THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 4, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators.
My name is Peter M. Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before we get started, I would like to ask the committee members to introduce themselves, beginning with the senator to my left.
[English]
Senator MacDonald, you may start today, and it is your birthday so congratulations.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you. It is always good to have one more birthday. Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I am Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Anderson: Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories, filling in for Senator Harder.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Woo: I am Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
[English]
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senators. Welcome to you all, and welcome to those who are watching us across the country today.
For our first panel, we are meeting under our general order of reference to continue exploring the role cultural diplomacy plays in advancing Canada’s interests around the world. Today, we are specifically looking at how Canadian culture and the arts contribute to Canada’s international relations.
In this context, we are very pleased to welcome the Honourable Senator Patricia Bovey, who led the charge as a former member of this committee to study cultural diplomacy, playing an integral role in this committee’s 2019 report Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy; and joining us by video conference: Brian M. Levine, the CEO of The Glenn Gould Foundation; Mary Reid, Director/Curator, City of Woodstock; and William Huffman, Marketing Manager, West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being with us. Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I wish to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too closely to their microphone or to remove their earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff and our interpreters who will be wearing earpieces for their interpretation duties.
We are ready to hear opening remarks, but we are going to restructure this a little bit because Senator Bovey has to go off to another committee meeting. We are often multitasked in our roles here, senators, as you know. We’ll hear from Senator Bovey first, and then we’ll have 10 minutes of questions for her. Senator Bovey will then leave, and then we’ll hear from our other witnesses. I hope this is acceptable under the circumstances, colleagues. Senator Bovey, you have the floor.
Hon. Patricia Bovey, as an individual: Thank you, chair. Thank you, other witnesses. Thank you, colleagues. I’m really honoured to reflect today on the Senate’s June 2019 well‑received report Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy.
When I suggested this committee study cultural diplomacy, as some of you will remember, I truly believed cultural soft power was essential in developing Canada’s international profile. I still do. Culture portrays who we are, our national values, roots and diversities. Conveying Canadian messages and realities abroad, culture tells others what Canada is, where we came from and our courage in where we are going. That is critically important for our nation. Our international partners must understand our cultures, ethics and history.
Encouraging provincial collaboration, the report’s eight recommendations gave cultural diplomacy responsibility to Global Affairs, Canadian Heritage and the Canada Council for the Arts, with Global Affairs taking the lead. Global Affairs has real estate around the world, staff and local connections. Canadian Heritage and the Canada Council have arts, culture and heritage expertise.
We don’t have a Goethe-Institut, a British Council or a Japan Foundation, but we do have this opportunity to showcase our stellar creators and ideas, and to do so, we need articulated goals, cultural training for overseas embassy staff, short- and long-term monitoring mechanisms and learning through Canadian studies abroad.
The early steps were encouraging but truncated by COVID. We have to regain the soft power profile lost in the early 2000s, and with today’s international conflicts, cultural diplomacy is even more important. As is often said, at times of international political difficulty, culture can keep doors open.
UNESCO calls for:
… dialogue based on music and the arts as a vector for the strengthening of mutual understanding and interaction as well as for building a culture of peace and respect for cultural diversity.
Our report’s release did bring some positive changes. The Canada Council for the Arts opened a special funding stream for international arts activity. Global Affairs launched a preliminary training program. Organizations were ready.
Recently, Mary Reid of Woodstock’s Art Gallery presented artist John Hartman’s portraits of Canadian authors at Canada House, London. William Huffman showed Cape Dorset art in Warsaw and Korea. Canada’s First Nations delegates to COP 27 expertly showcased First Nations’ cultural approaches to climate change solutions.
As I said in the chamber yesterday, work is well under way for Canada’s participation in Ghana’s Pan African Heritage Museum opening later in 2024. Canada is now taking the lead in that project for Accra. At my first meeting as a member of the Pan African Heritage Museum’s international curatorial council three years ago, I was surprised to learn it was thought by many that Canada was part of the United States. That misconception is now dispelled. Canada’s content steering committee for our virtual and real participations, chaired by B.C. artist and poet Chantal Gibson, is seen as the model, with its interdisciplinary approach and simultaneous focuses on the past, present and future. Our cultural diplomacy report was the catalyst for Global Affairs and the Canada Council for the Arts’ funding enabling the hiring of six regional Black curators.
[Translation]
These recent activities are encouraging, but are few and far between as Canada’s cultural diplomacy policy has not been formally adopted. It is neither known, nor understood, and is not fully implemented by Global Affairs Canada, even though I have received great encouragement from ambassadors and officials. Many, like me, believe cultural diplomacy needs a higher profile within the department, itself, to be as effective as it could and should be. The result will be transformative for Canada as a whole, its culture and its place in the world.
[English]
From my own personal experience in presenting Canadian arts abroad and as a senator, I can attest that a strong cultural diplomacy presence will benefit Canada at home and abroad, our creators and cultural organizations, and the financial returns for Canada will be significant, as they were before the program was cut, and it will feed our tourism industry. Now more than ever we need our allies to know us, and as part of UNESCO we have a responsibility for assisting in preserving culture from war and climate desecration. Cultural diplomacy is the appropriate vehicle.
In discussing cultural diplomacy, Simon Mark wrote that its:
… potential power rests on its intersection with national culture, national values, national identity, and national pride … [it] shows a state’s personality in a way that connects with people … the power of a cultural performance, or a film, or a scholarship to connect should not be underestimated.
[Translation]
I am very proud of our young creative minds in Quebec, who developed virtual games. Not only have they done a great job, but they have also given Canada a good name, except for a few who still think they are American. That’s a problem if we want to raise Canada’s profile. Cultural diplomacy can fix that.
[English]
We shouldn’t hide our creators who tell the world who we are. Canada’s profile abroad is largely its culture. As for decades before its cut as Canada’s fourth pillar of diplomacy, our government’s investment will be far less than the resulting multifold positive economic and profile returns. Through cultural diplomacy, pride in our internationally acclaimed creators will become our brand, a brand which should be known as Canadian, not American.
I’m asking for formal adoption of this study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey. As I mentioned earlier, we will have 10 minutes of questions for Senator Bovey. I want to acknowledge that Senator Marty Deacon of Ontario has now joined the meeting.
Senator Woo: Let me pay tribute to Senator Bovey for getting us on this path and advocating for it steadfastly through her time in the Senate. It’s a big part of your œuvre, if I can put it that way. While we haven’t accomplished everything you want to accomplish, I think we’ll get there, and your fingerprints will be all over it. Kudos to you.
I want to ask you about Canadian cultural ambassadors who are not located in Canada. As you know, we have a large population of Canadian citizens abroad, larger than most provinces. There are cultural producers in that population. It is not clear to me that we celebrate, acknowledge and recognize them because they are not here in our geography.
Can I have your reflections on that and whether you think there is a separate track or modality that we can put in place to recognize that talent and embrace them as part of our soft power cultural diplomacy and to deploy them for all the good things that you want to deploy Canadian culture to accomplish?
The Chair: Senator Bovey, if I can interrupt, I forgot to mention that we only have three minutes per senator, question and answer, because we have four witnesses today. You have two minutes to respond.
Senator Bovey: I couldn’t agree with you more. Had I longer to speak, I would have gone into who some of those people are and the work they’re doing.
I’m concerned that Canada doesn’t recognize our Canadian artists who are living abroad. I believe you have a daughter who is about to take her conducting experience abroad. I have a daughter working abroad. They do not get recognized by Canada, and they could and should. They are our ambassadors, and they are drawing important links between nations, often in difficult parts of the world.
I have had the opportunity to spend some time in Japan, for instance, wearing a previous hat of mine. To see the Canadian artists who are working over there with their Japanese counterparts is really important. It went some way to creating some of the sister cities that Canada has abroad. So yes, they are very important open gates.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome to you, Honourable Senator Bovey. I commend your leadership on the issue of cultural diplomacy. Yesterday, you announced the upcoming opening of the Pan African Heritage Museum in Accra, Ghana, and your commitment to the project is a meaningful and major achievement in cultural diplomacy. I gather you would like Canada to adopt the recommendations in the committee’s report, which were never implemented.
