Evidence of meeting #36 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 threat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Professor, National School of Public Administration, As an Individual
Is the question for Dr. Braun or for me?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I only have 30 seconds. I'm open to your answering the question, Professor Roussel.
11:40 a.m.
Professor, National School of Public Administration, As an Individual
The answer for this is to develop a very mobile capacity in the Arctic: long-range patrol aircraft or things like this. We don't have any infrastructure in the Arctic, or very significant infrastructure, so we need to develop a broader way to monitor what's happening up there. The east and west both need that, but I think the issues are more present in the eastern Arctic than in the west, for now.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
Thank you very much.
Mr. Fisher, from the Liberal Party, now has the floor for four minutes.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our two esteemed witnesses for their testimony today.
We talked a lot about Russia. Professor Braun, I'm interested in why Canada should be concerned about China's presence and activity in the Arctic. I'm interested in their intentions and maybe what factors are driving their interest.
11:40 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you very much for that question.
Russia has a very powerful military presence and a growing one in the Arctic, but they are working with a rather small economy. Russia is but a remnant of a former superpower. Its economy is not really much bigger than that of Italy's economy, so it needs Chinese help.
China needs energy. China needs to trade. China understands that the Arctic is important because there are so many fossil fuels in that region, and it has been supporting Russian exploration. It has become involved directly. China wants to see if they can develop the northern sea route, because that will cut down 30% of the time and distance of shipping things from Asia to Europe. That would dramatically increase the export potential of China.
China has resources. China has a large economy. China has funds to spare, and they have become increasingly involved. More than that, the relationship between China and Russia has been changing from an unequal partnership to where Russia may become more and more of a vassal state, in which case China would dictate according to its own needs, which is to have unbridled exploration for resources in the Arctic. That would be very dangerous for us, ecologically and ultimately strategically. They would like to have control with Russia of the northern sea route, and that would present another kind of danger to us.
This is why I think it's essential that we look at the danger coming in that area in a sophisticated way, rather than defining it in terms of a standard military operation or just looking at cyberwarfare, which is not necessarily the primary threat—not even in the immediate term.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Professor.
Do you see China respecting or accepting the legal and political status quo?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
We have little indication to believe that. All we have to look at is China's international behaviour and the way they are proceeding towards Taiwan.
As I noted, this idea that has been pushed by what I called “crude realism”—that it doesn't really matter what happens domestically in the country, and it's how they behave internationally—I think is not viable. What we are learning is that domestic repression foreshadows external aggression very often. When we look at China and the increasing repression, not just with the Uighurs but also with the prosecution of the Falun Gong and now with Xi Jinping getting an extra term, it is very worrisome. I do not have a great deal of confidence that China will respect international legality.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Professor, I was going to ask you a question along the lines of what Madam Lambropoulos was saying about multilateral co-operation. You were cut off because you ran out of time, and now I'm running out of time, so it looks as though I'm not going to get a chance to get to that and allow you to finish your comments on Sweden and Finland and their co-operation with Canada. I'm sorry about that.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
Thank you.
It is now my turn for two minutes.
Dr. Braun, Dr. Roussel told us that he was relatively optimistic from a military standpoint and that he believes the probability of a Russian invasion to be low.
You mentioned Russia's dependence on fossil fuels, which are abundant in the Arctic. Do you share Dr. Roussel's optimism on the military side, and do you also think that there is no immediate risk of a Russian attack?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you. I'm trying to just understand exactly the question. Are you asking me if I share the confidence that Mr. Roussel has that Russia is not an immediate threat or a medium threat? Is that the question?
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
That is correct.
We understand that Russia can be an economic threat, but what about a military threat?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I wish I could share the sanguine approach that was outlined by Professor Roussel and that we could just proceed as we have been doing. I think that's a mistake. I think we really need to upgrade our military.
I think the Russian threat is significant. We already see prodding and probing of our air defences. We also need to recognize that since we are a member of NATO, any action by Russia against NATO states—and Finland and Sweden are going to become NATO states—would involve Canada. We need to be able to do our part in the joint defence of NATO, and that involves having capacity.
I'm very concerned about this rather blithe dismissal of the Russian threat as something that is indeterminate, distant and insignificant, or the notion that Canada, as one of—
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
I am sorry, Dr. Braun, but I have to cut you off once again to give the floor to my NDP colleague.
Ms. Mathyssen, you have two minutes.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
Professor Roussel, you were talking about staying the course, continuing on with the status quo, as we look at North American defence and our involvement in NORAD and so on, I believe. Could you expand on that a little bit more? I have only two minutes.
Also, could you talk about the consequences or the benefits of what others are suggesting in terms of buying more weaponry or purchasing more military equipment and so on?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, National School of Public Administration, As an Individual
There are two parts to my answer.
First, we should keep going with what we're doing. NORAD modernization and the North Warning System modernization are crucial, and we should go ahead with these. We should also fix the infrastructure in the north. I think some of you mentioned all of the problems we would have on the ground to be operational. We should at least keep what we already announced and go on with it. In Canada we are really good at making announcements and then not making them real.
Second, if you want to protect the ground in the Arctic with the Canadian Forces, if there's suddenly a trip coming and appearing in the Arctic, there's actually nothing you or I can do on this. It would take decades—and it's far beyond all of the resources we can find—to create a serious and solid defence in the north. Actually, our interests are much more in Europe.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
Thank you very much, Dr. Roussel.
We will now begin our last round of questions.
My Conservative colleague, Mrs. Gallant, has the floor for four minutes.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
According to my colleague Mr. Zimmer, China's already actively shopping for a refuelling base in our Arctic, and Canada actually has a “for sale” sign out.
Given that Communist China is already going after Taiwan and rattling sabres in other areas, what concrete steps should we be taking at this point? What Arctic assets and capabilities does China have that we should be concerned about?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, National School of Public Administration, As an Individual
Who is the question addressed to?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
What we have learned in our relationship with China is that we have to be extremely careful, whether it's with Huawei or with other elements of the economic relationship. We need to understand that China is not driven only by economic concerns; it is also driven very much by political concerns. We have to think in an integrated fashion. Consequently, we need to be wary about handing anything over to China that could be dual-purpose.
China's actions in the Arctic are not predominantly military per se, but they're acting together with Russia, and Russia has heavy and growing military investment. This is why I'm afraid that we can't just proceed as we have, because we have not been doing very well. We can't have this kind of notion that we are going to be deploying 100,000 troops in the frozen north. Rather we need a sophisticated approach in terms of the aircraft systems we have. We need integration with our allies in terms of getting over-the-horizon radars as quickly and capably as possible, and we need to develop an ability to defend against hypersonic weapons.
All of that will involve a very large investment. I wish we had a choice and we did not have to spend it, but that's not the geopolitical reality of the 21st century.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Earlier this week, we had a panel that said the threat from Russian aggression comes not from land in the Arctic but rather from aerospace and maritime domains. Do you agree with this assessment?
If there's one thing we should be doing immediately in terms of Canadian assets in the Arctic, what would that be?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
We need the air capacity. We need icebreakers. We need to have exercises on Canadian shores.
A lot of this messaging is perception, making sure that Canada is not viewed as a soft target. Norway, for example, has held a naval exercise, Cold Response. We should very seriously consider having those kinds of exercises in Canada as well, to send a message.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay.
Would you please complete your opening statement? You were cut off there in the very beginning. You had something important to say.
11:55 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It was the last sentence, basically.
There is little choice but to have an unwavering commitment, a major investment in hard power and consequent economic sacrifices, to make certain that Canada is never viewed as a soft and tempting target.