Evidence of meeting #11 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I'll keep it short.
We have global warming, melting ice in the north, and the fact that it may become increasingly appealing for the United States not to recognize Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Still, is there any hope that Canada will maintain its sovereignty somehow, given its limited investment in continental defence and NORAD?
Associate Professor of Political Science, Director, Centre for International Security, École supérieure d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
It should be noted that the current agreement between Canada and the United States stems from an exchange of notes in the 1970s, which stated [Inaudible—Editor]. We acknowledge that we don't get along, but we don't want to go any further.
We must convince the Americans that this agreement needs to be changed, even though they benefit greatly from it [Technical difficulty—Editor] that Canada is acting in good faith.
Liberal
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
In both panels, we heard about the problems with all the different departments that are involved, especially around Arctic sovereignty. There's the Canada Border Services Agency, DND, search and rescue with fisheries and all of the different silos.
How can we break down those silos to have a more coordinated response in our Arctic? Maybe I could get one major recommendation from both witnesses.
LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw
Put somebody in charge is the short answer. That's the dilemma when all the partners come to the table....
I've been there. I co-chaired the Government of Canada's emergency preparedness committee with at least 30 or 40 different partners. At the end of the day, when no one's in charge, committees don't end up doing what you need them to do. You need a department to be told, “You are the lead department in this respect.” This has happened in government over the last many years.
It's a bit more complex, because in the north it's not all about defence. It's not about militarizing the north; it's about the military in the north. When it comes to a particular issue, challenge or threat, a department needs to be put in the lead by the Government of Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Madam Mathyssen.
Somehow or another, General, I think someone is behind you and about to yank your chain to see who is in charge here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're going to put a cat in charge of northern command. Ms. Lambropoulos will probably fight you for that.
Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay, you have three minutes, please.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think what you said is very interesting, General. It's clearly, as I've heard stated here, that Canada's geographical remoteness, which at one time provided an understood barrier, just isn't an issue anymore. This is not about our remoteness anymore, so I thank you for that.
Also, you're reminding me of the phrase we've heard—“if you don't use it, you lose it”—when it comes to the north.
You've talked about our ranger program. When I was associate minister, it was emphasized to me how unique this ranger program is in the world and how it gives us a distinct advantage of eyes and ears on the ground, which is not seen elsewhere.
I would just like to hear a little more from you on expanding and professionalizing the rangers program, supporting their training, and rearming them with new small arms as well.
LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw
If you were to take a look at the Arctic Council and what other countries have vis-à-vis ranger-type organizations, you would see that we are the only one that has that type of organization that we've given that responsibility to. That's helping to safeguard our north, so clearly it needs to be done.
On the one hand, there are five ranger patrols located across the Arctic, the subarctic and Canada's north. They are organized geographically by province. According to the Canadian Armed Forces site, about 60,000 rangers are part of the program. They are broken down into many different patrols, but clearly they don't cover the entire north.
Why don't they cover the north? Part of it is organizational. Part of it, too, is a recruiting piece. If you take a look at what a ranger is provided.... Having worked with them, I know they do this out of the goodness of being great Canadians. It's not about getting paid; it's not about an employee-employer relationship. For the little we provide them, I'm always amazed about what great work they do for us.
What could you do? One, you could expand the program by ensuring there are enough patrols that cover our north, that exercise throughout the north on a more regular basis than we do, so that you could have more of them. You could provide more training. Yes, they are part of the Canadian Armed Forces, but if you were to ask anybody from the Canadian Armed Forces, as a witness, whether they are provided with the same benefits, training and support that someone in uniform is provided, the answer would be no. Then my question would be: Why not, given what you ask these good people to do? Shouldn't they be provided that? So you could ask about more training and more equipment.
My last understanding was that they were provided with an annual allowance for the use of their snowmobile, with some gas. There is a lot that could be done here to professionalize and expand the program.
I don't know if that answers your question.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Yes, that's very helpful. I think if we've learned anything from Ukraine, it's about pride. I know they take great pride in their positions.
My time is—
LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw
Yes. Maybe I can tell you very quickly that every submarine or whale that we noted in Canada's north—because it's a fact that they both have the same type of movement in the water—was spotted by a ranger, not by regular force military personnel or a drone or whatever. They have real value.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
All of them, yes. We'll have a cat patrol.
Mr. Fisher, do you have an opinion on cat patrols in the north?
Liberal
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay. Thank you.
My question is going to be for Professor Kimball, but I want to say a quick hello to General Semianiw.
Thank you for your service, but also the amazing work you did after what you would probably not call “retirement”. That goes for the work you did in my community as well, so thank you for that.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Professor Kimball, I asked this question on the last panel and I'm interested in your thoughts on this. What's the most important investment we could make today, to prepare not only for the future, but also for today's threats?
Associate Professor of Political Science, Director, Centre for International Security, École supérieure d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
The most important investment we need to make today is to invest more in our people. We need to invest more in our soldiers. We need to invest more in reaffirming the morale among our troops.
Whenever I meet folks in uniform, I'm continually impressed [Technical difficulty—Editor] and how much they share a willingness to represent Canada on missions.
I had the opportunity to host university defence last week. We had over 100 people in uniform talking with academics and students. This is really where we need to be going. We need to be having more events like this, where we can talk openly. We can really create that synergy, so that there is no longer a silo between policy-makers, the military folks and scholars, because we all have things to share.
As LGen Semianiw said, training the future and creating those troops for the future is a time investment, and it's a thing we can do today. The other aspect is the money part. We need to have better equipment [Technical difficulty—Editor] in our zone around us.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I guess I have time, then, for a quick question for the general.
General, regarding the ballistic missile program, is it time to re-evaluate and go?
LGen (Ret'd) Walter Semianiw
Yes it is, given the importance of what's going on vis-à-vis China. I have seen it myself, sitting at NORAD headquarters, and that was 12 years ago. Even at that time, I would have said yes, so the short answer is yes.