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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andrea Charron  Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Michael Byers  Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Peggy Mason  President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

So if we're not utilizing NATO in the Arctic, and we go back to NORAD and Canada's involvement in NORAD, then what should we be looking at for our involvement? What do we need to modernize, and what do we need to ensure that we have the capabilities to properly protect the north?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Andrea Charron

Well, there was a whole other committee on that, that looked at NORAD modernization. It's ongoing via EVONAD and things like the upgrading of the north warning system. It's looking at changing its command and control system to have a theatre or combined air force combat and command structure based at Tyndall. That conversation is separate. I'm suggesting that the conversation about how NORAD and USNORTHCOM are surveilling, defending, the homeland also has to be considered along with the area of responsibility for NATO, because I think there is a big gap there that we have forgotten about.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Yes, that was my next question. How do they plug in together? How do they work together? When does NATO get involved and when doesn't NATO get involved? When do you find that happy—

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Andrea Charron

Well, that's one of the things that need to be exercised and looked at. At the tactical level they'll do it, but at a strategic level we've stopped doing it, largely because we don't have the SACLANT position anymore. It speaks to the different areas of responsibility, the fact that USNORTHCOM goes out to 500 miles, that NORAD and Canada have a different area that they will surveil, and what the U.K. does versus NATO. It's often event-driven, so maybe we need to look at this more strategically and have a look at those gaps, because they are ones that can be taken advantage of.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

So there are gaps there that obviously we now need to take a strategic look at, would you say?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Andrea Charron

That's what I would suggest.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Is there anything really glaring or alarming that you would like to shine a light on, at this point in time?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Andrea Charron

I'm suggesting the GIUK gap, based on where the Kola Peninsula is. That's the main sea-line of communication for Russian vessels travelling from the Arctic to the North Atlantic. That's an area we haven't been watching as closely as we did in the past.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Okay. So that's something we definitely need to focus on.

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

One of the other areas I've developed a lot of interest in is cybersecurity, and the Russian involvement in cybersecurity. How do you react to what we've seen going on in Ukraine, and NATO's and Canada's responsibilities regarding these types of cyber-attacks and cyber-warfare? Do you think we're properly prepared for that?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Andrea Charron

As seen in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, the Canadian Armed Forces is aware, as is NATO, that the cyber-domain is now a potential theatre of operations. They're trying to guard themselves against that. I'm not a cyber expert, so all I can do is encourage them to continue considering what it is that needs to be done. I think we also need more training on things like social media, because that's often how our troops in Europe are being undermined. There are fake news stories coming out about their intent and their activities, and more training could help the Canadian Armed Forces to counter that.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

That's a good point. We heard in some media just this last week of our forces in Latvia being subject to the possibility of different types of cyber-attacks or fake news.

Maybe, Dr. Myers...or Dr. Byers, you have some comments on the cyber side of things. Do you see that as something we need to put more focus on?

4:10 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

Just for the record, I'm not nearly as funny as Mike Myers.

4:10 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Sorry about that.

4:10 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

It's a common mistake.

I think cybersecurity is an issue that requires a whole-of-government approach. It's partly how you regulate the Internet while still having the freedom and democracy that comes with an open Internet. It's partly about the media and how we promote quality media and how we distinguish quality media from nefarious attempts to spread fake news. Related to all that is to have governments themselves protected against hacking and intervention. It's a really big question, and it's not something a defence committee can deal with on its own. There's an all-of-government need here that's very profound.

I have one last thing to say on the Arctic. The Arctic is a really big place. The Arctic Ocean is thousands of kilometres across. Norway, our NATO ally, has a land border with Russia, so they are very concerned about Russia in their Arctic. Our situation is different. We are thousands of kilometres away from Russia in the Arctic, and there's no sign of their having any hostile intent there. So distinguish: the North American Arctic and the European Arctic are very different places from a strategic perspective.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Thank you.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

Mr. Garrison.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome back all three witnesses. If anyone has been following the proceedings, they'll know I've been concerned that this study on NATO consider NATO's nuclear deterrence policy very carefully.

