May I add to that?
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.
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
May I add to that?
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
The concern why I'm on centralized North America all-domain awareness from a North American perspective is the 9/11 case. That is where all the information existed, parcelled out among separate agencies and departments in the United States, and there was no one who put the whole picture together. That's what the danger is.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I have an additional question about Mexico.
Ms. Charron, that is interesting, but I think that if we include Mexico in future negotiations, all the legal, organizational, jurisdictional and command issues will be even more of a burden. It won't be easy. I am not saying that it's not doable, but things will get even more complicated.
5:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Absolutely, but I'm just saying that logically, if we agree that the defence of all of North America is important, at some point we do have to consider the role that Mexico plays. We can't keep discounting them out of hand because traditionally we didn't want to be associated with them because we enjoy and benefit from this very, very important relationship we have with the U.S. My academic logical mind is saying, “Yes, but they are part of North America as well”.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to connect a couple of dots. You can tell me if my connection is wrong.
It has been the observation of many—and I'm referring specifically to the Ukraine crisis of a few months ago—that whatever Vladimir Putin said, he did the opposite. For instance, when he said that the tanks and personnel carriers were heading east, away from the Ukraine, they were actually going the other way. When he said that he was telling the terrorists to desist, they were actually increasing in severity their actions within the Ukraine.
In this last hour and three-quarters, I think there was some mention of Mr. Putin saying this: “Over decades, step by step, Russia has built up, strengthened its positions in the Arctic, [and] our goal is not only to regain them, but also to qualitatively strengthen them.” I wonder if you could comment. Did he mean it? Are they serious? How do we know they're doing that? Have they actually done something with their infrastructure? What policies should Canada be taking?
Quite frankly, when you were mentioning why the United States wouldn't really take us seriously with ballistic missile defence and they're going to do it on their own, I think it's because Americans tend to be a little on the xenophobic side when it comes to their defence. They're very introspective. The average Canadian knows more about the U.S., so we carry on and on.
So I'm not so much worried about that. The U.S. will never ever allow anything to happen to Canada, because we're their buffer to the north. We are their friends. When they're down and out, they can usually count on us—rarely can they not— because it's in our mutual interests. We share the same kinds of freedoms, rights, and all those other things.
My connection of the dots, quite frankly, is that Russia is something we should be worried about. Mr. Putin has intentions. Russia wants to build that buffer in eastern Europe, and if they can leverage the Arctic to get what they really want—and that's sort of the old Russian empire, as it was—they will. To understand that, all you have to do is realize where Mr. Putin comes from—the KGB. Can you connect some dots or would you be more likely to disconnect those dots when it comes to the defence of North America?
5:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Well, I'm still of the opinion that the dots do not connect that way. There was great promise of having more integration between the ports of Murmansk and Churchill as a way to get out of the grain surplus problem that we had this summer in Winnipeg, because it was an outlet to get it out to European and Asian markets.
I was with Admiral Papp, who will be taking over as the U.S. ambassador to the Arctic Council, and never once, even when asked about Russia, was there any indication that the U.S. was looking to freeze them out. The great advantage of having Russia in something like the Arctic Council and working with them in these other fora is that there is that opportunity for the back-hall discussions about these other events.
For Russia, their backyard, which is the Ukraine, is geostrategically extremely important for them. For us and for Russia, it is the Arctic, and they do see them as being different.
NORAD has always been concerned about Russia. That's why their logo is the broadsword facing north. We will always watch them.
But to automatically assume that they have designs on the Arctic.... Remember, we have very little infrastructure up there, so I'm not sure what designs they're going to have. I think there are far more opportunities and advantages to having more discussions and links with them than there are in freezing them out pre-emptively.
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
That's a big question.
First of all, the United States is not concerned with Russia. It's concerned with China. That's its number one emerging strategic priority. That's what the real debate in the United States is. It's not the Russian case.
Many of the dots you connect seem to work very nicely unless you're sitting in Moscow. Looking at the pace of events over the last 20 years from Moscow's perspective, they've seen the expansion of NATO to their neighbourhood; they've seen the west start to try to expand into Ukraine, into what they call the “near abroad”; and they've seen the issues of Georgian membership. From Moscow's perspective, all those things are seen as threatening and somewhat aggressive on the part of the west, Canada included.
My view is that our position on Ukraine and the way we've handled that has not helped. I'm not trying to justify Vladimir Putin's policies, but at the end of the day, should we be concerned about the Russians' capabilities relative to the Arctic and their military activities in the Arctic? Yes, we should keep a close eye on them. Whether they're just the natural modernization of military capabilities relative to the interests of the Arctic, which we can explain away—where I lean to right now—rather than having hostile intent, that's a difficult question to answer.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
Thank you, Dr. Fergusson.
Mr. McKay, you have the final questions.
October 28th, 2014 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
You saved the best for last, didn't you?
It's been an interesting discussion, and I thank you both.
I want to ask you a question about threat assessment.
The reason I was slightly late is that I had to wait for Secretary Kerry to be escorted off the Hill. It required a total of 13 vehicles, both trucks and cars, to escort Secretary Kerry from the Peace Tower onto Wellington Street. I had trouble visualizing how that would apply to John Baird.
When I was talking to some U.S. networks last week, I was surprised by one of the questions which was, “Should the U.S. close its border to Canada because of all of these terrorist activities up here?” This was a serious question by a well-known....
I'm playing that through as far as threat assessment is concerned. Our perception of threat, right or wrong, and American perception of threat, right or wrong, can from time to time be quite different. Do we, by bringing ourselves further and further into the NORAD fold, in effect by default end up with the American threat assessment?
5:15 p.m.
Professor, Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
No, you end up with the NORAD threat assessment, which is a North American threat assessment, and it's not necessarily the case for the NORAD threat assessment that those who are NORAD personnel, Canada and U.S. personnel, themselves agree with the national threat environment perceptions. There are differences that exist there as well.
In what I call the “North American mindset” that comes out of the NORAD arrangement, if you were to look at it and dig a little deeper, I would suggest you would find that it sees the threat environment, as I've suggested, differently from the others. You're going to get a North American perspective. We're not going to be absorbed by the American threat perspective, which changes, of course, depending on administrations and what's going on, like ours. I have no concerns about that because we have no record historically that it's happened.
5:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, Deputy Director, Political Studies, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Canada and the U.S. have always seen our border differently. That's why you speak to immigration officers going into the U.S. and they ask who you are and where you're going, and in Canada they're customs officers and they ask where you have been and what you are declaring.
NORAD is so important because it takes those national caveats on how we see the world and how we see the threats, and, as Jim states, we get the North American picture. It's an education process on both sides of the border. I think it is really important. From the information we get, from the training opportunities, and from the ability for them to understand us and vice versa, it's essential.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
All right.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
Thank you very much, Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Charron. You have contributed significantly to our study of the defence of North America. We thank you for accommodating the change in schedule from last Thursday because of tragic events here on the Hill, and again, thank you very much.
Colleagues, I'll remind you that we will continue our study of the defence of North America in our usual quarters in the East Block on Thursday afternoon. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.