National Defence Committee on Nov. 8th, 2017

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

Do I still have time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have 45 seconds for a question and a response.

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

I'll go very quickly to Mr. Brodeur.

You believe that Canada needs to assert its position in the alliance more or else we run the risk of NATO becoming more Eurocentric.

We've heard testimony—and I might be paraphrasing and I might not even be totally correct—that if the U.S. ranks first in NATO contributions, Canada ranks sixth out of 29, which is pretty significant. Touching on what Mr. Mark Gerretsen said about punching above our weight class, can you talk a bit about how you feel we need to assert our position in the NATO alliance?

[Yves Brodeur]

Yes, sir, and thank you for the question. It's a very important question.

The way I see it, there are three different circles of nations at NATO, and this is without regard for the amount of money they spend or the amount of money they contribute to the overall budget. The United States is in a category of its own. Then you have countries such as France, Germany, and the U.K., due to the size of their armed forces and the effort they invest in trying to equip, adapt, exercise, and modernize their own forces. Then you have another group of nations, of which Canada is a member, that is actually influential. Therefore, a decision cannot be made without Canada being in the picture. There's a lot of business that's being done in corridors before decisions are made, and Canada is always part of that.

What I was worried about and what I witnessed was the cohesiveness, or the growing cohesive approach, of European nations, as a European bloc, at NATO during council discussions, which actually leaves us squeezed somewhere between a huge United States and an EU group that is not yet powerful but actually meaningful. We're staying there with Turkey, for instance, not being a member of the European Union and having no vocation of being one, and not being the United States. I guess what that taught me was that we need to know exactly what we want and what we expect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Brodeur, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to cut you off and yield the floor to Mr. Hoback.

As a reminder to our guests, I'm trying to stay out of it here. If you see this signal—this is like the white flag—you have 30 seconds left. Please yield to this, so that I can make it fair for everyone involved.

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I thank all the witnesses for being here today. I have questions for all of you. Again, I have five minutes and he's going to cut me off at four and a half.

I'm going to start off with you, Mr. French. You were very frank and very blunt and I appreciate that. I don't like BS. I'd rather have the facts straight up.

You talked about our not preparing our forces for the future. Can you highlight what you meant and give me a few examples that back what you're saying?

[Dr. Julian Lindley-French]

Yes. Thank you, sir.

My main point is that your assumptions are still based on the idea that the United States will always be there as an effective first responder when a crisis happens in the Euro-Atlantic area. My analysis, and that of my senior colleagues, is that there could well be scenarios coming up where the United States is simply overstretched and engaged in the Asia-Pacific or perhaps in the Middle East.

For example, in the North Atlantic and in the Arctic Circle, I can well foresee scenarios in which NATO allies would have to face a serious Russian incursion, possibly without U.S. forces available. I look at your maritime amphibious building program, which is okay, but then I look at the kinds of technologies—ship-based, land-based, submersible, and unmanned—and I wonder if Canada is really building in the kind of offensive and defensive firepower that will be needed to engage in that kind of NATO task group. My fear is that none of us.... My fear is that we could be caught very flat-footed by an event, which could happen far more quickly than many of us would like to believe.

My sense is that there's almost a resistance in Canada—with genuine respect, I know Canada's history—to consider the worst-case war-fighting scenario. My sense of you is that you're living in a virtual 10-year rule, like the old 10-year rule the Brits had, where they assumed they didn't have to plan for a major war for at least 10 years. That's over. A major war could break out far more quickly than many of us would like to believe. With due respect, I don't get any sense from Canada that your planners, or indeed you as a political class, are thinking about those kinds of dangers that you would have to consider, as a NATO member.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You're saying that because we haven't thought through the policy or the fact that this could happen sooner rather than later, and we haven't taken into full consideration what life would look like without the U.S.... I come from Saskatchewan. In western Canada, when we talk about the Arctic, we just assume Canada-U.S. or that the U.S. will take care of it. However, you're saying that we shouldn't be assuming that and this is something NATO really has to step into.

[Dr. Julian Lindley-French]

That's right, sir. NATO will have to be an effective first responder to keep the Americans strong where they need to be strong. Now, I can foresee scenarios where the only global power is America, but it's very overstretched. I work closely with the Americans. They tell me this all the time.

