Evidence of meeting #36 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thanks, but I will be turning the time over to Ms. Alleslev. She was just getting started when she ran out of time.
February 7th, 2017 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much.
I'd like to build on what Mr. Bezan was talking about. Perhaps we can get some perspective on that.
You made a comment, Mr. Boutilier, about the largest recapitalization for Australia since 1945. You identified some of the incredible capitalization, both for Asia and for the United States. We've just heard that Russia is also perhaps becoming more of a situation than it has been, and we have a changing relationship in Europe and of course around the world.
Give us a sense of the sense of urgency. Are we in a different time? Are the times changing, or is this the same old same old that we've had for the last 50 years since the last war?
5:20 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Pacific Studies, University of Victoria, As an Individual
That's a good question indeed.
Let me talk about Russia for half a minute. I think we are all genetically coded to think of Russia as a superpower and a superpower that is re-emerging, but if you look at the Russian GDP, it's about the equivalent to that of Italy or Australia. It's a second-class power on its way to third-class status. It has huge demographic and economic issues. Now it's scaling back on its defence expenditures, and the transit of the Kuznetsov was perhaps in a way an icon of pretension but not of real substance. The Russians in fact are relying heavily on the Chinese and doing exercises in the Pacific.
I think what we're seeing in the Mediterranean, for example, is the beginning of the new phenomenon, the osmotic pressure into Europe as a result of what's happening in Africa. Africa is going to be increasingly critical in terms of what's happening in Europe in the future. We can see the efforts of the Italian navy to deal with that issue, which have been inadequate because they didn't get the support from other European powers.
There are a series of forces at work particularly related to climate change that are going to change the dynamics of international politics. Navies, I think, will still play a significant part, in humanitarian assistance, for example. I was talking to a senior colleague in Bangladesh, where they're expecting over the next quarter century to lose upwards of a third of the land area as a result of rising sea levels and storm inundations. There will be a lot of roles, I think, for navy vessels. We saw that with HMCS Vancouver and its disaster relief exercises in New Zealand, real-life exercises.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
So it will not necessarily be same old same old.
5:20 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Pacific Studies, University of Victoria, As an Individual
5:20 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I agree. I think we're seeing a return to the need to be at least cognizant of the potential for great power conflict in a way we haven't been in the past. It doesn't mean it will necessarily occur, but I think Canada needs to be cognizant, given our position in the world. I'm putting particular focus on the potential threat from Russia to North America. We need to make the right kinds of preparations in case that evolves from being a light or potential threat, as it is now, to one that's a lot more actualized. I would again set that against the total lack of urgency in government public administration right now. When it takes a year plus to figure out how to pay civil servants, we shouldn't be surprised that it's taken a decade or two to figure how to buy multi-billion dollar complex equipment systems. We have to change that focus, because your government is still trying to deliver on Paul Martin's defence projects.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I think that's critically important.
To the other two, can you give us some idea of how we can, other than in this room, communicate that sense of urgency and help the Canadian public to understand why there is a sense of urgency and why this should be a priority?
5:20 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I would agree that there's more uncertainty in international relations today than there was just a few years ago. Just look at what's happened in the United States in the last two and a half weeks. I think it is important that the current naval procurements be expedited as much as possible. Let's get these ships so that the navy is a full-capacity navy in the next 10 to 20 years.
Additionally to that, let's have an urgent discussion as to whether we need submarines and not pretend that 30-year-old submarines are going to do the job for this country in conceivable crises in the future. Let's have that discussion and then if we decide to get submarines, let's get submarines.
The world is always changing and people tend to inflate the latest crisis, but there certainly is a substantial amount of uncertainty, and therefore you as a government should deliver on your existing plans.
5:20 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Well, I think it is a more uncertain world. As to whether or not it's a more dangerous one than the time we were threatened with nuclear annihilation because of the crisis in Europe, I would say, no, it's not as dangerous, but it's more uncertain. But even in a benign strategic environment for Canada, certain things are going to be needed. One of them is the navy. I think the government should avoid exaggerating the threat. On the other hand, it should make clear that Canada has interests abroad that can be served by naval procurement in the best possible fiscal way. But I don't think one should exaggerate the nature of the threats or what the navy or any armed forces can do to address them.
If terrorism is the major threat now apart from piracy, navies don't do that much. It's ground forces, special operations forces. From a grand strategic point of view, if you think China is a threat, I want us to realize that the west is financing the Chinese military buildup by buying its products. On the one hand we're encouraging trade with China, seeking its investment, seeking to invest there, and making China more wealthy, giving them more available resources to invest in the navy. If you're looking for consistency, it isn't there, but I think in any future, particularly one regarding our sovereignty in North America and North American defence co-operation with the U.S., I do think we need a better naval capability and we should go ahead with the existing projects.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Mr. Garrison, you get the last question. Feel free to run a little longer, if you'd like. The last two questioners went over a bit.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you.
We've heard a reference to the Australian example, and I have a very practical question. Is there some place you could point the committee or our researchers to? Are there papers that explain what Australians have done on procurement that's allowed them to succeed? Is there someplace we could do that, or do we have to assign that to our analysts?
5:25 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I would just say that I don't think there would be universal agreement that Australia has actually succeeded on a lot of different projects. If you look around, there are different things you could take from different jurisdictions. There's not any particular place, that I'm aware of, where there's some kind of panacea that all just works. Australia's done a bunch of different things. They've changed their institutional model and gone back to the way things had worked in a different direction, and they've had a number of different projects not go well.
5:25 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Pacific Studies, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I would agree with David. If we look at the history of the Collins class submarine, just for example, that was ill-fated and so forth. Nevertheless, I think that when Australia does defence reviews, they're broad, they're deep, and they're comprehensive. There's a lot of documentation and a lot of thought that goes into them. There are no silver bullets in Australia, but they're in fact putting their money where their mouth is; they're moving ahead and taking delivery of vessels at a quite remarkable rate.
There's a lot of documentation. I could certainly share with you, Randall, some of my contacts in Australia in terms of the reports that are coming out on defence.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Having run aground on that one, let me try something here. I think we've heard some agreement from the four of you that's important to this committee. One thing I think I've heard all of you say, or no one has contradicted, is that the government needs to stay the course on the shipbuilding strategy at this point. We're so far down the road that staying the course, even though there are some improvements that could be made, is still the right thing to do. Is everybody really on board with that?
5:25 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Yes.
5:25 p.m.
A voice
And foster it.
5:25 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
And stay tightly focused. Resist the temptation to politicize and to turn this into a large-scale industrial boondoggle.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
The second thing I think I heard from all of you is that there needs to be someone who's actually responsible. I know there's frustration around the table about that one. When we ask these questions, who's actually going to answer these questions? We have too many ministers and too many deputy ministers.
5:25 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
If I could just go quickly on that one, it's a good idea in principle, but it doesn't make a difference if you don't actually hold anyone accountable. There are lots of examples I can think of right off the top of my head in government, even related to procurement, where there's one minister who's theoretically responsible for projects that I would be charitable in saying aren't going all that well, and there doesn't seem to be any accountability within that single department.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
It would be an improvement in this area to try that.
5:25 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
Not if it doesn't actually.... You could create a perfect model where, theoretically, you could hold somebody accountable, but if you're not actually prepared to do that, it won't make a difference. It would increase a huge amount of churn while you're going through the process of rewiring the organizational charts of how the federal government works.