the interests of organizations other than NORAD, which might marginalize NORAD. That is my understanding based on what I have read.
You also propose that NORAD go back to its original mission, drop the maritime warning mission, expand its early warning and attack assessment mission to include space, cyberspace, sea, land and air. In other words, you are referring to all the environments that might imply threats for North America. You add that these possible options will always entail decisions plagued by political and sovereignty concerns, command, organizational and jurisdictional issues, as well as legal obstacles.
Do you think that we, as elected representatives, should give priority to some of these proposals in our studies? Do you think we would be able to deal with the challenges that will automatically accompany the desire to make the slightest changes to how NORAD works?
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
That's a very big question. We grappled with this when we wrote the report, because any one of those options that are identified requires really detailed analysis.
I can tell you quickly what my ideal solution is. The ideal is to gradually expand NORAD, at a minimum to provide all the main awareness for land, sea, air, space, and potentially cyber—I'm not good on cyber—so that you have all-domain awareness, and then leave the responses, except air, because it's already been in place, to national and bilateral approaches.
That, I think, is something that will be driven by the variety of events in the Arctic and elsewhere and the nature of the threat environment. I think it drives both Canada and the United States down that path, and it deals with the political problems of sovereignty that exist not only on this side of the border but on the other side of the border as well. We always think that somehow the United States is out to take us over or control us, but the Americans have as much concern about the nature of cooperation at the end of the day, of binationalism relative to their nationalist agenda, as we do.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I know that this is a complex matter and that we don't have a lot of time.
Ms. Charron, do you something to say about the available options in terms of priority?
5:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
If we're talking about the defence of North America, the elephant in the room is Mexico and at what point Mexico needs to be included in NORAD. This is something that Canada traditionally has not wanted to have happen, although Mexico does have liaison officers at USNORTHCOM.
But it is something also to keep in mind, because Mexico and Canada are similar, in that we're both geographically located next to this major superpower, so there are things we can learn from each other. I know we tend to discount Mexico right away because we traditionally have not wanted to be associated with them in the defence of North America, but down the road, we may now have to reconsider that.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
