National Defence Committee on Dec. 12th, 2024

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you to the witnesses.

You said earlier that the end of U.S. support for Ukraine was speculative. However, I assume you've come up with scenarios if that were to materialize.

Mr. Ritchie, in one of your responses, you said that Ukraine would likely look to other allies to make up for the loss of that support, should it occur.

In your scenarios, how could Canada make up for some of the support currently provided by the United States?

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Thank you for your question.

We are currently discussing possible scenarios with a large number of allies. Specifically, we are currently participating in England's Operation Interflex to train recruits. We will keep doing that and and enhance the training we provide to Ukrainians. We're looking at the capacities that will be needed and the geography, but we don't have enough information to develop concrete plans.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay.

I could be wrong, but I believe the support that Canada can provide is somewhat less material in nature. I've heard and read that sending 155mm artillery shells to Ukraine was very complex and that delivery was delayed.

Is that an indication that Canadian aid may be less material and more focused on logistics that would enable us to provide things like medical support or troop training? Is that how we should be looking at Canadian aid?

[Eric Laporte]

If I may, I can give you an overview.

Like many of Ukraine's other allies and partners, we are signatories to the agreement on security cooperation, which is a 10‑year agreement under which various forms of assistance are provided. These may include macroeconomic fiscal support, military assistance, development assistance and humanitarian assistance.

As the general said, Canada has provided approximately $4.5 billion worth of military assistance so far. Overall, Canada has given $19.5 billion in general assistance to Ukraine. If U.S. aid to Ukraine is reduced or eliminated, Canada will be called upon to provide other aid, including support for all the things Ukraine will need in terms of reconstruction, military aid and so on.

I'll turn it over to General Smith.

[MGen Gregory Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think we can say that Canada's involvement is limited to training or logistics. It has to be said that $4.5 billion is a lot of money. We continue to provide Ukraine with a lot of very important equipment.

Of course, we provide training, and we do it very well, but we provide all that through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. More than 50 nations work together to respond to Ukraine's needs, and we remain an important member of that group. We participated in the 24 meetings that have taken place, and there will be another one next year.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I read in a recent article that half of the new anti-tank missiles have failure issues. That equipment was sent to the troops in Lithuania.

What do you do when those kinds of logistical issues arise? Do we need to find a supplier that can repair this equipment?

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Thank you for your question.

The department purchased those missiles in 2023, and they had already been used extensively by our allies by that point. As soon as we were notified of this technical issue, the team contacted the manufacturer, RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems, and we're working together to resolve the issue. There may be slight delays, but our priority is to ensure that our long-term capacities remain unchanged until January 2026.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes, please.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for appearing before us today.

I want to dig a little deeper into some of the questions that were asked before about Ukraine, Russia and the relationship with the United States, as that's potentially changing. There are lots of conversations about the withdrawal of support of the U.S., but there's also a great deal of concern, especially as Russia is now pushing so hard on the Kursk region, as you mentioned, that the United States will actually force a ceasefire, I guess, or a new reality for Ukraine with new boundaries, new borders and so on.

What are the plans on our end, from either Global Affairs or DND, should that...? Again, in your crystal ball type of scenario, what would that look like for Canada?

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I'll start by providing an update militarily on what we think is happening in Kursk. Then I'll turn it over to my colleagues.

As the committee knows, on August 28 we saw Ukraine seize 1,300 square kilometres in the Kursk area. Since then, by November Ukraine had lost 40% of that. We now think it might be down to Ukraine holding about 800 square kilometres.

The last thing that's relevant militarily is that Moscow has reportedly committed 60,000 soldiers to the Kursk area to try to reseize the Kursk and reassert its border in advance of the U.S. presidential inauguration.

[Eric Laporte]

Thanks, Bob. I can jump in with a few things.

I think what's important to see is that, you're right, the U.S. may want to put pressure on for a peace deal, but I think it also takes two to get to peace. At the moment, we haven't seen direct credible movement on the part of Russia to also engage in that process. Putin's objectives for the war remain his objectives. Anything the U.S. puts forward may not amount to that, so that's still an issue. In the meantime, we've seen that Ukraine has basically put a strategic pause to its 10-point peace process, because it wants to see what the U.S. administration has in mind.

