THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 29, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] for its study on foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
[English]
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, especially our interpreters who need their earpieces to work. If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from microphones at all times, and when you’re not using your earpiece, put it in the little circle face down on the sticker on the table. I thank you all for your cooperation.
[Translation]
I now wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Downe: Senator Percy Downe, Charlottetown.
Senator Kutcher: Senator Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Welcome back. Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Patterson: Welcome. Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
The Chair: I also want to note that joining us today — they have introduced themselves but they are guests at the committee — are Senator Patterson of Ontario, Senator Kutcher of Nova Scotia and Senator Al Zaibak of Ontario.
Senators, we welcome you all as well as those who are watching us across the country on Senate ParlVU.
Colleagues, today, we are meeting under our general order of reference for an update on the situation in Ukraine. For our first panel, we are very honoured to welcome Her Excellency Yuliya Kovaliv, Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada.
Ambassador, welcome. You are no stranger to this committee. It’s great to have you with us today. Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers in the usual way, I would ask everyone present to please mute notifications on your electronic devices.
Ambassador, you have the floor.
Her Excellency Yuliya Kovaliv, Ambassador, Embassy of Ukraine to Canada, as an individual: Dear Senator Boehm, honourable members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity for me to brief you today on the situation in Ukraine and for your invitation.
First of all, I would like to extend the invitation from the members of the Parliament of Ukraine for you all to visit Ukraine and to have an opportunity also to witness the consequences of the Russian barbaric war against Ukraine with your own eyes.
Before coming to Ukraine — we sincerely will be waiting to host you in Kyiv and other cities of the country — let me brief you on the situation in Ukraine now.
Just recently, the small town of Vovchansk, which is five kilometres from the Russian border, has become a key target of Russia’s new offensive as it launched its attempts on May 10 to break through the Kharkiv region. However, the enemy is completely bogged down in the streets of the small community and has suffered high losses. In fact, Russia, once again, failed to achieve its goal of stretching our forces thin and thus weakening Ukraine on the long — over 1,500 kilometres of the front lines.
At the same time, Russia continues to build a new grouping of troops near the border of Ukraine, 90 kilometres northwest of Kharkiv.
Russia has an advantage in the air and in manpower, but the losses of Russia are much higher. According to our general staff of the Ukraine Armed Forces, as of yesterday, Russia faces losses of over 502,000 soldiers. Ukraine needs parity with Russia in weapons and ammunition. It has been the Ukrainian call for months, and we are extremely grateful to the Government of Canada for joining the Czech initiative to help supply Ukraine with ammunition.
Russians drop guided aerial bombs — that’s another challenge for our soldiers on the front line — at a rate of around 130 per day, and each of them weighs up to 1.5 tonnes and is capable of destroying everything they hit. That is where Kharkiv is facing significant challenges. Since the beginning of this year, Russia used over 1,200 missiles of different types — including aeroballistic missiles — more than 1,500 Shahed drones and over 10,000 guided aerial bombs. The total explosive power of combined air strikes on Ukraine for this period exceeds 9 kilotons. Only 3% of Russian missiles, drones and guided aerial bombs hit military targets — 97% hit civilian infrastructure.
As a Russian neighbour, you need to realize that Russia increases its own military production. Russia’s military spending in 2024 is planned to reach over $154 billion U.S., which is 60% higher than last year and more than three times higher than back in 2021. This represents around 7% of its GDP and over 40% of all Russian government spending.
Moscow also relies on the support of its allies. Russia has taken all the armour from Belarus and is using artillery shells and ballistic missiles from North Korea as well as Iranian drones. North Korea has already supplied Russia with over 1.5 million artillery rounds and up to 50 North Korean-made ballistic missiles.
Russia continues to shell civilian infrastructure. On May 23 and May 25 — less than a week ago — Russia used bombs and missiles to hit civilian infrastructure, including the printing house in Kharkiv, killing 7 people and injuring 21. Just after that, a construction supermarket, where the citizens were shopping with their families, was attacked by the guided aerial bombs. There, 19 people died and 44 were injured. It is a deliberate attack against civilians. Russian terrorists are taking advantage of the fact that Ukraine still lacks sufficient air defence to protect its cities and critical infrastructure, and we are very grateful to Canada and Minister Blair for the decision to join the German initiative to provide Ukraine with air defence and for Canada committing with Germany to provide Ukraine with missiles for air defence. That is crucially important for us to be able to protect cities and civilians.
The way we see the battle near Kharkiv — Kharkiv is approximately 70 kilometres from the Russian border — Russia is continuing to build troops around that region. It’s extremely important for us to be able to defend ourselves, including to destroy the supply chains. There shouldn’t be any restriction on the usage of weapons that Ukraine has been provided with, and we welcome Canada’s position on it. We need the stable and timely supply of all types of weapons and ammunition to ensure that Ukraine can defeat Russia and the war in Europe does not spread to the other countries.
Today, Ukraine is a growing European defence industry powerhouse with new technology booming. The Ukraine defence industry is open to cooperation in different fields such as joint ventures, investments and the localization of production. If damaged military equipment can be repaired more quickly in Ukraine rather than abroad, we all need to create the appropriate capabilities. Just yesterday, we had over 200 participants from both the Canadian and Ukrainian defence industries in the first Canada-Ukraine industry collaboration round table here in Ottawa. Based on the recently signed security cooperation agreement between Ukraine and Canada, together we are on the way to building strong industrial cooperation that will benefit both Canadian and Ukrainian security and economics.
Ukraine, Europe and the whole world need peace, but we all need just peace. Since 2014, more than 200 rounds of different kinds of negotiations with Russia have taken place, including in the Normandy format. Ceasefire agreements have been reached more than 10 times, but let’s also face the truth. The talks were perceived by the Kremlin as a weakness, and the time for negotiations was used by Russia to prepare for the next, more brutal aggression that we all faced from February 24, 2022.
The peace formula represented by President Zelenskyy at the G20 meeting in Indonesia remains the only realistic and comprehensive plan to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and to guarantee security and justice for the entire international community. Ten points of this peace formula are based on international law and principles, and almost all of them in one way or another have been already supported by relevant United Nations resolutions, including one adopted in February 2023 by 141 votes.
On June 15 and 16 in Switzerland, the first global peace summit with the heads of states will be held. The summit will bring together leaders from all the continents who respect international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. More than 90 countries have already confirmed their participation, and we are grateful to Canada and the Prime Minister for confirming Canada’s participation in the peace summit.
Thank you, and I will be ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, ambassador.
Colleagues, allow me to just make a precision, and that is that Senator Patterson is here not as an observer but as a full participant, replacing Senator Greene, who is not with us today.
[Translation]
Esteemed colleagues, I’d like to specify that you each have four minutes at the most for the first round, questions and answers included.
[English]
Therefore, I would encourage you to make your questions as concise as possible and your preambles short so we can draw the most information we can from our distinguished guest.
Senator MacDonald: Your Excellency, it’s great to see you again.
Russia has been increasingly using complex tactics, such as sabotage and cyberattacks. Can you tell us what specific measures Ukraine is taking to defend itself against these threats?
In addition, how can Canada or the European allies support Ukraine in enhancing their defence capabilities in coordination to effectively counter these multi-faceted cyberattacks?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you.
Indeed, Ukraine is the first country to face a full-scale cyberwar unleashed by Russia, and the scale of Russian cyberoperations against Ukraine is steadily increasing. Ukraine’s security service neutralized almost 10,000 cyberattacks on state institutions, services and the energy system.
It’s not only direct cyber-threats. We are also facing information operations, both inside Ukraine and among Western allies, to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, attack all the telecommunication systems and deprive citizens of access to mobile communication and internet. As well, the hybrid war is spreading beyond the borders with the disinformation campaigns. We are grateful to Canada for supporting us in the fight against disinformation.
