Evidence of meeting #21 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the honourable member. That was very kind of him.
I was going to use my time to ask once again that we vote on Mr. Bergeron's subamendment, but I know we can't do that because there are still people on the speaking list.
I listened to what the honourable member had to say, and I want to thank him for his earnest examination of the subamendment. I didn't know it was possible to spend a whole five minutes talking about changing a word in the singular to the plural. I was trying to explain what a filibuster was to some colleagues and family members, but they didn't really get it. If they tuned in to this morning's proceedings, they just might.
Ms. Fry put forward a fine motion. I think the committee can move the discussion along and proceed swiftly to a vote. I've had a look at the studies the committee has begun, and they seem very worthwhile. A lot of work has been done. It's too bad that the committee is still discussing this motion.
That's all the time I'm going to take.
Thank you to the honourable member for giving me his time.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to speak to the subamendment, but I want to speak to the whole concept that my motion originally was trying to supersede other motions. If you read my motion, it isn't. It is proposing a study. Why would I want to bump Ukraine, especially when, with regard to the study I am proposing, we heard from the ambassador-designate from Ukraine that Ukrainian women are being raped by Russian soldiers regularly?
These are the kinds of women who need access to safe and legal abortion. These are the kinds of women who need the services we're talking about to see if they have gotten any sexually transmitted diseases from the Russian soldiers. These are the women we want to talk about. They are fleeing as refugees to countries, two of which do not actually allow safe, legal abortion.
We're talking about Ukraine actually, but I still want to make the point, Mr. Chair, that I am not trying to supersede anything. Ukraine is a dire emergency. We are not done with COVID, or at least COVID is not done with us, if we look at the BA.4 and BA.5 strains that are now happening around the world. Yes, vaccine equity is very important. These two are really important things. No one is trying to supersede anything here.
I would just like to note that I brought forward a motion very similar to this in December. I don't know what happened to it. I'm on the subcommittee. Once again, it was a motion on sexual and reproductive health and the rights of women and girls around the world. The need for those services worsened during COVID. I don't know what happened to it. It was still bumped.
I just need to say that I hope we don't keep bumping this motion constantly because it is as urgent. Women are actually dying. I just want to read to you here that two million women were hospitalized in this year alone because of unsafe abortions. Sixty per cent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion and 45% of those are unsafe. Complications in pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for girls or young women between the ages of 15 and 19 in 2020.
This has been going on for a long time, exacerbated by COVID, by the Ukrainian war and by conflicts around the world, especially where rape has become a weapon of war. It's no longer a casualty of war.
These are some of the things I want to talk about. These are important issues. Women are dying. Their lives can be spared if we make this an important issue to study. It does not have priority over Ukraine or over vaccine equity. I'm not suggesting that at all.
Somehow this committee is going to have to study this issue that's been bouncing around since December of 2021. I just don't understand why it is not important. When you think of the number of women in the African region and in the Americas where the rates of maternal mortality, gender-based violence, adolescent pregnancy and poverty are rising, this has to be important to people. We have hundreds of thousands of women dying in pregnancy and childbirth because they don't have access to safe, legal abortions.
These are important issues. Women are dying. That's what I'm trying to say. I'm not pre-empting anything. I don't want to pre-empt Ukraine and I don't want to pre-empt vaccine equity because these are urgent issues, but I do think that somewhere along the way women have to become an urgent issue as well. Their deaths have to be meaningful to this committee.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fry's comments are interesting, particularly in light of the fact that those are real issues in Ukraine. Obviously it's one of the issues that the committee is able to consider in its ongoing discussion on Ukraine. The decision to put forward a subamendment that removes the language that says that the study would be considered “after the completion of the committee's studies”....
Mr. Bergeron has the implication, obviously, that somehow this study should begin before those other three studies that are ongoing with the committee are completed. Otherwise, why would you remove the words—I'll repeat them again—“after the completion of the committee's studies”? While I appreciate the intent of what Dr. Fry said, the direction of the subamendment that's before us leaves, in my view, a different impression about what the subcommittee on agenda should be considering and when it should consider the study that is being proposed by Dr. Fry.
I would think that, given some of the context of what's going on right now in Ukraine.... Last week we saw, on the day before the German leader and several other leaders were going to visit with President Zelenskyy in Ukraine, that Russia cut off the supply to the Nord Stream 1 pipeline the day before. I don't think that was a coincidence. They said it was because they have some parts issues. Shockingly, the only parts that are available for that turbine come from Canada. It's an attempt to influence what this government is doing, how it approaches the issue of Ukraine and how it approaches the issue of sanctions.
