Evidence of meeting #62 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ukraine.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Researcher, Small Arms Survey, As an Individual
Exactly. That's reserved only for the most sensitive weapons, and most governments won't do that. But there is middle ground that some governments embrace.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Would you describe it as a best practice if Canada were to authorize lethal weapons exports that Canada should do monitoring of the end use of the more sophisticated weapons?
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here, or being here virtually.
Professor Leuprecht, Mr. Kozak spoke a little bit about the UN peacekeeping mission, or a possible peacekeeping mission, and what might need to be done. I'm interested in your thoughts. Russia holds a seat on the Security Council. Ukraine doesn't. Canada normally would have a role in peacekeeping, but we can't really because we're involved in that. I'm interested in your thoughts on what needs to be done by Russia and Ukraine to get to a place where we can have a true peacekeeping mission.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I think the shorter answer here is to defer to the OSCE. I think the OSCE is doing what it can, but if we want to decrease the violations of the ceasefire, then we're going to need to have the OSCE out at night. Basically it's calm during the day and then at night everybody shoots at each other, because at night it's very difficult to ascertain who started it.
Thinking of a peacekeeping mission is thinking several steps too far. Let's just work with the monitoring regime we have in place and what we can do to shore up the OSCE and that monitoring regime. The OSCE is important because we have Russia as part of the effort going forward.
I've argued that this is also in Canada's strategic interest in places like Syria. Eventually people are going to stop shooting. If all the major powers are involved, somebody with leadership at headquarters is going to have to step up. This has been true of some of the contributions we've made in the Golan Heights and in Israel for over the past four decades. Canada will want to tread carefully, though, because everybody is so involved in the Ukrainian conflict that we don't know who is going to step up if that call comes. Anything that reduces the conflict and the tension is clearly in Canada's strategic interest.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
We've heard military numbers of the massive buildup of Ukrainian soldiers—new soldiers, untrained soldiers—somewhere near a quarter of a million. We're over there training these soldiers. Are we providing enough resources? Did we anticipate that level of growth of the Ukrainian military to somewhere around a quarter of a million? Do we need to do more? Are we doing enough of what's needed to help with that huge proliferation of bodies?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I'm less concerned about the rank and file than I am about the officer corps. As your colleague Mr. Garrison pointed out, how members of the officer corps conduct themselves is ultimately going to determine our ability to rein folks in.
With some of our partners in Kurdistan, we can see that people don't always use their training in ways that Canada might like. We should be committed to remaining engaged with the mid-level officer corps, training the officer corps, professionalizing the officer corps, and teaching the officer corps how to interact with local communities. Making sure that we don't have atrocities by Ukrainian armed forces is going to be key to the legitimacy of the Ukrainian military.
In Russia, we have high policing by the military. It's there to keep the regime in place and to defend the interests of an elite. What we need to do in Ukraine is try to transform a military that used to be there to defend the interests of the elite and the regime into a military engaged in low policing, a military that is seen as defending the interests of the people. That's where this transformation of the officer corps is absolutely instrumental. We have lots of experience in how to do it well, and lots of experience in how to do it poorly.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
Mr. Kozak, you mentioned RT and Russian propaganda. We have heard testimony that Joe Public in Russia seems to think that Ukrainians want to be taken over by the Russians. That doesn't seem to be working. In fact, it's going the other way. Do you have any feelings about how Russian propaganda and things like RT are working on Ukrainians?
As an Individual
I think the fact is that the Russian propaganda is working to a certain extent because Mr. Putin has been in power for so long. They've been changing constitutions, and he plans to stay in power. There has been some minimal protest, I suppose, but by and large his power is unchallenged. Clearly, the Russian propaganda and disinformation works to a large extent within Russia.
In Ukraine, the Kremlin is operating by different means. They're not directly trying to impact Ukrainian media and the population because it would be so blunt and people would see through that propaganda. They're trying to do it through the Russian-controlled oligarchs. For example, channel 112 and channel ICTV are owned by Ukrainian oligarchs who have direct links to Russia. They're trying to approach it in a more subtle way in that they're taking a certain amount of truth, for example, the issue of corruption in Ukraine on the social level, the economic level and so on, and they are trying to put a spin on it, calling for example, for a new Revolution of Dignity, a new Euromaidan, so to speak, to have an impact on the unity of Ukraine and to disintegrate the Ukrainian government.
