National Defence Committee on Nov. 6th, 2017

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's unreal, interesting.

One of the new things that's emerging, of course, is cybersecurity and cyber-threats. There's a centre of excellence that NATO's put in place. I'll open the floor to all three of you, because all three of you can answer this.

Is this something where Canada really needs to play more of a major role? Can you give us a bit of an overview on how you view NATO's Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence? How should it be functioning with Canada, and how should we be interacting with that?

I'll start off with you, Mr. Baines, and work right down through the witnesses.

[Robert Baines]

My team, and I have 10 interns in my office every four months, is always looking at what's next. What could we do? Creating more of a cyber command integration in NATO is certainly something that is of great interest. It would probably be a nightmare to try to make happen, but NATO's always been good at that.

The report I have here is called “Robotrolling”. It's by the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. This is the kind of report that can really move mountains as far as integration is concerned, because it gets everybody under the same flag, as it were, and reminds them how they can cohere together.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Moens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're going to have to leave it there, and move on to the next questioner. I'm looking at the clock, but there will be more time, and Mr. Hoback will have another opportunity.

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thank you very much, and thank you all for being here.

I'd like to focus my questions on the presentation made by Mr. Baines. Thank you for the very provocative and stimulating framework you gave us.

We need to not take the conversation away from foreign policy elites; that's wrong. We need to broaden the conversation significantly beyond the ambit of foreign policy elites, and by foreign policy and international relations elites, I mean no disrespect. It's not entitlement. It's simply the choice of working in that field. It's a very esoteric and specialized field. If we want to get Canadians engaged, the Canadians you described in your survey as walking on the streets of Toronto, as part of a broader university community, we need to come at it differently.

I'd like to suggest to you that NATO, in part, has a branding problem. Would you have any information on what would have happened, or maybe it did happen, had you asked folks the same questions about the UN?

The United Nations owns the diversity and inclusion agenda. It owns the economic development agenda, the peacekeeping agenda, and also the human rights agenda. People are familiar with the UN, because it's in the household increasingly. It's dealing with refugees, economic displacement, and climate-induced displacement. We need to look at NATO in terms of relevance and brand.

The other worrying phenomenon now, in the decline of U.S. moral and value leadership inside the United Nations, and the ascent of Russia and China, we're really moving into very different turf, even in UN circles. You started your presentation, if I heard you right, in terms of looking at the shared values that NATO allies represent.

Could you speak a bit more about that? How do we drill down? How do we engage millennials on the value of democracy, democratization, good governance, and representative, transparent, and inclusive government? Is that something that NATO should do more of, and if so, how do we coordinate our work with what's already being done in UN circles?

[Robert Baines]

That's an outstanding question because this is the very foundation of the NATO treaty.

I'm not sure if you've all had a chance to actually read it. It's two pages, double-sided.

The preamble and the first article are all about establishing NATO under the aegis of the United Nations. It's supposed to be working hand in glove. It's supposed to be making sure that whenever hostilities are started and NATO is able to end those hostilities, NATO hands the situation back to the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the situation is resolved peacefully.

I think that mentioning that coupling, that theoretical framework for NATO, is something that has been missed. They've always, or almost always, been seen in opposition—certainly in the situation in Yugoslavia in the nineties when NATO went in without UN agreement, without a resolution. It was a huge problem, a crisis of legitimacy. NATO has learned since then. Certainly in Libya it bent over backwards to make sure it had legitimacy from those people on the ground. Despite the fact that the outcome wasn't very good in the end, it still made sure that it had legitimacy and that it was working within the UN framework. That, I think, is something that can be used as an advantage.

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

Is it your sense that it should be...? Or maybe already there are the beginnings of a business line within NATO that looks at democratization, that looks at questions like the democratic control of armed forces, civilian-military relationships in a post-conflict or peacekeeping context.

[Robert Baines]

I'm sure you've heard about NATO's new interest in projected security. That is what a lot of our operations, as far as training police forces and militaries are concerned, are really under. It's a rubric. The idea is that without nations that are on NATO's borders that are strong and healthy, it's going to be more difficult for us in the future.

In the same way, article 2 has always tried to shore up good governance: the ideas of a good justice system, of making sure that there's a media worthy of the name, and that there are a lot of different supports for government institutions that have always led to stability.

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

My final question is on representation of gender in NATO. What's your current assessment of the extent to which allies are engaged in the question of bringing not only women into the armed forces of their respective states, making them part of the structure of NATO, but also participants of minority gender identity and expression?

[Robert Baines]

They've made it, certainly, a priority. They now have an ambassadorial representative at NATO for women in security. United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 is a very big topic at NATO at the moment. They are trying to push.... One of their three constituencies that they're trying to get a message out to is women, generally.

Canada has been at the forefront of this. On Wednesday, you're going to hear from Stefanie von Hlatky, who is an absolute expert on this. She has actually gone to NATO headquarters. She was there in December. She is trying to bring the Canadian Forces' experience with this to NATO, which is another advantage of interoperability. It's the sharing of how we've experimented, what's worked, and what hasn't. I'm sure you'll get a lot more from her on Wednesday.

