FAAE Committee Meeting

     Welcome to meeting number 60 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

    Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room as well as remotely using Zoom.

    I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members.

    Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those who are participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

    Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screen. You have a choice of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, on the other hand, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

    I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

    Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee now resumes consideration of Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

    It is my pleasure to once again welcome officials who are here to support us as we consider clause-by-clause for Bill C-281.

    From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we're grateful to once again have Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, deputy director, non-proliferation and disarmament. We also have Ms. Jennifer Keeling, acting executive director, human rights and indigenous affairs.

    From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we're grateful to once again have Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.

    Finally, from the Department of National Defence, we have Major-General Paul Prévost, director of staff, strategic joint staff, who is kindly and graciously joining us via Zoom.

    I will open the floor in relation to the subamendment to G-2, which was under consideration when we last adjourned debate, on Thursday, April 20, 2023.

    I have a point of order, Chair.

    My understanding was that there was unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment and the amendment, and that the government has an alternative amendment to propose.

    We would agree to working at having both subamendment and amendment withdrawn and then presenting a new amendment.

    Is there unanimous consent for that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Subamendment withdrawn)

    (Amendment withdrawn)

    The Chair: Mr. Zuberi.

    I would like to move G-2.1.

    Yes, please.

     We're dealing with the same text that we were dealing with the last time. It relates to the Broadcasting Act, amended by adding the following under subsection 22(1):

     There would then be a deletion of the word “amended” in the first line and an insertion after “foreign programming, that is”. The insertion is:

    It continues with the original text, “vulnerable to being” adding, “significantly influenced”. The term “significantly” is added.

    The rest of the text remains intact.

    In terms of motivating this, there are a number of points that are important.

    One is that the language removes the term “amended”, which is actually a salutary piece of language because it allows for the problem to be rectified through an amendment to the actual documents in question. Therefore the problem would be solved.

    Two is that, with respect to the renewal or the issuance of a licence, the CRTC has other supervisory regulatory powers. The insertion of “despite any measure that the Commission could take under this Part” would acknowledge that the CRTC already has embedded in it some measures that allow for the problem that we're addressing here to be solved. It simply acknowledges that that there are internal mechanisms.

    Three, the term “significantly” is an important addition to the text that's already there, because the influence that we are looking at should be significant. We need to have a measure around this and not have a minor influence being the threshold. There should be a significant influence that is a threshold with respect to this act.

    This doesn't take away from anything that Mr. Lawrence is putting forth. This simply tightens it up a little and makes it clearer. It keeps the full spirit of what Mr. Lawrence is bringing forth with respect to legislation in this particular section.

    Thank you very much.

    Before going to Mr. Genuis, I just wanted to ask for the benefit of all members whether the chapeau in G-2 remains. By “the chapeau”, I mean the first section, which reads “That Bill C-281, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 14 on page 3 with the following”.

    Is that part of your amendment?

    Yes.

    Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

    We now go to Mr. Genuis, please.

    Okay. I may need a clarification from the clerk. My understanding of the amendment is the same as...because we're just working on the fly a bit here.

    Although certain other language is removed and replaced, my understanding of the effective change that this amendment would make is that it would only remove the word “amended” from the existing section, where it says, “No licence shall be issued...or renewed”, add in the words “despite any measure that the Commission could take under this Part” and add in the word “significantly” before “influence”.

    There are no other additions or removals in terms of the effect of the amendment. Is that correct, from the clerk's understanding?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    That's my understanding as well.

    Okay, that's excellent.

    Directionally, we are broadly comfortable with this. I would propose just one subamendment. That is, I would replace the word “significantly” with the word “meaningfully”, which is, I think, a somewhat lower standard than “significantly” but a higher standard than simply “influenced by”. We don't want the influence to be trivial or tangential, but I think the standard for influence could be something less than significant. If you have someone who is involved in genocide who is able to meaningfully influence broadcasting, I think that is enough of a standard.

    I would propose that small wording change as a subamendment. Hopefully we can get to a good result.

     Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    In what I received, I see that the word “significantly” is to be replaced with “meaningfully”. Since I only have it in English, I'd like to know the difference in meaning in French so that I can understand. Can someone help me?

    Mr. Genuis.

    I was trying to get help from Google Translate, but unfortunately, the Google translation of “meaningfully” in French is “significativement”.

    Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!

    Mr. Garnett Genuis: Is there a linguist on the officials' panel, or someone who can help us out with this?

    In English, clearly, what I'm trying to arrive at is that “significant” implies a level of influence that is almost domineering in the outcome, whereas “meaningful” implies an impact that is more than trivial and less than domineering.

    Maybe Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe can suggest the appropriate French.

    Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

    No. The point I was trying to make is that “significantly” and “meaningfully” translate into the same word in French. I believe you can argue about what those words mean in English, but in French, Mr. Genuis' subamendment won't change anything.

    Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

    Mr. Oliphant.

    I feel it's exactly the same in English. It's subjective, not absolute. However, I can ask the officials if there's a difference in interpretation, but maybe it's too hard to find an answer now.

    Is there any difference between “significantly” and “meaningfully” for the purposes of enacting Bill C‑281?

    We don't have a decisive answer on this question. The meaning is essentially that it will translate to the same word in French. Both “meaningfully” and “significantly” are used in different places, but we haven't had time to do an analysis of whether or not there's a notable difference in the meaning. I'm sorry we couldn't be more helpful.

    I have a point of order.

    Based on the feedback from my colleagues, this isn't necessarily a hill we want to die on. If there's consensus, maybe we will deem the subamendment withdrawn and the amendment adopted.

    Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Subamendment withdrawn)

    The Chair: Okay. Reverting back to the amendment—

    I also said to have the amendment adopted.

    Yes. We have unanimous consent on that.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

    (On clause 5)

    The Chair: We now go to clause 5 and NDP-3.

    NDP-3 is on page 3. We propose replacing line 18 of page 3 with the following:

    This talks a bit more about the need for international co-operation and humanitarian assistance. It emphasizes the positive obligations that Canada has with regard to being a state party to the convention.

    It's an easy one. I think we should all just accept it.

     Thank you for that, Ms. McPherson.

    I should note and highlight for all of the members that if NDP-3 is adopted, G-3 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict, since any given line can be amended only once.

    I accept that ruling, though I'm not sure it's exactly correct. The words are not the same that are being changed. The line, yes, but not the words. However, what I'd like to know is whether NDP-3 can be subamended. I didn't know that ruling would happen. I just have to work for a minute. We're very supportive of NDP-3, but we would like to massage it a little with G-3. I'm just trying to figure out how to do that.

    Mr. Lawrence.

    While Mr. Oliphant reads his new one, maybe I could just talk for a second here. I'm hoping the massage is not going to include “financial assistance”, because “financial assistance” is an undefined term. It's not in the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. It's not an economically defined term. It's way too broad. I'm hoping it's not going to include that, because Conservatives will not support that.

    I would like to suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes while we sort out how we can subamend NDP-3. If G-3 is not allowed, then I'm looking for a way to amend it by inserting a few words.

    Would five minutes suffice?

    Thank you.

    We'll suspend for five minutes.

     It now having been five minutes, I think we can resume.

    However, prior to resuming, I want to acknowledge that we are very privileged to have in the room today a number of grade 12 students who are taking a Canada and international politics class at Havergal.

    Thank you for being here, and thank you for taking an interest in our democratic processes. You will note that everyone here is very compromising, and that we continually collaborate.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: It is great to see you all here.

    On that note, I will go to Mr. Oliphant.

    The floor is yours.

    I'm just worried that they're going to think they did something wrong and are being punished by being sent to committee.

    We are in support of subamending NDP-3, an amendment to clause 5, with the insertion of six more words, which are in the last sentence. It begins “of the Convention”, and then it will be “prohibit the provision of financial assistance, and to restrict invest[ments]”, and continuing on. It is restricting not only investment, but providing financial assistance in the pursuit of that.

    It's good to hear you're in favour of your own subamendment, Mr. Oliphant.

    I was in favour of their amendment.

    That is what you stated, yes.

    I will go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Since no Liberal member came to me when the meeting was suspended, I'd like the wording of the amendment in French, please.

    There is a French version. It's exactly the same as in amendment G‑3 and that is to prohibit the provision of financial assistance. It's in the bundle containing amendment G‑3. This is to add to NDP‑3 these words from amendment G‑3: “prohibit the provision of financial assistance”.

    Thank you.

    Okay. Is there unanimous consent for this subamendment?

    The legislative clerk has asked for a pause. I will suspend for a minute.

    We will resume.

    The legislative clerk has rightly pointed out that there were a couple of terms that were not included in the French version.

     I will give the floor to the legislative clerk.

    Will you kindly read us the French version of the amendment?

    Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, I will read out the entire amendment:

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much to the legislative clerk for filling in the gaps.

    Now, is there unanimous consent to this subamendment?

    (Subamendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Now we will go to the amendment itself. Is there unanimous consent for the amendment as amended?

    (Amendment as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Yes, there is.

    Shall clause 5 carry as amended?

     Mr. Chair, let's just pause for a second here. The subsequent amendments from the government are to clause 6. Clause 5 can carry.

    Yes.

    (Clause 5 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (On clause 6)

    The Chair: Thank you. We now move to clause 6.

    Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

     As a point of order, I just want to make sure we don't miss this, but we have an amendment to clause 6(1), after line 11 on page 4. I don't believe that's in the package.

    I don't believe so. Let me just check.

    We're just going to put this one on the record now. I just didn't want to move past it.

    Do we deal with it first, or do we deal with G-4 first?

    We need two minutes. We will suspend for two minutes.

     Chair, I think we have a compromise and could hammer through a couple of things in the next 90 seconds.

    You could, in 90 seconds and some minutes.

    I don't know. Can we quickly adopt a couple of things in the next two or three minutes, or not?

    I don't think we can.

    Are you guys prepared to quickly adopt a couple of things in the next two or three minutes, or are there still things we have to hash out? If we need to hash them out, we don't have time, but if—

    Let's go to the ambassador. The two minutes isn't going to make a difference, but it's not a good look when you have the ambassador waiting.

    It's 30 seconds to 12 o'clock noon. Given that I have been informed that the Ukrainian ambassador is waiting, we will now suspend, but before we do that, allow me once again to thank our officials for being here with us as we have gone through clause-by-clause, and also the legislative clerk for assisting us in this endeavour.

    We will suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the officials to leave. Those who are on Zoom can remain connected for the upcoming session.

    Welcome back, members.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee resumes its study of the situation at the Russia-Ukraine border and the implications for peace and security.

    It is now my great pleasure and honour to welcome back to our committee Her Excellency Madam Kovaliv, ambassador of Ukraine to Canada.

    Madam Ambassador, thank you for joining us once again today. You have six minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours.

