National Defence Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[Dr. David Perry, President and Senior Analyst, Canadian Global Affairs Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.

I'm going to build on some of the comments my colleague just made and focus on the respective ability of the two sides of this war to get the materiel equipment they need to keep prosecuting the conflict.

As we've seen and the committee has heard, the Russians have taken very significant losses, both in personnel and in terms of equipment. Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly clear that they've been able to compensate for this quite effectively for a few different reasons.

We underestimated, I think, the Russians' abilities to pull significant quantities and materiel out of their stockpiles to a significant degree. That's something we should potentially reflect upon if this type of conflict is likely in the future. The way we've approached stocking and having very minimal stockpiles needs to change.

More broadly, despite the very broad and extensive set of sanctions that the Russians had imposed upon them, they've been able to further acquire materiel through two means: donations from friendly countries—where again I think we underestimated their ability to absorb and be supplied—and their ability to ramp up their productive capacity despite an extensive sanctions regime. This has led to a situation in which, in a couple of key supplies, the Russians' ability at the moment is potentially outstripping what the west is able to help supply Ukraine with. That would relate to some types of ammunition, including artillery ammunition; some types of drones; and electronic warfare systems.

All this would place a premium on the west's ability collectively to continue supplying Ukraine, and on the onus on Canada, given some of the challenges amongst other western members of that coalition, to increase their own supply to the furthest extent that they can.

I was happy to read some of the recent comments made to the committee that there seems to have been some progress made on this in Canada, although the details of this remain a bit unclear, at least to me, in terms of our additional support moving forward on programs of donations of armoured vehicles and ammunition.

Particularly since this is still opaque and will likely be an important issue to continue evolving, furthering Canada's ability to contribute, I encourage the committee to keep up its inquiry on this subject matter and potentially consider looking at three different avenues, specifically when it comes to Canada's ability to continue making material contributions to Ukraine.

First, it's not clear to me what material, if any at all, has been replaced that Canada donated out of its own military stocks. I think that's worth examining, if for no other reason than I'm sure at this point it's starting to impinge on some of the considerations the Canadian military would be willing to take when it comes to further donating from its own stockpiles, their not having been replaced with the donations to date.

Secondly, in September the government announced the commitment of multi-year funding for our material assistance to Ukraine, which is a step in the right direction. However, it's not yet clear that there's any short- or medium-term plan for executing that in a way that would help align industry capacity with government intent.

Thirdly, and related to the second point, I think it would be useful to better understand how it is that we're only just at the point now—22 months, give or take, into this war—where we are making more meaningful donations of equipment and ramping up some of our own productive capacity on items like ammunition, which it has been clear for some time that Ukraine has needed—since roughly February 2022.

With that, I'll thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Perry.

Colleagues, I have a hard stop at 5:46, so I'm going to start the first round at four minutes instead of six, and then we'll see what that will yield for a second round.

With that, Mr. Kelly, you have four minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask Mr. Perry to continue in that vein, talking about the replenishment of supplies and specifically the artillery shells. We've had quite a bit of testimony at this committee about artillery shell production. We've had an announcement from the government about ordering more. We've had talk of being able to go from 3,000 a month to 5,000.

Five thousand shells a month is not as many as it sounds like. It's less than a week's worth of firing supplies for Ukrainian forces. It's not going to get Canada caught up to having the level of stockpile that we need.

Can you tell the committee how to make this happen? How do we ramp up production to what would be an acceptable war footing, given the acute need of both the Canadian Forces and our ability to support Ukraine?

[Dr. David Perry]

Thank you.

It seems to me there's been a lack of urgency and focus on this issue. Notwithstanding the technical expertise involved in this, in the scheme of things, artillery shells are not complicated compared to air defence systems and many of the other pieces of equipment that Ukraine needs. They've been around for some period of time, so if we're having difficulty and are struggling to ramp up production with this, I have serious concerns about our ability to scale up on anything that's more complicated, which would be virtually the entire range of other war-related materiel.

The other piece to this is that we have a standing offer and supply arrangement of long standing with Canadian companies that produce this materiel. Not only is it relatively simple in the scheme of things, but we have long-standing commercial relationships, which we should be able to activate relatively quickly, but we have been struggling to do so up until, I guess, about last week, with the mentions you had before committee.

