National Defence Committee on April 29th, 2014

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

The Prime Minister claimed that our commitment to F-35 was a contractual one, and then it was acknowledged that there was no contract. That really put the cart before the horse. That's what I'm hearing you say.

I also wanted to pick up on the question about maritime capacity. We've had someone come before our committee whose view was that the primary priority with respect to the defence of Canada and North America—and we talked about the Arctic—was the weak maritime capacity that we have right now. She also made the case that the biggest concern is not a military threat to our sovereignty, but things like climate change and activities in the Arctic that might affect sovereignty issues, not on a military level but on the level of climate change, pollution, and so on.

Can you comment on the priority of maritime capacity, and secondly, do you agree with the people who have come to the committee and said that military threat is not the big issue, that there are other kinds of issues with respect to the Arctic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

You can make a 45-second response.

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

Okay. My view on this is that the higher the level of activities you have in the Arctic, for example the more human presence you have there, the more you need a governmental presence.

It's not necessarily the military threat that is the real issue. There could be an oil spill or an environmental accident. It could be criminality. It could be illegal trafficking, but all these potential threats underline the need for the government to be present, clearly, in the Arctic. You could say the same for the maritime security in general, and yes, I agree that a military threat is not the first, unless we have dramatic change in our relationship with Russia. I don't want to fuel the fire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gallant, for five minutes....

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to mention that our previous party, one of our historic parties that came together with the Conservatives, the Reform party, when they were in opposition, started asking when the Liberal government of the day was going to start preparing and issue a white paper. I think that was as early as 1997.

So it's interesting that once we formed government, we did come out with the Canada first defence strategy, which is our white paper and an ongoing evolution. I know that the member is fairly new to this committee, but it was under the Liberal government that we started in the joint strike fighter program. So they initiated the process of Canada being a part of the whole F-35 research effort and what came afterwards.

Our witness mentioned the Arctic Council rotation. What I'm curious to know is how the eventual chairmanship of Russia may impact the defence of North America.

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

First, the Arctic Council doesn't have anything to say about security and defence, except for things like search and rescue. But the country that is chairing the Arctic Council could at least give a sort of list of priorities of what kinds of activities should be developed, especially when dealing with environmental, social, and economic development issues. This doesn't have an impact directly on defence and security, but at least it would give you diplomatic leverage to attract attention to this or to lower the attention paid to it. That's what the Canadian government seems to be doing right now.

So there's no direct relation with defence in the Arctic Council.

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

We mentioned NORAD and also NATO earlier in the discussions. Would you see a benefit to expanding NORAD to include NATO's European partners so that there's a coordinated, seamless, mutual situational awareness extending across the NATO region?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

The answer is no. NORAD must remain North American. I don't think the Europeans would want to do this. Both Canadians and Americans don't necessarily want the Europeans to come and look at what happened in North America in managing North American defence.

There are some allies—for example, I know of British officers who are working with NORAD—but this is at quite a low level. We don't want to expand it to a higher level in that kind of forum. We can create other kinds of forums, but not in that kind of institution.

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

What about extending NORAD's reach through cyberspace in addition to airspace and maritime? Would that be advantageous to the security of North America?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

In cyberspace I don't think so. We can create something different, but I doubt this is the same kind of approach. I mean it's not the same physical approach to the issue. So we can take inspiration from NORAD and create something parallel, but not by using NORAD itself.

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

With the recent actions taken by Russia in western Europe, specifically to what degree is there an increase in the threat level, if any, for our Arctic sovereignty?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

As far as we can see now, it's not creating a clear new threat for Canadian sovereignty in the north. My concern about this is when Canada will actually make its claim regarding the continental shelf, which is when there will be risk of conflict between the Russian and Canadian views.

What could happen now in eastern Ukraine and Europe could have an effect on this, just by putting a bitter tone to the discussions regarding the North Pole, for example, because the two countries both want to have the North Pole. It's funny but it seems to be going in that direction. So the impact it could have is that Russia and Canada could have a bitter tone to their relationship and be less likely to compromise on this issue. So it could have an impact on this, yes, but not directly on Canadian sovereignty—not now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much.

Our next questioner will be Madam Michaud.

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

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Roussel, let me start by thanking you for a most informative presentation. I'm delighted to welcome a fellow colleague from the École nationale d'administration publique.

I want to give you an opportunity to follow up on what you were saying about Canada's tone and attitude when it comes to the Arctic. In fact, you mentioned during your presentation that military threats aren't an immediate threat or, at least, aren't something we should be overly concerned about right now. Previous witnesses have expressed similar views to the committee.

In fact, Mr. de Kerckhove, of the CDA Institute, told us that the Arctic is one place where stakeholders have no choice but to cooperate, on search and rescue missions, in particular.

What I gather from your comments is that Canada's aggressive position on the Arctic could hurt that cooperation going forward. Is that a fair assessment of what you said?

[Stéphane Roussel]

Yes, that's fair. I would just qualify those comments by adding that Canada's tone has changed over the past few years. The tone taken from 2006 to 2010 or 2011 has softened considerably. For instance, the whole “use it or lose it” rhetoric has disappeared.

The members of Canada's military have played a pivotal role in that regard. They made it clear that their main task, their primary mission, focused much more on helping the various departments carry out their Arctic activities than on driving out submarines or conducting potential military exercises in the region.

And so the tone has softened in recent years. But I worry that Canada's reputation of being aggressive will stick for some time still.

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

I also gather from your comments that that aggressiveness could be used by other countries to justify a tougher stance or other types of behaviour in the Arctic that could ultimately hurt our sovereignty. And what you're recommending here is that we take a prudent approach, drawing a clear distinction between the issues, the conflicts involving the international community on one hand and the Arctic on the other.

Is that indeed what you were saying?

[Stéphane Roussel]

Precisely. My advice is to compartmentalize the issues while exercising extreme caution so as not to be the one responsible for causing tensions.

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

Thank you.

On a related note, the possibility of establishing an armed coast guard in Canada has been raised a few times in the course of the committee's discussions, similar to that of the U.S.

What is your view on that?

[Stéphane Roussel]

I don't see much benefit in Canada arming its coast guard other than to bring our procedures in line with the U.S. Coast Guard's. The differences, however, are too great.

In the U.S., the coast guard is part of the Department of Defense, but in Canada, it falls under the Department of Transport. And those are two very different organizations. I don't think the major changes that would have to be made justify the potential benefits.

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

Could you give us a tangible example of a major change Canada would need to make to bring an armed Canadian Coast Guard in line with that of the U.S.?

[Stéphane Roussel]

The legislation would likely need to be amended to allow the Canadian Coast Guard to carry out its activities in an armed capacity. And that would mean changing their status and making coast guards peace officers. At this point, I would prefer to see Canada's coast guard provide platforms to other agencies already vested with that authority, such as the RCMP, as Canada's navy does.

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

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

One minute.

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

Mr. Roussel, could you elaborate a bit on the incursion risks that other countries pose as far as our air space is concerned, especially up north? We've already talked about Russia, but are other states likely to pose a threat in that regard?

[Stéphane Roussel]

As far as I know, no other threats exist. Even Russia didn't appear to be a real threat, until just recently. None of the other states constitute a threat either. I don't think any other state has the physical means to threaten Canada's Arctic air space.