National Defence Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2018

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

With respect to these emerging applications of AI, and given their place in global security and the battlefields of the future, should parliamentarians be discussing that?

[Bruce Jones]

Absolutely.

I don't think there is any domain of peace and security left where cyber and AI aren't central to the dynamics of who is gaining and who is losing capability. That has to be central to any discussion of international security in the coming period.

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

The public safety committee would be one, and this committee in particular, the national defence—

[Bruce Jones]

To be honest, I don't have a full sense of the kinds of division or responsibility of Canadian parliamentary committees, but certainly across the spectrum of committees that are worried about public safety, foreign policy or international security policy. They should be thinking hard about both artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies as rapidly changing the landscape for both geopolitical and non-state competition.

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

In the last few years, have you had an opportunity to interface with the ambassadors from the different countries to NATO, for example the Canadian ambassador to NATO?

[Bruce Jones]

With regard to the Canadian ambassador to NATO specifically, I don't think so, but several other ambassadors, including the American ambassador on several occasions, yes.

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

When women are in the position of ambassador to NATO, would you say they have an active hand in shaping policy and ways forward in terms of action taken by NATO?

[Bruce Jones]

I would say, to a modest degree.

I mean, I think you know perfectly well that policy at NATO is really set in capitals. Foreign and defence ministers are pretty heavily involved in shaping policy for NATO, both on specific operations and in general terms.

Ambassadors can amplify that. They can take initiative to some degree. Ambassadors of the UN are somewhat more empowered, as a typical rule. Certainly ambassadors can make a difference, but I would be modest about that. It's really capitals that drive policy in most instances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're going to have to hold it there. There will be time at the end, and I'm sure you'll have more time to discuss this.

I'm going to yield the floor to MP Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport, Lib.]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone for their excellent presentations.

I'll start with you, Dr. Jones, if that's okay.

I'm fairly new to the committee, so I really appreciated the high-level overview you started with—that we're now in a post-Arab Spring period. The complexity of the conflict is different, so what and whom we're fighting to get to peace in terms of the spoilers and the terrorists is completely different, and thus our peacekeeping and peacemaking also need to be different.

I also appreciated your giving a very good sense of the UN operations in places like Mali, and that for them to implement their objectives and have a better chance of success, it really depends on the quality of the troop contributors. I have a much better appreciation of Canada and our role in Mali as a result of part of the discussion you brought out today, as well as some of the other participants in the study. I'm very grateful for that.

One of the other things you mentioned—and this brings me to my question—is that Canada's participation in Mali gives us legitimacy at the UN to push policy agenda forward. Given the fact that a number of my colleagues are going to the UN, could you maybe elaborate on what policy agenda you think we should be pushing forward as we go to the UN?

[Bruce Jones]

Thank you.

There's a debate inside the Secretariat. There's a debate in the membership about the question of what it means for UN peacekeeping to be engaged in contexts where there is a terrorism dimension. It's not comfortable for the UN. There's uncertainty about it. There are concerns about it.

It's very important for Canada to be learning in real time from its operations in Mali and feeding those discussions into the policy debates at the UN. It requires a further elaboration of the concept of impartiality to recognize that if you're confronting a group such as AQIM, which is never going to support a peace process, a sustained tempo of operations in defence against AQIM, whether it's from the French or from the UN, is part of the process of implementing a peace agreement. It's not outside of that. That's part of the reality, to push the envelope in terms of where impartiality confronts strategic spoilers and continuous spoilers against peace operations.

Inside the Secretariat, the legal office and the peacekeeping office understand this, but there is hesitation and nervousness, essentially because some of the “traditional” peacekeeper African countries and some of the smaller Asian countries that have been doing the bulk of the contributions over the last several years are very nervous about it. They don't have the kinds of capability Canada has to defend itself or to be engaged in more offensive operations. They don't want to be put into a context where they're expected to undertake the harder edge of peacekeeping but without the capabilities to do it.

That circle cannot be squared, unless countries such as Canada, Holland, and others that have more advanced capabilities are in those operations and bringing the policy argument back to New York.

[Julie Dzerowicz]

That's extremely helpful. Thank you so much.

I don't have a lot of time. Dr. Jones, I'm hoping to loop back to you on a couple of other questions. However, I'd like to turn my attention to Ms. White and Ms. Woroniuk.

Thanks for the excellent conversation.

As a woman who has worked only in male-dominated professions, the business world and politics, I've learned that for a woman to really have an impact, we need to actually get to a critical mass really quickly. We're in what I call the “uncomfortable phase”. Part of the thing that I can't quite figure out in our conversation is, if we're at 5%, 10% or 15%, how do we move to 30% as quickly as possible, where we can actually have that critical mass to create change? That's question number one.

Two, it's more about sponsorship versus mentorship. How is it that we really do need to have senior male leaders sponsoring female leaders within international peacekeeping, within peace and conflict, to be able to actually get to those leadership positions?

Three, we need to create groups where women can actually support each other within peace and conflict.

I wonder whether both of you can address how we can actually achieve each of those. First, do you agree? Second, how can we actually move the bar on any one of those three? Thank you.