My question has to do with the place of Canadian cultural diversity. We are fortunate to live in a country where a wide and diverse range of cultures come together. I’m wondering whether you have any recommendations as to how we can leverage those cultural differences, as the honourable senator mentioned. If we think about Canadians working in that space, Canadians who live here and travel abroad or Canadians who live abroad, how can we help them promote culture? What should the approach be?
[English]
Senator Bovey: Those are two really good questions.
In the country, I think it can be done through exchange of exhibitions, literary festivals, the dance community and the music community. I think that is happening, though perhaps in a more truncated way than I might like.
Given today we are really talking about cultural diplomacy abroad, I think it is really important when training ministry officials before they leave for their overseas work that they have the opportunity to have a sense of the multicultural diversities we have with our Indigenous artists and with our artists of multidiversities and multidisciplines.
In a small way, Canada’s participation in the Pan-African Heritage World Museum is exactly that. Our virtual work will be ready for review before the end of May. The real museum opens in the fall of 2024. I hope to be able to go there for it. The work is being pulled together by Black Canadian artists of every discipline — dance, writing, music, visual arts, film — the whole nine yards. They are looking at the past and the reality of our history, the present and creating a platform for young people. The videos are being made by young Black filmmakers. I think that’s important.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, I know you all want to ask questions. We have three more senators. Given that Senator Bovey will soon have to leave, I will ask each senator to ask their question in sequence. That will give Senator Bovey the opportunity for a grand finale in terms of her responses.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Senator Bovey. I’m a big supporter of adopting the report.
I’d like you to speak to measuring results. You’ve mentioned the importance of that. Who is good at it? What do we really need to do to bolster this case? It is a financial case as well. We are saying that culture keeps the doors open and does all sorts of good things. I believe it, but how do we demonstrate it?
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much, Senator Bovey for all your work in this area.
You have clearly outlined that the arts are the best profile a country can have. Can you perhaps give one or two more examples of where you think our cultural diplomacy has succeeded abroad? Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, senator, for being a witness twice this week. I appreciate that.
I have a question on culture, but I’m going a bit out of the arts realm. In our brief, we saw in the 2019 report that science was mentioned a few times, but always at the end of the list and never expanded on too much. I would like to get a better idea of how science fits its into cultural diplomacy. In Canada, in recent years, we have had a big role to play in some international science projects like the James Webb Space Telescope. Recently, we had Jeremy Hansen as one of the astronauts scheduled to fly around the moon. Is this the kind of science we are referring to here? Are these cultural diplomacy wins in your thoughts?
The Chair: Those are three very good questions. Senator Bovey, you have the floor.
Senator Bovey: Measuring results can be done several ways, Senator Coyle. Obviously, there is the impact. Arts organizations are brilliant at their numbers games. The arts community, as I’m sure the other witnesses will say, can measure the number of attendees and money, the self-generated funds, the whole nine yards. We also have to take a look at the impact the work has had on people. I can talk about exhibitions and concerts around the world that have really drawn an exciting response. When the National Ballet of Canada performs in London, let me tell you what the headlines are. When the Royal Winnipeg Ballet went to Russia, which was opening up at the end of the Cold War, the impact was real. So these are there, but the monetary — you mentioned money — the $11.9 million that used to go into cultural diplomacy brought over $42 billion back. The money is huge, but so are the open doors for discussions on all sorts of things.
Senator Ravalia, you asked about other examples of cultural diplomacy. I can tell you that the Winnipeg Art Gallery’s exhibition of Inuit art at the Embassy of Canada in Washington, D.C. was really important in terms of letting the world know the steps this country is trying to make in terms of reconciliation, which gets me to part of cultural diplomacy is trying to seek some of the return of Indigenous works that are in international collections, and that is being done effectively. Some are beginning to come back, maybe not as quickly as Indigenous communities would like, but it is something that we are really engaged in as well.
Senator Deacon, you asked about science. I’m going to say that people who have known me for a long time will know that I often say that it’s our scientists and artists — be they writers, visual artists or composers — who tend to be 20 years ahead of all the rest of us. They are the ones who are putting ideas and experiments out there for us to engage with. Some fail. Many, many don’t. I find it interesting that coming up to the one hundred and first anniversary of the founding of insulin, one of the team members was none other than Fred Banting, who was a Canadian visual artist who often went painting with members of the Group of Seven, and I think that draws that connection as well. As far as the James Webb Space Telescope, absolutely.
This ties in, I guess, Senator Gerba, with in Canada and out of Canada. I don’t think there is one major issue that this country faces internally or externally that cannot be forwarded positively with the inclusion of our creative thinkers — scientists, writers, visual artists, dancers, all together — because of these abilities through science and art to express both within verbal language and without verbal language.
The Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you, Senator Bovey, for your dedication to this subject. Thank you for joining us.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, and I’m sorry I have to leave. My colleagues will know that we are doing clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-22. Good luck to my fellow witnesses, and thank you all very much.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Colleagues, we will go to Mr. Brian M. Levine, the CEO of The Glenn Gould Foundation.
Brian M. Levine, CEO, The Glenn Gould Foundation: Honourable senators, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.
The Glenn Gould Foundation presents Canada’s most internationally significant honour in recognition of cultural and artistic achievement: The Glenn Gould Prize. Founded in 1983, we also have a history of carrying the torch of Canadian culture around the world. We have presented, collaborated or co‑produced events, concerts and other presentations in more than 15 countries, so I feel qualified to speak on the subject of cultural diplomacy, soft power and how the arts can shape perceptions of Canada among our friends, our adversaries and those still sitting on the fence.
When our foundation was invited to testify before this committee in 2018, I felt hope — hope that Canada’s long neglect of cultural diplomacy would finally come to an end. Now, five years later, what I’m feeling is anger. I’m angry because, despite the encouraging words from Senator Bovey, too little has changed, and as a proud Canadian, I’m tired of feeling embarrassed for Canada.
My first case in point: In 2014, The Glenn Gould Foundation was called on a Saturday morning by the Office of the Prime Minister, or PMO, and asked to present a concert featuring young Canadian musicians to accompany our delegation to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC, summit in Beijing. The PMO informed me that the summit would take place on the following Saturday. We had exactly seven days to organize the entire event a continent away. We agreed to do this impossible task, but then we were also informed by the PMO that they had no budget for cultural events of this kind so it would be on our nickel. We did it, by the way, and successfully, too.
My second case in point: In 2017, a leading musical ensemble in another country in this hemisphere worked with us to organize a series of four celebratory concerts in honour of Glenn Gould’s eighty-fifth birthday and Canada 150, which coincided that year. The ensemble is in a poor country, so their commitment was a major one, and because of difficulties in currency transfers, we could not provide any funding directly. Our embassy knew of the project and was enthusiastic, so when we asked them if they could provide the ensemble with $500 so they could record the concert for posterity, well, the response was embarrassed silence. But they did say that if we waited until the second concert a few months later, they just might be able to scrape up $75 to pay for piano tuning. What we communicated on that occasion to that country is that they were more generous than Canada, and however poor they might be, we were poorer.
The Glenn Gould Foundation presents an award in the arts that has been compared by international artists to the Nobel Prize. It is a symbol of the spirit of our country, a calling card that announces Canada’s generosity, innovation and creativity in honour of one of our most internationally revered artists. Any advanced country would consider it a feather in its cap to host the international symbol of excellence in any field, just as it is a source of pride for a country to host the Olympics. Sadly, in our 40-year history, we have yet to receive support from Canada, which would help us take this prize to truly Nobel-like heights or even ensure our permanent sustainability, even though the Government of Canada has made similar investments in prizes in other fields.
A nation’s artists are the most eloquent and compelling spokespeople for that nation’s highest ideals: its concept of what is right and just. The exchange of culture turns strangers into friends, smooths tensions and builds trust. It enhances, influences and, yes, it even strengthens trade. It is a giant extended hand of friendship to the world.
Now, unlike the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and China, we seem to consider ourselves exceptional, but somehow we have no need to build our soft power. I have had the privilege of spending time with quite a few of Canada’s ambassadors, and I know they feel the disadvantage put on them by this ignorant refusal to put our best foot forward using the vital tool of our creative sector. They are too diplomatic to say so, but I have felt their embarrassment too.
Let us commit as a great nation to put our best foot forward and change that embarrassment into outright pride.
The Chair: Thank you, very much, Mr. Levine.
Our next witness will be Mary Reid. You have the floor, Ms. Reid.
