Evidence of meeting #105 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay.
The very first one is in the third line of the English version. It would replace “to use Russian titanium” with the words “the use of components potentially containing Russian titanium”.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
I have a question of clarification for Mr. Oliphant. As I recall, at the beginning, he mentioned the confidentiality of the components or ingredients that go into the manufacturing of products by Airbus and Bombardier. Then he said, “potentially containing Russian titanium”. That complicates things even further, because there could be other sources of titanium in some components.
If we don't know the tricks of the trade and we don't have an idea of the content of the product, how can we determine how accurate this approach will be?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think I understand your point. I'll be very clear: I have not been privy to conversations at Global Affairs about this topic. This is not my file. This file is handled elsewhere from me. I have the same information that you have from media reports.
From what I understand, there are components used in the aerospace industry in Canada that come from European manufacturers. Those European manufacturers use titanium that comes from Russia, but they may source it from elsewhere. The waivers are to ensure that a company is not breaking the law if they discover at some point that there is titanium from Russia in the components that have been made.
I think we would need the Aerospace Industries Association or other particular companies to come and explain why this is a problem. We have done that in this committee. Are there other sources of those components? Are the components already made? Is there titanium in them? It's about the safety of aircraft.
May 1st, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
I'll take it at face value, but I do recommend, due to the lack of information and knowledge about this industry in general—and I agree on the confidentiality issue—that we should probably keep the motion as wide open as it is.
When we bring industry and the experts here, we will have a chance to at least understand this whole issue properly and deal with it without having to deal with any speculation over what is right and what is wrong and what is accurate and what is not.
It's going to be very difficult for us to determine what we are voting for if we cannot go that way on your first recommendation.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My fear is they could easily say, “We do not use Russian titanium in our manufacturing.” Then we wouldn't get the truth. They could easily say that.
I'm trying to be more helpful—maybe it's not helpful—by broadening it to say that if they are bringing in components to do secondary manufacturing that may contain titanium, we want to hear about it.
It's not just titanium. If we just ask about titanium, they're going to say.... It's not Walmart, and you go in and buy a box of titanium. This is very complex stuff. It's not my world—I'm not an aerospace engineer—but I understand it's unlikely we get titanium in a box. We get it in a component, and components are such that there may or may not be titanium in them. We should have the industry association and the companies come to talk about it. That's all.
I'm being more specific to help us make sure we don't have someone go around it.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Let's put it to a vote. Let's have a show of hands.
(Amendment negatived)
The next amendment is up for debate.
Mr. Oliphant.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
This is replacing the value statement, which I found we couldn't support, to get it to a motion that we could support.
It's to replace the words “and given that this is not the first time that the government has weakened and undermined Canada's sanction regime”—we profoundly disagree with that statement—“against Russia by waiving sanctions” with the words “in light of media reports that aerospace companies employing thousands of Canadian workers”—
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
On a point of order, Chair, the bells are ringing. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The second one is to add “in light of media reports that aerospace companies employing thousands of Canadian workers received waivers to ensure their supply chain is compliant with Canadian sanctions regulations”.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Are there any comments?
All those in favour?
(Amendment negatived)
We'll move on to the third one.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Instead of “hold at least two meetings”, it's “hold one meeting”.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
All those in favour?
(Amendment negatived)
We'll move on to the fourth amendment.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The fourth amendment is with respect to witnesses. The motion only requires one witness, and we don't view that as sufficient.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I will keep talking to see if it's working.
Is it working now?
