Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2022

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, do I have any more time?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Marty Morantz]

You have about a minute and a half remaining.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

That's very good.

I'll continue with the major-general. Do you believe that our troops on the ground are well equipped? What are the chances to increase the quality and quantity, if we're not up to the stage where we can defend ourselves beyond the training that you have provided?

[MGen Paul Prévost]

Our troops are equipped for self-protection. It is a training mission, as we mentioned, and always has been. There is no intent to use this mission as a combat mission.

We will use the intelligence we have. We're watching this minute by minute, and we are positioning our forces to make sure that they stay safe. We're confident that we have good contingencies in place for the movement of those troops, and we'll continue to adjust to make sure they stay well protected.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Marty Morantz]

Thank you, Mr. Aboultaif.

Next up, we have Dr. Fry.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

These are very clear answers, and I want to congratulate the two departments for being very clear, because this is an important issue.

I'm not going to ask you what your intentions are, because that would be giving up your strategic position and your tactics, etc. I understand that.

I want to go back to something that Mr. Chong asked about, which is very important. We're talking here about allies. NATO has, what, 20 nations? However, the OSCE has 57 nations. How much can you depend on the allies in the OSCE, given that we have central Asia, which is disentangling itself from Russian influence?

What about the Minsk process? What's happening there? The Minsk process has been going on since Crimea, and it has not moved. There have been no assurances from Russia that it will do what it says it will. Now Russia is seeking assurances from everybody that we will do what we say we're going to, when you can't trust Russia to do what it says it's going to. Russia broke assurances with the Budapest assurances on Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Where do you think countries like Kazakhstan, the central Asian countries...? Germany cannot be discounted, as Mr. Chong said, because Germany is saying what it would do, but it is extremely dependent on oil and gas coming from Russia and has been playing that sitting-on-the-fence game. It's neither here nor there.

If you decide to move forward with sanctions, will you get the support? I don't want you to name what countries, but do you really believe that you will get the support of everyone? What are we going to do about the Baltic states that are now particularly at risk, especially the NATO ones like Latvia and Lithuania? What is our plan to protect those states?

I have one last question and then I'll let you answer.

Major-General, you talked about how we have troops and they're not going to be from Operation Unifier. Where are your troops coming from? Is it going to be your NATO troops that you're going to use?

Where does Turkey stand in all this? It is a NATO member, and Turkey has been playing footsie under the table with Russia. I want to know about the strength of the so-called allies around the table, especially at the OSCE.

[Heidi Hulan]

I had the great honour to serve as Canada's deputy ambassador to NATO for four years, and subsequently in Vienna as ambassador.

Discussions among allies, when we share a common security vision, are always going to be different from tables like the OSCE, where we share a room with those that have sometimes quite starkly different visions than we do with respect to basic principles, etc., as we are seeing play out in Ukraine and on its borders right now. I would say that those are expected differences.

With respect to sanctions and what it will take to have effective sanctions, we've seen in other parts of the world in the past—Iran and North Korea come to mind—that the power of sanctions is in shared action. It's shared particularly between those members that sit around the NATO table. That is the bulk of Europe and it's the United States and Canada.

What I can tell you is that NATO allies have been united in saying there will be severe consequences, including financial consequences, for Russia if they choose a military path, even as we hold the option of dialogue open.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Ms. Hulan, excuse me. I'm sorry to cut you off.

I want to be very clear. NATO is not only made up of quote-unquote Europe. Turkey is there. What is Turkey's position with regard to Russia? How would Turkey agree with the kinds of things that NATO wants to agree with? Can you depend on Turkey? Can you depend on Germany?

[Heidi Hulan]

NATO allies have been united and steadfast, and they're speaking with one voice, not only with respect to the importance of dialogue and deterrence, but also with respect to the possibility of major consequences should Russia choose a military option.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Marty Morantz]

That's four minutes, 55 seconds, but I think we'll move on.

Thank you for your—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Do I have five seconds? Can I use it?

Sorry, I'm just joking.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Marty Morantz]

You can bank five seconds for the next time. How's that?

Thank you very much, Dr. Fry.

That is the end of round two. We're going to move on to the third round now. We're making very good time today.

First up in the third round is Mr. Chong.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Assistant Deputy Minister Hulan, if I heard you correctly earlier, you said that the solution will ultimately be diplomatic.

