National Defence Committee on Oct. 27th, 2022

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

Thank you for the question.

Let me come back to something I mentioned very quickly in my opening remarks. The immediate threat is posed by disinformation and cyberattacks that disrupt computer systems. We have seen a number of such attacks, which are believed to have come from Russia. Those threats also target the Arctic, because the Internet connections in many of those communities are vulnerable to these types of attacks. You would be well advised to keep this in mind when you examine current threats, especially those of a political nature.

If you are referring to an increase of activities of a political nature in the north, then I would say that yes, it is a much more plausible situation. I am talking about demonstrations of force, military operations or other similar things to create an impression. The appropriate response to an increase of activities that are potentially political or that aim to prove a point is what we are already doing: performing Canadian Armed Forces exercises in the north and implementing monitoring systems so that we know who is engaging in economic or criminal activities, and where. We have to be able to detect these types of activities. Acting is one thing, but we have to be able to identify the problems.

That being said, my recommendation would be that the Canadian Armed Forces act as a quasi-police force to ensure a government presence, act as authority figures and make sure that the law is enforced on Canadian soil. It is not a military defence role, but it is extremely important nonetheless.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

Thank you.

I will continue along the same lines as Ms. Lambropoulos.

You mentioned the shortage of recruits that the Canadian Armed Forces are currently facing. There have been recent cuts in operations deemed unnecessary, and we do not know if other cuts will be made in the future. You also spoke of the pressure put on the forces related to the high demand for their services in southern Canada.

In the event of a lack of effective capacity on the ground, how would the Arctic rank in terms of priorities? Would resources be taken away from the Arctic and be reassigned further south, or vice versa? How do you think the resources would be used?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

I would give priority to the Arctic. In the south of Canada, the Canadian Armed Forces should be a last resort, when other options no longer exist. However, that is not what we have seen over the past few years, or even decades. Provinces often call in the military for additional support very quickly due to public pressure. It was the case, for example, with the floods in Montérégie or when hurricane Fiona hit the Maritimes. The public quickly urged the provinces to call the army to the rescue.

However, southern Canada has other resources to fall back on before calling in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is not the case in the North. First of all, conditions are extremely difficult, and there are simply not enough resources to face an environmental disaster, a major air crash or a shipwreck, for example. Only the Canadian Armed Forces have the necessary resources.

Therefore, I am inclined to say that even if the pressures are stronger in the south, the north should take precedence because there are very few alternatives compared to the south.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

I have one last question for you, Dr. Roussel.

Dr. Braun, I will wait for my second round to ask you my questions.

Dr. Roussel, you mentioned public opinion in your opening remarks, saying that people are interested in what is happening in the Arctic, which makes protecting that region all the more important.

First, do you think people are sufficiently informed about the Arctic? Second, is there a risk of large state actors like Russia spreading misinformation?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

The answer is yes.

First off, I would say that people are perhaps not sufficiently informed. The Arctic is never top of mind for most people, and the vast majority of Canadians will never set foot in that region. Only 5% or 6% of Canadians can say that they have actually been there.

The sensitivity comes from the fact that the vast majority of Canadians, across linguistic and regional boundaries, identify the Arctic as being typically Canadian. That is where the sensibility comes from.

Public awareness of this subject could certainly be improved. However, I would not want the information provided to be alarmist and lead people to believe that the Arctic is under threat by foreign powers and that we should deploy troops over there to counter external threats. That would divert attention away from the actual issues.

We have to take care of Arctic communities and be mindful of the increased human activity that is taking place and will continue to take place in the region. That is what we should focus on, in my view. If we put too much emphasis on some far-off, external threat that is, in my opinion, not very likely to actually occur, we run the risk of driving public opinion down the wrong path and generating requests for things that are not currently necessary.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

Thank you.

My NDP colleague, Ms. Mathyssen, now has the floor for six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Professor Roussel, we've been discussing a lot that need for infrastructure to be put into the Arctic and how the military brings that forward. My concern has been that some of the benefits for people living in the Arctic would be secondary and that the primary role, of course, is defence. Could you explain how we can avoid that—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

Sorry to interrupt, Ms. Mathyssen, but Mr. May has a point of order.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

No, it's just a technical issue. The French interpretation was coming across on the English channel.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

If I speak to you in English right now, is it...?

I am told that the issue has been fixed.

I am sorry for cutting you off, Ms. Mathyssen. I will add a few seconds to your time.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you so much.

Can we ensure that spending is balanced out to give priority to the people in the Arctic so that they actually fully benefit from it? How do we find that balance and do that?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

Thanks for your question.

Actually, it's really difficult to find that balance, because the needs are so great that everything should be a priority. That's a problem. A lot of the infrastructure could have a dual use, in the sense that if you build a deepwater port or if you build some airstrips, they could be used by military, but they could also be used for civilian activities, so a lot of the infrastructure could be prioritized without problems.

