Go ahead, Professor Huebert.
Evidence of meeting #35 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.
Evidence of meeting #35 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.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual
I would go for three major ones. First and foremost is all of the surveillance capabilities that we have talked about. You need to know the nature of warfare, and you need to know it this instant.
You also have to then have the response capability. The way you deter an enemy today, be it China or Russia, is by demonstrating that you can fight with your allies and that, in fact, you are not the weak link.
The third one gets to the very first question that was put to me, which is, of course, addressing the personnel crisis. We are not bringing in enough people. We are not training them properly. We are not getting to the numbers that are necessary to meet the modern threat today.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Full Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
When you compare the defence sharing agreements and classified nuclear sharing agreements that Canada has with the U.S. versus the U.S. agreements with the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, Canada has what I will call a very lightly institutionalized agreement. It could have a much deeper agreement if it wanted to jump into the pool. This would require that Canada commit to R and D, and T and E. It simply hasn't wanted to do that. If it wants to get that access, it has to be willing to make that level of commitment.
When I look at the agreements, it is extremely clear that one of the things Australia did after 9/11 was, in a period of 10 to 15 years, to become as close to the United States as Canada has been since the 1940s. They did this very purposefully, through a number of agreements, and Canada has simply missed the boat there.
The second thing I would note is that Canada really needs to think about its dual-use export regimes and bringing those regimes into closer alignment with the United States, Australia and some of those other countries. That's another way you're going to get into this relationship, so that you can get access to that information.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Bezan.
For the final four minutes, we'll go to Ms. O'Connell, who has been inhaling chicken soup as we speak, because she's quite sick.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I am. That's why, Mr. Chair, if it's okay with you, I'm going to give my time to Mr. Fisher.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Ms. O'Connell.
Professor Kimball, when you were so gently cut off from your opening remarks by the chair, you were getting ready to talk about adding two new countries to NATO, and how that may positively impact our situation in the Canadian Arctic.
I wanted to give you an opportunity, because your remarks were fabulous.... I really pricked my ears up at that comment and then, like I say, the chair chose to cut you off.
Do you want to finish those comments, or chat with us a bit about how having those partners may help us in the future?
12:25 p.m.
Full Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
It's very clear that these two countries very much share some of the same principal interests that Canada does in the Arctic in terms of ensuring respectful development, protecting the environment and maritime access, but they actually have more military capability and maritime capability to navigate in the region. They also have—particularly the Swedes—impressive air capability.
It goes without saying that the Finns have some of the best intelligence-gathering capabilities in the region. There's not very much that goes on in the region that they don't know about. In fact, they're one of the major information suppliers right now to NATO about Russian activities in the Arctic. This is simply going to make that process much more streamlined. It's going to remove an actor, because they're going to be in the room. It's not going to be transferring the information.
The other thing is that here are countries that are looking for active collaboration in the region in future projects. I think Canada should be one of the countries that tries to partner up with both Sweden and Finland.
Finally, I think it would be important to say that in terms of thinking about how these states might contribute to NATO, they will be good for NATO, because I suspect that these states will want to contribute probably more than the Danes and Norwegians, which will place them probably in the top 10 contributors to NATO when you look at the civilian budget, so again this is good for Canada.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's great.
If there's any time left, I'd like to cede the rest to Mr. May.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Okay. I don't have a lot of time, so maybe this will be just a very quick question for Professor Huebert.
You've mentioned aerospace a couple of times. Do you want to wrap this up by talking about what Canada should be focusing on first and foremost when it comes to the aerospace sector?
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual
The first is that we have to make the decision on the replacement of the F-18s. Given the fact that the Nords, Danes, Finns and British have all gone for the F-35, given its capability, I think it's clear that for a proper integration it has to be the F-35.
The second has to be the means of basing it. We need to have the communication base. We need to have the forward operating locations that in fact can function 24-7. We need a refuelling capability, and we need a response capability with the missiles we've been talking about. We need a fist that will work.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes. Thank you, Mr. May.
On behalf of the committee, I truly want to thank you for all your insights and your thoughts, even, as Mr. Bezan said, your scary thoughts. It's very helpful and informative for the committee as we engage in this study.
I again offer my insincere apologies to Professor Kimball. You live in good company, because I have in the past year cut off a British High Commissioner, a Supreme Court justice and several ministers. As I say, I offer an insincere apology—
12:30 p.m.
A voice
Oh, oh!
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
—and I thank all of you for your co-operation and for helping us with this.
As my colleague to the right notices, I offer insincere apologies all the time.
With that, we are suspended. We will go in camera and let our guests leave.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]