Evidence of meeting #70 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 states.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
How do you define “hybrid warfare”? Is it in terms of the—
5 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Little green men, cyber-attacks: who's doing it? It's Russia. Who is the number one source of cyber-attacks on European member states? It's Russia. Who is the biggest challenge in the potential of invading into the Baltics? It's Russia.
How can NATO not be Russo-centric when you have Putin and the Kremlin rattling their sabres about having the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and about being prepared to protect Russian ethnic groups around the world wherever they might be? From a military standpoint, looking at protecting your citizens, how do you not be concerned about that Russian threat?
5 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
First of all, absolutely I included that—a resurgent Russia and an increasingly aggressive posture—as one of the reasons that NATO needs to continue to survive and thrive. There's no doubt about that. These are facts, so I take the point. What I'm saying is that we have to look at it from a long-term perspective. There's a multiplicity of threats in the international environment.
As well, to frame NATO as a counterweight just to Russia I think actually can do more harm than good over the long term. If we want to take a firm posture with Russia, which I absolutely support, we also want to maintain the possibility of engaging in dialogue. That means we have to be careful in terms of how we frame some of this, because there is no question that Russia sees NATO on its doorstep as an existential threat. We have to understand their own threat perceptions as well.
5 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Professor Meharg, do you want to comment on it?
5 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Geography matters. If your neighbour were attacking you, you would not be thinking about the wider community threats. You would be solely focused on that threat that was closest to home. We can't blame our European counterparts for being that way. I just want to reiterate Mark's point. We don't want NATO to fall into a pattern that we have seen in history, which is being oriented to its east. We just need to broaden NATO's identity is what we're saying.
5 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Let's look at something really quickly. Cybersecurity is not just a Russian threat. There's China, Iran, North Korea. What can NATO do better, especially when you talk about experimental processes? What can we be doing better on becoming able to protect and attack through the cyber-realm?
5 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
NATO can be the connective tissue among the various work that all the NATO allies are doing on cybersecurity. It can also be one of the mechanisms to urge the member states to take this more seriously, to push the members to invest in this area. On top of that, NATO can be the area where, again, thought leadership should happen, where we should be investing in efforts to be at the cutting edge. The key thing is that it brings together, because all the different member states of course have their cyber-defensive and now increasingly offensive capabilities. This is the mechanism whereby we can pool these resources and have a common approach.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go back to Dr. Meharg on this question of a possible NATO centre of excellence—she didn't really get to fully chime in on that—and whether a centre on strategic reform of the security sector could be separate from or linked to a peacekeeping centre. Would you see it as discrete?
5:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I believe that if Canada is going to monetarily support and be a leader with a centre of excellence, it needs to align the capabilities of the Canadian Forces in that centre of excellence. We want to choose something that our Canadian Forces are able to do, so it's aligned with our allies and within the broader context of the alliance.
I teach hundreds of Canadian Forces personnel and they are what I term humanitarian officers and soldiers. They signed up because they are interested in doing a really good job in helping people improve their lives, elevating humanity. We train them to do so. Reconstruction and stabilization, that stuff that sometimes happens after the bad stuff happens, is an opportunity for us to excel, and if there is no centre of excellence on that particular remit, which there is not, it may be of benefit to align them and have one on that.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
You might call it reconstruction and stabilization rather than peacekeeping to give more focus and link to NATO's mandate.
5:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Thank you both very much for coming today. That was an excellent discussion, and one that we approached in a way that we hadn't before, so I very much appreciate that.
I'm going to suspend for a minute to say goodbye, and then we're going to come back in camera to discuss committee business.
[Proceedings continue in camera]