In terms of cybersecurity and the networks, there are also part of the security agreement that was signed. It covers a lot of areas, and as we already have the agreement, we are currently very interested in working on building stronger partnerships between our agencies who work with cybersecurity.
We believe it’s helpful not only for us in Ukraine, but we can also share the knowledge about what we are facing and what instruments Russia is using in terms of the cyberattacks. That will help our partners to increase their cybersecurity systems to be able to address these attacks by the adversaries.
Among those needs are the technological cooperation, some equipment that our services still need to increase their capacities, and that is work between the relative agencies.
Senator MacDonald: Russia has had some sabotaging efforts targeting your military supply chains from Europe to Ukraine. What specific disruptions have you observed that have affected Ukraine’s defence capabilities from these interactions?
Ms. Kovaliv: I can speak about what Russia is trying to do specifically in the territory of Ukraine, that is, targeting the critical infrastructure. If we look at the energy sector, that is the core both for civilians and the military. We need electricity for everything, including for our defence forces and our defence production.
At the beginning of March of this year, there was a deliberate attack on the terminal power plants and the hydro power plants. Russia destroyed 80% of all of the terminal power generation in Ukraine. As we are speaking now, during the last two weeks, we have cut-offs of electricity throughout the country, both for the people and the industries. Of course, it decreases our ability in terms of the humanitarian situation and the Ukrainian defence industry, logistics and other things.
We will see a huge challenge next winter because we don’t have much time for repair. Support to repair the energy infrastructure is hugely important for us, as we have only a few months ahead. We are very grateful that Minister Wilkinson and Ukrainian Minister of Energy Galushchenko jointly reached out to all of the provinces and Canadian industry with their requests to step in and help.
We are grateful to those Canadian companies during the last year who were supporting the Ukrainian companies with equipment. Of course, we would welcome support in the quick rebuilding of energy infrastructure. That is crucial. Plus, Russia is hitting the railways, which is one of the key connections to deliver different types of goods.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much, Your Excellency, for being here and thank you for your tireless work in Canada. It’s very much appreciated. You certainly get your message out strong and clear, and I think it helps Canadians better understand why we need to support Ukraine, so thank you for that.
I wonder if you would talk a little about the impact of the American aid package that was finally approved. I know, like many people, you were probably holding your breath waiting for that vote. What does it mean for Ukraine, and what effect will it have going forward?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. Indeed, that is a very important package in terms of its size and the capabilities of the U.S. defence sector to provide us with needed weapons. On the other hand, we saw the impact of the delay in the support, specifically, those months when we were waiting during the delay. Unfortunately, there was a need for the tough decision to withdraw Ukrainian troops from Avdiivka just to save the lives of our soldiers. Contrary to Russia, the most precious thing we have is the lives of our soldiers.
There was a period of time when, on parts of the front line, Russia exceeded us in artillery 11 times. Just for your understanding, we need at least 6,000 artillery shells per day. Many companies, including those in Canada, can produce, for example, 5, 6, even 20,000 per month. This is something like four days.
The biggest challenge we have is the defence sector ramping up. Just today I was at CANSEC, the big defence industry conference here in Ottawa, and it has a very accurate slogan: “Move at the speed of life,” with a photo of Ukrainian women from the front line in uniform. This speed is crucially needed. It’s not only for the governments to take decisions but also closely working with the industries to enhance them to increase production. Without that, we see what Russia is doing. They are significantly increasing production of missiles, artillery and armoured vehicles, and they are, unfortunately, doing it much quicker than all of the Western allies.
That is the challenge.
Senator Boniface: Just as a follow-on, from the Russian side, you mentioned supplies being supplied by North Korea. Do you have information on who else, besides what Russia is doing at home, is supplying?
Ms. Kovaliv: Iran and North Korea — we have clear evidence of their supply. Unfortunately, we have clear evidence that Russia still uses a huge amount of the spare parts in its weapons produced in the Western countries, and this is another thing that we all need to tirelessly work on to deprive Russia.
The reality is the Russian war machine and defence sector cannot live without Western spare parts. That is their weakness, but that is also the problem for all of us.
Still, I am getting the report — it’s so thick — in terms of what we found in only those that we intercepted. But I need to acknowledge that in the last report for the first quarter of 2024, there was no Canadian spare parts there, and thank you for that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for everything you do and for coming back here to be with us today. It’s so important and appreciated.
I will go back to November. Before your appearance, on the same day that you were here, we had Andriy Kostin, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, appear before us. In that meeting, he stressed the importance of the International Criminal Court, or ICC, in prosecuting Putin and his minister for war crimes.
I know there are some out there who are suggesting an international tribunal outside of the ICC framework be used to prosecute criminal leaders for their acts of aggression. I’m wondering how you think we can best go after these perpetrators legally for what they have done in Ukraine.
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. Indeed, justice is one of the important things not only for Ukrainians and all the victims of the war but also to prevent other dictators from waging war and war crimes.
We continue to work closely with our partners to establish the core group that is working on the legal mechanism for the international tribunal for the crime of aggression.
There are two challenges, and it’s on both the leadership side and the legal side. One is that we need to establish the instrument that will be able to deal with the so-called “troika” — the top leaders of the state — because we all understand that, first of all, it’s Putin who made this decision to invade Ukraine, and we need to find the mechanism so that he will be brought to justice as well as the top Russian leaders.
We are also the first country who investigated war crimes related to the environment. This is the first time in history that we are investigating cases where Russia is destroying the environment and causing billions of dollars of damage, and many of those are not restorable.
We all remember Russia blowing up the Nova Kakhovka water dam back in 2023. We see the explosives and the massive contamination of Ukrainian land, including agriland with mines. We see the consequences of all of the ammunition for the land and for the air. This is also part of the war crimes that we are investigating, and I think Ukraine will set the stage with the international criminal process for the crimes of ecocide.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
To add to that one little piece there, we’ve seen, heard and read that the ICC has certainly been questioned in recent weeks by Western powers and even some folks in Canada and North America. Are you concerned at all that the integrity of the ICC — because of it being questioned and challenged — could damage its ability to prosecute Russian leadership for the war crimes they have committed in this conflict? Do you see that as a big issue now or a distraction?
The Chair: A short answer please, ambassador.
Ms. Kovaliv: We are working on the instrument of the special tribunal, and this is the core thing that we — and for the countries who are participating in the core group — need to proceed.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much for being back with us and for being so steadfast. It must be very difficult. You have our support. I think you feel that.
We have all been reading about the upcoming June peace summit, and that is exciting to hear about. It brings hope. I believe you said there are 90 countries that have already committed. That show of solidarity alone is worth a lot. That, in itself, is already a big accomplishment, even before the summit has started.
I am curious about what you see happening at that summit and what the main goals are for the summit. In terms of the participants in the summit, is there a good geographic representation? For instance, are there representatives from the continent of Africa coming to that? Could you speak to that?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you.
Indeed, there are over 90 countries who have already confirmed their participation. We also need to realize that Russia is putting in a huge effort to damage the summit itself because the summit, with a good representation of countries across all of the continent, including countries from the Global South, is, of course, a threat for the Russian regime. They are putting in a lot of effort — we know a lot about this effort — to try to persuade and push on many of the countries, even sometimes to blackmail these countries, to avoid their participation in the peace summit. The first inauguration of the peace summit will discuss the broader peace formula and the basis for peace.
I want to stress what is important for us, that this peace needs to be just and long-lasting; otherwise, we will go back to the history from 2014, which I quoted. We had different negotiations. We had ceasefires. Unfortunately, it led only to greater aggression.
One of the topics that we will discuss is the humanitarian issues, including the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children, including prisoners of war and including many civilians who have been forcefully deported to Russia.
