National Defence Committee on Feb. 8th, 2018

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Given your close proximity, maybe we can have you back here one day on this topic.

[Joseph A. Day]

It's an interesting field.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, to Mr. Hobbs, I want to congratulate you and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. In all my years in Parliament and the various parliamentary associations to which I belong, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is by far the most important one in my mind. It does great work, not only in providing networking opportunities, but capacity building of us as Parliamentarians, and having some input into the development of policies that surround NATO. Thank you for that.

Senator Day, I always appreciate your comments. You're frank and to the point.

You mentioned the report from 2014 of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. The recommendation is that the committee is unanimous in recommending that the Government of Canada enter into an agreement with the United States to participate as a partner in ballistic missile defence. That's not just having discussions, it's entering into that agreement.

Is that so?

[Joseph A. Day]

The “unanimous” is an important part of that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Unanimous is important. I appreciate that very much, and I appreciate your support for that. It's something I believe in as well.

Professor Fergusson, I appreciated your opening comments.

I want to follow down the path that Mr. Gerretsen was going on.

Let's talk about the threat environment here in Canada. You mentioned both in the slides. You have the long-range aviation flight paths that are coming towards us over the Arctic. We have the potential intercontinental ballistic missiles that are coming from various sources. Then we have, I guess this contradiction that we belong to ballistic missile defence for Europe but we don't for North America.

I want you to lay it out again. Based upon the threat environment you just painted a picture of, where should Canada be investing its resources? What's the priority? Where should we be: one, two, and three?

[Dr. James Fergusson]

In my view, the immediate priority is the requirement to invest in a modernized, renewed north warning system. That's where the major capability gap is right now. Along with that, due to the longer range air and sea launch cruise missile capabilities of Russia— and in the future, China and others—come issues surrounding our ability to detect, deter, and defend against this emerging threat. I say this not if the sense of our planning to fight a war with the Russians, but in terms of the political implications in our relationship, not only with Moscow, but also with out NATO allies and potential allies elsewhere in the world. That's the number one priority, which is going to be an extremely expensive investment. Not to be critical of the recent white paper, but it's something that is not in there, except for modernization. In trying to estimate cost, no one knows until you develop the system. That's the number one priority, in my view.

The second priority is likely in the area of missile defence. The question that has surrounded this issue since the 1960s is, what does it mean to participate? Regarding European participation, we don't really participate. We signed off on it, as all the NATO allies had to. We inserted in the Lisbon Declaration the phrase “European territories and populations”, so the government wouldn't look foolish in contradicting itself. I don't know, but perhaps Senator Day or David may have an answer to this, but I don't think there are any Canadian officers in Ramstein, the command and control centre for the European defence system. Most of the Europeans really don't participate in that system; it's an American system. There are issues surrounding the relationship.

For Canada, in terms of the future threat environment and why it's a priority for Canada along with the United States, the key thing is that North America needs to get ahead of this potential threat when it comes, otherwise it's going to be too late, if it emerges before we're ready. How do you defend that part of North America against emerging ballistic missile threats, not from Russia, but from the Middle East, and that will threaten Canada right now? How are we going to fill this other capability gap? That's the second priority, which requires discussions with the United States, and requires the simple answer to the most difficult question: what do you mean by participation and what do we get out of participation?

[David Hobbs]

I don't know about the Canadian officers.

One of the things that has changed the threat environment is the unexpected rate of progress in North Korea, where they seem to have acquired probably some Russian design work that has really enabled them to make huge progress with missile engine technology. We've now seen them make enormous strides incredibly rapidly to enhance the range and capabilities of those systems. Whereas we once had the luxury of geography—and as Jim explained, the European-based system can't do very much or have any effect on stuff coming from Europe to here—we now need to start looking at the much more immediate threat .With current technology, the only way is to put stuff that can address the terminal phase—for which the European system is very useful in Europe, but actually useless for North America. The threat environment has changed. It's added much more urgency to your considerations.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I appreciate that.

