Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
blue-sky (verb)
: to offer ideas that are conceived by unrestrained imagination or optimism.
Hosted by Erin O’Toole, President and Managing Director of ADIT North America. Erin is the former Member of Parliament for Durham and former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Blue Skies political podcast explores issues facing Canada and the world in a format that brings together thought leaders for an informed and engaging conversation.
Hon. Erin OToole (00:06.802)
Welcome to blue skies. We are living in interesting times as that old proverb goes, we're days after liberation day from president Trump, more like hibernation day, hiding from the benefits of mutual defense and security, global trade, the incredible prosperity, the incredible liberty that we've seen in the post world war two rules based order. That seems to be crashing down. And I can't think of a better Canadian to talk to about all of these things
than our next guest. And this is one of the first times Blue Skies has been joined by a guest for the second time. And that just shows how in such high regard I hold him and what a great Canadian he is. Admiral Mark Norman was raised in Kingston and is a graduate of Queen's University, what I like to call the second best university in Kingston. And Mark's father was the commandant of RNC before I went there. So he
Literally for his whole life was either part of a military family as a kid or in a military family himself, serving as he did for 39 years in the Royal Canadian Navy and in the Canadian Armed Forces, retiring in 2019 after having served with distinction as the 34th commander of the Royal Canadian Navy and as the vice chief of defense staff, the number two person in our Canadian Armed Forces. You may know Admiral Norman.
from the Admiral Mark Norman affair related to a ship contract, the Navy Shipyard, to which he was vindicated after having been maligned by his own government. But one thing that never changed, even through those hard times, was the great character, principle, and fortitude that Mark Norman showed. And that was understood by many Canadians because 3,547 men and women from across the country contributed
to his legal defense fund. And the government spent over $1.4 million prosecuting someone that they ended up apologizing for. So he came up looking not only principled, but came up looking victorious against a government that never should have challenged him in the first place. He's now a fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, a great Canadian. Mark Norman, welcome back to Blue Skies.
Mark Norman (02:32.628)
Aaron, thank you. It's humbling. I'm literally choking back a few tears here as you introduced me. Thank you. Good friendship, shipmate. And I'm really pleased to join you. What is, as you described, a pretty crazy time. Who would have imagined we'd be where we are today in March of 2025 or April of 2025.
Hon. Erin OToole (02:57.374)
100%. Well, listen, I want to share one personal story that I don't think I ever told you how much it meant. When I was Veterans Minister, I was told through a friend about a veteran who was a proud Navy veteran who was struggling. He had had addiction issues and was really going through a bad period. And I saw you at a reception and told you about this veteran. And you sent over a care package full of Navy swag and a little note. And I don't know if you remember that, but
those little gestures, despite running our Navy, you know, a country with three oceans, the most coastline in the world, you took time for a veteran. And I thought that is the type of character we love seeing in our leaders. So I don't know if you remember that story, but it's always stuck with me to show the type of character you have, Mark. And speaking of character, the first person to get elbows up in Canada was you.
On February 14th, you wrote probably the toughest, strongest op-ed I've seen in the National Post in years entitled, Canada's relationship with the United States can't be saved. Under that, it says we are under attack and must act accordingly. Wow. As someone who's a Legion of Merit member from the U.S., giving you that as a senior Canadian military leader, what led you to write that op-ed?
Mark Norman (04:21.576)
Well, you know, was a pretty, I was intentionally provocative, but I really felt compelled to say something for a couple of reasons. One, I thought that for the most part, systemically and institutionally, we were kind of asleep at the wheel in some respects.
And there's a variety of things that were contributing to that. wasn't just one view. And the other, the other concern that I had was that, we were, we were at a pivotal moment where, the, relationship was fundamentally changing, whether we had seen all the pennies drop or not. And it's not.
This is the problem and we find it even today. It's not about the individual relationships or even the institutional relationships that we know are solid on a personal level, on a cultural and societal level. It's the more foundational structural issues of not just the administration, and I've said this publicly, it's those around the administration and their
now clear indication that they are in the process of resetting not just their own internal affairs but how they tend to operate on the global stage. you know how I came to that conclusion at that moment in time would take longer than we have but I really felt compelled to say something and in fact what I
What happened was I tweeted something, which is always a quick and easy way to communicate something. And then the post reached out to me and said, Hey, wow. Uh, could you elaborate? And so, you know, me given any opportunity to elaborate, I'll, I'll, uh, I'll take it. So I did. That's how it all happened.
Hon. Erin OToole (06:15.934)
Well, now I'm making you elaborate even more because we're going to have a long for discussion about that sentiment. Because as I said, this was February 14th. So was kind of your Valentine for our friends to the South, who of course we love and we both served alongside. And we know most of the rank and file in the US military do not feel the same way as their commander in chief. But when you're saying we're under attack and we need to act accordingly, are we ready?
to decouple from joint defense of North America, national defense of our own country. Is NATO doomed? And you meant to be provocative with that title, but are you really worried that this is going to be Canada alone for the next few decades?
Mark Norman (07:06.388)
I am concerned that that is a possible scenario that we cannot discount and that we shouldn't diminish the possibility of. And I characterized as being a potential orphan in this rapidly evolving global security framework that we're seeing play out. so it, know,
I still think it is a real concern. We're seeing this play out day after day and there's little bit more information and a few more indicators and warning as you and I would refer to in our military lives as to how this might play out. And to your question about the defense of Canada.
we've always, always traditionally for the, for the vast majority of the life of Canada and certainly for the 20th century, our mantra, our philosophy has been that, the best way to defend ourselves is, being, aligned with,
you know, partners who, who we can trust and who were prepared to fight alongside. And of course, you know, before the United States, it was the, it was Britain under our colonial arrangement with them. But the idea being that, okay, we're, we never really felt we were going to be alone, that we needed to think about ourselves as being alone and, and that we would always be in some sort of a relationship. And yes, the relationships have historically been disproportionate.
