National Defence Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2016

[Stephen Burt]

We have the resources needed for analyzing threats and raising a flag in that regard. In terms of whether we have the resources needed in order to take action, I cannot really answer that.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Speaking of maritime aspects still, I saw a news report yesterday in which it said that the Coast Guard was facing problems in relation to icebreakers. For example, the ice in the river that runs between the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay may not get broken up, and this may cause major repercussions in economic terms.

To combat ecological threats or other threats of that kind, would it be worthwhile for the Royal Canadian Navy to have equipment and resources?

Certainly, the Coast Guard is not under the same department. We here are studying the situation of the Royal Canadian Navy, in military terms. Should coordination not be improved?

We might have a problem. We might have a good navy, in military terms, but it might not be able to deploy because the Canadian Coast Guard was not sufficiently effective.

Do you think the Royal Canadian Navy should be able to be autonomous?

[Stephen Burt]

All I can tell you is that we work very closely when it comes to intelligence. We communicate information. To be able to work together, we have to have the same picture of the situation.

I understand your question, but...

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You are part of an intelligence cell and you are an expert in that field, but when you encounter problems, is the operational sector in a position to respond? That is what I want to know.

[Stephen Burt]

I am unfortunately not an expert in the operational field.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Very well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

The next five-minute question goes to the Liberals, and I believe Mr. Spengemann had a question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may not need the five minutes, and I'm happy to delegate my time to the next Liberal speaker.

Mr. Burt, I'd like to switch gears and talk about economics a little, not just economics but the idea that with respect to defence we often talk about spending. What we really should be talking about is investment so that the Canadian public understands that we don't just create value around the public good of national security but that we create economic opportunity for Canadians and Canadian companies.

In your line of business are there any obvious connection points with private sector involvement, be it satellites and radar all the way down to the software you use day by day? Can you point to any levers where we could say we need to invest more, and there are Canadian opportunities here through the public procurement process?

[Stephen Burt]

I would be hard-pressed to come up with examples of companies or technologies, if you're looking for that level of specificity, that we might be interested in that I would want to talk about.

Canada is a technology leader in many areas, and the Government of Canada has made a number of investments in capabilities such as RADARSAT that are extremely helpful from an intelligence perspective. We enjoy the ability to recruit a very high level of individual, whether in uniform or as civilians, with good technical knowledge of cutting-edge systems, all of which is to our advantage, and we have good relationships with the people we need to have good relationships with in the private sector.

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

On a more general level, what are one or two areas in your line of work that require ongoing investment, and maybe even something around paradigm shifts on where to take things next in terms of resources and equipment?

[Stephen Burt]

As I mentioned earlier, in response to Mrs. Gallant's question, the issue of investment in information technology, generally, and the ongoing need to deal with massive amounts of information in a sensible and reasonable way so that I don't have analysts spending all their time looking for things and they are actually able to get access to what they need, is a constant struggle. I think it's no different from the struggles that are experienced in large private sector IT firms.

There is always a need for investment in those areas.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Rioux, you had a question.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am going to come back to the question of climate change.

Are there any studies available about possible human migrations in 10 or 20 or 30 years, and the repercussions that could have in military terms, or is that confidential information?

[Stephen Burt]

I do not know. That is the short answer to your question.

I know there are some environmental groups, as you said earlier, that are observing the effects of climate change and talking about the possibility of islands in the Pacific disappearing, for example. Obviously, this change has repercussions on migrations, particularly for our allies in Australia and New Zealand, which see the direct effects of it on movements of peoples.

That is something worth considering, but I am not personally familiar with these kinds of studies.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Once again, I find that very surprising. I think it is a very realistic threat and we have to consider the repercussions that these population displacements and the conflicts that could cause may have.

[Stephen Burt]

If I may, Mr. Rioux, I would say that the question mainly depends on the number of years before the situation in question arises. Forecasting for the next 20 or 30 years is worthwhile, but I would say it is more a matter of scientific research than of intelligence work.

I think that when it comes to purchasing or procuring, we have to look ahead 20 to 30 years to foresee what may happen in technological terms, in order to combat the possible threats our forces may be subject to.

However, in terms of more political questions — population movements, possible conflicts, and so on — we plan on a much more short-term basis, because we have to foresee upcoming operations.

It is not that we do not take an interest in that, but we consider it to be work that could be done by other people.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am not convinced; far from it. I think planning has to be done for the next 30 years. It seems to me that it is reasonable to contemplate that kind of planning. We expect the temperature on the planet to increase by two degrees Celsius. That will have repercussions. Studies have been done on this subject. I think we have to be prepared to deal with the situation and we have to consider ways to respond. Planning is important if we want to avoid military conflicts.

I hope you are going to engage in that process. I also hope that we are going to include this subject in our report. In my opinion, it is vital to consider the changes that global warming and the potential conflicts that could ensue will bring about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Burt, just staying on the topic of the resources we are giving our navy—and I don't really want to look at procurement so much—when you assess the intelligence streams you are privy to, are you satisfied that the security infrastructure at our naval bases is adequate right now? Can you comment on any improvements you would like to see?

[Stephen Burt]

I really can't.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

You can't. Okay.

[Stephen Burt]

My domain is about the resources we need to do the diagnosis when there's a problem. That's done and it's done again. It's looked at on a constant basis, and issues are flagged up to base commanders and to security people as they arrive. I'm confident that we have the resources to do that appropriately and to the right level of certainty.

As to the issue of whether we need more fences, more guards, more technology, and more something to help solve that problem, I'm really not in a position to say.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

You're not in a position to say. Is there nothing I can take back to my constituents who work the base to say improvements are coming or that there's a general level of satisfaction with it?

[Stephen Burt]

Unfortunately, no. I'm just not the right guy for those kinds of questions.