Mary Reid, Director/Curator, City of Woodstock, Woodstock Art Gallery: Thank you very much, honourable senators.
I’m Zooming in from the City of Woodstock, located in southwestern Ontario. It is my pleasure to speak about my recent and ongoing work of cultural diplomacy from the unique position of being outside the centre of a large urban environment.
As mentioned by Senator Bovey, earlier this year in January, the Woodstock Art Gallery showcased an exhibition at the High Commission of Canada in the United Kingdom, and we were honoured to feature the large-scale portraits painted by senior artist John Hartman, who is a Member of the Order of Canada.
The Mayor of Woodstock, Jerry Acchione, joined me on this trip to the U.K., and we made sure to maximize our time by actively promoting Woodstock, Ontario. We met with several key players at Canada House and then travelled to Woodstock, Oxfordshire, where Mayor Acchione was received at the county district council, and I met with the county’s manager of museum services to discuss future potential partnerships.
Further to Senator Coyle’s question, we were very happy to see a direct impact from our trip. In just a few short months, the City of Woodstock’s economic development department has tracked a direct uptick in expressions of interest from U.K.-based companies. These inquiries have come from industries such as food processing, building materials and general manufacturing. In fact, U.K.-based company Younger Homes (northern) Ltd., recently purchased a 13,000-square-foot facility in Woodstock with the goal of introducing a new concept for modular homes into the Ontario market. With these direct and tangible outcomes from our work in cultural diplomacy, the City of Woodstock is in the process of developing an official trade mission to the U.K. for 2024.
Another example of the soft power of cultural diplomacy is through my work with the Sister Cities Committee. Their mandate is to stimulate interest in recreational, cultural, economic and educational activities with its sister cities. Our sister city is Sylvania, Ohio, and to mark the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Woodstock Art Gallery’s annual juried exhibition, we are partnering with the fine art department of Lourdes University in Sylvania to extend the call to artists of both communities. The result will be an exhibition that will launch here in Woodstock this summer and then travel to Sylvania in October and will be part of their popular fall festival.
These exciting initiatives highlight a few areas where Canada can do more through cultural diplomacy.
The June 2019 cultural diplomacy report repeatedly stated that lack of funding is a significant issue. The Woodstock Art Gallery was fortunate to leverage the financial support provided by Canada House to encourage private donors, which then enabled the Hartman exhibition to travel aboard. Without this commitment from Canada House, this would not have been possible.
In response to Recommendation No. 2 in the cultural diplomacy report, there is an opportunity to activate sister city connections, of which there are more than 100 in Canada. This is an untapped resource that has great potential to be quite fruitful. To further encourage and broaden this activity, Canada could take a cue from the American consulate, which offers funding towards the promotion of American culture abroad and can be applied to by non-American organizations.
To quote City of Woodstock Mayor Acchione:
These recent cultural activities abroad presented a number of important opportunities that will continue to provide benefits to our Friendly City of Woodstock well into the future.
Even from outside the centre, promoting Canadian voices and stories to a global audience can have a profound and positive impact.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Reid.
We will now hear from Mr. William Huffman.
William Huffman, Marketing Manager, West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative: It is a pleasure to be back in committee. Thank you.
Our organization was established in 1959 by the Inuit community of Kinngait, then known as Cape Dorset. I’m sure that each of you have some familiarity with the exquisite stone sculptures, prints and drawings that come out of Kinngait studios, many of whom in terms of artists are household names across Canada, but more saliently, the creative output of Kinngait artists is a considerable and enviable footprint abroad.
A very important part of my role at the West Baffin Cooperative is the promotion and presentation of Inuit art from Kinngait in strategic territories beyond our borders. In the eight years that I’ve had the privilege of working with the organization, we’ve built a strength of presence in priority regions from the United States and South America to Western and Eastern Europe and, more recently, all the way to Asia‑Pacific. In 2022-23, my organization was responsible for the realization of initiatives in New York, Los Angeles, Warsaw and Paris, in addition to Busan and Gwangju, both in the Republic of Korea. We enthusiastically called it “The Kinngait Studios World Tour.”
With each exhibition, initiative or general engagement, we have benefited considerably from the resources and expertise of our partners and collaborators at Global Affairs. Our embassies and consulates have provided invaluable on-the-ground navigation and localized guidance connecting the West Baffin Cooperative with new and growing stakeholders abroad.
I just returned from 11 days in Europe and, before that, one month in the Republic of Korea, both important professional development exercises, but the latter is a case that I’d like to share with you.
In the fall of 2022, after a research visit to Korea, the West Baffin Cooperative was invited to present a Canadian Pavilion at the 2023 Gwangju Biennale, a project that was just launched a few weeks ago to much audience accolade. In fact, we were hearing that there were 200 people a day through the exhibition.
The project features 91 artworks by 32 Kinngait artists, one of the largest surveys of Inuit art ever produced and the first of its kind in Korea. The invitation to participate in the 2023 Biennale led to the project becoming a cornerstone component of the Global Affairs program celebrating 60 years of diplomatic relations between Canada and the Republic of Korea, a significant responsibility for the artists of Kinngait to provide that creative platform on which a historic relationship between two nations is to be recognized.
During the opening ceremonies, at which an extraordinary number of national, regional and municipal Korean political leaders were in attendance, Canada’s Ambassador-designate Tamara Mawhinney remarked that the exhibition is a testament to enduring “people-to-people ties,” that this exhibition further strengthens cultural exchanges by showcasing Canadian Indigenous arts in Korea and that the international support and promotion of Indigenous cultural expression advance the broader objectives of truth and reconciliation.
I would further suggest that based on the overwhelming response to this initiative, not only have we built a newfound awareness of Canada’s Arctic, but we’ve begun the process of developing a brand-new Asia-Pacific-Inuit art marketplace. Our objectives in the realm of cultural diplomacy always are about sharing important Inuit art narratives while also generating economic capacity for the community of Kinngait. With one foot in a cultural forum and the other in a trade context, Canada’s diplomatic infrastructure allows us to accomplish these parallel goals.
This initiative in Korea serves to reinforce some of our early revelations. In our time working abroad, we’ve discovered that the function of diplomacy is closely aligned with the values of Inuit art, both emphasizing a commitment to global conversations and the larger common themes of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. At the same time that we can tell the story of one small Arctic community, that can also become an occasion for two great nations to celebrate their shared beliefs and mutual goals.
I’d like to thank our Global Affairs colleagues abroad, who have helped the West Baffin Cooperative tell its story but who also have, through the power of cultural diplomacy, given us the platform to demonstrate Canada’s unique leadership strengths across the world.
Members of the committee, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Huffman.
We will open the question period. Senators, please indicate your interest. As before, we will be looking at three-minute segments.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here virtually today. I can’t help but sense three very different experiences, three very different opportunities, and you’re all at different spots of the journey.
If I could, I would like to understand a little bit more, moving forward, what it is that you think could be done better, more efficiently and more noticeably in this world of cultural diplomacy from your vantage point. There are some amazing things behind you, but moving forward, if you don’t mind. I’m going to ask Mary — Ms. Reid first. Because I’m in Waterloo, I thought I could call you by your first name. Sorry about that, Ms. Reid.
Ms. Reid: There is no problem with that. Thank you very much, Senator Deacon.
As I mentioned, we are in a unique spot. We are outside the centre but trying to leverage the sister city connections. We are working on this project with our sister city of Sylvania, Ohio, and are seeking funding from the American consulate to make that happen. It’s unfortunate that there isn’t a reciprocal fund that they’re able to do that through. They’re funding us, whereas our sister city that will be showcasing the work from our regional artists within Woodstock and southwestern Ontario are having to look to different areas to be able to achieve that. That’s somewhat problematic. Their government is supporting my institution, but we’re not able to reciprocate that on the other side of the border.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Mr. Levine, Glenn Gould is an extremely important part of our culture, absolutely. As we move forward into 2024-25, how do we get this right, better and intentionally, from your perspective?
Mr. Levine: I apologize, but I’m having a big echo problem on my audio. I don’t know if anything can be done. I’m not sure I heard the question clearly. Could you repeat it?
Senator M. Deacon: Mr. Levine, as you know, Glenn Gould plays a really important part in our domestic and international experiences for Canada. I’m trying to think, from your perspective, moving forward, how we make something like you experienced never happen again, or make it more intentional and purposeful. Can you hear me okay?
