Canadian Speaking Tour in the News - CANADA-UKRAINE FOUNDATION

Nobel laureate and Ukrainian human rights lawyer Oleksandra Matviichuk is urging the international community to create a special tribunal to prosecute Russian President Vladimir Putin, who she calls the “biggest child kidnapper in the world.”

“This illegal deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia is part of a genocidal policy,” said Matviichuk in an interview with The West Block’s Mercedes Stephenson.

Matviichuk, whose Center for Civil Liberties jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, visited Canada this week to meet with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who described her on the social platform X as a “proud Ukrainian who is dedicating her life to defending civil liberties in her homeland and abroad.”

During her trip to Ottawa, she sat down with Stephenson and discussed her work documenting more than 72,000 reported human rights abuses during the war, now in its third year.

Matviichuk says some of the most egregious crimes have been committed against children, as part of what she condemns as a “widespread” and “deliberate” attempt to erase their Ukrainian identities.

“They are put in Russian relocation camps, where they have to sing the Russian national [anthem], learn the Russian language,” said Matviichuk. “And then they are prepared for the forcible adoption [by] Russian families.”

Last year, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Putin and Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights for the “unlawful deportation” of Ukrainian children to Russia. Moscow says it does not recognize the arrest warrants.

It is hard to get an exact figure, but Ukrainian authorities estimate as many as 20,000 children have been taken. Russia denies this.

The email you need for the day’s
top news stories from Canada and around the world.

“There is an accountability gap,” said Matviichuk. “We have to create a special tribunal on aggression.”

The ICC can’t prosecute the crime of aggression unless both the victim and “aggressor state” have ratified and accepted the court’s jurisdiction.

Without the creation of a special tribunal, Matviichuk, warns it will be difficult to bring the Russian president to justice.

“We will have no power to prosecute [him] because he has immunity within international law,” she said.

Matviichuk says she is in touch with human rights advocates in Russia, who share heart-wrenching stories of stolen Ukrainian children.

She recounted one case, where a young boy was separated from his teenage sister, adopted by a Russian family and given a new name.

“He was crying and said, ‘This is not my name, I have another name, where’s my sister?’” said Matviichuk.

“This policy destroyed their identity.”

— with files from the Associated Press

2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 39, Season 13
Sunday, June 9, 2024

Host: Mercedes Stephenson

Guests:
Garry Clement, Former RCMP Superintendent
Thomas Juneau, University of Ottawa
Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine

Location:
Ottawa Studio

Mercedes Stephenson: It’s a massive security threat and it’s coming from inside the House of Commons.

I’m Mercedes Stephenson. The West Block starts now.

Frank Caputo, Conservative MP: “This places a cloud of suspicion over every single member of the House.”

Mercedes Stephenson: As a report reveals some unnamed parliamentarians knowingly helped foreign states meddle in Canadian politics, those members could still be sitting in the House and Senate, and they could still be working with hostile foreign governments. We dig into the conflicting reports on how it could be dealt with.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “We’ve done just incredible work.”

Mercedes Stephenson: And we sit down with a compelling Nobel Peace Prize laureate who is fighting for the rights of kidnapped Ukrainian children.

It’s the latest report on foreign interference and it is by far the most explosive.

The 92-page document based on secret evidence and testimony raised serious concerns that some sitting parliamentarians have been knowingly colluding with foreign powers, including hostile ones. China and India are named as the two worst offenders. Among the allegations that some parliamentarians deliberately helped to influence Canadian politics in campaigns in the interests of foreign powers that some shared sensitive information that could help those foreign states and in some cases, shared material that would help foreign countries to pressure MPs to change their position in key issues. They’re also accused of accepting money and personal benefits in exchange for those activities.

The Liberals claim the RCMP will sort things out.

Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister: “We have confidence in our law enforcement bodies to do their job.”

Dominic LeBlanc, Public Safety Minister: “The RCMP take their responsibilities extraordinarily seriously, have the resources necessary to investigate and should the RCMP, for example in their wisdom decide that charges should be laid in consultation with the appropriate prosecutors, that’s our system in a rule of law democracy.”

