Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I didn't think we were on it.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

If everybody stops talking, we can have the vote.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

But we would like a vote on the main motion, not on one of the adjournment motions, because we're in no way prepared to adjourn this meeting. We have an important issue and if that's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

My sense is that debate has not extinguished, and we're being advised that we need to suspend to get resources in line for 6:30 to 8:30.

With that, we'll suspend for 30 minutes and then resume in the same speaking order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Colleagues, let's try to continue.

Before giving the floor back to Mr. Oliphant, for the benefit of all members here tonight, I want to give a bit of a recap of where we are.

We have before us a motion that the debate be adjourned until the completion of the work on Ukraine. The debate that's being referenced is on the original motion by Dr. Fry, which was amended by Mr. Genuis to delete in English, “that the committee hold no fewer than (5) five meetings”.

We are still on the adjournment motion—it's conditional and therefore debatable—that the matter be adjourned until the completion of the committee's work on Ukraine.

The speaking order we have on this motion at the moment is Mr. Oliphant, Madame Bendayan, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Chong and Mr. Genuis.

With that, I will pass the floor back to Mr. Oliphant for resumption of debate.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would continue simply to say that I would be against this motion to delay voting on this as a potential study to be scheduled. I think it's a topic that deserves studying.

We have shown in this committee how we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We have interspersed a variety of studies, starting one and continuing with other studies. I think it's suspicious to say that we should delay a vote on this until after another study is finished, when we don't even have a firm date on that study. I think we're mixing apples and oranges in this. That's my fourth metaphor; I apologize.

What I like about the motion by Dr. Fry is that it puts a stake in the ground for this committee to say that this is an important issue to study. And it's not the only issue we'll study. There will be other motions. We have a number of notices of motion on the books right now. Once we get a number of motions, then we'll have a meeting. We'll look at what the priorities of the committee are—to do what, when.

However, because this does not have a time limit—it does not have a deadline set on when the study would begin or would end—I think it's appropriate for us to dispose of it quickly. So I would not be supportive of a motion to delay a vote on it. It's an unusual motion to adjourn until after an unknown date. I'm not even sure I would have agreed to that kind of a motion. Also, adding a substantive part to that motion, with respect to the number of committee meetings, I don't think is appropriate at this time within that context. So I will be voting against this motion.

There were many comments in the lengthy speech that Mr. Genuis made that I could comment on, but I'll refrain, hoping we can quickly dispose of the motion to adjourn conditionally, so we can get to the main motion quickly and get it done, and put it into our ideas for a potential work plan and leave it until the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.

Madame Bendayan, please.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you. I'll keep it short.

As Mr. Bergeron pointed out earlier today, Ms. Fry brought forward the issue and proposed a study back in December—long before the events the Conservative members are claiming prompted the motion. That is not at all the case.

Ms. Fry put forward her motion months ago. I think we're ready to vote on it.

I would also like to very briefly respond to the lengthy intervention by my colleague on the Conservative side, simply by saying that it was, indeed, my motion on Ukraine that was presented in January of this year. It is absolutely an important study. I would hazard to say it's one of the most important studies the government is undertaking at the moment. Obviously, that's my personal opinion.

I also agree with my colleague Mr. Oliphant's comments. There have been many other members of this committee, including my Conservative friends, who have argued quite the opposite, that we should be hearing witnesses on matters relating to Tibet, on maters relating to Taiwan and many other issues that we all agree to. Now, strangely, on this particular issue, they seem to suggest that we are not able to study Ukraine and any other subject at the same time, which is, of course, untrue. We are doing it at the moment, and we can do it again.

Once again, as many have said, the motion before us does not include dates, and these will be up to the subcommittee to decide.

For those reasons, I will also be voting against my colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you for your comments, Ms. Bendayan.

Next I have Mr. Duncan, please.

Go ahead.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you hear me okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Duncan, I am advised that the microphone is not selected. As such, could you just double-check the connection?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

You'd think I'd have this down pat two years in. I apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the clerk for that advice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That's good now. Thank you very much.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I am, as you are all aware, subbing in today in participating in a committee, and it has been informative. We started off several hours ago with what I thought was an informative briefing, and we had committee business—a couple of motions—to deal with. We're still on that. It was unfortunate that I was not able to participate in camera, as we were to deal with I believe the statement on the important issue of Ukraine. Public Accounts is my main committee, but I of course have been watching with interest the work that all our committees do.

