National Defence Committee on May 8th, 2014

[Prof. Aurel Braun]

Cooperation in procurement is a worldwide phenomenon. No country has a capacity to do everything themselves, not even the United States. They import UAVs and others. We do need to cooperate. We have companies such as Bombardier, BlackBerry, Bell that have capacity. The problem is that when we have relatively very low defence spending and very low acquisition, and we do that in Canada particularly in terms of our needs, then we have less of a say. In terms of procurement of aircraft, if you buy a very small number, it is the fact that you are lucky to get less in terms of a contract to cooperate.

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

If I may, since you are talking about costs, I have another question about that. I would like to move on to something related in part to military spending.

You mentioned that you think it would be important for Canada to take part in the ballistic missile defence. So far, Professor Philippe Lagassé has been the only witness to appear before this committee to say that there would be no additional cost to Canada if Canada wanted to increase its participation. The other witnesses have all said that it was fairly unlikely and that, in fact, our participation would have to increase substantially.

Do you have an idea of what the cost of this participation might be for Canada?

[Colin Robertson]

Honestly, I have no idea.

However, I can say that I have spoken with Americans. Since they have already constructed the building, it's felt that the costs would be minimal because it's already been done. Now, we are protecting information under the NORAD agreement.

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

Are the current facilities adequate? Do you expect additional investment from Canada, be it equipment, human resources or financial resources?

[Colin Robertson]

Frankly, we can't be absolutely certain because the threat is changing.

We have satellites and other equipment that may already be used. It depends on what happens with North Korea and other countries. If the situation changes… Three months ago, who would have known that the Russians would decide to invade Ukraine?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Mr. Robertson.

Ms. Gallant, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I go into my questions, I just do want to correct the record. The Liberals subscribe to Joseph Goebbels' mantra that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. It was stated that the Canadian government is following Canadians on their IP addresses. We have heard testimony from the commissioner of CSEC that warrants are required and no wrongdoing has been committed by that agency.

That being said, I have some questions for Dr. Braun. We heard repeatedly from the United States during our NATO PA meetings that with respect to BMD, there was an interest in cooperating with the Russians. Despite the fact that they have missiles directed toward their neighbours in eastern Europe, the BMD intention was to have sensors and only react from a defensive mode, unlike them, where they have their offensive mode.

Given what's happened over the course of the past several weeks in Crimea, do you think there's going to be a realignment?

[Prof. Aurel Braun]

Wise policy-makers always adjust to new situations. The question is whether the Obama administration is prepared to do that.

I'm sure you know that the agreement was for a much heavier and much more layered missile defence in eastern Europe. In Poland and the Czech Republic, the governments took a great deal of heat domestically to agree to that.

When President Obama came in, he changed that under this idea of a reset button...that somehow Russia could be induced to be more cooperative if the United States was more forthcoming. What the United States proposed, and what is being implemented, is far less than what was originally envisioned. I think there's good reason at the moment to try to reassure the eastern European allies that hard security guarantees, which is why they joined NATO, are meaningful, and BMD would be part of that.

Whether the American administration is prepared to do that, I just don't know. If we look at the sanctions regime they have been introducing, it is reactive, not active or proactive. It has not had the desired effect, by any means, and consequently Russia has not been deterred. I think there's a very serious issue here.

Now, the United States said that BMD or ABM was not directed against Russia, but against Iran. I'm a good deal less sanguine than my colleague here about what Iran is doing. I think these negotiations are not going to achieve what they're supposed to achieve. There's been a shift, not just a semantic shift, but a conceptual shift, and you see the big division between Israel and the United States.

Israel is saying that what was supposed to have been done in the case of Iran was that Iran was to have no capacity. But the Obama administration is now talking that they won't have a breakout capacity—well, not a short breakout capacity. It's not the same; it's a very significant difference.

The other element of Iran is that when you look at the nuclear capacity, it's not just having the actual weapon, but the delivery systems. They have been moving full speed ahead on developing very sophisticated long-range delivery systems, which can reach any part of Europe, and eventually may have a capacity to reach longer as well.

There are those multiple threats in Europe, and eventually they could come to Canada as well. We depend a great deal on American leadership. The Americans have capacity; the question is whether leading from behind is actually leadership.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Braun, with respect to NATO, we're told we're entering the third phase of NATO. We're told to think of energy as a tool to solve geopolitical problems, such as security of supply. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, and CETA, as well as the American version, can provide a second anchor to bind our societies.

Can you tell us, because you did refer to energy, about the different steps we might take to accomplish these?

[Prof. Aurel Braun]

I'm sure you and others understand that NATO was never meant to only be a military organization. It was also a political organization, and politics are to be broadly interpreted. If you look at the criteria for joining NATO, there are political criteria and expectations. Energy, especially in the case of Russia, is also politics. We've seen that demonstrated repeatedly.

Energy cooperation as a means of defence and deterrence is especially important. There have been steps taken for energy sharing for reverse energy flows. It's very difficult. For example, one step that is being taken but not sufficiently effectively is that Ukraine is to get some natural gas from Slovakia. Slovakia would have the capacity for reverse energy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Professor Braun. We're well over time.

The next round of questioning will go to Mr. Harris, for five minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Robertson, I blessed your remarks on Edmonton and Saskatoon. They'll find their way into a political pamphlet in the next election. I know what your comment intended. I would want to counter your comment with the remarks of the deputy minister for policy at DND, that Canada is not under any direct threat or imminent threat of any kind, so the people of Saskatoon and Edmonton should not be lying awake in their beds at night, like we did, by the way, and probably you did in 1962, when we were in fact in the middle of the Cold War and in imminent potential danger.

