National Defence Committee on Nov. 6th, 2017

[Dr. Alexander Moens]

I would like to emphasize that NATO, after the end of the Soviet Union, and in its early agreements with Russia, kept an enormously light conventional footprint in eastern Europe. It's only after the crisis in Ukraine that the concept of moving conventional forces into eastern Europe has taken place. I am hoping, and I think many in NATO are hoping, that if the Russians realize there is a significant serious [Technical difficulty—Editor] that new conditions for negotiations can emerge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you for that.

Ms. Alleslev.

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

First and foremost, I'd like to thank all the witnesses. I think you've done an exceptional job of defining what this current situation is, and therefore, what we need to do about it, not only from a military perspective but from a broader perspective.

I also wonder if, for the record, we could ask for the tabling of some of the reports that were highlighted—the “NATO and Asia-Pacific” study that Dr. Moens has prepared, “Canadian Defence Review Depicts Russia as an Arctic Adversary”, and “Why a Defence Review is Necessary and Why it will be Easy to Get it Wrong in the Arctic”—so that we can use those if we so require in our deliberations.

When we talk about commitment to defence spending, I'm wondering if that also ties to education. Essentially we need the political will, but political will is in fact a reflection of the society that it represents. If we, in society, don't believe or understand that something is at risk, then we obviously don't feel that we need to change our current approach.

What I've heard today is that we are facing unprecedented instability globally, and that it jeopardizes not only our defence and security but our economic security as well. Therefore, educating the public to support a commitment to a change in approach is probably what we're going to need the most.

How do we communicate that NATO matters to Canada, and that Canada matters to NATO? Who is responsible for making that communication? How do we effectively execute on that mission, and, of course, where's the money?

I'd like to ask each one of you how we communicate. What are those key 10-second sound-bite communication mechanisms? Everyone here has had 10 minutes. We don't have that 10 minutes, so we have to boil it down to that essence. Who's responsible, and how do we execute on it? Where's the money?

[Robert Baines]

First of all, on how we communicate and what exactly we are communicating, I do have a bit of a cheat sheet here. I can give you some of the main messages that NATO thinks we should know, and that all Canadians should know.

NATO members are committed to supporting and protecting each other. That is the main and simplest foundation of NATO. NATO members are stronger because of membership. NATO acts as a guarantor of security and safety for its members. NATO is effective because of the daily collaboration and interoperability of its members through a range of diplomatic and military means. NATO is addressing today's security challenges through diplomacy, consensus, and co-operation. NATO is addressing tomorrow's security challenges by investing, adapting, and innovating. Then, NATO is more than a military organization; it is political and diplomatic.

These are really key messages.

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

Do we think that will resonate with the broader public?

I didn't mean it quite like that.

[Robert Baines]

I don't necessarily think it will, just stated baldly like that, but if they are whipped into narratives.... If you think of the box office hit right now, it's an Avengers movie. These are superheroes. These are people trying to make the world better.

I'm not sure if any of you saw the SickKids hospital campaign. It's the same thing, trying to make these kids look like they are superheroes and that they are changing the world.

We have an organization that's actually doing this. If we can be a little more creative about it—I'm not saying copy those, necessarily, but adding that aspect that this is something quite miraculous that we have right here—I think something as simple as using creativity to sell these ideas to make sure that Canadians understand them is the way to go.

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

I'd like to interject at this point, too. In my view, one of the most important impacts, or the educational basis, has to be a bipartisan or tripartisan understanding of the core security threats facing Canada. The education and leadership that our political elites provide direct the way a lot of Canadians get their understanding. We can talk about Facebook and all the rest, but consider these two things.

From a conservative perspective, remember when we had the four casualties in Afghanistan, and rather than hiding.... To a certain degree, there was a bipartisan agreement: if you died on peacekeeping, that was kept secret. The 176 or 177 Canadians who gave their lives on peacekeeping were never talked about. We never had ceremonies. When that was changed after the four individuals were killed in Afghanistan, look at how the Canadian public changed. When we hear Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs talking about the Russian threat just before the defence policy comes forward, we see Canadians getting up and paying attention.

This is one thing a lot of us on the academic side get frustrated with. Ultimately we know you guys understand what the core threat is, and we know there is agreement, but because of our parliamentary system, each of you always has to show how the other is either not getting it or is opposed. On the crucial, core issues, if we could hear tripartisan or at least bipartisan agreement saying this is a real problem and we actually want to put aside partisan disagreements, that would get Canadians' attention.

You can't do it on all things, obviously, but if you can highlight the importance that when in fact there are these existential threats—and I would argue we've been facing that since 2008—we can get agreement on it.... You guys agree on it. If we could get you coming forward and saying you agree on it, that would be very significant from an educational perspective.

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

Mr. Moens.

[Dr. Alexander Moens]

What we are doing is building on what Robert Baines is doing, but it's difficult, on Facebook, to compete with the big brands. It's very important for Canadian students to have a real experience. We started a new method of training, called “engagement”. These four young people behind me have met our Canadian ambassador to NATO, our national military rep. They've been briefed by eight officers at SHAPE and guided by three officers at the NATO Defense College on how to crisis manage between NATO, the UN, and NGOs. They have tasted it. They have learned it. They have experienced it. There is now a multiplier effect as they spread this message throughout Canada.

There are various strategies here, but the direct strategy of bringing young people, who will be the decision-makers 20 or 30 years from now, to actually experience this kind of international dynamic is what my mission and commitment is.

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

Thank you very much. Perhaps the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Halifax in November 2018 might be a good opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're going to go for a five-minute question round. Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be asking Mr. Huebert my questions in French.

