National Defence Committee on Feb. 13th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the defence committee.

I'd like to welcome our guest, Member of Parliament and Chair of the Latvian Defence Committee, Ainars Latkovskis. I'm going to refer to you as Mr. Chair, as well, just to make it easier.

To the Latvian ambassador and the Latvian defence attaché, thank you both for coming. I think it's been about 13 hours since we last saw you, so I hope you're doing well this morning.

I'll give you the floor to open up. We'd love to hear how things are going in Latvia with the Canadian contingent there at the forward presence. We'd also like to hear where you think we can make it better, because we're also very interested in improving our relationship with you as we move forward.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to give you the floor.

[Ainars Latkovskis, Chair, Defence, Interior and Anti-corruption Commission, Saeima, Riga, Latvia, As an Individual]

Good morning, everybody, and thank you, Chair.

Not so many hours have passed since yesterday's dinner. I'll try to emphasize some of the points we talked about yesterday, because I think it's very important that notes are taken and recordings are recorded. In our committee, every session is recorded, and it's available to the general public on request. Anybody can request a recording and receive that. We're used to working in such an environment, and we appreciate this very much.

First of all, before coming to Canada, my staff prepared a report on our relationship with Canada in general, but mostly about security issues. It was very interesting to read. It's kind of going back in history. My first degree is in history, and looking at how our relations developed over time, believe me, up to the year 2016, there were only two paragraphs. One of was them about how Canada became the first nation to ratify accession of Latvia to NATO. Thank you so much, once more, for this.

The second one was about Canada's offering our young officers extensive studies of English and French, which actually were very useful. I know many officers who have been here for that training. It's interesting enough that people came here to learn French more than they went to France to learn French. We use these officers now in our mission to Mali, so it's really useful.

Modern history starts in 2016 on June 30 when your government took a decision to be a leading or framework nation for NATO's enhanced forward presence mission in Latvia. That's when you start reading events that take place almost on a daily basis or on a weekly basis, different meetings, planning, people going back and forth, and agreements reached and signed.

Imagine this. There was decision your government took on June 30, and your troops and all the equipment necessary were there in Latvia on June 18, 2017. It took less than a year to move 450 men and women and necessary equipment to Latvia. Only two months passed, and Canada was a leading framework nation there, and, together with other partners, is fully certified as a battalion in Latvia.

I think it's a great success; a great success on the part of NATO and all the countries who reached these decisions in Wales and Warsaw. It also was possible because of your country and the people involved, starting with politicians and the Minister of Defence, and ending with ordinary soldiers who came to Latvia. I think you prepared very well, and now we're already in the second phase, second rotation, and in my view, things are going really well.

Latvia has the biggest NATO mission among three Baltic States and Poland. Interestingly enough, there are more troops in Latvia than in Poland, and Poland itself, who is receiving this help or assistance, has around 200 men and tanks in Latvia. This also shows that it's not only about receiving, it's also about giving. Latvia is the same; we're involved in six missions abroad. Our people, at this time, are serving in Afghanistan, Mali, Iraq, and other missions, so we try to do our best and not just receive help, but also, where we have expertise and knowledge, give it back where it's necessary for our partners, our allies, and NATO in general.

On our part, it was also very challenging, because, as a host nation, we had to put a lot of effort and money to accommodate troops from six different nations. That involved a lot of construction at our biggest military base near Riga Adaži, which is the biggest military training ground in the Baltics.

During the last year, we actually expanded this training ground, so it's even bigger. We spent a lot of money constructing new barracks, so your officers and soldiers are now under roofs since the fall of last year. We are going to construct four more barracks there: two will be fully funded by our budget money and two will be co-financed with Americans.

I'm not going to go deep into these logistical projects, but we have done as much as possible to make your army stay in Latvia not only welcome but useful for your army, because they are staying in the biggest military polygon. They're not just sleeping in the barracks, waking up, doing something, and being just there. No, they are training. They are training together with all the six nations, with Latvians very much involved.

Maybe one thing for the future, and I know there have been talks, but it would be very useful if you were to ask me to suggest something. We started this some years ago with the Americans, and it turned out to be very good. The Americans wanted to test some of their drones in Latvia. For that reason, we had to change some laws, and actually we did. We built airways around Latvia where these drones could fly around. Talking to the American officers there, I found out that this was something they didn't even have in Texas, the kind of territorial possibilities to actually get training, and fly drones close to the border, of course, with Russia.