Mr. Levine: Yes. You were cutting in and out, but I did make you out this time. Thank you for that.
I can speak to our particular case. We have been seeking ongoing funding support for the entirety of our 37-year history, and thus far, we’ve met with people at the most senior level in government. We really have had excellent relations with our embassies so that when we have a laureate from a given country, we are in a position to do a great deal to work with them to promote the message of that laureate’s work and our efforts to honour them. Our own prize celebrations are more than a single evening handing over a prize but usually a miniature festival that embodies the work and significance of the laureate, whether they’re Canadian or non-Canadian, and generate an enormous amount of international media, but we are still constrained by the inability and the lack of budgets of our embassies and consulates abroad to really generate and amplify the message.
Our most recent prize laureate — it’s still to be presented — is going to the conductor Gustavo Dudamel, who was just announced to be the next music director of the New York Philharmonic. He is from Venezuela. When that was announced, we generated hundreds of news articles around the world and probably tens of millions of media impressions; yet the ability to sustain that on a long-term basis throughout the prize cycle is one of financial constraint.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Levine. I’m sorry, I have to interrupt you. We’re at more than time on this segment.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I’m probably going to give the floor back to Mr. Levine because he brought up something that goes to the heart of cultural diplomacy: funding.
We were in Dakar recently, with the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association. In discussing Canadian cultural diplomacy with another ambassador, we realized how difficult it had become for Canadian artists to gain exposure outside Canada and participate in festivals. Unlike other countries, Canada does not have pavilions at marquee events like Dakar’s Biennale, an important pan-African cultural event where G7 countries have pavilions to showcase their artists.
How can we better support Canada’s artists, our cultural ambassadors, and help them take part in events like these, which are important vehicles for cultural promotion? The question is for everyone, but especially Mr. Levine, since he was speaking right before.
[English]
Mr. Levine: Thank you. Again, my apologies. The audio was spotty, but I was able to make you out. I hope you are hearing me clearly.
Obviously, touring funds that are at a higher level and sustainable on an ongoing basis are very important. We do have one permanent institution abroad that acts as a kind of an incubator and a presenter, the Centre Culturel Canadien in Paris. There should be more. I don’t see why we can’t have something equivalent to the Goethe Institut, Alliance Français or an Institut Français.
As an ongoing step in that direction, we have many opportunities to tour abroad. For example, for our last prize winner, Alanis Obomsawin, one of our greatest Indigenous artists, we worked with a Métis filmmaker, Terril Calder, and created a sound and light show that was presented for two weeks on the face of the Royal Ontario Museum. It’s huge, 170 feet by 70 feet. We want to tour that around the world. The Smithsonian Institution is interested in presenting it, but we have no funds to send it. It could be an enormously powerful presentation. There are ongoing opportunities for which there needs to be funding.
Second, there really need to be permanent institutions that have a regular presence so that we’re not operating on a kind of an occasional basis. This orchestra goes to Carnegie Hall, but they don’t go back again for seven or eight years. That doesn’t necessarily have the cumulative effect of building our presence and reputation abroad the way that permanent institutions like, to use my analogy, the Nobel Prize has for the Scandinavian countries that present them.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all our witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much for your testimony here. I have one quick question, and then I have one that may take a little bit of time.
The first question is, why is your cooperative still using the word “Eskimo”? It’s been bothering me for years that it hasn’t changed, particularly because of the international profile and trying to represent the Inuit of Canada.
My bigger question is, in your experience, particularly working with Inuit, I’d like to hear what you believe the Inuit artists of our country can contribute to Canada’s cultural diplomacy writ large. You’ve given us some wonderful examples of the different exhibits in different locations and whatnot, but you spoke about the commitment to a global conversation. Can you speak more about that and unpack that a little bit more for us? What does that look like? What does that mean? How do we better foster that?
Mr. Huffman: On your first question, I’m working on it, trust me. It’s a different discussion in the North within the community than in the south. Believe me, I didn’t use the term in my reference to the organization, and it’s been migrated off my business cards, so there is your short answer.
As to the larger question, it’s been remarkable. Senator Bovey mentioned a couple of the opportunities that we’ve had. Inuit artists highlighted climate change in a very meaningful way at COP 24 in Glasgow, or COP 24, and you know what I’m talking about. This is coming from observational and first-hand experience in the Arctic with the environment. Suddenly you start to realize the narratives embedded in that work, the stuff that we almost take for granted, because this is Inuit art that we know. I’ve been working now for eight years. When you place that work on these international stages and you start to have discussions with those international communities, that’s when you start to realize how important these observations are within the work.
It’s the same thing with the recent experience in Korea. What did we talk about? We talked about Korea as having, over the course of history, been a vulnerable country with lots and lots of occupations that happened. It’s analogous to the history of Inuit communities and the Canadian Arctic. Suddenly we were talking about cultural resilience and the importance of language.
These embedded narratives are really universal, and it’s not a surprise to me anymore because I’ve been having more and more of these experiences, but certainly, when I started to work in this milieu, it was astonishing to see how this could translate to international communities.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: There is an inukshuk not far from the Canadian High Commission in the middle of a roundabout that was unveiled in, I think, 2014 by the Governor General. Canada’s imprint is all over that piece of Canadian art and culture. By the way, the inukshuk was produced by someone from Kinngait, or Cape Dorset. My understanding is that the way it was made possible was in part by a donation from an anonymous private donor, which gets at this problem that we have and we’ve been hearing a lot about, and that is the stinginess on the part of the Canadian government for providing funds for cultural diplomacy — the great willingness to take credit for things that happen, but the great reluctance to provide money for such things to take place.
My presumption is that there is an assumption on the part of our officials that money is out there in the private sector, maybe sort of an American model where there are large foundations and multinational companies and so on. I wonder if either Mr. Huffman or Mr. Levine might comment on the mental map behind the lack of government funding. Is it because people are assuming that there are huge amounts of private money in Canada to support what the government is not willing to?
Mr. Huffman: I come out of a not-for-profit universe, and I think we’ve just gotten really good in not-for-profit at doing things with very little money. It’s only recently that I’ve entered into this cooperative world with West Baffin where we do have finances. We’re a revenue-driven organization that generates its own revenue. We’re owned by the community, it’s a bit of a hybrid model, but nevertheless we have the resources to bring to the table. I do sympathize and empathize with my colleagues in the not-for-profit world and the public sector where those resources aren’t possible. Yes, they can be self-generated through donations. Again, it’s not as easy to do that in a museum context or in a foundation context. I think that for me, I’m in a lucky position, I suppose, but I certainly work very closely with my colleagues who don’t have the same opportunity, let’s say.
Mr. Levine: First of all, it’s a bit of a mis-impression that the United States works on a purely private model. There is an extensive contribution through various programs from the state department in cultural diplomacy, and they regard it as very central to their foreign policy and national security, according to their documents.
Second, we have found time and again that, as an organization that seeks to represent Canada, private donors want to know where the government is first before they’ll commit. We had an offer of a seven-figure donation if the federal government would match it. They wouldn’t.
Senator Anderson: I’m just sitting in, so I may have missed something. On June 1, 1951, the Massey Commission — formally known as the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences — investigated the state of arts and culture in Canada. They had 114 public meetings in 16 Canadian cities, with 1,200 witnesses and 450 briefs. This report of June 1, 1951, spoke to global influences of culture in Canada and the influence it was having on Canadians. It argued in favour of state support for the arts. It recommended federal patronage. I’m wondering if any of the witnesses are familiar with the influence of the Massey Commission report and if this historical report can be utilized to reinvigorate cultural diplomacy.
The Chair: Ms. Reid, would you have any comment on that?
Ms. Reid: Certainly.
I think all of us are very familiar with the infamous Massey report. I guess the question is, where is it today in 2023? A number of those recommendations seem to have dropped off, and certainly the funding of our major funding bodies like the Canada Council and for myself here in Ontario, the Ontario Arts Council, have not kept in line or in step with the increase of inflation and the cost of living. So although there may have been significant funds that were given in the 1950s, those funding models just haven’t continued to maintain as we’ve moved forward. I would love to go back to that time and be able to take advantage of that, but we’re decades behind in terms of the funding to be able to support what we’re doing right now.
