National Defence Committee on Feb. 15th, 2018

[Robert McRae]

To be absolutely frank, I don't think there would be much traction for this discussion around the NATO table because of that, because clearly some nations will feel they are the subject of this discussion.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

However, if not now, then when, and what's the consequence of not...? If there are no longer shared ideals about democracy and we're sharing critical strategic information that puts us all at risk, the basis is those shared ideals and values and way of life and rule of law: democratic principles.

[Robert McRae]

Again, I think this is a very important question.

If we are concerned, the first conversations and perhaps others in terms of what we do would be with our closest allies: our U.S. or U.K. counterparts.

There can be concerns about NATO allies sharing information with other countries which we may not wish the information to be shared with. It wouldn't be the first time. This is an ongoing question.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Is it the first time of the magnitude and scope—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to have to end it there. I'm sorry, but I have to be fair to everybody here.

MP Genuis, you have the last question.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask about the potential Pacific role for NATO. It was mentioned in the beginning. Of course, Russia and China both being nations that are challenging the idea of an international rules-based order—this is maybe a bit out of its historic ambit—but what role can NATO play in issues in the South China Sea as well as other issues in the Asia Pacific?

[Robert McRae]

Thank you for the question.

It's not dissimilar to this issue around the Arctic. The Norwegians, Iceland, and others, including the U.S., have sought to have the Arctic as an area of interest of NATO in its public documents and statements, and so on. Canada has been the one country that's blocked that reference to have the Arctic as an area of interest for it. Just so you know, this is a line of government policy going back several governments. This is not one government's line. It's an issue that needs to be looked at.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Sorry, but could I quickly jump in.

This is off the Asia topic, but why is that the case?

[Robert McRae]

It's because each government under which I've served has not wished to see NATO vessels in our Arctic. It's as simple as that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

[Robert McRae]

But it's not irrelevant to your question. NATO has developed partnerships with Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand. They were all active in ISAF in Afghanistan. Those four countries have been partners of NATO. We suggested, while I was at NATO, to those four partners that we should have a broader dialogue on security issues including in their area.

Those four countries, as much as they like NATO, more or less declined that proposal. They were concerned about the perception of closer ties between their countries—Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan—and NATO and the impact that would have on security in their area. In other words, the Chinese wouldn't like it. I think that is really what it comes down to. Therefore, they have been a bit standoffish in terms of that dialogue. We were suggesting to them that we would have a new category of NATO partnership called global partners, which would involve things beyond the transatlantic area, in the Euro-Atlantic area. We would have global partners. Canada was among those countries pushing for it, as you might imagine, particularly in the area of the Pacific, but we've not had the uptake on the other side of this equation that we would have wished for. NATO itself has been keen, I have to say, to launch that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Events are constantly changing, of course. Do you think that with a more and more assertive China, as well as with Japan's kind of shifting willingness to be more explicit about its military, there might be an increase in interest?

[Robert McRae]

I think there would be nothing wrong with the NATO secretary general pursuing this with these individual countries, these four in particular. It really comes down to their calculation as to whether having closer ties with NATO is a net positive for them in their security environment.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Very quickly, with regard to Canada's engagement with Pakistan, you mentioned concerns about NATO's engagement with Pakistan in general. Of course, there are a lot of concerns about the basic structure of the Pakistani state in terms of who is exerting control for what branches. That's obviously a major concern in light of what you talked about in terms of the nuclear situation there. What can NATO do to engage Pakistan or at least elements of the Pakistani state that are more likely to want to be engaged in trying to make improvements to the situation?

[Robert McRae]

Well, there is a debate about this, about engagement with Pakistan, including a debate in Washington right now. The debate has always been around whether we should cut them off, not talk with them anymore, cease providing any kind of technical assistance or support. My personal view is that the right way to proceed is to actually engage them more, as Mr. Fadden was saying. Get closer to them. Don't cut your assistance. Keep talking to the generals. Engage at the political level. You want to be there. You want to do what you can to bring them along, to professionalize their armed forces, and so on, and to create a space to have discussions about these concerns that we may have around the potential for proliferation and so on.

I think the right way to proceed is not to push them away, but frankly to engage these countries. The NATO secretary general is certainly in a position to do that. There would be nothing wrong with a visit to Islamabad. Certainly in terms of our government of the day, there would be nothing untoward to regularly engaging with the Pakistanis at the political level in the same way.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I understand that in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our most recent defence policy, it does make reference to exploring the Arctic, and also NATO's involvement in the Arctic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I was about to say that, but I see that members use points of order differently.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. Thank you for your service to Canada in the various capacities. This was a fantastic panel. It was very informative to us and will help with our report moving forward.

Thank you for being here this morning.

The meeting is adjourned.