Evidence of meeting #21 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 canada's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
So there's no way to identify the threats specifically, but we can speculate.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
It's speculation because we're dealing with the future. We're talking about scenarios.
In 2014, the problems we're confronted by are plane crashes, like the one in Resolute, ships in distress or perhaps remote communities facing social crises, climate-related challenges, environmental issues, serious accidents or disasters. Those are still the immediate threats we're confronted by in 2014.
If you were to ask what I think the Canadian government should be focused on today, I would say making sure an aircraft can take off from Trenton to provide help to a northern community, whether in Resolute or some other remote community.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Given the resources at our disposal, isn't diplomacy in fact the best tool we have in the long range?
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
The threats I mentioned are domestic ones. Even if we did have some agreement in place—which would only be with the Americans—to deal with certain local crises, diplomacy wouldn't be a consideration. It would be a matter of providing government services to the population. That's what would be called for.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
So it underlies the principles tied to our sovereignty, in other words, how we defend it and what the various dimensions involved are, whether military, environmental or civilian, as in the case of a crisis.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
To my mind, Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic isn't in jeopardy. That's more of a perception that is largely attributed to the fact that Canadians have an attachment to the Arctic and sometimes worry about someone taking a portion of Canada's territory. That isn't the reality, however. There's no real threat to Canada's sovereignty.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Strategically speaking in the long term, isn't it problematic to create a strong dependence as regards the Americans? That speaks to my point earlier. You mentioned Australia and Norway. This is something that could happen in the long run because Canada has unparalleled resources. Isn't it in every country's best interests to create a dependence? During major crises in the past, the royalties were massive. That happened in Europe, with the Second World War. Our resources are significant. That aspect of the relationship has never been tested. Just how mindful should we be in terms of our relationship with the U.S.? To what extent should we favour our sovereignty over their vision of the world?
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
I'm not worried about that because, historically, Canada-U.S. relations have been compartmentalized. Defence-related issues only affect defence. The Americans' presence on Canadian soil during the Second World War and the excellent level of cooperation in that regard didn't necessarily mean Canada's resources were in jeopardy. The different spheres of activity have always operated in silos. Historically, those kinds of activities in the security realm have not led to losses like the ones you are referring to. Canadians must do their part, to be sure. However, I'm not concerned about the consequences of a closer working relationship with the Americans, provided it follows well-defined parameters and explicitly drawn up rules.
Conservative
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Thank you, Chair. With your indulgence, I'd like to give my time to Mr. Carmichael, and I'll ask my questions in the third round.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you to our witness.
I hear you on Canada-U.S. relations, and clearly there are budget issues, particularly in the U.S. that are impacting Canada-U.S. relations in terms of military presence in the north. I understand your position or your point on there being very little in terms of an agreement at this point in time, so I'm fine with that in terms of understanding.
NORAD recently completed a two-week rapid response operation. I wonder if you could just talk briefly about the level of cooperation that already exists between Canada and the U.S. and how we can better enhance it. Is that level of cooperation on northern defence significant?
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
The level of cooperation on the ground between Canadian and American military could be labelled as satisfactory, I think, for now, considering the resources the two countries are contributing to the north. The military on both sides are working very well together. It's not surprising because Canadians and Americans have been working together for decades now.
What is missing, in my view, is that we have to put it at a little bit of a higher level, not only at the tactical and operational level, but also more in terms of strategy and doctrine development. That's why I think we need to strengthen the discussion on other issues, more than simply on how we're working together on the ground. Having a common view on what the threats are, how we can face them, and what the challenges will be in five to ten years from now, is what is missing, from my perspective. It's not the cooperation between the military offices, but that we should develop more of an intergovernmental approach on this.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you.
I'd like to also have a quick look at the Arctic. In your testimony today, you talked a bit about Canada being the most aggressive in the Arctic. I'm not sure whether you support that or not. In previous testimony, you talked about the Nanisivik Naval Facility as being an important post that needed to be completed and developed and whatnot.
I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about that Nanisivik development, where it's at, and the importance it plays in terms of northern defence and security.
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Having a port is crucial, because there's no naval infrastructure in the Arctic. We badly need it. If you want to be more present in the north, this is crucial. So we should support it and make sure that this project will take place. Eventually we should think about the development of the north over 20 or 50 years, by having other ports. If there are any benefits from opening the Northwest Passage, we must be able to take advantage of them. Having some ports, even small ports, could be crucial to that. So the Nanisivik facility, as the first one, is essential.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
So when you talk about Nanisivik—and I refer to the comment of my colleague Mr. Leung on the northern Pacific—would you support a similar type of presence in that geographic region as well?
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Now I'm getting outside of my area of expertise. I would probably just be thinking out loud rather than giving you a strong analysis, so I would prefer not to comment on this.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
When you talk about the U.S. being absent in the Arctic, I wonder how reasonable it is to expect the U.S. to become more engaged, particularly with its budgetary restrictions. Looking at the significant budget cuts we've witnessed in the U.S. directly, what's the likelihood? We talk about having an agreement. We can have a good discussion, and I think we can all agree, because we're very close as friends, but what's the likelihood of this ever happening?
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Actually, that is interesting because I was looking at what my colleagues wrote on this over the last 10 years, and they all kept saying that the Americans were coming and that they would sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We're still waiting.
So I don't want to commit myself by telling you they're going to be there next year or the year after. I prefer to be very careful by saying, let's take the current situation as the one that will stay for the predictable future. Then Canada's strategy in that context is to engage the Americans or to take leadership on this, rather than experimenting—
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
The Americans will tell us—and their representatives have told me—that they don't believe in the militarization of the Arctic. We've been told that there's no military threat in the Arctic, not only by you but by the deputy minister of defence also, or the assistant minister of defence for policy.
Yet, you're complaining that we have a reputation for being militaristic in the Arctic. Is it possible to separate out the need for infrastructure, which we just talked about? Also, Mr. Carmichael talked about the need for icebreakers, the need for capability or presence, and a stance or posture, if you will. Is it possible to separate out those two and say the one is important and that we should pursue that, but that the other may lead to unintended consequences?
Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Actually, it's not because we're building icebreakers or ports that makes Canada to be labelled as aggressive. It's the tone of the discourse. It's the American diplomats who keep asking me, “What's your problem, you Canadians? Why are you paying so much attention to your sovereignty? No one wants your sovereignty.”
So it's the discourse much more than the material commitment that is important here. It's the way you present or label it that is important. The only ones who are talking about Canadian sovereignty in the north are the Canadians themselves. So we are creating the issue ourselves. We're bringing the attention of other people around the Arctic to Canadians' concerns regarding their sovereignty, just by our own attitude.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
You talked about the agreement with NORAD, USNORTHCOM, and the Canadian Joint Operations. Looking at it here now, December 11, 2012, it was signed by two generals. Is this a diplomatic agreement or is it an operational framework? I'm being the cautious Canadian here now, not the cautious continentalist. This was not widely publicized, obviously. It's done by the joint board, which has been in existence since 1944, I think. Is this something that we should know more about, that should be part of a larger strategy that should be spelled out, as you said?