This is something that maybe could be useful for you. I was surprised. I don't know what kind of situation you have. The Americans have plenty of land, but it turns out that the airspace where they can use these drones is limited, actually, to specific places like military installations, or something. We, in a very quick manner, changed our laws and regulations, and now it's possible. There are special free airways all around Latvia where you can use drones. I think it would be very interesting for your military people.

Another thing that Latvia set up in 2014, with the assistance of NATO, was the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. With the geopolitical situations today in the world, and Russian disinformation, and different developments in this field, this has become very useful.

Canada has been involved in this centre of excellence since the beginning, has invested money, and has always had its representatives working in Riga. Right now, there are two Canadians working there. Imagine that this NATO centre of excellence is not working specifically for Latvia. We sometimes laugh that they are not doing enough for Latvia, because they have developed different algorithms to see where the news is coming from on social networks, where our boats are are involved, and where Russia is involved.

They have algorithms, of course, in English and sometimes in Russian, but Latvia is a small nation and a language not spoken widely is not used in this centre of excellence. Anyway, we can learn from what they have found in their studies, and the people working there are really good. It's somewhere also to invest and to get results from.

Maybe I'll stop there. I'm not so good at making long speeches. I'm ready to answer all your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Great. Thank you very much for your opening remarks.

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Robillard. You have the first seven-minute question.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Latkovskis, welcome to the Standing Committee on National Defence.

Since Latvia joined NATO in 2004, what aspects or key actions of this alliance have been most beneficial to your country?

[Ainars Latkovskis]

I have to say that, since we became members of the strongest military alliance in the world, it has been very interesting. I will say this is participation in missions abroad. That's where military personnel could get real training—Afghanistan, Iraq, and different other places in the world, Kosovo as well, and Albania, but those were many years ago. However, another thing, of course, is decisions made in the NATO summits in Wales and Warsaw. I think those were very important for us, and now we see the results, six NATO nations being stationed in Latvia.

From the general public's perspective, this is the sense of security, the sense of belonging to the west, to the democratic part of the world. This is hard to explain probably even for ordinary people on the street, but that's how many Latvians—and not only Latvians—who live in Latvia feel. When there was a war in Georgia, not many politicians took notice in the west. But when Russia annexed Crimea and war broke out in the eastern part of Ukraine, many Latvians asked, “What's going to happen if Russia does the same in Latvia?” The older generation had the sense, “Look at Ukraine, especially eastern Ukraine; it has a border with Russia, and so do we”. I had town hall meetings where people were just standing up and saying “Mr. Latkovskis, you were saying we are all fine, but look at the facts. We have a common border. They have a sizable population of Russian speakers. So do we in the eastern part. Those are two things in common.”

Where these people were wrong was that they were comparing apples and oranges. In Latvia, since we regained independence, we chose the course to be again part of the democratic west. We didn't choose some middle path or something wherein, because of the Russian interests in Ukraine, many politicians who were in charge of that country in the 1990s and 2000s chose some middle path, some grey area of security. It's impossible to be secure in a grey area, so Latvia is a NATO member.

Now I'll tell you how I usually explain it to journalists in Latvia and to the general public. You have a security system, which was set up in 1949, and your country was one of the founding fathers of this organization. If something happens, let's say some country attacks a NATO ally, and the NATO countries don't take a decision and don't defend, the whole security system simply collapses. What do you do? Do you choose? If Russia attacks Latvia: “Oh, not so important”. If it attacks Norway: “Maybe a little important”. If it attacks France: “Oh, this is important”. You don't do these things. You don't calculate. Simply, if you don't come and don't defend and don't do something, the whole security system collapses. You only have trust in this because you believe it works. That's how it works.

After that, this explanation was taken on by many other politicians from almost all parties, and it worked for the general public as well. They understood.

What was probably the single most important act was on the part of two countries, actually. When Russia started its actions in Ukraine, two countries immediately made a decision and sent their fighters to the Baltics for air policing missions. Those two countries were the United States of America and Canada.

Everybody knows and remembers the United States of America; rarely, people know and journalists remember that Canada also sent its CF-18s to the Baltics for air policing missions. This is something you should know and that I think you should be proud of. It was important at that time. It was not so much important for Russia, to show that there is a deterrent; it was very important for Latvian people, because what they saw was that in a time of crisis we have friends. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thanks.