[Kathryn White]

First of all, thank you for the question. I'll dive into it. In fact, I'm also going to touch really briefly on Kerry Buck, who has just left as our ambassador to NATO and has made quite a difference in terms of taking policy forward.

I'll also give a shout-out to my colleague and friend Clare Hutchinson, who is the SRSG on gender at NATO. She is a fearless advocate. In answer to your question, she has gotten comfortable in this setting as an advocate. I'm also happy to say that the SRSG of NATO has referred to the “Hutchinson effect”.

I see that we have little time.

In a way, we also have to acknowledge that women who decide to go into the military often don't decide to go in because they want to be peacekeepers. They go into the military because they want to be part of the cadre, the body, or they want to contribute in other ways. Therefore, in a way, it's providing safe places for discussion that also brings their sisters- and brothers-in-arms to that conversation.

Frankly, I suspect that for people such as you, who have come through male-dominated professions and so on.... You have a governance role, but there's a civil society component for those of us who have had the privilege to actually champion women in those settings as well. Thank you for bringing it up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

MP Garrison, go ahead.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Spengemann for bringing up LGBTQI issues, because it's nice to have someone other than the only gay guy at the table raising them. However, I think that's relevant to what we were just talking about here.

Both of you, Ms. White and Ms. Woroniuk, made reference to having men re-educated, I would say, on the issues of women, peace and security. I'd like you to say a bit more about any specific proposals you have on how that would really be accomplished at more senior levels.

[Beth Woroniuk]

I think this is a really important issue. We often go to meetings to talk about women, peace and security, and 95% of the people sitting around the room are women. I think there are a number of issues. One is leadership. It is really important that support and legitimacy for this issue start at the top.

This is where I think General Vance has made real strides, because he has taken this seriously. I think there is much that we can learn from that. Often we have token support for these issues but we don't see male leaders actually attending the courses, sitting through the discussions, participating in the debates. They will often nominate a woman to go in their place, or they'll find another way not to go. Given military and security sector structures, leadership is absolutely crucial. We have to say that it starts at the top. The men have to put in the time.

We have the evidence now that looking at these issues is a legitimate security issue. We have research showing that peace agreements last longer when women's organizations are involved. We even have research showing that societies with more equal gender relations are less likely to go to war with their neighbours. In addition to being the right thing to do, looking at women, peace and security issues is also the smart thing to do in terms of building peace and in terms of the objectives we're trying to do.

So we have the business case, but we have a lot of people around the room who don't believe in this business case. I think that's an area where we need to have more discussions and more research. What is that tipping point or that nudge that gets people to take this issue seriously and as a legitimate point of departure in this area? I think inviting a broader spectrum of people to the table is a really important starting point. The saying, I think, is that military matters are too important to be left to the military. I think it really applies in this case.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Ms. White, go ahead.

[Kathryn White]

I will echo my colleague on these issues. I think you will not be surprised that sometimes when we hear about high-level training, suddenly people are opting out of it as not the most important that they're undertaking. It seems to me that leadership can say that these are mandatory.

I think empathy-based learning always has real, direct value—in the same way that having you around the table saying “It's me” does. We are apparently women, so that does something as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Given the time on the clock and the number of MPs who have indicated that they want to continue to ask questions, I'll allow a five-minute question period per MP.

I'll start with Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. White, you wrote a letter to the editor regarding the Mali mission. You pointed out the challenges in Mali with respect to the corruption, the crime, the extremism and the erosion of the state's ability to actually deliver security. As we heard from a number of witnesses, in the Mali situation there may be no peace to keep. The situation is dire.

Are we doing enough as Canada to help Mali?

[Kathryn White]

There is always much more to do. This is an important question. I think you raised, even in the description of your question, that it includes efforts—through FIs, through the World Bank and so on—on corruption, which is rampant. Many countries in Africa are losing close to a trillion dollars through corruption.

I mean, think about us making a difference there. Think about engaging young men and women in these countries to start thinking about the jobs of the future and what they could do. As I shared with you earlier, it's not simply employment itself that frees the risk of radicalization; it's also that meaningful engagement. Surely Canada has something to share in that way as well.

I'm reluctant to say that it's always just about sending wheelbarrows full of money, because I think we actually have the human resources, the soft skills and the lessons learned, which we can be sharing directly as well, including the “people to people” of civil society, whether it's women or youth or LGBTI. Imagine having a community member who says, “It's difficult in downtown Toronto as well, but here are the kinds of steps you could set up.”

Sometimes we think that these very granular pieces aren't as grand as sending militaries and equipment, but let me tell you, that is how peace is sustained.

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

When you talk about the issue of smart pledges, is that going to work and be effective in the operations in Mali?

[Kathryn White]

It is, if people like you continue to hold our government's feet to the fire on what you expect of it. We can only say, this is how Canada is going to see it and this is how we're going to act. As a respected member of the larger international community, we're going to ask others to do the same.

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

Dr. Jones, what about the issue of smart pledges and whether it's enough for Canada's contribution to the Mali mission in particular?

[Bruce Jones]

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to in terms of smart pledges by Canada. Are they conditional pledges of aid, or...?