I would like to acknowledge and thank Canada for its leadership role in coordinating with Ukraine the coordination of returning Ukrainian children and the very important role that Qatar is playing helping us to bring back Ukrainian children. We have approximately 600 children who have already been brought back to Ukraine. We are still talking about 19,000 cases that we have of children being deported, so we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Senator Coyle: What about China and the summit? Could you speak about China either directly or indirectly in terms of influencing others?
Ms. Kovaliv: We also issued the invitations for approximately 160 delegations to participate in the summit. Of course, we welcome China’s participation in the summit.
I can’t say now, because I don’t have with me the information of particular countries, whether China is among those 90 who have already confirmed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Ambassador, I just got back from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Bulgaria. I would really like you to reinforce a few points that hit home to me.
We had an address by President Zelenskyy by video, very specifically in terms of all these donated munitions and how they come with conditions as to how they can be used, et cetera.
You mentioned in your statement that the Russians are based five kilometres from little villages outside of Kharkiv and places like that. It is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back, but I would like to say it is like fighting with two hands tied behind your back. Canadians probably don’t understand what it is like to be under fire when you cannot defend yourself. I would like you, please, to just reinforce that.
Before you get there, I would like to thank Ukraine for the incredible restraint it must take to watch those missiles coming in which are destroying your lives and killing people but not firing back because you were obeying the rules of your agreement. That’s the first part.
Secondly, the question is: Can you help us truly understand what it means to be under those conditions? What can Canada do to help encourage allies who are donating munitions to allow Ukraine to use them to hit legitimate military targets outside of the country?
Thank you.
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you.
Indeed, especially now when Russia was trying to do the offensive in the north in the Kharkiv region, and just so you understand, Kharkiv is a city of 1.5 million. It is close to the population of Calgary, for example. Previously, it was a huge centre of education. There were a lot of universities and a technological centre. Historically, it is a very beautiful city, which is every day being attacked and being destroyed.
Russia wants to achieve the demoralization of people, have more people leaving the city and moving from the city to depopulate the region, demoralizing further and then trying to move more offensives.
I was talking about Vovchansk, the small city which was around the news when Russian troops were coming there. This small town, before the war, has the border crossing with Russia, seven kilometres from the physical border. In order not only to protect but to legitimately destroy Russian logistic chains and the Russian supply of the weapons to those soldiers on the front lines, we need to be able to target that; otherwise, they can build up enormous troops. They can send enormous support with weapons, with fuel and whatever they need, and we will be forced only to stay and wait and only protect our territory, which will be harder and harder.
These restrictions to use the weapons to protect our sovereign borders, including, if that’s needed, to destroy Russian supply chains, those need to be lifted. We have different positions with the different partners. Many of them are saying that these are legitimate goals, which Ukraine can use the weapons, but not all. I think we all together need to put an effort, both from the diplomatic side and the military side, to explain that it will increase the losses of Ukrainians. It will increase the demand of the weapons to protect if we won’t be able to destroy the logistic chains Russia is building inside their territory.
The key goal of Ukraine is only to protect our sovereign borders.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you once again, Your Excellency, for being here.
Russia’s recent removal of over 20 border buoys from the Narva River along the Estonia-Russia border has raised significant concerns amongst Baltic and NATO countries. This act was viewed as part of a border pattern of hybrid actions and provocations by Russia in the region.
The EU has condemned these actions and demanded an explanation and the immediate return of the buoys.
Given Russia’s recent provocation in that region, how concerned are you, from the Ukrainian perspective, of threats to regional stability? What measures would you recommend Canada and other NATO allies take in these situations? Because this appears to create vulnerability amongst your neighbouring states.
Ms. Kovaliv: First of all, in order to decrease vulnerability of our neighbouring states, give us more weapons. We will fight with Russia; they will continue to be busy with us. That’s very straightforward.
But in a broader sense, you need to realize that Russia will continue to do it. It is the hybrid warfare that Russia is trying to do in order to sow fear, frustration and concerns among the partners because there always will be those who will be more afraid, saying, “Okay, we’re coming down. We are afraid.” This we saw from the start of the full-scale invasion.
I was here with the committee in the Senate. I was participating in the committee hearings in the House. There were questions about nuclear weapons. There were other questions about Russia increasing their manpower to the front line and the other stuff. These are the tactics that we have all seen Russia doing over the two years. Really, we saw it even back in 2014. First of all, we need to be sober in understanding that this is the hybrid war.
What is Russia trying to do? Russia is trying to impose on our partners some red lines. If we look over the history of these two and a half years, these red lines have been steadily moved. Once, probably in May 2022, sending NATO weapons to Ukraine was considered the red line for many of our partners. Sending the fighter jets, sending the Leopard tanks, sending the long-range missiles — these were the red lines.
Let’s be clear that we all, you all — not you personally, but the partners — drew these lines yourselves. We are here with Ukraine waiting for fighter jets, using Leopard tanks efficiently, long-range missiles. Russia is trying to disunite and to blackmail, and this is another attempt, but we need to be steadfast in understanding it and in our actions. Because if that won’t be the case, Russia will continue.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome back, Your Excellency. It’s always nice to have you here. I’d like to return to my colleague Senator Coyle’s question, but take a different perspective on representation at the summit you spoke of.
It would appear that Brazil and China have not yet confirmed their attendance because they would like all countries to be present, including the other parties.
In their press release last week, they called for the need to include both Ukraine and Russia in all peace summits.
First, can you tell us what you think of such a request? Do you think it’s reasonable — and even desirable — to include all stakeholders at this stage?
[English]
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. As I’ve said, we sent out the invitation to 160 countries, including China and Brazil. I don’t have, as of now, the information or the list of countries that have made their decisions in terms of participation. Meanwhile, we have confirmation of countries from all of the continents, including Latin America, African countries and Middle East countries.
In terms of the report, I can’t comment because I haven’t frankly seen it, but if it comes to the question of Russia being present — no. At the first integration summit, there is no place for Russia, except for destabilizing it. And, probably, if you have been watching any of the UN Security Council meetings, you will have seen how Russia is desperately lying about what they are doing, and how the Russian media is saying there is no war. For those of you who saw the documentary 20 Days in Mariupol, which received the first Oscar for Ukraine this year, there was a specific quote from the Russian representative in the UN and other Russian media that those were actors in Mariupol in a maternity house, the women with small babies, newly born, some of whom had been killed, that there was no film.
I don’t think that each of you want to hear these lies. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you for your response. When the conflict began, several countries tried to play the role of mediator. These include Turkey’s efforts, as well as Chinese and African initiatives. In your opinion, could mediation carried out through Switzerland be fruitful?
[English]
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. First of all, I would like to reflect that it’s a war. It’s not a conflict. We haven’t started it. It all happened in the early morning of February 24, 2022, when Russian missiles hit Ukrainian cities. We were never looking for this war, so it is not a conflict. There are no two parties. There is Russia, who barbarically invaded a sovereign country, first in 2014 when Russia’s so-called “little green men” occupied Crimea, and then, one morning, they precisely hit missiles throughout all of the country. Many people have died and are dying every day, and it is not about us starting it. It’s a war.
In terms of the mediators, we don’t want to have specific mediation. The key thing was the peace formula. There is nothing more than the UN Charter. If we all together want to live in a rule-based order, as the UN put it, post-Second World War, this is the crucial part of the peace formula. That’s why we invited 160 countries to sit together, not through a back door but looking in each other’s eyes and asking — frankly, each of us — do we want to pursue this rule-based order that kept all of us safe or not?