Mercedes Stephenson: Yet intelligence often cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. In fact, Canada’s spy agency and our allies typically do not allow intelligence to be used in prosecutions. That’s because highly sensitive, secret information could be revealed in court, damaging sources and gathering techniques.

Garry Clement, Former RCMP Superintendent: “We take this extremely seriously, to make sure that we do not share information that will potentially harm Canadians.”

Mark Flynn, RCMP Deputy Commissioner: “Our hands are limited in what we can do. The work that we do behind closed doors is so important because there are a lot of steps that are taken to mitigate threats to reduce the harm, to increase public safety that will never see the light of day.”

Pierre Poilievre, Conservative Leader: “Who are they?”

Mercedes Stephenson: The Conservatives are demanding that the names of the accused parliamentarians be released.

Michael Cooper, Conservative MP: “The prime minister needs to release the names.”

Mercedes Stephenson: The NDP wants the political careers of those parliamentarians terminated.

Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader: “I believe if there’s any evidence that someone knowingly worked with a foreign government to influence our democracy, they should no longer be a member of Parliament.”

Mercedes Stephenson: Joining me now to talk more about this are Garry Clement, former RCMP superintendent; and Thomas Juneau, former Middle East analyst with the Department of National Defence, who is now teaching at the University of Ottawa. Thank you very much both for joining us.

You have phenomenal expertise in the worlds of intelligence and policing, and of course, you’re both keyed into politics and it seems like those three worlds really collided in this report this week that stunned a lot of Canadians and stunned a lot of us who work on Parliament Hill, alleging that there are a number of parliamentarians, which by the way can be both MPs and senators, who have knowingly engaged in essentially domestic collaboration with a foreign country, potentially to the detriment of Canada. In at least one case they mentioned that it was injurious.

Thomas, if I can start with you. How serious do you think the allegations in the situations described in that report are, this week?

Thomas Juneau, University of Ottawa: Well the allegations are potentially very serious. First of all, it’s a step more in terms of details and information and gravity of potential accusations compared to what we knew so far, but it’s only a step.

The second element to mention is to always keep in mind that yes, allegations are serious. Yes, overall we know that there’s a serious problem and more needs to be done, but there’s a lot of uncertainty still as to the specific details of what is being alleged right now.

Mercedes Stephenson: Yeah, there’s tremendous uncertainty. We don’t know how many people. We don’t know who. We don’t know which parties. We don’t know how many are still sitting. We don’t know how many are MPs and how many are in the Senate and we’re not even getting a ballpark on this. But Garry, the government is sort of punting this to the RCMP and saying well, we have faith in the RCMP and in CSIS. I keep hearing from senior law enforcement that they may not have the laws on the books to prosecute this. Do you think it’s legitimate for the government to say well it’ll go to the RCMP? I mean, could we see charges? Could we see charges as serious as some analysts have been raising, like treason?

Garry Clement, Former RCMP Superintendent: You know, I hate to say it but this is, in my view, total deflection. The reality of it is, and I agree with the senior RCMP officers you spoke to, the laws are not there right now. We don’t have a foreign interference directory. To say it’s treason, I mean, you might be able to stretch it and look at some of them from a breach of trust point of view but that’s just reflecting what the real issue is. The real issue is we’ve got a systemic problem in the House of Commons, dealing with members of Parliament that are abusing our democracy and impacting our democracy. I think the public is underestimating what this threat really is and how serious it is. And we need our politicians, at least somebody there, to show some leadership and not put their head in the sand as they are today and say well, it’s the RCMP’s responsibility and we’ll continue as we have always.

Mercedes Stephenson: Thomas, how do political parties go about investigating this, that the Liberals have said that they will conduct an internal review? I’m not sure how if they can’t release the names, and there’s a very real proposition that people could be voting for some of these people in the next election. Should Parliament investigate this? How do you think this unfolds to try to figure out who is involved and hold those people accountable?

The email you need for the day’s
top news stories from Canada and around the world.