I know that speaks to the issue of why we are giving direction to the subcommittee in terms of the priority and importance of various studies that the committee has undertaken. I think those issues that are ongoing are critically urgent right now. The issues to which Dr. Fry spoke are issues that are ongoing now and why the Ukraine study needs to continue. The issue of the supply of oil and gas is now the issue of whether or not the sanctions that Canada has imposed do enough. Those are issues that this committee should be looking at now.
The issue is whether or not the Canadian government has done enough to mobilize world opinion on sanctions so that the sanctions that have been imposed by countries such as Canada are not being worked around, which they are. The committee has heard testimony that Africa and Latin America are not abiding by the global sanctions and are filling in the space that western countries have left. This speaks to the issue of examining now what's going on with regard to the government's response and whether or not it is taking a leadership role in multilateral organizations to put forward more penalties and get more allies around the world.
I've not ever heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about putting forward motions to get the Organization of American States or other multilateral organizations on board with imposing sanctions to prevent those regions from filling in the gap. We even have G7 countries that have gone in and filled in the gap where our trade has stopped.
I think it's incumbent on the committee to get on to the work of studying Ukraine and completing that study right now, not waiting, as this motion implies, for the committee to make a decision on the studies before it. Those decision were already made. The decision was made by this committee to study Ukraine now. I don't know why the subcommittee needs to study it again since the committee is in the middle of that study, the study on Taiwan and the study on vaccine equity. There is a work plan, as there is for every committee, that has, I think, 17 potential studies, and Dr. Fry's would make it 18 potential studies.
The normal flow of committees, as I understand it, is that committees work through their agenda to the end of the session, which is fast approaching here, and then, come the fall, revisit the work plan and reprioritize the undeveloped or lower-priority studies as part of the agenda when they come back in September.
Dr. Fry's motion is on notice. It can be considered in the context of all of those other motions that are on notice and that the committee has before it to consider in terms of what it could do next, but having four studies ongoing at one time seems excessive and seems like a recipe for trying to be all things to all people and achieving nothing, never completing a study, never getting anywhere, never dealing with vaccine equity or never dealing with the situation in Taiwan, which is, yes, impacted by what happens in Ukraine and Russia's attitude. Make no mistake: Everybody around this table understands that China is watching very closely what goes on in Ukraine and what the west's response is to that, a response that to date has been gradual and that we've supported, but that, I believe, needs to be stronger. That's why we need to look at such issues as the leakiness of the sanctions.
How is the Government of Canada going to deal with the issue of the turbine repair on the pipeline? Is it going to allow for an amendment to our existing sanctions against them? Is it, all of a sudden, now we have to provide it, so in this case we'll provide an exception and we'll provide another exception here and another exception there as Moscow and Putin continue to manipulate the west on what they're doing?
This government has been easily manipulated on the issue of Russia and they are constantly finding themselves in this position because they are viewed in the global community, in our response to this war, as weak. I would draw the attention of the committee as well to the idea that this is a larger issue than just one person at the head of the table in Moscow, because of the clampdown on freedom of speech that has happened in the Soviet Union.
That's another area the Ukraine study could take a look at, the fact that over 80% of Russians seem, according to polling, to support this illegal invasion of Ukraine. That's what happens when you restrict freedom of access to the press. You kick all the foreign press out, and there is manipulation going on. The reason sanctions, particularly from democracies, are so important is that they allow countries such as Canada, the western countries—and frankly it should be every country in the world as far as I'm concerned, because any country could be next—to cut off the cash, the flow of money that flows to Russia that allows them to wage this war. It helps to exhaust their financial resources in Russia.
We've seen the voluntary things, like what's happened with McDonald's and Starbucks. Now some of the oligarchs have come in and basically taken over that real estate in Russia and said, “I'll just operate McDonald's with a knock-off McDonald's burger”, so that's not really having an impact. The Government of Canada has imposed individual sanctions on, I think it is, about 341 individuals in Russia. Now, people listening may not realize how big Russia is. Russia is a country of 144 million people, so the percentage of people being directly impacted by our sanctions is 0.0000024%. It's infinitesimal.
Unless we get to the point where sanctions are hurting and going beyond just the richest of the rich, who have their manners and ways to move their money around and protect their assets, and unless we start looking at the tools the Government of Canada is using in the study that's being delayed to understand why it is and how it is that we can change the minds of the people in Russia.... One of the ways, as it is with most people, is to be able to actually see a day-to-day impact in their pocketbook and their access to goods and services.