That's pretty much your time.

I'm going to pass the floor over to Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ambassador, Mr. Chair, and Colonels, it's good to have you at committee.

I want to direct my questions to Mr. Latkovskis.

First of all, I want to thank Latvia for passing the Magnitsky law. We talked about it briefly last night, the 63 votes and then I think the 37 abstentions. It speaks loudly that Latvia, Canada, the United States, and other European nations are all standing together to hold those corrupt foreign officials and gross human rights violators to account. I know that Russia has been kicking and screaming louder than any other country, but it has global application; it's not just targeted towards the plutocrats in the Kremlin. I want to thank you for that.

I also want to thank Latvia for being such a great host nation to our troops. All the members I have talked to at the Canadian Armed Forces who have been stationed at the enhanced forward position in Latvia have really enjoyed the experience of being there and of working with the very professional armed forces of Latvia as well as of all the other states that are participating in the eFP for NATO. That has been a great learning experience for interoperability and for lessons learned in sharing that experience across countries.

As you know—we talked about it in the past when we were in Riga—we've talked about fake news coming out of Russia and those who are trying to appease Russia within the European context. We even have it here in Canada. We've had some journalists.... One comes to mind. He writes for The Chronicle Herald in Halifax and recently said that having our troops in Latvia is a waste of money and troops. He says it's “to counter a non-existent threat from the Russian bogeyman.”

Even though we have some naysayers here in Canada, how do you, as a former journalist yourself, explain to those in the media and those who want to appease Russia how important it is that we have a presence in the Baltics?

[Ainars Latkovskis]

First of all, I don't know this journalist personally, but journalists like that in our country are very often called “useful idiots”. That's the best you can say about them, and there are more serious cases where Russia simply buys people like that. They write whatever they're paid to write. But I'm not talking about this specific article or this specific author. I don't know the person.

In Latvia, we know these things very well. Although we know them very well and have for a very long time, it doesn't necessarily mean that now and then this fake news, or this information, doesn't get to our population. The main targets for this kind of news or information are not politicians, so that article was probably not written for you. It was written for your voters, so they would write a letter or an email to you and say, “What the hell? Why are you spending money somewhere there? We don't care about that.”

You asked the question about Latvia joining NATO in 2004. We joined NATO, and we went on missions to Afghanistan, and I was at the time already in politics and people were asking, “Why Afghanistan? It's so far away.” Even though things are messed up there and torn up like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and thousands of kilometres...why do we care, for ordinary people?

We care, first of all, because we are now part of this military alliance. If our friends and partners are involved and have made that decision all together, not alone, we are together with them; and we know, if the day comes, they'll come and help us. That's how we look at the world now. That's why we are involved in six missions, although, when you look at our military, you see it's only 14,000.... We have 6,000 professionals and 8,000 national guards, who are voluntary. It's not like our resources are endless, but we try to do our best. Once things are already set, this actually helps us to get training, get expertise, get to know other army officers and soldiers from other armies, get to know how to work with them, and all of that. Another thing is, of course, that we are now part of this great military alliance, and we're responsible for keeping the world a safe place. That's our responsibility even though we're a small nation. You sign it. You just don't hope that you will be helped. You sign the agreement; you know you are also going to help with this cause. I think that's how democracy works. You want to be part of that world, and you hope that every country becomes democratic at one point or another, and you're helping to keep security around the world, wherever it is. We do that.

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

I know you have talked in the past about making sure that there is a separation of duties, even if it's on an unofficial basis, between the EU and NATO. There's no doubt, with the invasion of Crimea by Russia, that NATO's usefulness within NATO countries, especially in western Europe, has become more of a focus, and it has for a couple of decades.

My colleagues on committee here know that I've been a bit obsessed with PESCO, coming from Europe. Your previous comments, going back to 2015, talked about the role of the European Union and the role of NATO, keeping the separation of duties away from what is the military side of things, and what is more on the political action side. PESCO changes that a bit, from the outside looking in. I wonder if you could provide some analysis—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Sorry, I'm going to have to hold it there because that's the time for this particular member's question. We might be able to circle back, but I'm going to have to yield the floor to MP Garrison.

[Ainars Latkovskis]

You timed that well. I have to learn something. We have particular people in my committee who just go and talk. I'm not comparing people....

