Evidence of meeting #33 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arctic.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert Huebert  Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

11:40 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

You pointed out very well the air support we need. I remember when I was in Afghanistan in 2007, we didn't have Chinooks, we didn't have helicopters, and that was a major problem for our operations.

11:45 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

Look at the amount that allied air forces were there. We were told that F-18s weren't required because the Europeans and the Americans had a surplus of fighter capability. You and I both know that we will always be down the list when calling on those forces when our personnel need them at certain times. This is going to be the environment that we are increasingly going to be in.

Let me be clear. When you say I'm saying unilateral, I'm not saying unilateral, but once we are operating in a multilateral format, we are going to have to have a more unilateral capability for our forces.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

So you are saying we are the second largest country in the world and we should have some capability to have control of our country.

11:45 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

Yes, absolutely.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Our sovereignty.

11:45 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

Security, I'd say more than sovereignty. Sovereignty is an international term that my legal colleagues like.

Call it whatever you want, but make sure those coming in are following our rules to support our interests. That's the critical point, in my mind.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Thank you very much.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Mr. Brahmi, go ahead.

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like our witness to tell us a bit about submarines. Canada currently has four submarines, three of which are not operational. We know that one of them has returned and is currently undergoing tests.

Could the witness tell us about the possibility of not having any submarines? If Canada decided to no longer have any submarines, would there be any alternatives for protecting our coastlines?

11:45 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

Yes, that's the question. The problem we're facing with the submarines is that we let them stay in dock too long. We should have bought them at the time they were offered. Anybody who's ever left a car over winter knows what happens when it's parked and not moving. Well, salt water environments are even worse.

The danger we face is our future. Our international maritime trade is going to increasingly be in the Asia–Pacific region. We know, for example, that if the Northern Gateway pipeline goes forward, it is going to completely reorient our trade away from the Americans and towards the Chinese, the Japanese. That in effect means we will become much more involved with the international security issues surrounding the region. Submarines are still the best way, despite what movies show, of protecting your maritime trade in the event of a future crisis.

Now we can rely on the Americans, but once again I would suggest that if we're moving our trade more toward the Chinese and a conflict develops between the Americans and the Chinese, we're going to be in a very, shall I put it, interesting security dilemma at that point in time.

The more we can provide for the protection of that trade.... Once again, it has to be through submarines. It's not surface; it's submarines that are really the future. The more we can provide for our own capabilities, the more that both the Americans and the Chinese will have to take our considerations into account in terms of any conflict in that regard.

Unfortunately, the numbers speak.... There is an arms race going on in submarine construction in the Asia–Pacific—not in the Atlantic, but in the Asia–Pacific.

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC

You did answer one part of my question, regarding the offshore protection of our fleet. However, the second part I would also like you to talk about is the protection and monitoring of Canadian coasts, which are huge.You have still not talked about that.

What are the alternatives for monitoring our coasts and ensuring that we are not being spied on by Russian and other countries' submarines, which are located close to our shores? Are there any technological alternatives that would help us do away with submarines?

11:45 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

The flip answer is no, there's not. If you do not have the subs, increasingly you're not going to have the deterrence capability. You're not going to have that psychological factor over subs coming into our waters. They're saying, “Okay, we don't know where the Canadian subs are.” That's first and foremost. If you lose that, you lose 80%.

The alternative is to ensure that programs such as Northern Watch, which is a technological program we have to develop an indigenous capability of listening for subs under the water.... It's through acoustics that you listen for subs. That program is ongoing, but it's in spits and starts. We would need to have a much more extensive deployment of that type of SOSUS system, but one that is a much more independent system.

We're developing the technology. Will we actually make it operational and deploy it? Stay tuned on that one.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Mr. Opitz.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here, Doctor. I remember you came out to CFC a couple of years ago when I was there as a staff officer. Thank you for being here today.

We, of course, have some gentle disagreements with our friends in the Arctic. I was just in Stockholm at the Arctic conference as well and found it quite interesting. The Americans didn't show up for that one, but hopefully they'll show up to Reykjavik.

