National Defence Committee on April 12th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Very well, and as I mentioned earlier, NORAD is a system. So long as we're interoperable with NORAD, we've got that covered.

Mr. Bezan, you have the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to go back to something that might provoke Russia.

Professor Sloan, you talked about the flag that was planted at the bottom of the Arctic seabed at the North Pole by the Russians, and we have this whole process happening right now with the United Nations Law of the Sea.

If the decision on the location of the continental shelves goes against what Russia perceives as their extension of territory, would that probably increase tensions in the Arctic?

[Dr. Elinor Sloan]

I don't think so. I think that Russia has bought into the UNCLOS process and that it would respect that decision. I don't think that would be a spark.

Russia's main concern in the Arctic, I believe, is its northern sea route and the fact that it's melting much more quickly than our side of the Arctic. A spark would be China using the northern sea route without requesting permission. It's very much a maritime threat up there that this committee might want to look at next.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Right.

I want to get quick feedback from Professor Braun and Ms. Assenova. I'd be remiss in not having all the expertise sitting at the table here, and not talking about the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw, and what you think might come out of that considering the increased Russian aggression. Where do you think Canada and the United States will fit in with this discussion?

Professor Braun, could you start us off?

[Dr. Aurel Braun]

I think there will be enormous pressure on the NATO members who are not spending 2% of GDP on defence to increase their spending. I think we're beginning to see signs of this, even in Scandinavia where, in a way, they've been mugged by reality. The Swedes had sold off their anti-submarine aircraft. They have to get new ones. The Danes are going to be spending more money as well. I think the Germans have to re-examine the relationship they have in Europe, although they're still having considerations about building Nord Stream 2 , which I think would be sending the wrong message.

I think this will be a very important summit where it will be essential to send the right kind of message to re-establish the deterrent that is so essential for NATO to have. We also will need to think in terms of how to help the eastern part of NATO. Those countries are vulnerable. As Ms. Assenova pointed out, Romania now has a maritime border with Russia. Ultimately, that has an impact on us, as Canada is a NATO member.

We have to think in all of those terms, and we will be making some tough decisions. I think we also need to plan the longer term. We keep talking about Mr. Putin's Russia, but no one lives forever and no system is absolutely immutable. There's something called Stein's Law. Herbert Stein said that if a trend can't continue, it won't. No one lives forever, including Mr. Putin. It will end at some point, and there's no succession in place. It will be very chaotic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Do you want to proceed with committee business we discussed earlier?

I'd like to thank our guests for coming and speaking today. It is very much appreciated. On behalf of the committee, thank you so much.

We're going to suspend for two minutes to allow you to depart, and then we're going to carry on with committee business, so thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're back. Do you have a motion?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I tabled a notice of motion a couple of weeks ago, so I'll just read it into the record:

That the Committee undertake a study on the strategy and development of a new defence white paper and policy review by the government; that the study focus on the following: (a) risks and threats assessment; (b) capabilities and capacity; (c) readiness and recruitment; (d) procurement; (e) national security and protection of sovereignty, including the Arctic and maritime approaches; (f) deterrence, combat and peace keeping responsibilities, including NORAD, NATO, and the United Nations; and That the committee report its findings to the House of Commons by Tuesday, October 18, 2016.

Mr. Chair, you and I have discussed this. The purpose of the motion isn't to distract from what we're doing right now, but to build on it. We would still do our report, as determined by committee, on the defence of North America focusing on aerial readiness. But as we're hearing from witnesses, we're also talking about things beyond just NORAD; we're talking about things like NATO and other infrastructure and security needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This would give us the opportunity to take some of this information that we're gleaning right now to apply to a second report, which could probably take part of the.... Maybe we could do some travel in the summer, but more specifically, start off early in the fall to close the gap on some things like where we're sitting with NATO, our procurement issues, our navy, and readiness and capabilities.

I'm hoping that if the committee accepts this, we may even look at making a quick trip in the summer up to the Arctic, to Resolute and/or Alert, to look at what we're doing there, especially with the new training systems that we have at Resolute Bay. And then if we want, we could even travel to SHAPE at Brussels and look at the things from a NATO context, and definitely a trip to Halifax at the very least to look at the Royal Canadian Navy and the national shipbuilding program, and then still be able to feed into the defence review process.

I've talked to Minister Sajjan about this, and although I know they want to have cut off public consultations sometime at the end of July and that they'll be spending the entire last six months of the year drafting and writing the policy review, even if we're coming out in October with the report, it would still help feed and inform some of that drafting. As you know, the Senate committee has been asked to take on a specific role on peacekeeping and looking at UN missions, but I think there still needs to be some work done in a broader context of some of the other alliances that we have, specifically from a NATO perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'll open it up for discussion.

Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

One of my concerns with the announcement of the review is that there is no indication of what the process is after the collection of the public input. While I'm generally in support of Mr. Bezan's motion, it's not very clear how the minister and the government as a whole envisioned the role of this committee. In particular, what I'm still looking for is a commitment that at some point a draft of either the summary of those consultations or a draft of the strategy comes back to the House of Commons in some form. The best place for that I think is this committee.