In that respect, is it working? It hasn't worked yet because Ukraine is still functioning as a country, by and large, but you have seen over the past couple of days there are protests in Ukraine against the current Ukrainian government. They're legitimate claims to expedite the reforms, fight corruption further, and so on and so forth, but the danger is that the Russian agents of influence and the Russian-controlled media and certain politicians will use these legitimate claims to their advantage to manipulate this.
I think the same, to a certain extent, is happening here in the west. We obviously don't see the blunt Russian propaganda here because you wouldn't buy it but there is a certain stretch of the truth here and there that is impacting people. I'm spending a lot of time in Washington, D.C., and even in talking with certain think tanks and media over there quite often they are taking RT reports, Russian reports, at their face value while in reality the truth has been manipulated.
There is a real danger from the Russian propaganda. It's fairly sophisticated. I was born and grew up in the Soviet Union and remember that Soviet propaganda was pretty simplistic in nature, pretty blunt and primitive. It was easy to recognize it, even for a young child like me. What I'm seeing now on the RT, what I'm seeing now in Ukraine or on Russian television and newspapers, is actually a pretty sophisticated operation. I think we have to be very careful that we don't approach it from some sort of a simplistic way, but we do a proper analysis and recognize it as the threat that it is to Ukraine, but most importantly to our Canadian and western interests and values.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
We have about 15 minutes left so that will be three more questions. We'll go to five minute rounds now.
Ms. Alleslev, you have the floor.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you for being here.
I think that Dr. Leuprecht summed it up quite effectively when he said that it is a stalemate and that we Canadians have scarce resources.
The question that I'd like to pose to all of you is, what should we be doing? Our job is to advise the government and make recommendations on what the course of action should be. Should we be maintaining the status quo? Should we be looking at direct engagement by allowing us to send weapons or military intelligence, or actively participating in manoeuvres, like you said, outside the sphere of NATO? Should we be looking at more indirect means in terms of increased sanctions or helping to professionalize the military or mitigate corruption, or should we continue to do what we do but look at being part of the peacekeeping when and if that comes?
I have Russian Canadians and Ukrainian Canadians in my riding, and they're conflicted about which approach to take. I'd like to know what your opinion is. How do we prioritize not only our scarce resources but our strategic considerations? What would your recommendation to the Canadian government be?
Anyone can answer.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I think we need to ask ourselves where we have a comparative advantage. My argument would be, on cyber, for instance, we don't have a comparative advantage relative to what some of our allies can contribute. On lethal weapons, I'm not sure we have a comparative advantage. I think both of those would also be publicly controversial. I think where we do have a comparative advantage is that by not being a traditional quasi sort of superpower with ulterior motives, what we've done well is the stuff that's less visible—the training and transformation of the officer corps of the civil service. This is something that, for instance, we've been doing in francophone Africa, something we've been doing in Central America and South America. We have lots of years of experience with this and I think it's going to require some more aggressive intervention as the Europeans are also proposing, in terms of, we actually need to put some of our bureaucrats in the actual ministries in order to disincent some of the behaviour.
I think that's going to generate much more positive change than loading up the country with more weapons. There's perhaps a discussion to be had about strategic intelligence, because there is a lack of some strategic intelligence.
As an Individual
I agree with my colleague in that we do have limited resources. As the Canadian government, I think you should put an emphasis on two aspects.
The first aspect is that we should do what we do best. A couple of things that we just talked about are training and peacekeeping. As Canadians, we are renowned around the world for doing that well. When you're talking about training, and I'm sure Madam Sinclair will elaborate on the effectiveness of that training, it's not only training of the soldiers, the officer corps, but it's also reforming the entire structure of the Ukrainian military, as was discussed earlier. By doing so, not only are we changing the structure of the Ukrainian military, but we are factually fighting corruption. We are moving those elements within the Ukrainian military that are from the Soviet time when they were prone to corruption. Restructuring, providing more transparency and accountability, I think, is very, very important. Peacekeeping is another such example. We are so credible. We also have know-how, how to do it, how to work with our allies, with the United Nations, and so on.
The second aspect is that although we have limited resources, I believe we can take certain actions that cost us very little or cost us next to nothing. For example, expediting the process of adding Ukraine to the AFCC list is going to allow Ukraine to actually purchase from Canada the necessary state-of-the-art modern equipment and isn't going to cost the Canadian taxpayer any money. As a matter of fact, it's probably going to have a positive impact on the Canadian economy to a certain extent.