To follow up from both of my colleagues on the former question, if I didn’t have the little contribution from Canada House for the John Hartman exhibition, I would not have been able to attract — and these were not corporations. They were private donors who were collectors and supporters of the artist that allowed that to happen. It’s somewhat problematic that we’re having private individuals having to fund what is really showcasing Canada to the world. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I have a question, and it really is for all three of you. We have all gone through a few difficult years with the impact of the pandemic. Has that had an impact on what you do in terms of the thread on getting possible funding, and indeed, moving ahead with your work? Maybe we can start with Mr. Huffman and then allow the other two witnesses to respond.
Mr. Huffman: From our perspective, we encountered what contemporary art galleries — in terms of the commercial side of things, the entire world stopped and the marketplace ground to a halt for close to a year. We also had to make very difficult decisions to learn how to move online. It wasn’t an assumption that we would ever need to have that kind of capacity, and we really needed the digital resources, expertise and mentorship in order to do that. We still do to a large extent.
I think the recovery isn’t going to be a two-year, three-year or five-year procedure. This is going to go on for many years. It’s a bit like trying to catch up over decades of that Massey report collecting dust. We’re at a point where this is going to take a long time to get back to where we were and to be even more prosperous than before all this happened.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Levine, a comment?
Mr. Levine: Yes. COVID was a big, jarring blow to us in the sense that we were tremendously excited to present our prize to Alanis Obomsawin, one of the true national treasures and inspiring figures in our country’s history, but we couldn’t do all the things we normally would — essentially have a festival with symposia, teaching opportunities and live concert events. All of that was impossible. That’s why we had to do a dramatic pivot into the digital world by creating a large-scale outdoor project, the sound and light show, where people could enjoy it without the risk of infection. Imagine our disappointment that we couldn’t tour it around the world, although it still exists and it’s ready for touring if the funding should appear.
This transition is going to be long-standing, and it’s causing us all to realign to a more digitally oriented universe. As much as we passionately believe in live events with live human beings experiencing the moment together, we all have to diversify our portfolios, so to speak, to be more virtual.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Reid, you will have the last word.
Ms. Reid: Very similar to my colleagues, we were closed for an extended period of time. All of our abilities to do self‑generated funding dried up, and although we’ve been open now for a little over a year, people’s habits have changed. We’re not seeing the same kind of attendance numbers. People are still hesitant to gather in large groups and also to take courses, which are a primary means to self-generate revenue.
The other thing was that transition onto digital. Now we’re struggling with a very meagre staff and resources to be able to continue that digital engagement, as well as starting to try to increase our in-person programming.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate your wisdom and the comments that you have made, which, of course, will factor into our own deliberations.
Colleagues, if you agree, during this afternoon’s sitting of the Senate, I will put forward a Notice of Motion to put the cultural diplomacy report back before the Senate. As I think we all know, there was an election that intervened, and we never had it formally approved. In doing so, this then requires the government to respond. I think that is really what we should do, with your agreement.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, as part of our ongoing plan to receive regular updates on the matter, we will discuss the situation in Ukraine. This is the committee’s eighth meeting on the subject since March 2022.
To provide an update, we are very honoured to have with us today her Excellency Yuliya Kovaliv, the ambassador of Ukraine to Canada, probably the busiest ambassador in our city and in our country.
Ambassador, welcome back to the committee. This is your second appearance. You were with us on June 2, 2022. We’re delighted to have you here in person and not on the screen. We will have you as our sole witness. We welcome your opening statement, and then we will move to questions. You have the floor.
Her Excellency Yuliya Kovaliv, Ambassador, Embassy of Ukraine to Canada, as an individual: Honourable Chair and honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity to address you today. It is a big honour for me. Ukraine is grateful for the robust support of the Canadian Parliament, the government and the people of Canada.
Despite everything that is happening, Russia has already strategically failed in its war of aggression against Ukraine. After more than one year of the unjustified and unprovoked aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, our country stands firmly strong, as well as strong in the coalition of our partners.
Russia continues to terrorize Ukrainians by shelling our cities. [Ukrainian spoken] In Kherson, they completely destroyed houses and apartment buildings. Children were killed right in their beds. Since the beginning of the full-scale aggression, Russia has fired over 4,700 missiles at Ukrainian territory. The confirmed number of civilian casualties exceeds 10,000, including 478 children.
Here are just a few examples of Russia’s recent barbaric crimes of the last days: Yesterday in Kherson, a hardware and grocery supermarket, 23 civilian people died. Last Friday in Uman, a residential building, 23 were killed, among them six children, early in the morning when people were sleeping in their beds. In another region, in a village in the northern part closer to the border, Russian airborne destroyed another Ukrainian school. Unfortunately, this strike also took the life of a teenager — a 14‑year-old boy. He was just near his school.
We are also witnessing the nuclear blackmail that the Russian Federation has been spreading. The Russians also placed equipment and ammunition on the territory of the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and from there they also shelled the cities and communities around.
Through the hardest winter of our modern Ukrainian history, we witnessed blackouts and the massive destruction of the electricity infrastructure, causing over $411 billion in damages for Ukraine and its infrastructure. This was assessed by the World Bank. That assessment was released just a few weeks ago.
Are not all of these actions pure terrorism? We are convinced they are, and we urge our partners to recognize Russia as the state sponsor of terrorism and Russian armed forces and the Wagner Group as terrorist organizations.
It is very important that Russia receive strong signals that the world will not forgive each and every crime and act of aggression. The Senate and the committee role here is very important, and we are grateful for the resolutions of the Senate of Canada regarding the recognition of Russian crimes in Ukraine as a genocide against Ukrainian people and also the recognition by the government of the Wagner group as a terrorist organization. We are also grateful for the strong stand of senators in banning Russian and Belarusian athletes’ return to the Olympic Games.
Crimes of aggression and war crimes all require justice. Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are now investigating 84,000 war crimes, sexual crimes and crimes of aggression. More than 19,500 Ukrainian children were illegally abducted and deported to Russia, and unfortunately only 328 children returned back home. According to the evidence, they were forced to learn the Russian language and a revised history. Also, many of them were filmed for Russian propaganda campaigns.
Justice for these crimes is not only necessary for the families who lost loved ones, but justice will serve the critical interests of global justice to prevent any other dictator from committing such crimes. We are grateful to Canada for an important contribution to bringing justice for all of these crimes. Canada’s support of the actions of the International Criminal Court, or ICC, in investigating war crimes and particularly crimes against women and children have this result. The global arrest warrant for Putin and his so-called children’s rights commissioner is a very important first step on the way to justice. We also value Canada’s participation in the core group that is working on the establishment of the international special tribunal for the crime of aggression, which is the core crime that Putin and his regime committed against Ukraine.
The Russian invasion strengthened our Euro-Atlantic unity. It will be even stronger with Ukraine joining NATO. We expect Canada’s strong stance in welcoming Ukraine’s application to NATO. You know Ukraine has already got the candidacy status as a new member, and we are looking forward to the NATO Summit in Vilnius with the strong support of NATO members. As of today, 17 NATO members have already signed, along with Ukraine, a political declaration supporting Ukraine’s process of joining NATO. Every day, the number of NATO member countries who support Ukraine’s NATO membership is increasing. We do hope for Canada’s support for the contribution of Ukraine to Euro-Atlantic security. Having Ukraine as a NATO member after the war will increase NATO. It will have one of the strongest armed forces, trained to NATO standards using NATO-standard weapons, as part of Euro-Atlantic security.
We must also keep increasing sanctions pressure, both to the Russian nuclear sector but also precisely working on control and preventing sanctions circumventions of any kind. I have shared with you the huge number of losses that Russian aggression has brought to Ukraine. Russian sovereign assets and the assets of Russia-sanctioned oligarchs need to serve the rebuilding of Ukraine. We are very grateful for Canada having the leadership role in providing the legislation that allows Russian assets to be seized and support Ukraine’s rebuilding efforts. It is important that these actions happen and help us in the rebuilding efforts.
On the military side, the heaviest fights today are in Bakhmut. Since January, Russia has taken enormous losses in forces and heavy weapons to attempt to capture the town. It is a city with a population of 30,000 and is now totally destroyed. But Ukraine is holding the line in Bakhmut and fighting for each and every metre of our territory.