     Dear Mr. Chair and honourable members of Parliament, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

    In August, when I was addressing the committee, we were discussing energy security as winter was approaching. There were a lot of concerns on how we in Europe—not just in Ukraine—would get through the winter. This was really a very hard winter for Ukraine.

    From October 10, Russia carried out over 33 massive missile and drone attacks on energy infrastructure, with about 70% intercepted by Ukraine. We had blackouts, massive destruction of our electricity grids, and days without power, gas and heating during the cold winter. The deadliest air strikes were on residential buildings, including in Dnipro, Kyiv and Zaporizhzhya. Over $411 billion U.S. in damage was assessed by the World Bank.

    Now, though, it's spring, and we are extremely grateful for the robust support of the Canadian Parliament, the government and the people of Canada. We appreciate the strong cross-partisan stance in Parliament in supporting Ukraine through this barbaric war. Canada's support has made a difference.

     A total of $450 million Canadian helped the Government of Ukraine procure gas and supply heating to Ukrainian families. Another $115 million Canadian donated to the World Bank helped us to rebuild damaged electricity grids and supply power. Five billion dollars in loans to the Ukrainian government helped us to finance pensions and social supports for IDPs and other vulnerable people.

     Demining equipment donated by Canada is helping to clear our streets and fields of Russian mines. Support with other partners of the grain from Ukraine initiative secured the over 170 million tonnes of Ukrainian grain delivered to countries in the global south. NASAMS is among the most advanced air defence systems in the world, and Canada committed to supply this to Ukraine to protect our cities and to protect the lives of our people.

    We are grateful to members of the committee for your steadfast support of Ukraine during more than a year of this full-scale invasion; for your political support and the adoption of the motion to name the crimes committed by Russia as a genocide against Ukrainian people; for the call to designate the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization; your recommendations in the report; and your political standing in different arenas, including the international one.

    Crimes of aggression, war crimes and genocide: All of these horrific crimes require justice. Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are investigating over 80,000 war crimes, including the killing of 10,100 civilians, among them 470 children. More than 19,500 Ukrainian children were illegally deported to Russia. Unfortunately, only 328 of them were returned home. According to the evidence, they were forced to learn the Russian language and Russian-revised history, and many were filmed for Russian propaganda campaigns.

    Justice for these crimes is necessary, not only for families who lost their loved ones. It will also serve the critical interest of global justice to prevent future crimes and other dictators like Putin from committing them again.

    We are grateful to Canada for the important contribution to the ICC in investigating the war crimes, including those against women and children. A global arrest warrant issued by the ICC for Putin and his so-called commissioner for children's rights is a first important step on our way to justice. We value Canada's participation in the core group that is working on the establishment of a special international tribunal on the crime of aggression, which is aimed at bringing Putin and his close circle to accountability.

    Russia has already strategically failed in Ukraine. It failed to take control of Kyiv as it assumed it would in the first weeks of the war. It failed to break the morale of Ukrainians during the attacks on critical infrastructure that deprived us of heat and electricity. It failed to sustain its attempts at offensive operations this year.

    It failed to break unity among the partners. On the contrary, with Finland's accession to NATO and with Sweden on the way, Russian invasions strengthened the Euro-Atlantic alliance. It will be even stronger with Ukraine joining NATO, and we expect Canada's strong stance welcoming Ukraine's application to NATO. The Vilnius summit will be an important platform for this very necessary decision of the alliance.

    Russia has also failed to break Ukraine’s spirit. Ninety-five per cent of Ukrainians believe there will be victory on the battlefield. According to recent polls, 87% support Ukraine joining NATO, and 87% support Ukraine joining the EU. The sanctions imposed on Russia are working and depriving Russia not only of money to wage war but also of the possibility to produce weapons on a large scale. We must increase the pressure of sanctions, including those on the nuclear sector. We need to keep strict control and prevent sanctions circumventions.

    As well, frozen Russian foreign money and the money of Russian sanctioned oligarchs needs to be seized. REPO, which is the special working group on the sanctions, has already blocked 58 billion dollars' worth of Russian sanctioned assets. Next steps need to taken.

    On the military side, the heaviest fighting today is around Bakhmut. Since January, Russia has been taking enormous losses in forces and heavy weapons in its attempts to capture the town. The city of 70,000 people has been almost completely destroyed by Russian bombs and artillery. It is literally a pile of rubble, but we are holding and we are fighting. Russia is constantly attacking by air, and that’s why it is crucial that we have the air defence systems and the fighter jets to protect the whole territory of Ukraine.

    As of today, the length of the active front line is 1,300 kilometres. That’s roughly the length of the Canada-U.S. border along Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined. Our brave men and women on the front line continue to fight, including those 35,000 who have been trained by the Unifier program. I would like to thank all the Canadian instructors for their dedication in training Ukrainian forces. I would also like to thank you for your contribution to the military support that Ukraine is receiving from all the allies: Canadian Leopard tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, artillery shells, drones and much more. This is an important investment in our victory, and also in Euro-Atlantic security.

    Further counteroffensive operations will be successful, with well-equipped Ukrainian forces backed by tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, ammunition, air defence and fighter jets. The multi-year program of military support for Ukraine in Canada and among our other allies will help to ramp up defence production and secure needed military equipment.

    On a final note, I would also like to comment on another front—Russia's attempts to tackle our unity through disinformation. Unlike tanks, guns and missiles, this massive weapon is not always clearly seen. Russian disinformation campaigns not only focus on propaganda and undermining support for Ukraine but also challenge institutions, basic values and democracy itself. More often, they are meant simply to sow dissension, to divide people, because when allies are divided, it is tougher for them to forge a common resolve against an external threat. Now more than ever it is important to recognize those threats and address them.