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

Thanks very much.

I think that's my time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Yes, that is your time.

I'm going to move over to Mr. Yurdiga.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for sharing with us today.

Over the past number of years, we have witnessed an ever-increasing number of terror attacks, including a number on Canadian soil. The NATO response was the action plan, which has been characterized as a symbol of unity—nothing more, just a symbol of unity. How can NATO step up its fight against terrorism in a meaningful way over and above the action plan?

I'll go to Mr. Baines first.

[Robert Baines]

The NATO Association of Canada just had an event that looked at the responses to terrorism that are possible through NATO. It is an extremely important issue. With regard to our friends to the south, Mr. Trump has specifically highlighted this as something NATO should be considering as an existential threat to all democracies and to NATO itself. It's a challenging thing for NATO to take on. Most of the experts I have spoken to, and who have been part of the NATO Association, consider terrorism and management of terrorism to be a much more local jurisdiction, and that this is very often the best way it can be counteracted.

If we're talking about intelligence sharing, that's a horse of a different colour. NATO has always been good at that, despite the several different layers of intelligence networks within NATO.

I think that's where the real two situations of terrorism are shown in NATO. One is intelligence, which NATO should be trying to make sure runs much more smoothly through the alliance. The other is actual deterrents, whether deradicalization or counterterrorism, which are usually much more usefully dealt with at the local level.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Moens, do you have a comment on this?

[Dr. Alexander Moens]

NATO's strength is in counterterrorist operations, if they are appropriate. Look, for example, at the operation that the French are leading in Mali.

If NATO has a capacity to create consensus around a military operation in the context of countering terrorist threats, then it is a better vehicle than an ad hoc coalition. Therefore, the capacity for Canada to be flexible and involved in such operations, and to translate that into a NATO discussion, would be good for our own particular interests, but it would also make us a valued partner in executing what the Americans have in mind vis-à-vis using NATO in the counterterrorist realm.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Huebert, do you have a comment?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

Yes, I do.

The first thing, of course—I'll just echo—is the intelligence sharing. In other words, we are not going to hear about what they are really doing well in terms of giving the briefing.

What has proven to be one of the more challenging issues for NATO is dealing with one of the most dangerous types of terrorism, and that is state-sponsored. It's bad enough with the lone wolves, who are indeed a unique problem unto themselves. They almost drape themselves as terrorists, when in fact there are other probable causal factors. However, when it is state-sponsored terrorism—as we saw clearly with al Qaeda and the link to the Taliban—then, of course, NATO's responsibility comes in, first of all, acting as a deterrent to that type of state support, and also actually going in and removing the threat.

Remember, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was a response to an attack on a NATO ally, so when we went into Afghanistan in November 2001, it was part of NATO. Now, that's something we haven't managed well. It's an educational issue and a difficult one, but it's probably something that NATO is going to have to deal with in the longer term—how to deter the states that sponsor it and how to respond when we catch them full-blooded with it.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have about 50 seconds.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

It will have to be a quick one.

Mr. Baines, many of our NATO members have decided to purchase F-35s. How important is it that Canada have something that's compatible with the F-35? Obviously, when we are working together we want something that will mesh quite easily.

Can I have your opinion on that, please?

[Robert Baines]

Interoperability is an essential hallmark of NATO. I've already mentioned this. The air communication systems that I understand the F-35 is kitted with are quite unique and do require some very special technology to make sure they can communicate. If you are going to be working on an objective and you need to have two different air fleets working together, it would be very complex, from what I understand, for them to work together if not everybody has an F-35. That was one of the reasons that the fighter was created jointly.

That isn't to say there isn't another technological answer to that communication.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Fisher, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, folks, for being here today.

I kind of hoped that we would hear from some of the folks behind Professor Moens. Perhaps one of your students may want to answer this. There was a comment you made that intrigued me. I've asked folks this question a lot of times, and a lot of times I've thought about it myself. I thought about Putin looking for a legacy and empire building. A lot of the aggression he has is because of that.

I've had some folks testifying here and some folks I've talked to on the side say that he was really hoping to have a buffer against NATO countries in the EU. When they were seeking NATO membership, he felt that they would lose that buffer.

You said something that I thought was really interesting. You said that it's not NATO that threatens Russia; it's liberal democracy. Putin has a fear that the Russians may think, “Well, why not us? Why can't we have a liberal democracy?” It's the first time I've heard that.

It's more a comment than a question. I don't know if you have something you want to add to that, but that struck me as kind of interesting.

[Dr. Alexander Moens]

I'll say something very briefly, and then I'll turn to one of my students.

This is the threat of the west for Russia. There is no geographical threat. There is no geographical interest in conquering Russia. There is no military threat. Nobody in NATO or in eastern Europe is interested in taking on Russia. The actual threat felt by the regime is to have a revolution, a democratic revolution, from within. Therefore, you see the regime arguing that NATO is a threat.

Think of being a Romanian or a Bulgarian or a Hungarian when the Russians say, “You are our buffer zone.” How would we feel if we were a buffer? Why can't these countries have their own control?