Evidence of meeting #68 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 students.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
When we're talking about expertise, we talk about the centres of excellence that NATO has set up all over Europe. Should we be proposing that we have a centre of excellence on Arctic security here in Canada?
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
It seems to follow on what both the Conservatives and Liberals have said in terms of the importance of maintaining our leadership, and with the individuals we have, absolutely I would agree with that idea.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you.
Professor Moens, you also specialize in the Asian growth and the security issues in that area. How does the northern Atlantic alliance fit with the new security threats coming from Asia, particularly from North Korea at this point in time, but also in terms of China's interest in the trading routes through the Northwest Passage?
Chair, Political Science Department, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
As I mentioned in my comments, NATO is one representation of liberal democracies working together. We have liberal democracies in Asia with whom we need to strengthen our ties. I'm not saying that a kind of NATO has to be formed in the Asia-Pacific. It's a different domain. But I would suggest that the hub-and-spoke system that is typical of Asia is not as advantageous to the common effort as the NATO structure is in the North Atlantic.
Canada can play a role because it is a Pacific power. Canada can play a role in having those two regions talk to each other and can facilitate co-operation, but I want to underline that ultimately more robust Canadian blue water capability, submarine capability, and air capability are absolutely necessary conditions to be taken seriously in Asia. They are increasingly necessary conditions in Europe, but they certainly are also in Asia. The Pacific is a much larger piece of water.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you.
I probably have time for one more question.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'm doing pretty well. I appreciate everybody being so concise.
I applaud all three of you for the work that you do in educating our next generation on the importance of defence and security issues and the importance of NATO. I was very interested in the survey that you've done at U of T a number of years in a row now, and the need for us to expand the horizons of so many young Canadians regarding the importance of our defence relationships.
What would you recommend that we, as parliamentarians, do to increase people's understanding of the importance of NATO?
President and Chief Executive Officer, NATO Association of Canada
There are obviously many different ways that can happen, but we've always wanted a centralized message about why Canada's involvement in NATO is good. Essentially in the messages and themes that the #WeAreNATO campaign already has, it's all there. It explains everything. All we have to do is utilize it. It can be the Department of National Defence. It can be the Department of Foreign Affairs. It can be independent MPPs, MPs, or city councillors. Anybody who is in the democratic process should be able to understand these issues and utilize them. It just has to be a directive.
In the same way that a lot of other social media campaigns are supported by the government, I think this one really has to be adopted. I know it hasn't really been launched here yet, but I want to make sure that this does get ingrained in your minds, because this is a very important way. Short of, say, making sure that every Canadian, when they turn 18, has to pass a citizenship test or something like that—which is not a terrible idea—how else are they going to find this out? It has to be through bombardment on many different levels, I think.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Nine million Canadians already use Facebook as their number one source of news. It's not the TV. It's not print media. It's not the news clipping service. It's Facebook. As well, Twitter has really been reinvented because of the obsession of President Trump.
Other than just retweeting and reposting stuff that's coming from NATO itself, what should we as parliamentarians be doing?
President and Chief Executive Officer, NATO Association of Canada
Sorry, I wasn't explaining myself well enough. I would be happy to give you all a copy of this campaign. It's about creating your own message within the framework. Because we have so many local stories, and we have so much history, including on the Pearsonian foundations of NATO, all sorts of different ideas can be subsumed within this message, even on a local level, even with reserve regiments in your own communities, such as remembering the fallen or celebrating the different economic links we have. All of this can be put into this campaign, which is why I think it's really quite good.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to echo the call from Mr. Baines to actually take his presentation and make it part of the records of the committee.
If you could formally give that to us, I think that would be very good as part of our deliberations and our future actions.
I'm going to go in a bit of a different direction on the role of Canada in NATO. We heard about the importance that Canada placed on making the alliance more than just a military alliance, on making it a security community. Canada played another role in the early days of NATO, and that was in leading the efforts toward nuclear disarmament. This issue hit me quite forcefully when our committee was in Brussels on the day NATO issued its statement on the nuclear prohibition treaty.
I guess I'm really asking—and I'll ask all three of you—whether there is a stronger role for Canada to play in returning NATO to its own stated goals of trying to create the conditions for the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
Maybe I'll start with Mr. Huebert.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
Absolutely. This is something my students always have difficulty accepting, but even with the end of the Cold War, up to 2017, nuclear deterrence still remains the core security policy of the eight nuclear powers. Having said that, if you're going try to talk about disarmament, the problem you face when you have the countries increasingly coming at odds with each other is that you're going to be in a circumstance where all the eight nuclear states are simply going to refuse considerations of disarmament.
I think on one level it's something that we ultimately have to be able to figure out. How we are going to rid ourselves of the scourge of nuclear weapons? On the other hand, given the current situation that we're facing with the changing environment with the Russians, I think the effort is better spent trying to develop ways to ensure that the Russians understand our commitment to the ongoing issue of deterrence.
I'm not trying to skirt the issue, but I don't think this is the time that we would see any effort to push for disarmament along the NATO lines, as its not going to take any traction.
Chair, Political Science Department, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Thank you for the questions.
I would say that conditions for nuclear disarmament are very poor. As you know, there are concerns of the Russians walking away from the INF accord of 1987. The North Korea situation is very visible. It's a very big concern.
After the very successful round of negotiations and the result of New START, the political relationship between the United States and Russia has deteriorated a great deal.
I would be highly concerned to put Canadian political capital in the middle of that very difficult environment and I would say we are far better off to wait for the right conditions or to specialize in an area where we can make a genuine difference.
President and Chief Executive Officer, NATO Association of Canada
I would echo what both Robert and Alex said, but just from the official NATO standpoint in their 2010 strategic concept, the last one that was created, it was mentioned explicitly that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO shall be a nuclear alliance. They have continued to mention that.
Of course, since it is a consensus organization, there's always a lot of opportunity for discussion, but as they have already created consensus on that issue, I think it would be rather challenging to get around it at this point.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
That same statement says that NATO, by consensus, agrees to work to create the conditions for reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, so it's holding those two ideas at the same time.
President and Chief Executive Officer, NATO Association of Canada
It's a snake eating its own tail.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
A snake eating its own tail, but....
I guess my concern would be that, if you're trying to convince younger Canadians that NATO is important, then Canada has to be seen to be playing an important role. I think that's true with the troops in Latvia certainly, but if we were playing a big role in trying to return the discussion to the second part of all those statements, it might be more inspirational for young Canadians to understand that NATO could play such a positive role.
Certainly, there was a lot of enthusiasm for people individually signing onto the Prohibition Treaty and a big social media campaign. I guess my concern is that we sometimes state it as an anti-NATO campaign. I would like to see maybe more ground where it's not a contradiction, but I've heard what all three of you had to say today. It's not very encouraging, given that we're probably at the greatest danger for the use of nuclear weapons we've ever been at.
If I have just—
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I'm going to ask this of both Professors Huebert and Moens. What do you think the impact of the creation of this category of tactical nuclear weapons, the idea that battlefield commanders might be making decisions about the use of nuclear weapons, is on the traditional policy of nuclear deterrence?
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
There is your assumption within that question. Look at what both the Russians and the Americans immediately got rid of as relationships got better in 1988. The classification that the Russians first got rid of were their oldest nuclear strategic weapons, of course, but the next category was their tactical weapons.
The Americans in terms of START I, START II, and START III that Alex already alluded to was, of course, focused on the older weapon systems, but also on the tactical weapons. I think people understand that those are the slippery slopes that are so dangerous.