Russia is also constantly attacking by air. That is why we crucially need air defence and fighter jets to close the sky and provide security for millions of civilians and avoid the horrific losses that we witnessed just over the last week.
As of today, the length of the active front line is 1,300 kilometres. That is roughly like the Canada-U.S. border of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined. Our brave men and women continue to fight, and over 35,000 of them have been trained by Operation UNIFIER. I would also like to thank all Canadian instructors for their dedication.
I would also like to thank you for the robust military support. Canadian Leopard tanks were among the first to be delivered to Poland and then to Ukraine to help us to build capacity for a counter-offensive. A big part of the success of the Ukrainian counter-offensive is well-equipped forces backed by tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, ammunition, air defence and fighter jets. That’s why continuing military support is crucially essential for us to further liberate our territories.
The multiyear program for military support for Ukraine will also help us to ramp up defence production in Canada and among all of our NATO members. It will also help us secure the needed military support, because Russia, even after the war, will continue to be our neighbour.
Ukraine will always remember the courage and will never forget the brave warriors, including volunteers from Canada — Joseph Hildeband, Grygorii Tsekhmistrenko, Kyle Porter and Cole Zelenco — who gave their lives in the battle against Russian aggression. May Ukraine’s victory in this war honour their memory as well.
Honourable senators, Ukraine is grateful for your leadership, your voice and your efforts to stay engaged against the horrors of Russia’s full-scale invasion, with all of the crimes that Russia brought to Ukraine. Remaining united, putting more sanctions pressure and helping us to equip our forces with the needed military support is essential for us to liberate our territories.
Ukraine is more than ever — more than anybody else — looking for peace, but for a stable peace. Stable peace is based on getting back our sovereign borders and ensuring all the parts of that peace. That is what President Zelenskyy presented as the peace formula, which includes 10 main points, including the restoration of the sovereign borders, bringing justice, providing food security, nuclear security, demining and many other areas we are currently working toward together.
Thank you for your support.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ambassador Kovaliv, for your statement. We will move immediately to questions and your answers. Colleagues, you have four-minute segments.
Senator MacDonald: Your Excellency, it is good to see you again. Thank you for being here today.
Recently, President Zelenskyy and Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke for the first time and discussed how to end the war. I wonder if you could tell our group here whether you are aware of any direct military assistance that China might have supplied to Russia, particularly munitions. Was this issue raised during the call? Do you know?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you.
Indeed, on April 26, there was the first call between the two leaders since the war started. Ukraine is seeking support for the peace formula that President Zelenskyy stated. It is important that each and every country support the 10 points of the peace formula. It was discussed during the call, including the main parts of the formula, such as the restoration of the sovereign borders.
The second thing is about the nuclear security, including the security over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and helping us to get Ukrainian children back from illegal deportation and induction by Russia.
The third thing, which is important for Ukraine, is to deprive Russia of their ability to wage the war, including sanctions and avoiding any third countries supplying any military support to Russia. That’s why Ukraine was also seeking that support to deprive Russia from receiving military assistance.
Senator MacDonald: How concerned are you and your colleagues, if the war goes on for an extended period of time, that direct Chinese military support for Russia might start to be provided? Do you have any assurances that will not happen? Was that discussed?
Ms. Kovaliv: Ukraine is putting forward all efforts to preserve Russia and work on depriving the possibility of military support for Russia from any country. We are grateful for the recent sanctions that the Canadian government imposed on Iran, including those companies who are also in the production of Iranian drones. That is very important.
What we see on the ground is that Russia is significantly declining in their capability to produce weapons and missiles because of the Western sanctions and of having fewer possibilities to import components and produce weapons. That’s why all of our diplomatic efforts are focused on strengthening this coalition of sanctions and also talking with other countries and stressing that it is important to not provide Russia with any military support.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you so much for returning and being with us again today. We really are blessed to have you here in person with us.
Last year, we talked about the Western supply of weapons to Ukraine. When you spoke to us last, you mentioned the timing and the scheduling of weapons are just as important as the weapons themselves. As we proceed and where we are now, as the war has dragged on, have NATO allies like Canada gotten better at reliable delivery when a commitment of arms has been made?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you for this question. It is an important question.
First, I would like to thank you. I mentioned in my statement the speedy delivery from the Canadian government of Leopard tanks. Timing is essential to get those weapons to the battlefield to equip those soldiers who have been trained through Operation UNIFIER and others happening around Europe.
Also, there is one more dimension to it: It is the need for additional production of weapons. That also goes for our NATO allies to replace their stocks and to continue this long-lasting support. That’s why I was talking in my statement about a longer period — midterm period — program of support. Ukraine already has such a program, for example, with Norway, which has already committed to a five-year program to support Ukraine, both humanitarian and military.
If we are talking about military aid, it will also help the defence sector here in Canada. At the same time, we are talking with other partners in different countries to ramp up production, not only for Ukraine but as the world is facing more and more security challenges, to ramp up this production to increase their own security. This could be a win-win — helping us with the military support and armour, ammunition, but also increasing the capacity to meet the needs of the armed forces of all the countries of the alliance.
We also see the collective effort, for example, in the EU to provide Ukraine with the artillery shells which are much needed. This coalition has been built within the EU countries. Of course, it would be welcome if Canada could also help us in artillery shells, armoured vehicles and air defence systems, which Canada has here on the ground with the defence sector production. That could be a win-win solution for us.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for being with us, ambassador, and thank you for your comprehensive and clear report to us today. I had many different questions, and you have answered most of them.
Other than the war, which, of course, is the central focus, I’m curious what the situation in Ukraine is. I had the good fortune of visiting the Ukraine pavilion at COP 27 and seeing that Ukraine is still alive and active in the world on important issues, like climate. Could you speak to the domestic situation in Ukraine and obviously the strains the war is having on that, I’m assuming, and how the country is coping?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you.
Ukraine’s resilience is not only on the battlefield but also in the lives of millions of civilian people. With the robust support of Canada, we managed to survive the hardest winter. There were days without light, electricity and heat. People were sitting in the resilience centres. I was also in Kyiv in December. It was not easy, especially living in the big apartment buildings with no heat, no light, and with small children. We survived. We stayed strong. With the robust financial support from Canada, we managed to provide the vulnerable people, IDPs, with the social support so that people can keep on living, such as buying diesel generators. Canada also supported Ukraine with a loan to help us to buy natural gas for the winter. We managed to go through this heating season. This resilience is high.
Despite the war, Ukraine managed to secure all the budget deficit financing, with the great contribution from Canada, $2.4 billion, also with the first ever in the world program with IMF that provided Ukraine this financing in the four-year period, the first time ever a country who is in a war got the program. It is also important that this program is not only about money but also about structural reforms. The government is also continuing working on the structural changes. The key driver of these changes is our new status as a candidate for the EU. All of the government efforts are focusing now on the implementation of the EU regulations. We are, in a speedy way, doing our homework despite the war.
In terms of the resilience of people, over 90% of Ukrainians — different polls show different figures — support and believe in Ukraine’s full victory, restoration of the sovereign borders and are ready to continue to fight. The morale is there. The strong support of the president, the government and the Armed Forces are there on the ground. A lot of people are coming back to Ukraine. Now, I will invite you to visit Kyiv. There are cars on the streets. Children are going to school. We managed to provide them with security, underground facilities when there are air alarms. The children go to the basement to continue studying. The resilience of people is high.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Your Excellency, for being here. We are all onside with you. We observe your resilience with great respect and dignity.
With regard to the military and humanitarian assistance 14 months into the war, are you concerned that there are portions of the international community that are shifting away from the stronger ties they had with Ukraine? Are we seeing gaps in this international order that continue to allow Russia to perhaps avert some of the strictest sanctions? How much of a concern do you think that is in the current situation? You have the unconditional support of NATO and the European Union, your historic western alliances. If we look at the globe as a whole, are there some concerns that gaps are beginning to appear, and could this have an impact in the long term?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. That is a very right question.
There are different countries, part of the countries, who are not providing Ukraine, for example, with military assistance but they are providing the humanitarian assistance, or there are other countries that are from different continents who are now, for example, joining the core group which is working on the creation of an international tribunal for the war of aggression. We value those countries, especially the countries of the global south, from Latin America, who are now joining.
