National Defence Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2018

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I guess it's the rhetoric from the Liberal government here that they're going to be more intelligent in the types of capabilities they're offering. In Mali, it's an air task force for medevac and logistical support. One thing we weren't told about the so-called smart pledge is that it would also be supporting the G5 Sahel anti-terrorism operations. I just wanted to get your feedback on Canada's contributions to the Mali mission and what else should be done to see mission success.

[Bruce Jones]

I would say two things, both hard. One, which could come out of these kinds of discussions, is a clear sense of bipartisan support for this. I'm in Washington, so I'm not exactly in a strong position to talk about bipartisanship, but as a general matter, when a country can communicate that this is not just this government but a wider initiative, it gives leverage to whatever tool the government is deploying, and sustaining that commitment over time would be important.

Look, we have two choices. We can either have a very weak UN system that's not really capable of helping to stabilize a country like Mali, or we can have a somewhat more capable UN system, and for that to happen it has to have countries like Canada contributing at the tougher edge. I thought it was important that Canada went into Mali. I was a little disappointed that it limited itself to air support and rescue operations. I would have liked to see Canada take on a role more similar to what the Dutch had taken on, pushing the envelope a little further. Maybe that's something that can evolve as Canada learns more about Mali and stays in and evolves its operations.

Again, one thing is what we are delivering in Mali. The other is how we are essentially retraining and retooling the UN to be an effective tool and effective instrument for helping to stabilize fragile states with CT problems on the smaller end of that phenomenon, which is an instrument we need to have available to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

The floor goes to MP Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much.

This is a very ambitious study, and it's an ambitious report that we're going to be presenting. We won't be able to answer nearly every question, but I think it's important for the committee to flag all aspects of the relevant substance, and to identify those areas where further study may be appropriate by other committees, or even by this committee.

Do any of you have any comments on UN reform as it relates to peacekeeping in the coming decades that you would like to share with the committee?

[Kathryn White]

Actually, Bruce, you can go ahead.

[Bruce Jones]

I would offer two perspectives. One, Secretary-General Guterres just announced a few months ago a series of reforms integrating some of the regional desks in peacekeeping. Those are perfectly valid managerial reforms and aren't really going to move the needle in terms of policy. They're useful managerial improvements.

The real reform will come—and I'm repeating myself here—as countries like Holland, Canada, Spain, China and others start contributing more to the tougher end of the UN peacekeeping operations. That will drive a debate, and it will drive policy change about how we need to be organized to support that more effectively.

The management of the UN, the reform of the UN, has lagged behind the challenges we're going to confront in the field, and that won't change until we create that sort of back and forth between countries that are deploying in the field but also have policy weight in New York.

I've raised issues before on the question of how we interpret impartiality, the legal basis for how we're operating in some of these contexts. All of these need to evolve. That's the real policy reform, moving the deck chairs on which department is relating to them. That's fine. The real evolution needs to occur in understanding that we are now in a phase where CT and civil war management are fused, and we have to understand the policy implications of that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Ms. White and Ms. Woroniuk, is there anything you'd like to add?

[Beth Woroniuk]

I will just add that I think the other element that's important in looking at UN reform is to bring the commitment to the women's rights and gender equality agenda together with the UN reform agenda. These should not be seen as two separate, parallel tracks. We have had emphasis on parity for women in senior management levels at the UN, but I think it's also important that we look at the commitments to gender analysis and gender mainstreaming and that these be taken seriously as part of UN reform and not seen as a secondary or a side issue.

[Kathryn White]

I would agree with my colleague, of course, but I'm also going to suggest, in terms of your research, that you look at some of the emergent threats around cybersecurity and AI. Increasingly, we've seen countries disrupt elections and so on. You can imagine that these threats are only going to get more sophisticated and challenging. It almost goes to reform of doctrine or keeping up with emerging doctrine and legal structures, which of course is what Bruce was describing as well.

We have seen that social media can continue to fuel disruption in countries where we have peacekeepers at risk. This is not idly a future issue; this is an issue right now, and I would encourage you to look at it. I know that UNA-Canada is about to bring together some leading thinkers around Arctic security, as well as climate and oceans. These things are much more interrelated, to make your study even bigger....

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to delegate the remaining minute to any of my colleagues who would like to ask a short question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Gerretsen, you're next, so either you can take that minute....

Is there anybody else?

You're the next questioner. We'll just roll right into your question. The floor is yours.

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

Okay.

Ms. Woroniuk...? Is that pronounced right?

[Beth Woroniuk]

Yes. If you want the Ukrainian, it's pronounced “Voroniuk”.

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

Yes, I think that's easier.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

There are a couple of us sitting around the table.

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

I want to ask you about the ambassador position that Minister Freeland announced last week. In particular, there was also a motion before the House with regard to this. I'm wondering if you can comment on some of the expert opinion that has been coming forward regarding this position.