We saw this ultimately with Russia. It's one of the things that caused and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I spoke several meetings ago about the coup in Russia in 1991, when I worked for the foreign minister. The breadlines, people having to line up for bread in Moscow, and the lack of access to goods, ultimately drove the population, as it often does in such situations, to rise up against its leadership and change its form of government.
With the 80% support that there appears to be in Russia for Putin's illegal war, I would think that one of the things this committee would want to be urgently studying with its witnesses, and giving direction to the subcommittee on, are the priorities with which these studies should be taken—the 14 other studies and now 15 studies, if Dr. Fry's motion were to pass. These things are urgent.
We need to find a way to have more effective global sanctions on Russia. They need to be broader than 344 people, in my view. That's not having the impact, obviously. We're in month four of a war that was not supposed to last more than a week. However, through the resilience and incredible courage of the Ukrainian people, we see push-back against what was supposedly one of the world's great superpowers by the little Ukrainian army. It's quite impressive.
I think we need to be doing more. Certainly, it's not much to ask that this government take a broader and bigger leadership role in multilateral organizations, such as the OAS, and even the United Nations. I understand about the challenges with the Security Council and Russia having a veto, but that doesn't stop us from standing up.
Canada has achieved global sanctions on countries before by looking at the regional organizations, such as the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. If we feel, as we've heard from Ukrainian officials, that Africa is one of the leaky parts of the sanctions, then why is this government not working through the Francophonie and the Commonwealth to impose sanctions, to get those organizations to lead those countries toward a unified global voice for our country?
Bloc
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect to the honourable member, I would like to remind him that the situation in Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with the subamendment before the committee. The subamendment is straightforward. Instead of referring to the committee completing the studies, the motion would refer to the committee making a decision on the studies, and the word “study” would change to the plural “studies”.
I'm well aware of what the member is trying to do, but I would ask him to focus on the subamendment and tell us what he thinks of it. I would like to hear where everyone on the speaking list stands on the subamendment. If the member were to agree to that, I would be grateful to him.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
Mr. Perkins, as has become customary in this committee, it is important that members keep their remarks restricted to the issue at hand. In this particular instance, as you're well aware, there is a subamendment. I would ask that your comments relate directly to the subamendment, please.
Thank you, Mr. Perkins. The floors is yours.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
I think the link, if I can, to what I was saying is in the words “after the completion of the committee's studies on” and then the motion goes on to say, “Ukraine, Vaccine Equity and Taiwan” and be replaced with “the committee makes a decision on the studies before it”.
In order to make and give guidance to the committee and the subcommittee, in order to participate in this debate about whether or not to support the subamendment to this amendment, I think it's important for us to talk about why it is important to complete the studies, which is what is being proposed to be removed from this motion. The member's removal of the word “completion” I don't think is a small change. I don't think it's a modest change, and I don't think it's a grammatical change. It's a major change to the intent of the amendment.
The amendment said that Dr. Fry's motion that's before us should not be done until after the completion of the studies on Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan. It is a major change to say “the committee make a decision on”.
As I was saying, I don't know why the committee needs to make a decision on these studies. It already made a decision on these studies, and that decision was made quite some time ago to do these three studies. That's why we're in the middle of them. It's highly unusual, in my view, for a committee in the middle of studying three studies to say that, all of a sudden, now we're not going to complete those three studies and that what we're going to do is a fourth study.
I know we can all walk and chew gum at the same time—I get that—but having four studies ongoing just prolongs the committee's actually finishing any of its work. Three studies at one time is actually quite a lot for a committee to have ongoing, particularly on issues as important as the war in Ukraine and what we see going on with Taiwan and the potential for China to look at the precedent of what is going on with Russia and Ukraine.
Vaccine equity is a very valuable study. We're all very conscious and want to make sure that parts of the world that have not had the same access to COVID vaccines can prevent further death and long-term health problems as we have done in Canada with well over 80% of our population vaccinated. These are important studies to finish in order to provide valuable input to the government for their public policy decision-making.
I think what Ms. Michaud was probably referring to was some of Mr. Genuis's comments around the differences in the definitions of the words “undertaken” and “prescribing”. I found that actually fascinating because they do have different meanings. Words have meaning in this place. Every single word means something specific and is changed for a reason; otherwise, the change wouldn't be proposed in this subamendment.
