Evidence of meeting #71 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 russia.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
No; I hadn't finished answering.
Liberal
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, unfortunately, we seem now to be into something that's happened before here, and that's the bullying of witnesses. I would ask Mr. Gerretsen to extend the courtesy to witnesses, all witnesses, that we normally would.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I am extremely grateful, Mr. Chair, to the witnesses who have come forward today. But when I ask a question, and then it's not answering my question and I am on a limited amount of time, I think I have the right to try to encourage an answer to my question.
I will resume, if that's okay.
Liberal
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I apologize, Ms. Mason, if it's coming across as though I'm bullying you. I'm just really on a limited amount of time.
What I'm trying to get at is that it appeared five years ago, when you came to the committee, that you were in favour of NATO's role using its hard military might and strength. And today it seems as though you're coming here telling us that NATO has to back away from that.
I'm not even saying there's something wrong if you're taking different positions, now versus then. I'm just trying to understand what has changed since then.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
I'd be very happy to resubmit that testimony and let everybody read what I said. You've taken a small part of it and you've developed a bizarre interpretation of it. We're not talking about whether or not NATO should have military might. We're talking about whether or not NATO needs nuclear weapons and whether or not it not just needs nuclear weapons but needs nuclear weapons to prevent war—in other words, not just to deter their use by others. We come down to the point that if NATO is saying it needs those nuclear weapons to prevent war, and it can't possibly have security without it, then that is an advertisement to others that they need them too. We use the example of a much, much weaker state, North Korea, and compare it to NATO.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
The problem is that if you take something out of context, and you ask a question, which actually demands a thoughtful answer, then you're going to get longer than a couple of seconds.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Unfortunately, I don't make the rules. I am one of 338 people who contribute to the rules of how these meetings work.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I will. Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Byers, you were talking about the opportunity for Canada to proclaim itself as the first nuclear-free country. I think that was the terminology you used in responding to one of the answers. It appears to me that there are two problems with that. Number one, we don't have nuclear weapons as it is, right now, so it's very easy to say we're nuclear-free. But also, I think there's a certain luxury we receive from our geographical location, or where we're positioned in the world, that makes it extremely easy for us to make that assertion.
Would we be doing a disservice to the rest of our NATO allies if we were to do that, if we were to try to project that, given the geographic location of other countries to the hostile environments?
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
First of all, as a factual correction, there are dozens of countries that are declared nuclear-weapon-free countries in this world. In addition, there is a provision in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which Canada is a member, that actually foresees more nuclear-weapon-free zones, and nuclear-weapon-free zones were, in fact, strongly encouraged by the Obama administration.
So what I'm saying is not unusual. I'm sorry that it surprised you.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
No, no, I'm just wondering what you said. I thought you said that Canada should be the first.... Did I get that wrong?
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
You did get that wrong. You misheard me.
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
What I was saying was that Canada should consider following dozens of other countries in formally declaring that it is free of nuclear weapons—which is, in fact, the case.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay. Thank you. But given our geographic location, do you not think it's very easy for us to do that, given that we're so close to the United States and we can rely on their dependence, as we have for so long?
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Unless you're advocating that we should encourage the United States to bring nuclear weapons back and deploy them on Canadian soil, I don't see that there's a need for a discussion here. We are free of nuclear weapons. Pierre Trudeau decided that we would be. We've kept that position for decades now.
Ms. Mason is talking about finding diplomatic opportunities to help this effort to de-nuclearize the world, which many people and many countries subscribe to, and I'm just identifying that this is one of many options Canada could consider.
But to come back to it, the most important is the nuclear prohibition treaty that was just adopted. Canada could sign and ratify that, and stay in NATO. I fail to understand why we weren't at that negotiating conference, why we didn't sign, and why we aren't considering ratification at present. It's a mystery to me, because it's inconsistent. This current stance is inconsistent with decades of Canadian diplomatic history.
Liberal
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
Thank you to all three of you for being back in front of the committee.
I would like to direct my questions primarily to Dr. Byers and Dr. Charron. There are two themes I would like to explore, one being Russia and the other being post-conflict reconstruction. This committee has heard extensive evidence, and has in fact visited Ukraine, on the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the impacts on Europe and Canada. On the other side of that equation we have Russia as a player in the Arctic. It's the same Russia. It's the same leadership, with probably different personalities, conducting diplomacy, negotiating, and defence assessments.
How do you see the Canada-Russia axis, vis-à-vis the Arctic, line up with the current conflict in the Donbass region—or stand in conflict with; not necessarily line up with, but conflict with?