    Honourable members of Parliament, Ukraine is grateful for your leadership, your voice and your efforts to stand against the horror of a Russian full-scale invasion and all the horror it has brought to our country. We value your steadfast and cross-partisan support of Ukraine, fighting for our freedom and for democracy. There is no better way to promote our joint values today than by defending them together.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much, Your Excellency.

    We will now go to the members for the first round of questions.

    It will be for five minutes, beginning with Mr. Genuis.

    The floor is yours.

    Thank you, Chair.

    Your Excellency, thank you for being here. Ukraine is not just fighting for itself; it is on the front lines of a fight for the security of the entire free world, so I want to thank you and all the people of Ukraine for your heroic courage in this fight. We must be with you for as long as it takes.

    I also want to recognize, as you did, the fact that the last time you were here, we were discussing the issue of the Gazprom turbine waiver. You encouraged us to revoke that waiver. Members of all three opposition parties sought to put pressure on the government, and the government did, eventually, reverse course on that.

    Thank you for the role you played in that process. I think it shows that a strong parliamentary democracy, in which opposition parties can use the tools we have to put pressure on the government to make actions match rhetoric, is certainly very important.

    There are a number of themes I want to hammer through as quickly as I can. First, could you provide us with some specific information on Ukraine's military hardware needs and what else Canada could be doing in terms of supplying critically needed military hardware?

    In terms of the military support, there are five or six priorities where Canada has already stepped in. However, the reality on the battlefield is that we need more. We value Canada's joining the tank coalition. We value the Leopard tanks that have been already delivered to Europe and hopefully will soon be delivered to Ukraine. It's important.

    We also need artillery. Artillery is something that will definitely be needed for the counteroffensive operation, as Russia still prevails in the ability to fight.

    The second thing is the air defence. Since the very first day of this full-scale invasion, Russia has had dominance in the air. You'll remember that the first message from Ukraine was, “Close the sky.” We understand now that the reality in closing the sky is to help us with the air defence. Ukraine is looking for NATO standard fighter jets. That is important to protect the cities and the infrastructure.

    We went through the hard winter with massive missile attacks throughout all of the country. I would put armoured vehicles and tanks as the main priorities.

    Also, I would like to stress that what is now happening with our other NATO partners includes planning for the long term. The defence stocks in many of the countries are running out. Ramping up defence production, both to increase those security challenges to our partners and also to be able to help Ukraine, requires more mid- and long-term planning. The long-term programs of support, and as a consequence also ramping up the defence sector and defence production—which also creates more jobs in these countries—are very important as we look at it strategically.

    Thank you.

    The next question I want to ask is about the impact of some of the comments that the President of France is making. I've been quite concerned about those comments, especially about China and Taiwan. The unity of western nations has been critical in the last 18 months. We should stand together in defence of the international rules-based order, instead of seeing attempts to cut side deals.

    Our view is that Ukraine must achieve victory on its own terms, that allies must support Ukraine for as long as necessary, and that any negotiations with the potential for concessions by Ukraine should be up to the Ukrainian people, through their democratic representatives, to deliberate and decide on, without external pressure.

    I also see that asking Xi Jinping to help make peace between Russia and Ukraine makes about as much sense as it would have made to ask Hirohito to negotiate the future of Alsace-Lorraine.

    I wonder if you have any comments about what Macron has been talking about in terms of China, and then also about other feelers or proposals regarding peace negotiations from other western European states.

    Madam Ambassador, you have approximately 30 seconds.

    Ukraine seeks peace, but Ukraine seeks real peace. Ukraine—President Zelenskyy—developed and presented a peace formula that has 10 points, and the most crucial of them is the restoration of Ukrainian borders, bringing justice.

    We're grateful to the 141 states that voted for that UN resolution supporting the basic principles of the President Zelenskyy peace formula. We value all of our partners who support this formula, including all of the European countries.

    This is the framework for future peace.

    Thank you very much. I agree completely.

    Thank you.

    We will now move to Mr. Zuberi.

    You have five minutes.

    Madam Ambassador, thank you for being here today and for coming to our committee again.

    We are all together, steadfast in support of the Ukrainian people and your country to defend against this illegal Russian aggression—this illegal war.

    I want to touch briefly on the status of refugees in your homeland of Ukraine. We in Canada have welcomed 209,000 Ukrainians who are seeking refuge. This has been supported by the 1.4 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage.

    Can you speak a bit about how Canada is helping to resettle Ukrainians, as you have seen this happen, and how other European partners are also involved in that?

    Unfortunately, the war has forced a lot of people, mainly women and children, to temporarily leave Ukraine and find a safer place. We're really grateful to Canada for launching a special program, CUAET, for this. The Canada-Ukraine emergency travel program, which expires on July 15, helps those Ukrainians find a safer place. We are really grateful for the support that Ukrainians who come to Canada get, including in terms of health care and financial support, but also many in other activities.

    I would like to thank the Canadian people who opened their doors and helped families with accommodations, finding jobs and finding schools. They opened their houses to host Ukrainian families. This is incredibly impressive, and I would like to thank them.

    Of course, we now have millions of people displaced. The biggest numbers of those who are outside Ukraine now are in Poland and Germany, each of which is hosting over a million temporarily displaced Ukrainian people. For many in Ukraine, Canada is treated as being more like a good country and as kind of a very close neighbour and friend. Moving to Canada is moving to a good friend's, where they welcome you and help you go through this hard time.