We heard this afternoon from Ambassador Mason that she doesn't see any contradiction between NATO membership and the new treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and she even suggested there's room for Canada to lead within NATO on this issue.

I'd like to hear from Dr. Byers first and then Dr. Charron. Do you agree with Ambassador Mason that there is no contradiction, and whether there's an opening for Canada to resume leading on disarmament issues within NATO?

Dr. Byers.

4:15 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Byers

I'm first and foremost an international lawyer. I've looked very closely at this issue, and I see no legal barrier to Canada signing and ratifying the nuclear prohibition treaty and remaining a full, active member of NATO. We don't have nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons are based on Canadian soil. I would even suggest we could think about going further and declaring Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone. All this is consistent with our participation in NATO. It's a political issue. It's a political question. Obviously, the United States will push Canada really hard not to take such a step. Do we have the political will to move ahead regardless?

Related to this, look at these countries that supported the nuclear prohibition treaty. A large number of them are developing countries. The ratifications are going to pile up now. It is becoming NATO versus the rest, and where does Canada want to be? Do we want to be a global leader or do we want to be a small player in this resistant group of countries, especially when the government is campaigning really hard right now for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council? This is an issue where we could look and be very progressive and supportive of a lot of the developing world.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you.

Dr. Charron.

4:15 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Andrea Charron

I'm afraid this is not my area. Somebody like Jim Fergusson would be best to speak to this.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Okay. Thanks very much.

Ambassador Mason, I was of course very glad to hear you talking about opportunities within NATO to lead on this issue. I wonder if you could tell us a bit more about what Canada leading within NATO might look like.

4:15 p.m.

President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs

Peggy Mason

First I want to clarify one point, though, coming out of what Dr. Byers said, and that relates to what Canada would have to do in order to ratify the treaty. I, of course, in my comments, talked about the fact that we would have to start the process of disassociating ourselves from NATO's nuclear posture. There's a history of countries taking smaller steps in that direction, with the famous NATO footnotes, including, for example, Norway's, which does not allow any presence of any nuclear weapons in their territory. But article I of the ban, of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, the new treaty, states very clearly that one of the obligations of a state party is that they do not assist, encourage, or induce in any way any prohibited activity. Of course, prohibited activity is anything to do with nuclear weapons, including possessing them, developing them, or modernizing them. That language was developed to get rid of the ambiguity between the NPT and non-nuclear-weapon states, such as Canada, party to nuclear alliances.

I think on a plain reading of the treaty, Canada has to signal its intention that it wants to disassociate itself from NATO's nuclear posture. As I said, Norway and the Netherlands participated in the negotiation but ultimately voted against the treaty. Estonia, Italy, and Albania all voted for the launch of the negotiation, but then, under incredible pressure from NATO, did not participate in the negotiation.

It just gives you some idea that, within NATO, if that dialogue was started by Canada.... You know, the first step is always the hardest. Say Canada initiated the dialogue—this would be within NATO—raised these issues, and said, “Look, we want to sign this treaty. We want to live up to our NPT obligations. We want to start this dialogue in NATO.” There is a moribund non-proliferation and disarmament committee that I think, back in the day, wasn't moribund. Foreign Minister Axworthy addressed it at one point. If we started that dialogue, there would be tremendous pressure on many other NATO states to engage in that. I mean, just the fact that the Netherlands, under direct majority resolutions from Parliament to participate in the negotiation...that's why they did. It shows that the members of the public of various NATO countries are extremely interested that we get out of this moving in the wrong direction and really start to make some progress.

The other point I would like to make is that NATO is really in a position to lead globally. If NATO can take the step of saying that we don't need nuclear weapons, then that puts the lie to others who are beginning to think they need them, because now the argumentation is all going in the other direction, with more and more discussion of more countries thinking that they need nuclear weapons. Really courageous action is needed to get us out of this deadly track that we seem to now be on.