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

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

I want to add to Mr. Bezan's opening remarks. Thanks for the hospitality that was shown to this committee when we visited Latvia. Certainly I found both the visit to the Canadian troops, but also the visits with Latvians, with you, and with others, very useful in understanding Canada's role in Latvia.

I felt the trip was important because it demonstrated all-party support from this Parliament for Canada's enhanced forward presence role. Not just in the traditional role of NATO in responding to threats from the east, but also in that enhanced role of preserving stability, democracy. I feel that's where we're making that great contribution.

What has been the Russian response to the enhanced forward presence? What do you see as the main impacts of Russian policy toward Latvia or the Baltics in general?

[Ainars Latkovskis]

In terms of, let's say, Russian military preparedness, the biggest military training in the history of Russia was held last year. It was called Zapad 2017, which translates as the “West 2017”. The exercises stretched from the Black Sea to the border of Norway, including Ukraine as well. It was interesting to watch, because you could make some calculations about what kind of force could be used if there were a conflict. It was interesting to see that the territories covered thousands of kilometres, and the way they conducted the exercise was to cut off the Baltics or NATO, and not only the Baltics, but possible assistance from Norway. This is something we have to take into account.

That's where I can answer your question, and yours as well, because PESCO—an EU military kind of thing.... The one thing we support a lot is the creation of a so-called “military Shengen”, because most of the NATO countries are in Europe, and moving troops and equipment takes a lot of time.

Then there are sovereignly issues. This is so funny, because not many laws have changed since the Cold War ended. During the Cold War, no politicians were asking such questions as how Americans from northern Italy would go to, let's say, Germany's eastern border to help, if Russia attacked. Nobody asked these questions because they would simply go. Now there are many of these questions. How will they cross the border? Will their guns be loaded?

There are problems when you look at the issue in this way, and this is something the EU has said. Really, the EU is not about the military. Latvia joined the EU. Of course, for us, it also gives a sense of security, because you're part of a big economic union or cultural union or whatever. These things simply are very important. Not only politicians are pointing them out, but also the military themselves, who look at logistics and at different kinds of training that have been taking place in Latvia during the last three years and also at the stationing not specifically of your troops, but stationing when the Spanish and Italians came. They are part of this mission in which you are a framework nation. They have to look at logistics: at how they are moving equipment and troops, how much effort it takes, and what kinds of procedures are requested by various countries. It takes some time, and this is stupid.

The EU has to do something about this. That's why it's important. At the beginning we were very skeptical, because we trust in NATO—believe me—very much, but there are issues that the EU can deal with.

It's also a question of research and development in this field. You know, countries that are small compared with yours.... Every bigger country—not the size of Latvia—has its own military production for using choppers and everything. This eats a lot of their resources. Something should be done about these different standards, although there are common NATO standards.

I have heard so much from different politicians. I was once at a big conference in France. It was in the city close to the Channel. At that time they had elections, and the new chair of the defence committee was elected. He was talking to us. He said he didn't want to listen to all the bullshit about standardization and everything. He said he came from this city and everything needed for France would be produced there. Fine, I mean, this is not getting far.

These are the issues the EU has to look at. I don't know how much it can succeed, especially when producing for the military also means people employed, salaries paid, social benefits, whatever. You know this is important. You have to somehow look at some unification in some areas.

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

I'm going to try the same tactic as Mr. Bezan. I'm going to spit out a very quick question that you can answer in response to the next question.

But what I would have asked—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Ask it in 10 seconds or less, please.

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

What I would have asked you about is Latvia's involvement in some of the other aspects of NATO, including NATO efforts to reduce nuclear tensions in the east and in Europe. But I know I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

All right.

I'm going to give the floor over to MP Alleslev.

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

Thank you very much.

I would have loved to have had the opportunity to go to Latvia with the defence committee. We have financial constraints, and so the entire committee couldn't go. It didn't mean that we wouldn't have loved to have gone. We heard all kinds of great information from it. Even though we weren't there, some of us, we were able to benefit from the fantastic trip. Thanks very much.

The reason why we're having this study is to leverage a little bit of what my colleague James was talking about. We are at a point, I think, not only in Canada but in other countries, where the questions are really whether we need NATO, whether we should leave NATO to the Europeans, why NATO matters to Canada, and why Canada matters to NATO. That's the reason we're having this study and bringing people in to testify.