    Thank you for that. I believe it will increase the enormous collaboration between our people.

    Certainly. We are happy to welcome people who are seeking refuge. This speaks to the Canadian tradition, a tradition that we honour and value. During COVID-19 we resettled more refugees than any other country, including America. We are happy to help.

    I want to pivot for a moment and speak about what the Chinese ambassador said in relation to Baltic states. In particular, he said that Crimea is Russia, and these borders have no legal basis. Do you want to comment on that?

    Ukraine is a member of the United Nations. The independence of Ukraine in 1991 was recognized by many countries. I am grateful to Canada for being among the first to recognize Ukrainian independence. Ukrainian independence as a sovereign country means all Ukrainian borders, including Crimea.

    Coming back to Crimea and the situation there, what's happening with the indigenous people in Crimea, the Crimean Tatars, is that they are now under immense pressure from the Russian regime. Many of them are imprisoned. A lot of them have been prosecuted and put in jail. Russia for many years was trying to give the message that because people in Crimea were also speaking the Russian language, it was a Russian population, but it was not and is not the case now. The people who are now fighting on the front line speak over 10 different languages. That includes the international legion and volunteers.

    Crimea is Ukrainian, and Crimea will be Ukrainian.

    I want to underscore what you have said, that these borders are internationally recognized and that any world leaders who question that.... Those statements are erroneous.

    Thank you.

    Thank you.

    We now go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

    You have five minutes, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ambassador, thank you so much for being with us. I'm sure you can see that all parliamentarians from all parties in the House are supporting you as best they can.

    Let's go back to what you said during your speech, particularly on the issue of the power grid. We learned in the February 17 edition of La Presse that Hydro-Québec had responded to your embassy's call to help Ukraine rebuild its power grid. This included sending equipment there, such as transformers. Do you know if that equipment was sent to Ukraine, if it was helpful to you and what the current status is?

    In the winter, Russia started precise targeting of all the critical infrastructure. The losses are now over $11 billion. We are very grateful to Hydro Québec and other energy companies in Canada, but Hydro Québec was the first to respond, to help with the equipment.

    Mostly it's transformers, cables for the grids and the other different equipment that is not so easy to produce. We in Ukraine were trying to find everything, even used equipment, that can be deployed and can help. We appreciate the efforts of Hydro Québec to help and to provide the needed equipment. We are now working on that file and finalizing the equipment that can fit. Unfortunately, we had slightly different energy systems and energy requirements in terms of the technology, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank Hydro Québec, Manitoba Hydro and the other companies that were the first to come and offer support.

    Thank you very much.

    My colleagues talked a lot about China. China is sort of the elephant in the room all over the place, from the Canadian news to the conflict in Ukraine. To what extent do you feel China's influence in the conflict? Are you seeing any concrete effects of China's interaction with Russia right now?

    The first time President Zelenskyy talked about the peace formula was at the G20 summit, and then it was the UN General Assembly that made the resolution.

    What Ukraine offered to every country was a peace plan that is actually is based on international rules and order. This is the basis for what Ukraine offered to all of the countries to work on, and Ukraine is open to many of the countries to join in working together on this peace plan.

    We are open and encouraged, and we are grateful to Canada for supporting the efforts of this peace plan, along with many other countries. I would say that Ukraine wants a very stable but also a very fair peace. All of the negotiations that could come to the different platforms need to stick to the basic principles: respect of the sovereign country, respect of the sovereign borders, and justice, because without justice, we cannot be assured that it will not be repeated.

    It needs to exclude food security, because food security is not only an issue with Ukraine. It's also a global issue, which we have already faced. There's also what's now happening with the grain initiative, which is once again at risk. Nuclear security is important for everybody, as is countering ecocide, because that is also happening in Ukraine.

    Ukraine set the important milestones on what we feel needs to be restored. That platform is open for discussion, but it is precisely based on this recognized principle of the UN Charter.

    Thank you very much, Ambassador.

    Ms. McPherson, you have five minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    It's very nice to see you again. Thank you very much for being here, Ambassador, and sharing this update with us.

    Obviously, we all wish that this was not necessary and that the Ukrainian people had won the war already and were able to continue on with their lives. I also want to thank you for helping me arrange some meetings when I was in Ukraine earlier this year. That's one of the things I wanted to talk about a bit. As you know, I was able to visit Irpin and see some of the really horrific devastation that has been done to what is very clearly civilian infrastructure. The destruction of a playground is something I will never, ever forget in my entire life. The violence that has been done to civilians is such a clear indication of war crimes, such a clear indication of genocide.

     One of the things I also saw in Kyiv—and we talked about this—is that Ukrainians are living their lives. They are continuing to be strong in the face of what Russia is doing. When I spoke to the First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, she mentioned the idea that Ukraine is trying to rebuild. It's trying to rebuild these communities. One of the ways Canada can help is by helping to provide insurance to Canadian companies that are, in fact, interested in working in Ukraine but perhaps can't take on that risk.

    Can you talk about the ways Canada could help Ukraine rebuild at this time?

    Thank you for visiting Ukraine and taking the opportunity to see all the horror and damage the war has brought. Just a few weeks ago, the World Bank published an assessment of the damage to Ukraine—it now exceeds $411 billion. That is huge. Of course, Ukraine will need help rebuilding. Russian frozen sovereign assets and the assets of Russian oligarchs need to be channelled to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine. Also, the private sector, with its technology and with its capacity, needs to help with the rebuilding of Ukraine.

