National Defence Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank both witnesses for being here. They are setting the stage for the rest of the study, and we're very grateful to them for that.

My questions are mainly for Professor Jolicoeur.

Professor Jolicoeur, could you please tell us about the different kinds of direct threats that Russia poses to Canada and the likelihood that these threats will be carried out.

[Pierre Jolicoeur]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Normandin.

There are several types of threats against Canada. In my opinion, if Russia considers Canada's support to Ukraine to be a casus belli, an act of war, it could take action in several ways, directly or indirectly.

Threats against Canada could come in the form of cyber-attacks. As we know, in the past, Russia hasn't hesitated to use tools like this to intimidate other countries. Canada could therefore be subject to a cyber-attack.

Beyond cyber-attacks, Russia could directly attack our infrastructure or our government institutions using cybernetics. Russia could also organize misinformation campaigns or operations to spread propaganda, deride Canadian efforts, weaken Canada's social fabric and lead Canadians to disagree with their own government's decisions. These are the kinds of threats Russia could easily carry out. In my opinion, not only is this a highly likely scenario, but Russia has already begun doing it.

Another kind of threat Russia could pose to Canada is to threaten Canada's territorial integrity. In other words, it could attack. I feel this is unlikely. I don't believe that Russia would attack Canada or want to escalate the conflict or expand the theatre of operations. Canada is not the main actor in Russia's eyes. It may be tempting to attack a little country like Canada. I say “little” in that Canada doesn't have the same power as the United States, France or the United Kingdom. So Russia might want to discipline Canada and teach us a lesson. I find it's very unlikely, because Canada is a member of NATO. An attack on Canada would mean that all NATO countries would have to return the fire. I don't think Russia wants to expose itself to that kind of threat.

Another type of threat would be to use the Russian community in Canada. Russia could try to manipulate the Russian-speaking community or Russian-born nationals in Canada. We know that the Russian [Technical difficulty], but that policy would primarily target Russian communities in the former Soviet Union. In terms of more outlying Russian communities, Russia may be trying to influence them, and it may be communicating with them through various media outlets and television services, including RT, formerly Russia Today, Sputnik and other communication channels. Russia could use these channels to try to misinform, mobilize or influence the Russian community. In my view, the Russian community in Canada [Technical difficulty] many nationals, but it's smaller than the Ukrainian community in Canada.

Here are some other threats Russia could pose: It could try to manipulate the Ukrainian community in Canada to try to get them to break with the Canadian government's actions. I feel this is unlikely. In the end, Russia will likely try to do it, but it may be unable to influence the Ukrainian community, as almost all of them have gotten behind the effort to support Ukraine.

Finally, Russia may attack Canadian troops; not in Canada, but those in Eastern Europe participating in the UNIFIER and REASSURANCE missions. Canada has deployed troops to support NATO countries that are in close proximity to Russia and feel threatened by Russia's behaviour. So Russia could try to go after those troops.

In my opinion, if Russia did it, it would not do it overtly, through armed military attacks, but through propaganda or misinformation campaigns. That is already happening, in my opinion. So it's more than likely.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 30 seconds left, Ms. Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would barely have enough time to ask a question, let alone get a response, so I will wait for the second round. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Madam Mathyssen, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you to the witnesses.

There has been a lot of talk, of course, about the increase of the provision of lethal weaponry from Canada and the potential for that. Of course, some New Democrats are not for that. We want to find the most diplomatic, the most peaceful, deterrent way forward.

Could both witnesses talk about why some of those diplomatic ways forward have not been successful thus far? I tend to believe—and if this is true, it would be great to hear it from the witnesses as well—that Canada has failed to provide the supports that it needs to in terms of the diplomatic corps and in terms of the international aid that it needs to, so that we find ourselves down many years into more of a crisis than we need to be.