Is Russia really a threat? I think it's a legitimate question. I think people think it's not necessarily about invasion, because of course we do have the enhanced forward presence to be able to mitigate or dissuade from invasion.

You do have an election coming up. We do have an increased prevalence of cyber-threats, misinformation, and all that kind of stuff. Our democracy, of course, is based on our ability to have that information and those democratic conversations with our citizens.

How concerned are you about that kind of interference? How much support are you getting? You mentioned it a bit from the NATO cyber centre of excellence. Do you see that as a threat and to what extent?

[Ainars Latkovskis]

There are examples from different countries where elections took place. For some people it was unimaginable, some years ago, that Russia could even interfere in American elections. Now it's fact and it's known. There have been cases in Europe where elections are on a smaller scale but anyway it happened. Everywhere Russia leaves its mark.

It's not as if we are scared. We know Russia very well because we live nearby, and Russians live amongst us. Russians watch their news and watch their TV. They work amongst us. The biggest rate of interracial marriages with Europe is in Latvia. We know them very well. We see how it changes, what's on the news and what's beyond the news. Although we know them very well, it doesn't necessarily mean that we could be prepared for everything. We have done a lot to invest in our capabilities to detect cyber-attacks, to stem them.

Latvia, two years ago, was the presiding country in the European Union. We took it very seriously. We saw what happened to Lithuania concerning cyber-attacks, and before that to Estonia. Our committee was involved very much. We had regular meetings with our cyber-defence units, and we got prepared for this.

Now and then Russia tests us. Recently we had problems with a medical IT system. You would go to the doctor and be prescribed drugs and then you would go to the drugstore and it's all there. We have a shutdown for some hours during a busy time of day when the older generation goes to hospitals.

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

I'm thinking a bit more of influence operations, because it did perhaps influence the American election. The American election didn't have a pro-Russian party looking to increase their footprint, and yet other countries certainly in eastern Europe have more...which has had a fundamental shift, perhaps, in the nature of that country when the more pro-Russian element has been successful.

[Ainars Latkovskis]

Now I understand, yes.

In Parliament we have and have always had a pro-Russian party. Years pass and the population changes and older people get older and younger people get voting rights. That party also tries to change. It's very hard because as in every democratic country, the older population has an obligation and goes to elections. Younger people are not so involved, let's say.

With a change of attitudes, the party also tries to change. They have joined a common European network of social democratic parties, and they're going to try to be on two votes at the same time. It's very hard because those who vote for that party, as I said, mostly come from the older generation that grew up and went to war during the Soviet times and watched the news from Moscow. They have some play in their hands.

It's not good for Latvia, of course, but just as I already said, it's very well known to Latvians. It's no surprise. Everybody knows the party, what kind of voters they have, and what kind of issues they deal with. It has all been known since the nineties when they started in 1993. They are there all the time. It's not new. You wouldn't expect developments like there are in the United States where you find out later. Now when something like this appears on a social network, it's very soon pointed out by ordinary people. You don't have to involve special units or the centre of excellence.

By the way, the EU also has a special unit and money devoted to fighting fake news. It's called EU Mythbusters. It works very well. You can find it on Twitter and Facebook. They look at fake news over a longer period—weekly or monthly—and then they show the fake news and show what really happened. They show the fake picture, which has been Photoshopped, and then show the real picture. This is also popular. It works well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

We'll go to five-minute questions now.

Mr. Spengemann, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much for being with us.

I wanted to stay with the theme of the political component of the alliance. This committee will devote the next couple of sessions to foreign policy and defence, and I wanted to pick up on a question that my colleague Mr. Bezan posed to you, but be a little broader about it and explore with you the complementarity of the political sets of values that have built the European Union and NATO.

I think you were first elected to Parliament, if I have the facts right, just two years before Latvia joined the EU. Could you sketch for the committee the importance of the EU policy coherence vis-à-vis Russia and the world, and then add to that your assessment of the importance of the political side of NATO as a political and not just a military alliance? Canada is not a member of the EU, but it is a member of NATO, and for us I think the political question, including the deterrent effect of the unity of vision for democracy, justice, and individual liberty as a deterrent against Russia and other potential enemies.... It would be very important to hear your views on that.

[Ainars Latkovskis]

A whole afternoon could be devoted to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have about four minutes.