This is the basic stuff. No one should challenge the sovereign borders of a country, having them redrawn by one that has more military power. No one could say that the civilian nuclear objects — including Zaporizhzhia, six gigawatts, the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe — can be taken hostage, as Russia has, for two years. It’s a huge risk. Nobody knows what could happen there. The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is raising concerns more and more. Food security — food cannot be the weapon. Energy cannot be the weapon. Children cannot be the victims of the war. Nineteen thousand children have been forcefully deported. These are the consequences of Putin’s barbarism.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador. We’re going to move on.
Senator Downe: Ambassador, when I speak to Ukrainian members of Parliament, they tell me that many countries, including Canada, are reluctant to give military material that’s about to be decommissioned. For example, Canada has light armoured vehicles, LAV-II model and LAV-III, in storage because we are anticipating new vehicles — vehicles that are actually made in Canada. Have you requested any of this additional military equipment from Canada and have you not received it?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. Yes. On a constant basis, we are saying that if there is anything that will be decommissioned today or in two or three years, we will make good use of it.
We are hearing arguments that some of it is in bad shape, but our defence industry has already found a way to deal with this. Even our partners are pleasantly surprised at how quickly we can repair the weapons that have been donated to us.
Today, Ukraine has a variety of weapons. I don’t think any other NATO country has such a huge amount of different weapons, different types of tanks and armoured vehicles — I can name them for you if you want.
We are learning to repair quickly. We have limited resources, so we are asking the Department of National Defence, or DND, if there is anything that is to be decommissioned — even if you think it’s in bad shape for your Canadian soldiers — we are ready to take it to repair because the choices we have are either the people who don’t have anything on the front line can be killed or we can repair this equipment and use it for a really good purpose. Thank you.
Senator Downe: In addition to decommissioned military equipment, we also have demining capacity unlikely to be used in Canada at any time in the future, subject to the Russians not coming into the Arctic. Have you requested that demining equipment? Has it been delivered or denied?
Ms. Kovaliv: There are two specific streams. One is humanitarian demining. We are really grateful to Canada for helping us with the demining equipment that is already being used in Ukraine to clean the fields, especially the big agriculture fields.
In terms of the military demining, yes, we have been asking about the demining equipment for the military. We hope for a positive solution.
Senator Kutcher: [Ukrainian spoken]
I want to thank you for highlighting the Russian disinformation. It percolates everything, including parliamentarians, who don’t seem to understand what the issues are in Ukraine. It reminds me of a comment that my friend Bob Rae made when he said, “You can always tell when Lavrov is lying because his lips are moving.” I think that’s something for us to keep in mind.
I notice that Macron, again this week, has said that he will support neutralizing military sites in Russia that are firing on Ukraine. Olaf Scholz was not so committal. What has Canada told you that we would support? Would Canada support that?
Ms. Kovaliv: Can you please repeat that?
Senator Kutcher: Would Canada publicly support being able to use donated weapons to neutralize military sites within Russia that are firing on Ukraine?
Ms. Kovaliv: We haven’t heard about the restrictions. Canada has been donating to us mostly armoured vehicles and the ammunition that is being used by our soldiers in our territory.
Senator Kutcher: Slightly changing to nuclear plants, Ukraine has five nuclear plants under Russian control. Chornobyl is still trying to deal with spent nuclear fuel being controlled so it requires constant monitoring. That leaves three other nuclear plants in Ukraine. None of them have been targeted yet.
What plans does Ukraine have to specifically protect these plants? Are there exigency plans in place in case a disaster in Zaporizhzhia occurs?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you for the questions. With Zaporizhzhia, there are a lot of issues, including the constant shelling of the electricity grid that connects Zaporizhzhia with the grid. It’s important not only to get the electricity from the facility but also to have the equipment in the facility working; that is, the cooling of the water and all the other things technologically within the power station.
When Russia is shelling it, there have already been several cases when there was no electrical supply for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, so it was working by using the reserve generators, which, from the standpoint of security, is a big threat.
What is Ukraine and our grid operator doing? We are putting all efforts within hours to repair and try to restore these connections because we understand. We are the country who lived through the horror of Chornobyl. We understand how important nuclear security is and how important the regulation is.
Today, Ukraine is also a member of the International Energy Agency, or IEA, council where we also contribute by sharing our experience about what is happening there. We are grateful for Canada who helped us when we kicked Russian troops from Chornobyl and provided us with some needed equipment to secure the stability of the facility in Chornobyl.
If we are talking about the security of the other nuclear facilities — and Ukraine relies significantly on nuclear power, as does Canada — 50% of our electricity is gone from nuclear, and now even more as the Chornobyl power plants have been destroyed. There is no solution other than air defence. None of the other things can reasonably protect the huge nuclear blocks.
You all know how the nuclear facility looks. It’s huge. That’s why Ukraine has been asking for at least seven Patriot missiles from the partners because these are the only systems that are able to intercept ballistic missiles. That is the minimum we need to protect the sky. That is the urgent need. We are grateful for Germany, who made a commitment; for other countries who are working on it but not announcing; and for Canada, who stepped in to support financially by buying and providing missile-to-air defence systems.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Your Excellency, for your presentation and for answering these important questions.
Can you name a specific weapon that Ukraine needs that can be provided by Canada in order to help bring an end to this war?
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. How many minutes do I have, senator?
Senator Al Zaibak: A single one.
The Chair: Not many.
Senator Al Zaibak: Name just one critical weapon that Canada has and Ukraine doesn’t have or has been asking for.
Ms. Kovaliv: There is not one, but ammunition, missiles for air defence and armoured vehicles are the three top priorities. We understand that’s also what Canada can produce. Canada has an extraordinary defence sector industry, including a very technological one. I just visited a few of the facilities that produce the equipment that will be sent to Ukraine. I was very impressed with the people who shared — it’s not happy, but they told me that they work with purpose because they understand that what they are doing serves a big purpose. Thank you.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. Can you name any kind of help that Canada can provide in order to bring both sides to the negotiation table?
Ms. Kovaliv: Weapons.
Senator Al Zaibak: Weapons. All right.
Ms. Kovaliv: Yes, because you need to understand that Russia continues to wage war. They are significantly increasing their defence industry. The key goal that Putin had was back in 2014 when they occupied Ukraine. It is still this goal, and if he will succeed in Ukraine — which will never happen because Ukraine will not allow it — Ukraine won’t be the last one.
We have talked about the Baltic countries. Poland is next. This is the NATO border.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We were going to look at a second round, but the chair also wants to ask a question. I’ll use my privilege and ask my question, and we won’t have a round two because we are getting to the end of our time.
Ambassador, it’s quite interesting everything that you have said. Of course, the peace summit that is coming up will be right after the G7 summit in Italy. The G7 countries have been working very closely together over the past few years coordinating — foreign ministers have met, defence ministers have met and they have set up various mechanisms. No doubt, the leaders will have a big discussion on Ukraine at the summit in Italy. They will then find themselves going to a larger venue with more participants, and that creates a bit of a different dynamic because the G7 may have taken some decisions together.
Do you see some big challenges in this? You’re also inviting countries from the Global South who might be suspicious of the G7 setting an agenda or pushing views. This will test diplomacy on all fronts, but I’m wondering in your closing comment to us, whether you can give us an idea of what would be good and realistic prospects for Ukraine.
Ms. Kovaliv: Thank you. Ukraine, together with many other countries, is working with different countries on the peace formula and peace summit, both G7 countries and countries from the Global South, which all sit around the table. We had several rounds of meetings on the level of national security advisers with the participation of countries from the Global South. There was a big meeting in Davos, Switzerland, at the beginning of January. There was a big meeting on the level of national security advisers in Malta, with over 70 countries participating at that time.
We are working with the countries from the Middle East, the Global South, the African continent, Latin America and many of them, explaining why big and small countries with strong military power and countries that do not have much military capacity, economically developed and those who are developing, can have an impact. The one thing that puts all these countries peacefully living together and being able to serve its people is through the rules.