When I read your defence policy, it's very much a reflection of an incremental policy that has grown out of the past. There's no sense of the kind of technology shock that we might be facing. Speaking as a foreigner, if I had one recommendation for you all, it would be to establish your own strategic analysis mechanism to better give you, the political leaders, a sense of the potential risks that are out there and the policies you might need to adopt that are affordable and indeed effective.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Looking into the future, how do you see cyber-technology and hybrid warfare playing into Canada's role at NATO? What should we be looking at in that area as far as providing expertise or working with NATO is concerned?

[Dr. Julian Lindley-French]

The first thing I'd recommend is that you read the new paper “Future War NATO?”, which just came out this week. It is on the GLOBSEC website. We go into great depth about this.

I think it's important for Canada to understand that hybrid warfare, cyberwarfare, and what's been called “hyper-warfare” are not separate. They're part of a new escalation ladder that challenges fundamental conventions on traditional deterrence. It's all about relative military power. There are 120,000 Russian troops, many high-quality, on the far side of the Latvian border. The main problem is that if our conventional relative power weakens further, then the nuclear threshold could well drop. That is a very real danger. My own country is very profoundly concerned about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all for your excellent presentations.

Before we start, Mr. French, you highlighted a number of articles. You said them so quickly I missed the titles. I think one is about future war, and another one was just recently released.

Could we ensure that we get copies of those reports so that we can include them for review in our report?

[Dr. Julian Lindley-French]

I can send them to the clerk.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

As well, Stéfanie, you mentioned two different articles listed here—“NATO, deterrence and what it means for Canada” and “NATO and the return of deterrence”—but I think you mentioned one more.

If it's okay, could we get all of those reports for consideration? Thank you.

First, Ms. Hlatky, thank you for coming. I do need to ask you this: why Canada, and why now? Is it because Canada is a leader and has demonstrated itself to be ahead of the curve in all things women and peace and security, particularly in defence operations, or is it because we're in a position where we may have a political will and some insight, and therefore have the opportunity to leapfrog ahead because we've arrived at a point where it's right? Or is it some other potential option?

Why Canada, and why now, in this conversation?

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

That's an excellent question, and I think both of your proposed answers are correct. I know that NATO allies look to Canada for leadership on this. I used to think that this expectation was not necessarily deserved, earlier on, but since the reforms that have been undertaken in recent years, I really think Canada has stepped up to the plate in terms of making up for lost time.

I'm referring here specifically to the post-Deschamps reforms, the CDS directive from Operation Honour, all the way to the appointment of the gender advisers, and then more recently the rolling out of the diversity strategy. I think now we've put in place the pieces that demonstrate that Canada can be a cutting-edge leader, whereas before I think we were riding on a reputation, which we had earned in the eighties, nineties, and early 2000s, when it came to removing all of those barriers for women in the armed forces.

I think Canada is also well poised because we're still in that top tier of the alliance when it comes to representation of women in the armed forces. When it comes to diversifying NATO armed forces, I think NATO will intuitively look to the states who are leading the pack on this.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

So we've done some of what could be considered—I'm going to be a little controversial—the easy stuff: gender-based analysis and putting in some gender advisers. I'd love to know how many positions have actually been created, how many have been filled, and how many are filled by men. Perhaps you could give us that.

Now there's that next step, the meaty stuff, which gets a little more to the core in terms of including it in operational considerations, looking at it at military college. I was there over 30 years ago, and not much has changed. This is now getting closer to the real core of what it means and the culture and educational challenges.

How do you propose we tackle that? How do you define success? How would you measure and hold them accountable for that success?

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

There are a lot of questions wrapped up into that one. I will try to tackle them all.

I do have the numbers for NATO as a whole. NATO has 440 trained gender advisers. I should say they have not been necessarily trained by NATO. This is a national responsibility. Then there are 33 deployed on missions. When it comes to Canada, there are three working in a headquarters capacity, and then we have some deployed on our current missions. When it comes to NATO, that would be one in Latvia, and I know there are at least two male gender advisers.

