Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2018

[David Perry]

The ultimate goal would be to spend the money and never have to use it. That would be the ultimate example of deterrents working. You spend that money and you don't ever have to actually employ it in an operational sense. To me, that would actually be a very good outcome of doing this.

To circle back to something Dr. Charron said, I would fundamentally agree with the idea that we should be looking for opportunities for co-operation. That's absolutely the case. I just don't see those as being antithetical to making stronger investments in our defence. You can do both things at the same time.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

I think one of the things that successive governments have been able to do well is to leverage spending on defence to also benefit the Arctic. Something we may need to consider is that maybe we can achieve both via spending on defence. I'm thinking of things like the Canadian Rangers program.

[Frank Baylis]

What is the ranger program? Can you expand on the ranger program a bit?

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

Dr. Whitney Lackenbauer is the expert on the ranger program.

They're not reserves but they are an arm of the army that is located in remote communities and in the Arctic. They're the eyes and ears of the Arctic. They are not combat-capable, but they certainly can report things they see. They're often the first on the scene to provide information.

Certainly when the Canadian Armed Forces operate in the Arctic, they are there with the local knowledge that one needs to operate successfully in these areas.

[Frank Baylis]

Dr. Perry, you made an interesting point that we spend an awful lot of money on the east side of Greenland and nothing on the west side.

In a world where there are competing interests, would you see us reorienting our commitments and our commitments to NATO, going out there and all of those exercises, and saying, you know what, we're not going to participate in those, because we're busy, and our soldiers, planes and boats are back doing exercises in our waters? Would you see a rebalancing of exactly the same resources?

I know everybody's going to say give us more and more resources, but assuming there are only the same resources, would you rebalance those?

[David Perry]

I would say as a preface to the rest of the response that the existing defence policy that was published in June 2017 would provide more resources to do the types of things that I'm talking about, once they're actually acquired and delivered.

There's already a plan in the works, although parts of it, the upgrades to some of the North American defence assets specifically that Dr. Charron mentioned, haven't yet been funded. The policy commitment is to be able to do exactly what I'm talking about. I think the overall policy direction should be more balanced to have the same type of approach we're currently employing in Europe also take place at home.

We've done a lot of exercises in our north—

[Frank Baylis]

Would you like to see NATO exercises on this side of Greenland, not just Canadian exercises but actually talk to NATO and say, “Why don't you swing around this way?"

[David Perry]

I think that would be a very good idea, yes.

[Frank Baylis]

Professor Charron.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

I swing back and forth on that. I think where NATO and NORAD work best is in covering those seams and gaps.

I think North America is well served by NORAD. I think the preference of both the U.S. and Canadian governments has been that NORAD is North America. We always have article 5, if push comes to shove, but because we have limited resources, I would like to see more strategic exercising of the seams and gaps, especially between USNORTHCOM and EUCOM and where NORAD is operating versus NATO.

I think the test is going to be in this new position that NATO has created. We used to have what was called the SACLANT position, which will be back in U.S. Fleet Forces Command. We're not quite sure what the role is going to be, but presumably that's going to help to provide the strategic oversight to make sure that those seams and gaps are better managed.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

MP Blaikie, go ahead, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you both for your presentations.

I would be remiss if I didn't give a shout-out to Professor Charron as a fellow Manitoban. It's nice to be hearing a Manitoban voice on the committee.

One of the messages that I'm hearing loud and clear, from this panel anyway, is that it's a mistake to think of the Arctic as a separate entity. When we're talking about threats in the Arctic, we're really talking about larger strategic threats to Canada overall. We shouldn't be distinguishing between what we perceive as a threat to the Arctic and what we perceive as a threat in the larger Canadian context.

Nevertheless, we've heard a serious call for development in the north, which hasn't been happening. There's a need to be able to invest in the north, whether that's in defence infrastructure or civilian infrastructure.

When we talk about trying to have a strategy to bring that infrastructure into the north, perhaps especially on the civilian side by developing resources, etc., there's been a consensus among the parties that have governed, over the last 25 or 30 years anyway, to be pretty hands-off when it comes to trade, to be pretty hands-off and quite permissive when it comes to foreign capital coming into Canada, and to be pretty hands-off in terms of creating intentional strategies that have to do with Canadian presence and ownership—not necessarily public ownership but Canadian ownership, whether public or private. If we're trying to understand these threats that we see in the Arctic as threats that affect the entire country, but in the south have a very hands-off approach to development and inviting capital in, how do we square that with wanting to take a more intentional, Canadian-driven approach within the Arctic if we're trying to not hive it off and treat it as something separate and distinct?

