Evidence of meeting #80 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 parliamentarians.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to talk a bit about Ukraine, the aggression there, and the number of NATO allies—of course including Canada—providing training and support to counter the Russian military.
Can NATO be doing more in Ukraine to make sure they are successful in defending their sovereign territory against Russian invasion?
Senator, New Brunswick, Lib.
We have many parliamentarians in NATO who want us to do more, and we have many who say we're doing more than enough at this stage. We're looking for that balance.
There is a lot of dialogue through our NATO PA Ukraine group. They're very active and very informed, and they bring back the information to the overall sessions we have. They will be communicating to us, and if there are some gaps, we'll be hearing about them.
Professor, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
The danger of doing two much is a simple one. If NATO does too much and expands what it's doing right now even further, that is likely to be a signal to reignite the war that has not stopped, but has sort of paused—albeit that's not the right word. But you know what I mean: it's sort of grounding slowly. That becomes a signal, I think, a danger that the Russians will then escalate it.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Right now we have in the Donbass the OSCE monitors who are documenting over 1,000 violations of the Minsk ceasefire agreement every damn day.
Professor, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Those would go up dramatically, I would think, if NATO did more—
Professor, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
—which doesn't mean that bilaterally, individual states, who are portraying themselves as being at arm's-length distance, cannot do more.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Professor Fergusson, at the beginning you talked about China's polar policy. You're thinking that they're going to do more transiting through the Russian Arctic side than through the Canadian Arctic portion of the Arctic Ocean, yet China's near-Arctic policy—it came out at the end of January—talks about the polar Silk Road, and specifically about coming through the Northwest Passage.
Is there a disconnect between what you envision they will use as trade routes versus what they are saying?
Professor, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I do. Now, I'm not an expert on this. My colleague Dr. Charron, who has been here, is the real expert on this, but I would suggest there are two things here.
If the Chinese motive to engage in the Arctic is a function of their economic interest to be able to move goods more efficiently and cost-effectively to Europe and the eastern seaboard of the United States, then, from what I understand, it is a function of currents and the way the earth rotates and where the ice breaks out. The ice always ends up clogging parts of the passage. As a result, it's the eastern passage, the Russian passage, that is the much easier and more profitable one.
In my view, China's emphasis on the Northwest Passage is really not economic, but China saying, “We are a great power. We have global interests. Whenever there are global questions”—and they include the Arctic—“we have to be included.” This is a message to Canada along those lines.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Is it correct to assume that, although Canada may not be allocating 2% of its GDP to defence costs, the Canadian Armed Forces are providing NATO with specific capabilities, including a degree of integration with the armed forces of the United States?
Senator, New Brunswick, Lib.
We talk about the 2% issue at each meeting. Canada is not there yet, but, two meetings ago, our minister said that Canada is moving in that direction.
The question is always knowing what is included in the 2%. Every country says that it will try to reach 2%, plus 20% in equipment, but NATO says that they are not at 2% yet. It is always an interesting issue at our meetings.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, I will share the rest of my 40 seconds with—
Professor, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Could I make a brief comment on this issue? It's one that's gone on for so long. The issue of burden sharing for Canada is within North America. There is a big bill coming, which will be vitally important for Canada's strategic interests in relation to North American defence. The issue for the United States' burden sharing is about the Europeans. It's always been about the Europeans; it's not about us.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Hobbs, building on this discussion and the conversation you were having with Mr. Fisher about these calculations, let's just assume for a second that we could come to an agreement as to how we're going to calculate it. I know that NATO has its standards. Some countries include their pensions; some don't. Some include their coast guard; some don't. Canada doesn't, but the U.S. does, but let's just assume for a second that you could square that away.
There's also the other issue that's come up around this table quite a bit. Quite frankly, in our study, when we went overseas we found that perhaps measuring this strictly from a monetary perspective was not the best way. For example, when we were in Latvia, where Canada heads the brigade, we sat down with officials there who said that other countries wanted to be part of this brigade because Canada was there. Italy, Poland, and these other countries have chosen us. There is a certain amount of clout or goodwill that comes with having Canada's name behind it.
How do you put that into the equation or measure that in terms of a contribution to NATO? You can't build that into your monetary assessment of it, but does that not have some kind of value? If we're not using that in the equation, are we not doing an injustice to the actual contributions toward NATO?
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
There isn't a fair way of dealing with this issue. There's a vast body of literature about what you measure and how you can compare it. There were efforts that said, look, we should actually look at what we do in terms of numbers of forces. But how do you compare a nation with a big army with one with a big navy and all of that sort of stuff? Everybody has tried it. There have been hundreds of studies about what you should do. Lots of European countries—Canada perhaps doesn't do procurement organizing quite the same way—argue those sorts of things.
The problem is that if you also look at value for money, in Europe we get possibly 50% the same value for money in our procurement as does the United States. Even if we started to say that we should compare capabilities, if you looked at the comparison of capabilities in aggregate it would be far worse for Europe as compared with the United States.
Lots of nations do lots of very good niche things. They all do. At the end of the day, it's not fair, but it's the least—
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I appreciate that, but my question was about whether it's fair. You're saying that it is fair in the way it's being done.
February 8th, 2018 / 10:35 a.m.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
There isn't a fair way of doing it that anybody would universally accept. It's good enough. Frankly, some of the contributions are so far out of kilter, it's a pretty good indicator of where more can be done. How do you compare capabilities? You could do that, but you would never find an agreed standard. That's one reason they've adopted this one, because it's so hard.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If you can't find an agreed standard, then how does the standard even have any legitimacy? If people don't agree that it's....
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
They did agree. They did agree, and it's as good as any other, if you like. You could argue the merits and demerits of all sorts of others, but this is one that at least you can measure. It's equality of sacrifice, if you like.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Also, don't forget that they put in 20% of defence investment, which is as important. If you're just spending it on salaries, you're not spending it on equipment. At least it forces you to spend a certain amount on hardware and things that are actually usable in the field.
It's an imperfect science. I wish there were a universally accepted measure.
Senator, New Brunswick, Lib.
I'm convinced that the soft costs you're talking about are considered, but they're not part of the 2%. The 2%, at periodic summit meetings, is referred to—i.e., we say, “Yes, we'll try”, and then we look at it and how close we're coming to it. The soft costs are considered, but are not part of that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I'll have to leave the conversation there, gentlemen. Thank you.
If you could just....