National Defence Committee on Feb. 16th, 2022

[Dr. J. Paul de B. Taillon]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we have the killer clock up here.

[Dr. J. Paul de B. Taillon]

No worries.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm going to continue on with Madame Normandin. I apologize for the difficulties.

Madame Normandin, please continue.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So, I wanted to address the issue of disinformation.

I understand that some countries, like the United States and Germany, have already had regular units assigned to this since World War II. Obviously, this is not the case here. I guess people agree that some aspects are much more military.

Can you explain why we haven't kept pace here with disinformation?

[Richard Fadden]

I'm repeating myself a little bit, but I think one of the reasons is that we didn't feel it was a very strong threat. If the government or the general public doesn't feel a threat, Parliament is not going to give the resources to launch this kind of initiative.

I think it's important to remember that in the United States, the National Security Agency, which deals with these issues, is a joint organization, that is to say a military and civilian organization. So these issues are not just dealt with from a military point of view. I think the solution is really in that direction. You have to involve both sides of the coin: the civilian and the military.

I think in Canada, we're slowly starting to address it. At least, we are much more concerned about it than we were a few years ago. Nevertheless, we're still falling behind.

In general, the problem is that we don't feel the threat.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I will ask my next question, although the answer may have to wait until my next turn to speak.

You talked about the importance of creating synergy with allies. Ms. Lambropoulos and Mr. Doherty have also spoken about this.

However, the fact that we don't recognize the threat probably makes us a less serious partner. We have to have something to offer to get something in return.

I would have liked to hear you elaborate on what Canada can do to have something to offer, precisely in order to ensure a good partnership with its allies.

I understand that my time is short, but that is the question I would like to hear you answer on my next turn, if any.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's an important question, but there's no time to answer it.

You have six minutes, Madam Mathyssen.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I guess this could actually be an extension of what Ms. Normandin was going towards. On Monday, we certainly heard in this committee that Canada needs to focus, that we do not have the ability to focus on Europe and China and to defend our own Arctic borders, and that we need to focus more and choose a way to go and be really good at it. Earlier today, we heard that we have to invest more. We have to cover them all. We have to face the reality of the threat of China, the threat of Russia and what the world expects of us. We had this discussion just now.

Mr. Fadden, you said that we are so far behind and we've never really seen the threats that are upon us or in the world, and maybe that's because we have relied so heavily upon the U.S. Perhaps you could comment and give your opinion on that in terms of what was said to us on Monday about that focus, and why we should or why we shouldn't, and narrow that down a bit more for us.

[Richard Fadden]

Let me try.

I don't think it's a binary choice, to begin with. I think the world is sufficiently integrated today that we cannot just say that we're going to focus on only the Indo-Pacific or only Europe or only terrorism or only this or that. We have to distribute a little bit of our attention and our resources. I would argue that we need to prioritize, which is somewhat different from just choosing one or the other. Whether we like it or not, we are a western nation and that means we are connected, to a great extent, to Europe. We do a great deal of trade with them, and our ties to them are historical. We cannot ignore Europe and Russia. Indeed Russia is our neighbour.

On the other hand, if we're going to deal effectively with the world as we find it today, then, in concert with our allies, we have to do something about China. I understand the government is producing an Indo-China policy. I think that's a good thing, but I don't understand how we can have an Indo-China policy in the absence of a broader foreign policy that tries to address these prioritization issues.

I think we could be a little bit more proactive on a number of files, but I also think we need more resources. I don't mean just the Canadian Forces. I mean GAC, CSE, CSIS and whatnot, to reflect to the allies that we take all of these issues seriously. I don't think the allies are ignoring us. We are making a contribution. We're talking about levels of contribution right now, and for a G7 country, we do less than a lot of our partners do.

It's an inadequate answer to your question, but I think the best I can do is to argue that we cannot choose only one or the other. We have to prioritize among them. As I was trying to suggest with Madame Normandin, we have to be persistent and consistent once we do opt for a particular path. Just going in and going out, trying to deal with an issue and then letting it be forgotten.... I want to stress again that this is not a partisan comment. We've been doing this for decades. We need to be persistent and consistent as we develop allied relationships, much more than we have in the past.

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

Actually, I'll ask the same of Mr. Taillon.

[Dr. J. Paul de B. Taillon]

In the wake of World War II we had a million people under arms, the fourth-largest armed forces in the world. We basically worked on that very positive impression with our allies and friends all the way up arguably until the 1980s. Then we started to fail, not only in the issues of defence and foreign affairs, but we started to look really inward, in my humble opinion. I think it's time. As Mr. Fadden has said, we have to be out there and be seen. There is much talk about sending more peacekeepers out. Well, there's not that much peace to keep. I've been on about five peacekeeping missions, shot at on three of them. There's not that much peace out there.

The other aspect is that we have to be very closely affiliated and allied with our closest allies, the United States, in particular, for obvious economic and trade reasons. Also, when we look at the Pacific, we have to look at maybe AUKUS, which has been signed off. Just recently the Australians and Japanese have basically made an agreement. We have to reinforce ourselves in NATO. We pulled ourselves out in the 1980s. We wanted a peace dividend, and we paid through the nose. The armed forces are in terrible shape, quite frankly.

It's a terrible thing to say. There was a shakeup because of Afghanistan. We got monies, fortunately, through that. That's not one way of doing it. If you want a military, it has to be prepared to fight at a drop of a hat, particularly in today's world.

We've seen the panic within the EU and NATO just over what has happening in Ukraine, which is indeed problematic. If anything has happened out of this, all of a sudden, Putin, in the eyes of his people, is seen as a real player, because literally everybody in the EU and NATO went to tug their forelocks to him. He's won an impressive psychological victory by just deploying troops.