With the U.S., as you know, it's the border area of the Beaufort Sea, which is an interesting case. With the Russians, of course, there is the shelf. You also mentioned Hans Island earlier, which may be a smaller issue but it's still an issue. So we have three, in particular, territorial disagreements on that. I'm going to ask you to comment on some of those and to give us your views and thoughts on how we go forward to resolving them, although there are some dispute mechanisms currently running through the UN and so forth.

It's interesting that China—and this was brought up there—is asking for observer status at the Arctic Council. You commented earlier about it definitely wanting to be a player in the Arctic when it's in fact not an Arctic nation. How do you see that playing out, especially since we are working with it more closely on trade? As Mr. Chisu pointed out earlier, the Northwest Passage is in our territorial waters. What are the challenges we might face, in fact, in enforcing our territorial sovereignty over that key passage?

Could you comment, sir?

11:50 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

The issue with the Chinese is an interesting one because it's not going to be just China and Canada in the Arctic; it's going to be Canada in the new relationship with the new China. We're seeing this in terms of a very well thought out Chinese strategy of buying into our resource industry. They're doing it in Australia. They're doing it in Iceland. They're doing it in Greenland. They're doing it all above board, and it's all rule-based, but it's a long-term strategy to give them a control in the long term, and I think it's going to be quite interesting.

On the other hand, they are going to be the future for much of our resource development. We are a resource exporter. The Americans have shown that they're starting to have some questionable market elements, and they are going to be the future. The question is how we balance that.

The Chinese also know that they need us for the resources, but the Chinese have also made it clear that when it comes to their core interests, it doesn't matter in terms of friendships or new possibilities, they will do what they need to do. We found that out at the University of Calgary when we had the audacity to give the Dalai Lama an honorary degree and we got delisted as a university. Basically our president had to go and make apologies for having an independent university style in order to get the Chinese to say that we're acceptable. We're going to need to deal with the Chinese in a way that I think has to be mature and realistic, but in a greater context.

For the Beaufort, we're missing opportunities. We should be doing what the Australians and the Indonesians did to resolve the situation of the East Timor sea. They still say their particular view stands, but they work together in terms of environmental standards, resource development, and protection. I really think that's what we have to do.

The Americans have shown that they still want to act independent, because they put a moratorium on their fishing, which of course included the zone that we dispute. I don't understand why they didn't come to us and say they wanted to do this together, they wanted to do this through joint management. What that tells me is that the Americans still don't remember they have a northern neighbour in that context, and that makes it dangerous. I think missteps can really make that disastrous when the oil and gas does start, and it will start in that region.

For the Northwest Passage, as I was saying earlier, the key is not asking for everyone's blessing. The key is going forward and just saying, “This is our capability. We're listening to the international community for what we think standards are, but, by the way, this is a homeland.” People, Canadians, live here and have lived here since time immemorial, so we're not talking about some abstract figure—which Europeans are increasingly talking about. We need to have that ability to say to them, “This is the way we're doing it, and if you do dumb things like having the seal ban, that's going to have a ramification in that context.”

For Hans Island, I think that illustrates it. It's a silly conflict, but as soon as the Danes got a new piece of equipment, an ice-capable frigate, they escalated the crisis in 2002, from one of their scientists going and leaving a bottle of Danish liquor and our going and leaving a bottle of CC. It had been handled that way since 1974. They get a new piece of kit and they land troops. What does that say in terms of how these issues spiral out of control? That's really why we need to have surveillance and enforcement. That really, to a large degree, remedies many of the issues we'll be facing in the future.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Morin, you have four minutes.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

The part of your presentation that interested me the most is when you talked about a lack of strategy. I feel that is the most important issue. Correct me if I am wrong, but historically speaking, Canada has never had an independent strategy. We have always relied on the fact that we were on the right side when participating in conflicts initiated by others. There is always a price to pay for that.