Professor Braun, I'm interested in your remarks on Russia and the need for icebreaker capability. We in Newfoundland and Labrador think icebreakers are a great thing, and we need them to get ferries back and forth to Labrador. They're very important to us, so I agree with you at that level. But we have been told again by a lot of Americans, Canadians, and witnesses that the Arctic is not a war zone, and it's not likely to be a war zone. It's a different layer of concern. I would agree with you that we do need to increase our capability in the Arctic of being able to operate and of being able to protect the environment, and that these are potential threats, particularly as climate change may make these things stronger.

Maybe I can go back to you, Mr. Robertson, on the issue of defence expenditures. The likelihood is that this aspiration—that's what I call it—from NATO is not going to be realized. In fact, there's not much of an appetite from any quarters in Canada to significantly increase defence spending.

Where should the priorities be for Canada in the defence of North America, being mindful of Professor Braun's concern about the sovereignty and the large perimeter we have, the need to patrol, etc.? Where should our priorities be? Could you comment on your mentioning in passing that Mexico should be part of this defence of North America, or is increasingly important to that? Could you give us some comments on that?

[Prof. Aurel Braun]

Maybe I'll just make a couple of comments, Mr. Harris.

We want to make sure that the Arctic does not become a war zone. The best way to ensure that is to remove temptation. When you have these outlandish claims made by the Russians to vast portions of the Arctic, when they are seeking to get energy without much regard for the fragile ecology, when they disregard international law in a blatant fashion, which they have, then it is really essential that we take reasonable steps that include both hardware and software, so to speak, to try to prevent that kind of emboldening of a regime in Russia, which is behaving more and more like a rogue state rather than a responsible member of the international community.

Often we don't have choices. I would much rather see money spent on education and our health care than on the military, but we also have a responsibility to our own citizens. Also, we are members of a number of alliances, so we have a responsibility to our allies, as well. We need to develop multiple capacities.

I think as an advanced industrialized state, we also occupy a leadership position in the world. We are one of the most important states internationally. We are proponents of democracy, and that is to be taken seriously and carries an obligation to do what is necessary, and sometimes it's very painful. As I mentioned earlier, there's no deterrent on the cheap.

[Colin Robertson]

In terms of priorities, which is the question, I think Canadians would support that, because we are people of the world. Go to Toronto where half the people were born outside the country. We've always taken great pride in what we do abroad, and part of that is through our diplomatic service, which is much, much cheaper to preserve. Military leaders themselves will tell you, far better we solve problems through diplomatic efforts, because when we turn to the military, that doesn't always solve the problem. It's also very expensive, as we know.

Regarding the question about Mexico, my belief is that Mexico has advanced significantly. It is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement; they're a partner in that. Sometimes they have had challenges in their northern border with drugs and things where we can probably be helpful. We have our frigates down there, and our submarines that are doing work in terms of drug introduction and the rest. We could probably be more helpful to Mexicans. I foresee a time when I think Mexico may well join NORAD, and that would make some sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Mr. Robertson.

Before we go to the next questioner, the chair has asked two previous witnesses a very similar question. It has to do with an issue that was brought up by Mr. Robertson around the angst concerning procurement.

As a nation we are about to replace a very expensive piece of equipment called the F-18. I think you are familiar with that so I won't go into it. We have a choice. We can purchase aircraft other than the current consortium that we belong to, the F-35, and we'll get some regional benefits on each of the purchased aircraft. However, we could go to the F-35 and have an opportunity to have some economic advantage by every single aircraft that is produced, I believe it's in the hundreds. One of the other advantages is the ability of interoperability because that consortium composes many of our NATO allies.

I would appreciate it if you would both get back to the committee in writing on that question because I do not want to usurp much more time from the members.

Mr. Opitz, for five minutes.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was on this committee before and I'm glad to be sitting in again today. I knew you guys would be here and I'm sorry to have missed your presentations.

You are right, Mr. Robertson. We do have a brilliant diplomatic corps. We have very expert people who are well rounded, smart, know their files, and work hard. That whole-of-government approach is very important, but we're not sophisticated enough in this world yet that we can do without militaries at this point in time. The Canadian military, I think, has distinguished itself in its duties around the world.

I'll ask some fairly broad questions.

Our Prime Minister has been very clear with the G-7 and others about Mr. Putin. He said very clearly that Mr. Putin does not want to be our friend; he wants to be our rival. I think he has demonstrated that in many, many ways. Of course the west had hoped that integration with Russia through the economy and energy and things like that would calm the situation and that through this integration things would work out much better than they have. It appeared to be for a while, but clearly he had been signalling for a couple of years that something was about to change.

One of the key councillors in the European Union produced an article a few days ago that suggested that a couple of years ago when he called Ukraine an artificial state and suggested Crimea always belonged to Russia, that they thought he was somehow being flippant. So I hope two years on that they've realized this was no joke and that he was already testing the waters for these sorts of things.

Russia clearly has changed the equation geopolitically. It's changed the way we see threats coming out. We had hoped that was not the case, but a lot of this is Soviet playbook stuff that is not only 75 years old but I think goes back right to the Russian Revolution. They've perfected the technique of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Mr. Opitz, could you ask a question?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Right, okay, I thought you said five minutes but....

It is a rogue state and it is imperialistic.

Mr. Braun, what do you think is Canada's role? Do we have a responsibility to our allies, especially in NATO to guarantee energy stability?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Mr. Braun, would you be so kind as to get back to the committee in writing on that question? It's well past our time for adjournment. There have been some very important questions so any of the questions that you answered that you would like to add to, please feel free to do so through the clerk. The committee would very much appreciate that.

If you would get back to us in writing on any questions that have remained unanswered, we would very much appreciate that.

This meeting is adjourned.