Ukraine is working together with our partners, together with Canada, with the other countries, specifically with the countries of the global south, to send the message about what is happening in Ukraine. We see a lot of disinformation around the world. This, I would say, is as much of a danger, a weapon, as the missiles, because this weapon is targeting people, targeting minds, with the clear goal of breaking the unity. What makes us all stronger? It is unity. What Russia has been doing with disinformation is trying to break this unity. That is the action we believe we need to work on all together on, fighting against disinformation, and especially in those countries where this disinformation is significantly present.
In terms of military support, there is a big unity between the so-called Ramstein group. It is not only the NATO countries. The number of countries participating on a regular basis on this coordination group is increasing, and that represents an even broader coalition than the NATO members. Of course, there are some debates, including the big debate on the fighter jets which Ukraine is advocating for. We are confident that we will be successful in this advocacy and explaining why we need it. I think these horrific crimes I have shared with you only for one week is enough evidence that Ukraine needs support in the air. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you, Your Excellency. Thank you, ambassador.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine, trade between Russia and China has increased by 34%, hitting $190 billion. That’s a record. China’s imports of Russian hydrocarbons have grown significantly, with China exporting technology to Russia. How much of a threat is the expanding Chinese-Russian relationship to the resolution of the conflict?
[English]
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you for the question.
I think this is clear evidence of the weakening of the Russian economy, as we see what has happened with Russian export revenues. Since the G7 and broader coalition imposed an oil price cap, this has significantly declined. Russia is using is their wells fund to try to secure the economic situation, but it has a different trajectory. In both 2021 and 2022, Russia benefited from the record high prices for both oil and gas. It helped them to create a buffer. With the price cap, we now see that, despite the difference with their trade route, the general revenue of Russia from exporting both oil and gas is decreasing.
Technology is also important. Yes, it’s important for Ukraine to work with all of the partners to explain how important it is to deprive Russia from technology, especially that which can be used in production on the military side.
The important thing here, as I mentioned earlier, is the prevention of the circumvention of sanctions, that is, to avoid using companies in third countries as a channel to provide those spare parts and technologies to Russia while they are under sanctions. We also see a lot of cases where secondary sanctions have been imposed on companies who were trying to circumvent the sanctions.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for being here.
I’m wondering about airpower. I know that Ukraine desperately wants and needs it, has asked for it, has petitioned for it and pleaded for it, but so far hasn’t gotten what they requested. Can a counter-offensive be successful either this spring or later this year without it? Are you getting some planes from other countries? I think Hungary offered some planes, but you’re not getting the planes you want. Can you hold the ground without airpower? Do you think your pleading will bear fruit and people will decide that you need airpower to win this war?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you for that question.
There was a significant shift towards the decision-making process for supplying Ukraine with much needed military support. If we go back to February 2022, there was a big discussion about whether any of the NATO-standard weapons could be supplied to Ukraine. We are now at a different stage, including Patriots that have already been delivered to Ukraine. Around Kyiv this week, we’ve seen all of the Russian attempts to attack the capital. All of the missiles and drones were shot down with no casualties. That’s clear evidence of how this air defence system can save lives. Unfortunately, it’s still not enough to cover the big territory of Ukraine.
Of course, the air force is important. We are grateful to our European partners who provided us with MiG fighter jets. But in terms of their technical capacity, they have a much shorter range of what they can do and how they can protect Ukraine compared to the NATO-standard fighting jets. Ukraine needs them.
You asked about the counter-offensive. All the military support that was announced to be delivered and to be donated to Ukraine is needed now more than ever. It needs to be delivered speedily to the country to equip those brigades where it’s needed.
Senator Boniface: I wanted to speak about possible outcomes. I’ve heard President Zelenskyy’s strong position on the 10-point plan. His position has been consistent all long. You were here a year ago. Do you feel any sense of a better chance that we could see a negotiated outcome? Has it become worse or better, in your view, in terms of getting an end to this for all the people of Ukraine?
Ms. Kovaliv: Indeed, Ukraine wants peace, but Ukraine wants stable and fair peace.
From our history in 2014 and 2015, when Russia occupied Crimea and part of our territories in the east in Luhansk and in the Donetsk region, there was a so-called ceasefire agreement — the Minsk agreement. Even publicly, some Russians who were formerly involved in those agreements said they were never committed to them in practice. That’s why when Ukraine and President Zelenskyy are talking about the peace plan, it’s something that we believe could be a stable peace. The worst thing is the ceasefire. What we see on the ground is that Russian soldiers have low morale. From day to day, they are more poorly equipped. Russia could be seeking the ceasefire. Here, history could be repeated in this situation. This time it could be used to regroup, to train more soldiers, to get more weapons, to try to advocate for sanction lifting, and then, in a few years, to take it back.
On a personal note, I have two children. I don’t want my children to face another war.
The Chair: You have more time, Senator Boniface.
Senator Boniface: I’m fine. I think that was a very straightforward response.
The Chair: Colleagues, before we go to round two, I’d like to ask a question of the ambassador.
I was interested to hear you say that Ukrainians are coming back to Ukraine. That raises the question of reconstruction. You talked about the international financial institutions. I’m aware of much of the work that’s going on there. However, you also have a population that might be growing back but is still being impacted by war. There are important social elements there. I’m thinking about PTSD and the mental health of everyone and of children in particular. Do you feel that of the countries supporting Ukraine, such as Canada, enough is being done to provide these supports as we look to a better future that involves reconstruction, including the reforms that you mentioned which underscore your candidacy for membership in the European Union?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you for the question.
Our Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal visited Canada at the beginning of April, and a lot was discussed around the rebuilding in Ukraine. We managed to finalize the negotiation of modernizing our Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which is a great basis for our companies to work together. In spite of the war, Ukrainian state-owned nuclear companies signed a strategic contract with Canadian companies to help us secure, for a 10-year perspective, the supply of raw material for nuclear fuel, helping us to move away from Russian dependency. It’s very valuable for us and for the energy security for the country.
We also welcome Canadian companies to participate in Ukraine’s rebuilding. That will be the biggest and most massive capital rebuilding on the European continent. We welcome the work of all the G7 countries’ export development agencies to help the private sector and to provide them more insurance. This is what we have heard from the private sector is needed for them to be able to work in Ukraine. We are also working with many of the international financial institutions to build on the instruments that will support the private sector with funding and with proper insurance to participate in rebuilding. Ukraine’s approach to rebuilding is building better — which means more climate-friendly, more supportive of regional development, supporting our communities but also supporting vulnerable people.
We realize that after our victory, we’ll have a lot of work to do with the many Ukrainians who went through the horror of the war. Mental health is our top priority — for the civilians who went through the horror of the occupation and for the soldiers who were in the fight for more than a year. We count on Canada’s support in helping us to build a system that will address the mental health challenges for the entire population of Ukraine, because each of us is affected by the war and needs this support. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador.
I’m going to ask a follow-up because I see that I still have a bit of time left in my segment. Do you have a comment on the alleged drone strike on the Kremlin?
Ms. Kovaliv: Yes. I can repeat the words of the president. Ukraine is not involved in this.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s very clear.
Colleagues, we’ll move to round two.
Senator M. Deacon: I would like to take this opportunity to turn our attention to the effects of the war on Ukrainians here in Canada. Of course, Canada is privileged to have one of the largest Ukrainian communities in the world. We know this. But I’ve read about several instances of harassment and intimidation of Ukrainian students and student groups at at least one of our Canadian universities. Certainly, Russian intimidation tactics around the world are no big secret. I’m wondering what you’re hearing from Ukrainian Canadians about intimidation in their everyday lives, especially those who might be outspoken or those with family in Ukraine fighting against Russia.
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you.
First of all, I haven’t heard from all of the over 200,000 Ukrainians, but I have met a lot of Ukrainians who moved to Canada. There is gratitude for the government support, with its special program for Ukrainians, but there is also gratitude towards the people of Canada who have opened their doors to host Ukrainian families and who have supported Ukrainians to find jobs and with humanitarian support. I would like to thank you and all of the people of Canada for being so kind and helpful.
Unfortunately, there have been repeated actions against Ukrainians, including at the university you mentioned. There have been attacks in terms of using the letter Z and other Russian letters on historic sites and monuments, as well as personal attacks. Many Ukrainians are talking about hatred and danger in relation to social media. I mentioned in my statement the Russian disinformation war, which is happening on social media. This is very concerning and an important thing for us to work on.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I would also like to speak about the Ukrainians who have found refuge in Canada and in other countries. I believe you mentioned that you’re seeing people coming back. I’d like to understand that flow of people coming back.
