44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/1/22 8:29:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Sweden's and Finland's membership in NATO. I will share my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Like my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I recently got back from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly session in Lithuania, where this issue got a lot of airtime. In addition to what my colleague shared about what we learned, certain remarks and comments really made an impression.
Something that Viktorija Cmilyte-Nielsen, the speaker of the Seimas, Lithuania's parliament, said really stuck with me. She asked us if, given their proximity to Russia, the Baltic countries would have the resilient democracy and flourishing economy they enjoy today if they were not members of NATO.
Lithuania, where the meeting took place, is sandwiched between Belarus and the increasingly militarized enclave of Kaliningrad. We have to wonder if it would be as secure as it currently is without its NATO membership. Similarly, granting NATO membership to Finland and Sweden really would afford them additional security in light of Russia's recent aggression in Ukraine.
We know that Finland and Sweden already meet the basic criteria for NATO membership. They have healthy democracies, the ability to make a military contribution to the alliance and viable economies. These two countries would also bring a strategic military contribution in the Baltic Sea region, which we would not want to see fall into Russian hands for all intents and purposes, jeopardizing the Baltic states.
These countries had decreased military investments in the past, but for obvious reasons they are starting to make renewed efforts in that area.
Although Finland has only 12,000 professional soldiers, it trains 20,000 conscripts a year, giving it additional strike force and the ability to quickly build up an army of 280,000 people, plus 600,000 reservists. The country wants to increase its defence budget by 40% by 2026. Finland already has a fleet of 55 F-18 aircraft, which are supposed to be replaced by American F-35s soon, and it has 200 tanks and 1,700 artillery pieces.
Sweden has an army of about 50,000 soldiers. Compulsory military service, which had been abolished in 2010, was brought back in 2017. Sweden had decreased its investments in defence in recent years but has reversed this trend, with defence spending now at 2.6% of its GDP.
When we were in Vilnius, we also had the pleasure of meeting with Ukrainian parliamentarians. We asked them a few times how they felt knowing that Finland and Sweden's application to join would probably be dealt with quickly, while Ukraine, for its part, still has not managed to finalize its membership, despite the promise made to the country in 2008 at the Bucharest summit. They said that it obviously bothered them to be somewhat sidelined, but they hoped that Finland and Sweden could quickly join the alliance.
Ukraine knows that eventually it will have to become a member too. It knows that membership is currently not within reach, since it is at war. The Ukrainian parliamentarians told us that time has always been a factor at any point in history, especially recently.
In 2008, Ukraine was not admitted into the alliance. If the process had been quicker, things might not be where they are today. The same is true when it comes to the military equipment being sent to Ukraine: Every day that goes by is another day that costs a lot of money. Ukraine has a monthly budgetary deficit of $35 billion and the war could cost at least $100 billion. The longer it goes on, the worse it will be.
Every time we want to help Ukraine, we must also consider the fact that we must train the people who will be using the military equipment provided. A bit of predictability will help them.
For Ukraine to eventually join NATO, there also needs to be a long-term vision. Ukraine is telling us that it may need the equivalent of a Marshall plan to rebuild and get its infrastructure up and running again. It will need psychological support for the women and children assaulted by Russian soldiers. It will need a great deal of help to clear mines, because the Russians unfortunately left behind what they call “gifts”, booby-trapped toys and cars, and mines buried in fields. We know that Ukraine is a major grain producer.
Ukraine will need our help quickly. In a way, what I hope will result from this evening's debate, is that we think about the urgency of the situation.
In 2008, we collectively missed an opportunity. We promised Ukraine that it could join NATO, but it was not even offered a road map for joining, in other words, the action plan that must be put in place.
Ukraine has unfortunately been forced to take a step back because of the war. It will have to rebuild in order to be able to meet the criteria of a vibrant democracy with the potential for military support. Unfortunately, it will have served as a practice ground of sorts for war for the west. Ukraine now has a great deal of knowledge about how Russia wages war. It will therefore need support to rebuild and then join NATO, and when it does, it will become an invaluable resource for that organization.
The Ukrainian parliamentarians also told us that the end of this war, a war that hopefully Ukraine will have won, might not be the end of aggressions. We can expect another incursion from Russia, another attempt at aggression. Where will that happen? No one knows. However, it will be important to have as many actors as possible involved at that time.
As I said earlier, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament wondered what would have happened to the Baltic states if they had not joined NATO. That is something we have to keep in mind if we want a strong west and resilient democracies. Part of NATO's mission is to ensure that democracy is healthy everywhere. This includes better protection of the Baltic Sea and NATO membership for Sweden and Finland.
