National Defence Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2017

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

Canada’s Involvement in NATO

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

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

In the short time I have left, I want to go back to Dr. Byers, who said that, should Canada take such a path, there would obviously be U.S. pressure.

Do you see any other consequences in terms of a balance for Canada? You implied we could gain international standing, but at the expense of the hostility of the United States. Is my understanding of what you were saying clear?

4:20 p.m.

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

Dr. Michael Byers

Canadian prime ministers have never been afraid of standing up to the United States on some issues while obviously being a close partner on others. It was Pierre Trudeau who actually told the United States to remove its nuclear weapons from Canada, taking the first step towards the kind of measures that Ms. Mason is proposing.

In terms of positive consequences, Ms. Mason is absolutely right; we need to have a real, significant process towards nuclear disarmament worldwide, because the alternative is increased proliferation and eventually an accident or an escalation because a country feels existentially threatened by an opponent. For how many more generations will we live under the dark shadow of the threat of nuclear war? If we don't start now, we won't save our children from that risk in the future. So Ms. Mason is absolutely right. This is not the easiest time to do that. It will take real courage. But it's something the Canadian government could do to continue the progress that Pierre Trudeau started.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

Mr. Gerretsen.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Mason, if I understand your position correctly, you're basically saying that NATO should discourage nuclear weapons because there's no strategic value to having them. Is that correct?

November 22nd, 2017 / 4:20 p.m.

President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs

Peggy Mason

No, that's not what I said.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Okay.

4:20 p.m.

President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs

Peggy Mason

I said that so long as there are nuclear weapons, the only utility of nuclear weapons is to deter their use by others. So the logical first step for NATO is to ditch its first use—its so-called “flexible response”—and ditch its statement, its posture, that nuclear weapons are needed by NATO to prevent war, and say that while nuclear weapons are in existence, the only utility of nuclear weapons is to deter their use by others.