    We had our Prime Minister visit Canada two weeks ago, and we were talking with the private sector about involvement in the rebuilding. This rebuilding is already happening. Rebuilding happens a maximum two hours after a missile hits the power grids, for example, because we need to restore them. We have no time to wait until the war ends. We need to rebuild schools. We need to rebuild them so that the children can go underground when there are air raids and continue their classes. We need to rebuild schools, hospitals and all of the other infrastructure, including over 35,000 homes that were completely destroyed.

    For the private sector to enter, war risk insurance is crucially important. We've started to work with institutions like the World Bank's MIGA, but also with the expert credit agencies throughout G7 countries and the world to find this instrument, to secure the so-called war risks for the private sector so that it can have more clarity and insurance about entering Ukraine.

    Also, I would like to mention one example of how during wartime, the Canadian private sector is stepping into a strategic partnership with Ukraine. An agreement was signed, witnessed by our Prime Minister who was here in Canada, with one of the biggest Canadian companies that produces uranium. That uranium will be supplied to produce fuel and will replace Russian nuclear fuel in all of the nuclear power stations in Ukraine. This is an example of building a strategic partnership between our companies and others from the private sector. It was widely mentioned during the meeting with Prime Minister Shmyhal and the private sector that they want to see these supporting instruments in order to de-risk their activities in Ukraine.

    Thank you.

    One of the other groups I met with was the Soloma Cats, which is a group of young people who are doing incredible work to support their communities but also incredible work to demine. We can't ask populations to come back to rebuild Ukraine without demining efforts being taken. Unfortunately, these are teenagers and people in their early 20s doing this demining work without the supplies they need, without the best material to do that very dangerous work. I have an 18-year-old, so for me it was shocking to see what they have to do this demining with. Is that another way Canada can help—providing some of the supports for demining?

    Demining is a great issue for the safety of all the civilian population. Unfortunately, to bring those territories we have liberated back to life, we need to work deeply on demining. Also, a big thing is the demining of the agriculture fields. Unfortunately, we have over 100 cases where farmers have died due to mines in the fields, and unfortunately there is also part of the territory of Ukraine that will not have any harvest this year because of mines. We are really grateful to the Canadian government for its response to the Ukrainian call on the demining file and for providing equipment, but we need much more, and we will be grateful for that.

    Thank you very much.

    We now go to the second round of questioning.

    We start off with Mr. Epp. You have four minutes.

    Thank you, Your Excellency, for returning.

    You mentioned in one of your earlier comments the closeness we share as nations—our relationship. That is not only between countries. For many of us, that is also personal, as we have heritage from Ukraine—all four of my grandparents were born there. You also mentioned energy security, and we were just talking about agriculture. My own roots come from the farming fields of Ukraine. My grandparents were there.

    In your opening comments, you talked about the grain exports and that program. Can you talk about the status of that? As a committee, we have a notice of motion on file to look at the global resource challenges that this invasion has brought, be it on food, fuel or fertilizer. I hope we will get to that study fairly soon.

    Can you talk about the situation at present? We're going into spring here in Ukraine and in Canada as well, so what does it look like?

    The situation now is becoming harder. We renegotiated, with the support of the UN and Turkey, the extension for the grain corridors from the Black Sea. Unfortunately, for the last few weeks, Russia has been manipulating and has been taking too much time in checking the ships. That significantly delays exports. By these artificial delays for any of the checks, they have decreased the volumes that we are exporting. They can pick and choose the ships they want to check, but not those that are in line and committed. Of course, that creates another risk in terms of the export facilities, because the seaports remain the biggest routes of exports from Ukraine.

    The second thing is the demining. It's a big issue for us to be able to go into the season and to predict a harvest that's as normal as it can be in the circumstances, but also, there's the situation with the small farmers, because for small farmers it's becoming harder and harder to get financing when they start the planting season, to get proper fertilizers and sometimes even to get diesel.

    All of this, especially when it comes to the small and medium-sized farms, will be even harder than last year.

    I look forward to the opportunity of exploring where Canada can help with those situations and also help perhaps some of the areas where Ukraine has been such a breadbasket in terms of exporting food to areas of the global south.

    Switching a bit tangentially here, the Wagner Group obviously has been so active in Ukraine and in parts of the global south. Unanimously, our group has passed a motion calling for the Wagner Group to be declared a terrorist organization. We have made that recommendation in a report, and the House of Commons has passed it unanimously. Our government has not yet followed through.

    What would be the impact of a national statement by this government on declaring the Wagner Group a terrorist group?

    We believe the Wagner Group is a terrorist group, not only because it is committing these horrific crimes in Ukraine—including this shared video in which its members were seen cutting off the heads of Ukrainian soldiers and doing all the tortures—but also because there are impacts in the global south. This is far-reaching. We've all witnessed that food insecurity is the big risk, not only for all of us, but especially for low- and medium-income countries in the global south.

    In order to address this, we launched a joint initiative called “Grain from Ukraine”. With the support of Canada and other countries, we were able to deliver 170,000 tonnes of Ukrainian grain to the countries that were most in need, but there is a need for much more.

    In terms of the Wagner Group, we believe that they are a terrorist organization, and they need to be treated in a proper legal way that can be implemented, because this is spreading violence, and not only in Ukraine: It's spreading violence in the global south, the region that is a partner for us and is important to us.

    Thank you.

    We now go to Ms. Bendayan.

