National Defence Committee on March 2nd, 2022

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Admiral Bishop, Turkey is looking at invoking the Montreux agreement.

I'm wondering, from Canada's standpoint, would we see that as effective? Would it be possible that in some way our naval forces would be assisting in that? How effective do you see invoking that would be?

[VAdm Scott Bishop]

I think it is a welcome measure. I think this is an attempt by Turkey to try to make sure that the conflict does not escalate. They're exercising the provisions of the Montreux treaty, which they're the treaty holder for, so I think it is very positive.

I don't think it is going to have a significant impact on the Royal Canadian Navy's operations in support of NATO at this time. As I understand it, there's no intention for RCN units to operate in the Black Sea.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

In terms of what Canada has to contribute to this overall defence of Ukraine and our allies, is there anything that we don't have and should have, or that we should start working on, so for the future we have the capability? What further measures can we be taking now to harden the defences should the conflict spread beyond the borders of Ukraine?

[VAdm Scott Bishop]

NATO has been preparing since 2014 and Russia's annexation of Crimea and its first invasion of Ukraine. We've been very concerned with the potential for Russian aggression towards NATO.

There's been a lot of work done by SACEUR in terms developing plans to be able to respond to Russian aggression. Those plans are called “graduated response plans”. There are five of them. All five of these plans were activated by SACEUR with the approval of the North Atlantic Council last week. That has enabled SACEUR to significantly reinforce the nations that are on the eastern flank of NATO in accordance with those plans.

A number of nations, including Canada, have taken measures to reinforce the existing forces that they maintain in those areas. For Canada, that's obviously our battle group in Latvia. The government has already announced further reinforcing capabilities for that battle group.

This is very consistent with what all of our allies are doing. New battle groups are being created in the southeastern part of the alliance, including in Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Hungary.

These are all measures that SACEUR has taken to demonstrate to Russia NATO's resolve and intent to make sure that we keep alliance partners safe. And—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave the answer there. Thank you.

Madame Lambropoulos, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being with us today to answer questions.

One main question is that if a NATO country were to attack another NATO country during this time when NATO allies have to very much be united in order to be strong in the face of Russia, how would NATO take that? What would be the way to go about it?

I'm specifically referring to Turkey not necessarily following international law and doing things according to the way they're supposed to at this point in time. They have been flying into Greek airspace, have been aggressive and are possibly taking advantage of the world looking elsewhere.

Do you have anything you can say about that?

[VAdm Scott Bishop]

I will defer to you.

[David Angell]

I'll be very quick and then turn it over to you, Admiral.

Mr. Chair, where we have had tensions between allies in the past, including between Turkey and Greece as an example, the Secretary General has very quickly put in place deconfliction mechanisms involving the two parties speaking offline, in this case, at a military level. These have proven to be very effective.

We are an alliance of 30 countries. Inevitably, there's a little bit of bumping into each other from time to time, but we have always, without fail over more than 70 years, found ways to deconflict the rare instances of friction between us.

[VAdm Scott Bishop]

Mr. Chair, I would add that throughout the lead-up to this crisis, the consistent message from the Secretary General that all nations have adhered to is the importance of NATO unity. I would say that in the face of this blatant unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia, I don't think I've ever seen the 30 nations in NATO more united than they are right now.

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

Awesome. That's great to hear. Thank you.

Another question I have is when looking at the situation in Ukraine right now, I think Canadians obviously feel a lot of emotion for the Ukrainian people. It's devastating to see what's happening. They also feel fear, because they don't know what Putin's next step is and he's made some pretty big threats that if anybody gets involved we're going to see something that we've never seen in our history.

How is NATO taking these threats? What exactly are we doing and how can Canada better prepare itself if ever.... We are sending a lot of military equipment, we are helping Ukraine in the best ways that we can without going to war with Russia. In what other ways can we protect ourselves and put ourselves in a better position with regard to NATO?

[David Angell]

Why don't I take a run at that, Mr. Chair, and then turn to the vice-admiral.

SACEUR has implemented some extraordinarily robust deterrence measures. We are very clear, every ally, and this has been enunciated clearly by the Secretary General and by SACEUR, that every inch of alliance territory will be defended. Its very robust defensive plans, which the vice-admiral spoke to a moment ago, that are being implemented. We're moving huge numbers of troops forward, setting up much stronger defences on the eastern flank.

There are no indications at all that Russia is looking to provoke a fight with NATO, but we're a defensive alliance and we're putting in place the necessary defences.

