National Defence Committee on April 26th, 2012

[Jill Sinclair]

Particularly with—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But it's rather necessary in the circumstances.

[Jill Sinclair]

Yes, it is. I think NATO's approach to Russia since the changes with the fall of the Soviet Union has been, “The doors are open. This alliance is not about you. It's not against you. The partnership volets are totally open on everything we are doing.”

It is really for Russia to determine what the nature of that relationship will be. The doors are wide open. We want maximum cooperation. Russia is going through a political transition. It will be interesting to see how they want to define their relationship with NATO.

As I say, there was a very constructive discussion in Brussels last week, at the foreign ministers level. So we do have a dialogue and a lot of practical input, including around Afghanistan and all sorts of difficult issues.

My hope would be that we can continue to develop that relationship with Russia, because they can be a partner in this security sphere that we are committed to.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We're going to go on to our five-minute round, and to lead us off is Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Sinclair and Colonel, thank you both for being here today. I know you do a great job. You've worked very well together. Thank you for everything you do.

Ms. Sinclair, I've seen you on a number of occasions. How would you say, overall, that Canada's influence and reputation has increased among our partners and non-partners in the world because of our participation in NATO?

[Jill Sinclair]

Thank you.

I think because of the practical contributions that Canada brings to the alliance, we are seen by countries around the world, whether it's the Australians, or the Asians, or the Latin Americans, as a country that has a political voice at an important table, which NATO continues to be. And we actually bring practical capability to very difficult issues around the world.

I believe our participation in NATO, its operations, and its political nature really does maintain and project our influence with other countries around the world, too.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Colonel Irwin, can you talk a little more on the smart defence allocation of resources in terms of our strategic airlift helicopters, and some of the weapons platforms that we share?

You were posted to Brussels, right? From that perspective can you better define the pooling of equipment and resources as well as interoperability?

[Col Brian Irwin]

Thank you.

Whether that fits within smart defence or within the broader discussions of this capability package and how we approach defence planning, which is part of that package, again it comes back to what those national capabilities are that nations would say they have invested in and that reside within the alliance.

As you look at smart defence, there are perhaps some initiatives—and they are not new initiatives that you would see perhaps rolled out within that or under that heading of an opportunity for pooling and sharing. The ADM mentioned the air policing.

From a Canadian perspective, our contributions to a multinational approach are fairly modest so we would be participating in areas by improving practices with regard to delivery of logistics or deployed contracting and the like. Nations would be getting together and looking at how to perhaps procure a new refueler, or the like.

There are discrete initiatives that, multinationally, nations are going off and working on. And Canada has some limited contribution to that, but again, it's about a more national piece and where your national capabilities reside.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

What do you think, in NATO's opinion, are the things that we do best? For example, we have the training mission of course going on in Kabul. Obviously, our combat skills over the time we've been deployed there have increased very sharply.

When I'm talking about training I'm not just talking about training over there. I'm also talking about CFC and the whole defence academy thing, and some of our other capabilities.

Could you describe what you think, in your opinion, NATO thinks we do best?

[Col Brian Irwin]

It's a difficult question because I'd be somewhat biased. But I think in many respects it's about delivering those combat-capable troops, first and foremost, that can deploy to Afghanistan and can really do some of the heavy lifting without caveats and the like, through to an air capability that's able to make impressive contributions. It's not only engaging targets, but it's also that mix of refuelers and that full reach that goes back to being able to have planners that can integrate into the system and the like.

I think our maritime contributions have been impressive. When we deploy a ship, we deploy a ship kitted out with all the bells and whistles, which the allies look at and say, that is a capable ship, a go-to ship.

I think when you look at our staff and how we contribute Canadians into the NATO staff, we hold good positions where we have influence on the shaping and development of plans. Folks really do like to have Canadians on their staff who are well trained and able to move issues forward.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Let's talk about staff for a second. Why do we develop such good staff officers?

[Col Brian Irwin]

I think we have a pretty impressive professional development program as to how we produce officers. I think we have a pretty robust framework similar to that of a healthy mix of both the U.K. and U.S. type of models. I think it's a pretty good professional development program.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

We're moving along. Mr. Kellway.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to Colonel Irwin and Ms. Sinclair for coming to see us again.

I detect in your comments an eagerness to play a large role in NATO and an enthusiasm for what some might see as an over-contribution to the organization. Let me suggest that maybe what's deserving of more enthusiasm would be a more balanced role for Canada within that organization. What worries me about the enthusiasm and the eagerness for playing this large role and punching above our weight within that organization is, first, the cost to Canadians. We are on the precipice of procuring billions upon billions of dollars of military equipment in order to be an expeditionary force without caveat, which, I guess, is the terminology you used. Also, as we come up to this notion of smart defence, which I take hasn't been worked out completely, I wonder if our enthusiasm is going to further that eagerness to build the Canadian Forces to play an even larger role in NATO.

I wonder if you could give me a response to all of that.

[Jill Sinclair]

I might go back to first principles a little bit about the alliance, because the question refers to our contribution to the organization. Our starting premise is that the organization is us and it is in our national interest. When we look at our contribution to things like operations in Afghanistan or Libya, we agreed to participate in those operations because it was in Canada's interests to participate in them. NATO was the vehicle through which we participated,but as you recall there were UN Security Council resolutions that endorsed these operations. So it's not so much about contributing to the organization for the sake of it. Rather, it's what we are able to bring, in support of our own national interests, to NATO, as the vehicle through which we do that.

