Evidence of meeting #10 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ukraine.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Okay.
I'll return to the question I had before about Finland and Sweden talking about joining NATO. From a strategic military point of view, how does this change how Canada defends its Arctic sovereignty as well as the greater NATO presence?
3:40 p.m.
MGen Paul Prévost
Heidi can maybe start on the policy side, and I can complement that.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ms. Kutz, can you just move your mike up just slightly? That's it. I think that should be much better.
3:40 p.m.
Senior Arctic Official and Director General, Arctic, Eurasion, and European Affairs, Global Affairs Canada
I can, but I'm going to be quite brief because I'll just convey to Mr. Hamilton that he might want to respond to this from his perspective.
3:40 p.m.
Director General, International Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Certainly.
Already NATO has a very strong relationship with both Sweden and Finland even though they're not allies. There's a close relationship, and one would argue that it's gotten closer in the current context, but although there is talk out there in the ether of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, that's a decision for those governments to make. My understanding is that it's not a decision they are close to making. NATO has an open-door policy. The alliance will look at any and all applications from European states to join the alliance, but that's not something that's happening right now. Anything beyond that in terms of the defence of the high north and defence of the Arctic would be speculative.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like Major-General Prévost to be more specific with respect to our original question on shipments of lethal aid. What is it that the Ukrainians now have in hand? Is it our rifles, sniper rifles or anti-tank missiles? What has actually arrived in Ukraine?
3:40 p.m.
MGen Paul Prévost
Mr. Chair, in response to Madam Gallant's question, the four flights with lethal aid, including pistols, sniper rifles and ammunition, and non-lethal aid such as protective equipment, which was shipped before the crisis, have arrived in Ukraine. These are already with the units they were destined for.
Since the crisis started, yesterday we've made a shipment of new material—not into Ukraine, but to the borders of Ukraine. That shipment is arriving today in theatre and will be with the Ukrainians over the next few days.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I understand that the TB2 Turkish drones to Ukraine have been okayed by NATO. Why is it that Canada won't send some of our drone equipment, detection equipment, to Turkey, but they would be willing to consider sending it to Ukraine?
3:45 p.m.
MGen Paul Prévost
Madam Gallant, I think you've seen that last night the Prime Minister announced $50 million in additional new equipment in there. Part of that was an announcement that cameras will be shipped to Ukraine. This is what we're focused on right now. We're putting the final touches to this offer that has been a response to a request from the Ukrainian government. As far as the policy aspect to it goes, I maybe would turn to Global Affairs if they have an answer to that.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay.
Do they have an answer?
If not, then—
3:45 p.m.
Director General, International Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I don't have any further information.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
We learned several days ago that there was an increased level of radiation after the Russian equipment had plowed through Chernobyl—20 times the level of radiation. Granted that the closest reactor set is in western Ukraine, next to Poland, our closest NATO ally, and we may have troops there, what do we have in the way of hazmat—in particular, the CBRN that refers to nuclear—on hand for troops that we have deployed to that part of Europe? Do we have mitigation medicine like potassium iodide? Are they ready for being exposed to radiation? What provisions have we made for them?
3:45 p.m.
MGen Paul Prévost
To answer the first question, Mr. Chair, we have a very small number of troops in the region. We have no troops in Ukraine, first of all; we have no troops in western Ukraine. We have some troops in Poland, a fair ways from the border at this time. We're also not monitoring any threat at this time in western Ukraine, but to answer your question, there is no CBRN capability deployed in Europe at this time.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
With the psychological warfare in particular—I'm going back to a question we asked earlier—you talked about information warfare, but what about the psychological warfare being communicated, which our troops may be intercepting and subjected to? How is that being countered by our command?
3:45 p.m.
MGen Paul Prévost
Mr. Chair, I'll answer the same thing here. We can see the disinformation campaign that Russia is doing. We're not subject to the psychological warfare. We see the disinformation and, where and when we can, we correct the record on the disinformation.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
In terms of humanitarian convoys, you weren't—through you, Mr. Chair—very clear on—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
—the gap in information on Russia and whether it was purposely targeting humanitarian convoys. Is that gap in our intelligence or is it a gap on the part of the Russian communications intelligence?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I thought the response was that it was attribution of intent. That was the issue. They couldn't actually say that. I think Mr. Hamilton tried to answer that question before.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, International Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Yes, it was simply to say that we don't know whether there is Russian intent to hit those convoys or if hitting them is the result of what they would term “collateral damage”.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses today.
Following recent announcements of the deployment of up to 460 additional Canadian Armed Forces personnel to reinforce Operation Reassurance, including in Latvia, and the approximately 3,400 Canadian Armed Forces personnel that have been placed at a higher state of readiness to deploy to the NATO Response Force should they be required, the Prime Minister announced yesterday that Canada intends to extend Operation Reassurance. How might Canada's support via this mission evolve?
3:50 p.m.
MGen Paul Prévost
I will take this one, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. May.
This operation was due to be renewed a year from now. That operation is all about reassurance for our allies and our presence in NATO. Right now as part of that operation, as I explained initially, we have 540 troops that we've been commanding, the battle group in Latvia, for the last five years. There are 13 nations involved here. We're quite proud of that achievement. We also have a ship and air presence in the form of CF-18s, and now also the maritime patrol aircraft, which we added lately.
Obviously, with the crisis in front of us, the way in which the crisis evolves will inform how we review this mission over the next few months. Our intent is to review this commitment for multiple years, as the Prime Minister announced yesterday. The final set-up of that mission will be based on where we are in the campaign and how we can sustain our presence over the long term in Europe.