I want to give credit to my colleague Mr. Genuis from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his comments on this. I will agree with his premise on the need to prioritize and his amendment on it, which I believe is reasonable. I believe it is fair and accurate and resembles when I try to do a pulse of our community. I think of my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry in eastern Ontario. As we get back to normalcy, we have events back in our community, and we're getting a pulse for what we're hearing from our constituents on issues they believe that we as parliamentarians should be tackling and focusing on. I agree with him wholeheartedly in his amendment that this committee needs to continue its important work on the topic of Ukraine, and I believe that is something that is front of mind for many Canadians.

As was alluded to, I believe this motion is meant to be divisive. As Mr. Genuis and other colleagues of mine have noted, this is not the only committee that is seeking to reopen the abortion debate here in Canada. There are several committees that are attempting similar motions like this. Canadians do not want to see the debate reopened.

It would be incumbent, I believe, on this committee that is dealing with foreign affairs and international development, that we look at and survey our country on what is front of mind. When it comes to what this committee's work should be, I think it's finishing the work on Ukraine, hearing from witnesses, working on the draft statement, which I believe was being dealt with in camera today, and also, again, coming up with a final report of ways where, frankly, on many issues, when you look at the Conservative Party's perspective, the Liberal Party's perspective, the NDP's and that of the Bloc Québécois, there's been actually a strong consensus on the need to focus on this important issue, not just to the benefit of the Ukrainian people, but I believe in the bigger geopolitical situation that our country faces.

Mr. Chair, one of the things that I commented on, and the importance of this, is that I believe the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the horrific war crimes that are happening under Putin's regime and actions are one of the things that has made this front of mind for more Canadians. This been able to stay, rightfully, in the front of our public debate and discourse in this country, which is why I believe this committee needs to focus on it.

I can perhaps compare, as I know that unfortunately, sadly, the Afghanistan committee that was supposed to be hearing tonight from the interpreters was cancelled as a result of this. It is unfortunate, but it speaks to where I believe that in this situation what we're seeing in Ukraine, with the evolution of technology, the evolution of social media and our smart phones, is that we have Canadians in real time, whether it be on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok or other forms of social media, who have now seen first-hand in near live time the atrocities that have been happening, the unjustifiable horrific actions by the Russian regime.

I'm amazed. Just as an example, as I was saying, we're getting out into our communities more, and I was in Morrisburg at the South Dundas trade show. It was a great way to take the pulse of the community. I was there for two days and got unfiltered feedback—good, bad or indifferent—from constituents on issues or topics that are important to them. It gives you a chance to understand what's resonating. In terms of the number of people I spoke to over the course of a day and a half at that event, it was incredible in terms of the number of people who were more knowledgeable about the geography of Ukraine, perhaps, but again, about the geopolitical aspects there, the humanitarian aid that Canada needs to provide and to continue to provide lethal weapons as well. I'll get into that a little bit, as well as why this issue continues to be and should be front of mind.

It's the first illegal invasion.... It's a war. It's an illegal invasion. It has gotten so much attention because people have seen it in live time. They've seen the videos. They've seen the bravery and the determination of the Ukrainian people in fighting back against these horrific acts.

As was mentioned, and again, I know that with numerous colleagues from all parties there's been consensus on the urgency and importance of this. War crimes are being committed, and there are numerous unacceptable actions by Mr. Putin. When we look at the issue of Ukraine and the topics we need to cover, they're very multifaceted and are why this committee should be prioritizing that work, ensuring that this is dealt with. We're hearing from witnesses. We're making recommendations. Again, I say it from a constructive perspective, in the sense that I believe parliamentarians are pretty well united in terms of a lot of the topics and the approaches they need to take.

When we talk about humanitarian assistance and our foreign aid and being able to provide that, and the access to providing and equipping the Ukrainian military with lethal weapons, I think it is absolutely essential in making recommendations in this timely manner for how we can do that better as an international community and how we can best do it as Canadians.

As well, one of the things that I think is especially important, too, Mr. Chair, is the compassionate grounds. Canadians, as always, have stepped up to offer help. Again, I'm amazed. When we talk locally, I have to admit that very often foreign affairs topics and international jurisdiction may not always be the front of mind to all Canadians, but with what has been happening in Ukraine and, again, the manner in which we're able to communicate it, and just the atrocities of it, the unbelievability and the evil that we've seen in these actions, more Canadians are versed in this.