All of us know that the Europe of the 20th century is replete with examples of where diplomacy did not work. We as a country know well the price that was paid. The solution in those examples was ultimately and unfortunately a military one.

How can you be so confident that the solution is ultimately diplomatic, and what analysis has led the government to that conclusion?

[Heidi Hulan]

Mr. Chair, even conflicts with a clear military victor end with some form of diplomacy to shape what comes after. I would make this as a general point.

With respect to what is going on in Ukraine, what I'd like to say is that NATO, the U.S.A., our colleagues and allies, continue to seek ways to de-escalate, because we consider the risk of armed conflict to be very real here. We are conscious that the consequences and cost of such a conflict would be paid not only in military costs in the treasury, but also in human misery that always flows from armed conflict.

Our focus right now continues to be on finding diplomatic paths. There are a number of tracks under way. I would say that is a good thing. We hope that Russia chooses one of them.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I'll finish with a comment on the government's position on its decision not to grant Ukraine's request for lethal weapons. It seems to me there's a bit of incongruity. The government has said that it's firmly committed to Ukraine joining NATO. Recently, Minister Joly confirmed that.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against [all of them] and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

In other words, the government says that it wants to see Ukraine as a NATO member. If Ukraine were a NATO member, such an attack on Ukraine would be deemed an attack on Canada, and if such attack occurs, Canada would assist Ukraine, including the use of armed force.

If the government is so firmly committed to Ukraine's NATO membership as it's recently confirmed with all the consequences that that entails, including coming to Ukraine's assistance with armed force, it's confounding why Canada today is not coming to Ukraine's assistance by providing lethal defensive weapons. I think that is an incongruity in the government's position. On the one hand it says it wants Ukraine as part of NATO. It's firmly committed to that course of action, which entails that Canada will come to Ukraine's defence in the case of an attack on Ukraine by Russia. On the other hand it's not willing to provide lethal defensive weapons today to Ukraine.

I think there's an incongruity here in the policy. The Americans and the British have a congruent policy, and it's something that the Canadian government needs to address.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have to say.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Marty Morantz]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Next on our questioners list we have Mr. Ehsassi.

Mr. Ehsassi, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Allow me to join my colleagues in thanking the witnesses for appearing before us. It has been very helpful.

As has been noted both by the witnesses and by my colleagues, we have been witnessing a lot of robust diplomacy taking place in the past several weeks. This is obviously a situation that is of the utmost importance to Canadians.

Given the robust diplomacy that has been going on, first of all I'd like to ask the two witnesses for their assessment. I'll start with Ms. Hulan.

Is it your opinion that Russia is genuinely interested in dialogue and diplomacy at this point?

[Heidi Hulan]

Mr. Chair, we don't know if Russia is serious about diplomacy, but we are. Russia has a choice between meaningful dialogue or risking very severe consequences should they choose military action. That is our message to Russia.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Over the course of the past week, have there been periods where you've found they are more engaged in those discussions?

[Heidi Hulan]

There are discussions ongoing between Moscow and NATO, and Moscow and Washington. Those discussions have not failed. They have not shown a lot of progress to date, but they are ongoing and we are investing in them.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Hulan.

Major-General, can we have some comments from you as well as to whether, in your professional opinion, Russia is genuinely interested in dialogue at this point?

[MGen Paul Prévost]

Mr. Chair, I'll actually side, obviously, with my colleague from Global Affairs.

We don't know. At the same time, we're very hopeful. That is what I'll add here.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

As we've all been poring over the news, I think the United States is engaged in very public diplomacy on this issue. They have repeatedly stated that there will be massive consequences should Russia illegally invade Ukraine. President Biden is also on record publicly as having said there will be swift, severe and united responses.

Insofar as our country is concerned, either through those multilateral fora or more directly on a bilateral level, have we ever indicated to Russian authorities what some of the contemplated measures will be that Canada is willing to take?

[Heidi Hulan]

Mr. Chair, Canada talks to the Russians at the OSCE. We've been talking to the Russians at NATO. We've been talking to the Russians in capital through our embassy. My colleague might have something to say about that, but we have been very clear: We are preparing and are prepared to institute significant financial sanctions, including with respect to the financial sector, should Russia choose a military path forward.