Just for the sake of time, could you could also answer this question? With that ask for lethal weaponry from Canada, it has been suggested that there are planeloads.... I think Ihor said that he lost track of the planeloads of ammunition that have been received or sent by the U.S. and the U.K. Why is that not enough? Clearly, the United States and the Brits have far more capacity than Canada to provide that lethal weaponry. Why is that not enough?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

To whom did you want the question directed? Is it for the Ukrainian congress?

We'll start with them.

[Ihor Michalchyshyn]

That's great. I can partially answer.

I was taking notes, and on the last answer, Russia is doing all of those things on misinformation. This committee has seen cyber-attacks on Global Affairs. We know that Russia is our northern neighbour. They are actively running a disinformation campaign. Fortunately, our community works with those in the smaller Russian community here who have fled from and escaped Putin's Russia and who want to live in a place where there are human rights and there is freedom of expression. I [Technical difficulty—Editor] answer.

In terms of lethal defensive weapons and diplomacy, what we have seen in the last several weeks, as Dr. Jolicoeur has laid out, has been bad faith diplomacy. The Russian Federation has come to the table with outrageous, undeliverable demands. I believe they wanted Poland and all the Baltic states kicked out of NATO. Putin has a vision which is back to the U.S.S.R. and which is redrawing the borders of Europe and, I would say, Eurasia, to his liking, and we shouldn't entirely disbelieve his interest in Canada's north as well.

Putin understands force. In this scenario, the provision of lethal weapons is something we hope nobody will ever have to use, but the provision of lethal weapons actually increases the seriousness with which the diplomacy may be taking place with the Russian Federation and NATO in this scenario. They build a seriousness of response and mean that Ukraine is not alone in that scenario.

In terms of the question that was asked about why the current aid is not enough, we saw yesterday that the Canadian flag was part of a group of flags raised in Ukraine's Parliament, so for Canada, while the Operation Unifier mission is important, it is very significantly noted that Canada has not joined the list of countries, particularly the NATO ally countries, that are providing these kinds of military defences. To ensure Canada's good reputation in Ukraine and within our NATO alliances, we believe that whatever can be done should be done. I don't have a list from either country. I just know that our armed forces certainly work closely together, have a trusted, secure relationship, and know what could be done in terms of immediate steps.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about a minute and a half.

[Pierre Jolicoeur]

Okay, I will add something to this.

I agree with the other witness's analysis. I believe that Vladimir Putin [Technical difficulty] that it wasn't possible to meet with NATO member states. I don't think negotiations are being conducted in good faith. Because NATO countries could never meet their demands, I think we can question the true intentions of the current Russian authorities.

If we could offer Russia something, it may be able to save face and stop the pressure it's currently applying at the Ukrainian border, but we would be surrendering our sovereignty and this would send the wrong message.

I have also noted that the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries are now providing weapons directly to Ukraine or strengthening NATO's military presence near Ukraine to bolster security around this. That is going on near the Black Sea and in other countries bordering Russia as well.

That is the kind of thing Canada can do, but I don't think the current state of the Canadian Forces allows for a much larger mobilization or deployment to Ukraine.

That being said, I believe Canada is doing what it can to support Ukraine, but sending additional troops would be difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there.

Colleagues, if we're going to get a full second round, it's going to have to be fairly smartly executed. We'll get started on it.

I need some guidance from the Liberal Party as to who the third questioner might be in the event that we get there.

We'll start with Mr. Doherty and Madame O'Connell, for five minutes each, please.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I just want to be clear. Do you support Canada's providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine?

[Pierre Jolicoeur]

That's a very good question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Professor Jolicoeur, excuse me again.

Apparently the sound connection is cutting in and out with you. The suggestion is that you turn off your camera and respond and we'll see whether we get better sound.

Thanks.

[Pierre Jolicoeur]

I hope the sound is better.

Thank you for your question, Mr. Doherty.

Do I agree that Canada should send lethal weapons to Ukraine? It could be done. Canada has certain technologies that could be used to Ukraine's advantage and could increase the cost of a possible Russian military intervention on Ukrainian territory, such as the use of drones or any other lethal equipment. Canada has some industrial capabilities. However, this would lump Canada together with the United Kingdom and the United States. To Russia, they would be seen as highly supportive of Ukraine, potentially exposing Canada to further intimidation policies from Russia.