I'm supportive of this in general, but we have a bit of confusion here about the role of this committee in the defence review, and a bit of a gap in the defence review from the department and ministerial side and the parliamentary side. I have that longer-term concern. I am supportive of this motion, but I think the committee needs to turn its mind to what's going to happen after we do all of these consultations and studies and what our role will to be in looking at that proposed defence policy, based on the review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Mr. Chair, I think this is laudable in its ambition, but I think it's the ambition behind this that really makes its timing unworkable. It's far too big a chunk to complete and execute under the timelines that we're facing, especially when we're talking about the end of July as far as public consultations are concerned. It would be nice to run a parallel process; it would get some media attention, but it's not going to cross-feed into the government's defence review. With the aerial defence study that we have going right now, we have something that we can deliver value on. If the calculation is to provide some gap filling, it wouldn't be through a project that's this ambitious, but through smaller chunks that we could feed into the process and have some indication that the government might take them up. I don't think this is viable in terms of the timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Some of this has already been done. I think by the time we are done with this, with all the other expert opinions that we've received, “risks and threats assessment” from the aerial component of the defence of North America will already be covered off. Because we are concentrating only on aerial assets, we have some major gaps in capabilities and capacity. That is why we need to talk to the navy. That is why we should have a presentation from a commander of the Canadian Army.

As for readiness and recruitment, the Canadian Armed Forces are facing huge issues right now . Reserve force strength, in particular, is dropping off. We need to hear from the experts on reserves, as well as recruitment of regular force.

Procurement is a dog's breakfast. It doesn't matter what political stripe you are; we know that we have to tackle this one, and we should have one or two hearings on that.

I think that paragraph (e) of the motion, “national security and protection of sovereignty”, will be covered off in the study that we are doing right now.

Then, when we talk about NATO and the UN, we can still inform the process. From my conversations with the minister, this would still be considered worthwhile. As you know, you'll have the expert panel that will be weighing through all the evidence. I think that in October they'll still be looking at what they received from the public consultations and the online submissions, and they'll still have time to look at this and build it into their overall review policy and the white paper as it's drafted. We are not expecting that to come out and be presented until January, the minister is saying, so there is time there. There is a whole quarter for that to be used and to fill in some of those gaps.

To speak to Randall's concerns, I agree that this is part of the information-gathering process, but again, the question is what comes next, and whether or not we, as a committee, in the fall, or even in the winter, will have a chance to look at what the expert panel has sifted through and make recommendations in the white paper draft. Then, ultimately, once the white paper is out there, we'll want to look at that again and have the minister come forward and present it in the new year.

I think this is doable and that it is our responsibility. This is policy development, and probably the biggest thing that's coming down in the next two years. We want to be engaged in it and exercise our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to help inform the government on what goes in that white paper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I think the motion is a little redundant. As you've mentioned, there are some elements that we are covering in the current study. As we have said and have agreed to as a committee, the initial focus is on aerial readiness, but we will be looking at the other elements of our Canadian Armed Forces in the fall. That, I think, will be addressed.

Now, in terms of the defence review, I think it is going to cover a lot of what's in your motion. My recommendation would not be to pursue an additional study, given the timeline constraints, and given the fact that we have a defence review being undertaken right now and there are opportunities for the general public, including parliamentarians, to provide their input, as well as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I think it would be redundant. There might be an opportunity for us to invite the defence minister in the fall, once the preliminary report is prepared, perhaps to present it to us so that we could provide feedback. That would address that issue with respect to going through the committee process, but I think at this time I couldn't support a motion for an additional study, given the fact that these issues are going to be addressed in multiple channels.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Okay, I'll just finish off and let you call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Sure. Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I see where the Liberals are. They want to keep their focus just on one issue, rather than take on the entire issue.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

That is not what I said.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I am not trying to take away from what we are working on right now. We are still going to make those deadlines. This is about building on and looking at the broader aspect of defence within Canada, and how that feeds into the white paper. I am trying to enhance it, as a second step, after we have finished the aerial focus of the defence of North America, and then, in the fall, in a matter of quick time we can pull together some extra information. That is what I am suggesting in this motion. It is not to detract from what we are doing right now.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

We are addressing it in the fall. That's what we said.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes, that's what I said. October 18 is when this will be reported back, so it covers it off.

The second thing I would say is that, if you look at what the United Kingdom did when they went through their white paper review, they did three very quick studies. All of that built into the development of the white paper they published a few months ago. They built upon each study. It started off narrowly focused, and then they started to build upon that. They started off with a very generalized, quick study, about six or seven meetings, and issued a report. Then they went into NATO, and then they went to a third stage. I am just saying that we can have that type of flexibility and capability because we have great analysts, and we can quickly pull together this data and issue a report that will still inform the white paper in plenty of time.

With that, I leave it to you to call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

All right. As moved by Mr. Bezan, it is closed for discussion—unless somebody needs the motion repeated. Let's do this by a show of hands—

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

May I interrupt you? I have a question. We are going to continue, are we not?