     You have four minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Your Excellency, thank you for returning to our committee. It is always a pleasure to gain your perspective and to of course thank you as well for all of the work you are doing here in Canada and in Ukraine.

    I have only a short amount of time. I would like to pick up on some of your opening comments with respect to sanctions.

     You mentioned that the impact of sanctions has been significant. I believe the figure you cited was that $58 billion has been blocked from Russia. One particular area that has gained some attention is around sanctions on fertilizer. As you know, Canada imposed a 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer at the very beginning of the Russian invasion.

     Unfortunately, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in the House of Commons to remove those sanctions on fertilizer. Our government has preferred to stand up to Russia, to keep those sanctions in place and to support farmers by investing in them to help diversify away from Russian sanctions.

    I'd like to hear your view about the importance of those sanctions on Russian fertilizer, but also on what you're hearing from other allies—including perhaps in the global south—about the possibility of other countries imposing similar sanctions.

    Sanctions are really important. It's also important that they be timely and that they be continued. If we look back to last year and even the year before the war, Russia benefited from the high energy prices and was able in both 2021 and 2022 to have record revenues in oil and gas exports. The decision to impose the price cap was implemented in December. Since then we've seen a significant decrease in Russian export revenues, and it continues. We also see a significant lack of technology and lack of access to technology. Sometimes Russians, through third parties, import washing machines in order to get the small chip to be able to produce weapons.

    So it is important to work on the sanctions circumventions and to deprive Russia. Otherwise, on one hand we are imposing sanctions, but if we are not closing these loopholes whereby Russia is circumventing them, we ourselves are decreasing the impact of the sanctions.

    Actually, a big part of fertilizers is the same gas. For many of the fertilizers, 70% of their cost is in natural gas. Without the sanctions, it's the same energy but with a different name. We need to be consistent in approaching the sanctions.

    Thank you, Your Excellency.

    With the short amount of time I have left, I'd like to give you an opportunity to advise our committee as to what additional defence materials Ukraine may need. Of course, our Leopards have arrived and you articulated very well the extent of Canadian support in providing artillery and other defence equipment to Ukraine.

    Perhaps I could also mention that it's very important to the Jewish community that I represent in Outremont that over the course of Passover everybody in our community enjoyed Ukrainian matzo. You mentioned that Ukraine continues to produce grain, and that is something that the Jewish community here in Canada feels is incredibly important to support and has celebrated. I wanted to let you know that.

    Perhaps I could turn it over to you on the defence question.

    Could you respond very briefly, please?

    Armoured vehicles, artillery, artillery shells, air defence and continued training are the crucial needs, but there is one more need. We are all approaching the Vilnius NATO summit, and we will count on Canada's support for Ukraine on our way to NATO. Ukraine believes not only that it's important for Ukraine to be a NATO member but also that Ukraine's membership in NATO will increase significantly the security and capability of the allies.

    Thank you.

    We now go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

    You have the floor for two minutes.

    Ambassador, you stated that sanctions were not effective enough and that there should be more of them. Can you elaborate on that? I only have two minutes, unfortunately.

    There is another sector that is still not under sanctions, which is the Russian nuclear sector. Russia is not only using nuclear threats but also putting at risk the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, Zaporizhzhya. It's permanently at risk from shelling attacks, with horrific consequences.

    Also, Russia is trying to use its nuclear sector to circumvent the sanctions. This is another big thing that we need to work on together. Ukraine has already imposed sanctions, and Ukraine has run out of Russian nuclear fuel, so we have moved on now to a Canadian company that is owned by Canadian funds; the Canadian company Westinghouse is supplying all the nuclear fuel to Ukraine.

    It is also important to mention two things—working with sanctions circumventions and specifically those on technology, microchips and everything that can be used as a part of producing weapons.

    The third thing is working with frozen assets, because these are the assets that will serve to build Ukraine. We are very grateful for the support of legislation that provides the opportunity to seize these assets. We will be grateful to see the first cases.

    Quickly, are there any countries that—

     I'm afraid you're out of time, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. I'm sorry.

    We will next go to Ms. McPherson. You have two minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    For those of us in the smaller parties, it's always a bit of a challenge as we try to squeeze a few more seconds out.

    Ambassador, I just wanted to let you know that this committee is undertaking a study on the sanctions regime. Therefore, we will be looking at that, and we may even ask for your expertise at that time. From your perspective, I can see that there is some work to be done around the sanctions. I certainly am a little concerned about the enforcement of our sanctions regime and some of the transparency.

    I'd love an update from you on a couple of things, though. First of all, we have heard a lot about the children being stolen by Russia from Ukraine and taken to Russia. We've also heard a lot about sexual violence and rape being used as weapons of war in this conflict.

    Could you very quickly touch on any update you have on both of those topics?

    I think now it's all too obvious that the forceful deportation of Ukrainian children is not the only thing we have been talking about. Now we have the global arrest warrant for Putin and the so-called Russian ombudsman for children for illegal deportation and illegal abduction of Ukrainian children. Unfortunately, over 19,000 Ukrainian children were forcefully deported.

    The horror is that many of them have parents in Ukraine or grandparents from Ukraine. There was a horrific story just three weeks ago. A grandmother went to Russia to take her child back, and she died there. These are the stories that are happening.

    These children are brought throughout all of the country. Unfortunately, we're trying to get as much information and track as much as possible to know where our children are and to bring them back. However, we've managed to bring only 328 of them back. This is the horror of many mothers, fathers and relatives. It's not only orphans; every child matters for us.