From our previous briefings and our visit down to NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, I know there is this lack of capability on the eastern seaboard of North America, in particular.

Professor Fergusson, if you're looking at joining BMD, potentially with the United States and participating more fully in BMD from a NATO construct, what type of investments would Canada's possible participation look like? Is it going to be putting Aegis systems on our ships that have these new hulls that are going to be built and modular capabilities on our surface combatants with the future fighting frigates? Is it going to be actually putting interceptors on Canadian territory? What might this look like?

[Dr. James Fergusson]

Certainly in the case of the future combat vessel, it will have a missile defence capability if we acquire the standard missile system from the United States that enables us to intercept missiles. In terms of it providing coverage against an ICBM threat, which is what the Middle East threat would be, relative to where it would have to be deployed, it would require a new generation interceptor that can go much faster. In other words, that would be useful for point defence, by and large for forward deployment purposes, rather than for the defence of North America.

When you get into the issues surrounding defence of North America and the issue with what does Canada have to do, the real question is, what do we have to invest to create an arrangement in which missile defence for North America falls under NORAD to ensure that Canadian cities are defended as American cities would be defended?

You have two answers to it. One is the question of, if the United States proceeds with its third site in the east, the value potentially of a tracking radar, which can do other functions as well of importance both for space track and other purposes, potentially deployed in the north. Usually the point everyone looks at is Goose Bay. The United States has alternatives to Canada, but that would be one place where we would look to invest.

Certainly if we did invest in an interceptor, a single site somewhere, the United States would have no choice but to bring us on board simply because it's in their own interest to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to try to change the conversation a bit, because I am concerned that we're doing a study on Canada's role in NATO and that we tend to go down the rabbit hole of ballistic missile defence, which to me is generals fighting the last non-war, when we have other concerns that are quite pressing. So I'm going to stay away from that. Everybody knows my position on that, that we ought not to participate in something that's expensive and does not work.

My second concern is that there has been a lot of discussion about Canada as a loyal ally of the United States, presuming that's our role in NATO, when traditionally we've had a quite different role in NATO, which is to pursue the objectives of NATO through somewhat different policies than the United States.

What I would like to turn and talk about, and I'm primarily going to talk to Mr. Hobbs about this, is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and its activities on disarmament. The reason I ask is that I haven't seen as much as I would like to see, and I take some of the responsibility. I'm not the active participant from my party there; it is another member of Parliament.

We had the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in 2016 do the Tbilisi Declaration, which pointed out that there was a real need for de-alerting of nuclear forces when we have 1,600 U.S. and Russian missiles on launch-on-warning status, very dangerous in the current levels of tension. In that declaration, they talked about the start of multilateral negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

I'm asking, first, just a general question about the parliamentary assembly. It doesn't have a disarmament committee, so what other activities have there been in the parliamentary assembly on the disarmament or nuclear de-escalation front?

[David Hobbs]

Historically, we have followed disarmament negotiations very closely. That includes everything from agreements to ban land mines to regulation of certain non-lethal weapons, for example, blinding weapons. We have also looked at conventional forces limitations, and we followed all the nuclear negotiations extremely closely.

We've also looked at nuclear posture and the scope. Our defence and security committee has done that. I'm not sure the posture is “launch-on-warning”, as you said. I don't think they are on launch-on-warning. I don't think that's the case right now.

In terms of tactical nuclear weapons or theatre nuclear weapons, we have looked at that recently. I suppose the overall conclusion was, “Look, you'd be crazy not to be concerned about nuclear weapons.” Any sane person is concerned about nuclear weapons. However, generally speaking, you are less concerned about the few hundred held by allies and a lot more about the few thousands that are pointing at you from the other side. The assessment that our committee made is that there doesn't seem to be any real, genuine interest on the Russian side in pursuing disarmament at this stage.

