Thank you, Chair.
The Liberals are often accused of taking simple issues and making them complex, and at the risk of that accusation, I want to spend a bit of time talking about this motion. It is worded in an almost simplistic way for a very complex issue, with assertions being made that may or may not be true.
Let me start out by saying that we are in favour of an opportunity to discuss the waiver at this committee. We think the committee has not only the right but the responsibility to understand this in an important way, so we are not opposed to doing this. We think our sanctions regime should be extremely targeted and focused on the enemies or wrongdoers in any situation.
Right now with respect to Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine, we have, in Canada alone, an unprecedented number of sanctions, which we have heard about in this committee. Whereas we used to have dozens to hundreds, we now have thousands of sanctions in place against Russia, Russian oligarchs and others who do business in and with Russia. It is an important regime, and we do it with our friends, we do it with our allies and we do it in concert with others.
At times, with sanctions, as we have understood since the 1980s, problems can be raised and we can have the wrong people paying costs or prices for the sanctions we are imposing. That's why waivers are in place. That's why there is a structure within our sanctions system allowing waivers to be made when a case is made that says a particular sanction is hurting the wrong people at the wrong time, is not effective or is counterproductive in our ongoing, always committed response to Ukraine and the egregious assault they are facing every day by Russia.
There is a system in place for waivers, and I don't blame any member of the committee for not knowing how these things work. Part of that is strictly controlled due to commercial interests and confidentiality, because what is in a supply chain, especially for high-tech or high-value manufacturing, is confidential, proprietary information that we want to make sure we protect. These are Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian jobs at risk. There is a system in place, and I think it would be very good for this committee to hear, to the ability that it can be explained, what the companies saw the problem was.
Let's be clear. We're talking about two aerospace companies. We're talking about Bombardier and Airbus. We are talking about two companies with thousands of employees in Canada that have a particular, very highly sensitive and important safety and commercial interest at stake. They have requested, as we have read in media reports, a waiver on one part of one sanction to allow them to do their work.
Again, we'll support this, but I'm going to suggest some amendments. Part of that is because we are not talking about buying a box of titanium. Two aerospace companies in Canada are attempting to bring in parts that they fear, they know or they understand may have titanium in them that has come from Russia. They're doing their due diligence. These are good corporate citizens trying to make sure that they do not break a Canadian law that this Parliament has passed and that the government has put in place at this time through the sanctions regime.
We have a situation where Canadians have the right to know—and it's important, within the bounds of commercial confidence—why this decision was made, but there are a few problems I have with the kind of value statement that is embedded in here. I would simply like to have a simpler motion that doesn't necessarily make a political speech but is able to get to the heart of the matter.
I am going to suggest four amendments to the motion as it stands right now.
The first one is with respect to the use of the words “Russian titanium”, which is in the third line in the English version. I would like to replace the words “to use Russian titanium” with “the use of components potentially containing Russian titanium”. I think that's important because we don't know the full facts on this and the committee should hear the full facts. I don't want to make a statement in a motion about something that may or may not be true, because we'd get the wrong evidence. If someone came to talk to us about the use of Russian titanium, they could simply say that it is not what they do. We want to be very clear that we want to talk about the use of components potentially containing Russian titanium.
That is the first amendment. I'm going to give all four amendments at this time. You can decide whether you want to vote on them all at once or separately.
As to the second replacement, while we would like to support this motion, obviously we differ with respect to the value statement. It says, “and given that this is not the first time that the government has weakened and undermined Canada’s sanction regime against Russia by waiving sanctions”. That's an opinion and we don't necessarily think it belongs in a motion. I'd like to replace those words with “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”. This is a justification for why we would like to do the study.
As to the third amendment, instead of “at least two meetings”, it would be “hold one meeting” on this issue.
The fourth amendment is with respect to witnesses. It would read, “invite Airbus, Bombardier, relevant ministers and government officials, and other witnesses as appropriate”.
I will speak to those amendments for just one minute and then yield the floor.
To summarize, I would be asking to replace “to use Russian titanium” with “the use of components potentially containing Russian titanium”. That is the first one.
The second one is the lengthy statement about weakening and undermining Canada's sanctions regime being replaced with the statement “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”.
The third one is to hold one meeting on this issue.
Last, we would like to replace “invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs to testify” with “invite Airbus, Bombardier, relevant ministers and government officials, and other witnesses as appropriate”.
Those are the four amendments we'd like to make. They would enable us to wholeheartedly support this motion and ensure that Canadians get to hear why this waiver was indeed granted.