    This is the war crime that the ICC is investigating. The support for ICC in this is important. It is important to work with us to find ways that we can bring these children back.

    On sexual violence, there are also many criminal cases we are investigating. Also, one thing that we will need support on, especially having this big capability in Canada, is with mental health. A lot of people, including those who have gone through sexual crimes, need to have proper treatment. We, as Ukraine, are seeking to get the best knowledge, experience and protocols on how we can help people and the women who have gone through sexual crimes—there are also many others who have gone through the horror of the war—to get better through mental health care.

    Thank you.

    Thank you.

    For the last round, we will go to Mr. Genuis. You have three minutes.

    Thank you, Chair.

    My colleague across the way decidedly misstated the Conservative position on sanctions. We have been consistent in pushing for tougher sanctions. I have limited time, so I won't say more than that.

    Your Excellency, I wanted to ask you two questions about the church in Ukraine. First of all, the Orthodox Christian community celebrated Easter last Sunday. Precisely at that time, Russian invaders destroyed a number of churches in the Zaporizhzhya region. Are the Russian invaders intentionally targeting churches or other religious infrastructure? Are there instances beyond the ones I've mentioned, where you see this happening?

    Yes, Russia is targeting churches, historical and cultural places, and libraries. We have over 300 religious, historical and cultural places that have been either significantly targeted or destroyed.

    It was on Easter. It was when people were going to churches. We have a tradition in Ukraine to bring bread and Easter eggs. Russia was still launching missile attacks on those civilian objects. There were no soldiers in the church. The people went there to pray, with the hope for victory and for their sons and daughters who are on the front line.

    When it comes to the occupied regions, they are even looting and burning Ukrainian books from the Ukrainian libraries. They published new books on history in Russia that are just on the history of Kievan Rus. They're totally erasing Kyiv as the centre of Kievan Rus.

     Thank you.

    I want to get one more question in, also on the church issue. I know there is legitimate recognition of the negative role of the Moscow patriarchate and its support for the war. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, under the ecclesial jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarchate, has sought to distinguish itself.

    I know this is a complex and sensitive issue. I wonder if you could share any comments on the relationship between the Ukrainian government and this particular church, and on how to strike the balance between preserving religious freedom and addressing instances of churches' being used and misused for hostile military purposes.

     I think it's quite obvious. Ukraine, as a country, respects all religions. We have different religions inside the country. Yes, Christianity is the majority religion, but Ukraine has never had any issues with respect for any other religious beliefs of our citizens and people who live in Ukraine.

    Also, in wartime, it's not a matter of the church and religion but a matter of the individuals who could be—and are—investigated concerning their activities against Ukraine, its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. That's it.

    Thank you for that response.

    Thank you.

    For the last question, we will go to Mr. Sarai.

    You have three minutes.

    Thank you, Ambassador. Thanks for coming again and letting us know how the situation is there.

    Can you enlighten us on the strength of the European Union members and their commitment, as well as that of others that surround Ukraine? Is it still as strong as it has been and as we've seen? Are there any places where it is wavering? The reason I ask is so that we could perhaps help apply pressure to those states that might be wavering or not giving as much support as you would hope.

     The Russian invasion did exactly the opposite of what Russia was trying to achieve. Europe is more united. Ukraine now officially has the status of a candidate for EU membership, doing its homework in a speedy way, I would say, to meet the standards and requirements to be an EU member, the same as we will do for NATO. It brings the dialogue between the EU and Ukraine to a totally different level.

    For example, in February we had the EU-Ukraine summit. It was in Kyiv, and most of the commissioners were coming to Ukraine and seeing on the ground..., understanding both the need for Ukraine to defend itself—because we are all defending Europe, the security of Europe—and a lot of things that are happening in our integration, whether it's the digital infrastructure, whether it's logistics, whether it's industry, whether it's standards. Our path is now officially that of a candidate for EU membership. We're more closely co-operating with both the EU countries and the European Union itself on our path to the EU. That brings a lot of collaboration, a lot of joint groups on proceeding quickly on this integration.

    I would also like to say that Ukraine also has the EU as a part of its bigger foreign agenda, because Ukraine is not stopping doing its homework during the war. Historically, for the first time, a country that is in an active fight for itself—Ukraine—has a four-year program with the International Monetary Fund, which on one side provides funding to Ukraine and on the other side is a path to structural reform. The government is committed and is doing this.

    That has brought unity. Of course, there are some issues that can happen from time to time that the countries of the European Union and Ukraine are discussing. However, we have a totally different feeling in terms of co-operation.

    Thank you very much. That concludes questioning.

    At this point, Madam Ambassador, allow me to thank you once again. I think it would be fair to say that we have had the great honour of benefiting from your insights and your perspective and expertise, more than those of any other ambassador in the city of Ottawa.

    Thank you for always making yourself available.

     Thank you.

    Also, as it is an honour, we were wondering if we could take a picture with you. Thank you.

    Do you have something to say, Rachel?

    Mr. Chair, to clarify, I believe that my colleague Mr. Genuis indicated that I misstated the Conservative position, and I would refer him to the vote of June 7, 2022.

    Ms. Bendayan, that is debate. Thank you.

    Prior to adjourning the meeting, I'd like to quickly indicate that the subcommittee met a couple of days ago and agreed to adopt the calendar to the end of May.

    I want to make sure that there's unanimous consent for that.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Thank you. It was sent around this morning by the clerk.

    Our next meeting will be on Thursday, from 11 to one. We will return to consideration of clause-by-clause for Bill C-281.

    Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thanks.