As part of the relevance and of understanding why it is I believe these studies should be completed before we move on to other studies—the other 14, or if Dr. Fry's motion goes through 15, studies that presumably the committee will look at in the fall—if there is urgency related to women's health issues with what's going on in Ukraine, then that can be managed and discussed in the Ukraine study. I would encourage the committee to make that part of their study because obviously that's the most critical part of what is happening globally right now in terms of that issue.
I think the relevance, for those who are watching, is that there are multi-faceted approaches by western countries, particularly Canada, dealing with these issues, and in particular, dealing with the issue of this illegal war.
We have 1.4 million Ukrainians in Canada, and they want to hear and see the witnesses on this. They want to see Ukrainian officials come before this committee and publicly be able to bring us up to date. They want to understand whether or not the actions of this government on Ukraine and its sanctions are actually having any impact whatsoever in terms of bringing the Russian public and the powerful people in Russia to account for this terrible injustice they are doing. They'd like to hear from witnesses, I suppose, about what the end game is and what the alternative in going forward is.
There has alway been a lot of discussion about the restraint that Canada and the western countries must have about Ukraine because of Russia's nuclear weapons. I don't believe that there has been a real discussion or debate on that. That's certainly something that's appropriate for this committee in its priorities of trying to deal with whether or not the Ukraine study should be completed or whether or not it should just be one of another ongoing series of subjects—a fourth, a fifth, or why not add a sixth?
There are a lot of good things to study on the committee's docket. I spoke previously about Haiti. I understand that's a potential area. There are always ongoing issues in Haiti. There are a lot of other things around the world that this committee could be doing. Why not have a sixth, a seventh and an eighth committee study going on at the same time? Let's hold a meeting on each of those once every month or two months and take a year to go through the eight of them.
Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying in Ukraine and this government is not taking a global leadership role, as we have in the past. This country has in the past taken on global roles in trying to force the globe—even close friends like the United States and Great Britain—on the issue of sanctions on apartheid. I explained to members two meetings ago the role we had in leading the world on the sanctions on Haiti when I was in foreign affairs.
I seem obsessed, I know, on the issue of sanctions, but outside of military action, this is one of the most important tools we have in dealing with Ukraine and Russia in particular. My belief is that those sanctions need to be much broader than just what happened to 344 individuals in a country with a population of 144 million. I would suggest that's a vital part of looking at and understanding whether or not we are doing our part.
By the way, on the weekend, in my part of the world in Atlantic Canada, in an online news provider called the The Macdonald Notebook, there was an interesting interview with former prime minister Brian Mulroney about the status of things in the Ukraine. Of course, remembering that he is close friends with Mikhail Gorbachev and stays very well informed on all the international issues of the day, he was asked the question of whether or not the west should actually pursue military action.
He gave an answer that I think would probably surprise most committee members. He did not take the common view that the west has expressed on military action. Basically, the west has telegraphed that there is a limit to what we are willing to do. There is a limit there because of the nuclear arsenal of Russia and fear over the escalation of this war if NATO, or our partners, or a even a coalition of the willing, you might say—as was done in the first Gulf War, when it was called the “coalition of the willing”—went in and did an action to try to support our friends in the Ukraine.
Former prime minister Mulroney said that he believed that NATO and the western countries actually should be providing military assistance with troops on the ground and help for Ukraine. Being pushed back on that question, “what about the nuclear arsenal?”, he said that, no matter what Putin has done, he understands what the consequences of his engaging in a nuclear situation would be and that the consequences would be ruinous for.... I almost said the Soviet Union. It's hard to break old habits, but Putin is acting as if he is the head of the Soviet Union and wants to reassemble it. He said there would be consequences.
Mulroney doesn't believe that the issue of the nuclear arsenal should constrain the west. If you start taking that...it's an area that this committee should take a look at. Should this committee be having a serious look at the issue of whether or not the nuclear threat in the war in Ukraine is a real threat? Have we just given away the store on this? Have we given away the store in terms of our telegraphing to the Russian regime that we will provide food aid and we will provide a certain amount of armaments, but we're not really willing to get into the fight to help protect Ukraine?
To me, that's an important distinction between a decision on a study that's already ongoing, which is kind of confusing to me when the original amendment says “completion” of the study. I don't know why you need to make a decision, as I've said before, on the studies before it, if that decision isn't to stop the study that we're already doing. What decision has to be made on the current studies that are ongoing, other than to continue them? One would think that's what we have to do.