So where we find ourselves now, to your question, is in a place where we have not made the necessary investments, decisions, and priorities to set ourselves up for even a modest capacity to actually defend ourselves.
Mark Norman (09:15.794)
because of the reliance, either an alliance reliance, pun intended, or the relationship to the United States. And of course, you can't ignore the geography of the circumstance. And so you ask the question, can we? Well, maybe, maybe not, but we sure as hell can't do it if we keep behaving the way we are.
closest ally is telling us they're not going to do it for us. and, and so, and then of course he he's communicated a similar message to our European friends and allies and basically, you know, cut them loose, in that context. And, so they're, they are, you know, they're, they're closing the circle, circling the wagons, whatever analogy you want to use. And it's unclear.
you know, how how Canada can or should fit into whatever those new structures are. I believe that there will continue to be some sort of NATO framework. I don't see that, you know, even if the United States did unilaterally withdraw, which has, you know, there's issues there, positive and negative. There's still going to be the other.
31 countries that are going to want to be in some sort of Alliance and whether Canada wants to be there or not. Some sort of NATO minus. I don't want to pretend exactly what it's going to look like, but there's going to be some sort of security framework. And I don't the issue here fundamentally is I don't see a scenario where we're going to be defended in a military context.
by European allies. So I don't see an Article 5 scenario, if we want to use that kind of language, where the United States would choose to invade us. I'm still not convinced that that is likely. It's possible. we're into a different. Being under attack, as you know,
Mark Norman (11:32.84)
doesn't mean necessarily it's a traditional military kinetic activity. We're under psychological attack, we're under emotional attack, we're under economic attack. That was the essence of what I was trying to say.
Hon. Erin OToole (11:39.196)
Yeah. Yeah.
Hon. Erin OToole (11:46.322)
Yeah, no, you were being provocative and certainly the aggression we're seeing, economic aggression, trying to impact us has a form of, not warfare to it, but sort of a hostile position from a traditional rival. I was listening recently to a great podcast, Northern Sentinels podcast, Chris Ayotte does, and he had Stu Beare on it. And they were talking about Canada's problem was we...
Other than during Afghanistan, which we kitted ourselves up for proper war fighting capability, we've gone down to really just a military that had been ready for international peace and security operations and not really for national defense and certainly not for war fighting. And that probably comes from the fact that starting in 1940 with the Ogdensberg agreement, we did throw our national defense for Canada.
into a union of sorts with the United States, you know, that permanent joint board of defense and shared procurement, and that grew into NORAD and of course NATO. But if that's all changing, our posture, we were set up almost as a client state for a larger standing military in the United States. What will we really need to do to be
strong and independent and able to guide our own way. Because you had a great op-ed a month later. So you had the elbows up and were under attack. Then you had one in the National Post, and I recommend people looking into these, in March, where you kind of said, we've got to get ready for a period of isolation. And in that isolation, we have to be self-reliant. What can we do with a military that's not set up to be self-reliant at this point? And it's 2 % is 3%.
is 4 % enough to really have the posture to defend this country.
Mark Norman (13:47.475)
Yeah, so there's a couple of elements to your question. There will be a limit to how much we can actually afford. And the problem with that conversation is that it's often opinion or ideologically driven. But the reality is to your point,
We have not done enough and as a result, we have the incomplete and arguably ineffective armed forces that we have. It's not a wholesale general admonishment of the great people that are there and some of the capabilities that are there. The reality is it is a force that has evolved over
decades of risk management decision making, it is not a force by design. And so we find ourselves in a place where, okay, what is it exactly that we would need to do to actually defend our own country? And, you know, for everything from the things that you would understand, but your listeners are just, you know, it's surveillance, knowing what's going on in your own territory or your own approaches, be they airspace, space, or maritime.
then, you know, having the capacity to respond in a autonomous and sovereign way. And by autonomous, don't mean unmanned. mean, we have, we exactly, we have the political autonomy to decide what it is we're going to do and where we're going to do it in our own territory. And we don't have those capable, very, very limited.
Hon. Erin OToole (15:24.988)
on our own.
Mark Norman (15:40.293)
capabilities in those those regards. And so, you know, the one of the key issues that's playing out right now, we see it in the public domain is the notion of technical or industrial dependence. And, you know, the somebody gave me the disentanglement of this. It's first of all, it's not easy and it's it's there's a lot of risk and arguably, you know,
there is some, you know, there's some places that you just wouldn't be able to go in a reasonable timeframe. So I think how is in the simplest terms possible. I those things that we have a need now or that we need and still have now we're going to have to use as the basis of the force and being as we move forward in a hopefully accelerated and
much more robust way, more and faster, we have to start to look for non-US technical solutions to a lot of these things. And it's not just the technology, not just the ones and zeros, the coding and all the issues around classification that I know you understand. It's also the industrial linkages.
