National Defence Committee on Sept. 18th, 2025

[Eric Laporte]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, this summer the Prime Minister, Minister McGuinty and Minister Anand signed a security and defence partnership with the European Union. That is a partnership that includes work on support to Ukraine, crisis management, cybersecurity, countering hybrid threats, arms control, space security, AI, emerging technologies and enhancing defence industrial co-operation. A big part of that is going to be the defence industrial co-operation.

In addition to this security and defence partnership, my colleagues will be engaged in negotiations with the European Union to access SAFE, the safe security action for Europe, or the ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030. That is a European Union defence plan that has two components. One is up to 650 billion euros in deficit spending allowances for EU member states. That is not where we're trying to be. These are simply the rules that govern the EU members.

Of that, however, 150 billion euros are sort of a loan program for defence spending to allow European Union member states to access funds and resources to increase their defence capabilities. Therefore, we will soon be negotiating with the EU an agreement to provide Canadian firms with access as potential bidders and competitors to support the EU.

[Ty Curran]

Mr. Chair, i would just add that our work with the EU is also important from a defence point of view, in the sense that the EU is very helpful when it comes to things like logistics support, military mobility and working together on advanced technologies. We are very proud to work with it through the PESCO projects, or Permanent Structured Cooperation projects, because a lot of how we fight is predicated on how we get there, and the EU can be very helpful from that point of view.

[Eric Laporte]

I'll add one more thing that I should have mentioned. Yes, we are forging this partnership with the EU, but at the same time, that doesn't change the fact that NATO remains the core guarantor of transatlantic security. That is recognized by all European allies.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Laporte, further to that, as we've seen Canada evolve in its activities in Europe, particularly in its training in Latvia, in the overall scheme of its relationship with the EU and in the united front that we're showing—the coalition of the willing, as it's been called—has Canada carved out its particular role in that respect?

[Eric Laporte]

I can start to answer and then turn it over to Mr. Curran or General Ritchie.

We've signed this security and defence partnership with the EU. We have a long-standing relationship with a lot of European allies. We have a commitment to Latvia, which is recognized among European allies as a really well-done deployment. It's one that is very multinational and is able to bring in more allies than other similar deployments. We're also recognized as a very strong supporter of Ukraine, including in the training sphere and in capacity development. There is a recognition of Canadian continued interest and contribution to Euro-Atlantic and European security.

Maybe I can turn it over to colleagues if they have anything to add.

[Robert Ritchie]

To add a little colour to the coalition of the willing, it is distinct from the EU measures that have been referenced. This is a conglomerate of nations—30 at this time—that are like-minded in protecting Ukraine, rebuilding the Ukrainian armed forces, deterring Russia, and defending values and Europe.

The discussions are happening at the political level. Our Prime Minister and our Minister of Defence have participated. There are also cascading discussions happening at the strategic military and operational military levels.

Operational headquarters are being led by the U.K. and France in Paris, into which the 30 nations have the opportunity to embed planners and liaison officers to develop robust implementation plans if a ceasefire is reached in Ukraine. That could see the potential voluntary deployment of these coalition of the willing member states.

Importantly, that would not be a NATO mission at this time. It would have no Article 5 guarantee in its current construct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Mallete.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, it's over to you. You have five minutes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Sorry, you have two and a half minutes. I apologize.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Laporte, I'll try to make you happy and make me happy at the same time: We're going to mix up the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic. I imagine you'll answer me, but if Mr. Ritchie has anything to add, he should feel free to do so.

The famous sanctions against Russia are clearly necessary. That's the only thing we can do when such an attack is carried out. That goes without saying. However, on the one hand, we see the European Union's energy dependence. On the other hand, we also see that India has started buying Russian gas and oil and reselling them as its own. The European Union is well aware of this, but it thinks that, as a matter of principle, it is buying it from India and not from Russia. Ultimately, since India also makes a profit, the cost to the European Union is higher, and the origin is the same. Everyone, aside from Europe, is happy, and absolutely nothing has changed for Russia.

Because of the sanctions, China has also literally taken over the Russian economy. It has strengthened the geopolitical and geostrategic bloc called BRICS, in that region, and, in terms of security, it has strengthened the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. That is what we have seen. If I'm not mistaken, the yuan is now the number one foreign currency in Russia. You must have noted this.

Is that seen as a grey area when it comes to sanctions? How is that being dealt with?

[Eric Laporte]

Thank you for the question.

You're absolutely right to make the connection between the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic, as you say. Europe, the United States, Canada and other countries have imposed sanctions to cap the price at which Russia can sell its oil. That price is much lower, so Russia makes less profit, but it still sells its oil. Finance ministers have been engaging in increased discussions to see how to further limit Russia's ability to obtain oil revenues.

