Evidence of meeting #116 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nato.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chair  Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)
David Barber  Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Leona Alleslev  Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC
Frank Baylis  Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.
Stephanie Pezard  Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation
Abbie Tingstad  Senior Physical Scientist, RAND Corporation
Pertti Salolainen  Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland
Tom Packalén  Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland
Paavo Arhinmäki  Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland
Ilkka Kanerva  Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland
Simon Elo  Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland
Stefan Wallin  Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland
Maarit Feldt-Ranta  Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

4:35 p.m.

Senior Physical Scientist, RAND Corporation

Dr. Abbie Tingstad

It would also be important for NATO, in terms of crafting the message, signalling how the presence is distributed and how it's being used.

Thank you.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

What should Canada be asking of NATO? How should Canada be helping to try to guide NATO to do that in the right way? What position can we adopt to help our NATO allies make sure we have the capabilities we need in the area, if it comes to that, without provoking Russia in the Arctic while we develop or rebuild those capabilities?

4:35 p.m.

Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation

Dr. Stephanie Pezard

That's not a question that we've addressed directly in our research. It's an ongoing dialogue between Canada and its NATO allies, frankly.

The current state of an increased pace of exercises, especially cold weather exercises, deployments—again through exercises in Europe and the Arctic—seem to be something that has been satisfactory so far.

Are there additional needs or requests to Canada? I could not discuss that. That would come from NATO members.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

In terms of recent events, like the capture by Russia of Ukrainian vessels, should we be reading anything into that? Is that really a product of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, or should Canada see that as a kind of aggressive posturing by Russia in a way that should be of concern to us?

As we look to them, we're asking the question often in this study of what the risk of Russia is. It has been more or less following the rules within the Arctic, but is beginning to depart from that stance and becoming more aggressive. Should we be reading anything into that, or not?

4:35 p.m.

Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation

Dr. Stephanie Pezard

To me, there's a considerable difference between any hostile action against a NATO member and a non-NATO member. With regard to Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014, they were non-NATO members. If Russia were to do something similar with the vessels of a NATO member, the consequence would be absolutely out of proportion with what's happening now.

To me, it's a completely different cost-benefit calculation on the part of Russia, and I would not necessarily extrapolate to what it means in terms of potential threat for NATO members or NATO as a whole.

4:35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you very much.

With that, I'm going to thank you both for your time, even though it was a little less than we had hoped. We covered a lot of ground and I know my colleagues are appreciative of your presence here.

We shall suspend and await the arrival of the Finnish delegation. We have to get the room set up for that.

Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Good afternoon, everybody. We're going to reconvene.

We are very honoured to have with us this afternoon members from the Finnish foreign affairs committee and members from the Parliament of the Republic of Finland, as well as Finland's ambassador to Canada, Vesa Lehtonen. I've had the opportunity of meeting these ladies and gentlemen earlier today.

It really is our pleasure to welcome you before the foreign affairs committee.

The context of our study is arctic sovereignty. I know there's going to be lots of discussion on that, but I also know there are so many areas of collaboration and co-operation between our two countries, dating back 70 years now. I'm sure some of my colleagues are going to want to reflect on that.

I'm aware that MP Vanhanen, the chair of your foreign affairs committee, is unwell today. We wish him a return to good health. In his absence, it's my pleasure to recognize MP Salolainen, whom I will ask to deliver some remarks before our committee, after which we will open it up to members—all the colleagues—to ask questions.

Again, formally, welcome to Canada and to our Parliament.

4:45 p.m.

Pertti Salolainen Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dear fellow parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen, we are very happy to be here. Canada is becoming a much more important country to us than before because of certain developments that have taken place in America in recent years.

I have a strange feeling, because this speech was originally prepared for Mr. Vanhanen. I have the same feeling that a British parliamentarian had in London, when he was making a speech to Parliament. He had short, written notes, and looking at the notes he said, “Well, there are many important issues, and I am going to solve them all now in my speech.” Then there was another note that somebody else, of course, had written, and he looked at it very carefully and said, “This is a rather weak argument but good enough for Parliament.”

I have more or less the same feeling, because these notes were originally prepared for Mr. Vanhanen, our chair, who unfortunately could not travel due to illness.