And we will never be able to ignore the geography that defines us. But I think we can be much more much more diversified if you want to use a business term. the other thing, and this is really important, we have enormous potential in this country to do a lot of things really, really well. We do many things really, really well. We can't do everything as it relates to defense and security and
in industrial capacity and technology. But my God, we have under we've we've not only under invested, but we have underappreciated our own capacities. And in some respects, either culturally, from a policy perspective, whatever, we've been self defeatist in many ways. And I think this has got to be part of the whole
Mark Norman (18:06.024)
recalculation of how we go forward. We can do a lot more. We are capable of standing on our own two feet much more than we give ourselves credit for. I just look at some of the amazing things that the country did in the 20th century.
Hon. Erin OToole (18:19.742)
Yeah. Well, let's look on that. I agree. Because people forget that we weren't ready in the interwar period between World War I, World War II. We have this bad habit of putting tools down and doing nothing. But by the end of World War II, we were, think, the third largest Navy. We were the fourth largest Air Force in the world. We were the third nation in space, the second or third to have controlled nuclear fission.
We can do a lot. As you said, autonomous, that self-reliance. I'm working right now and speaking with CIGI, that great international governance institute, on having a conference on sovereign capability. What can we do ourselves? We've got a telesat out there. Should we be relying on that and not Mr. Musk's whims with SpaceX? I think you've already seen
Doug Ford canceling a contract there. So with this incredible potential, because we were free traders, because we had great alliances, or so we thought, we didn't always need to rely on and build up this expertise, but now is a bit of a time. So as we're talking about that and decoupling to your point that our relationship can't be saved or your fear that it can't be saved with the United States, I was in France.
When Jason Kenney tweeted out a picture of a Rafale fighter jet and started talking about not buying F-35s. Well, now there's been three or four countries talk like that. We also have a contract to acquire P-8 aircraft from Boeing. These are great companies that we've had long relationships with, but should everything be on the table, Mark, in your view?
I've been critical on Twitter myself about I don't hear some of the senior executives who are also veterans speaking up for Canada and the NATO alliance at a time the president is diminishing those alliances. So should we be willing to walk away from those contracts and even say, look, if we have to get a fourth generation fighter and not a fifth, but do that in partnership with allies?
Hon. Erin OToole (20:45.842)
Canada's prepared to do that. Do you support us putting everything on the table like that?
Mark Norman (20:51.058)
I do. And not because I presuppose an outcome. And that's where there's a, that's where there is some nuance to this. I think it is important because the conversations, if they're done properly, will force us to look at things differently in the context that you have described in your last couple of questions here or comments. absent those
sort of focusing or catalyzing events, it tends to become a bit of a theoretical academic conversation as opposed to a really pragmatic conversation. If you take, you mentioned, you know, at P8, F35, I have my own views, not so much on the technology themselves.
but on what they represent in this current context. And I realize that these are emotive issues and I realize that they're also hugely pragmatic issues. And so, know, I just unpacked them from the perspective of why we need to talk about them. Not because I think we should or shouldn't cancel one or the other. I think it's important that we signal to the Americans that
Okay, you're basically telling us the rules have changed. Fine. We're telling you that if the rules have changed, the rules have changed. Okay, so let's just put you on notice here. We're not going to be impulsive or childish about this. Exactly. But fine, you know, and we need to look at it. And I'm, you know, I'm encouraged that at least we're prepared to have those conversations.
Hon. Erin OToole (22:31.806)
emotional. Yeah, yeah.
Mark Norman (22:42.994)
And why I think it's important is because of the very things that you've laid out. And you know, there's issues here that you can't uncouple some of the economic issues associated with this. are a partner, which isn't just about the buying, as you know. It's also about the production, the engineering, the...
know, manufacturing of componentry and all that kind of stuff. So, you know, there's that component to it. There is a technological component to this with respect to reliability, access, you know, at what point does our ability to actually use the aircraft to its full potential become constrained? You know, can we live with that? Those kinds of things. The flip side of that is
how much sovereign control do we have over the evolution of the capabilities of that particular weapon system or platform? And this is, am publicly on the record as saying we need to look at these things. It applies as much to the combat management system of the new RiverCross destroyers as it does to...
the F 35. The P-8 to me is a perfect example of how we got ourselves into a situation where we convinced ourselves that the only way out of it was a, um, uh, sole source acquisition through foreign military sales to the United States, because there were some compelling arguments. However, comma, if we had actually going back to your first, you know, sort of set up for this, if we'd actually been behaving strategically,
a while ago, pick a time 10 years ago, we could have come up with a Canadian solution based on a proven aircraft, which is one of the arguments that's been used as to why the one we bought was the right one. Well, okay, there's lots of proven aircraft out there based on a proven, we'll call it mission suite.
Mark Norman (24:43.86)
in the back the aircraft, which is arguably one of the best in the world, designed and, you know, integrated in Canada using Canadian intellectual property. See where I'm going with these things? They all come together. But we the decision of the moment was urgency trumps strategic behavior. And so we end up
with another one of these things where we have to decide are we going to do it or not. the alternative, the last thing I wanted to say was the problem with these conversations is because we made the decisions, the alternatives are not as easy as we thought. So everybody's having similar concerns. And this is what happened. Your viewers appreciate this because they lived through it. This is exactly what happened during COVID.
Well, we didn't have access to PPE. We didn't have this. couldn't do this. So the next thing you know, vaccines, all this stuff. So we, we are either in a bidding war or we end up on a waiting list. Neither of those are behaviours conducive to a country that is acting in a strategic fashion. And so you're going to cancel something. Well, you better have, you better have a solution.