In my opinion, one of the consequences of the war in Ukraine that can be harmful to Russia in the long term is its much greater dependence on China. In this China-Russia relationship, Russia really finds itself as a lesser partner. In the long term, some members of the Russian elite wonder whether Russia has done well in this area, as some concerns have been raised.

One of the worrisome things we're looking at closely is the dynamic between Russia and North Korea, which has become Russia's major partner in its conflict in Ukraine by sending soldiers, weapons, ballistic missiles, ammunition and so on to Ukraine.

There is another consequence, as Mr. Curran said earlier: Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific theatres are becoming much more integrated. With a conflict in Europe with Russia, we must not underestimate the possibility of a conflict with China elsewhere.

I apologize for my lengthy answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, thank you very much for your very relevant questions.

I'm allowing a little extra time for the responses, so they do go a bit over time, but I do want to try to keep us on track.

I am now moving over to Mr. Scott Anderson. You have five minutes.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Thank you very much.

Can you explain why Canada is not doing pre-deployment training in Canada?

[Robert Ritchie]

If we're speaking about Operation Reassurance in Latvia, it was historically done in Wainwright, where we had instrumentation support. With that said, we would be doing so unilaterally as Canadians. It's not realistic for our 13 NATO member nations to return to Wainwright, Alberta.

Additionally, we need to place that into higher organizations—a multinational division in a corps—which would be offset in time, and then there is ultimately a deterrence effect by virtue of conducting the training in location on the front line that the multinational group is defending.

That conglomerate of reasons led us to the decision to move the pre-deployment training to Latvia, which was exceptionally well received by Latvia and all the allies.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

I know that historically there has been multinational training in Canada. Is it partially because of a lack of equipment that we're not doing it here?

[Robert Ritchie]

It's not because of a lack of equipment, but as this group would acknowledge, that commitment of 2,200 individuals has over 400 vehicle types that are deployed to Latvia. It required three container ships to send all that equipment over to Europe, and therefore we don't have those extra 400 vehicles, nor are they required. The vehicles that the individuals are using for that deployment are the ones they need to conduct the pre-deployment training so that they understand the systems and have trust and confidence in that equipment.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Does that mean we don't have the redundancy here, then?

[Robert Ritchie]

Currently 400 vehicles have been deployed for the support of Latvia. We do not have a mirror complement of that equipment in Canada, nor is it required.

Ultimately, the pre-deployment training has more benefits for more members of the alliance if it is conducted forward.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

I think Canadians understand why we're supporting NATO. I'm not sure some Canadians understand why we are sending $6.5 billion to a non-NATO nation.

For the benefit of Canadians, can one of you explain why we are doing that?

[Eric Laporte]

Canadians understand the importance of NATO. It's our collective security. I think what we're also seeing with Russia's illegitimate and illegal invasion of Ukraine is that it has basically broken the peace that has stood in Europe since the Second World War. It is basically attacking the values that Canadians stand for in terms of democracy and rule of law.

If Ukraine fails, then the signal that it sends to not only Russia but to other adversaries is that you can survive with might and that might can win over anything. That is why Europeans have taken a lead in wanting to provide assistance to Ukraine, to protect Ukraine and to defend Ukraine. From a Canadian perspective, that is the right thing to do. That is protecting our values and our norms à distance, if I can put it that way. That's why we also, as Canadians and the Government of Canada, have been committed to supporting Ukraine.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

I completely understand the sovereignty argument and I completely agree with it. However, we have warfare elsewhere. In the DRC, for instance, six million people have been killed. Why Ukraine? Why is it in Canada's national interest to help Ukraine and not elsewhere?

[Eric Laporte]

Again, this is a conflict that is happening on the border of NATO. We're a member of NATO. NATO allies are extremely concerned about the implications of failure to support or defend Ukraine in this context. There are potentially downstream implications, again, not only for Russia and what Russia might want to do vis-à-vis NATO in the future. Should it win in Ukraine, I think it will feel emboldened.

Also, it's about what other adversaries are seeing in terms of the response from the west. Think of China, for example. Think of Iran and think of South Korea in terms of how they would see a western response to Ukraine that is insufficient.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

This is the first time in this century that we've seen modern symmetrical warfare using mainly weapons that are 21st century vintage, and it's not what we thought. We thought it would be short and sweet and over quickly. It has turned out that weight does matter.

What lessons has Canada learned from that conflict?

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

If I may, that's a great question. Let's put it in your back pocket so that we can respond to it. Your time is up, so we have to go on to the next member.

We'll go over to you, Mr. Watchorn. You have five minutes.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for answering our questions today.

This week, Russia sent drones into Polish airspace. To what extent does that increase the threat level and how does it affect the conflict?