National Defence Committee on Nov. 8th, 2017

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

That's a good point. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

My first question is for you, Professor von Hlatky. Thank you for your work on gender equality. I think you're in a position to really help us move this file forward in a very cogent way.

I want to ask you about Canadians of minority gender identity and expression and their role in our armed forces and in NATO, especially with respect to the decision the United States took, but also more broadly. How do you see that project moving forward across the spectrum of NATO allies at the moment?

Seeing that we're broadening the circle a bit, maybe I could just graft on a question about diversity in general and having a Canadian contribution to NATO that's reflective of the diversity of our society.

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

Thank you for the question. It's very important.

I was quite disturbed and concerned with the reversal of the policy in the United States when it came to LGBTQ service members. I'm happy that right now the issue is being reconsidered in the face of the lack of evidence to support the policy, and let me clear on that in regard to any additional costs associated with the participation of trans members.

When it comes to Canada, the new diversity strategy that was unveiled I think addresses this question quite well. I really like the change of tone in the diversity strategy that the Canadian Armed Forces rolled out. It's moved.... I think a person who put it best was one of the key focal points for the effort: Lieutenant-Colonel Sarah Heer. She said that before now the tone was “we don't care what your gender identity is as long as you're part of the forces”, and now it's “we care and we want to hear about it”. I think that change in tone is incredibly important not only in changing the culture, but in creating that inclusive environment.

At NATO, when you look at their diversity report, you don't see any targets identified or have that sense of identity tracked. You see gender-disaggregated data, and here the numbers are quite concerning. There's a big gender gap at NATO, especially when you look at the positions at the highest levels.

I do have them here, if you're interested. In civilians NATO-wide, you have 26% female and 74% male. At the highest grade, U grade, you have 0%, and then 16% at the A grade. That's at the highest levels. In NATO-wide military staff, it's 7% female and 93% male.

Although NATO makes a statement in its diversity strategy when it comes to LGBTQ members, the data it has is strictly the gender breakdown by age and by level of seniority.

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

Thanks very much. I have a whole series of follow-up questions and I have very limited time.

Ambassador Brodeur, I want to take the last two minutes to ask if you could sketch for the committee your view of the NATO-Russia relationship or non-relationship, as it stands now. In the very tight time frame can you point to some of the nuances within the NATO allies, the European states and their position vis-à-vis Russia?

[Yves Brodeur]

Yes, I'll try to do that very quickly.

When I was there the relationship with Russia was not good. The NATO-Russia Council essentially didn't work, and we in Canada were not in favour of reopening that forum. It's now up and running again. I'm told that the discussions are not that substantial at the moment, but at least having a meeting is better than none, from my point of view. I think we have no option but to steadily pursue the two sides of this approach with Russia, which is to beef up our situation and then also dialogue with them. The problem is that Russia doesn't seem to be very interested in dialoguing with NATO, so I have no idea what you do about that. I think it has to be pursued on a bilateral basis by allied nations in Moscow.

The future will tell if this is the future or not. I certainly hope so. I certainly welcome the approach that we now have, which is to sit at the NATO-Russia Council.

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

In 30 seconds, how much fragmentation, if any, do you see inside the NATO position on Russia among some of the key European states?

[Yves Brodeur]

I saw a lot two years ago in the sense that national interests such as investment in national economies by Russian companies, be it in the field of energy or high tech, was extremely important and got in the way of our overall strategic interests as NATO.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I tried to remember where we left off because I felt I was at a critical point in my discussions with Dr. von Hlatky, so I want to try to return to that. I know I only have a very short time in this round.

We were talking about a chief of the defence staff statement, a commitment to work on the gender issues. We've had a defence review that considers it. You said to me that it's not necessarily always a question of needing additional resources to move forward.

What is needed now to drive things forward? If we have the commitment, we have it in the defence review, it's not necessarily resources. What does it take?

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

One thing I'm still a little bothered by in this whole wave of changes is the disconnect between the internal dimension, the sexual misconduct issue, and the external dimension of integrating a gender perspective in operations, because to me, they're connected. I think you need to have your internal house in order so you can be an effective fighting force. This has been recognized in the latest iteration of the NATO bi-strategic command directive 40-1 making explicit that internal-external connection.

I have felt some reluctance on the part of the Canadian Armed Forces stakeholders that I've interviewed when it comes to making that connection. They are two separate issues. One is more HR internal diversity and the other is more external and implementing Resolution 1325. I think the credibility of the Canadian Armed Forces or any national armed forces in the world when intervening externally rests on having a really solid reputation and the highest professional standards. I know the Canadian Armed Forces can achieve that, and they've taken the appropriate steps since 2014 to see this change through.

I'm still a little concerned by that rhetorical disconnect between stuff like Operation Honour and the misconduct piece, and then the broader 1325 women, peace and security agenda because gender awareness impacts every facet of your work, whether that's working within your unit or being deployed abroad. To have the gender analysis as second nature, you need to open your mind to that consideration so it becomes second nature, like a risk analysis or a cost-benefit analysis. By segmenting the two, I feel we're making it harder, in a sense.