If Canada is prepared to face the impact of it from Russia, then yes, it could.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Either witness can chime in here if they can. What challenges do Russia's grey zone tactics—actions that are intended to gain advantage, but which fall below the threshold of war and just push to the brink—pose for NATO countries?

[Ihor Michalchyshyn]

We've seen them become experts in this. That's what I was talking about in the earlier answer in terms of what Canadian forces, through Operation Unifier, are learning from their Ukrainian comrades. It is how those false flag operations and the Crimean “little green men” scenarios are rolled out in ways that are not the—I don't know what the proper military term is—traditional combat we might have imagined. Again, Ukrainian armed forces have learned to adapt. At the operational centre, I've seen first-hand our interaction with the Ukrainian armed forces.

Frankly, of that list of countries that I read that are supplying weapons, all of those countries—albeit with smaller missions—are there as well to learn and to share technology. We need to understand that our contribution of lethal defensive weapons is a part of that. It is a very meaningful, symbolic and important part of our military and security relationship with Ukraine, bilaterally.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Professor Jolicoeur?

[Pierre Jolicoeur]

I don't really have any comments to add to those of the other witness. We can proceed with the other question.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm wondering if either of you support the former commanding officer of Operation Unifier, Melanie Lake, when she made the statement that we need to stop talking about a Russian invasion of Ukraine as inevitable. She said we need to get a steady stream of world leaders and diplomats flowing through Kyiv continuously between now and spring and run the clock. Russia can't afford to keep that many forces at such high readiness indefinitely.

[Ihor Michalchyshyn]

I could chime in briefly. We were very pleased to have Colonel Lake on our briefing.

Russia has been and is invading Ukraine. There is a war now. This is a further invasion. That's one of the main points I've been making everywhere I've been speaking. Again, the costs for Russia—the financial costs of keeping 130,000 forces out and about, paid, equipped, fed and all the rest of it—can be very high, but if we implement sanctions now, that will be higher. The sanctions on Russian military officials and Putin's inner circle can increase the cost to the Russian Federation at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we will have to leave it there, Mr. Doherty. I'm running a clock here.

Madam O'Connell, you have five minutes, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you both for coming. I want to follow up on some of the questions that were asked by multiple members already in terms of the support for sending lethal weapons or the request for sending lethal weapons. I'm not sure—in the interest of time, your answers were short—but I almost got the impression that of course these weapons could be useful, but it was also about sending the message that Canada is doing everything. Again, if your statement needs to be clarified on that, I would appreciate it.

Are there specific lethal weapons or technology that the NATO allies have not been able to provide that you would like Canada to provide, or that the Ukrainian government would like Canada to provide? What are those specifics? Or is it about sending that message? In fairness, I think Canada has been there for years. We've talked about the different operations as well as Operation Reassurance, which is about the surrounding countries as well.

Could I, then, maybe get some more specificity around your comments on lethal weapons? Are there specific gaps you'd like Canada to fill? Or is this about a continuation of sending an even stronger message?

[Ihor Michalchyshyn]

I went first the last time. Maybe Professor Jolicoeur wants to start.

[Pierre Jolicoeur]

For the moment, Canada is trying to avoid committing too much, and the reason is understandable.

Would Canada have the weapons needed to strengthen Ukraine's military capabilities? Ukraine would have to draw up a specific list.

I alluded earlier to drones. I know that Canada has these technological capabilities. We know that some drones—built in Turkey, in particular, but with some Canadian technology—were used admirably in a recent conflict in the Caucasus, in Nagorno‑Karabakh, in the fall of 2020. This is the kind of weapon that was able to make a difference in a theatre of operations where Canada was indirectly involved through Turkey in a recent conflict. Technology like this could be sent to Ukraine and help the Ukrainian armed forces build up their military capacity. Other than that, I'm not familiar with the details of the type of weaponry Ukraine would need.