Actually, my concern is exactly the message I gave in my previous answer, which is that if we're putting too much emphasis on the distant threat and we're putting our eggs in the military basket, that could be a problem and we could face exactly the problem you exposed, in the sense that we would be neglecting local communities for something possible but not necessarily likely in the future.

My answer is to try to find infrastructure that could have dual use and to prioritize that. However, everything is a priority, and that's a real problem.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

It's true, right? If people don't have adequate housing in the north, how are we expected to rely upon the Rangers to continue to live there and work there? You were talking about that increase of policing, of detection, but ultimately, if the infrastructure isn't there in terms of simple broadband, how are you supposed to do that, given the technology required? I understand that, if that's what you're pointing to.

In terms of climate change or how the government needs to alter its thinking in terms of building infrastructure, both to impact the community and to be beneficial by lessening the negative impacts of climate change, can you expand on that as well?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

I want to come back to one of your remarks about needs like housing and broadening the Internet. Actually, this is not a Department of National Defence issue. There's a strategy in Canada about Internet development, and I think there were some mistakes made regarding the Arctic, but it's not in this committee that we can discuss this, because it's not a DND matter.

The problem with climate change.... Pardon me; one of the multiple problems with climate change is that it will affect much of the infrastructure, including DND infrastructure. That's why DND put climate change as one of the top issues they're facing. It will just increase the needs, and it will directly affect the community there.

One of my hopes, maybe I can say, although some don't like it, is that since many private interests will be interested in developing the Arctic for economic or other reasons, they could support or complete the government efforts in the region. I'm not necessarily trusting all of free enterprise to meet all of the demands, but it may help.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

To do that building in the way that they need to, how would the government ultimately then protect against those private interests? How would you see that going forward?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? There was a gap.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'm sorry. In terms of that role of the private sector, how does the government ensure that it protects the north and the people in the Arctic? From what you're saying, it may be a bit helpful. and yet you have to be careful about it. What are the big pitfalls that you would see?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

Again, for this question, I'm not sure that this is the right place to answer it. Before, we were sometimes forgetting that there's another level of government that is involved here. Part of the Arctic is in Quebec, and many of these questions, including on housing and health care and all those questions, are provincial issues.

In the territories, even territories that have a very different status from provinces, I think we should ask the question you just raised to these levels of government and to the local communities. Actually, that's for them to answer that question. It's not necessarily for us in the south to deal with these questions.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That could involve full consultation coming from the ground up, not from the top down. Is that a problem within DND?

I have five seconds, so answer very quickly, please.

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

Yes, we need to have more consultation, and it's not necessarily a DND matter.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

Thank you very much.

We will now begin the second round of questions.

We have 20 minutes left to ask 25 minutes worth of questions. I propose to divide the time proportionally: Conservatives and Liberals will have four minutes each; Bloc Québécois and NDP, two minutes each; then a final round of four minutes each for Conservatives and Liberals.

I now give the floor to my Conservative colleague, Mrs. Kramp-Neuman, for four minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, thank you to the witnesses for being with us here today, not with us in the room but virtually. Thank you for your comments.

I'm going to start by suggesting that the strength of our armed forces is in significant decline. Unless we recruit, retain and train, I am fearful that we're going to be continuing down a very dark path.

It's quite obvious that we're extremely short of the goals projected by this government's plan of being “strong” and “secure” and “engaged”, which was calling for personnel levels to rise to just over 71,500. We lack modern equipment, and that certainly doesn't help. We lack a cohesive vision for Canadian foreign policy and for the military investments needed to back up that foreign policy. It's not just the lack of material support in terms of our equipment: I want to home in on the lack of trained personnel in the military.

On my question, I'd like to start with Professor Braun.

In your opinion, what is broken and how can we fix it before it's too late?

[Dr. Aurel Braun]

Well, there are a great many things broken, but one thing that really worries me is that we are spending a lot of time trying to reassure ourselves that there's no real external threat. We look at this kind of binary approach, thinking that if we spend on the military, we can't spend on social welfare needs in the north, which are indeed important.

I wish I could share the sanguine outlook of my colleague, Professor Roussel, but that is not the reality in the international system. This kind of Arctic exceptionalism is not tenable. We have to face the reality that we have to spend more altogether. We have to be able to do both. We have to take care of the aboriginal people and their needs, but we also have to take a long-range view of our defence commitments and defence requirements.

We saw, when we tried to help Ukraine, that we were so down on our equipment that our cupboards were basically bare. We'd run down our capacity.

We are a major international player, a G7 country. We have the ability to do more. It takes sacrifice and it takes commitment and it's not going to be easy, but we can't just have this kind of false assurance that there's some future threat that is undefined, that is not significant. When we look at the international system, if we spend a bit of time on Russian military doctrine and look at the behaviour of China, it's time to have a reality check.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you for that.

Shifting gears a little bit and keeping the focus on the military presence in the Arctic, we recognize that a lot of the military presence is centred in the eastern Arctic. Is the lack of substantial military presence in the western Arctic an issue, in your opinion? If so, what steps could our government take to address the capability gap?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

Please answer in 30 seconds or less.