Evidence of meeting #22 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 ships.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Moens, along the same lines, you specifically mentioned that the countries that threaten our way of life are Russia, China, and the terrorist groups in western Africa. Do you see any point at this time to concentrating on having some greater strength in the future for the Arctic?
Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, As an Individual
I certainly think, given Russia's policies in Georgia and Ukraine, that we ought to be able to think about what capabilities an Arctic conflict would take, should there be one. I believe it is part of defence policy to imagine that and to think about what capabilities on our part would be required in conjunction with our democratic allies to deal with various potential threats.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
You mentioned concerning cyberdefence and cyberoffence that Canada already cooperates with the Five Eyes on these. Were you saying that Canada already participates in offensive cyber-ops?
Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, As an Individual
I have to admit to you that the world of cyber is a difficult world to understand. But as I understand it, when there is a vulnerability in the lines of code, which is what we're talking about in the cyberworld, there is an opportunity for an enemy to attack, but when the enemy does, he also exposes his own capability, including vulnerability. So the line between offensive and defensive action in cyber is not as simple as it is in, let's say, conventional warfare. There's nothing to be gained by taking a moralistic attitude that we will not do cyberoffence, because then you will not know much about cyberdefence either.
Therefore, we need to be working with our allies, including the United States and the Five Eyes—and I think we are already—to make sure that we are fully capable, because cyberattacks are not only a civilian domain but a military domain. We need to have a broad range of capabilities.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
You mentioned the Five Eyes, and Canada and the United States. But we also have a centre of excellence in Estonia, an eastern European country that was attacked through cyber. Do you think there should be more cooperation similar to what we have between the United States and Canada in NORAD, but spread across the NATO trans-Atlantic link?
Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, As an Individual
At the moment, I don't think NATO is quite ready for the spreading of cyber-cooperation beyond what it's doing already. I think cyber is something so sensitive that it tends to develop more pragmatically with the democratic partners you trust and have experience with, and you build it up from there.
I'm not sure that we would increase our defences by making it too multilateral too quickly.
Conservative
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin by thanking the witnesses for their presentations.
My first question is for Mr. Saideman.
I would like to come back to some of your comments about the process implemented to replace numerous navy ships at the same time. You said in your presentation that, based on the current results, we can see that Canada does not have the facilities it needs to do all that work simultaneously. Don’t you think there is a problem with the contracting process itself? I will give you an example.
In fall 2011, the government awarded $33 billion in shipbuilding contracts over the next 30 years. The process was lengthy, but the Davie shipyard, in Lévis, in the Quebec City region—for which I am a member of Parliament—was unfortunately left out. The contracts were awarded to two yards instead of three, and not all the facilities available across Canada were really used.
I think that is a blatant example of some of the issues with the process the government implemented. I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Paterson Chair in International Affairs, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
One thing that we have improved or that at least has the potential to improve the procurement process is the government's proposal for a defence analytics institute in which you have experts who are not currently employed by the government—I think—to provide outside analysis of the various plans.
One of my greatest fears about Canada is about its becoming too much like the United States in one particular way, which is this. One of the worst things that happens in United States defence procurement is that every system is built in something like 400 congressional districts and 50 states, which then creates the political impetus for not killing programs.
Right now we have the shipbuilding programs, which seem to be designed more as job creation for Vancouver and Halifax than for building good ships. I'm not saying that those shipyards are not capable of doing it, but all estimates I've seen thus far suggest that we will get one ship for what the British are to get four times as many ships for.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Moreover, as you know, the Davie shipyard is the country’s largest dry dock. In other words, the country’s existing facilities have not been used, and that is slowing down the acquisition process for much-needed equipment. That is the issue I see here, but I think it could also come up in other military procurement processes.
Paterson Chair in International Affairs, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I see your point. I am not a shipbuilding expert, so I can't speak to the capabilities of the various shipyards. All I can do is look at things, as I always do, through a very comparative lens.
