44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/1/22 8:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, by happy coincidence, I recently returned from a four-day stay in Vilnius, Lithuania, where I attended a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that included discussions about whether or not to bring Finland and Sweden into NATO. My speech this evening could therefore not be more timely for me.
The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has tabled its fourth report. We are debating concurrence in that report and, specifically, two important points, the two recommendations in the report: expressing our strong support for Finland and Sweden's NATO membership, as Finland and Sweden are among NATO's closest partners; and calling on all NATO members to approve their application for NATO membership as quickly as possible.
I am happy to speak to this topic in the House today and to express my support for the committee's recommendations. I will also talk about comments on the subject that were made during the meetings in Lithuania.
The admittance of Finland and Sweden to NATO has long been debated. We heard arguments from Matti Vanhanen, Speaker of the Eduskunta Riksdag, Finland's parliament, and Andreas Norlén, Speaker of the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament. First of all, it is important to note that Finland and Sweden formally submitted their application for NATO membership on May 18, 2022. During the speeches from the Speakers of the Finnish and Swedish parliaments, the message was very clear: Both countries are formally asking to become NATO members. In recent decades, they have not wanted to be militarily involved and have always chosen to maintain their independence. However, with Russia's sudden violent aggression towards Ukraine, both countries see that they really have no choice. They felt an urgent need to ask to join NATO.
As my colleagues know, Canada has been a member of NATO for 73 years. Canada is a founding member. The most important article of the North Atlantic Treaty is article 5. That article deals with collective defence and states that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against them all. Considering what is going on right now, Sweden and Finland realize this. They really understand the importance for their respective countries to be part of a group like NATO.
I feel compelled to point out that there have been times over the past few years when some have questioned NATO's relevance. The former U.S. president questioned it. In the end, what the former U.S. president was doing was more about rattling the organization. I know this from experience, having attended several NATO meetings over the past few years. It was a way of rattling the organization, telling everyone to wake up, to invest more in defence and to be prepared. Indeed, one never knows what might happen. This was proven on February 24 with Russia.
That is why Finland and Sweden are applying for membership. Finland is especially anxious to join, because it borders directly on Russia for just over 1,000 kilometres. The two countries could not be any closer together. Finland is a country that has always managed to preserve its sovereignty through military means by maintaining a strong military posture. However, having seen what is happening in Ukraine, the Finns realized that NATO membership would give their country a major strategic advantage. It would give them additional security guarantees.
It is sad for Ukraine, but this explains why we are here today: For many years, Ukraine has been asking to join NATO, but it has never been admitted. The decision has always been put off. The same goes for joining the European Union, although that is a European issue. When it comes to NATO, Ukraine never managed to get in, despite what happened with Crimea in 2014 and then what followed this year, despite Russia's microaggressions and the fact that Ukrainians were scared. NATO did not accept their application.
Everyone knows that it is impossible to admit Ukraine now because it is at war. This would automatically become a war for NATO. This is a complicated issue, but unfortunately, that is how things stand for Ukraine. That is why Finland and Sweden quickly held a vote in their respective parliaments. They demonstrated that they had the necessary capabilities, and they provided proof. That is why they are calling on NATO and the member countries to admit them.
The other advantage for NATO, and for Canada in particular, is the geographical location of Finland and Sweden. Norway is already a NATO member, but having Sweden and Finland as NATO partners in the Arctic region is extremely appealing and important to Canada. These two large Arctic countries could work with Canada, the United States and Norway for NATO-style mutual protection.
When it comes to admitting new members, consensus among the 30 existing members is a problem. Turkey has already expressed significant concerns about allowing Sweden and Finland to join. When I was in Vilnius on the weekend, I spoke to three colleagues who agreed that this was a problem. Allow me to explain why.
Al Jazeera reported that Turkey's foreign minister is demanding that Finland and Sweden amend their laws, if needed, to win Ankara's backing in their historic bid to join NATO, threatening to veto an expansion of the alliance. Echoing recent comments by President Erdogan, minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said on Tuesday that Turkey, which has been a NATO member for seven decades, would not lift its opposition to the two Nordic countries' accession unless its demands were met.
The reason is that Ankara, Turkey's capital, is accusing both countries of harbouring people linked to groups it deems to be terrorists, including the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK for short, and takes issue with their decision to halt arms exports to Turkey in 2019. Turkey is demanding that Finland and Sweden end their support for the PKK and other groups, bar them from organizing events on their territory, extradite individuals sought by Turkey on terrorism charges, support Turkey's counterterrorism military operations and resume arms exports.
Clearly, geopolitics has always been complex, and the current NATO situation is no exception. The vast majority of NATO members want to bring Finland and Sweden into the fold, but for its own reasons, which are largely related to domestic terrorism, one member has issues with that.
That is why the Conservatives are very much in favour of these two countries joining NATO, but we also have to understand where Turkey is coming from, so the government needs to make an effort to find a diplomatic solution that will satisfy the Turks and expedite the process of bringing these two countries into our great organization.
It is complicated. At the end of the day, I would not like what is currently happening in Ukraine to happen in Finland, for example, because there is no telling what Vladimir Putin might do. He might suddenly decide to send some tanks into Finland for fun because that country is not a member of NATO. It would be easy because the two countries share a 1,000‑kilometre border.
What happened in Ukraine must not happen anywhere else. We must work on getting the Turks to soften their stance and find a way to get along. That is a role our government can play.
Based on my experience at the meetings with my colleagues, I realize that it is easy for us, as Canadians, to form an opinion on what is happening in Europe and to tell other countries that they should do this or that. However, while I was over there, colleagues from every European country told me that the dynamics are different and that we need to understand that.
