Evidence of meeting #5 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was russia.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Aboultaif.
The next slot goes to Mr. Ehsassi. Please go ahead for six minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Allow me to start off by thanking all the witnesses for their incredibly helpful testimony.
I will start with Professor Kimball.
You alluded to the fact that there are fissures among Europeans and North Americans as to the best means to assist Ukraine. I think Canadians, by and large, fully appreciate how incredibly important it is that there be multilateral cohesion to stop a Russian invasion.
As you know, our Minister of Foreign Affairs has been to Ukraine and subsequently went to Europe to brief our counterparts, as has our Minister of National Defence. Do you think Canada is doing a good job liaising between the Europeans and the U.S. to make sure we're sticking together insofar as the defence of Ukraine is concerned?
5:10 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
I would say that in general one of the issues is that it benefits Russia to try to engage as many different stakeholders as possible to try to divide what would be different preferences over outcomes. Of course, the fact that there is the internal division within the EU regarding the gas pipeline itself complicates the situation.
One other thing we would notice—at least for people who use formal models to study behaviour—is that Biden's rhetoric, for a Democrat who generally would be viewed as a pacifist, has been pretty firm on this issue. I think that signals quite a bit that at least in his mind....
This also harkens back a bit to the intergenerational divide. We have Biden and Putin, who are essentially the old guard from the Cold War, and then we have Canada and Macron coming at it, very much representing the next-generation viewpoint, which is not necessarily couched in a rigid, bipolar structure.
What we're seeing is a shared confusion about to what extent this is finishing up things—the Cold War—versus to what extent Europe, as an independent actor alone, needs to come in and do something here. The fact that the Europeans have not managed to create a solid, independent defence means that NATO has stepped in.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you.
Professor Hampson, since we are focused on Canada's role, do you think our government has been doing an adequate job of making sure that all the members of NATO and other countries that are critical of this effort are speaking to each other and coming up with a cohesive plan among themselves?
5:15 p.m.
Chancellor's Professor, Carleton University, President, World Refugee & Migration Council, As an Individual
Well, there's no question that in Brussels there is lots of consultation going on, and we're part of it. My concern right now is that The Normandy Group, led by France and its president, are conducting negotiations in an effort to revive some form, as we've heard, of the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements, which were negotiated under duress. They were ambiguous—sloppy, some would say—but it was a very tough negotiation.
I would hope that our Prime Minister is speaking to the French President and sending a strong message not to sell Ukraine out in those discussions, because I think Ukraine and its leadership are going to come under enormous pressure to go back to Minsk, and we've already heard how destabilizing that would be. It's not a pill that the leadership of Ukraine wants to swallow, so we shouldn't be giving away too much. The message should be, “Don't sell Ukraine out, Monsieur le Président.”
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Professor Hampson, your testimony was truly chock full of information about various things we should be mindful of. You talked about the possibility of cyberwarfare directed by Russia. Are we prepared? Are we doing a good job on that particular front?
5:15 p.m.
Chancellor's Professor, Carleton University, President, World Refugee & Migration Council, As an Individual
Well, when you say “we”, Ukraine is getting—
5:15 p.m.
Chancellor's Professor, Carleton University, President, World Refugee & Migration Council, As an Individual
As you heard in the earlier panel, social media and other kinds of disinformation campaigns are already in full swing. They're directed at us, at dividing us as a country on this issue, and there are Russian fingers there. They've been doing that for a long time. My advice would be to speak to our folks in CSE and have them call them out and do so publicly.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Ehsassi, thank you very much.
I will give Mr. Bergeron the floor once more for six minutes.
Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank all our witnesses sincerely for their very detailed, relevant and interesting presentations. I would like to specifically commend Ms. Oliker, who was kind enough to give us her perspective from Europe, where it is a little later for her than for us.
Professor Kimball, I'd like to start with you. I must say that I was quite captivated by your opening remarks when you talked about the relationship between Russia and China. France's former prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, recently said that the Western powers' diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Games has given Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin free rein to advertise their co-operation on the world stage.
Would you say that China is paying close attention to how the West could react to a potential invasion of Ukraine in order to assess the possibility of potential action in Taiwan?
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
Thank you for your question.
I will answer in English because I don't want to confuse the interpreters.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
No, please, answer in French. We so seldom have the opportunity to hear from French-speaking witnesses.
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
All right. I'll answer in French; it's no problem for me.
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
According to the information we have gathered on international and regional conflicts, we can see that China is increasingly shifting its attention to the world stage. Conversely, Russia seems to be more and more interested in Europe only. I will say that, if China sees a lack of concerted efforts among Western allies, it could certainly attempt bolder action in Hong Kong or Taiwan.
We must take into account that the USA's allies in the region, including Japan and South Korea, do not have the same commitment as the one in article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. However, European countries are more committed to one another, given the myriad of defence and security situations at play.