Mark Norman (26:08.02)
in your back pocket and the reality is we don't. So this is why I believe we go with what we have now and as we move forward we start to look at alternative solutions and I'm a huge proponent of if we have Canadian capacity, Canadian competency and intellectual property what the hell are we doing? Why are we not harnessing that?
for our own purposes and potentially maybe somebody else wants it elsewhere in the world.
Hon. Erin OToole (26:42.536)
Yeah, no, and even, part of Mr. Carney mentioned, you know, quickly sole source something to Australia, the Jordan system, when really are there options? We've got great technology in Canada and I'm sure you're on the same page as me. I'd rather see the approaches to the Northwest passage covered by surface and subsurface monitoring, subsea cables, radars, then over the horizon. We've got to at least control.
and know who's in our shipping lanes. And that's going to segue perfectly to my next topic, which is the wider issue of sovereignty. You started out, we started out talking about your op-ed and Canada's under attack or that sense we are. The early years of our country, Canada was created as a bulwark against manifest destiny, which now seems to be back and
the early militia structure of our military at the time had, I think it was called Plan One, which was how to defend against the US. And we had Athenian raids and a few little things in the history of Canada. But from a sovereignty perspective, our coastline, our Arctic, which people like yourself, myself, have been talking to for many years, are we in the position to
adequately patrol, defend, and assert our sovereignty in whether the Northwest Passage or any of the Arctic archipelago.
Mark Norman (28:18.64)
And I mean, I'm being quite stark in my assessment. The reality is no, we don't have sufficient surveillance capacity. We don't have enough platforms of various types, whether they fly, float, swim, are in space, whatever, it doesn't matter. We don't have enough of them. We don't have the connections, the digital.
Hon. Erin OToole (28:41.362)
Mm-hmm.
Mark Norman (28:45.362)
connectivity necessary to pull it all together. And, you know, and then there's and, and, we don't have the logistics footprint necessary to support any kind of sustainable projection of force inside our own territory or to the extent of our territorial claims.
Because remember, as you know, our territory extends both in airspace and in maritime space beyond the physical boundaries of what we think of as Canada. And so, no, the answer, but here's the thing. And this goes back, why? Well, we don't have to beat that to death, but the reality is that over our adult lifetimes,
and, even before we had this assumption that the problems to the problems for Canada's physical security were elsewhere. And our best defense was to partner with our friends and allies elsewhere to stop the problems from coming here. Okay. That's basically, so every decision made either in an act, a decision of omission or commission.
doesn't matter. We allowed ourselves to get into a place where that was not only the mindset, but it also became the toolbox that was available to to even recent governments because that's all we had done. The reality is that the problems facing Canada are no longer elsewhere. And now now we have to figure out to your to the essence of your question, how do we figure
How do we protect the longest coastline in the world and the second largest landmass in the world? That is, by the way, bordering on two superpowers, one of whom we have traditionally thought to be a potential enemy and the other of whom wants to annex us. So, and used to be our best friend. So, so, you know, this is a hell of a strategic circumstance to find yourself in. But that's where we are. And, you know,
Hon. Erin OToole (30:48.678)
Yeah.
Yes.
Mark Norman (31:02.164)
The encouraging thing is we're having some of the right conversations. you know, can you remember in your lifetime when legitimate issues of around the defense of Canada were actually key elements of three political parties in Canada? No. And we have to not trivialize the situation, we have the two leading contenders.
Hon. Erin OToole (31:21.584)
Yeah.
Mark Norman (31:30.612)
for the leadership of Canada arguing about who's going to spend more faster. This is unimaginable.
Hon. Erin OToole (31:39.038)
Gosh, I was in politics at the wrong time. The media used to roll their eyes when I started talking, when I would talk about the need for Canada to spend at least 2 % of our GDP on defense. Now you're seeing, as you said, three parties with credible platforms. think, yeah, sort of. The Conservatives and the Liberals are both putting it up.
Mark Norman (31:59.005)
Sort of. Yeah.
Hon. Erin OToole (32:03.922)
But let's talk a little bit about and link this back to the Mark Norman affair if we could. When we made the decision as a government to convert a vessel and make the asterisks in the Navy shipyard, it was because Canada did not have the ability to have a supply at sea, a replenishment at sea and a supply ship capability. So we acquired
in an expedited fashion, a stopgap as we were waiting for the larger vessels to be constructed. Now, that shipyard, Davy, just acquired a Finnish ice-breaking shipyard and is proposing the ice pact, a hub of ice-breaking expertise in the Quebec City region, in Lévis, that could build ice-breaking capacity
for both the Canada, the United States, and Finland. That's using our domestic capability and becoming a world leader in this ability. Has that made you feel a bit of vindication? Because all you were trying to do the whole time was to make sure that your Navy had that supply ship. I want to hear your thoughts on that and where Davey is today, because that's domestic capability, sovereign capability.
Mark Norman (33:22.942)
Yeah.
Mark Norman (33:28.53)
Yeah. OK, so I don't honestly, I don't dwell on it very much, but I will. I don't dwell on the on the historical part, the recent history that much. But, you know, there there are moments when I think to myself, I kind of roll my eyes and say, OK, you know.
when we look at the schedules and the timelines and how long things were supposed to have taken versus how long they have taken. Yeah, I think one of my observations on this would be that it only seems that when we get ourselves into a crisis that we're prepared to look outside.
of the box in terms of possible solutions. And if we're not in a national crisis now, I mean, that was a very specific single capability crisis that had it had huge implications as you as you said. But now we're looking at a whole macro level system of systems.