Could you elaborate on NATO's role in the Arctic?

How is the situation in the Arctic likely to evolve, given the gradual militarization by Russia, in particular?

How will it affect international co-operation in the region?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

I'm going to have to confess a bit of ignorance here, and it's something I'm quite ashamed of. I'm afraid your French went faster than I could understand, and the translation didn't come through, unfortunately. I didn't quite get the gist of your question. I'm very sorry, sir.

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

Can you tell us more about NATO's role in the context of the Arctic? How will the Arctic situation evolve, given its progressive militarization, notably by Russia? What will happen to international co-operation in the region?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

The major issue is, first—and you've nailed it, sir—the situational awareness piece. I think there's been a growing recognition that we do not have the type of intelligence sharing for the high north that is ultimately needed in this context. We've seen, since 2007, the Russians resuming their long-range bomber controls in the region. Since 2008, their long-range submarines have returned to the region. In this context, we need to have better sharing for underwater surveillance capabilities and above-air surveillance capabilities.

The other part that needs to be addressed is, of course, when we had the Americans pull out of Iceland, we lost an entire capability of responding to the Russian extension of their bomber incursions. We've had to work closely with the Norwegians, the Danes, and unofficially, the Swedes and the Finns in this regard. It's at an operational level, and it's at a situational level, and it's combined with the fact that the Arctic is an environment that many of the other NATO nations don't fully appreciate just how difficult it is to operate in.

Let me end with this. The Russians have emerged as the regional hegemon in that region, and that is what we're responding to.

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

You published in 2016 an article entitled, “Why a Defence Review is Necessary and Why it will be Easy to Get it Wrong in the Arctic”. A year later, you published “Canadian Defence Review Depicts Russia as an Arctic Adversary”.

Can you tell us how our government's defence policy review has adapted to the changing context in the Arctic? What should Canada be doing in the near future on that topic?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

Absolutely. Thank you, sir, for the very good question.

I would like to make it very clear, I do appreciate what the government came up with in terms of Arctic recognition. They recognized that Russia has moved away from a rules-based international system, but more specifically, we saw—I believe it was on page 79—where the report highlighted the fact that there are, in fact, states that are becoming increasingly dangerous in the Arctic region with ballistic and cruise missiles. Now, this is a direct reference to the Russians, because the only other country that has ballistic and cruise missiles are the Americans, so unless we were really referring to Trump at the time, it is the Russians we see as the threat.

What we are moving towards in this context is, of course, improving our surveillance. What the defence review makes very clear is that we absolutely have to improve our ability to know what is happening in the Arctic and the response capability, which means new fighter aircraft and an Arctic capability for both the AOPS and, I suspect, sort of a little bit more hidden, our next surface combatant.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Given the very little time left for that round, I'm going to move on to the next question.

Randy Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses here this afternoon.

You know, when I used to think about the Arctic, I used to think that, if there was anything happening there, it would be Canada-U.S., and just Canada and the U.S. defending the Arctic. I never thought of it in the NATO context, and what that would mean. I guess, maybe because I'm from Saskatchewan, part of the reason for that thought process is that I've never heard of NATO doing any exercises in the Arctic or any NATO involvement in northern Canada per se.

Does this feed into what you're saying, Mr. Baines, that we need to change and reshape how NATO should operate and function in the Arctic? Is that one example where we need to see some presence from NATO? It's not just Europe; it's northern Canada.

[Robert Baines]

I'm not as much of an expert as Mr. Huebert, but I do know that Operation Nanook has always had many international partners associated with it, certainly in the naval aspect.

Canada has been involved in almost every single NATO exercise that has ever taken place. The continual demonstration of interoperability is one of the jewels of NATO. The fact is that we have 29 nations speaking different languages, utilizing different measurement systems, very often dealing with traditionally different epaulets and symbols for their military who have all come together and can now logistically make things happen, move items from one side of the earth to another, and be able to work cohesively, like with ISAF, for instance, in Afghanistan. That has always been one of the real show horses of NATO, and being able to show that more in the Arctic would be tremendous.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It shows it in the Arctic, but it also puts a Canadian flavour to it.

[Robert Baines]

Quite.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Huebert, you talked about working in the north. In my former life, I used to work in the patch a bit, once in a while, and I know what it's like when it's -40°C, and you're trying to hook up a water line. There is that type of expertise and knowledge sharing with other NATO partners. The only real way to do that is to actually go and do it, so would you propose we do more of that type of training in the Arctic in Canada?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

This is what I'm reading into the Liberal defence policy, because up until its announcement, Canada has always had an official policy that even when we invite NATO allies to have exercises with us in the Arctic, they are always under Canadian sovereign control. We never call it a NATO operation. I suspect that with the release of the defence policy, and what I see as a change in government policy, we probably will be seeing that.

You should be aware that NATO does do extensive Arctic operations. The Norwegians, starting in 2006, in response to what they saw in Russia, started Exercise Cold Response. Usually in the middle of February or March, they'll have up to 15,000 troops doing exercises in northern Norway. Canada has now started sending troops to participate in that, so we started doing it in that context, and as a good Saskatchewan boy and as a prairie boy, part of the reason why you never saw much of NATO in the Arctic is that so much of what was happening was underwater.

When we look at the Arctic Ocean, it was the second most dangerous frontier during the Cold War, and we know the French, the British, and the Americans worked on underwater co-operation schemes to respond to the Soviets. We now know that Canada co-operated completely with the Americans for underwater ice operations in our waters.

Just because we're not aware of it, and it gets to that whole educational piece, doesn't take away from the fact that this was a central front next to the western front for deterring the Russians.