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.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Okay. There'll be more time at the end. Looking at the clock, we'll be able to go around the track at least one more time.
I'll yield the floor to Mr. Saroya.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for coming and talking to us.
I'm here by default. Somebody is not here. That's why I'm here.
All my life I learned bad things about the Russians, their missile system and all those things, but I heard a number of times from all of you that the threat is coming from the Middle East. I'm assuming it's Iran. If it's Iran, how far are we away from Iran getting the nuclear bomb, nuclear missiles, a nuclear system?
10:05 a.m.
Professor, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
How far away? Under the joint comprehensive plan of action, JCPOA, assuming that it meets its commitments as well as the other signatories to the agreement, you have a decade. The agreement enables Iran to keep their nuclear option open so that under changed circumstances, whatever these might be within the length of the agreement, or after it ends or if it's extended, it likely gives Iran the ability to go nuclear fairly quickly.
I don't know the details. IEA and U.S. Intelligence would have a better idea, but I would guess, and it's just a guess, probably about a year if it needed to, given the foundation it's already built for itself.
I don't want everyone to think a massive threat is coming out of the Middle East, but the second key issue is projected down the road. In part, it's not just Iran, but if Iran does this, what will everyone else do in the region? That's where a greater threat starts to emerge as everyone else, not just the Israelis but the Saudis and others, respond to this new threat environment.
The real issue is their ballistic missile development program, which has certainly reached into the intermediate range. It's not operationally deployed, but it could bring all of Europe pretty well under threat. Then from there, the step forward, which won't be that difficult a step to make, would be to go to an ICBM capability. That may be the one that will eventually kill the agreement, because conditions are attached to the agreement with regard to their ballistic missile developments.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Hobbs, you said we are misunderstood in the Middle East and North Africa. What should we be doing as a unit to make sure they understand that we are not bad people, that we are not the bad guy, but are here to protect them.
10:05 a.m.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
We do everything we can in that regard. We have several meetings per year where we specifically engage partners from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf. This year alone we've got three visits to the Gulf. We've done Abu Dhabi, we're doing Qatar, and we hope to do Saudi Arabia. We try to engage them in dialogue as much as we can, and we usually find it's very constructive.
When we talk about the threats, as James has pointed out, there is the potential direct element such as the missile and nuclear programs of Iran, but there are also second-order threats, if you like. If there's instability and conflict in the Middle East, everybody pays the price, not the least of which are the victims, the refugees, but also in terms instability and economic shocks. We all have to pay extremely close attention to that and help them, as NATO is now focusing on helping them build their own capacities, such their own defence capabilities, and their own development in terms of good governance, which everyone is working on. But as far as we're concerned, it is about dialogue. We need as much dialogue and engagement as we can possibly handle. Bear in mind that we're a relatively small and resource-limited organization. It's a big focus for us.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
My next question is this. Canada is now a part of NORAD, but not part of ballistic missile defence to protect Canadian cities from missiles coming from wherever. Why are we not part of it? Is this a cost issue? Is Canada not part of it because of the cost?
10:05 a.m.
Senator, New Brunswick, Lib.
No, I think it was a politically motivated decision not to participate in missile defence. As a result of that, the United States put missile defence outside of NORAD. We participate in NORAD as an equal. It's a very successful program. The vice-chair of NORAD is a Canadian, and Canada was involved right at the top level during 9-11.
Canada has played a major and appreciated role in NORAD. Missile defence is something we need to look at. It would have been part of NORAD, obviously, if we had joined. We didn't, so the U.S. treats it in another building down the street that we don't have a key to.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much.
I'm obviously very excited to have you here today. I first want to continue with my colleague Mr. Spengemann's questioning of Mr. Hobbs on the role of parliamentarians and the relationship between the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and NATO itself.
It's not a formal relationship, as I understand it right now. I wonder if you could speak to that relationship and possibly give us some thoughts on where that relationship could be further strengthened in a more official and regimented capacity, rather than through the graciousness of their perspective.
10:10 a.m.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
I only have 10 minutes. Is that right?
10:10 a.m.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
The relationship with NATO is amazingly good. In discussing the relationship between the parliamentary and government counterparts compared to with, for example, in the old days, the Western European Union and OSCE now, both of those had a formally regulated treaty-bound relationship. They envied the relationship we had with NATO itself, because ours had been built up by precedent and was a fully functioning, sensible relationship that was rather better than in some other organizations.
It's at all levels. NATO works with us, for example, in terms of budget. There are our audit authority. They check the finances. The NATO Office of Security keeps a friendly eye on us. The cyber people also do, because we just don't have the resources for dealing with some things like that.
When NATO's doing training programs for military people and diplomats on, for example, how civilian oversight works, they call upon the assembly to provide speakers for them. We call upon our members or parliamentary staff to work in NATO programs. Similarly, when we're doing programs for parliamentarians from countries that are developing democratic institutions, we ask NATO people to talk about that side of the equation for them.
NATO does make a modest contribution to our budget and even though it's not part of a binding agreement, we've had an exchange of letters, which we do periodically to make sure that we can never ratchet back from where we are—
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
But from a formal perspective, when the parliamentary assembly suddenly submits its reports and recommendations to NATO, there's no real obligation on NATO's part to respond or to incorporate those recommendations or studies into the NATO environment. Is that something that is ongoing in terms of where we should be going?
10:10 a.m.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
I think we have to be very careful because defence is a national prerogative, and oversight of defence establishments and national defence policy is by national parliamentarians. If we start saying that we're going to look at NATO and do parliamentary oversights of NATO, then there's resistance, because that's where the Canadian Parliament or the Canadian military doesn't feel it should be obliged to be accountable to a parliamentary question from Luxembourg, for example. That would be the extension.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Is there not a difference between oversight and responsibility—
10:10 a.m.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Transparency, yes. Actually, that's exactly where we find that NATO is. In fact, whenever we ask for something and say that it's for transparency's sake, they fall all over themselves to be helpful. They recognize the value of the parliamentary organization providing transparency—and not accountability, if you like, but letting people see what they do. We're knocking on an open door. If we get the vocabulary right, we really have a remarkably free exchange of opinion.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
10:15 a.m.
Secretary General, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Regarding the policy recommendations, it's unthinkable that we would not get a formal response from the North Atlantic Council these days. For every single policy recommendation that we submit, we get a written response saying, “This is what we think about it and this is what we're doing about it.” That's a remarkable achievement, actually.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