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

I think a lot of us, and I certainly, have said that the Canadian military deserves credit for tackling sexual misconduct in a way most public institutions have not, including Parliament itself. It's interesting to say there's another step to that. Who would drive that connection, or how do we drive that connection?

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

It's the CDS and the top brass. It's also our military educators. I think we can expect some generational change, but the generational change and the deeper cultural change won't happen if it doesn't happen right at the schoolhouse and at the basic training institutions as well.

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

I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's your time. You went a little bit over.

Given the fact that one of the witnesses didn't have any opening remarks and the time we have left for committee business with those in front of us, we do have time to go around the track one more time. I know there's a will among some of you who may still have questions.

I'm going to go with four-minute periods of questions for Mr. Rioux and Mr. Bezan, and then that will be the end of it.

Mr. Rioux, the floor is yours.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the speakers for their presentations.

Mr. Ambassador, you said earlier that it was difficult for Canada to have some degree of cohesion, given the role of the United States and of the European union. We are between the two, sort of like Turkey.

I'm going to ask you an open question so you can add personal information. How do you see Canada's contributions to NATO? How do they serve our interests in terms of national defence and foreign policy?

I should mention that I my time is limited to four minutes.

[Yves Brodeur]

I guess my answer shouldn't exceed the four minutes you have, so I'll try to be quick.

First, Canada is a key player in the Atlantic Alliance. It has always been a key player and continues to be, so much so that the alliance would like more from Canada. We've been involved in all NATO operations since the beginning, since its inception. The professionalism of our military is recognized everywhere within NATO and beyond. In terms of reputation, Canada has absolutely no reason to be jealous of the allies around the table. This serves us enormously.

I would like to come back to the issue of Europe and the influence of Canada. Introducing an economic element, such as the CETA that we have just concluded with Europe, is important. It's in Canada's interest to be able to contribute directly to European security, since that security is directly related to our economic interests under CETA. This is a big gain.

I would also say that the contribution we are currently making to Latvia is perceived, at the diplomatic level, as being a strengthening of Canada's presence. All of this plays a lot in our favour and gives us a platform, if I may say so. In other words, we have a lot of credibility, and we can use it to take action on other issues that may be of interest or concern to us, economic or otherwise.

In my opinion, the Canadian presence and Canadian influence in NATO is an investment that goes far beyond the realm of European security.

Have I kept to the time allotted? I still don't see the little flag.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Yes. You have another minute and change.

[Yves Brodeur]

Okay.

What I said before is that Canada's influence within NATO will require more and more effort from us, because we are located between the European Union, whose security positions are becoming more cohesive and consistent, and the United States, which is what it is in terms of security.

It ties in with what Mr. Lindley-French said, that we need an extremely strong strategic analysis that is unique to Canada. As ambassador, when I was there, I knew exactly what Canada didn't want, but what Canada wanted was a lot less clear. There is a lot of work to be done, and it must be done in cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, the Department of National Defence, and members of a think tank that Mr. Lindley-French was talking about to develop a clear idea of our strategic objectives and how these objectives fit into a group like NATO, for instance, but more broadly too.

I think this work remains to be done. It's something we have been short on. I would say that it was greatly lacking.

There we are. I'm being told that time is up.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brodeur. That was very interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

The last question goes to Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I haven't had a chance to ask Professor von Hlatky questions, so I want to ask something quickly and then I'll share my time with Mr. Hoback.

I'd like to ask a quick question on deterrence measures. Everything right now is focused on the eastern flank of NATO. What do you think Canada can be doing more of, especially from the perspective of the North Atlantic and Arctic, as it plays into the overall aggression that we're seeing from Russia?

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

Actually, in terms of deterrence, the other flank that needs to be looked at is the southern flank. In this respect, NATO has just enacted a series of initiatives and measures to project stability and to make sure that NATO is protected and deters threats beyond its own borders. This is where I see a lot of exciting stuff happening, like the hub for the south being created, and bolstering some partnership initiatives. We are very focused on the eastern flank right now. The southern flank is very important, and the recent developments by NATO are worth looking into more closely.

When it comes to the Arctic, I know that's been of importance to NATO in recent years. I also know that sometimes Canada has been a bit of a reluctant player when it comes to this, but we could look at some NATO Arctic military exercises in the future, and Canada could play a key role alongside Nordic countries in seeing that to fruition.

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

Mr. Hoback, go ahead.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you.

Again, I want to thank all the witnesses here today.

Chair, I'll actually take this time to move my motion.

Given that we've heard more testimony about cybersecurity and the importance of being prepared properly for cybersecurity, I want to read this motion into the record:

That the Committee undertake a study of no fewer than three meetings on the state of Canada’s defensive capabilities against cyberattacks, the Government of Canada’s offensive cyberwarfare capabilities, and that the committee report its findings to the House.

I am being very open-minded. You can take it to the steering committee. You can decide what time you want to actually have these three meetings, before Christmas or after. I just think we need to get it on the record and in the books that this is a priority for this committee and that we actually want to look at that.

I put it into your hands that we move forward with this motion at this point in time.