And it's kind of like, okay, like, we gonna, we can't continue to repeat the same behaviour over and over again. And it's the same goes and expect a different outcome. You know, as far as industrial capacity, shipbuilding specifically, you know, those kinds of things. Canada is now where we wanted Canada to be 10 to 15 years ago.
Hon. Erin OToole (34:56.67)
10 years ago, Yeah.
Mark Norman (34:58.076)
right? Where we needed candidate to be 10 or 15 years ago. know, as I say to people regularly, you can't compress time. So don't think you can. We're now where we wanted to be. The question is, what the hell are we going to do with it? We have capacity. We have
I'm going to call them partners. Canada, not only are they, you know, we have partners now in our ecosystem that are capable, they're not only willing, but they're capable to do what we need them to do. And so the question becomes, you know, where is this advantageous to Canada? Where could this be advantageous to Canada's interests, which include our relationships? Sure, there's a lot of
bluster and rhetoric out of Washington right now. But you know, at the end of the day, the Americans, even though they're bigger and they're stronger and they have more money and resilience and all these kinds of things, they've got themselves into a similar problem. They have divested of a number of national capacities that are now huge vulnerabilities for them. And one of those is shipbuilding. And so,
You know, we can help, we should help. But I think right now, the best way we help is by sorting out our own backyard, literally. And so, you know, it's encouraging to see that we're initiating some programs. I think that those should be, you know, the start of what should be bigger and broader programs. There is still unrealized capacity.
in Canada in many domains, but you're asking specifically about shipbuilding. think we can do more. If we learn, if we can figure out quickly some of the lessons that we've learned in a very unpleasant way over the last decade or so and apply them, we can probably be much smarter at figuring out the next, what the next bound of this could look like.
Hon. Erin OToole (37:10.622)
Yeah. Well, now, thanks to the National Shipbuilding Program and your interventions, we now have three world-class shipyards that have seen hundreds of millions of dollars of capital, private capital investment in them. We just can't go from feast to famine in terms of building things or these things will slow down, we'll lose the skill sets. And as I used to say in relation to Davie, Chantier Davie,
If we lose a shipyard or we lose the capability to make satellites or something, as the world changes and becomes dark and uncertain, it's hard to recreate that capability from scratch. And so that's a strategic benefit to having these things. And I think...
Mark Norman (37:56.105)
Right.
Mark Norman (38:03.732)
And again, I take your viewers back to, although it's a completely different, you've made an excellent comparison. Go back to their experience living through COVID and beyond the issues of personal constraint and medical issues and everything else. What were some of the key takeaways about that? Supply chains.
sovereign capability, resilience, these things, these are, these are lessons time immemorial. And I agree with you completely. And, and when you, it's a hell of a lot harder to rebuild something after you've decided to get rid of it than it is to keep something. This is what's playing out. You get me going on a rant. This is why we, we have still not bought a single round of
Hon. Erin OToole (38:54.238)
That's right.
Mark Norman (39:00.966)
Artillery ammunition in Canada. And I know, you know, and I'm assuming that you're, you know, your, viewers are paying attention. This is, this is. Absolutely. It's both incomprehensible and irresponsible. mean, cause I mean, you know, and then we get into arguments about, well, you know, industry want guarantees. Well, of course they want it's, it's entirely legitimate that they would say.
Hon. Erin OToole (39:02.845)
I know.
Hon. Erin OToole (39:18.375)
Absolutely.
Mark Norman (39:28.34)
Because look at our track record. So you want me to, you want me to do this for how long? well, you know, maybe a year or two. Get lost. No, no, no, private, equity or, or any kind of corporate entity, would make those sorts of short-term decisions. They wouldn't. And so why would we expect them to anyway? That's a whole other bag of snakes.
Hon. Erin OToole (39:29.896)
Yeah.
Hon. Erin OToole (39:51.172)
and as you said, Canada's reputation, I flew on the Sea King. How did that Sea King EH101 go? How did our submarine projects go? How did the F-35, know, Mr. Trudeau was going to cancel that. The asterisks itself, the Liberals tried to cancel that. So industry needs certainty and they need the ability to have a partner, a funding partner, so that they can make the capital investment as
the shipyards did to build this capacity. And speaking of ships, surface and subsurface, the Arctic submarines, just before the election, the liberals had made several announcements with respect to potentially acquiring 12 submarines. Diesel submarines will not be in the AUKUS nuclear game, but
Talk a little bit about the importance of a submarine for Arctic sovereignty and how, as polar routes are opening up, including the Northwest Passage, which in the first Trump administration, Secretary of State Pompeo walked away from the traditional approach that Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney had forged that the US would give a courtesy acknowledgement when they transited through the Northwest Passage. We view it as internal waters, they view it
as international waters, talk about how you use a submarine and the importance of an asset like that for our domestic security and sovereignty.
Mark Norman (41:28.764)
Right. So lots in there. as you appreciate, let me just, for, for people watching, let me just make a distinction here right at the outset between why you want submarines versus what you can do with submarines. Cause I think that's a really important distinction. And the conversation often goes to, you, you do this and submarines can do lots of really
cool things as you and I both know and we can talk about them. But the reason why you have a submarine is because the submarine is the only platform manned or unmanned that operates inside the water column. Now for folks who don't know what that means, we tend to look at water from the surface perspective but you need to imagine
your Canada's maritime state, what in in three dimensions. So and so it goes from the surface of the water down to the the bottom of the ocean, right? The seabed. And so you can put sensors on the seabed. You can make sensors that float either they're stationary or they can move and you can
Hon. Erin OToole (42:38.014)
See you then. Yeah.