What I see is other advanced democracies realizing that they have strengths and they have weaknesses. When Great Britain, which used to be known as the naval power on the planet, is outsourcing its shipbuilding to other countries to get more capable and less expensive ships, I have to wonder about the Canadian choices, because Canada has not been in the business of building naval ships over the past 20 or 30 years—I forget the exact range of time. Starting up from scratch means it will be more expensive, and that means that we will have Canadians being employed by these programs, but we'll have less capability. So we have to face that trade-off. If we have less capability, then we have to shrink the size of our navy.
I have a big problem with the entire shipbuilding process, not so much with where in Canada they chose but with the actual choice of not buying necessarily the best equipment, because what makes sense for politics and what makes sense for Canadian defence are not necessarily identical.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you very much.
I will first direct this question to Mr. Moens, but time permitting, I would also like Mr. Saideman to answer it.
I would like to know whether you view China as a friendly state or an enemy state. We have seen an increase in the Canada-China relations, especially in terms of the economy and trade. However, China is a close ally of North Korea, which is clearly considered to be a threat to the western world.
I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, As an Individual
It's friendly, in the first place. It is a friendly relationship that we need to build out to our utmost, but our defence policy has to have the capacity in case it's not friendly. For example, China is very—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Norlock
We'll save our example for later.
Mr. Bezan, you have five minutes.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank both of our witnesses. I've found the testimony today very compelling and interesting.
We are talking about the defence of North America here and we've had some witnesses who've talked about the relationship between Canada and the United States and both of you, as professors, have specialized in Canada-America relations. I want to get a sense from you of how you see our relationship at this point in time, and how some of the policy issues that are happening in the U.S. are impacting upon decisions made on the defence of North America.
Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, As an Individual
Thank you.
I'm very concerned about the overall Canadian-American relationship at the moment. I believe it is a relationship in which few common projects get sufficient attention. I believe that the disagreements on Keystone XL, for example, have a significant impact on this relationship and I think there is a low expectation from the Canadian side that any significant proposals are going to come from the United States in the coming few years.
So I don't see it as a period in time where we can expect a lot of new initiatives, fruitful cooperation, beyond the routine day-to-day cooperation in our relationship. I regret that. I think the American-Canadian relationship is our most important relationship in the world, but we have to invest for better times.
Paterson Chair in International Affairs, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I think when it comes to defence issues there's actually very little space between us. I think the Northwest Passage is really the one big issue on the table. I think ballistic missile defence is something that we have a squabble over in terms of what to commit.
But I think Canada's performance in Afghanistan and in Libya speaks to a strong relationship with the United States. When push comes to shove, the two countries fight well together. I have a book that came out about the challenges of NATO. “Fighting Together, Fighting Alone” is the subtitle because countries fought their own individual wars in Afghanistan, but Canada was one of the few exceptions to that with the United States. They actually had Canadians commanding Americans in Kandahar with no friction at all compared with lots of other friction that was in place in Afghanistan.
In terms of the security relationship, we don't have a lot of news coming out of NORAD and Canada often is frustrated by not being mentioned in the state of the union address. These are examples of actual success. Who gets attention in the state of the union address? North Korea and Iran. These are countries that Canada does not want to be associated with.
A lot of the challenge is that there are bad news stories like Keystone, but the Canadian defence relationship with the United States is a success story. We don't hear bad news about it, because it's going along very well on any given day.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Both of you talked about the threat assessment and we've heard from some witnesses that there is no threat to Canadian sovereignty in terms of a situation of having a rogue nation or a non-state player attacking Canada. I think there's a lot of disagreement with that. I'm always concerned; 9/11 came out of the blue and something like that can happen here. Again, that's where the Five Eyes become a very important component of how we protect ourselves.
Could both of you, Professors, talk to the threat of both non-state and state players?
I know, Professor Moens, that you did mention Russia, China, and North Korea. We talk about North Korea and Iran as rogue nations. From an Arctic standpoint we know that Russia is investing heavily in their military, a 90% increase last year in how much they are building up their fleets, air forces, and army, including reopening naval bases in the Arctic.
Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, As an Individual
I think it's very important to remember that Russia has been increasing its defence budget considerably in the last several years. China in the past 20 years has, on average, increased it between 8% and 10% per year. China is also quite interested in this stealth generation, this fifth generation of fighter jets. If our relationship with China goes as we wish, then China will join the democratic world, and we'll have a much more secure, better world.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Norlock
Than you very much, sir.
Monsieur Larose, vous avez la parole pour cinq minutes.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is specifically for Mr. Saideman.
In the complexity of strategic planning, either on our own territory within the international community and within the relationship with the U.S., resources are limited. We can't do everything at the same time.
You mentioned before the 20-year gap between the moment when we're ordering equipment that we apparently need without having a white paper, and when we receive it, whether or not it's going to be compatible with our future.
What's your take on products that already exist that we could buy quickly? I'm all for job creation, but at the same time how much danger are we facing? Everybody seems to say there's a lot of danger, but everybody wants to wait 20 years before we have what we need to face it. There's a fine line between both, and I think a balance needs to exist. I've spoken to many companies that always say the orders are insane when there are products that already exist that could be bought right off—
les tablettes.
Another point I'd like you to maybe speak about is the environmental threat, and how much we need to incorporate that, which we don't seem to see a lot.
Paterson Chair in International Affairs, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
In terms of the first question, I think that as we look out we have to think about the defensive systems that are flexible. For instance, the navy has had these frigates that have done many different things over the course of the past 20 or 30 years. We don't know exactly what naval threats are ahead of us, but there'll be an expectation to participate in NATO task forces, to do some interception on the high seas, to do some humanitarian relief. We want to have these ships in more than one dimension, just as we want to have our fighter planes in more than one dimension because we don't really know what missions are going to take place. We can't be like the United States, which has a bunch of different kinds of planes for a bunch of different kinds of contingencies. That's not the way things can work.
I think we need to be focused on flexibility more than anything else to deal with the problems of today and tomorrow. It probably is better put in terms of problems rather than threats, because right now, to get back to the question that I couldn't get addressed, Canada is not facing a threat from Russia today. The Baltics are, Romania is, and Poland is, and because we are a member of NATO we have to participate in dealing with those kinds of threats. That becomes a Canadian problem. There are other problems we share in the world because we have larger values than just Canadian defence, such as dealing with the next tsunami.
We need to have these capabilities for these kinds of things, even if Canada's not directly threatened. But that does shape the kinds of things you want to purchase because there are some capabilities we don't necessarily need. A few years ago the army wanted to get rid of tanks because they didn't foresee a land war in Europe any time soon. They went to Afghanistan and decided we needed some tanks, but we were able to find a tank of the day that was sufficient for dealing with Kandahar.
I'd say to have a flexible approach is the best way to go forward.
Environmental security speaks to some of the other things we need to think about in terms of what kinds of equipment we need. Search and rescue equipment has obviously been talked about a lot. We need to be dealing with Arctic patrol ships. The realities of the world are that the military has an interest in minimizing its environmental impact on the planet, but it's not entirely the best solution for dealing with other people's environmental impacts on the planet. Perhaps when we get into a fishing controversy, the navy is good for confronting fishing vessels that are doing bad things. I'm not exactly sure what the navy's involvement is in fighting pollution. That kind of thinking about environmental security has to start in Foreign Affairs before it comes to Defence.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
When we talk about products that already exist on the surveillance scale, you mentioned maybe extending the mandate of NORAD to the Arctic. Correct?
Would it not be interesting, considering that we don't know when we're going to have planes, to have some drones. What's your thinking on drones, surveillance, of course, not attacking?
Paterson Chair in International Affairs, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I think that institutions are hard to build from scratch. The reason why NATO is still around is because it's better than all the other possible alliances. NORAD is a good framework to build upon because it has a record of success, a record of cooperation. It's a pretty useful institution, so it makes sense to improve NORAD and expand its coverage to the seas because we already have that software, that hardware, in NORAD to build upon.
I think whatever the reconnaissance capabilities are—whether satellites, drones, or manned planes—it makes sense to coordinate those efforts. The United States has a greater investment in all those things than Canada, so if we can get input through NORAD of what they can see—