National Defence Committee on Nov. 20th, 2017

[Dr. Mark Sedra]

Can I say just one thing about the Arctic? Let's not securitize the Arctic based on what's happening elsewhere. Let's not apply the lens of Ukraine to the Arctic, because the Arctic is one area where there's been a surprising array of agreement and co-operation between Russia and the United States.

We don't see a military confrontation in the Arctic. That doesn't mean we don't prepare and so on, but I've been working on the Arctic a bit more recently, and there is a great deal more multinational dialogue. The Arctic Council functions very effectively. This is actually an area where we could build goodwill. That's not to view it through a security lens, but to see that this is an area where there is very productive co-operation. For instance, on search and rescue, the Russians, the United States, and Canada work closely together pretty well still, despite what we're seeing elsewhere in the world.

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

Do I have another 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

No. You're over your time.

For the last formal question, we'll go to Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to what I'll call Dr. Sedra's list of updates to remain relevant for NATO. I think in your second one you talked about making NATO a global hub for security sector reform.

Since I only have a very short time here, I'm going to ask you two questions and then let you go. First, how would you evaluate NATO's capacity in terms of security sector reform at this point? We know that Canada is very involved in Ukraine, but when you talk about making NATO a hub, how would you distinguish that? Secondly, what would it actually look like if NATO were a global hub for security sector reform?

[Dr. Mark Sedra]

Right now, NATO contributes to various operations and missions on more of an ad hoc basis. If there's a need for trainers, it will mobilize those trainers from different member states and send them out. What I'm talking about is creating almost standby capacity for this type of reform. There is, by the way, a whole methodology, an entire one, with many different sorts of systems and lessons learned on how to do this effectively and how to build security institutions. NATO could be a home for this institutionalized knowledge in order to really develop some thought leadership capacity in that area.

What I'm talking about is having standing capacity, and not just on the military side, but to branch off and look at policing, too, and to look also at building the capacity of intelligence agencies and to build the capacity of governance agencies that provide oversight. I'm talking about NATO developing a holistic capacity for this, because I can tell you that despite the fact that we view security sector reform as the linchpin for successful post-conflict reconstruction, there is no institution globally that has a mandate on a sufficient scale to develop this capacity, to develop these lessons learned, and to deploy broadly.

The UN has units that look at this, but they're small. They're under-resourced. The OSCE has looked at this in the past and has developed methodology and best practices, but again, it has largely abandoned efforts. I think NATO could be one institution that could take a leadership role in this.

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

Is one of the ways to do this to have a NATO centre of excellence that is focused on this? Since Canada doesn't have a NATO centre of excellence, I'd see that as an opportunity.

[Dr. Mark Sedra]

Yes, and in the context of peacekeeping, Canada has talked about how one of its focuses will be on building the capacity of military and security forces. I think it would be natural if Canada.... Actually, Canadians are often sought after to provide this type of support in the police, governance, and military realms. This, I think, would be an area where there would be a lot of support among our allies for seeing this type of capacity developed here in Canada.

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

Could that be part of a centre of excellence on peacekeeping or would you see it as a stand-alone capacity?

[Dr. Mark Sedra]

I see it as a stand-alone capacity. That could be knit together with the peacekeeping, of course, but it is its own.... This type of process can be enacted in areas outside of peacekeeping operations.

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

I see some nodding from Dr. Meharg.

Would you like to add anything to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Before we do that, you're a little over time on the three minutes.

Given the time that we have left, and my knowledge of what we're going to discuss in camera in committee business, I'm going to extend here. We'll go to Mr. Spengemann, Mr. Bezan, and Mr. Garrison, for four more minutes each.

That way, you'll have the opportunity to finish off what you were saying earlier. That will end the formal round.

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Spengemann for a four-minute question, please.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to circle back to a line of questioning that was opened by my colleague Mr. Yurdiga.

Professor Meharg, you mentioned the components of putting this all back together as defence, development, diplomacy, and humanitarian affairs. Is that a rank ordering of any sort in terms of importance, or is it simply that these are the four components?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

I was just referring to them as the core components. It depends on the type of operation.

We can pick up on Mr. Garrison's comment on this idea that there are operations other than war, and the Canadian Forces are trained to do work in a very wide spectrum of operations. As Mark has suggested, they're highly respected around the world. Whether you're serving in the military or you're a civilian, Canadians are a voice of reason out there. It doesn't matter if you're from the diplomatic field, in the forces, or from the development field.

The spectrum of operations is critical. This idea of peacekeeping.... Peacekeeping is only one thing in a very broad array of activities. We have to start to use that language when we're talking about what we do, where we deploy, and how we do it.

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

Okay. If I had the time, I would ask you a bit more about that philosophy, but I don't. It's fair to say that among those four components there really isn't a hierarchy of importance. They're equally important in terms of the outcome of good security internationally—

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Of different phases—

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

Of different phases of conflict.

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Exactly. There's always a lead, and there should always be a lead.

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

I wanted to get to the point you suggested, that NATO was the kinetic end of the spear—the sharp end of the stick, so to speak, or the lance—and that NATO doesn't do post-conflict reconstruction as well as other entities or institutions, nor should it. Why is there any need to duplicate? I'm concerned about the doctrine that is still out there in many camps that says we don't nation-build. We've seen what happens when you take the kinetic component out of theatre too quickly. We've seen it in Iraq and we've seen it elsewhere. You get conflict 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.

How do you close that cycle in terms of whole-of-government thinking to make sure that we see a conflict through to successful post-conflict reconstruction and we don't slide back into the next iteration of that conflict? Do we nation-build? Do we have to? If we give it to the UN, the UN is more diffuse politically, more appealing, less impositionist. If NATO were to do this work, it might be seen as too western and too powerful, as not endogenous enough for local processes.

How do we close that loop to make sure it's not just a hand-off to the UN and things may or may not go into the weeds, but it is done in a cycle, success is experienced, and you don't get 2.0 of the conflict we started to intervene in?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

To begin, we as Canada, like other nations, experiment on other people's populations when we intervene. We don't know the effects of what we do in the medium and long term when it comes to peace-building and the other operations that occur after that kinetic application is over. There are different ways to reconstruct and stabilize. We've seen what happens when forces leave too early and there's a breakdown of the security sector in general, which is Mark's expertise.

Yes, there are changes that need to be made at the UN in order to really build in lessons learned, what works where, who should be doing it—

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

I'm going to run out of time in 20 seconds.

Is it fair to say that there needs to be an accountability mechanism that says not to pull out too early? A coalition, a group of countries intervening, can't just pull out at their political whim and fancy. They need to pull out when the time is right, when it can be devolved onto local processes. How do you build that accountability? Is that a fair question?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

I think it works in theory. I'm not sure about practice.

[Dr. Mark Sedra]

I think one of the key things is that you have to follow the principle of “do no harm”. The reality is that if you're not willing to stay the requisite amount of time to see through some of the activities that you're supporting, then it's better not to intervene at all.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In both comments made by our witnesses today, they said we need to be less Russo-centric. Who is the number one source of hybrid warfare in Europe today?