Evidence of meeting #69 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 turkey.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
But they don't. That's my question. How do you value them?
3:55 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
I value Canadians, but the bottom line is that if you are not equipping your forces with the kind of capabilities that are being developed elsewhere, you are in effect asking your young people out there to close a gap between what's on the other side of the border and what you're giving them.
I'd rather you spent 2% and gave them the right kit, and still employed that kind of influence, without trying in some way to justify asking for less than 2%. You signed up to it.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Maybe the two don't go hand in hand. Why can't the U.S. have that kind of influence? They spend a ton of money.
3:55 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
But they do have that kind of influence. Nothing happens in NATO without the Americans.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I'm going to have to stop that part of the conversation there, and maybe we can come back to it.
I'm going to yield the floor to Ms. Gallant.
Welcome.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you.
I'll be directing my questions to Mr. Brodeur.
As you know, NATO adopted, as a domain, the cyber-theatre, and it is included under article 5 now.
Having experienced being on the North Atlantic Council, what do you think it would take to get consensus to verify attribution before any action was taken?
3:55 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
I think, before we get consensus on that issue, we'll have to bring all the members and NATO allies on par in terms of technology. Bear in mind that I've been out of NATO for two years now. One of the issues that we had to deal with—and I think the member will remember this—is the fact that a lot of smaller nations don't have the capacity that's required to bring their standards up to the level of other more advanced nations. Before you reach consensus, I think you will need to do that, and that's a bit the nature of the game. These nations are trying to have the wealthier ones help pay for that through the NATO budget, which we opposed at the time.
As far as I understand it, there are still gaps. They still have to be addressed. It will take time, but the good thing about it, I would argue, is that no nation around the table would doubt the potential risk caused by cyber-attacks, so that's a big plus. I think we've moved a long way. Two years ago, there was nothing on the table. Right now, we've made a lot of progress.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay, so we'd have to bring them up to NATO standards, but what about interoperability? Do you think that is achievable in the cyber realm?
4 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
It is, depending on the extent to which some nations are prepared to go. There is at some point—how shall I put it—a barrier where the national interests meet the strategic interests of the alliance, and for reasons that have more to do with how these nations deal with their own safety or security when it comes to cyber, they may not be interested in actually being so interoperable that the nations that cannot actually protect their own systems would have visibility or would have an input into their system.
Again, it's the question of feeling absolutely sure that by opening up a bit more than you are now, you're not actually introducing a Trojan Horse in your own system. Until all nations have the certainty that this is absolutely the case, then I don't think that you're.... I guess what I'm saying is that interoperability is incremental. It will progress as the cyber-defence in allied nations progresses.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
In your experience, what do you think would be the threshold required should article 5 be invoked to take military action on a cyber-attack?
4 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
It would be the damage done. I think it's the wrong question to ask, with all due respect. I think that basically what you want to look at is the damage being inflicted on a country through a cyber-attack, and how we actually decide that this is so crippling it's actually putting the life of your citizens and your critical infrastructure at risk. That's how it's going to be discussed.
How you respond to it is also an issue for discussion. It doesn't mean necessarily that you're going to respond to it through your own cyber-defence system. It could be something different.
To me, I guess, the whole answer is not so much the vector of the attacks, be that cyber, missile, or whatever; it's the effect they will have on a country.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
In your experience, are you aware of whether or not NATO can act in a coordinated fashion should there be an electromagnetic pulse attack? Is that something they even consider or take seriously?
4 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
I'll be very frank with you. I just don't know at this point. Two years ago, when I was there, I don't think that would have been possible at all.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
What role do you think Turkey should play in the NATO alliance as we are moving forward?
4 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
In what sense do you mean?
Just to be clear, I was ambassador in Turkey as well for two years, and was responsible for part of Central Asia as well. Turkey has been a member of the alliance for quite a long time. It is actually an important one. Certainly it was at the time of the Soviet Union, because it was the NATO front line, I guess, with the Soviet Union. It's still a very important ally from a strategic point of view, given what's going on in the Middle East, and given the issues we have fighting Daesh, and it's not over yet, because I think you're going to see some other problems creeping up. Kurds come to mind, for instance.
So Turkey is a critical member of the alliance. It also has—and we saw it in Afghanistan—inroads from an intelligence perspective into some networks that we don't know very well.
The third point I would make is that Turkey is really the only member of NATO that is a Muslim country, and I think that NATO needs at this point to be able to show that it's open to a Muslim country or to Muslim populations in the world. Turkey plays that role.
In terms of what it's bringing to the alliance, I think NATO would lose if Turkey was not a member of the alliance.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Do you see any issues arising in the future with respect to NATO and Turkey?
4:05 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
Yes and no. It depends how you look at it. If you look at it from a strategic point of view, I think we want to keep it inside NATO.
One of the issues on my mind is the fact that NATO very often will present itself as defending western values—not even western values, but values such as freedom of speech and so on. What's happening now in Turkey is worrisome. That's my opinion, and I'm speaking in my own name. NATO has to think about this in how it deals with Turkey. That's not only for Turkey, it's a general comment about this value aspect that NATO pretends to defend.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
November 8th, 2017 / 4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to stay with Ambassador Brodeur for just a moment.
In 2012, while you were our representative at NATO, NATO conducted a defence and deterrence posture review. As part of that review, it reaffirmed a commitment to “create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons”.
Who in NATO at that time was responsible for that work, and what kind of activities, if any, were carried out to achieve that goal while you were there?
4:05 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs, As an Individual
The issue of a world without nuclear weapons is put forward by allied nations. NATO, as a political military alliance, remains an alliance that will include the nuclear armament in its arsenal. There's no change to that. That being said, NATO nations are prepared to lower that threshold in line with whatever potential adversaries are doing.
I'm not aware of any active work being done to change that within the NATO institution. Some allied nations around the table are active in trying to bring this forward, Canada being one of them and the Netherlands as well. It works by peer pressure.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
That commitment was reaffirmed in 2016 at the Warsaw summit, with somewhat more qualified language. Do you see any contradiction between NATO's current policies and the nuclear prohibition treaty? Are these two mutually contradictory?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
You don't see them as contradictory, so could work continue to be done by those in NATO, even if they signed that treaty?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
It's just different from testimony we've heard from others.
When you talk about some nations, the Netherlands and Canada, that have worked on this.... You left two years ago, but do you know if Canada is currently working on that commitment?