Thomas Juneau, University of Ottawa: There really is no easy or obvious or simple answer to that question, and I’m not saying that to deflect or avoid the question. We don’t have, and that’s part of the problem, a clear mechanism to deal with this at this point. As we just mentioned, current laws are not well adapted to this, so that may not be an avenue that can work, even when laws are well adapted, and in some cases there’s always an issue of converting intelligence into evidence, into criminal proceedings in court. That’s a big challenge that we face. And our political parties, a) have an incentive not to make this public. Have an incentive to deflect. Have an incentive not to directly address this and I think it probably goes to more than just political party. So what is the answer? I think the answer has got to be given the very imperfect situation we deal with, multiple options. The media has to continue pressuring. Civil society has to continue pressuring. Opposition parties have to continue pressuring. We have a variety of review and oversight bodies, some of which have published reports. Very recently, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. They have to continue to be—the whole commission on foreign interference has to continue being engaged. It’s not perfect. None of this is magical, but overall, you have to hope that these small steps will lead to progress.

Mercedes Stephenson: Garry, the Conservatives, who by the way were silent on this for close to over 24 hours, I think because they tried to figure out to your point Thomas, what it meant for their parties. There are always partisan interests. The Liberals have been deflecting. The NDP and the Bloc, ironically the party which wants to separate from Canada have probably been the most aggressive on this file, but the Conservatives have been calling for the names to be released and so have other opposition parties. The Liberals have said they can’t do that. It’s dangerous for a number of reasons. It would compromise intelligence. It could unfairly implicate people who there is no evidence of, there’s just intelligence on. What’s your view on whether the names should be released?

Garry Clement, Former RCMP Superintendent: I strongly believe they should be. And I guess what I’m going to say to that, Mercedes, you know, in my generation, my father, my uncles, further generations, grandparents, grandfathers, they fought in two world wars to have democracy in this country. And we’ve got now, a situation where we’ve got individuals that are supposed to be representing our interests in a democracy that are lining themselves with state actors that go against the very thing that our fathers and forefathers fought for. So my reaction to the Liberals nod is shame on you as politicians. Shame on you prime minister, you’ve got a lot to atone for. Let’s have some leadership and get this done.

Mercedes Stephenson: Thomas, do you agree with that?

Thomas Juneau, University of Ottawa: The lack of transparency here is casting a shadow on the system as a whole and that is damaging trust in institutions. Transparency is never a magic recipe that will resolve all of these trust issues but it can ultimately only help, even if it’s difficult. Even if politically it can be embarrassing. That being said, without defending the government here because I do think that they should be more transparent, it is difficult. There are privacy issues. There are classification issues. There are ongoing investigation issues that may, in some cases, and we don’t know that publicly justify not releasing names or at least not right now. And in other cases, you know, what’s been said is not necessarily inaccurate that in some cases there might be intelligence on possible relationships but that’s not proof. So do you—where’s the minimal bar to be transparent when you have suspicions but no proof where a wrong accusations could seriously damage not just a career but you know, the overall life of an individual. So yes, transparency, but it is complicated.

Mercedes Stephenson: We’ve seen the report. It’s public, but of course, none of us have seen the raw intelligence products that the members of Parliament on this committee have been able to see.

Pierre Poilievre has said that he wants to see this information. He wants to see the names, but he has refused to be background checked to receive a security clearance. This is something the Liberals jump on all the time as a partisan point saying well what does he have to hide? I’ve spoken to some experts who say he doesn’t need a security clearance because the prime minister doesn’t get one. Others don’t get one. Certain elected members of Parliament are considered privy councillors. They can have access if the government determines. Others say no, there is one standard in order to see classified, raw information, you have to have undergone a security clearance. I’m curious to know what both of you think of that, starting with you, Garry.

Garry Clement, Former RCMP Superintendent: To believe that anybody that’s going to see sensitive intelligence, it should be mandatory they get a security clearance. And I honestly don’t understand why they’d be against it unless they’ve got something to hide. The bottom line, it’s the only way we’re going to protect security.

Mercedes Stephenson: Thomas?

Thomas Juneau, University of Ottawa: I don’t know why the leader of the Opposition does not want a security clearance but I think he absolutely should get one. If we want to be collectively, not just him, serious about addressing what is a serious problem, security clearances are absolutely necessary.

