Evidence of meeting #15 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.
Conservative
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Just quickly, both of you have alluded to NORAD in the context of BMD. Colin Robertson appeared before the Senate Committee. Colin, as I'm sure you're aware, is with the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. He said that:
North Korea has conducted several ballistic missile tests under the guise of peaceful satellite launches, it has stated its long-range missiles will target the US, and it has developed a road-mobile ballistic missile capability.
Iran has a large arsenal of ballistic missiles.
He goes on to say that:
Through NORAD, we currently share information in early warning and attack assessment with the USA.
But when it comes time to make the critical launch decisions, our officials literally have to leave the room.
The algorithms that US Northern Command has developed to protect the US homeland do not include Canadian cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto or Montreal.
Membership brings the privilege of being in the room, part of the conversation on how to protect Canadians.
He goes on to talk about things we could do as part of BMD. He says that:
Participation in BMD is both insurance policy for our homeland and a renewed commitment to contemporary collective defence.
I just wonder if you agree with those types of statements.
Associate Professor, Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to follow up a little bit on this notion that the domain awareness side might be enhanced by cooperation.
As I think you've mentioned, Professor Sloan, sometimes it's our friends who are the most competitive in terms of these things, and particularly when it comes to underwater submarines. When they're under water, we don't know. The Americans don't tell us that they're about to put a submarine through the Northwest Passage. Of course we have a dispute with them on that.
To what extent are you going to get cooperation on domain awareness, surveillance, etc., when it comes to these kinds of disagreements—fundamental policy disagreements that exist between Canada and the U.S., or their approach to maintaining this high-seas position? Doesn't that represent the difficult area for cooperation? How do you get around it?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
It is an area of cooperation. The interesting thing about climate change in the Arctic is that it will make our submarines more relevant and give theirs less of an advantage, because theirs can travel under ice for extended periods of times and ours can't. Assuming climate change continues and there's more open water, our submarines will be up there. Since diesel submarines are quieter than nuclear-propelled submarines, we're going to know where the American submarines are. As a result, they may want to have cooperative measures.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Well, we don't know now, so how are we going to know then? Do you think our submarine or submarines are going to be able to detect the U.S. nuclear submarines throughout the entire Arctic?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
Well, it depends how many we have of course. The issue is that the Trident submarines can travel under the ice far away from where any diesel submarines would be, but if the ice melts, we would have the freedom to manoeuvre.
Does that answer your question?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
What's being suggested here is that we should offer some sort of cooperation through domain awareness and surveillance whether it be satellite or whatever, and that somehow the information sharing is not going to be complete because we do have these policy disagreements. How is that going to be resolved in your concept of that level of cooperation, or do you see a conflict?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
I would have to say that these are the very issues that need to be studied. There definitely are disjunctures. One of the things I alluded to is that we have more control platforms than the United States, whereas they have more surveillance platforms than we have. There might be some sort of trade-off of surveillance platforms, in terms of submarines. Of course we have stronger low-earth imaging satellite capabilities.
All of these things could be added together and could lead to cooperation, with the background driving force being that issues in the Arctic are increasing because of climate change. As far as we know, that won't change. The second factor is the relative decline of the United States or the rise of other powers around the world and declining defence budgets.
My perspective is that the United States may be in a more cooperative mood or more amenable to cooperative measures.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
UAVs offer some interesting options here. You mentioned the Global Hawk and the Predator, two systems that are both extremely expensive. It has been suggested by others that they're not necessarily suitable for the Arctic and for the kind of use that Canada might have for them.
Do you agree that there ought to be more elaborate study of what the UAV options might be before we start committing to any significant expenditure? I know the Americans are going through a study on this themselves, and it is referred to in the documents I referenced earlier.
Do you think we need to have more discussion, research, and transparency about the options before we make any commitments as a government?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
I'm not aware exactly how many studies have been done by National Defence already. They started their UAV program at the end of 2005. My guess is that a lot of the studying has been done. This is one of the platforms that has not moved forward for financial reasons.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes.
The Ogdensburg Agreement seems to be the granddaddy of U.S.-Canada defence cooperation. We still have the Permanent Joint Board on Defence.
Does either of you have any comments on the role of that agreement and the operations of the joint defence board? That is, in terms of what we're talking about here and North American defence, is it something we should look into a bit more?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
I haven't been to a PJBD meeting, but as I understand it, every important continental defence issue since 1940 has been discussed in that venue. In the aftermath of the BMD decision in 2005, it was debated, and the United States was not happy. All of these issues should definitely be discussed within the PJBD.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
Thank you, Professor.
Mr. Williamson, you may take five minutes, please.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to share my time with Parliamentary Secretary Bezan. I'm going to ask about fighter jet flight capabilities.
We have aging CF-18 aircraft that are going to need to be replaced in the coming years. It's my opinion, and I don't know whether you share it, that a fighter capability is integral to the defence of North America and in particular to the defence of the northern region.
Could you each comment on what capabilities our replacement fighter aircraft will need to have in order to combat threats to North America? Second, what potential threats do you envision our replacement aircraft combatting in its defence of North America?
Associate Professor, Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I would request of the honourable member that I not answer that question, simply because I'm currently still serving as an independent reviewer for the evaluation of options to replace the CF-18s. As a panel, although our work is concluded, we have agreed not to comment until a public report is released.
Conservative
Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
The Canadian Forces, in respect to all of its operations at home and abroad, needs an aircraft that can conduct air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. The CF-18 was optimized air-to-air and then was modified for air-to-ground later on. The joint strike fighter would have both capabilities from the beginning. The F-22, which we are not allowed to buy, but which the United States has, is strongly air-to-air. Those are the distinctions.
I used to say that there's a home game and an away game, but I don't believe that anymore. We really need to think of our defence operations as a whole. We need to have a platform that can operate at home and overseas. We need air-to-air continentally; clearly we're not going to be doing air-to-ground. But overseas we need air-to-ground. It's exactly what we needed in Afghanistan. Of course, we didn't send our aircraft, but the British, the French, and others were giving us air-to-ground support.
We need a platform that can do both.