I've been amazed over the course of the last while as I see a growing interest from Canadians when we talk about this topic of how they can help support refugees and humanitarian efforts, particularly for women and children who are attempting to relocate to Canada. There are a few things when we deal with that in terms of what the committee can do to better resettle them. Again, we have a few Ukrainian families that have arrived in my community in rural eastern Ontario. One of the things we've heard on that is about the disorganization and the frustration around paperwork processes and access to flights, and the confusion and some of the chaos, frankly, around that. We saw that last year during the Afghanistan crisis with the evacuation of numerous Afghanistan citizens, those who helped us in our time of need in Afghanistan. We saw absolute chaos and disorganization.

Mr. Chair, again, I think the one reason why this needs to be front of mind and continues to need to be a conversation for our committee is that there is more work to be done there, and certainly recommendations. There are witnesses we need to hear from in the NGO community and, from a governmental perspective, departmental officials, as well as international organizations and those that are on the ground in terms of how our response as Canadians can be improved.

I certainly think that one of the things we could agree on is that the more timely we make that, the more we hear those voices at the committee, the more we get to that testimony and make recommendations I think to positively pressure the government, the bureaucracy, NGOs, and I think, frankly, even beyond in the international community, there's the opportunity to be constructive and to be united as a Canadian Parliament regardless of which political party. There's been a lot of support for this. I think the committee needs to be focusing on that and addressing that.

One of the things as well, Mr. Chair, is another angle. We talk about the economic aspects, and that's one of the things that I believe the committee needs to continue to tackle, and why I support and will continue to support the amendment, the principle of it and the importance of it, because that's what I'm hearing. I know that many of my colleague are hearing about the need for this—and I think that frankly around the country we are hearing about it in terms of the energy policy and the energy dependence that far too many countries in Europe have in an alliance with Russia.

We've had motions and we are trying to get on record and pressure the government to be more aggressive on this. I will say, as constructive as my comments have been on unity, Mr. Chair, on many of the aspects I mentioned before, that when it comes to the role that Canadian energy can play in I think destabilizing the war machine in Russia, there unfortunately has not been much agreement on that topic.

I think it's important to have the time at committee to really study and look at that aspect of the relationship and how our Canadian energy, whether it be on our east coast or in the west, can be used in the short term to destabilize—and rightly so—Putin's economy, his regime and his oligarchs. In the longer run, we can look at how to support our Canadian economy, which helps to support causes not just in Ukraine, but in the international community. We could also take a look at some of the economic aspects. This could help, in the long run, what we do and how we do it, while sending a message to other regimes that have undertaken horrific actions similar to those Russia has taken. The world is watching and Canada is watching. Canada can step up, and this is a way that we can do more.

We need to have attention on how our actions and our resolve could actually improve the situation and resolve the situation better, particularly in Ukraine, in terms of destabilizing the Russian economy and government revenues. We need to have more of those debates and more of those understandings, and I think it would be a benefit to our committee and a benefit for Canadians to understand our role, not just with a verbal commitment, but with tangible actions economically that can benefit Canadians and, frankly, can benefit the environment.

We have an energy sector in this country that is second to no other around the world. I will put up the workers, I will put up the companies and I will put up the trajectories and plans of our Canadian energy sector, any day of the week and any month of the year, against those of any other country in the world. There's a commitment to human rights and a commitment to the environment, and I think you would see both of those issues better addressed if we saw more support domestically for our sector. As opposed to phasing it out, with all the negatives that you see, let's embrace the technological advances while helping not only ourselves domestically and environmentally, but those around the world. I believe, from a human rights perspective, we should stop sending dollars to countries that do not deserve revenue, growth and support through those means and that are turning around and doing devastating actions. We're seeing this unfold day after day, week after week and now, unfortunately, month after month with what is happening in the situation in Ukraine.

One other thing that I think is important—and why this amendment is important—is to ensure that the focus and attention continues to be on this, not only for ourselves as the committee and as Parliament through the committee's work, but for the message it sends to the international community, and particularly the business community.

This is timely today. As I was participating in the meeting earlier—I will acknowledge that I was paying attention, as I always do—I was getting caught up on news. It's timely because we are talking about the economic impacts of how numerous businesses, international corporations and businesses of all types are receding from and closing their relationships with Russia. Many have done so on a pause basis, a short-term basis, to see exactly what's going to happen, but I've been impressed by the number of businesses.

There is far more that needs to happen in the coming weeks, months and, frankly, years to make sure we don't go back. There need to be serious long-term consequences. This is a topical issue, and with the actions we have seen from Vladimir Putin and his thugs over the course of the last couple of months particularly, we need to make sure the message we're sending, not only in this instance but for future acts of inappropriate and unacceptable aggression, does not go unanswered.