At the same time, there's the provision of lethal weapons. Yes, we are not the United States of America. We are not the Pentagon. We don't have the resources they do. But providing a limited number of defensive weapons, I think, is going to first of all be very symbolic in nature. It's going to show Mr. Putin, in that process I proposed before that strains the terrorists' weakness and proves that we mean business, that we stand by Ukraine not only in words but in actual meaning. It's also going to give an example to our friends and allies south of the border that they should do more for our friends and allies in NATO.
Within those two parameters, I think we shouldn't be limiting ourselves by looking at the global picture and saying how much it is going to cost and how much we can we actually afford. I think there are so many different ways, as Canadians, we can continue doing what we're doing, but we can actually do more and we should do more.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I'm sorry, your time has expired.
I give the floor over to Mr. Bezan.
October 18th, 2017 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be splitting my time with Mr. Yurdiga.
I want to thank all our witnesses for being here. I want to thank Mr. Kozak in particular for his service to Canada as an air force officer and an intelligence officer, and for taking such an interest in giving back to Ukraine during this very difficult time.
Twice now, Professor Leuprecht, you talked about expanding the officer corps and training that officer corps. The thing that we heard over in Ukraine, especially when we talked to our Canadian Armed Forces members who were there, is that there seems to be a real underdevelopment and lack of middle management in the non-commissioned officers. How do we get more master corporals? How do we get more sergeants, sergeant majors, and warrant officers? That, I think, might be the sweet spot in some of the training we do.
If you can answer that quickly, I know that Mr. Yurdiga has a bunch of questions.
Mr. Kozak, I know you have visited almost all our forces at all the different bases where they're training in Ukraine. Can you talk about the military police training that we're doing and how well that's working in fighting corruption within the Ukrainian military?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
We need to train the trainers so that the trainers can then translate that to the rest of the troops. I think this is partially an area where more connectivity between the Canadian Armed Forces and the Ukrainian armed forces would be quite helpful. I think you rightly pointed out that while we've invested a good deal in the officer corps, the people who actually operationalize much of the leadership on the ground in terms of the warrant officers have probably not received the attention, in part because it's not as sexy to invest in as it is to invest in training for the middle civil service. I think this is ultimately where we're going to see the greatest payoff, making sure we start with the junior level ranks that are going to end up in five years in the professional development scheme.
As an Individual
To respond to the first question, as we know, in the Soviet military system, the backbone was centralized command, centralized execution, and the backbone of that system was the officer corps, especially senior officers.
In our NATO system, the backbone obviously is officer corps as well, but even to a larger extent, I would say, as you said, Mr. Bezan, that the senior NCMs are playing a critical role.
As we are training Ukrainian troops, as we are conducting reforms—as Madam Sinclair is overseeing and advising—I think it's crucial that we actually train that new backbone in the NATO way of the senior NCMs who will close that gap right now and will move completely. It's already happening from the centralized command and centralized execution to the NATO way of doing things, with the centralized command and centralized execution giving more power to the commanders on the ground to make the decisions and react quickly. It would be a much more effective way to do it, and I think we need to emphasize this type of senior NCM training much more.
To answer your second question, Mr. Bezan, about the effectiveness of the training that Canada has done for the Ukrainian police, I will not use statistics but just give you a personal example. As I told you, I was born and raised in Ukraine, and as a kid and as a teenager, I was taught to always stay away from the cops because there were some—without exaggeration—who were the most corrupt people in the country. Even as I was going to Ukraine under the previous regimes—the Kuchma regime, the Yanukovych regime—with a Canadian passport, even with a military diplomatic passport, I was staying away from them because they could stop you for no reason on the highway because they needed to receive their bribe as part of the whole corrupt system.
I can tell you that going to Ukraine now is like day versus night. I'm not saying it's all perfect, but I would say it's 98% a different police force. It gives you a clear example that we, as Canadians, through the limited resources we invested in this training, can make a difference. That police success story.... The western, Canadian, model of police force is a clear success story. This is one of the success stories, and we're going to build on this. They're going to build on this as Ukrainians, and I think we can continue this way. It just takes time. You can have 70 years of the Soviet regime, 20-odd years of the corrupt regimes, and you cannot change everything in three years, especially with the war going on, the economic crisis, and so on. But it's been very effective.
Conservative
David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I'm afraid we're not doing enough. We always talk about the cost.
If Ukraine were ultimately destabilized and overtaken by Russia, what would that cost be? It would potentially destabilize the whole region, and the cost to our western society would be huge. Can you comment on that, briefly, in two seconds or less?