Finland and Canada had a pivotal role in the early stages of Arctic co-operation. At Finland's initiative, the Arctic environmental protection strategy was launched in 1991 in Rovaniemi, Finland, and under Canadian leadership, the Arctic Council was founded five years later in Ottawa. Both our countries were very much present at its creation.

Now it is Finland's turn to chair the Arctic Council, until next spring, and I will briefly assess some of the developments in Arctic circumpolar co-operation from our point of view.

The most important thing is that the Arctic remains peaceful. That is, of course, fundamental. In spite of the generally negative trend in interstate relations, the Arctic Council has managed to strengthen regional stability and even expand the area of constructive co-operation. It is remarkable that the Arctic Council has secured a strong position in producing scientific reports and assessments, and making recommendations to decision-makers. It has negotiated three international agreements: on search and rescue, on marine oil spills preparedness and response, and most recently, on scientific co-operation.

Now there are organizations specialized in certain areas, such as the Arctic Economic Council, the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, and the University of the Arctic. Co-operating closely with them allows the Arctic Council to engage in economic, soft security and educational activities.

It is in Finland's interests to help the Arctic Council assume an even stronger role in regional co-operation. The rationale is clear: Common concerns require common efforts to address them. That's why we chose our chairmanship slogan, “Exploring common solutions”.

Environmental concerns were the most compelling reason to start Arctic co-operation, and it is obvious that environmental and climate issues must remain the main focus of the Arctic Council. It is obvious that all Arctic states continue to have important common concerns to address in the region. The assessments and recommendations of the Arctic Council have spoken clear language about the need to co-operate in order to mitigate climate change, to adapt to emerging situations and to build resilience. Nowhere else than in the Arctic is climate change more evident, as the area is warming at twice the speed of all others. Think about it: twice the speed. The 1% goal has been stated. In the Arctic, that means 3%. It's dangerous.

The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is perhaps the starkest reminder of the need to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and start building a carbon-neutral future to save our planet. At the parliamentary level, Arctic co-operation is also gaining momentum. When we celebrated the Arctic parliamentary co-operation's 25th anniversary this September in Inari, Finland, we noticed this. We are glad our Canadian friends from both houses attended that occasion.

As a result of the 13th Arctic Parliamentary Conference, MPs of the region outlined their common goals on preventing climate change, the need to improve digital connections in the Arctic, social well-being and corporate social responsibility. Together, the parliamentarians of this region requested investments in digital connections so that our Arctic regions would not be left outside of the progress we can witness in our southern areas. MPs of the Arctic also called for the companies of this region to carry out their social responsibility and to take into account the vulnerable Arctic nature.

Ladies and gentlemen, Arctic co-operation attracts worldwide attention, and this development should be welcome. The Arctic Council has invited a large number of observers—both states and organizations. Taking into consideration the growing interdependence of the Arctic and other regions, such a broadening of horizons is now necessary.

One of the fundamental questions for the Arctic Council is the involvement of non-Arctic states with interest in the region. The recent Arctic policy document of the Republic of China points to the kinds of questions that need to be addressed when the Arctic becomes more accessible. It is the Arctic states that should demonstrate leadership in guiding developments in the Arctic. It is time to involve the highest level of decision-makers. Finland is making preparations for a summit meeting of the eight Arctic states to be held next spring. Also, the Arctic MPs supported the idea of the summit in the meeting in Inari.

Such a summit would speak clearly about the efforts to maintain peace, stability and constructive cooperation in the region. It could also tackle some of the most acute issues that our countries are facing. Finland proposes that our countries seek to make further efforts to curb emissions of black carbon and to increase maritime safety and security in the Arctic. I note with pleasure that Canada shares our sense of urgency to reduce black carbon emissions.

Ladies and gentlemen, Finland warmly welcomes the important role that indigenous peoples have in Arctic co-operation. The Sámi, the Inuit and other nations should continue to fully participate in the development of the Arctic countries. Their contributions and cultural integrity should be taken into account in planning for that future.