Mercedes Stephenson: We just have a few seconds left, but I’d ask each of you what the biggest thing you think the government needs to do going forward is to protect Canada against this kind of foreign interference by members of Parliament.

Garry Clement, Former RCMP Superintendent: Just in very short, we have a real situation in this country. It’s not a small issue and I think it’s time that we accept that we have a huge issue. It’s affecting our reputation internationally and we really have to take this by the horn and deal with it and be open and transparent.

Mercedes Stephenson: Thomas, last word to you.

Thomas Juneau, University of Ottawa: I would say very quickly, first pass Bill C-70, which is being considered right now. It’s a first step. It’s not enough, but it’s a good first step. And two, we need a much more serious national security culture in Parliament, in the public service, in the media, in civil society, in academic, to understand and deal with these issues much more seriously.

Mercedes Stephenson: Thank you both so much for your time, your knowledge, your expertise. I’m sure we’ll be talking to you again soon.

Thomas Juneau, University of Ottawa: Thank you.

Garry Clement, Former RCMP Superintendent: Thank you very much.

Mercedes Stephenson: Up next, Russia’s campaign to ethnically cleanse Ukrainian children, and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who’s fighting against it.

[Break]

Mercedes Stephenson: Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and human rights lawyer Olesksandra Matviichuck has dedicated her life to helping the people of Ukraine. She’s been documenting war crimes in her home country for the past 10 years, ever since Russia’s occupation of Crimea.

In the past two years alone, she’s helped to document more than 7,200 cases of war crimes. But one of the projects she’s the most passionate about is helping the children of war in Ukraine. And she is meeting with leaders abroad around the world to help garner support for that cause.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “For just things that will work fighting for accountability in the horrific Russian invasion in Ukraine but also more specifically nearer to my heart, fighting for the children that have been taken away from their families, from their homes, from their language, from their culture, and are too often forgotten of conflicts like these.”

Mercedes Stephenson: I sat down with Oleksandra Matviichuk last week.

Oleksandra, welcome to The West Block and thank you so much for sitting down to share the stories of Ukrainians with our viewers.

Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine: Thank you for this opportunity.

Mercedes Stephenson: You have a tremendously difficult job. You are documenting the crimes against humanity and the war crimes that the Russians are carrying out in Ukraine. Can you tell us some of what you are seeing day to day still? Because I think many Canadians are familiar with what happened at the start of the war but they may not realize it’s still going on.

Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine: We document every day how Russian troops are deliberating shelling residential buildings, schools, churches, museums and hospitals. How they are attacking recreation corridors. How they’re torturing people in filtration camps. How they’re forcibly taking Ukrainian children to Russia. How they’re banning Ukrainian language and culture. How they’re abducting, robbing, raping, and killing civilians in the occupied territories. So to be clear, we are documenting not just violations of Geneva and Health conventions. We are documenting human pain.

Mercedes Stephenson: Much of that pain is being felt by families as Ukrainian children are being taken by Russians to be indoctrinated.

Piotr Hofmanski, Former President, International Criminal Court: “It is forbidden by international law for occupied powers to transfer civilians from the territory they live in to other territories. Children enjoy special protection under the Geneva Convention.”

Mercedes Stephenson: The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s’ rights, for the war crime of unlawful deportation of children and that of unlawful transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.

Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine: When we have even this arrest warrant of International Criminal Court, even this arrest warrant provides them a legal obstacle because authoritarian leaders can afford themselves to shake Putin’s hand, but not democratic leaders can do it—I mean to shake hand[s] with [an] officially recognized person as the biggest child kidnapper in the world.

Mercedes Stephenson: It’s factually accurate but so many don’t think of him along those lines. What has happened to Ukrainian children? We know that many were taken to Russia, but my understanding is as we were doing research for this, it is very systemic and a very sophisticated effort with a very large number of Ukrainian children.

Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine: Yes, it’s a widespread action and this is deliberate policy how to [00:03:48] with Ukrainian nation because this illegal deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia is a part of the genocidal policy which Russia imposed against Ukraine. Ukrainian children in Russia, they are told they are not Ukrainian children. They are Russian children. They are put in Russian re-education camps where they have to sing Russian national song and to learn a Russian poet and to say that Russia is their mother land. And then they are prepared for a forcible adoption in Russian families where they will be [brought] up as Russians.

Mercedes Stephenson: The Ukrainian government says it’s happening to nearly 20 thousand Ukrainians, some as young as four months of age. They’re being taken from their hometowns across the border to at least 43 camps spread from one end of Russia to another. The primary objective: to strip them of any form of Ukrainian heritage and replace that with Russian culture, patriotism, and military education.

Russians separated this father from his kids. He was sent to a labour camp. The children held in a different city.

[00:04:59 Child speaking]: Translation.

Mercedes Stephenson: It’s a form of ethnic cleansing to take children from their parents, to wipe them of their history, to essentially brainwash them to believe that they’re someone else, that they’re a Russian instead of a Ukrainian. That they belong to a different family is so hard to even imagine in this day and age we heard never again for so long after what happened to Nazi Germany and the re-education camps there or the Stalinist camps, the re-education camps there. How do the children react to this situation because I know you’re hearing their stories?

Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine: So this is a story which was told [to] me by my friend. She was [a] journalist and she’s originally from [00:05:57], which is now under Russian occupation. And Russians came to her native school. They burn out books of Ukrainian history and Ukrainian language, and substituted with Russian books. And now each day in the school is starting with singing Russian national song. But one child didn’t think and they teacher once started to ask him why you are not singing with others? And the child responded, “I don’t know the words.” “What’s the problem”, said teacher. “Go home and learn it by heart.” The next day when this child returned, [the] teacher deliberately put him alone in the front of the whole class and ordered the child to sing Russian national song. And instead of Russian national song, this child started to sing Ukrainian national song. And why it’s [an] emotional story for me personally [is] because it showed that when [a] child in occupation has strength and courage to resist, we as adults have no luxury to get tired.

Mercedes Stephenson: Oleksandra, can you describe what it’s like when some of these children who have been rescued and brought back are reunited with their families?

Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine: I can tell you the story of [00:07:27 Yevhen Mezhevyi?]. He has three children. He was separated because he didn’t pass filtration. And he spent one month in captivity. And I will agree on the frame, the cruel treatment which was faced in their captivity, but then when he was released, he came to Russia and he managed to stop the process of forcible abduction of his three children.

Mercedes Stephenson: The family now reunited. An inspiration for so many as they remember why Ukraine and the war there matters. Oleksandra, thank you so much for joining us.

Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chair, Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine: Thank you very much.

Mercedes Stephenson: Coming up, the double standard between journalists and parliamentarians when it comes to national security.

[Break]

Mercedes Stephenson: Now for one last thing…

Allegations that Canadian politicians have been colluding with foreign states to influence and even share information that’s harmful to Canada shocked the country last week. Journalists need to press for answers. Who? What? When? Why? And what does it all mean?

Given that, I thought it would be worth pulling back the curtain a little bit on some of the challenges that journalists contend with on national security reporting, namely something called the Security of Information Act (SOIA). It can be used to charge reporters and to threaten our sources.

Introduced after 9/11, SOIA as it’s better known, was designed to stop espionage and foreign threats, but it also looms large over journalists. Reporting classified documents or information, even if it is in the public interest, could land reporters in jail.

I’ve had national security sources warn me about discussions they’ve witnessed when angry senior officials wondered if my reporting might contain information that police could arrest me over.

Even outside of the Act, there’s a culture of weak source protection in Canada and intimidation. Military police have hounded and grilled people they believe are my sources.

National security investigations have been launched, including over who leaked the information to me that China was harassing Canadian Air Force crews over the Pacific, and a crown attorney once threatened to designate me as a federal material witness at trial to obtain my notes, phone recordings, and force the disclosure of a confidential source.

It all creates an interesting double standard when we hear that the laws in the books may not be enough to prosecute parliamentarians who engaged in deeply unethical behaviour.

That’s our show for today, and we’ll see you here next Sunday.