For instance, one of my uncles died during a landing in France owing to a mistake made by Lord Mountbatten. Some ten thousand of our soldiers died because of that mistake. We are talking about a historical mistake recognized by all historians. We have always been dragged into conflicts without having our own position, our own strategy. In the very near future, we will face even more serious situations. We need not look any further than Iran's nuclear potential and certain countries' attitude when it comes to that. Without a sound strategy, we risk getting dragged into conflicts we cannot handle.

In terms of the Arctic, I think that the threat is not a Russian invasion, but rather an invasion of rotting cargo ships filled with stuff made in China and on its way to Europe. There is a risk of shipwrecks and environmental mishaps. In addition, fishing fleets could be coming in to loot the ships as soon as the ice melts.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the two issues I just raised. Thank you.

11:55 a.m.

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

Absolutely. On your point about Dieppe, I couldn't agree more strongly. We've never had a grand strategy. Our strategy has always been to be a helpful ally. So when Mountbatten and the Brits needed to do a test landing in Europe, they said, “We'll send Canadians.” You could add to the list, of course: “We have to deter the Japanese, so let's send a whole bunch of untrained Winnipeggers to Hong Kong.” We were not able to say, “Whoa, this doesn't fit within our overall strategy. Why don't you send some of your own troops there for that type of protection? We're going to do something we think is more important for the overall grand victory.”

I think you're absolutely right, and your uncle paid in blood in that context. That's my point. We have to start thinking in terms of a grand strategy to protect Canadian interests. There's the grander issue of the ultimate continuation of security for the western world. I think we have to start taking a greater responsibility, to be honest.

I agree with you about the Arctic. The issue is not that the Russians are going to invade. The one issue we are going to face is that the Arctic will return to a certain similarity to the Cold War as far as geopolitical importance. In other words, the Russians aren't going to come to invade our territory—

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

It's the economics of it.

Noon

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

It's going to be the economics and the fact that we have the continuing resumption of strategic balances between them. But we know that resources lead to conflict. The example I would cite is the Spratly Islands, the east Paracel, and the ongoing conflict between the Chinese, Japanese, and Taiwanese—everyone in Asia—about its resources.

That's what the Arctic is going to look like into the future, unless we can convince people we have the capability to say, “No. If you're going to come here to develop resources, you have to do it under the rule of law with Canadian interests at heart.”

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you very much. Your time is up.

Thank you.

Mrs. Gallant.

Noon

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Huebert, during your introductory comments you mentioned the potential for gaps in covering airspace. What types of reductions are we experiencing?

Noon

Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Huebert

There are two gaps we have that we need to recognize. The first one is, of course, for the continuing defence of North American airspace. The biggest challenge we're facing is that if you do not have a fast air capability, be it a future UAV or an F-18 and its successor.... We've already seen, since 2007, that the Russians resumed long-range strategic bomber patrols armed with active armaments. They go right up to the airspace. They don't cross into our boundaries, but they come right up to it. And they do this with the Norwegians and the Brits now. The only way they respond and stop is when we send our F-18s to actually intercept and say, first of all, from a surveillance capability, we see you; second of all, don't cross over into our airspace. That is continuing, and in fact it is increasing in terms of capability.

The second obvious one, of course, is if we go back to 9/11, when it's the unexpected aerospace threat that comes in. The problem we face there is we were looking out with NORAD instead of looking within. What's the next thing that we haven't seen? That's where the gaps come in. It's the unexpected, but it's also the developing trends that we're seeing from an aerospace requirement.

The third gap is that we're seeing a decrease in terms of our allies' capability in proving over-air assistance. The more we go overseas for deployment, the less we're going to be able to depend on them for the type of aerospace domination against future surface-to-air missile threats and the missile technologies that are proliferating.

Noon

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

There was quite a conversation in this committee shortly after it was made public that the Russian jets did come up to our airspace. It was felt by the committee that really it was not a threat; they were just exercising and seeing what our capabilities are. Are you saying that these exercises the Russians conducted close to our airspace are actual threats we absolutely need to have the fighter jets ready to go forth on?