In the Arctic Council, as well as among Arctic MPs, Canada is emphasizing the need to improve social well-being as well as the living conditions of Arctic inhabitants. Finland is pleased to co-operate with Canada and indigenous organizations in this very important work. Likewise, Finland has greatly benefited from co-operation with Canada in improving educational opportunities for all Arctic inhabitants.

We should be ready to tackle issues that are not yet on the agenda of the Arctic co-operation. Finland would like the Arctic Council to see how wildfires, which are becoming more and more commonplace in the northern areas, could be better prevented from destroying Arctic communities and threatening their inhabitants.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I very much appreciate Canada's vibrant discussion of Arctic issues nationally and internationally. You engage all the stakeholders in the process, of course, starting from the indigenous people and covering all aspects of the topics. I look forward to the discussion on Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic.

I would like to warmly thank Canada for your support of the Finnish Arctic Council chairmanship, and for your valuable contributions in all priority areas of protecting the environment, improving connectivity, engaging in meteorological expertise and enhancing opportunities for good-quality education.

After our discussions today, I would add how important we think it is that we could create bilateral consultations and discussions. In that way, we can complement all the developments we can do together in the Arctic Council.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

4:55 p.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you very much.

As is our procedure on the committee, we're now going to go into six-minute questions from different members from different parties.

We're going to begin with MP Alleslev.

4:55 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

Thank you very much.

What a pleasure and honour to have you guys travel all this way to be with us at our committee in person, particularly, so you can give us a perspective on such an important topic. Thank you very much for that.

In my first set of questions I'd like to focus on the economy. I wonder if you could give me an idea of how much of an impact Arctic and Arctic-related issues are in terms of your economic contribution and vibrancy.

4:55 p.m.

Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Pertti Salolainen

I certainly can't quote any figures.

4:55 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

In order of magnitude....

4:55 p.m.

Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Pertti Salolainen

If the climate changes and it changes completely, for instance, Finland's nature, it would mean that in the southern and the northern parts the trees would be growing faster and that would increase forest production for us. That is one positive possibility. However, ecologically, it is also destroying a lot of our original nature. Biological diversity would be very much destroyed by this development. It's very difficult for me to quote any figures.

One thing, of course, is that if for instance the Northwest Passage were created, if the ships could go there without major icebreaker assistance, that would be an enormous help to trade between Japan, China, the Far East and Europe.

4:55 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

Would that have a positive impact?

4:55 p.m.

Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Pertti Salolainen

We are already discussing whether we should develop railway connections, so that ships could deliver their goods to be transported by rail, but it is only under discussion in Finland.

4:55 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

I'd like to move into the sovereignty and security area. Are you finding an increased threat or jeopardy to Finland's sovereignty and security? If so, could you give us an idea of what perhaps you would want to see done about it, and how, if at all, the Arctic Council has a role in supporting that?

4:55 p.m.

Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Pertti Salolainen

I think the security development certainly must be a result of other developments than this Arctic issue. Certainly that also will have some aspects. For instance, if there is more trade, more transport and so forth, there may also be complications. That might create some difficulties as far as security is concerned.

Honestly, directly I can't see any major difficulties about this, except that if people start using the raw materials from the sea bottom, for instance, or fisheries, which will be opened because the ice will melt in the north, more seabed will be ready to be explored and used. These kinds of problems would probably be there.

4:55 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

Recognizing that we all are parliamentarians and it is delicate diplomacy, your physical location close to your neighbour.... Of course in our Arctic we are seeing the increased military presence of Russia and China. I'm wondering if you can comment on any changes in that from a sovereignty, stability and security perspective.

5 p.m.

Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Pertti Salolainen

It's not an accident that we have one of the strongest armies in western Europe, if that is enough of an answer.

5 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

All right.

Would anybody else want to weigh in on that?

5 p.m.

Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Pertti Salolainen

My colleagues will, certainly. There are more details about this.

5 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

5 p.m.

Tom Packalén Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Yes, thank you. It's a good question. We have a 1,300 kilometre border with Russia.

5 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

5 p.m.

Member, Parliament of the Republic of Finland

Tom Packalén

We're a kind of hot spot, but at the same time, as our chair just said, we have one of the strongest armies in Europe.