National Defence Committee on May 5th, 2016

[Peggy Mason]

I would refer to the testimony on March 22 before this committee by Rear-Admiral Scott Bishop, director general, international security policy; and Stephen Burt, assistant chief of defence intelligence, Canadian Forces intelligence command. They stated quite clearly and unequivocally that there is no military threat to Canada—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Right, there's no military threat.

I'm sorry. I appreciate the fact that you're referencing one particular example, but we just spent the last few days at NORAD where we heard quite the opposite. I can appreciate the fact that it might be a biased forum as well, but the particular type of missile that we would be trying to defend against is not necessarily one that what would come from a major state such as Russia, but from a smaller state such as North Korea, or Iran for that matter.

[Peggy Mason]

Well, the Americans of course say that's the purpose of it, and of course the capacity of the system is even well below that. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned or do nothing about North Korea. I'm saying that I agree with the testimony—and there were also Foreign Affairs people who testified to the same effect—that there's no military threat to Canada from North Korea.

I also believe very strongly that we should make every effort to work the on non-proliferation front. This was the approach, with multilateral negotiations and the full range of international non-proliferation architecture, that was brought to bear to get Iran off the track of developing nuclear weapons and to get them back into the fold squarely on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

There have been some efforts on that, desultory efforts, and six-party talks with North Korea on it. I believe it is absolutely fundamental that those talks be re-energized, and I believe that it is the most effective way to bring North Korea back into the fold. Canada can play a role there.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Are you suggesting that it's the only way?

[Peggy Mason]

I'm saying it's the most effective way because, in my view, ballistic missile defence is not an effective way.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It's not an effective way at all?

[Peggy Mason]

Yes. It's not effective.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You also made a number of other assertions. You said that it wouldn't guarantee us a seat at the table if we were to be a participant in BMD. What if, through negotiations and getting involved and being part of that program, we did guarantee ourselves a seat at the table? Would that change your position on it?

[Peggy Mason]

Again, we have to look at the relevant evidence. We participated in intense negotiations with the United States in the 2004-05 period. At that time, it wasn't just that they wouldn't give us any guarantee of meaningful participation—never mind full—but they wouldn't even give a guarantee that Canadian cities would—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I know, but I'm asking a hypothetical. What if we were able to negotiate that guarantee?

[Peggy Mason]

I indicated from the outset that for me the most vital consideration is the arms control and disarmament consideration. The fact is that this, with no payoff in terms of any reliability or in terms of its actually working against rogue states, has already had an incredibly negative impact on impeding arms control and reduction with respect to Russia and in propelling very negative developments.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You have six reasons that you presented to us, but really, one reason is the most important.

[Peggy Mason]

Well, they're all important. You see, if you give reasons and then someone says, “If we pretend that none of these reasons will apply, will you agree with me?”, I'm not willing. I think it's not a reasonable premise.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I appreciate that.

Very quickly, Mr. Perry, in your opinion, what does Canada's lack of participation in BMD say about our sovereignty and our ability to defend our own autonomy, so to speak?

[David Perry]

It means that it's not inclusive.

I would reframe this argument totally in the other direction. I think the only guarantee we have is that if we don't participate in the system, we will have absolutely no say in defending Canadians against that type of threat. We may not have a full guarantee that we would fully participate if we were in, but if we aren't in, there's no ability to defend Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Well, I hope you guys are friends at the end of the day and are able to shake hands when you leave the room.

[Peggy Mason]

We know each other well.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have another 45 seconds left.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'd be happy to share that with another member.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Okay, now you have 30 seconds. That said, we'll move on.

I'm going to give the floor to you, Mr. Paul-Hus. You have seven minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're having a good discussion here. Actually, there are really two ways of seeing things. My colleague Mr. Gerretsen really got the ball rolling.

Ms. Mason, we've had many witnesses here from the start, including people from the Department of National Defence, who told us that there was no threat. However, many other witnesses, civilians and military personnel alike, have confirmed that there was a huge potential threat. Perhaps there wasn't one 10 years ago, but there currently is a threat.

We're back from Cheyenne Mountain, where NORAD has facilities. We had some very good discussions on Tuesday with our American and Canadian colleagues, and they showed us in a very practical way. We really understood the threat.

Ms. Mason, I'd like to talk about something a little more political as to Canada's participation or non-participation. I think you mentioned that our participation in the missile defence program would prevent us from having a seat at the UN. How does having a seat at the UN take precedence over the safety of Canadians?

[Peggy Mason]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, I will answer in English because of the terminology.

The interpreter mentioned a seat at the United Nations, but without any context, so I'm not sure if there was something left out of the translation.

Could you repeat your question about the United Nations?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You mentioned in your presentation that Canada's participation in the missile defence program would prevent it from having a seat at the United Nations.

How is not having a seat at the United Nations a bigger problem than the safety of Canadians?