This is where I want to highlight the fact that I think it's important to have mixed teams of gender advisers and gender focal points. I think very often we tend to take the view that you add a few women and then that will transform all of the dynamics within the organization and on the field. I think that narrative is a little bit dangerous. It's like “show me the data that shows that women are effective at doing their jobs”, and we don't place the same amount of scrutiny on their male counterparts. I think really we need to look at the training in broader professional cultures, so that everyone feels it's their responsibility. I think that's the hard part and that's the challenge moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for appearing today and for sharing their wealth of knowledge.

I want to start with Mr. Lindley-French. You talked about strategic analysis lacking in our defence policy here in Canada and our need to have a process and a tool to do that. Can you describe that in greater detail as to what that tool would look like? Does it need to be built into a formal process within National Defence? Are we talking of it as part of the legislative process, or is it just policy-making decisions, a risk analysis, and doing it on a more consistent basis than we've been doing?

[Dr. Julian Lindley-French]

Thank you, sir. I would propose that you have a defence engagement program that is built around a defence think tank where you bring together academics, policy-makers with practitioner experience, and people like me who have been both. Most of your senior NATO allies have similar mechanisms, but I'm not aware of a mechanism in Ottawa, although I am aware of the excellent analysts that you do indeed have in Canada. I've worked with many of them. That would be my specific recommendation, that you create this new defence engagement program and you invite DND to get on with that or at least frame that argument.

Listening to you debate has been fascinating for me as foreigner. You're a very big country with very small forces in a very big space. You're grappling with a whole range of tasks that cross the conflict spectrum, and to do that you have to have some very intelligent policy generation. I'm sure you can do that instinctively, but it's sure as hell helped by sound analysis. I would suggest that your affordability, your cost-effectiveness, indeed your 2% arguments, or as you were, the 1%-plus arguments, would be strengthened if you have this kind of effectiveness and efficiency promoting strategic analysis hub, which could really show how efficient Canadian forces are and indeed how they are applied across the conflict spectrum.

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

Thank you for that.

President Trump, of course, campaigned on burden sharing within the NATO context. He has also been signalling that the U.S. would be doing less on the world stage, not more. John Howard, when he was prime minister of Australia, gave one of the most compelling speeches and articulate deliveries that I've seen in a joint session of Parliament here in Canada about 10 years ago. He pretty much said that the world without a powerful United States would be a very scary world indeed. I noticed in one of the comments that was made earlier that you kind of disagreed with a comment that the U.S. wouldn't be able to rally support around it, if it were to take on more of a lead role within NATO or any other context. I want to give you an opportunity to address that.

[Dr. Julian Lindley-French]

Thank you, sir.

I'm currently about to publish a major report with General John Allen and Ambassador Sandy Vershbow on these issues of NATO adaptation. It will come out later in November.

One of the issues we suggest is that it's reasonable for the United States to expect that the allies provide up to 60% of all NATO-related activities. It's not about comparing the U.S. global defence spend with our defence spend; it's about that aspect of U.S. defence expenditure devoted to NATO and the defence of Europe.

Looking at the American economy, looking at the growth of China, and looking at other challenges, even if the Americans wanted to, they could not sustain their current imbalance inside the alliance. For our own defence and for the sake of the alliance, but also to keep the Americans strong where they need to be strong, which is in our interests, I strongly believe in the 2% objective.

It's an arbitrary benchmark, but it would send a wonderful signal to Washington, whether President Trump or indeed another president is in power, because when I'm in Washington, which is a lot, Democrats and Republicans on the Hill tell me that this is an issue. I think we would be making a mistake as allies to try to identify this issue as simply a Trump issue. It's a much deeper issue in the American body politic.

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

I agree with you. Thank you.

I have one quick question I want to pose to Ambassador Brodeur.

Ambassador, with your expertise in both NATO and Turkey—we talked about the F-16 shooting down a Russian fighter jet—what is your read on Turkey buying S-400 air defence systems from Russia? Their relationship has changed dramatically, from shooting down jets to now buying defensive weapons from Russia, and also the work they've done together in Syria.

[Yves Brodeur]

It's not good news, if I may say so. Someone asked me earlier about interoperability. It won't work, so there's a lot of, I guess, nervousness about this. I see a red flag there, so....