In particular, Matthew Legge advised that the position should have three general roles, with the first being a policy input role in Canada; the second being the authority to represent Canada in select international forums; and the third being to travel the country to get direct input from the Canadian public. I'm curious to hear what your position is on that and what role you would like to see such an ambassador play.

[Beth Woroniuk]

Thank you very much for the question. We were very pleased and very excited to see the announcement of this position.

A high-level champion to support the implementation of Canada's many commitments on women, peace and security has been a long-standing request of members of our network. We see very much that the primary purpose of this position should be to catalyze the implementation of the commitments that already exist.

Our national action plan on women, peace and security is a complex document. It's a whole-of-government document. There are now new ministries that have signed on, but everyone—from Public Safety to Status of Women Canada to Global Affairs—is involved in implementing the national action plan. We see a critical role for this ambassador to be inward-looking and to help catalyze in making sure that all of these departments are working together. It is the first function, as you outlined in the policy function, but it's much more than that. It's not articulating policy but ensuring that the commitments we have made are resourced and actually actioned.

We would definitely see the second function—the ability to represent Canada at select forums—as a third and relatively low priority for this position. Certainly, involving Canadians in discussions should be an important piece of the remit of the ambassador as well.

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

Focusing on the third comment you made there, and going back to my earlier discussion with Ms. White about education and the importance of educating the Canadian public on why it's extremely important for Canada to be involved in peacekeeping throughout the world, would you say that this position could take on some of that role or that it's being recommended that this position take it on?

[Beth Woroniuk]

I would hope that the position takes on not just peacekeeping but talking about peace and security more broadly as well, in terms of how Canada is involved in the world and how we're engaged in building peace, not just keeping peace. Certainly, we've seen that when people start to talk about these issues, there's real interest and real curiosity about, say, why a Syrian family ended up here. Why are we sponsoring a Syrian refugee? What are the causes of the conflict in Syria?

In term of talking about those issues from a women, peace and security perspective specifically, or more broadly in terms of what Canada is doing in the world, I think there is a lot of interest on the part of Canadians to see how these various pieces all fit together.

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

We've done a number of studies now, whether it's on this issue or NATO or NORAD. One of the interesting things that I've found in this committee is that as we've seen this decline of interest or willingness to participate, we also seem to see a decline in the amount of engagement that the everyday Canadian has and the understanding of why peacekeeping or peace-promoting is important throughout the world.

We've seen this with NATO. Fewer and fewer Canadians understand the relevance of NATO. It's the same thing with NORAD.

Regarding the question I asked Ms. White, I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to it as well. How important is it to keep Canadians engaged in the discussions about why this is important? How important is it to get it out of the political exercise that we seem to embark on, and into the discussions that Canadians are having?

[Beth Woroniuk]

I think it's important to ask maybe different kinds of questions. Where we've found real interest is in exploring what security means and how you can have different understandings of security. Do definitions of security differ depending on who you are and where you fit into this? I think it's not just, “Why is NATO important?” but "What is security?" What is Canada's role in building security elsewhere, and how do those issues affect us as Canadians?

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

That is kind of the underlying theme to then support the others. Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

MP Fisher is next.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There seems to be a theme in this study, and we've said it a lot, about how much has changed since the last time we were really involved in peacekeeping operations, and how much the role of a peacekeeper has changed. Certainly as Canadians, we're not just observers anymore, as we were perhaps seen as in the past. While it's important to learn from the past, it's also important to recognize that peacekeeping operations will be a lot different than they've ever been since we got involved.

My question is for Ms. White. Perhaps the others want to chime in as well, but I do want to split my time, the last two and a half minutes, with MP Dzerowicz.

Is the current peacekeeping approach that we are pushing and evolving and working on right now much more realistic? Are we on the right track?

[Kathryn White]

I believe we are, because, of course, I also have faith in the fact that we have highly trained, disciplined and respected Canadian Forces. That's the baseline in terms of the deployment. I think they've also taken the lessons of Afghanistan on board, as well as the uglier deployments that we had earlier, including this inclusive security approach. I think it's deeply necessary.

I also mentioned Antonio Guterres's push for action that we've been a part of. In a way, as you know, the idea with various troop-contributing countries is that you also want to know that your partners have your back. I think those lessons, in many ways, also inform our decisions about where we are. I think we are positioned to take forward that kind of training, insight and even intelligence-gathering. I think we are increasingly respected on that front.

In terms of how we're deploying and so on, I gave you a list of recommendations. I would say that, for example, the Germans and the Dutch are making multi-year commitments, and we've gone in basically for six months. We send young Canadians on UN internships and their hosts always say, “If only we had them longer.” You can imagine that, in a country of conflict, for us to make a longer commitment, even if we are rotating the expertise and the contributions we're making.... I think there would be deep value there.