Mark Norman (42:52.766)
put things on the surface. And you can put aircraft, as you well know, above the surface that can penetrate the surface with sensors and monitor what's going on in the water. But the only thing that operates in the water is the submarine. OK? And so why you need submarines is to be in the water column.
for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason is because other submarines are in the water column. And so it's almost elegant in its simplicity. That's why you need them. then so why is this important? Well, as you've pointed out, we look at Canada differently than Canada is geographically structured. We're surrounded on
on three sides by water. And in particular, our northern approaches are extremely contested from a legal and national sovereignty perspective. They are increasingly active from both a military and non-military activity perspective. They are
traditional hiding place and operating area of both friendly and unfriendly submarines. And so if you want to, we go back to the earlier part of the conversation, if you want to know what's going on in your own territory or territorial waters and you want to be able to do something about it in the context of
knowing what's going on inside your own water space, you've got to have sensors that can listen to what's going on in the water space. And you've to have some sort of mechanism to respond. know, and the analogy is this is no different than having an aerospace defense structure that doesn't have fighters. Fighters are in the airspace. They're there.
Mark Norman (45:12.242)
to react. They're there to deter that they can do a bunch of see it's the same analogy, right? They can do a bunch of things. They can shoot things down if you have to. They can go up and flip the bird at somebody if that's what you want done. Whatever it is, there's a physical response and that creates a reaction on the part of an adversary. The only way you can do that in water space effectively
Hon. Erin OToole (45:38.686)
Mm-hmm.
Mark Norman (45:42.299)
is the submarine. The other the other thing is there's only two ways to keep people out of your own waters with with absolute certainty. You mine it or you put submarines in it because any other potentially opposing force has to take absolutely astronomical asymmetric efforts
Hon. Erin OToole (45:56.572)
Yeah. Yeah.
Mark Norman (46:11.784)
to either avoid that water altogether because they don't want to be threatened and go through a minefield or to have to deal with a submarine or they have to put all these resources into clearing the mines or finding the submarine. And I hope that is a simple description. And as it relates to the north and the ice and all of this stuff,
Hon. Erin OToole (46:27.614)
Detecting it, yeah.
Yeah. No.
Mark Norman (46:40.904)
We don't need to be under the ice for extended periods of time, like you see in the movies. Because we can, there are other ways you got it. We have to look at this as a system of systems. So you can, you can put, which we're not doing effectively at the moment, but we can put together a much more robust network of sensors on the sea bed or that can get into the water column.
And then the submarines both contribute to that sense sensor system, but they become the deterrent and the reaction platform if it's necessary to do some.
Hon. Erin OToole (47:24.434)
Yeah, no, as you said, it's a critical capability for our Navy and for the country with the most coastline. And as you said, there are other submarines up there, and because we don't have sufficient coverage, other countries, including more hostile players like Russia or even China, don't assume that there is a Canadian submarine there. So it gives them more liberty to act.
Mark Norman (47:51.547)
they know, they know three of them, you know, three of them are in some degree of maintenance and one of them is out, you know, in Vancouver Harbor, which is great, but it's not how you deter the Chinese from operating in the vicinity of the Arctic archipelago. For example, if that was something that you wanted to do, right?
Hon. Erin OToole (48:09.98)
Yep. Yep.
Well, and that's why let's just talk about the capability then for a minute. As you said, you don't need to go under the ice cap to really patrol the approaches to the Northwest Passage and to make sure that deterrent factor is there. So right now the request for expressions of interest is designing a program for Canada that looks like 12 would be the number they're going to try and get, that it would be
The ports would be a squamalt in Halifax as it is. So a big component will be the ability to transit because if you're doing the North and I know the military want a patrol of 21 days on patrol in the Arctic. But from those ports, you're going to have a heck of a transit to get up to say the Western or the Eastern Arctic. Talk a little bit about that because you know, we don't have.
Arctic bases, know, once they leave a squamalt, that is a long and challenging sail in some cases up to the Northwest Passage from Vancouver Island.
Mark Norman (49:26.066)
or even farther north, as most Canadians don't realize that we talk a lot about the Northwest Passage, but in terms of the archipelago, it kind of goes through the middle of it. From our archipelagic perspective, there's still a lot more Arctic north of it, like probably 1,500 kilometers farther north. And so yes, a couple of really important issues which apply to the submarine and
Hon. Erin OToole (49:35.731)
Yeah.
Mark Norman (49:55.401)
maritime domain problem, but they apply to other things as well. The distances are vast and therefore the capabilities that we need in our inventory have to be able to cover those distances reliably and in essence on their own. now we come back to what that means in a minute. 21 days on patrol means that's 21 days in your patrol area and if your patrol area is
in the approaches to the Eastern approaches to the passage as you described or in the Barents Sea or wherever the hell you want it to be, you got to get there and back and submarines don't go very fast as you know. So this is a lot. So basically that means you got to have massive endurance, which in even in 2025, I'm sorry, means you got to carry fuel. Now, conventional submarines are actually hybrids.
think of them like the Toyota Prius of naval systems. And they are quite economical, but they go fairly slowly. So you're looking at several days to get there, stay up there, and several days to come back. They've got to carry everything they need. It's like going into the woods when you're camping. There's no corner store to pick stuff up. You've to take what you need. and you've got to bring it back.
