National Defence Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

So what we've heard so far in testimony is that it's really the role of Public Safety, more or less, that homeland defence. In terms of defence and national security from the military standpoint, are you suggesting that there be more communication and interagency sharing of information as a means of protecting our infrastructure from a cyber-offence?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

I'm not privy to exactly what National Defence does to defend its own buildings, let's say, but the question is, whatever it does, whether it would also be doing that for civilian infrastructure. So yes, interagency cooperation and discussion would be necessary, but it's that element of really thinking about it. As I sit here, it's almost the parameters of the aid to the civil power. To what degree does National Defence get involved on a regular basis in protecting systems, let's say, right here in Parliament?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The focus of our soldiers has been more on the kinetic basis so they're prepared to go into combat or to enforce peace treaties, but they are soldiers, so we don't necessarily have available the level of or the number of people in the military who have that kind of expertise. Are you suggesting that we recruit so that we have more people in this area, or that we team up and form more partnerships with the private sector, and/or partner with our international allies?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Again, please give a very brief answer.

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

Probably working within the Canadian military, it's the signals communication classification, and beefing up that area is where I would focus.

I didn't answer your question on offensive warfare abroad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Perhaps you'll have another opportunity, but thank you very much, professor.

Ms. Michaud, s'il vous plaît.

You have five minutes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Lagassé, I will turn to you first. You talked about expanding NORAD's role in the context of fiscal restraint to make better use of our resources. I will be honest with you and say that I find that a bit strange. Ms. Sloan said that the current needs in terms of equipment were not being met. In the latest budget, over $3 billion in military acquisitions is being deferred by several years. Once again, our troops' needs are not being met.

Can you give us a better idea of the costs related to the implementation of a ballistic missile defence system in Canada and the required human and material resources? In order to be able to determine whether this is an improved use of our resources, we need to have an idea of the costs involved. That system is still experiencing problems in the United States and has not entirely proven itself.

I would like you to elaborate on that.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

You confused the two issues I talked about.

I said it was time to expand NORAD's role in defence on land, at sea, in the cyber realm, and in the Arctic. That was the first point. The other point concerned the missile shield.

I will talk about the first point. One of the most important points General Leslie raises in his report on transformation is that a tremendous amount of money is being spent on administration and administrative staff. Why not look at how to eliminate duplication of work within the command and the headquarters? In addition, is there a way to ensure that NORAD would play a more effective role than the Canadian Joint Operations Command is currently playing? That is the first answer.

The second answer is that equipment procurement, staff-related costs and operational costs should also be separated. When it comes to operations and staff, we could be more efficient if we worked more closely with our allies.

That is the point I wanted to raise. Savings could be made in terms of staff and operations by working more closely with an ally—

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Sorry, but I have to interrupt you because I do not have much time.

I understand the distinction you are making here, but I would like to go back to what I wanted to know in the beginning, with regard to the ballistic missile defence system. I would like to get an idea of the costs of implementing the required resources. That is what I am most interested in.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

As I said in another response, in 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin set the following condition: Canada would become a member of that system only if no costs were imposed on it. If that condition was maintained, there would practically be no costs for Canada.

We should keep in mind that, through NORAD, Canada is already closely involved in the use of the system, at every level. A Canadian soldier is even in a room with an American soldier, and they are operating the system together.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Is it really realistic to think that no costs, or very few costs, would be involved for Canada?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Yes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Really?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

Absolutely. If we are talking only about the personnel already on site.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So you think that more participation on Canada's part would not necessarily lead to an investment in material or financial resources. We could simply increase our current participation.

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I will repeat it for a third time. If we maintain the condition whereby Canada's participation does not involve any costs, the staff already on site is used and no facilities are planned on Canadian soil, we would just be using the existing resources.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Okay.

I will not make you repeat yourself for a fourth time. Thank you very much.

My next question is for Ms. Sloan.

You said that the committee could benefit from looking into an increased role for National Defence in the area of cyber defence. You probably have some ideas on how the Department of National Defence should increase its capacities in that area. How could that be done?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

I did not understand everything. I understood the other question.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

If you like, you can listen to the simultaneous interpretation.

I can repeat the question. I hope I will not be penalized in terms of my allocated time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

I am sorry Ms. Michaud, but your time is up.

Perhaps we can come back to that question.

Mr. Chisu, please, you have five minutes.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for their presentations.

I have a question for both of you. How have the security threats facing North America evolved and how are they evolving in view of Russia's latest adventure in Ukraine, and also the flexing of muscles from the Chinese in the Scarborough Shoal with the Philippines, and claiming Japanese islands, and so on? Because these two countries are in very close proximity and there are talks between the two countries to have a kind of military alliance and so on, and because these two countries have similar regimes, what is the threat that is facing the North American continent, and what do you suggest that we as Canada—the second largest country by territory in the world—should be doing?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

Just to confirm, you're asking about China and Japan?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

No, I am asking about China and Russia.

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

Oh, China and Russia.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

China and Russia, you are aware they have been discussing military alliances and so on. You mentioned the submarines. The Chinese have 70 submarines in the Pacific, and we have one. The Americas don't have too many, either. So they are flexing their muscles with the blue fleet. They expressed an interest to come to the Arctic, but they cannot access the Arctic if they are not making an alliance with Russia.

I'm asking you what are the threats evolving, an evolution of the threats, to us as the North American continent and Canada, and what we should do, in your opinion.