In comparison, China is in a part of the world where there are fewer global powers. For example, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations doesn't really have a strong defence identity. In Europe, NATO does, which makes all the difference. It also has the ability and the willingness to take action.
Even if other countries want to foster a defence identity, they lack the will. I have observed that no countries in Asia really want to stand out and coordinate a defence, or something better organized, in the face of China. What I'm saying is that it ends up being all about risk assessment. Those countries calculate the risks of each of their actions and weigh them against the necessity of maintaining their trade relationships.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you very much, Professor Kimball.
Canada has said time and time again that the alliance is united and that, when it comes to Ukraine, NATO allies form a strong, unified front.
However, as you are surely aware, France, Germany and other countries have a slightly different opinion when it comes to bringing Ukraine into NATO. When President Macron met with President Putin a few days ago, he said that the “Finlandization” of Ukraine was on the table.
Do you believe that this is truly a possible outcome, and, if so, is it an acceptable one for Ukraine?
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor of Political Science, Directorate, Centre for International Security, École supérieur d’études internationales, Université Laval, As an Individual
“Finlandization” is a kind of jargon or code word whose meaning even Finns might wonder about.
Essentially, the idea is to see whether neutrality as a foreign policy can guarantee homeland security, even when you live next to a country that poses a serious threat and a challenge.
Finland has very stable borders, whereas Ukraine does not. This somewhat changes the stakes.
The goal is to create stability not only with Russia, but also with Belarus, where the Russian presence has proven to be problematic. Defending natural borders is less of an issue.
In addition, Ukraine is located in a geostrategic region, between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, that is very important for trade. Finland does not have that trade corridor, so relations are easier to maintain.
Personally, I'm keeping a close eye on Moldova, which is a tiny, neutral country in the region. It's interesting to see how that country is staying out of trouble despite being in a region where tensions are high.
I believe that there are lessons to learn from other countries in the region, but I don't think that the “Finlandization” of Ukraine is an acceptable solution, least of all for Russia.
As I said, Russia believes that Ukraine is part of Russia and that it is an infant democracy where the last 30 years of independence are merely an obstacle or a test. Its claim to Crimea goes back 430 years. According to Russia, we are somewhat foolish. Russia perceives Ukraine as Russian, so it will be difficult to convince it otherwise.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you, Professor Kimball.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.
Ms. McPherson, you have the floor for six minutes.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you to all of the witnesses. This has been extremely informative and very fascinating to me.
I apologize, but I just have to use a bit of my time before I get back to questions to say that given the urgency of the situation currently faced by Canada and the reports of significant amounts of American money being used right now going toward organizers whose stated purpose has been to create their own government and dissolve the current one, I'm asking for unanimous consent from my colleagues to move and debate at the end of this committee my motion to invite the U.S. ambassador before the committee to address concerns regarding foreign interference.
I want to get that out there and ask for that unanimous consent, if I could.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Is there unanimous consent, not to eat up too much of Madam McPherson's time, colleagues?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much.
I will bring that forward at the next committee and we can debate it then.
What I'm thinking about as I listen to all this testimony—and I will start with Dr. Oliker—is that we've heard all about the potential outcomes and the potential discussions that are happening. In your opinion, is there a diplomatic outcome to this crisis that you can envision that would be acceptable to Ukraine, to Russia and to NATO countries?
5:25 p.m.
Program Director, Europe and Central Asia, International Crisis Group
Yes, absolutely. I think there is a diplomatic solution to this crisis that would leave us better off than we were before the Russian buildup began.
The situation in Europe has not been stable. The European security border and the treaties that govern it were out of date and had started falling apart. We have had buildups and dangerous incidents even without this most recent one.
Rebuilding a security order and having these negotiations is crucial. We've had a war in Ukraine for eight years. Ending that war and finding a way forward is also crucial.
A diplomatic solution is the right way forward and is necessary. Yes, it is possible if everybody is willing to make some compromises. The challenge is that, at least from what we've seen on paper, there isn't that much room for compromise.
The question for me, looking from the outside, is whether there are things we're not seeing that show more movement. For instance, the negotiators through the Normandy format have just walked out of the negotiating room after nine hours together in Berlin.
Before we get too excited, they spent eight hours together two weeks ago in Paris and came out affirming their support for the Minsk agreements and the need for a ceasefire. We'll see if there's anything there this time.
There is absolutely a way forward and a solution that is based on arms control. It is based on guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty that might in the end look something like a form of neutrality, for all the many problems that has, one of which is that Ukraine was neutral in 2014 when the war began. It had non-bloc status in its constitution. As Professor Kimball said, Russia would like a vassal, not a neutral state.
Negotiations mean that everybody has to give. If everyone is willing to give, there is a way forward.