Last Friday, a young Ukrainian man stayed at my apartment in Ottawa because he was picking up his son’s passport at the embassy here. He’s working in Cape Breton. We have many Ukrainian families in the town of 5,000 people where I live in Nova Scotia. Many of them are settling into jobs — some fairly decent jobs and some not-so-decent jobs — and some are creating businesses in my town.
I am curious as to what you’re seeing in terms of the flow of people out of and back into Ukraine and whether there is a strategy — and I’m sure there is — in terms of the desire of the Ukrainian nation to repatriate, whenever possible, its citizens.
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. It is a very important topic.
The country is not only the territory, but the core of the country is the people. We are talking about the people who left Ukraine — and mostly it’s women with children — and about finding a safer place for them. There are also those who are in captivity and the children who have been forcefully deported. The strategy of Ukraine is to bring them home, and there are different strategies.
If we are talking about prisoners of war, we are conducting exchanges. People are sharing what they felt in captivity. Last week there was a tremendous photo of one of our soldiers who was holding an apple and crying — understanding that, after a year in captivity, he is back home with his family.
Our big priority is around the horrific stories of Ukrainian children who were forcefully moved to Russia. This is part of the genocide, crimes against children.
For those who moved abroad, many of them want to come back home and many of them are coming back home. As Ukraine is getting more air defence, and the more we are able to protect and adjust our infrastructure to this reality, the more that people want to come back home. These are families. Men are fighting on the front line, and women with children go outside of the country. We see this wave of Ukrainians coming back, especially from European countries. It’s now much easier and cheaper to return home or to go back and forth. There were lines at the border over Easter. For 10 to 15 hours, people were waiting at the line in their cars to come back home.
Of course, the biggest issue after the war is the recovery and the ability for people to find decent jobs in Ukraine as part of the rebuilding of the country. That will be an important anchor for people returning home. Also, having built strong ties with Canada and having gained more experience in terms of working in Western countries will be of great benefit and will help to build even closer ties between our countries.
Senator Richards: Thank you again, ambassador.
Crimea has been held now for a number of years by Russia. Will there be lasting peace if Crimea is still being contested? Can there be any peace if Crimea is still being contested? Will this go on until Crimea is back in the purview of the Ukrainian people?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you.
The situation in Crimea since 2014, but even much longer, was about Russia’s strategic interest to try to present the narrative that Crimea was part of Russia and was then transferred to Ukraine. Russia tries to pursue the narrative that they have some rights to Crimea. Historically, and by international law, this is Russian manipulation and is not true.
Even before Ukraine gained independence, there was already well-known Russian aggression against the Indigenous people of Crimea, Crimean Tatars, who were forcefully deported from Crimea. A lot of Russians were resettled to live in Crimea.
There was another Russian narrative that because of the Russian-speaking population of Crimea, Crimea is Russian. It’s not true. Today on the battlefield on the front line, people speaking more than 40 languages are fighting for Ukraine and our territorial integrity.
As for what Russia is now doing in Crimea, it’s imprisoning especially Indigenous people, the Crimean Tatars and activists who are speaking out against Russia. They are forcefully conscripting them to fight against Ukraine. They are trying to deport Ukrainian children from Crimea and settle more Russian population there.
But if we’re looking at the history, in 1991, when all Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian independence, it was also people living in Crimea who, in a big majority, supported Ukrainian independence. Even in the 2013 elections, none of the pro‑Russian parties won any significant vote in Crimea. Crimea is a part of our sovereign territory, and it is important to the restoration of the sovereign borders to include Crimea.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Your Excellency, since the Black Sea Grain Initiative was signed, 25 million tonnes of grain and foodstuffs have been shipped to 45 countries. The agreement was recently extended at the eleventh hour, but only for 120 days.
Are you optimistic about the agreement’s extension next time around? What can Canada do to help bring about a long-term agreement, a lasting initiative?
[English]
Ms. Kovaliv: Indeed. Russia started last spring to use food as a weapon. It was energy, physical weapons, nuclear weapons, but food as a weapon, and we all faced record-high prices for food, which caused inflation in many countries. Even more dangerous, it caused huge suffering for many people in the low-income countries in which food is a basic essential need they still don’t have.
As Ukraine, as a country that survived the famine in 1932-33, we all realize what it is when people are dying of starvation. Ukraine, from the very first day, was the biggest advocate for the grain initiative. Since the grain initiative started, 28 million pounds of Ukrainian food was exported by sea.
What happened now? Since April 10, Russia started another attempt to sabotage inspection of the ships that are coming to the Black Sea ports of Ukraine to get the grain and to export it. Ukraine is open, ready and more than interested that this initiative will be renewed for the next 120 days and even longer, because we understand that we have the grain in stock, that it is needed and should be exported to the global market, and the new harvest will be coming and that will need to be exported as well.
We also launched Grain from Ukraine initiative, and we are grateful for Canada’s support of this initiative. This initiative includes the 170,000 tonnes of wheat that was delivered free of charge to Somalia, Yemen, Ethiopia and Kenya, the countries who are suffering from a lack of food. Ukraine, with the support of Canada, the U.K., Japan, the U.S., Korea, Qatar and EU countries was able to deliver Ukrainian grain to those countries that most needed the food.
We are working, and we are committed to restore, and it’s as usual it’s on the Russian side. We continue to cooperate with UN and with Turkey on the efforts to prolong the grain initiative.
Senator MacDonald: I want to look at a different part of the country that we don’t talk about much, Transnistria. There’s a separatist enclave there in Moldova close to the port of Odesa. I wonder if you could give us the background. What is the source of this separatism near Odesa? How much is it under the control of the government of Ukraine, and do they threaten the control of the port?
Ms. Kovaliv: As of now, we don’t feel the threat there, but, of course, like any of the grey zone, it is still the grey zone. But in terms of protection, especially on the sea coast, for us, air defence systems are important. As we saw last summer, there were attacks on the seaport, including destruction of the grain storage elevators in the seaports and, of course, the weapons help us to protect the sea coast. That’s the biggest part of Ukraine’s security in that region.
Senator MacDonald: Who is providing them? I assume that the Russians are providing them with weaponry.
Ms. Kovaliv: There was a lot of Russian presence there, for many years, decades. But as I’ve told you, as of today, we don’t see rising security threats in that region.
Frankly speaking, when we see on the front lines that Russia is trying to bring these old things that had been used in the Second World War to the eastern regions of Ukraine, these old T-model tanks, it is a clear sign that Russia is decreasing their capability in defence. It is not in a position even to be able to somehow advance on the battlefield in the eastern part of Ukraine.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have over the past few years watched with some admiration as to how your government has been handling itself on social media and countering disinformation campaigns coming from the Russian Federation. One large social media platform has been under new management for a couple months. Are you worried or is your government worried at all as to how the continued back and forth on disinformation is being handled globally? Do you have specific strategies to that end?
Ms. Kovaliv: That’s a hard question, frankly, to each of us. Disinformation is a very dangerous weapon. You don’t see it or feel it. It’s not a tank. It’s not a missile that can hit and you see the result. Whether there is an easy solution on how to deal with this disinformation, unfortunately, probably if I were in that position to give a straightforward answer, that would be easy for all of us.
Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day, and it is important to recognize how important the free press is and how important the work of journalists is, including those who are working in Ukraine and reporting from Ukraine. It was the very first day Ukraine opened the doors to journalists. This is part of the story. We need to support journalists. We need to support the professional ability to report and fact check proficiently based on the ethics codes. Social media cannot replace real, checked information.
The second thing is education, and it is education of each of us, starting in the schools. It is about being hygienic on how we consume information, being able to understand that we all need to do fact checking and not to be too emotional.
We are actively communicating, but not only as a government. It is all Ukrainian society. If you see people on Twitter from Ukraine, it is not even government policy. The people are showing their resilience as part of this information war.
Unfortunately, there is not a single quick and easy answer to that, but that is worth our attention.
The Chair: I happen to think your answer was very good. Thank you, ambassador.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for joining us today and for your candour and your comments. We all believe you are doing a great job as the representative for Ukraine in our country. I dare say we will want to have you back fairly soon with us.
(The committee adjourned.)