National Defence Committee on Sept. 14th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Fisher, you have the floor for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, folks, for being here. I appreciate your input.

Mr. Gwozdecky, you mentioned the tools to de-escalate tensions: sanctions, diplomacy, and dialogue. I'm interested in your thoughts on sanctions and how they might be further provoking North Korea to continue this proliferation of nuclear and ballistic missiles. Is this perceived provocation from the United States going to destabilize the region even further?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

It's very difficult to determine what impact sanctions may be having on the thinking in Pyongyang. The role that sanctions plays—it is accepted, at least by those who are supportive of sanctions—is to raise the stakes, raise the costs, to a regime like Pyongyang that is flouting international norms and rules, and make it understand that perhaps it's too costly to pursue its current course of action. Then the role of diplomacy is to communicate to that kind of country that it can achieve its goals through diplomatic means, not through armaments.

The short answer to your question is that it's very difficult to ascertain how much impact sanctions are having in terms of the thinking in Pyongyang, but certainly we do know it has raised the stakes. It has hurt them and their ability to acquire certain materials. The rest is up to diplomats to try to convince them to alter their threat perceptions.

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

Okay. You suggest that the sanctions are working, but I believe that China is 90% of their economic trade. If we're talking about increased sanctions, where are we going to get any further move or further push from North Korea if it's just that 10% remainder? I know that sanctions are more than just trade, but I find it interesting that 90% of North Korea's economic trade is with China.

There has been talk about trying to convince China to stop all trade and aid to North Korea. I'm interested also in what impact that would have on their ability to build, maintain, and test weapons, but also how that might destabilize the region, or, again, add that last straw, that major provocation for them to react or respond.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

Let me make one comment, and then I'll ask my colleague to add to it.

We are not naive about the role that sanctions might play. It is but a single tool in a tool box that we have to use. Sanctions are less impactful, perhaps, in a place like North Korea because their external trade is so minimal. In fact, I think something like only 10% of their economy is trade-dependent. It is a very self-sufficient economy. They can produce a lot of things domestically. What we're trying to do is ensure that they can't procure internationally the kinds of materials and technologies that are relevant to their weapons programs. There we still have work to do. The fact is that some countries are not implementing the sanctions as fully as they could, and we're working with those countries to plug those gaps.

Perhaps Sarah has something further to add.

[Sarah Taylor]

Just very briefly on the China front, as far as we can tell, roughly 90% of North Korean trade runs through China. We were very pleased to see that the Chinese government supported the latest UN Security Council resolution, which is significantly upping the sanctions that are imposed, including in very key areas like oil.

As Mark said, it's an economy that's quite self-sufficient. Only about 10% to 15% is dependent on foreign trade. Another big source of income for them is from overseas labour, from a lot of North Koreans working abroad in a number of places and their salaries being remitted. That's another area we're looking at very closely, along with other partners, in a UN context. We have been joining with other partners, including the U.S., to both encourage and support those countries that aren't doing so well on implementing the sanctions to do so, helping them build capacity so that they can deal with issues like this.

That most recent UN Security Council resolution, among others things, turned the tap off on future flows from North Korean workers abroad.

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

You said that sanctions were just one tool, but twice this summer there was an increase in sanctions to North Korea. It's good to hear that they're monitoring countries. Are there penalties? What is the response when a country is not properly administering the sanctions that have been endorsed?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

Every country is obliged to fully comply with Security Council resolutions in the imposition of sanctions. In many cases, some countries simply don't have the capacity to do what can be a very complex and difficult thing. Countries like Canada and others offer support to those countries, so that they can fulfill their obligations. In some cases, there are countries that may not wish to. We're bringing diplomatic pressure on those who have the means to but may not be fully using those means.

You know, with 200 countries in the world, there's a lot of work that can continue to be done to make sure that the compliance regime is solid.

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

Interesting.

Is that my time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have about 40 seconds for a question and response, so we'll call that your time.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We'll go to five-minute questions. We have about 20 minutes left with this panel, just as an update.

Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam, gentlemen, welcome to the Standing Committee on National Defence. Thank you for your testimony.

First of all, could you tell us more about the expected results of the recent sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council this week?

Furthermore, what can you tell us about the strategy behind those sanctions? Can you tell us how far they might go if other sanctions had to be imposed?

Please answer in French.

[Sarah Taylor]

As Mr. Gwozdecky indicated earlier, of course our hope is that, strategically speaking, the effect will be to push the North Korean government to revisit its approach.