From what I've heard as of today, this withdrawal is essentially a redeployment along the border. That is something to be waited and seen to be confirmed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. I apologize, Ms. Mathyssen.

Colleagues, we're into our second round. We have roughly 10 minutes left in 25 minutes' worth of questioning. I'm going to have to be a bit arbitrary and cut everybody down to three minutes and one minute.

Ms. Gallant, you have three minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chair, at a time when our foreign affairs agencies are seized with the further incursion of Russia into Ukraine, Canada, domestically, is also seized by the demonstration in front of the Parliament Buildings. There have been inferences that the truckers have been influenced by Russian disinformation. In another standing committee, the demonstrators have been likened to terrorists, and anti-terrorist actions such as freezing bank accounts have already occurred.

How do we as parliamentarians ascertain whether the presence of parked transport trucks, hot tubs and bouncy castles in and around the parliamentary precinct, represent a threat to our national security and justify the never-before-used Emergencies Act?

[Richard Fadden]

I can try to start with that.

I don't know to what extent the Russians have been involved in causing difficulties. I don't know to what extent other groups, terrorist groups, might have been injecting their views into this. To my mind, the way of doing this is to recognize that there is an issue here with compliance with the law, be that the anti-terrorism law or the laws relating to foreign interference, or any other law, and to allow domestic law enforcement to deal with this as they see best.

I don't want to get into an argument about whether the Emergencies Act is a good thing or a bad thing, but it was a device made available to Parliament, to the government of the day, and they chose to use it. For my part, and I listen to the media and I talk to people, I don't think a compelling case has been made that this demonstration is being run by the Russians or being run by the terrorists, if I can use somewhat exaggerated language. I would not be surprised if there are a variety of people, through social media, who are trying to make it worse than it really is.

I would argue that the thing to do now is to let law enforcement do its bit and do it as effectively as they can. As I understand it, a number of blockades outside Ottawa have been resolved. Being an Ottawa resident, I profoundly hope that the same thing can be said about Ottawa very soon.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How is the execution of the Emergencies Act, with the potential of seconding military personnel to be inserted to intervene in civilian enforcement, in our national interest?

[Richard Fadden]

I'm afraid you have the advantage of me here. I wasn't aware that the Emergencies Act allowed the use of military personnel. In fact, if you need military personnel with very specialized functions, you don't need the Emergencies Act. They can simply be seconded to other organizations. I'm sorry, but I can't answer beyond that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mrs. Gallant.

Mr. Spengemann, you have three minutes, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Mr. Fadden, it's good to see you and good to have you back.

Dr. Taillon, thanks very much for your service and for sharing your expertise.

Mr. Fadden, I'll start with you. I don't have much time, but I wanted to take you to the idea of an expanded definition of security.

We're looking at the threat analysis affecting Canada. We have 12 UN peace operations around the planet that are currently ongoing: Western Sahara; Central African Republic; Mali, where Canada made a significant contribution and, in fact, this committee actually visited that mission a couple of years ago; the Democratic Republic of Congo; Golan; Cyprus; Lebanon; Abyei and Sudan; Kosovo; South Sudan; India and Pakistan; and UNTSO in the Middle East.

How do you factor these in with respect to what we're talking about now, which really is possible potential conflicts with or between great powers affecting Canada very directly? These peacekeeping operations are very important in an indirect way, but also important in terms of the values that we espouse and defend and the commitments we've made to the UN system.

When we're being asked for more funding for ODA—overseas development assistance—on the humanitarian and development side and also for more funding on the defence side, how do we look at these obligations that we have multilaterally within the UN system?

[Richard Fadden]

Wow, one could take an hour just to try to answer that question. It's a good question.

To begin with, I would urge the view that the long list that you enumerated would have to be divided between some that are legitimately peacekeeping and a couple that are really peacemaking, and I think they have to be treated somewhat differently. Also, it depends on the level of development of the particular countries at issue.

If we take the Congo for example, that's a peacemaking undertaking. The country is almost a failed state. I don't think the UN has been given enough resources overall—ODA, diplomatic or military—in order to deal with the issue. I think that over the years, just to take an example, we've talked seriously about involving ourselves more in the Congo, and a lot of people have sort of said that it's just not worthwhile, that we just can't make enough of a difference because we don't bring enough oomph to the battle.

I think we have to be very selective when we decide which peacekeeping or peacemaking activities we're going to be involved in and pick those where we can make a contribution or where the UN specifically asks us for help.

I would make the point, if I may, that help on the military side does not necessarily need to have privates and corporals carrying rifles. I was told once by a very senior UN peacekeeping officer that what they need more often than not are staff officers who can organize things. We have very good staff functions in this country, and we have good logistical support, but small-p politically, people want to see soldiers with guns. I think we need to work our way through all of this and be selective.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

What kind of a resource carve-out would you propose for the entirety of these UN peace operations?

[Richard Fadden]

It would be unfair for me to answer, except that I would—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, he has asked a question that is an hour and a half long and is two seconds over the time already. This is fascinating.

Madame Normandin, you have one minute.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I understand that we cannot be on all fronts at the same time and that to be a good ally you also have to have something to offer. We talked about peace missions.

Regarding what we have to offer in cybersecurity, are we a lost cause or can we hope to one day get up to speed?

[Richard Fadden]

I am absolutely convinced that there is hope. In fact, over the last two, three, four years, we've started to accelerate our efforts in this area.

I am not suggesting that our efforts are not important; they are. However, given the current circumstances in international relations and the security that is becoming very problematic, I think we need to increase our efforts.

I think if we did, our allies would be delighted, and we could catch up with them very quickly.