National Defence Committee on May 10th, 2016

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, I appreciate that comment, and I'll try to use an analogy here. Perhaps it's not the best one, but when you think of our first prime minister, Sir John A., going on a mission to build a railroad across the country, he didn't do it because the U.S. posed an immediate threat. He did it to build sovereignty. He did it to create that sense of autonomy within our own nation to prevent the possibility of a threat.

I think of the situation that we have in the north in a similar fashion, in that you would want to make sure that what we're doing now protects us against a potential military threat in the future.

Is that fair to say?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

So—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I don't want your comments to be taken in the context of your not seeing a direct military threat; therefore, that we shouldn't be concerned about Arctic sovereignty. I say this now because when you first said it, that was the way I interpreted it.

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

Yes, and that's a great point and that would be very fair.

I'm very concerned about sovereignty, just as any Canadian would be.

When you look at military threats, you have to break them into capabilities and intent. There are nations that are developing capabilities to be able to operate in the Arctic, and intent can change quite rapidly. We do have to be prepared.

Is there today or was there a direct military threat to our Arctic? The answer is no, we don't recognize one today.

Can there be in the future? It can change because intent can change in other nations, not just the one that most people would easily identify, Russia. But there can be other scenarios in the future, if you walk out far enough. But those can go in a variety of different ways.

There is no doubt that military activity in the north has helped Canada develop the north. In my travels across the north, I have seen the footprint of the RCAF in the north quite positively, in what it has offered to the country in the way the north has been developed. Last summer, I was in Inuvik and was reminded that it was formerly a signals facility, a part of the original standup of the town. As we go across the Arctic, to control your territory, you need to be able to be dominant, which means that you have to have the ability to go through the breadth and depth of your territory at your will.

That's why we choose exercises, not just in the summer, which a lot of Canadians have typically seen. To me, one of the best operations we do is Op Nunalivut in the middle of February and March, when the weather is not good. I have been up there with them, standing on an ice floe when they were on the ice on a freshwater lake, in this particular case, when it was -58. The environment will kill you faster than it will in desert terrain.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you. You've answered my question. I think I'm eating into Mr. Spengemann's time.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Gentlemen, thank you both for being here and for your expertise and service.

I'm going to take you away from the Arctic, General Bowes, for a second and ask you if you could outline to the committee the intersection of your responsibilities, if any, with NORAD's Operation Noble Eagle.

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

My role in Operation Noble Eagle is simply as a recommending authority. I'm one of the four officers who are recommending authorities to political authorities for a decision to act should an Operation Noble Eagle incident take place and a decision is required. On the Canadian side of the border, I'm behind the Chief and the Vice. The commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force is behind me.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Do you have resources under your control to respond, or will you not be asked to respond directly?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

Every resource that is necessary would be brought under control in that incident to respond as required.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you. That's helpful.

I wonder if we could go back to sovereignty, which two of my colleagues have touched on. Can you expand a bit more for members of the committee and the Canadian public what the concept of sovereignty is all about, in particular, the intersection between military and civilian components of it?

My sense is that sovereignty is as much a function of how well we occupy a space as it is how well we defend it.

I wonder if you could briefly comment on what sovereignty means and how it might be changing in the context of the Arctic?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

It's an outstanding question.

The challenge is that this is a policy issue. From our perspective, our lead in what we do to support sovereignty is the associate deputy minister for policy. I would put it to you that it's not a military term, and so I risk stepping out in trying to provide a definition of activities in which so many actors in this town participate.

By demonstrating our ability in the Canadian Armed Forces to move through our terrain, our airspace, and our waterways, we demonstrate our ability to control our terrain, commensurate with civil authorities like the RCMP and other territorial and provincial authorities.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm mindful of the time, Mr. Chair, if I could just have a brief follow-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have about 20 seconds.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Is it fair to say the buildup in civilian infrastructure in the Arctic is a component of sovereignty, as is your ability to support that buildup as it evolves?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

Absolutely, yes. Every piece of infrastructure in the north can be used by a host of different government agencies, just as we're partnered with the Department of Natural Resources and with the Arctic training centre. There are plenty of examples.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, both.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're going to move to five-minute questions now.

Mr. Fisher, you have the floor. You're free to split your time, if you like.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate your service.

This may come across as a bit of a summary, but we know that our north warning system is aging, and the ice floes are receding, thus opening up the Northwest Passage and allowing increased activity and travel through there. There's also the question of who owns what in the Arctic, which may take a long time for us to figure out. I'm not talking about today, or even in the next five to 10 years, but possibly in the next 50 to 60 years.

General Bowes, I think you said something to the effect that there would be greater defence of the north. You didn't necessarily say there would be sufficient defence of the north. I guess my question would be, should our defence focus, our infrastructure investment, and our procurement focus be on all of these common occurrences in the north? Is that where we should be focusing our plans right now, on the issues in the Arctic strictly?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

Let me answer that outstanding question by pointing out that I have three missions: the first is the defence of Canada, the second is to assist in the defence of North America, and the third is to promote security and stability abroad when called upon.

It's difficult for me, in the travels I have done, and even in this job over the last year, to see a Canada that is inward-looking without understanding that it's part of an international community and that any threat to international stability is a threat to the long-term security of Canada. I think we need to take a much broader view of what constitute threats and challenges to Canada's security, and I don't think you can do one without the other.

It is inconceivable for me to understand how a direct military attack against the United States wouldn't impact Canada. We need to think more broadly. That doesn't mean that as those climatic conditions change under what you described, the Arctic becomes more of a focus. I'm not suggesting that, and I'm not recommending that, but I'm not refuting that either. That's a policy question as to where we should go, but I don't think that we can focus on any single area. We're dependent on international trade, and we're dependent on peace and stability in so many ways.

We look at our standing commitment over 60 years to NATO and collective defence, and we did that for good reasons. Those reasons are still extant today, so we need to have a broader focus in what we do. The relative weight of resources to task is in the purview of the Chief of the Defence Staff for military advice to the government. I think he's positioning himself to do that under the defence review, as an example, close-in of the kind of dialogue you're referring to.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do I have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have about two minutes left.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I probably won't need the whole two minutes.

I'm not sure if either of you have an update for me on the Harry DeWolf. I know you've insinuated that you probably can't wait for that to come on board, but do you have an update or progress report on where we are with the Harry DeWolf, the icebreaker?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

I don't think we have one on the timelines. We can get that and add it in, but I did have a chance last November to visit the Halifax shipyards to see how they were constructing it, and so on. I'm an army general, and I'm in a joint job. I champion the interests of the air force, the navy, and the army, and I'm excited to see that capability, to see what Canadians are doing down there, and to see what we're going to be able to bring on board.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

You visited the Halifax shipyards?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

I did.