The third thing we should look for as we're looking forward.... I don't think there's any likelihood that the demand in Ukraine specifically is going to attenuate for this materiel. I think the conflict has shown us quite clearly that Canada needs to have significantly more of our own stock, as well as a significantly enhanced ability to ramp up production if this is likely to be the type of conflict we see in the future.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Shatz, did you want to comment as well on shell production and how to untie the knots between procurement and industry to ramp up production to meaningful levels that could replenish supply and supply Ukraine in significant numbers that could allow it to meet its objectives?

[Howard Shatz]

Briefly, there may be opportunities for co-operation among allied defence industries. It would be worth looking at whether there are bottlenecks of inputs.

I think Mr. Kelly's remark about preparing for the future is very important, too. Here at RAND, we joke that every sentence and every statement about security should end with “buy more munitions”. They're going to be important.

I would investigate the defence industrial base and whether there are any additional legal authorities akin to, for example, the U.S. Defense Production Act that would help do that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Canada has delivered 20,000 155-millimetre rounds from our old stock. That's just a matter of a few days' supply.

We've heard at this committee, though, that industry says it's waiting for orders, while procurement officials have been frustrated by industry's lack of capacity.

Is it merely a matter of will to solve these problems on production? Do we need a signal from the government of willingness to get production up to where it needs to be?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Answer very briefly.

Did you direct that to Mr. Shatz?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Yes.

[Howard Shatz]

I'm afraid that would be beyond my knowledge of Canadian industry.

[Dr. David Perry]

Yes, I think it is a question of will and urgency. It's not rocket science. It's artillery science.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We know it's not rocket science.

Mr. Fisher, you have four minutes.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all our witnesses for being here. David, thanks for filling in at the last minute; we see you a lot at this committee, and it's always great to have you and your matching tie and socks combination here. Merry early Christmas.

Ihor, it's nice to see you. I'm going to direct my first question to you and then ask the rest of the panellists if they wish to comment. So far, Canada has provided over $2.4 billion in aid for Ukraine since the war started in February 2022. Of course, there is a lot of funding there for Operation Unifier, for ammunition, for tanks, for some of the equipment that we talk about in this committee all the time and for the things that the Ukrainian army officials have told us very clearly that they need urgently.

I'm sure we're all aware of the 30-hour voting session that we had last week, in which we were fortunate enough to pass a vote for $500 million in support for Ukraine. That again included money for Operation Unifier, to train the Ukrainian soldiers and supply the army with the tools and equipment they need to win this war. They have to win this war.

We heard very clearly in the last hour from the ambassador that the support for training and for Unifier is so important.

I would ask you—Ihor, if you want to start—to talk about the importance of this funding and the need to continue to support Ukraine at this absolutely critical juncture.

[Ihor Michalchyshyn]

Certainly, as we hear that we're entering the second winter of a trench warfare situation, the brave men and women of the Ukrainian armed forces are literally freezing in the trenches in what is one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world—among the top five now.

This is all part of what Ukraine needs to win, which is the combination of financial and military support, equipment and training. What we're really seeing and hearing from the Ukrainians, frankly, is that they are not receiving things from all the allies as quickly as they need them. Even if an announcement is made, it takes months to implement. We've heard that they have to translate manuals; they have to learn how to repair things; they have to train on these things. In particular, a great Leopard tank coalition takes months and months to implement, and it's the same thing with the fighter jets as well.

The combination of all the aid that Canada can muster with our allies is critical, because I think....

I don't like saying the words, “Ukraine cannot lose,” but if Ukraine loses this war, it is almost an unimaginable scenario for global security and for us as Canadians, so I think that is a dire reason that we need to keep supporting Ukraine.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much for that.

David, I don't know if you want to comment on that, or even if you have the ability to talk, maybe, about how Ukraine has put some of Canada's contributions to use, specifically speaking to training.

[Dr. David Perry]

I think Ukraine has done a commendable job.