The role Canada can play is the one it has always played: using diplomacy to find a way to help the different European countries get along in a Canadian way.
1332 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 9:24:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I were on the same trip, as were the members for St. John's East and Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I thought that I would like her to comment on the fact that the people of Lithuania raised $5 million in the course of three days to buy a drone.
What does that mean in terms of their response to this brutal invasion by Vladimir Putin into Ukraine?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:24:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and of course really appreciated our time together. In terms of the NATO parliamentary association, this is an opportunity for members from all parties. We may have internal disagreements, but in this place we represent Canada, and it is important for us to work together.
I was really moved in Lithuania in seeing how many people had flags on their cars and how many stores had signs up and were taking money to donate even while we were there. The commitment is profound. We see the reality that these communities and countries are all so close together, and they know that a threat to one is a threat to all.
We have to remember that we may be far away on the other side of the ocean, but we are all connected. When we look at the realities that are happening in Ukraine, we must all stand together. I believe Putin needs to see that. Putin needs to see us all coming together in solidarity so that all countries understand that we will not put up with that kind of violence.
190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member just made reference to the threat that Lithuania and other countries bordering Russia feel. I wonder what her thoughts might be on the fact that Canada borders Russia, and that with regard to Arctic sovereignty, we have almost no naval capacity or icebreakers to defend our north, as well as the fact that we are not meeting our NATO obligations of 2%. I wonder if she would make some comments on those points.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:29:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to participate in this debate.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I am not quite sure how that got in there, but my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I are apparently splitting this time, and I am honoured to do so.
As members have heard, a number of us travelled to Vilnius, Lithuania, in the past few days to participate in the parliamentary NATO conference. It was truly one of those extraordinary experiences, which I had the honour of sharing with the members for Saint-Jean, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, North Island—Powell River and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, as well as Senator Cordy and Senator Bellemare.
As the member for North Island—Powell River indicated, it is an important element of our responsibilities to participate in these meetings, which extend parliamentary diplomacy and extend our values as Canadians as we try to wrestle with some of the most intractable issues in global politics.
When one lands in Vilnius and comes out of the airport, one sees a country that is sort of emerging from Soviet occupation. Some of the buildings are extraordinarily beautiful. Some are clearly classic, and others are this brutal Soviet architecture, which is just kind of falling down. When one gets to the hotel, one is in a revitalized area of the city, and as one emerges from the hotel, one is confronted with the history of the Baltics, the history of Lithuania. As one walks out of the hotel and goes to the main street, on the left are the parliamentary buildings, about three blocks away, where the issues are debated, which is essentially where we were for the three or four days that we were in Vilnius.
I must say that the presentations were absolutely extraordinary. They were pointed, detailed, very useful and very united. Interestingly, one of the speakers there was the defence minister from Ukraine, and, today, he received a threat of assassination. Nothing focuses the mind like that. However, this was the kind of atmosphere in which we spent, peripherally I would say, three or four days.
From the hotel, if one goes left, there are the parliamentary buildings, and if one goes right, about the same distance, three blocks, one gets to the Vilnius version of Lubyanka, which is where the Russians tortured and killed political prisoners. This one in Vilnius is now a museum to the genocide of the Soviet occupation. Our delegation did not have time to tour what has been turned into a museum of genocide, but as I walked down the sidewalk, in this beautiful, old town of the city, with a gorgeous park right across the street, I saw inscribed on the walls of this prison the names of the people who had been tortured and killed in that building.
What is even more extraordinary, when we read the birth dates and the death dates, is that these people were 23, 25, and occasionally 40 years old. Sometimes they were 21 years old, and sometimes they were even a teenager. Their lives were cut off at the beginning of their aspirations to live a full human life. The reality of these brutal occupations of the Baltic nations over the course of history just descends on us. This is where history and geopolitics merge.
The Baltic nations, whether Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, have always been the highways to Hell, and whether it was German or Soviet occupations, they have been occupied. Lithuania has actually enjoyed relatively few years of independence, so for the average citizen of Lithuania, this is is not an abstraction. It is not an academic discussion at Carleton University or the University of Ottawa political science department. This is reality for these folks, so when we talk about Finland or Sweden joining NATO, that means something, and that is a real security guarantee that, up to now, they have not enjoyed.
They are afraid, and for a darned good reason, of the Baltic Sea turning into a Russian lake because they would then be threatened not only from land borders, but also from the Baltic Sea, much like the Black Sea, which Putin is attempting to turn into a Russian lake. The joining of Sweden and Finland to the NATO alliance puts that whole enterprise in an entirely different light, and it enables citizens in countries such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia some measure of guarantee, which we, as Canadian citizens and North Americans, do not even understand. We do not get it.
For the Europeans, World War III has already started. They understand Bucha in a way that we do not understand it, because Bucha is on the main street to Vilnius. It is memorialized in the lives and deaths of those young Lithuanians, so we are, respectfully, quite naive about what this actually means.
My colleagues and I had some extraordinary experiences, but the one experience that really stayed with me was supper with the committee chairs of the Polish parliament, the German parliament, the Lithuanian parliament and a young Ukrainian MP who reminded me, frankly, of my daughter. I asked her how she was coping with this, and she said she was frozen inside because she had lost family and colleagues. She understood this in a visceral way that none of the rest of us do. The other experience that really hit on me was what the rest of us experienced, which was a young Ukrainian MP calling into the conference who had only five minutes. As she spoke, she said that her signal had been tracked and she needed to hang up the phone, and she went to the bomb shelter.
That is reality in the Baltic nations and Ukraine. I wish I could convey that to my colleagues and our nation.
985 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