In speaking to the subamendment, I'm speaking to the fact that, in order to get to completion, we have a lot of areas that this Ukraine study needs to look at, whether it's sanctions or whether it's food insecurity. Other members talked in the last meeting about the issue of food insecurity. Two weeks ago, I believe, the UN said that this has the potential this summer to have up to 47 million people starving immediately as a result of the cut-off of Ukrainian grain to the world. I suspect that number is going to grow quite a bit more, so I would think that the committee would want to complete the study in order to look at those issues, rather than delay and add a fourth, a fifth or a sixth study to its agenda.
As I've said, I believe that on those issues, which the committee will determine as the master of its own destiny, as every committee is, the committee can take a look at those studies and determine in the fall, once Ukraine, Taiwan and vaccine efficacy.... I suspect that all of that, if done properly, is going to take a lot of the agenda in the fall. I know that the committee has probably put forward a limited number of meetings, but as often happens in committees, once you get into a subject matter and you see the number of witnesses from the public who want to appear on that subject matter, quite often committees will change midway, not to go to another issue or to add another study, but to change and to add more meetings to the agenda because of the public interest, and also because when you start opening up an issue, it opens up more and more issues for the committee to study on that particular subject.
Quite often, I've found that committees will actually extend the number of meetings it has partway through a decision. I can't imagine that on Ukraine, given some of the things I have said, we wouldn't be finding that there would need to be a number of meetings held on the issue of sanctions, that there would need to be a number of meetings on food security and that there would have to be and should be a number of meetings held on the issue of whether or not we have been too dismissive of the issue of providing troop support on the ground to our allies in Ukraine on this illegal war.
That's just on the one issue. On vaccine equity, obviously, there are a great many witnesses who will want to hear about and talk about the production of those vaccines: where they're being produced, their efficacy throughout the world, their access throughout the world and what's happening. In Canada, during the height of the pandemic, we actually took some of the vaccines that were set aside for poorer countries. We actually took them for ourselves.
Yes, we did replenish them later, but obviously if we're studying vaccine efficacy and access and equity throughout the world, one of the first things I would want to do would be to have some hearings on what led Canada to being in a position of having to take vaccines from poorer countries for ourselves. What decisions did this government make leading up to our taking that extreme case?
Some of us know. We can assume it had to do with the deal that the government initially did with China to bring a Chinese vaccine to Canada as opposed to one produced by the pharmaceutical companies. I think that obviously, if you're going to talk about vaccine equity, you're going to want to hear witnesses about what led to that. What happened on that? That's going to take some time.
There's the complexity of the “one China” strategy around the world, how it's evolved on Taiwan, the impact of Russia in Ukraine on Taiwan and the change in the leadership in China, which has led to a more aggressive and less democratic approach to foreign affairs by the Chinese government. Of course, what we're seeing in Hong Kong is a prime example, if you're not careful and vigilant, of what can happen. There's essentially a faux democracy, and everything is run by Beijing. China has never given up its rights, its assumed rights or its claim on rights, in the negotiations and in the global world order, to Taiwan. That's an important study, and an important study that shouldn't be stopped, as this motion or subamendment seems to imply. When you take the word “completion” out, you're implying that it's going to stop and that we're going to go on to something else.
I would urge members of the committee and the subcommittee, which will look at this agenda along with the 14 other.... I know I'm not allowed, Mr. Chair, to reference the details of what the committee has before it in future studies. I believe that document is not a public document and those motions aren't there, but I do know there are a lot of good and legitimate areas that need some urgent consideration too. The purpose of this debate here is to debate whether or not we should, essentially, in my view, when I read it, suspend these existing studies and do other things. I don't know why.
I know a lot of people will view the motion by Dr. Fry as being vitally important, but the most important parts of that can be dealt with within the existing studies that are ongoing, in terms of the use of certain tactics in war that are harmful and disgusting and that should be condemned by all. That's part of the Ukraine study. I don't know why we would want to suspend the study to go and basically do that study, to bring in another study to look at an area that, actually, the committee can already look at in its existing study.
I would consider that the subcommittee needs to understand that the priorities there need to be driven by the priorities of what's going on in the world. Everything that's going on in the world, and whoever it's happening to, can seem like the most vital and important thing going on. That's understandable. When we see democracy at threat or we see human rights at threat in many of the countries around the world, understandably, we want to help.