We've seen, in the last six months, a bit of a mismatch. There's a desire to see some western concepts and some fairly complex ways of employing combined arms military equipment on sort of a western mould that I don't know is really well suited to the composition of the Ukrainian armed forces, which is now a mobilization army; whereas in the west, in most cases, we've built our concept for employing military force on fully professional armed forces. Notwithstanding the aptitude and the skill of Ukrainian soldiers, I think there's a mismatch in training lead times, which has been problematic.

I hope that going forward, collectively, the west is more nuanced about meeting the Ukrainian forces where they are in terms of what can be practically implemented in short order, and for the types of equipment that they're asking for and that fit their way of conducting operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Madame Normandin, you have four minutes please.

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

Thank you very much.

My first question deals with aide to Ukraine and is for Mr. Shatz.

From what I understand, Europe recently reneged on its promise to use the interest on the frozen Russian assets to fund the reconstruction effort in Ukraine.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Do you believe that bodes poorly for support for Ukraine in general? Are there reasons behind that that we should be taking into consideration?

[Howard Shatz]

There's reluctance to use anything from sovereign assets, because the legal authorities are not clear. There are some very strong arguments that say these assets can be used. Ultimately, this is going to come down to either new legislation in different jurisdictions, some kind of court procedure, or some other procedure that will make all asset holders comfortable with using sovereign assets. This is a big step for them to take.

In terms of assistance to Ukraine, I think the bigger concern from Europe is the slowdown of the 50 billion to 60 billion euros that they promised. They are having big discussions about their budget. They had budgeted, I think, 55 billion euros or so over four years in grants and loans. That is stalled right now. We should be concerned about that. We should be concerned about what's happening in the United States, though what's happening in the United States should be resolved soon one way or the other.

From the last question, I would like to make a point, as well, about assistance. I said that aid will recede in importance. Right now, aid for something as simple as budget support is extremely important for Ukraine. They need money for payroll. They need money to repair infrastructure that is going to get bombed by missiles. The immediate need is budget support. There are concerns, and some of them should be resolved, but it might take some time.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on something you mentioned, namely coordination between the various donors to avoid certain donors going off on their own and possibly even attempting to dictate to Ukraine which projects to prioritize.

Ought we not still try to strike a balance between that eventuality and the fact that donors also want to know where their money is going and maybe even want a kind of ownership over certain projects that need to be carried out?

Where is that balance?

[Howard Shatz]

That's a great question.

It's not easy. It is very possible and very likely that without real coordination, donors are going to have all kinds of requirements generated by their parliaments and their aid agencies.

We talk about the Marshall plan. The Marshall plan was one country to many. This is many countries to one. Ukraine will not be able to fulfill all of the requirements of all 30 members of the OECD development assistance committee. That is why we say that ultimately the priorities should be set by Ukraine.

Now, there should certainly be traceability. Countries will not carte blanche give Ukraine the right to use any assistance as they wish. We recognize this, and Ukraine should recognize it. That's where the inspector general comes in. That's where donor meetings among senior coordinators come in. Compromises could be made in a room with Ukrainian officials. That's also where tracing of the finances comes in.

We haven't really had a situation like this before, and we're going to have to stumble our way through it. In the end, there should be significant deference to Ukraine's priorities, especially if they draw on recent advances that they've made in the last 10 years on decentralization, and especially if we hear about priorities from localities in the different regions of Ukraine in terms of what would best help them redevelop and reconstruct.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Normandin.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for appearing today.

Ihor and Orest, I'd like to build off what Mr. Fisher was talking about in terms of what we saw last week in the House of Commons and the response from your organization publicly to those votes. I know that the UCC was extremely disappointed.

I would like to hear from you about what your members and Canadian Ukrainians are feeling right now. As you mentioned, this is going into the second winter, and there are feelings about Canada's support and what happened last week.

[Orest Zakydalsky]

As you can imagine, the length of this war is extremely difficult for our community, many of whom have family and friends in Ukraine. There are now some 200,000 Ukrainians who have been welcomed to Canada as refugees.

One of the main priorities of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is to keep Canada unified in support for Ukraine. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that unity and that consensus in Canadian society.

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

Was there still an overall belief that the Canadian government overall is in support? Is that the message coming out of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress as well?