From a Canadian perspective, obviously, we've talked a little bit about it in terms of providing continued support to Ukraine and our allies from an overall perspective. Canada and our allies and partners fully support Ukraine's bottom line in this, which is that peace must be just and lasting at the end of the day. The decision to negotiate a peace settlement has to come from Ukraine when it is ready to do so.

That's really the policy and that's what we'll be doing to support that objective, recognizing that the U.S. may put different kinds of pressure onto Ukraine. Again, Russia also has to come to the table.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'm going to shift a little bit.

Many of my constituents have families in Lebanon. They are from Lebanon themselves. They are closely monitoring that ceasefire and hoping that it lasts.

We know that Israel's bombardment of Lebanon had a horrific impact, obviously, in terms of their attempts to even rebuild from the Beirut explosion. There are so many other issues surrounding Lebanon's rebuild overall.

Can you talk about what Canada is doing in terms of the work to support that ceasefire, but also the rebuild?

[Eric Laporte]

Obviously, we welcome the ceasefire. It's a much-needed step towards stability and security in the region. We are closely monitoring its implementation. In terms of Canadian support, any initiative that is addressing the impact of the crisis and long-term stability along the Blue Line is key.

Canada is engaged in a number of discussions among G7 allies and partners on how to support and hold the ceasefire and support future prosperity, including through reconstruction. I don't have any of those details, but I know we're involved with G7 partners.

Maybe I'll turn it over if anybody else has anything to add.

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Our assessment is that we're likely to see increased or sustained tit-for-tat engagements. Otherwise, we think the underlying premise holds for the ceasefire. Specifically, the Israel Defense Forces, after over a year of intense conflict, are seeing the opportunity to rest, refit and reconstitute. Gaza is now an unstable eastern flank with Syria. Lebanese Hezbollah in Lebanon is, obviously, significantly degraded.

To your question, Canada already is a staunch contributor to the UN through the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Additionally, we contribute, under Operation Impact, 10 people with the Canadian training advisory team in Lebanon. I can provide details on what they've been up to if you're interested.

Equally important, we've been at the table for the military technical agreement alongside allies as recently as a week ago. We have another engagement next Tuesday, when a host of nations will be discussing how to augment the capacity of the Lebanese armed forces in partnership with the UN to secure the area between the Israel-Lebanon border and up to the south Litani River in Lebanon.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll now go to our five-minute round.

Go ahead, Mr. Stewart.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

Early on, Major-General Smith, you talked about working with our allies.

Is that NATO, or does it go beyond NATO and include places like Israel?

[MGen Gregory Smith]

There are allies, absolutely, including NATO and 31 others as well.

Canada continues to make great strides under the Indo-Pacific strategy to build political relations and military connections.

Israel remains a partner in the region. We do have a military relationship with Israel, although, equally, as my colleague said, under Operation Impact, we're in Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan. We're very present. We're in the Sinai, and I could go on. We are present in the region to produce stability, but Israel remains one partner.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Speaking of Operation Impact, how does the situation in Syria, as it's evolving, affect our involvement there?

[MGen Gregory Smith]

Let me start, and maybe others will want to provide something else here.

We're monitoring the situation in Syria. The world was surprised by what just happened. We all watched the news over the weekend and saw how quickly the regime fell. We are not in Syria. That being said, with the forces we have in the surrounding area, we continue to track what's happening.

Indeed, as was characterized, we have forces in the region. We are not taking steps right now to put forces into Syria, nor are we being asked. Under Global Affairs Canada, we're watching the situation. We are looking at how that progresses towards some type of stable and long-term regime.

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

I would add that we continue to watch the threat situation very carefully. We make prudent adjustments for the force protection of our individuals, including their posture, location, travel and security.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

General Ritchie, you mentioned the normalized tone from al-Julani. Is this to be trusted?

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Mr. Chair, maybe I'll start by saying that these are early days and that we're trying to assess the region, the dynamics and the credibility of the partners to assess whether there's a say-do gap between what we hear and what we see. We're doing so in partnership with other government departments and allies, and then we try to find credible partners in the region with whom we can work militarily.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Is there any immediate effect on our reservist recruitment strategies or deployments on Operation Impact as a result of the evolution in the Middle East?

[MGen Robert Ritchie]

Mr. Chair, there is not at this time. Our Operation Impact commitments remain firm, although, to my earlier point, we have adjusted posture slightly within the missions for the security of the members, but we wait to see the developments in the region and how the Canadian Armed Forces might respond.