And so, you know, these are real considerations. And so they start to drive the kinds of submarines that are fit for purpose. They're going to have to be larger. They're going to have to have more robust power trains. They're, you know, they're going to have to have reasonable sea keeping, which, you know, means not going to bounce around in rough conditions. They are going to have to have some sort of ice strengthening. But this is like
discussing how strong is an icebreaker? Well, it is whatever you want it to be, that kind of thing, right? But you also touched on a couple other things. We're gonna have to do a better job in terms of infrastructure in the North. And we've made some attempts to do that. I'm not sure that's the right answer going back to your question about
Mark Norman (52:20.144)
the interim oiler capability. Well, one of the innovative aspects of that is it was a leased capability. didn't buy it. And this obsession about having dedicated military capabilities for everything is, in my mind, completely unnecessary. And it drives us down. It drives us down to solutions that are not necessarily the right solution. I think we have to partner better with established industries.
commercial and industrial mining infrastructure that's already up there and have those kinds of partnerships. We're gonna have to be able to, as you know from your life, there's such a thing called submarine tenders which are vessels that are specifically designed to support submarines. So you know you don't have to bring the submarine home all the time.
for minor things, including fuel potentially, maybe some basic supplies. So, you know, we need a more sophisticated understanding of our footprint from an infrastructure perspective and what are the enablers that are required to sustain the capability in the Canadian, because our Canadian discussion space is so immature in many respects.
we tend to focus on the objects. I call them the big shiny objects. And we don't understand what all of the constituent elements are that actually enable the big shiny object to do what you want it to do. And that's why programs often come off the rails because we don't pay the right attention or people.
assumed that, we're aren't we just buying a big shiny object? Well, if that's all you're buying, then how the hell are you going to look, you know, all these all these other issues, which is which in my mind is how we can responsibly deliver the capabilities necessary for Canada. And I am convinced if we did that properly, we'd be well over two percent of GDP without even breaking a sweat. The problem is we're trying
Hon. Erin OToole (54:15.806)
Yeah. Yeah.
Mark Norman (54:38.676)
We look at things through the wrong lens. That's the first problem. And the second problem is now we're in this urgent. I don't want to call it a panic, but this urgent need to spend money quickly to demonstrate that we're spending money. And that's absolutely the wrong answer.
Hon. Erin OToole (54:55.57)
Yep. Yep. Well, and we've got to be more innovative. So as you said, there could be private partners leasing the asterisks, gave us more options, gave us more capabilities. And so perhaps rather than Canadian Armed Forces trying to be all things to all people at all times, there's ways to forge some of these partnerships. And this is going to lead to the last topic I want to talk about, which is also an example that we may need some outsourcing or
Mark Norman (54:59.176)
Right.
Hon. Erin OToole (55:24.712)
private sector partnerships to do this sovereignty and to do national defense properly is some of the personnel challenges facing the Canadian Armed Forces and cultural challenges. commander of Royal Canadian Navy now, Angus Topsy, a great officer, someone that I went to RMC with, was quite stark last year when he talked about how proud he was in the force in the Navy, but also some of the challenges they had.
30 % under manned in some parts of the Navy. The Army, similar, a lot of under staffing of positions. I heard through an Air Force source that at some points we only had 50 operational fighter pilots in the Royal Canadian Air Force at any one time operationalized at a time we're supposed to be acquiring 88.
F-35s and training and keeping these people is not something you can do overnight. So I'd love your thoughts on how we can tackle this recruiting crisis and a bit on this debate about the military, because I do think at times we've undersold the war fighting capability, you know, the live, the adventure, the intensity.
that draws in a lot of young men, but if you try and make the Canadian Armed Forces just look like it's Parks Canada with sidearms, you're not gonna get a lot of that sort of young men who fought wars since the dawn of time. You're then running it like any other department of the Canadian Armed Forces. And so how do we get the balance right so that there's equality of opportunity, but we're going to realize that some of these
traditional sort of soldiering jobs will always have an overabundance of the young men who wants to fight for king and country, so to speak. And are we even able to have these conversations or will I be canceled for that statement that young men still want the adventure and still want to go to war for their country? How do we get through this malaise? Because clearly,
Hon. Erin OToole (57:48.092)
the forces and military life isn't appealing to enough Gen Zs and even enough Millennials.
Mark Norman (57:54.099)
Yeah, well, a couple of things. So that's that's quite a bundle to unpack there. But but I'll do my best. First thing I would say is I've come across a lot of young women that are looking for that kind of adventure, too. So, you know, that's it. And I think there's a key. And I know you didn't mean it that way. But, know, we we need to attract 100 percent of the population from the outset. And then what
Hon. Erin OToole (57:59.23)
It is, I know.
Hon. Erin OToole (58:20.318)
100%. But, Mark, we're driving away some of the young men. And this is something we have to be honest about the conversation, right? And so...
Mark Norman (58:25.077)
I know.
Mark Norman (58:29.49)
So that part of it, I'm gonna park, I wanna park the word, we're gonna come back to it, because you said it and it's the right word. This is all about balance. finding balance can often be a bit of a iterative process, right? The people talk about the pendulum, it's swinging one way or the other, and then it eventually finds its natural point of balance.
Hon. Erin OToole (58:46.098)
Mm-hmm.
Mark Norman (58:54.386)
And I think that's kind of what's happening. And we talk about that, but I want to sort of start this. So we look at the problem. I look at the problem through sort of three overlapping perspectives. Okay. Do we have enough and what's the right number? There's there's a whole problem set right there. What is the qualitative dimension of of whatever that right number is?