For example, just looking at our list of topics for 2018, it's true that we're not actually looking at arms control at the moment, just because there are so many other issues that are, frankly, more immediately pressing.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Given that the bulletin of the atomic scientists moved the doomsday clock to two minutes to midnight, I'm not sure I would agree with the list of what's pressing.

[David Hobbs]

Arms control isn't necessarily the best way of dealing with it. Right now, I'm afraid it's all about enhanced deterrence and responding to perceived threats. Arms control, is not, if you like, the first tool in the box right now for dealing with that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

We just had both the deployment of Russian nuclear-capable missiles along the Polish border and the U.S. nuclear posture review, which talks about further development employment of tactical, so-called “low-yield” weapons, the same size as Hiroshima. I kind of object to the term “low-yield”, making nuclear weapons sound nicer.

[David Hobbs]

I agree. For example, you're looking at the Russian view—certainly newspeak—of de-escalating conflict through the use of nuclear weapons. When you're dealing with somebody who's talking in those terms, arms control is frankly a bit more distant than we would all like it to be. Everybody would prefer to see stability with fewer levels of armaments, and everybody would love to live in a world without nuclear weapons. That would be great, but it takes two to tango.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

There was a NATO-Russia parliamentary committee in existence up until 2014. Can you say something about what happened to that committee and why it was disbanded?

[David Hobbs]

Yes. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly was the first international organization to formally sanction the Russians for their actions in Crimea and then, subsequently, Donbass. It took us all a bit by surprise, because although we expected sanctions to be imposed, Russia, which was then one of our partner countries, in fact had its status removed. We no longer have a Russian delegation participating, but our bureau—and Senator Day is one of its members—is mandated to discuss whether the conditions are right for seeking to re-establish dialogue with the Russians at every one of its meetings.

Interestingly enough, I'm in regular contact with my counterparts in, for example, the Council of Europe, which also imposed sanctions but did not remove their membership. The position now on the Russians within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is this: firstly, they've stopped funding it; secondly, they refuse to participate while there are any sanctions of any description imposed upon them. Indeed, they will only come back if the ability to sanction any delegation, for anything, is removed from the statutes of the parliamentary assembly. My guess is that since the Russians would inevitably have been sanctioned in some way, that they themselves wouldn't be participating. They're not interested in dialogue at the moment, I'm afraid. I wish that were not the case, because the opportunities for co-operation strategically, and the complementary capabilities, are amazing, but Russia is not playing at the moment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I know I have very little time, so I'll just ask you very quickly about the Ukraine-NATO Inter-Parliamentary Council. That's continuing to be very active, is that right?

[David Hobbs]

Yes, very much so. We had three bilateral groups, if you like: one with Russia, one with Ukraine—which was founded at the same time—and one with Georgia, which was founded, of course, after Russia occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We also have a group that is multilateral, which deals with the Mediterranean and Middle East. Yes, we focus a lot of attention on our bilateral groups with both Ukraine and Georgia.

[Joseph A. Day]

Mr. Garrison, just to remind you, there is a political group within the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and there's a wide range of points of view expressed in there. We may not have a disarmament group, but we have a political group that discusses the issues you'd be looking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are primarily directed at Mr. Hobbs.

Mr. Hobbs, thank you very much for putting the political component of NATO front and centre as this committee contemplates and frames its report.

I want to start by reading you a quote from Ambassador Gábor Iklódy who, back in 2010 at the summit, was assistant secretary for emerging security challenges. He said:

NATO must develop a culture of political discussion which is not confined to issues that directly involve NATO militarily, but which also includes issues that may have “only” political relevance. As long as every debate in NATO is viewed as preparing military operations, a forward-looking, enlightened debate about emerging 21st century challenges will remain elusive.

In light of what you told us about what the alliance actually stands for—civilization, democracy, liberty, and rule of law—are you actually saying quite a bit more than Ambassador Iklódy said? Could you answer that question with a view to how unified the view of what NATO stands for is in 2018?