If there is one bully in the room, which is Russia, they will try to challenge this order. It’s not only an issue for Ukraine and Ukrainians — this can repeat in many other places if it won’t be stopped.
The Chair: Thank you very much, ambassador. On behalf of the committee, we, of course, always appreciate when you come to speak to us. This is, unfortunately, a recurring thematic item that we have in this committee, but your information has been very useful to us as a committee and to those who may have been watching this particular meeting. We thank you very much. No doubt, we will want to have you back again, and we appreciate your time.
We will now proceed to our second panel. I want to acknowledge that Senator Woo of British Columbia has joined us as well.
We’re pleased to welcome, from Global Affairs Canada, Kati Csaba, Executive Director, Ukraine Bureau; and Alison Grant, Director General, International Security Policy Bureau. They are no strangers to this committee, so welcome again. We look forward to hearing both your opening statements and then, of course, our question-and-answer period. Ms. Csaba, the floor is yours.
Kati Csaba, Executive Director, Ukraine Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to discuss Canada’s support to Ukraine. My colleague Alison Grant, Director General of the International Security Policy Bureau, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on the situation on the ground and foreshadow what is to come in the months ahead.
[Translation]
It’s been more than 27 months since Russia unleashed its war of aggression on Ukraine. With each passing day, the number of civilians killed or wounded, including children, continues to rise. In recent months, Russian forces have increased the frequency of their massive airstrikes on Ukraine’s vital energy infrastructure, and have recently concentrated their assaults on northern Kharkiv. Last Saturday’s attack on a supermarket in Kharkiv killed at least 18 people and wounded more than 40 others. This is yet another attack on a civilian area and a continuation of Russia’s brutal war tactics far beyond the front line.
The courageous and resilient Ukrainian people continue to fight with extraordinary bravery for their country, their communities, their families and their freedom. Russia hopes that this latest offensive will force Ukraine to cede territory, and that any Russian advances will undermine support for Ukraine. Ukraine’s resistance has slowed Russia’s advances, but they need our immediate support.
[English]
Since the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Canada has stood firmly with Ukraine, condemning the unjustifiable and illegal aggression that threatens international law and global security. Our support has been unwavering, encompassing military, financial and other assistance. To date, since February 2022, Canada has committed over $14 billion in multi-faceted support to Ukraine. That includes $4 billion in military assistance, $7.4 billion in financial support, over $403 million in development assistance, $352.5 million in humanitarian assistance and over $198 million in security and stabilization assistance.
We are also working closely with our partners and allies across multilateral forums, including the G7, G20, the UN, NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE, to reinforce support for Ukraine in its path to peace and recovery. In particular, I would like to draw the committee’s attention to Canada’s engagement in the upcoming summit on peace in Ukraine.
[Translation]
Canada has actively supported Ukraine’s 10-point peace formula since its launch by President Zelenskyy in 2022. We have actively defended the principles of the formula, which include respect for the UN Charter, respect for international law and the preservation of territorial integrity, since it’s clear that the starting point of any peace plan is the preservation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the withdrawal of all Russian forces.
Our embassy in Kyiv continues to participate in all the working groups created for each of the 10 pillars and has taken a leadership role in co-chairing working group number 4 on the return of all prisoners of war, detained civilians and illegally transferred and deported children. This work is reinforced by the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which was launched in Kyiv in February by Minister Joly and President Zelenskyy’s chief of staff. The war in Ukraine, like all wars, is a crisis for children, and the safe return of Ukrainian children is a priority for Canada and members of the coalition.
[English]
With the work of the peace formula working groups now under way, Ukraine and Switzerland have announced that they will hold a summit on peace in Ukraine on June 15 and 16 in Switzerland. Prime Minister Trudeau has already announced that he will be attending and has been reaching out to other world leaders to confirm their participation. We anticipate that a wide range of countries will attend and engage meaningfully in the discussions. The aim of this summit is to develop a common understanding of a path toward a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which will form the basis for an eventual peace process with Russia.
In conclusion, we are facing another critical moment in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Ukraine is continuing to defend itself valiantly, but it needs the support of the international community as it develops a path to peace. Canada remains steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our cooperation and coordination with other states and international organizations.
As we continue to monitor the situation closely, it is imperative that we remain united in our efforts. The path to peace is always fraught with challenges, but with a sustained international response, Ukraine can recover, and become stronger and more resilient. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Csaba, for your comments.
Colleagues, we will go into four-minute rounds again. I’ll be a little bit stricter this time so we can see if we can have a second round.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much for being here.
I wonder if you can give me some detail on how Canada is engaging with France given President Macron’s most recent comments that Kyiv should be allowed to use Western weapons to attack targets inside Russia and that he would conditionally consider sending French troops to Ukraine. That’s what was reported.
Can you tell me what Canada’s position is in that regard?
Alison Grant, Director General, International Security Policy Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much. I’ll take that question.
We have discussions and consultations with France, as we do with many other NATO allies and partners, so a lot of these issues do come up, of course. The two issues you mentioned were strikes inside Russia and training, if I’m correct.
On sending troops in to train in Ukraine, our agreement that we recently signed on security cooperation between Canada and Ukraine does say that we will consider resuming and conducting training and capacity-building activities for Ukrainian security and defence forces inside Ukraine once conditions permit. So certainly, we do not rule that out. It needs very clear and careful consideration. I know Minister Blair has spoken on this issue as well.
On the issue of equipment that could be used in strikes against Russia, I would say that, first and foremost, Canada supports Ukraine’s right to self-defence. It’s enshrined in the UN Charter. We have been providing very significant military assistance for Ukraine to exercise that right, and in exercising that right, we expect Ukraine to follow international law.
As the Ukrainian ambassador in the previous session mentioned, the question hasn’t come up as much, given the type of equipment that we have provided, but we have called for and encouraged robust military assistance and support from all of our allies.
I have two points regarding our goods that are provided. We have a commercial means of providing military goods, and then goods have to conform with the obligations under the Export and Import Permits Act. Then, of course, DND provides the donations, which have to conform with the Arms Trade Treaty. So there are no specific requirements or restrictions on Ukraine within that, but more information could be obtained from DND.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Grant. Senator, you have another minute if you want it.
Senator Boniface: I will take it.
On the return of the children, I’m interested as to exactly what Canada’s role is. Like many people around the table, I was taken aback by the numbers that the ambassador referred to. What is Canada’s role? How aggressive are we being in terms of that work?
Ms. Grant: Thank you. I am happy to answer that question, senator.
This is an area where Canada is really playing a leadership role. When the 10-point peace formula was first launched, we agreed to take on the role of co-chair of working group 4, which deals, among other things, with the return of Ukrainian children. Then, following that launch, we also wanted to do more. In fact, Canada agreed with Ukraine that we would launch this international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children, which was launched by Minister Joly in February when she was in Kyiv.
Through that coalition, we are looking at different ways to support the return of Ukrainian children, which includes playing an advocacy role. The minister herself has been reaching out to other countries to seek their engagement in the return of children. We are also exploring more concrete ways that we can support the children once they are back in Ukraine. We are also doing things like launching a communications network because, as you were hearing in the previous session, there’s a lot of disinformation being shared by the Russians about why they are taking children and the “good things” they are doing for these children. So we want to be playing a more active role on specifically debunking that kind of information.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you so much for being here again.
I will come back to equipment. I was at a bilateral meeting here with the German defence folks a little while ago. We were trying to look at who has what and getting what to whom quickly.
Through President Zelenskyy’s visit to Canada last year, I know a promise went to Ukraine for 50 new Bison armoured combat vehicles. I don’t know if you can tell me this, but those are not there; as of early May, they have not been received yet.