As for costs to Canadians, the equipment and all of that, I might have gone over it too quickly. The fact is that Canada is a vast territory, and I think if the chief were here he would say this because I'm about to use his expression. We do expeditionary operations in Canada all the time in order to make the reach to the Arctic, to the coasts, to be able to do our missions out to our perimeter. The need for expeditionary capability is something that is inherently in Canada's interests. We then are able to bring that capability to the NATO mission when it's required and if we've determined that it's in Canada's interests to do so.

So I see these things as absolutely integral to one another as opposed to doing something for the organization that's at variance with what we do for Canada.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

On this issue of procurement, when I look at the billions of dollars that are planned and are being spent on things like close combat vehicles, surely those aren't for expeditionary forces within Canada. Those are for dropping forces and tires and boots on the ground around the world.

On the issue of interest, it seems to some people that NATO is an artifact of a world that is passing us by, if it has not already passed us by, the whole transatlantic thing. I wonder if our defence interests should be shifting to a different orientation, perhaps one that is more specific. The United States has made the argument that their focus is now more to the west as opposed to the Atlantic. Could you comment on that?

[Jill Sinclair]

Thank you.

Simply a word on your afterword about being out in the world. The other thing I should have said is that the best way you secure yourself is forward defence. So what you want to do is to be able to meet threats as far away from your national shores as possible. So again, that ability to deploy, whether it's CCVs or others, is all part of the same package in a way.

On NATO being an artifact of a passing world, there should be a lively debate about the future of the alliance and whether it's still relevant. We have gone through that. We went through that when we had the discussion around the strategic concept. We went through that discussion at the end of the cold war, and we have to make sure that we're not all investing in something that's actually not necessary. But interestingly, things like Libya, things like counter-piracy, things like counterterrorism, all the stuff that we're doing, NATO support to the African union, the training that we're doing in Afghanistan now, all show that there is an enduring value in this alliance as a Euro-Atlantic community of interest, which is helping to bring security to other parts of the world.

In terms of shifting perspectives, you know, the U.S.—there's a lot of talk about the U.S. pivot, and they can talk to that themselves, I don't have to—has always been a pacific nation. Canada has always been a pacific nation. Do you have a little bit of emphasis? Yes, perhaps, a new emphasis.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Ms. Sinclair.

Mr. Norlock, you have the floor.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today.

It's always interesting to hear people use words that mean different things to different people, such as smart defence. To some people smart defence means being capable and able, as you articulated at the beginning of this—in your deck actually—and also through some of the questions. To some people, smart defence means the primary function of our military should be to be able to deliver aid to foreign nations using the military as the means by which to do that, and that anything we do should have a nice warm cuddly feeling—make a bonfire, lock your hands, pass the sandwiches around, and sing Kumbaya. To other people, it means we should be able to stand our ground in the world against anyone who poses a threat to the values that we believe make us the country we are.

I would suggest that a smart defence policy would be something that the hockey coach and the football coach says—that a good defence is a good offence. In other words, you're capable of defending yourself.

Would you also agree with me that one of the best ways to ensure that is to be able to be a valued partner to the rest of your alliances in the world, whether that be the United Nations that tends to use NATO as its muscle, and would you agree that if you want to be a valued partner, you need to bring something to the table? That means, in a modern era, a capability of going by land, air, or sea, and being a nation that can be counted on to exercise foreign policies through existing organizations that have a global value in a positive way.

[Jill Sinclair]

The short answer is yes, and your starting premise about smart defence meaning different things to different people is a very good point because it reminds me of an earlier question.

Smart defence, for us, is about deployable capability, getting that out the door and sustaining it.

For some allies, smart defence does mean “Do we have to spend so much on defence?” So we are having this discussion within NATO, and that's why smart defence is still a work in progress, because we haven't got a total view around that. But absolutely, being a valued partner...and you make the point about NATO having acted in support of the United Nations. It has acted in support of the Arab League. It acts in support of the European Union. We're helping the African Union. It's about bringing practical capability to meet real-world challenges.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

If I have a couple of minutes left, I want to talk about nuclear capabilities. Nuclear disarmament is a worthy goal to have in today's unstable world, and there is a recognition towards the goal of disarmament in NATO's 2010 strategic concept.

How do you balance the realities of today, where there are unstable nations such as Iran and North Korea, and their possession of nuclear abilities? How do we balance that?

[Jill Sinclair]

Thank you very much.

NATO has had this discussion and continues to have this discussion. NATO is committed to working to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. Until that world exists we will hedge our bets and maintain nuclear capability at much reduced levels of nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has dramatically reduced nuclear weapons in Europe. Our reliance on nuclear weapons as part of NATO strategy has been reviewed. As long as there are nuclear weapons, we will hedge our bets.

Working on arms control and disarmament—the commitment of all NATO allies to the non-proliferation treaty, including article 6 that sees the elimination of nuclear weapons eventually, remains part of our working premise and ethos. We see arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament as important parts and contributions to peace and security.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

In our study on readiness, the committee talked in great detail about the Canada First defence strategy and the six core missions it set out for the Canadian Forces.

In its strategic concept paper, does NATO have its own core tasks or principles that seek to fulfill this as well? If so, what are they? I think we have to be succinct.

[Jill Sinclair]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Our Canada First strategy has six core missions that are set out for the Canadian Forces. Does the NATO strategic concept paper have its own core tasks or principles it seeks to fulfill? If so, what are they?