I'm happy to start with Professor Charron and then go to Mr. Perry.

Thanks.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

When we create infrastructure in the Arctic—I think of Churchill—the infrastructure can benefit both defence and civilian needs. In fact, in a country like Canada with limited resources, that's something that we need to leverage. We have a number of very successful mining companies in the Arctic that have quite a few resources, and over the years there have been MOUs to try to leverage their assets in times of emergencies. We don't have to think of it as spending either on defence or on civilian infrastructure.

We have to be smarter about bringing the two together and having agreements about who gets to use it when. We see this with satellites all the time. I see this very much as the driving idea behind the Arctic offshore patrol vessels. It's not going to be strictly defence. It's going to be a platform that can have both constabulary, safety, and defence—although limited—opportunities.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I want to give Mr. Perry a chance to answer, but I heard you mention Churchill. I've asked a couple of questions about Churchill over the course of these proceedings. Could you take a moment to speak to the role of Churchill, the deepwater port in Churchill, and how we might be able to better leverage that asset?

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

I'm not an expert in that area. I understand that a big report has just been released on all of Canada's ports—which ports are making money, which are successful, etc.—so I 'd really turn to those authors to answer this question.

However, we have in Churchill the potential for a pretty important deepwater port. Given the location of, for example, Murmansk, another big deepwater port, and the fact that the ice is melting, it seems to me that it's likely that we're going to get increased shipping. This is maybe an opportunity that we're missing if we allow something like the asset we have in Churchill to just atrophy.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Perry.

[David Perry]

I would add that, if we're looking at addressing some of our core defence considerations, then we should actually try to address the core defence considerations in doing so. If you can get socio-economic spinoff as a result, that's fantastic. However, I think there are actual, clear, strategic imperatives that we need to address. If there's a potential to do that in a complementary fashion that benefits northern communities, that's great, but that shouldn't be the fundamental objective.

Some of the existing programs, like the Canadian Rangers, do a lot of good things. I think they will do very little to address any of the issues that I'm talking about. Some things, like improving Arctic infrastructure—providing more capable runways or more logistical operations, for example—can have alternate uses. With regard to things like sensors or various radars that are designed to detect cruise missiles, I don't know that there's a lot of extra socio-economic implication for that. I think that we very much need to address some of those issues as the priority, not the wider set of issues, which I would agree are important but should be addressed through means that are appropriate to address those specifically.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

One of the infrastructure needs we heard about when we were travelling up north, both for the people who are living in communities in the north and for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, was fibre optic cable in order to get better Internet access. Do you see military applications for that? We had heard that in some other cases where there are underwater loops, a lot of sensors can be attached to those loops, which provide information. I think in the context we were talking about, it was more marine life monitoring and environmental-oriented monitoring.

Are there military applications to having fibre optic under the water through the Northwest Passage?

[The Chair]

Professor Perry, if I could get you to give a brief answer, that would be great.

[David Perry]

Briefly, I would say that having more communications is better. Both the civilian economy and the military would use those communications devices, but the military needs specific encrypted, secure communications that in some instances are separate from those that could be used more broadly.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll move to MP Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Dr. Perry, during our travels through the Arctic we heard numerous claims of potential sightings of submarines. Now, some of those are perhaps hearsay, etc., but we even heard it from a military contractor that these sightings are somewhat regular when working in the Arctic. I think one of the most disturbing references was that in the islands leading into Hudson's Bay, there were potential sightings there as well. I was just quickly looking at the distance from there to Toronto. The distance from the east coast, which we keep careful watch of in the Atlantic, is almost twice the distance.

You referenced these new submarines, these Russian submarines. They have 42 in their Arctic fleet, and they're virtually silent. Are those the ones that carry these new cruise missiles?

[David Perry]

The Russian ones, yes, but I'm not sure those would necessarily be the ones that people see operating in our own waters. I think there's a strong likelihood that they could be American, British or French, in which case I personally don't have that much concern, because those are our friends. The real issue is about what the Russians are doing.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

That's it. Thank you.