National Defence Committee on Sept. 14th, 2017

Evidence of meeting #58 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 sanctions.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Canada's Abilities to Defend Itself and our Allies in the Event of an Attack by North Korea on the North American Continent

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mark Gwozdecky Assistant Deputy Minister, International Security and Political Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Stephen Burt Assistant Chief of Defence Intelligence, Canadian Forces Intelligence Command, Department of National Defence

Sarah Taylor Director General, North Asia and Oceania, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Pierre St-Amand Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence

William Seymour Chief of Staff Operations, Canadian Joint Operations Command, Department of National Defence

Al Meinzinger Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff, Department of National Defence

Michael Byers Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Danny Lam As an Individual

Colin Robertson Vice-President and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual

Robert Huebert Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary, As an Individual

James Fergusson Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Peggy Mason President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs

Andrea Charron Assistant Professor, Political Studies, Director of the Centre for Security Intelligence, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Andrea Berger Senior Research Associate, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, As an Individual

1:25 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

We have theoretically been exposed to the North Korean nuclear threat for over a decade now, because you can put a warhead onto a freighter or a private yacht and sail it into Vancouver harbour. We do radioactive screening for containers after they make it onshore but not for them to go into the harbour. The same applies to Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

It's not that North Korea has just acquired the capacity to deliver. It has had the capacity to deliver for over a decade, which isn't so easily traced straight back to North Korea. ICBM is a bright red line back to the launch site.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Where should the priority be?

1:25 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

Where do you want to spend your money? The United States has its weapons system. It's working on its system and is spending roughly $10 billion a year. Do you want to sign on to that, or do you want to add capacity with Canadian systems?

For instance, we have to—

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

That's what I'm asking you. Where do you think the priority should be?

1:25 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

Our northern warning system needs to be completely renewed. That's a big expenditure. Canada should take the lead. That's directed against air-breathing threats, including cruise missiles from really dangerous countries like Russia.

Rob Huebert very correctly mentioned the Canadian surface combatants. If you want to have a discussion about missile defence, talk about whether we should put Aegis class radar and missile systems on those Canadian surface combatants. Now is the time. It will cost this country $10 billion to do that.

If you had unlimited defence budgets, you could have perfect defence. You don't have an unlimited defence budget, so you have to prioritize.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I apologize, but I'm short on time. You think that the BMD program is not the only program we should be looking at in making those priorities?

1:25 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

You're right.

And we haven't been asked formally to join, and we don't know what the entry price would be if we were allowed in. Is the United States going to open up NORTHCOM and let Canada in, and how much would they charge? Until you know the answer to those questions, you can't recommend anything with regard to missile defence.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Robertson, you spoke about 2004-05, when Prime Minister Martin chose not to sign on to the BMD program. Do you recall how opposition leader Stephen Harper felt about it at the time?

1:25 p.m.

Vice-President and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual

Colin Robertson

My recollection is that he favoured—

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

He did.

Do you have any idea why, after being in government for ten years, he never did anything about signing on? Do you have any insight into that?

1:25 p.m.

Vice-President and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual

Colin Robertson

I would just say that I understand they were working on looking at ballistic missile defence prior to the election. I know there was a fair bit of work going on within the Department of National Defence.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

That was prior to the 2015 election?

1:30 p.m.

Vice-President and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual

Colin Robertson

That's correct.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

1:30 p.m.

Vice-President and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual

Colin Robertson

I would just add that the threat configuration changed, I think, from 2004 to 2010. Notwithstanding what Dr. Byers said, I think the anti-ballistic missile threat has certainly increased in the last six months.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Well, the Americans perceived it as a threat in 2004. They chose to sign on then. They did identify it as a threat then.

1:30 p.m.

Vice-President and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual

Colin Robertson

Most of our allies in Europe did as well.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Right.

1:30 p.m.

Vice-President and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual

Colin Robertson

We also have endorsed it, under both Prime Minister Martin and Prime Minister Harper, for our European allies and our Pacific partners.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Byers, you're shaking your head.

1:30 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

I'm shaking my head because the European-based system is fundamentally different from the North American one. It's an Aegis class system with Standard Missile-3s. The United States purposely changed to that system because Russia had regarded the idea of larger interceptors as threatening to it. It's thus a different system from the system based in Alaska. The system based in Alaska is for intercepts in space. It also has a potential aggressive function, in that it is the ideal anti-satellite weapon system also.

That should be part of the discussion, if Canada wants to move forward on this.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Thank you.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

Ms. Gallant, you have the floor.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

The assumption of many Canadians has been that the United States would never allow a missile attack to be successful on Canada; that they would intervene. Yet this morning in testimony we heard that it is not U.S. policy to protect Canada, and particularly as it applies to ABMs.

For those of you who are witnesses who understand that there is a threat to Canada, what would you say our options are, going forward, aside from the Aegis class detection and systems and interceptors on our ships?

1:30 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

I'll just say a couple of things.

First of all, Ms. Gallant, you were very right to point out the marine-borne threat of weapons of mass destruction. Thank you for that.

This is something we need to step up, in terms of protection. We do a lot of work with the United States through the proliferation security initiative, for instance. There is a lot the Royal Canadian Navy could do in addition to what's being done right now.

Concerning diplomacy, we heard some really good testimony this morning about the fact that Canada is in an almost unique position, with a direct channel to Washington but not being perceived by North Korea as a threat to it. The recent success of the national security adviser in Pyongyang is a testimony to opportunity for Canada.

Then, as I mentioned, there are other things that the United States would much rather we focus on. They haven't asked for missile defence; they've asked for an increase in defence spending on things such as our air force and our navy, and they want that north warning system to be rejuvenated.

Let's do the priority items, then, and realize that although North Korea captures a lot of attention and although it is dangerous, there are lots of threats in the world. This should not be our single obsession.