National Defence Committee on Nov. 26th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Dr. Germain.

Thank you, Ms. Zipes.

Mr. Gehring, it has been a truly informative session this morning. Some of your testimony is in fact quite exciting. Thank you very much.

We have a little bit of housekeeping to do for a moment, but you're released from the table.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

We'll resume. We have a few minutes.

We have a tabling of a document with regard to the meeting in Europe in Dubrovnik, Croatia, attended by Ms. Gallant and Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, sir. It's my motion, which I gave notice of:

That the Committee receive and consider Policy Recommendations adopted by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at its Annual Session in Dubrovnik, Croatia on October 14, 2013.

There's a package which I think the clerk has available or has distributed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

It will be distributed now.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

There were seven policy resolutions adopted. I'm going to ask Cheryl Gallant, as the head of the delegation from Canada to Croatia, to speak to these resolutions. Perhaps I could make a few remarks afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Ms. Gallant.

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

I'm not going to go through every resolution, but I commend Jack for bringing this forward. I might give a little background on why I think Jack did this.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is comprised of members just like us sitting around the table. We find that smaller countries send their opposition leaders to these, because they're training grounds for defence ministers. Most recently the current Prime Minister of Norway was a member of our association, so it was a superb training ground for her on many levels.

In a number of these countries they also table the resolutions made at the NATO PA for study by the standing committees on defence in the respective parliaments.

I would like to hone in on one resolution that was introduced to various parliaments in Europe during the combat aspect of the Afghan mission. This had a practical effect and quite possibly changed the direction, but certainly saved lives. It was Resolution 336 on reducing national caveats. The problem we had in Afghanistan was that every country had its separate rules of engagement and caveats, wherein a country would not permit their soldiers to be part of certain operations. There was a point at which they could not participate or were withdrawn, and this made operational planning very difficult. Because only a few countries were doing the heavy lifting, they suffered an inordinate number of casualties. By bringing this forth at the MP level through the NATO PA, we were able to raise the awareness of the various countries, and it was very helpful in reducing the caveats so we had greater operational participation. That's the practical aspect.

In terms of the resolutions that were brought forth by Mr. Harris, I wish to draw your attention in particular to Resolution 403. It has to do with the economic and strategic implications of the revolution in unconventional oil and gas. Back in the spring when there was a study tabled saying that the United States would be energy independent in a few years, this had major reverberations in Europe, and not only because of the competition in manufacturing and all the economic aspects. If you look through the different aspects of the resolution, they're worried that overreliance on the promise of unconventional oil and gas will divert political attention away from...and noting that Europe faces a potential competitive shock. That's all about economics and competing in manufacturing for trade. Of course, in point 9 they refer to an oligopolistic force that is controlling a number of their countries' energy. I don't know who they're referring to there.

The real concern, and this is where it comes back militarily, is that the U.S. energy independence, together with the existing perception of a pivot away from Europe and the Middle East toward the Pacific, will leave Europe to shoulder more of its military costs in safeguarding the transport of energy, for example, ships patrolling the gulf of Hormuz.

That's why I'm drawing your attention to it. It has practical implications for Canada, and the real race is on to get that.... Which country is going to be the one to get the LNG to Europe? Whoever gets there first is going to get the best of the shipping contracts. In terms of building ships, they'll have a reputation of being reliable. Subsequent entrants may not be able to access the assets as easily; neither will they be able to start up, because the economics of starting up won't be there when somebody else has the lion's share.

That is why I wanted to draw your attention to this.

Maybe Jack has more that he'd like to speak to on the other resolutions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. I'll make some general comments.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, as Cheryl pointed out, has parliamentarians from the 28 NATO members but also from partners such as Russia, who are engaged in the NATO meetings and discussions, and also aspirant nations, like Georgia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a very viable international forum for parliamentarians.

These resolutions are pretty close to consensus. They're very well developed. They come from different committees of the association. They're debated at these annual sessions, modified to satisfy objections that have been raised, and they're adopted. I think they are quite comprehensive and worth looking at.

I think the Afghanistan motion is particularly interesting, in terms of what's happening in Afghanistan after 2014 that they're urging member nations to engage in. I thought we should share them with the members of this committee who take an interest in these affairs. As members of NATO, of course, Canada has played a role in the parliamentary assembly, which does vote on these resolutions and passes them. Canada has played a strong role in the past, and I think we should continue to do so.

One feature of this meeting in Croatia, and it's a feature of all the annual sessions, is that the secretary general, in this case, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, appears at the beginning and makes his opening remarks. Then there's a two-hour accountability session where delegates get to ask whatever questions they want. It's done in camera, or charter house rules. It is a sort of accountability session, I would have to call it, and a viable valid role for members of this committee, or whomever wants to participate, to get involved.

We wanted to bring this to the attention of the committee to give the perspective as to what the parliamentarians of the member states are thinking and how they're viewing these important matters of world affairs and strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you very much for your efforts on our behalf.

Thank you for your remarks, and thank you for the reading material, which after today's session should be consumed without disruption of sleep patterns.

The meeting is adjourned.