Evidence of meeting #5 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was russia.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
I would say that because it exists, Minsk is something we're going to that we want to try to rely on. However, like I said, it's definitely not sufficient and it needs more teeth to it.
One of the other issues is that the OSCE also has a lot of the other ex-Soviet states in there that are PfP partners but not looking to join NATO. This could tend to make the OSCE position a bit closer to Russia's position than it would be if it were NATO negotiating or at the table. That's also important to keep in mind.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you for that.
I'm sorry. I have to cut you off. We literally have only seconds left.
Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In any case, I wanted to put my question to Professor Kimball, who will be able to add to her previous answer.
I would like to talk about another imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine. I was fortunate enough to attend briefings by Global Affairs Canada and National Defence in April 2021 and January 2022. I must admit that I have not been convinced that the situation on the ground today is much different than it was in April. Nevertheless, the talk is always of an imminent invasion. I presume it is based on information gathered by American intelligence.
My question is very straightforward: is that American intelligence reliable? If not, is it the same kind of situation that the previous group of witnesses was talking about, that is, a propaganda exercise on the part of the United States? We know that American intelligence provided the apparently reliable information that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
How reliable is this information from American intelligence?
5:45 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
You are talking about things that are not really related, but I will try to answer your question.
First of all, American intelligence is gathered in a number of ways. The intelligence from 2003 was not gathered in the same way. There have been advances in American intelligence technology, organization and communication. We hope that the information is good—fingers crossed.
Troop movements are monitored by third parties using satellites.
There is also the issue of perception. Russia wants us to believe that it is conducting exercises and that it has the right to act independently and autonomously to secure its borders against instability. This is true. However, the military exercises being conducted are on a large scale. One might wonder whether those exercises are proportional to the current problem.
We can also look at what neighbouring countries are doing. As I already stated, Denmark is starting to worry, and that is something Canada should follow closely. Historically, Denmark has not wanted to become involved in conflicts or to accept American troops. It is one of the rare NATO countries that has no allied country on its territory. The fact that Denmark is asking the U.S. to sign a bilateral agreement sends a relatively strong signal that there may be divisions within NATO.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you, Professor Kimball.
Ms. McPherson, the floor is now yours for two and a half minutes.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That was fascinating testimony. Dr. Kimball, I would like to carry on with some of things that my colleague from the Bloc has asked.
We heard today that Georgia, Kazakhstan and now Denmark are other areas that are potentially at risk if Ukraine is not able to maintain its territorial integrity should there be an invasion. Russia may have other goals and other places that they're looking at.
Dr. Kimball, could you talk about that a bit more please? Could you talk about what the implications could be?
5:45 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
Already it's a region in which we find a lot of instability. Some of it is historic, but some of it was also brought about by the actions of the Americans and other partners in the region. One of the reasons Turkey is not very content as a NATO member is that obviously it has had a lot of regional disruption, with what's gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Already we have a general area where it's more militarized than it probably has been in a long time, so we're creating a situation in which there's a lot of risk. The question also comes back to countries like Georgia and Kazakhstan and whether they have the domestic political resiliency to push back any sort of.... I think that's also where there are weaknesses. Those countries also face challenges in what we call the control of the monopoly of violence inside the country and stabilizing their borders.
If we could be setting up such a state that is fragile for potential failure, this is something we should care about. Knowing that there are Canadians in Ukraine, this is a risk for Canada particularly, because there are actually Canadian citizens there, but also through NATO in some senses. If NATO calls, it is rare that Canada does not respond. This is one of the things that is central to Canadian foreign policy. It goes multilateral, and NATO is one of the partners that it's going with most frequently these days.
By implication there's an interest for Canada, and the interest is not just whether or not our colleagues, our peers, in Europe have big economic issues or face energy crunches or something like that. It's the threat of multiple instabilities converging that could lead to something we don't want to see.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you so much, Professor Kimball and Ms. McPherson.
Colleagues, on our collective behalf, I'd like to thank our witnesses on the second panel for their testimony and for their appearance.
I would like to thank the witnesses for giving us their points of view.
Everybody, please keep safe.
With that, we stand adjourned until our next meeting.
