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.
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
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.
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?
4:20 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
No, that's not what I said.
4:20 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
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.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
But isn't it NATO's job to be the hard front line?
4:25 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
NATO's job is to be a collective defence alliance, and its nuclear—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Yes, but isn't its job to exert its military might?
4:25 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
Not just in a vacuum, for no purpose.
4:25 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
I mean, no, its purpose is not to exert its military might. Its purpose is to be a defensive alliance. That's its purpose.
4:25 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
It's to be a defensive alliance and to deter war.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay.
You came to this committee on October 25, 2012, and you said the following:
In a nutshell, my thesis today is that NATO is not the UN and should not be wasting valuable time, effort, and resources trying to duplicate the UN role in crisis management. Instead, NATO members should be looking hard at how they can best support the hard end, the military role of the UN in crisis management....
You further went on to say:
NATO's value added is its military capability, as so many witnesses before me have pointed out.
You seem to be not saying what you said here five years ago. Has something changed in your opinion on that?
4:25 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
I don't how you are reading plain words, but there's absolutely no contradiction in those comments. What I was talking about there was NATO....
At the end of the Cold War, when NATO was trying to reinvent itself, they got into support for humanitarian operations and they got into peace support operations. Ultimately, that ended up with their role in Afghanistan, which was not a happy outcome. We see the mess that Afghanistan is in today.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm sorry, Ms. Mason, I ask the questions.
My question—
4:25 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
Well, I have a chance to answer, and I haven't finishing answering the question.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
You do, but unfortunately, the way it works here is that we ask the questions and you provide the answers.