We know it's a difficult task, but it is still one way to clearly explain the world's disapproval of its approach. There is also an economic effect, more specifically in terms of the sanctions that have just been imposed, because those sanctions affect its trade with China, especially the trade of petroleum products. So that's quite a strong point of pressure.

Our hope is that the North Korean regime will begin to understand that even that privileged relationship, which is vital from a foreign trade perspective, is now under pressure. China has not agreed to close the pipe completely, but it is still a very strong message, I think, because, right now, North Korea depends almost entirely on China for petroleum products. The same goes for foreign workers.

Roughly speaking, we estimate that the recent sanctions will cut almost one-third of North Korea's trade revenue. How far should this go? It is a difficult and delicate question, and the answer depends a great deal on China. China has already shared its concerns about a potential economic crisis and a collapse of the regime if we press too hard. So there would be a lot of humanitarian implications not only for North Korea, but also for China, of course.

That's one of China's concerns. It's certainly an issue that a number of our allies, particularly the Americans, often have to address when it comes to China. We also do so. We have discussed this issue at very high levels with China. We will continue to do so.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

I will share my time with my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Ms. Alleslev, you have about a minute and a half.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Many Canadians, and the world of course, are watching with bated breath, and they don't have the luxury of all of the detailed information that you have. From the outside looking in, they might see increasing of sanctions at the same time as the increasing of testing and rhetoric. Could you help us as Canadians by telling us what we should be looking for that would indicate that the situation is improving through diplomatic channels rather than perhaps becoming more strained? What should the broad public be looking at to know that things and the diplomatic process are having an impact?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

It's difficult to predict, but one thing that you might watch for is a pause in the kind of missile and nuclear tests that we've seen. That might suggest that the regime feels that it's prepared to sit down at the table, having done the necessary work to test its systems.

There's good and bad news there. The bad news is that potentially they're only ready to sit down and talk once they feel they've perfected their intercontinental ballistic missile systems. But I think a pause in those kinds of tests would be a big indicator.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mrs. Gallant, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Thank you to our witnesses. We had anticipated and asked that the Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff attend. The fact that they're not coming and you are makes us even more appreciative of your answering our questions.

After the last round of sanctions, as you mentioned, North Korea detonated an underground bomb with the impact of a 6.3 earthquake. Previously, before the Senate the U.S. congressional EMP commission warned that North Korea does have the operational capability and contingency plans to make a nuclear EMP attack against North America. They've been exercising...and terrorists could potentially execute a nuclear EMP.

Now, your iconic EMP attack detonates a warhead 300 to 400 kilometres high over the centre of the U.S.—assuming they're the target—generating an EMP field over all 48 contiguous United States and most of Canada. As I mentioned, North Korea has practised this. North Korea also has orbited satellites on the south polar trajectories that evade U.S. early warning radars and national missile defences. If these satellites were nuclear warheads, they would place an EMP field over most of North America.

Given that your testimony today has changed, with the increased capabilities of North Korea, from the last time you appeared here, I want to know whether you feel that Canada is ready and prepared to safeguard against an EMP attack.

[Stephen Burt]

Again, my role in this is to describe the things that other countries may do and to make sure that Canadian decision-makers have the best possible information at their fingertips to have an advantage in information as they make decisions.

With regard to the scenario you've painted, I would go back to my earlier commentary, which is to say that all manner of things are possible, but the North Koreans know full well that the consequences of a significant event like that would be very, very hard on them. We are looking for further testing by the North Koreans to prove their capability. That could involve a number of different actions that would either prove the ability of the warhead to survive re-entry conditions, which they have not yet demonstrated. It could involve some other kind of demonstration of the ability to match up a warhead to a missile. But the kind of thing you're projecting they're hypothesizing on would in itself be an attack, and it would bring very serious consequences.

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

Apparently they have also practised a nuclear EMP attack using a short-range missile launched off a freighter. Such an attack could be conducted anonymously to escape U.S. retaliation. Furthermore, to deter the United States with the hope of avoiding the full-scale U.S. response that you described, a state may undertake a demonstration attack on Canada.

Is Canada prepared to defend its citizens and take care of any aftermath should it happen inadvertently, if not on purpose?

[Stephen Burt]

The next panel may be better positioned to talk about what preparations Canada has in place. I am not in any way positioned to discuss that.

Again, I'm not aware of the specific test you're talking about with regard to a barge and an EMP. I would have to look into that.

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

What would you anticipate in terms of retaliation after the most recent round of sanctions that have been placed on North Korea?

[Stephen Burt]

Retaliation by whom?