There's a reason I say that. There was an article just published this afternoon, probably around midday, by BBC News with the headline “McDonald's to leave Russia for good after 30 years”. The article, which was published by Becky Morton, said, “McDonald's has said it will permanently leave Russia after more than 30 years and has started to sell its restaurants.” As these temporary measures were taken by several in the business community internationally, it is going to have a significant continued ripple effect and a continued consequence, which I think is positive. It comes “after it temporarily closed 850 outlets in March”. As stated:

The fast food giant said it made the decision because of “the humanitarian crisis” and “unpredictable operating environment” caused by the Ukraine war.

Now, it's noted that McDonald's has had operations in Russia since 1990, and that was meant to symbolize “a thaw in Cold War tensions”. As stated:

A year later, the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia opened...its economy to companies from the West. More than three decades later...it is one of a growing number of corporations—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Duncan, let me pause you for a moment here. We have a point of order.

Please go ahead, Madam Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

As much as I'm enjoying this lengthy filibuster, I would like to make a point of order based on relevance. I understand that the amendment on the floor is with respect to Ukraine, and as much as I congratulate the member for having read the news today about McDonald's, I think we are veering way off topic.

The motion and the amendment that we are discussing are about pushing off a women's reproductive rights study, and not McDonald's, so I have on a point of order on relevance, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I'll take the point under advisement.

Mr. Duncan, it's on the margins of relevance. I think it is still tangentially relevant because it is about the dynamics in Russia, but if you can keep your arguments as focused as you could on the motion itself, that would be appreciated.

Thank you very much.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Perfect, and again, to relevance on this, I'm happy to provide a refresher to the member on how this is connecting to relevance. I'm happy to do so in the sense, as I've mentioned, of the importance of the amendment introduced by my colleague, which I believe is a valid one, because I'm trying to demonstrate the wide variety of topics on the subject of Ukraine that I believe this committee needs to continue its work on.

Mr. Chair, I've mentioned before the humanitarian aid that the Canadian government has provided and needing to provide lethal weapons and needing to improve our refugee and immigration process for those who are fleeing Ukraine and are looking for safe haven in Canada. I'm talking about the Canadian energy sector and its importance on this topic and, as I was alluding to, the article here—and I'll get to it again—is showing some relevance of the economic factors here and the importance of where I'm going.

Again, as we've been in committee meeting here for several hours, I don't mean to talk about food or McDonald's as such, but the seriousness of it, in getting to this, is that a corporation today—just as an example in their case—is making news on a significant commitment to remove itself from its operations in Russia. We're seeing numerous corporations, numerous businesses, do that. They're looking for continued leadership or direction from countries like Canada. Just with the example today, the corporation said that they were going to “write off” charges of up to $1.4 billion that they are going to absorb themselves and write off—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order again, I'm going to interrupt because this is no longer relevant to the amendment, and the fact that this member is now preventing our committee from voting on this motion is getting a bit ridiculous—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

On a point of order, I think you've already ruled on that, Mr. Chair, but I'm happy for you to do so again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I think what you are trying to do, Mr. Duncan, is to establish why your initial comments that were challenged were being relevant. I would encourage you to finish that point and then return to the thrust of the motion, if you could. I will sustain your comments as they are given to us.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

As I was saying, the economic context here is that there are numerous corporations around the world that have tentatively, and at different levels, suspended their economic relationships with Russia. That needs to continue over the course of the next couple of months. They're looking for continued leadership in the long term. The point I'm trying to raise, which is relevant to the amendment, is ensuring that this committee continues to put a focus on an issue and a topic that is important to many Canadians, that is, the illegal, horrific, unfair invasion of by Vladimir Putin and his regime.

It's important to go back to the economic aspect of this. There are billions of dollars left up in the air that I believe need to permanently leave, as we saw in the news article today. The article does reference numerous other corporations that are waiting to see not only what the short-term aspect has been, but what the medium-term and long-term aspect has been.

I think from the committee's perspective, when we go back and look at the larger aspect and mandate here, the geopolitics of the region have implications for the two countries right now, and we're all aware of the ripple effect of not confronting this issue with the emphasis that we've seen. We've seen a solid response from the international community, but the committee's work needs to continue on this aspect because it's not just Ukraine that is in Russia's sights. You can look at Poland, you can look at the Baltic states and you can look at the news.

