National Defence Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[Dr. James Fergusson]

I basically agree with my colleague Andrea. The outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war remains to be seen. We tend to forget. We have this very benign view of ourselves, and we discount Russian and Chinese views of us, but if you look at American military capability and American strategy in terms of a global strike, you cannot discount the likely perception in Moscow that they aren't the threat in the Arctic; we are the threat in the Arctic because of the capacity to strike at these vital assets and resources.

We need to think in interactive terms, and that of course can be a spiral up to true conflict, which the Arctic would be engaged in. So I think this is a problem. I'm not suggesting that I justify the Russian aggression against Ukraine—not at all. I'm deeply opposed to it. But there are other issues involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Professor Fergusson and Mr. Bezan.

You have three minutes, Madame Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all three of our witnesses.

My question will centre around the potential risk, in terms of Arctic security, of Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Do you think Russia may potentially shift its focus to those countries, as it has threatened to do in the past? Do you believe that NATO's more involved role in the north at that point would change security for Canada with respect to how NATO protects Canada in this area as well?

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

On the first one, I think that's a red herring. Russia will certainly make hay over the fact that Sweden and Finland may join NATO in the future. It's not a fait accompli. However, Finland and Sweden have always been a part of every NATO Arctic exercise.

When we had the Arctic Council, we had the Arctic Five, which was four NATO countries plus Russia. We would simply be expanding it to seven NATO countries plus Russia. Sweden and Finland have always been part of the Arctic and have worked well with the Arctic countries. They also have a very keen understanding of Russia as well, and they are not about to jeopardize that by being overly provocative.

Sorry, with regard to your next question, I've drawn a blank. Can you quickly remind me?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think it was pretty much one question. It was about how involved NATO would be in Canada's Arctic if this addition were to be made to NATO.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

I still think it's not going to be all NATO countries; not all of them can operate in the Arctic. It's going to be the same NATO countries that we have seen.

The primary deterrent to the North American Arctic has been via NORAD. I don't see that changing. What we are looking to do is exchange more information, and also link the various exercises, for example Arctic Edge by the U.S., Operation Nanook by Canada, and the NATO exercises, so that we send a strategic message to Russia that we are operating together, that we practise different things, and certainly to invite them to these exercises so we can build that trust and confidence.

[Dr. James Fergusson]

I would quickly add that Sweden and Finland are irrelevant to the Arctic question—entirely irrelevant. Sweden is about the Baltics. Finland is about neighbouring Russia on the land. Neither of them has territory on the Arctic Ocean. That's where their interests lie, not with the Arctic.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

On that note, I'm sure the ambassadors of Sweden and Norway will be quite interested to know they are irrelevant to the Arctic study.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. James Fergusson]

I never said Norway.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I want to thank each one of you for your participation in this panel, occasionally provocative participation. Again, I apologize for the time. We always seem to be running out of time. I look forward to your continuing relationship with this committee. Thank you for making yourselves available.

Colleagues, I'll allow our guests to leave, but I want to leave you with a couple of questions.

Please inform the clerk and the chair, if you could, of what you want to do on Thursday. We've received a couple of turndowns from potential witnesses. DND are going to make themselves available, but I can't fill up two hours at this point.

Do you have any suggestions?

[The Clerk]

They will come for two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I know they'll come for two hours. I'm not sure that's a good use of committee time for two hours. If you have any suggestions along those lines, I'm interested.

Second of all—and this is for the people who are going to Washington—DND has asked to send someone with us. It's been a practice in the past. I want to get your thoughts before we say yes.

We distributed the Arctic security study last week. I don't know whether there is any discussion on that, but I'm going to ask for somebody to pass the budget on Thursday. I'm going to get your feedback, hopefully before Thursday, on what to do on Thursday.

To those of you who are going on the Washington trip, could you give me an idea of your reaction?

James, go ahead.

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

For the extra hour on Thursday, if you think one hour is enough with DND, then I would suggest that you put witnesses we have on our list for Arctic security in that second hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you want to switch to Arctic security for the second hour? Can we do that?

[The Clerk]

Absolutely.

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

It might be the easiest thing to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is that all right with everybody?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, that works. Excellent.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.