Evidence of meeting #107 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was soldiers.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stephen M. Cadden  Commander, Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre, Department of National Defence
Jacques Allain  Commander, Peace Support Training Centre, Department of National Defence
Julie Dzerowicz  Davenport, Lib.
Richard Martel  Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC
Sarah Jane Meharg  President, Peace and Conflict Planners Inc., As an Individual

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

We know that in the top of the UN mission personnel there, which Canada is part of, there are anti-terrorism operations of both France and the G5 Sahel. When we look at the ATOs, do they have to succeed first before the handcuffs are taken off, the restrictions on participating nations as partners in the UN mission? Do they have to succeed before they allow them to go outside the wire?

12:50 p.m.

President, Peace and Conflict Planners Inc., As an Individual

Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg

There always has to be a secured environment in order for the other elements of peacekeeping to take hold. That also includes peace enforcement and peacemaking. This is all part of that spectrum of operations I mentioned earlier. Yes, you have to have a secure environment in order for these things to unfold in a host nation.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Essentially you're saying that until there's peace to keep, there isn't peace there now, and we need to get that peacemaking advanced before we will have success on the peacekeeping.

You also asked why we are doing this when you were talking about the ways, the means and the goals. What do you think Canada's objective is here? What's the political reality?

12:50 p.m.

President, Peace and Conflict Planners Inc., As an Individual

Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg

There's definitely a mismatch between political interest and intent, and what that mission is up to, what Mali is, what it's doing, and what the UN is doing there. It may or may not be the mission that actually helps Canada attain its political intent or its political aim.

I'm not sure. There has been talk in the media that the political aim was very high-concept thinking at the beginning, but that now, almost because of the type of mission that was chosen, it has been downgraded to the point that the political aim is not necessarily as robust as it was when it was first brought into the media.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

The government has decided to go with the smart pledge. Do you think that's the way to bring about peace in Mali, a smart pledge?

12:50 p.m.

President, Peace and Conflict Planners Inc., As an Individual

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

I'm going to give the floor over to MP Robillard. He's going to ask you a question in French and then he's going to share his time with MP Dzerowicz.

Yves, the floor is yours.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Since Canada has not provided many troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations for several years, does our country have the necessary credibility and expertise to train soldiers in peacekeeping?

12:50 p.m.

President, Peace and Conflict Planners Inc., As an Individual

Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg

Are you referring to Canada? Yes, we do, absolutely. In fact, I would say we're the top nation in the world.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Thank you.

I will share my time.

12:50 p.m.

Davenport, Lib.

Julie Dzerowicz

Thank you. I'm new to this committee so everything fascinates me right now.

Your three recommendations were to manage your meaning, figure out which part of Maslow you're trying to focus on, and then you talked about innovative tools. I'm going to continue the thread we have been talking about.

When I think as a Canadian about our peacekeeping mission in Mali, I don't think it's going to be up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers to achieve long-standing peace in Mali. I don't think there is any Canadian who actually believes that. I think we're part of a larger UN initiative and we're joining a number of other countries that are trying to create the conditions for peace within Mali.

I think you mentioned in your talk that it's really up to the people, the civilians, the government, the leaders within Mali to start dealing with this once we create those conditions. We have to stabilize enough that people feel safe, so that they can start fulfilling the bottom parts of the Maslow hierarchy.

For me, the question around whether or not Canada's involvement is going to lead to long-lasting peace is not really a fair question. I think for me the intent for us is to be part of a mission that will create those conditions. Do you think that's a fair way of portraying what we're trying to do in Mali?

12:55 p.m.

President, Peace and Conflict Planners Inc., As an Individual

Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg

Yes. That's a very fair way to put it.

12:55 p.m.

Davenport, Lib.

Julie Dzerowicz

The other thing I'm curious about is that you said the UN has a very clear goal for Mali. Is it a very clear goal to create those conditions for peace? What would you say?

The reason I'm asking the question, just so you understand, is that in my mind you have introduced this whole thing about figuring out which part of the Maslow theory you're trying to focus on. You're saying that when Canadians go in we're trying to train the troops and get more women involved in peacekeeping. You're saying, however, that we're not going to get to any of that if people don't feel safe on the ground—if they can't go about their business and send their kids to school.

You have a clear goal for Mali, and I would love to know what you believe that is, and in future peacekeeping missions what it is we need to be thinking about as we're looking to engage in these types of missions moving forward.

12:55 p.m.

President, Peace and Conflict Planners Inc., As an Individual

Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg

For the UN, the intention is to create an environment for those tenets of peace to take hold, but it's more than that for the United Nations. The UN is interested—just as it has traditionally been interested—in helping countries become part of the global commons, to be a part of what it calls the brotherhood of states, the international community and all of the benefits that come with that. It's almost self-regulating at some point in the future.

The UN wants that mission to take root, so there's a cessation of hostilities, a suspension of them through the peacekeeping efforts, a suspension of the violent armed conflict, so other things can take root. When enough time goes by, people usually forget to fight, because they have jobs and their kids are at school. When that happens, there's more opportunity to have the good tenable peace take root, versus the negative peace.

When it comes to Canada, again it comes back to why peacekeeping? It's part of our national identity, and it actually very much underpins our national security and our security interests in North America. We have—and I said this last year for your report on NATO—benefited from our geography for a long time: people cannot walk to Canada. Well, they can, and we were noticing it last summer that they could walk to Canada, but not in the same way that Italy and Germany have realized over the last 130 years.

Now that the emergent security trends are changing, what are our interests? How much are we committed to collective security? Because we do not have the resources to pay for our own security as fortress Canada—that doesn't even make sense—we have to be a part of that collective security web.

Peacekeeping and that wider remit of peace operations are ways in which to bolster the web, but we have to innovate. We can't just apply the 20th-century peacekeeping methodology to a 21st-century emergent security environment.

12:55 p.m.

Davenport, Lib.

Julie Dzerowicz

That makes sense. How much time do I have?

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

You're out of time. We have to move on.

I wanted to thank you very much for coming today. It's always a fascinating discussion when you come to committee. We all enjoyed it, so thank you very much.

There was an undertaking for a report that you and Mr. Gerretsen talked about. If you table that with us or let the clerk know, as well as the chart that you had, we would very much appreciate it.

Thank you.