Can you comment at all on the progress and the commitment of those 50 vehicles or is it out of your realm and in DND’s?
Ms. Grant: Sorry, but I wouldn’t be able to provide an update. I apologize.
Senator M. Deacon: I will ask perhaps something else related to that. What work is Canada doing with other allies to encourage them to continue equipment transfers to Ukraine?
Ms. Grant: That question I can answer. Thank you very much. We have been doing a lot of work over the past year on encouraging countries to sign their own bilateral security commitments with Ukraine. It is an initiative Canada was very much involved in within the context of the G7. It was launched at the NATO summit in Vilnius last year.
Since that time, we have seen a number of countries sign their own agreements, including Canada on February 24. A key part of these agreements is long-term military support for Ukraine. Our own agreement has a 10-year period. That has become standard. We have seen a lot of the other countries also have a 10-year period. It is not just on military support but also economic and other support ranging from humanitarian to disinformation to support for the defence industry. That’s a primary way that we are trying to encourage states to really lock in enduring support on the military front for Ukraine.
Senator M. Deacon: As a follow-up from the last hour and what we learned from our last testimony, in March 2022, Canada decided to refer the situation in Ukraine to the ICC. We heard from the ambassador just now that Ukraine is seeking the establishment of an international tribunal outside the ICC framework to prosecute war crimes. Is it still official Government of Canada policy to recognize ICC as the main venue to try Russian leadership for the crimes that they have committed in Ukraine?
Ms. Csaba: I’m happy to speak to that question. The ICC is a very important mechanism, and we continue to support the ICC through funding and through moral support, as well as providing RCMP specialists to engage in the research on various cases. There is a separate discussion around the possibility of a special tribunal. A core group has been established with a multitude of countries participating. They have regular meetings. It is a complex issue, and we are not yet at a stage where there is universal agreement on the establishment of a special tribunal. Various options are under discussion and we will continue to engage in that until we land on the best solution.
Senator Coyle: This conversation is always hard. It is going on way too long. I think all of us are feeling that, and when we hear about 10-year agreements, we hope they aren’t all focused on the military situation.
I am curious about the end game. We know and we must — I completely agree — stand by Ukraine on the insistence of the territorial integrity of the country, the return of, as you mentioned, the prisoners of war, the return of the children we’ve been talking about. I’m sure you talk about this all the time. What are you seeing? What are you talking about in terms of what can allow Russia to save face? What are the options here to end this war once and for all? I’m just curious what people are talking about there.
Ms. Csaba: That’s, if I may say, a humdinger of a question because it really covers so many issues. As things stand right now, Ukraine’s and Russia’s positions are essentially diametrically opposed. There is no middle ground for them. The position of Ukraine that they will not start negotiations until Russian troops are off all of the territory of Ukraine as of independence in 1991 is completely at odds with Russia’s position that they insist on keeping Crimea and the territories already occupied and that have been, according to Russia, made part of the Russian Federation. So it is not easy to see how we get there.
The intent of the upcoming peace summit in June is really to provide some kind of framework to eventually get to a point where Russia and Ukraine can sit down and engage. The idea is that we want to strengthen Ukraine’s position as much as possible before they are in a position to engage with Russia, but it’s not easy to see the concrete steps because the positions are at such odds.
We do know that Ukraine’s immediate needs and what they are telling us, as we heard earlier today, are they need military support, economic support, humanitarian support and they need for us to maintain that unity of support for Ukraine.
Senator Coyle: Yes. So more of the same, really, is what we’re talking about. It does go on and on, and I feel for the people in Ukraine because it is going on and on for them.
The multilateral fora in that we are involved — you mentioned encouraging allies to develop similar bilateral agreements — are there other things we are doing in those multilateral fora to help nudge things in positive directions towards this peaceful outcome?
Ms. Csaba: We are doing a lot. We have been supporting Ukraine in the various UN resolutions that have gone forward to the General Assembly over the past two years. We are working in other ways to hold Russia to account, and some of those multilateral fora are very important. The OSCE’s Moscow Mechanism, for example, has been able to go out on the ground and research and identify war crimes that will then be used as evidence going further. So there are a lot of different ways, but it is really all about holding Russia to account through every mechanism that is at our disposal.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, both, for being here. Given Russia’s increasingly strengthened ties with China, the ongoing support that they receive from North Korea and being an integral member of BRICS, are we in this sort of phase of a new world order division between a new curtain being developed? To what extent can Canada and the West continue to build munitions and support Ukraine given the fact that Russia, despite sanctions, is strengthening its war machine and continues to now attack, relentlessly, cities like Kharkiv?
Ms. Csaba: I’m happy to speak to the first portion of your question, and then I will turn to my colleague, Ms. Grant, for the latter part. Certainly there is the intent to create a new world order, using the BRICS. I would say Russia has quite clearly laid out that it sees the BRICS as a counterpart to the G7. They are looking to strengthen it except that the BRICS don’t work together in the same way that G7 countries work together where there is really quite a unified policy, at most times, around our overall objectives, including for Ukraine, for example. There is that desire.
The Russian rhetoric these days is very much about creating a multipolar system, moving away from the hegemony of the West, but it is not clear how successful they will be through the BRICS as a mechanism.
Ms. Grant: I would add, on the question of munitions and defence industry, absolutely this is a challenge. We’ve seen the ratios in terms of munitions supply and use between Ukraine and Russia. Russia, of course, being an authoritarian system, they can increase production in a way that is more challenging for democratic nations, but efforts are being made. You may have noticed that the EU announced a very significant sum of funding under their act in support of ammunition production. We have seen initiatives from some countries as well, such as Czechia, which Canada has supported for ammunition. We have also recently supported local drone production inside Ukraine. These are some of the ways that Western countries and like-minded countries are trying to reorient to address production and munition issues.
It will be a challenge, but I think that the Russian system and process, of course, is fragile, and Russia does pay a price for the marginal gains that it is seeing now and is at risk.
Senator Ravalia: Taking into context migration becoming a huge issue in Europe — a swing in a significant number of elections to the right, many right-wing parties not being as supportive of Ukraine as we have traditionally seen and the uncertainty of how the U.S. election will play out this year — do you think all of these factors add a huge vulnerability in our sustained efforts to continue to support Ukraine as we have?
Ms. Csaba: I agree that they definitely increase the risk, yes. We’ve seen some recent elections — I won’t name countries — where the country’s policy, because of a shift to the right, has been less supportive of Ukraine in certain ways, not in all ways, but in certain ways. That remains a risk going forward.
It is difficult for us to say how that will shift overall support for Ukraine, but we are certainly conscious that this may be the case. We want to, as much as possible, build in mechanisms and long-term support so that, at least on our side, we know that we will continue to support in what ways that Ukraine needs.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m noticing that our questions are becoming more philosophical. We don’t want to put you on the spot too much, but these are all pressing matters on our minds, and I think for you, as well.
Senator Downe: We’ve heard from Ukrainian members of Parliament and from the ambassador earlier today about their continuing need for equipment. Canada has stepped up in a number of areas, but a lot of what Ukraine has requested of Canada, we have not delivered. For example, we have given them 39 armoured vehicles, which is less than 10% of our stock. We have tanks. They are asking for decommissioned vehicles as well, military hardware, demining and so on. I’m interested in what the process is. Why is it taking so long for Canada to get it approved in Canada to send to Ukraine?
Ms. Grant: On the provision of military equipment, I would say the overall principle there is that we try to match Canadian capabilities with what Ukraine needs and often what Canada can provide faster. There is a great deal of coordination that is done between Canada and its partners and allies under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, also called the Ramstein group, where a lot of the matching takes place and it is decided what Canada can provide or not.
Some of the items that were mentioned here are going to be part of a longer-term, multi-year approach, such as armoured vehicles. I think that was announced several months ago. It is likely the case that we will see more roll-out over the next two years.