I hope that the message we all take away this evening is that there is absolutely no time to lose, generally speaking, whether we are talking about the military support that we are currently giving to Ukraine, support for future rebuilding efforts, or support for its future membership in NATO, as is now the case with Sweden and Finland.
In that context, we must remember that this is also important for the entire western world and democracy. During one of the summit's video conferences, the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association reminded the Ukrainian defence minister that the war currently being fought in Ukraine is everyone's war. This is a war on democracy, and I think we need all the allies we can get. I hope that is the message we will retain tonight.
1177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:39:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would need a good 10 minutes to answer that question, but I will give it a shot.
The situation with Turkey is unique. It is wavering for reasons that are understandable, in a way. Turkey may have lost some trust in its NATO allies.
The United States, for example, used Kurdish soldiers in their war in Syria, which was an affront to Turkey. Since Turkey purchased weapons from Russia in 2019, the U.S. removed Turkey from the F-35 program. In response to Turkey's intervention in Syria, Finland and Sweden stopped selling it weapons. Turkey is therefore generally distrustful. It is also heading into an election soon, with inflation rates exceeding 70%, according to official figures, and the actual figures are likely much higher than that.
Turkey is extremely distrustful. We probably need to take a hard line and threaten it with sanctions, while also providing motivation by rebuilding economic ties to help Turkey regain confidence and to secure its support for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. This needs to be done quickly.
With respect to the ratification, we cannot forget that each country individually—
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:41:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I get the impression that there is absolutely nothing we can do to guard against a Russian invasion. These invasions are often irrational and are becoming increasingly illogical. Apparently some close to President Putin are starting to very much question the strategy.
In a context where prevention is not possible, we must nevertheless be prepared for attacks, hence my point on the resilience we must restore in Ukraine when it comes to its infrastructure. That requires funding, but also support for countries that want to join NATO, such as Finland and Sweden, which could contribute to defence on the front lines with Russia.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:43:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that the debate we are having this evening is in some small way part of the solution. We have a consensus on the membership of Finland and Sweden.
Given that Finland and Sweden meet NATO's admission criteria, I believe that we are sending Turkey the message that it will be accountable for its actions if it votes “no”. There is no reason to do so other than purely personal reasons.
Turkey is trying to successfully navigate a situation that is difficult for the country, but it is not doing so for the right reasons. It is not doing so for reasons related to article 10 of the Washington Treaty on accession to NATO. It may have to answer for that.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:11:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.
I want to correct the record. I think I said that Ukraine had a $35‑billion deficit, but what I should have said was that 35% of the country's economy is shut down, resulting in $5 billion in losses every month.
My colleague spoke about sanctions. Many people are calling for the money that was seized from oligarchs to be used to help Ukraine. Canada announced that it had put several oligarchs on the list, but no one knows where the money is. The RCMP claimed not to know whether it was supposed to follow up and said it was relying on the banks to check whether the money had been frozen.
Did someone drop the ball here, costing us a golden opportunity to help Ukraine?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:27:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Island—Powell River. I also travelled with her to Lithuania. A few of us here this evening travelled there. We are probably all still feeling a bit jet-lagged.
What I realized on the trip is that, as parliamentarians, we try to share our information with our foreign counterparts, but we are mostly looking for information. We then act as spokespeople, sharing our takeaways with our House colleagues, in order for the response to be much more concerted and collaborative.
I would like to know what my colleague's main takeaway from the mission was and where it came from. What message does she wish to share with our parliamentary colleagues so that we can follow up with concerted action?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:42:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is always so fascinating to listen to.
While we were in Lithuania, I heard something that has stuck with me. Lithuania's parliament building, the Seimas, is not particularly attractive. Some Lithuanians even called it ugly. However, they are particularly proud of it for what it represents, since people have put their lives, hearts and souls into that building.
Indeed, as my colleague said, after gaining its independence for the first time, Lithuania was occupied for several years, first by the Russians, then by the Germans to whom the Russians had given it, before returning to Russian rule until its independence in 1991.
Several times during our visit, the Lithuanians reminded us that they had warned us of what was going to happen. In my colleague's view, why did we not listen?
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 10:12:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about supplying weapons. We know that these days weapons are more and more technologically complex and people need training to use them properly.
I would like to comment on the need to provide as much predictability as possible when we send weapons, so that we can also link that to training for the people who will use them.
Can my colleague provide clarification on this?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