The relevant news, which I believe the committee would be interested in as an evolving topic, was the announcement this weekend from Finland and Sweden of their request to urgently join NATO and become partners there. We're seeing a snowball effect moving here, and there have been conversations, doubt and perhaps a lack of political will from different factors for several years about those two specific countries joining NATO. I've been following that with interest and making sure that is timely and that the information is there. As we talk about the importance of the amendment to have the committee focus on concluding its work on the topic of Ukraine, I think what happened this past weekend has provided relevance to the committee and relevance to the importance of focusing on and hearing from witnesses on the subject of Ukraine.

There are other countries around the world, unfortunately, with perhaps similar negative intentions. They are watching to see how the international community responds or, in many cases, does not respond to the challenges and horrible actions we're seeing by Russia. I think of China. We've talked—and I believe will again later this week—about its relationship with Taiwan and the connections there.

Maybe not every Canadian is watching the House of Commons committee on foreign affairs, but I know there are a lot of like-minded countries around the world that are not seeking to reopen the abortion debate and are not looking to create division. We see that. I say this because there have been numerous attempts by members to implement and institute several different aspects of that here by trying to raise these types of motions at a wide variety of committees and cause a change in the direction of all this.

I believe it's incumbent on this committee.... I appreciate that, yes, I'm not a regular member, but having been here for several hours today listening to discussions from members of all parties, I wanted to make sure that I was on record for the amendment and its emphasis and focus. I am bringing the views of my constituents and I believe of millions of Canada. If they had the opportunity to understand what this committee should be tackling and discussing, it would be concluding the meetings, testimony, recommendations and next steps on how Canada can improve its response to the very real challenges facing the brave and wonderful people of Ukraine.

With that, I believe my colleague Mr. Chong is next, but I appreciate taking a few minutes while here at committee today, which has turned into tonight, to get on the record. I believe it's very important that the amendment be considered, as this issue has relevance and should be the focus of the committee as the work of the committee continues in the last five or six sitting weeks we have here in Ottawa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Duncan, thank you very much.

We have on the speakers list at the moment Mr. Chong, Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Chong, please go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be voting for Mr. Genuis's motion because I think the main motion introduced by Dr. Fry concerns me. I think we need to have some off-line discussions about what the nature of that five-meeting study would be before we agree to it.

The way I read the original motion introduced by Dr. Fry is that it says that if it is adopted we are going to study, amongst other things, access to abortion in the United States of America, which I do not think that we as a committee should do.

Clearly, I'm not alone in my interpretation of the motion introduced by Dr. Fry, because I've listened to the debate on that motion very carefully throughout today, and clearly, others on the committee have interpreted the motion in the same way, which is that if the motion is adopted, it would include a study on access to abortion in the United States. I do not think that is a matter that this committee should be seized with.

It's why earlier in our debate today I moved an amendment to strike the reference in the motion to the recently leaked draft ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, an amendment that did not pass.

As I've said, I don't support this committee studying access to abortion services in the United States. I think there are many matters of more urgent concern in the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States.

I want to be clear: I fully support women's reproductive and health rights here in Canada and I support the current common law and legislative frameworks that have long been in place. I know with a great deal of certainty that Canadians do not want the debate on abortion here reopened. We don't want to import into this country the kind of fractiousness that we have seen south of the border on issues like abortion, which is another reason why I don't think we should be studying the issue of access to abortion in the United States in this committee.

Look, I support this committee studying access to abortion services and access to women's health and reproductive services in the global south. I think that's well within our remit to study. I think it's well within our remit to study the list of health issues that Dr. Fry has put into her motion. I think it's worth studying a full range of health services, including family planning and modern contraception; comprehensive sexuality education; safe and legal abortion and post-abortion care; laws restricting or prohibiting women's rights to abortion, the medical and socio-economic importance of maintaining the right of access to safe abortion; and prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections. I think that's all within the committee's remit, provided that it focuses on countries that Canada has traditionally provided aid to in respect of those services.

That does not include the United States of America, our largest trading partner and ally, and I don't think the study should include that, which is why I moved the amendment earlier to strike the words “given recent reports of international backsliding related to women's sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Clearly, that was a reference to the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I don't think we should be importing that kind of divisive politics into Canada. For those reasons, I don't support this committee studying that issue as it relates to the United States.

There are so many other issues of concern to Canada-U.S. relations that are more important than access in the United States to abortion services. Line 5 is one example. It supplies half of Ontario and Quebec's gasoline, diesel, propane and jet fuel—half—and it is now being—