And, know, by that, mean, do they have the right skills? Are they properly trained? Are they ready? And you know how many of and you and I both know that, you know, not only are we not only are we short a bunch of people below the approved establishment, but there's a whole bunch of people who are in the establishment who are not available for a variety of reasons, some of them legitimate.
some of them probably questionable. So now, you know, these are the qualitative dimensions. they do we have do they have the right training? Are they are they actually competent? And I don't it's I don't mean this as a judgment on the individuals themselves, but do they have the right competencies to do what's expected of them? And how do we how do we ensure that they they not only have those competencies, but they can maintain them and improve them as they go through their careers?
And, and, and then, you know, there's, there's a third component opponent to this, which is, they actually doing the right things? So, and I haven't even talked about the issue of the, how the attract, whether they're attracted or not attracted, what attracts individual one versus individual two. And, you know, they want to do something.
that anyway, that the system is not giving them. But there's a big problem here as well with what people are actually doing. And my view is we have way too many people doing things that could be done other ways. So back to, you know, how do we how do we look at this? Part of this is there's a whole bunch of things that you know, this as well as any of your military viewers know that.
Mark Norman (01:01:16.094)
We have people in uniform doing a lot of things that they probably don't need to be in uniform to do. And we also have a bunch of empty holes in an organization where we need people in uniform that we can't fill. That's only one dimension of this problem. So the point is, it's a very complicated problem, but we start by, you know, how do we fix this? Well, first of all, we have to make military service
actually a desirable and attractive thing to do. And that starts with convincing Canadians at the highest level of government, i.e. the prime minister and ministers of the crown, that military service is something honourable and something important and something to aspire to. that, you know, service to your country, yes, it can be done in many ways, shapes and forms.
But, you know, service in the military is really something that Canadians should want to do. And the good news is, apparently, there's a bunch who do. I think there should be a bunch more who should think that way. And it starts with the right, you know, messaging, if I can put it that crudely. You know, the second thing is...
with respect to a lot of the mechanisms and machinery. And we are seeing some improvements in that regard. and then there's this, this qualitative dimension to, why do you join the military? Well, this is why I go back to my third point. My bucket was if you're joining the military to do anything other than fight on behalf of the nation that you serve, then why are you joining the military?
And we've kind of created this self-fulfilling prophecy in many respects. The good news is we do train everybody to the same standard when they come in the door. That's important. It's not just important from a standards and training perspective. It should also be important from a cultural perspective. But what we know happens is that people will migrate to different things for a variety of different reasons.
Mark Norman (01:03:33.299)
Mostly personal, might be convenience, it might be a variety of things. So what we need is a system that is more agile in acknowledging why people would opt out of things. Because in many cases, that's what's happening. People are opting out of things. They're either opting out of the force altogether, which is sad, or they're opting out of...
Hon. Erin OToole (01:04:01.359)
pointy end of the stick.
Mark Norman (01:04:01.768)
more, right? The more operational things for a variety of reasons. And you know what most of those are? They're related to family and quality of life. So, and a sense of value, which is addressed. First of all, let's get the messaging right, get the balance right. And you and I both know that leadership is a huge component of making people feel good about what they do. So it's a very complex.
Malaise, I do believe that there is an opportunity now to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak, that while we're fixing the intake problem, we have a throughput problem, which is the next in the sequence that people are just... Exactly.
Hon. Erin OToole (01:04:52.165)
That's another discussion. But let me pull out what you said there, Mark. A, there has to be a... We have to remind people of the great character and the respect of serving your country and putting it all on the line and service above self. There needs to be a delineation of uniformed people have to be people that are willing and prepared and ready to fight for their nation.
in the Army, Navy, Air Force. And therefore, maybe support or other jobs don't necessarily have to be uniformed or could be another level of uniformed service. And that maybe pay should flow. And then the quality of life piece. know, bases, when you were young, used to be the best gyms and quality of life and families lived on base. It may not be able to be
to be the same exact structure now, but we have to make sure that we take care of families better and that we have that quality of life so that when people sign up for this. So you think this needs to be a multi-layered approach to really attract people in, put forward a fighting military, and then make sure that people enjoy the culture and feel a part of it. And now is the time to do it.
Mark Norman (01:06:17.416)
Right, and give them the tools they need to actually do the jobs that they're expected to do. And I do, you're exactly well done. You took my ramblings and made them into something coherent. But yes, and now is the time back to your opening comment, you know, when we started the conversation, you know.
Hon. Erin OToole (01:06:30.425)
Hahaha.
Mark Norman (01:06:42.712)
things have changed and they have changed dramatically. And now is the time to look at this, not stop what we're doing, bringing people in and not, but we're, we're, only, and I don't fault anyone for this, but we're focusing on one part of a very complex equation. You know, it's a multivariable equation and all we're focused on right now is, is figuring out the value of X when there's seven other things that we have to figure out.
And you can mess around with X all you want, but you're not going to fix it. But we need to fix all of it. Otherwise, exactly.
Hon. Erin OToole (01:07:22.085)
And now is the time. And now is the time, as you said, in that second op-ed, we could face a number of years of isolation and the need to be self-reliant. So not only fixing some of the gaps in the Canadian Armed Forces, but restoring that honour that should go alongside serving in it. And I can't think of talking about these issues with anybody
more equipped and as honorable as you, Admiral. So Mark Norman, thank you for making a second appearance on Blue Skies. Thank you for almost 40 years of service in uniform to your country and for your continued patriotism. I really appreciate Blue Sky and these issues with you today.
Mark Norman (01:08:11.124)
Thanks a lot, ErIn. All the best to you and your viewers. Take care.
Hon. Erin OToole (01:08:14.319)
Thank you.