The rhetoric about putting nuclear forces on alert has been described as reckless and it's certainly unnecessary. This is the essence of deterrence. We are a nuclear alliance and we are willing to signal our resolve to defend every inch of alliance territory.

[VAdm Scott Bishop]

Mr. Chair, I think the ambassador has said it well. I have nothing to add to that.

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

Thank you so much.

You represent Canada within NATO, if I understand correctly, can you say whether Canada is doing enough to be considered an equal NATO partner and what more can we be doing? There is a federal budget coming up. Is there anything with regard to NATO in particular that should be taken into account in that?

[David Angell]

Mr. Chair, Canada is one of the founders of NATO and we have been in a position of leadership from the outset. It's a responsibility we take very seriously.

In the case of Ukraine, as an example, we have been out in front for many years. Our Operation Unifier was in place when it was only Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. providing training. We supported security sector reform very actively, together with a small number of allies. Within the alliance, we're an extremely creative member. We have extraordinarily capable armed forces and we are present to do heavy lifting. Our role in Latvia and in Iraq are examples of that. Yes, we are very confident of our role within the alliance.

We're also leaders in cutting-edge issues, and the work we're doing on climate and security is an example of that. We're leaders on values issues, and the work that the vice-admiral spoke to in terms of championing women, peace and security is an example of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

Before I call on Madame Normandin, if I don't get a unanimous resolution to proceed, we will have to end this round and end the session at Ms. Mathyssen, and maybe we'll have to cut back to her.

Do I have a unanimous resolution to carry on up until the point where we have to go off and vote?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Could we possibly have a bit of time to go vote, without taking the full 30 minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The vote is likely going to get called at 5 o'clock. Two rounds of six minutes get us to 5 o'clock.

In order to get to a second round, I need a unanimous resolution from everyone.

Do I have a unanimous resolution?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Good.

Madame Normandin, you have six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the two witnesses for being here and for their presentations.

I had intended to ask questions along the lines of what Ms. Gallant asked about cyberattacks. Since she already laid the groundwork, I will take the liberty of digging a little deeper.

You have established the threshold at which a cyberattack will trigger a NATO response. However, what we're seeing right now is that attacks against NATO member countries not being responded to. This happens, in part, because the rogue countries say they are not the perpetrators of the attacks, but also because the attacks don't reach the permissible retaliation threshold.

I don't want to suggest that an attack on Bridgestone, for example, would warrant a conventional military response, but would it be justified for NATO to respond with cyber operations? Would this prevent groups like Anonymous or private hackers from responding, because otherwise no one would? Could this be part of the appropriate response? If this were to occur, the response would be less severe and would save lives.

[David Angell]

I thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.

I can respond. First, with respect to NATO's capabilities, we have offensive cyber capabilities, but we use them very rarely.

We're a values-based alliance and we're a defensive alliance. Engaging in the kind of irresponsible, offensive cyber-activities that we see some of our would-be adversaries engaging in is not something that we're willing to do. We have the capacity, but it's not something that we're willing to do.

What we try to do is call out through attribution, which is primarily a national responsibility. You have examples of joined-up attribution. Canada is very often part of those, and it's an approach that we support. There are allies that prefer to see national attribution, so it's something that is proceeded on a case-by-case basis. We saw it in the cyber-attacks in the UK, for example.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Following your lead, are you not concerned that some form of grumbling would set in if several private entities were attacked? If NATO were to intervene, we would know where the attack was coming from and private hackers would not be handling the response. A hacker successfully crippled the network recently in North Korea.

If NATO doesn't get involved, don't we risk losing control over these responses to groups like Anonymous?

[David Angell]

I'm not an expert in cyber, but in most cases the response is led by individual allies. When a country has been subject to an attack, generally they lead the response and they can turn to allies for assistance. We have put in place the capacity to provide support to allies who request it. Some allies that don't have a cyber-defence capacity as robust as that of others can ask for assistance and receive it. That is now operational.

In many instances, the response has been nationally led, and that's entirely okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Bishop, would you like to respond?

[VAdm Scott Bishop]

I would like to add that NATO is an alliance of nations. Generally, NATO relies on individual nations to bring capabilities, including cyber capabilities, to support NATO. In a lot of these instances, dealing with these cyber-attacks is done on a national level by individual nations.

NATO gets involved when we get into an article 4 or an article 5 discussion about a particularly severe cyber incident that might warrant a NATO response. NATO would look to nations that had those capabilities, including Canada, to potentially respond.