Senator Downe: They need this equipment. Ukrainian members of Parliament are telling me — and the ambassador — that they need this equipment now. Canada seems to be full of good cheer and good words. What do we need tanks for in this country? Unless the Americans are invading us, why are we not sending our tanks and this other equipment they have asked for to Ukraine as soon as possible? What is the bottleneck in government? Explain to me how the process works and why this is not done quicker.
Ms. Grant: Unfortunately, I can’t answer with details. It would be a better question for the Department of National Defence in terms of how the military equipment flows. I can say that, diplomatically, through our negotiations on a security agreement, we supported front loading a lot of our assistance as much as possible in that agreement. We focused in on 2024 and what we could provide in that year — even though it is a political agreement for 10 years, we focused resources on the front end.
Senator Downe: Other than Global Affairs and DND, who else is involved?
Ms. Grant: In the provision of military donations, it is DND. Global Affairs, of course, oversees the export regime and export permits over controlled goods, meaning military items, but DND handles the military donation process.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome once again. It’s always a pleasure to welcome you to the committee.
Ms. Csaba, in your presentation, you mentioned President Zelenskyy’s 10-point peace plan. You also indicated that Canada supports this plan and is making significant efforts to make it a reality.
Could you give us some details on what Canada is doing to support this plan? How is Canada engaging other countries, particularly countries in the south?
Ms. Csaba: Thank you very much, Madam Senator.
[English]
We have been very much supportive of the 10-point peace formula since it was announced. We have participated in, for example, in the 10 working groups that have been created on the ground in Kyiv. Our ambassador participates in these working groups where they are discussing how to move forward the various elements of the peace plan.
The fact that we co-chaired working group number 4 on prisoners of war, civilians and children has allowed us to move forward on the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which I was describing. It gives us a platform to encourage more participation and more support. There have been very real and targeted efforts on the part of Minister Joly, for example, to engage with many countries, including Global South countries, to explain the importance of participating in this process and to encourage their membership in the coalition. Even if they choose not to become a member of the coalition, they can support the work that needs to be done to bring back Ukrainian children. That’s one effort.
In all of the 10 working groups, there are various ways where we can offer support. For example, one of the other groups is focused on nuclear safety, where we have been very supportive of the IAEA. We have provided funding, we are ensuring that they have inspectors on the ground to check what is happening in the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and so on. We are trying to be as proactive and provide as much substantive support as we can through the 10-point peace formula process while engaging with as many countries as possible.
Senator Woo: Thank you, Ms. Grant and Ms. Csaba. I am going to ask Senator Coyle’s humdinger question in a slightly different way and ask if there has been any evolution in the stance, the thinking or the context for Ukraine’s position on achieving a lasting peace from the time of the launch of the 10-point plan to the run-up to the peace summit in Switzerland. If there has been an evolution, can you tell us what that might be?
Ms. Csaba: It is fair to say that there has not been much of an evolution. As I was describing earlier, there are still these very much diametrically opposed positions on the parts of Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine has now embedded in the 10-point peace formula the core principles of the support for the UN Charter, support for international law and support for — I’ve forgotten the third one, sorry. But the idea being that those core principles are what really needs to be at the basis of everything that happens under the formula.
Senator Woo: So let me ask you the reverse question then, not about Russia but about Ukraine’s principal supporters in the West. And I will leave Canada out because it would be awkward for you to talk about the evolution in Canada’s stance. Has there been an evolution in the stances of the United States, the EU, Britain and the big powers, France and Germany in particular?
Ms. Grant: Thank you for the question. I will speak from the security perspective. I think, of course, we have seen changes in positions over the past two years. They are well-known. I think it’s been the provision of certain types of equipment. We have seen that change.
We’ve seen new positions now by the French government where they’ve come out with certain positions that are bolder. In Germany, we’ve seen some change in positions as well.
War is often like this. War is not linear, and as the situation changes on the ground, our expectations change as well and we adapt. I think what you’ve seen is a lot of adaptation among a number of Western countries.
Ms. Csaba: If I may add, following up on that point more broadly, the support from the international community for the 10-point peace formula has also evolved and for exactly those reasons. As Ambassador Kovaliv herself was saying, in the early days of the war, no one would have dreamt that we would be providing F-16s or certain types of tanks or weapons, but that thinking has evolved as the war has progressed, and we understand that it is not going to end quickly and that we need to amp up our support.
Senator Woo: I’m trying to understand the way in which the evolution of thinking is related to the idea of achieving a just and sustainable peace. I understand the amping up of support to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to fight Russia’s aggression, but how does that connect to thinking around the peace process and eventual peace? Or is there basically no answer to that question? Maybe it’s too much of a humdinger.
Ms. Csaba: I don’t think that there is an immediate answer to that. Certainly, we see how Ukraine wants to position itself through this peace process to be able to eventually negotiate with Russia, but how to actually get there is the magic question for which we don’t have a solution.
Senator Woo: I have a comment, not a question. I hope there is a team within Global Affairs Canada talking to teams within the State Department, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, or FCDO, and other places that maybe are not talking about this but are thinking about the question that I posed.
The Chair: Thank you. I will follow along where Senator Woo left off with two questions. They are very different but in following the theme of how the policy posture might be changing in various countries. You heard my exchange with the ambassador in the last panel.
You have a G7 summit that will have a fair amount of discussion on Ukraine, and then the leaders will go to Switzerland for the peace summit. Presumably, countries that are participating will have received instructions from their home governments, but that’s not always the case — some are there just to listen. I’m speaking from my own experience at big gatherings.
Ms. Csaba, you suggested that the Prime Minister is making phone calls and ministers might be as well. Is there a concerted effort that Canada is undertaking as a very good friend of Ukraine in terms of undertaking this advocacy and trying to convince some of the more, shall we say, uncertain participants of how they should act?
Ms. Csaba: Absolutely, there is a concerted effort on the part of the Prime Minister and also on the part of our Minister of Foreign Affairs. At a lower level as well through bureaucratic initiatives, we have our entire mission network around the world that has been engaging with their host countries on questions around the peace summit.
There is very much this feeling that we do need to bring these countries that are on the fence but are not necessarily willing to speak up to Russia and say, “What you are doing is wrong,” but we want them to be attending and listening, at a very minimum, to the positions of Ukraine and come to understand the situation better so that they are not relying only on the disinformation that Russia is so effectively spreading.
There is absolutely a concerted effort to bring as many voices in, recognizing that many countries will not necessarily be convinced, but at least they will come away with some new perspectives.
The Chair: Thank you very much. My other question is for Ms. Grant.
I was quite struck by the exchange on nuclear safety, Zaporizhzhia, of course, being under Russian control and the other three reactors or facilities as well. In a previous life, I was the nuclear security sherpa for both Prime Minister Harper and then Prime Minister Trudeau. We had two very good summits — at least while I was there, I thought so — one in The Hague and one in Washington, D.C. With the election of President Trump, that initiative ended.
One of the things we had focused on was precisely the role of the IAEA in monitoring what is going on. The monitoring in Zaporizhzhia has been episodic because the Russians have to allow access. That was one of the features of this summit process. It was almost as if it was anticipated that something like this could happen, where a nuclear power facility could be taken over by a hostile power and it could then be used as a bargaining chip at best or there was always the danger of some sort of disaster.
Is there a lot of discussion and thinking going on about this in the IAEA context amongst our closest allies? How do you see it?
Ms. Grant: Thank you for that question. It’s not always at the forefront, and Canada is spending a lot of diplomatic resources and time working on this question in Vienna at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Just a brief word on the situation there. You heard a bit about it in the previous session, but the Director General of the IAEA has called the situation there extremely precarious and challenging. Russia’s presence, of course, is a constant threat. As you just mentioned, the IAEA needs timely access to the plant and to all areas of the plant, and this is not always granted. There have been nine occasions since April with loss of on-site power, where emergency generators had to be used. Even last month, there were three drone attacks registered. So the situation is definitely critical and precarious.
Canada is among the leading countries at the IAEA in trying to address the situation, both, as I said, diplomatically and through resources. We have financed, for example, the IAEA missions to Zaporizhzhia, which has come through voluntary Canadian funding. We also repaired, as the ambassador mentioned, radiological safety equipment that was monitoring equipment that the Russians destroyed and stole from Chornobyl when they went through this area earlier in the war. We’ve also spent money to counter nuclear smuggling efforts and to give other chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, or CBRN, equipment to the Ukrainians.
I would say politically as well, we’ve led on resolutions at the IAEA about addressing nuclear risks in Ukraine. As a top supporter of the IAEA, I anticipate that we will continue to concentrate heavily on this issue.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Boniface: Thank you. Briefly, first of all, thank you for the work you are doing. I know it is hard work in terms of trying to find solutions to these issues.
One of the concerns I have watching what happened in the United States and how long it took for the funding to become available to Ukraine was the fatigue on this issue. I also wonder how much effort you are putting into continuing to convince Canadians of the importance of it. Is that part of a mandate for us to ensure that Canadians don’t lose sight of the importance of this from a global perspective?
Ms. Csaba: I am happy to speak to that question. It is absolutely a risk, Ukraine fatigue, especially in light of more recent crises. We need to be conscious of the fact that we cannot just rely on Canadian support for Ukraine to be eternal and that we need to keep actively pursuing that.
Part of that is through communications about the work that we’re doing, the engagement of our government and ministers and so on in speaking openly about the work that we’re doing to support Ukraine and why it is so important. I think that’s the key part of that question — why is it so important for us to continue supporting Ukraine?
If our international order that has taken so many years to develop after World War II gets destroyed and we can’t work in that way anymore, then it has severe security consequences and other consequences for Canada.
That is a message we are trying to get out. Could we do more? Of course, there is always more work to be done around that, but we will try to keep this issue in the forefront.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: In an article published in February, Justin Massie, full professor of political science at the Université du Québec à Montréal and co-director of the Strategic Analysis Network, questioned the extent of Canada’s support for Ukraine. According to figures from the Kiel Institute in Germany, Canada ranks 20th in terms of military assistance to Ukraine based on national GDP. In terms of financial, humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine, Canada ranks 31st out of 39 countries based on its GDP.
How do you view these figures? Do you think Canada could do more to support Ukraine?
Ms. Csaba: Thank you for the question, Madam Senator. It’s probably the second part of your question that is the most difficult to answer.
There are certainly a number of methodologies for calculating the amount of funding from each country. In the last two years, we’ve seen how Canada’s ranking has changed, in part because not all institutions use the same denominators to calculate this ranking.
I think we can be proud of the fact that $14 billion has been spent on Ukraine, because that’s a lot of money for the people. We’ll continue to do everything in our power to ensure that this support continues.
The Chair: You still have two minutes; I’m very generous.
Senator Gerba: Yes, but she said that it was difficult to answer the second part of my question, so I didn’t expect her to answer it. That was my understanding.
Ms. Csaba: We’ll continue to promote Canada’s support for Ukraine, and we’ll see what can be done in the years to come.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Downe: Given the under-resourced and understaffed Canadian Forces — we have obviously the mission in Latvia we’re involved in and our training of Ukrainian troops in the United Kingdom that we’re doing with other NATO members — how often do you encounter situations where Canada simply cannot participate because we don’t have the capacity anymore?
Ms. Grant: Thank you for that question. I myself can only speak anecdotally to answer the question, and I am in touch with DND on a very regular basis. I’m responsible for security at Global Affairs.
I haven’t encountered that in a Euro-Atlantic context, which is what we’re talking about here, and Ukraine. Of course, DND and the Canadian Armed Forces have to calibrate where they get involved. We have to look at the value-added on certain activities. For example, one of the ways that we contribute on Ukraine military assistance that doesn’t often get into the headlines is the transport of allied military assistance from a base in the United Kingdom into the region, and we have our CC-130s doing that, and it’s considered vital by other allies, but it’s not always in the headlines.
I can’t speak for the Canadian Armed Forces, but they choose how to calibrate the assistance. Our support to Ukraine is well-known and appreciated by allies and partners, and I haven’t seen a case where we were asked to stand up in that context where we did not.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I will talk a little bit more about Russia’s effort at misinformation and disinformation, particularly in the Global South, and turning countries away from Western countries but also international law and order. What is Canada doing in places like Africa, like the Middle East and even some of the Baltic groups to try and counter this disinformation to what Canada’s position is on trying to get the correct dialogue out there. I won’t say more than that. I’ll pass it back to the team for response. Thank you.
Ms. Csaba: Thank you. It’s a truly important question because, as we’ve been discussing today, Russia has been extremely effective in their disinformation tools. They do very well in the Global South in part because there are many countries, for example, in Africa, that have had a long relationship with Russia, that have many people in positions of leadership now who studied in Russia, who speak Russian and who maintain these kinds of friendly relations. It’s really a question of calibrating our countering of disinformation.
A mechanism has been put together at Global Affairs to support countering disinformation. We work very closely with our G7 and other partners on the messages that we want to get out. We try to work together so that we’re sending coherent messages and responding to some of that Russian disinformation.
We are doing our best to use our missions abroad also as an important tool in engaging with local populations, in hosting events, for example, that involve the Ukrainian embassy so that they have an opportunity to share their story; and certainly ambassadors are armed and provided with lots of talking points that they should be raising in media interviews in their countries, for example, on what we are doing and why Russia’s disinformation is leading people astray. It’s a coordinated effort. We haven’t won that game because Russia is so effective, but we have to continue working on that path because it’s critical.
Ms. Grant: If I could only add to make a plug that Global Affairs runs a website “Countering disinformation with facts —Russian invasion of Ukraine” that has a lot of great information on Kremlin disinformation that’s countered by facts from DND, Communications Security Establishment and Global Affairs.
Senator Patterson: Following onto that, one of the things that we do know, even on the diplomacy side, is that there is value in presence; and very often, especially as we go through fiscal crisis, we cut funding to certain areas, including missions. I was just at a NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting, and one of the reinforcements is what is NATO doing to support the Middle East and Africa. One thought that came to me is Canada already has UN missions, including both on the civilian — or the Global Affairs — and military side providing support.
How are we moving forward to try and have a better presence in these countries? Russian disinformation creates insecurity for us all, especially in places like Africa. Can you comment?
Ms. Csaba: I would start by saying we have over the past couple of years, in fact, slightly increased our mission platform abroad by opening missions in a few countries — not specifically so much in Africa, although we have opened a mission in Rwanda.
In any case, our missions — even in neighbouring countries that are accredited to countries where we don’t have an on-site mission — are still tasked with passing on those same messages, with ensuring that their government counterparts and local populations are hearing those same messages.
If I may just add, we have worked closely with Ukraine, which has been opening a set of new embassies across Africa, and we are doing what we can to support them so that they find it easier. They have a friendly embassy that will help them with some of the set-up aspects because we know how important it is for them also to be able to get their messages out.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We have come to the end. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Kati Csaba and Alison Grant for being with us today. More than that, I would like to thank you for the great work you do as talented public servants and, of course, your equally talented teams as well.
This is a long, drawn-out international conflict, and we appreciate the work that you do. Thank you for your comments today. It was very helpful to this committee.
Colleagues, we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 11:30 in this room for our meeting on Canada’s relationship with Europe and the European Union.
(The committee adjourned.)