We're Canadians. We always want to help everywhere there's an issue. That's our great reputation. We actually go out and do more than speak nice words to organizations. We try to lead those organizations to a better conclusion to help people, whether that's in terms of the sovereignty of a democracy or whether that's in terms of individual human rights. Those are clearly the most important things in terms of the subcommittee's decisions and whether or not these studies need to be completed.
I mean, there are war crimes going on in Ukraine, and I think that studying those war crimes and giving the government advice from this committee needs to be part of that study as well. I don't know how that could get done in two more meetings.
There is an anti-western xenophobia that's been created in Russia through this that's going to take us a long time to get over in our relationship with Russia, which sometimes can be a confusing country to us in Canada. I remember the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series. I was a very young guy. To this day, Russia still claims that they won that series. Do you know why they think they won it even though we won five games? They believe they won it because they scored more goals. You can always make something sound like a win even though ultimately the game of hockey is decided at the end of the third period or in overtime by goals.
We're up against a country whose population believes that this is a just war. We do know, though, that as progressive sanctions have happened over the last number of years in Russia on a number of things, the GDP per capita in Russia has declined as a result of those. These are just playing-at-the-edges sanctions. They're not dealing directly with the main issue. My understanding is that the GDP per capita in Russia in about 2013 was about $16,000 U.S., and now it's down by about 40% to $10,000 GDP annual income for every Russian.
Clearly, what the west has been doing, through a series of issues that started with the illegal invasion of the Donbass region during the Harper government, when Prime Minister Harper sent very clear messages to Vladimir Putin about how he had to get out or there would be consequences, the consequences of that began with the Harper government imposing these sanctions that have impacted the economy in Russia. To give the government credit, they've brought in a lot of very good sanctions as part of this targeting of the oligarchs there, which is important. Although they obviously have the capacity to move their money, targeting very precise industries, which the government has done, all necessary technology industries, defence industries...these are all necessary.
I know that I got pushed back a bit by government members a meeting or two ago, but as you know, Tip O'Neill said that “all politics is local”. The leaky sanctions that I speak of are the sanctions around the issue of snow crab. We are not trading snow crab with Russia because that's part of what we do as Canadians. As a result of that, most of our snow crabs are sold to Japan anyway. We were doing pretty well, but Japan has now broken all those contracts and is buying all its snow crab from Russia, providing the Putin war machine with direct cash. Here's a G7 partner that has filled in our sanctions where we left out....
I wouldn't exactly call snow crab, with all due deference to the fishermen who fish snow crab in Newfoundland, an essential food, and those things.... Food is exempted from the sanctions, and I understand that, but luxury foods such as that, or higher-priced foods, to me are things that this committee should study. Why is it that the sanctions we've imposed on food say that you can trade any food you want with Russia even though they've had an illegal invasion of Ukraine? Why isn't this committee looking into that as part of the food security issue and the effectiveness of our sanctions?
I suspect there are things that we and other western countries are trading, even in food, that members of this committee wouldn't consider essential. I don't know the last time members around this table ate snow crab. I hope they're eating a lot of lobster because that's the number one industry in my riding and we know that lobster is not being shipped to Russia, as far as I know. Why is it that the committee is unwilling to take a look at those issues and add a fourth, fifth or sixth study?
Why don't we create another study? I could easily move a motion suggesting we do a separate study on sanctions in Ukraine, and we could have a great debate on that over the next little while, about whether or not that's a subset of the existing study or whether it's an entirely new study, much in the same way Dr. Fry's motion—at least part of it—can be dealt with in the existing study if the committee chooses to do so.
I would ask that the committee continue to move and look at completing the study on Ukraine. What's happening in Ukraine, as we know, as I've said, is changing weekly, almost daily. I would ask that the committee continue to make that the priority when considering its future agenda. The implications of that on what happens in Taiwan are important, and I would also venture to say that the committee and the subcommittee on the agenda should consider all of the issues that are on its work plan. Dr. Fry has given her notice of motion. It can be considered as a notice of motion in the work plan without having to actually have a vote here, and the subcommittee can take a look at that with all the other elements that are on the agenda for potential study.
I still haven't heard an argument from government members or from the members of their coalition partner, the NDP, or from my friends in the Bloc as to why it is that the normal committee process of, once a notice of motion is done, it can be something the subcommittee on agenda considers, at any given time, is not just being considered and why there is a need for the government to push this through. It speaks to what I think are perhaps priorities that aren't in line with what most Canadians think are the issues of the day the foreign policy the committee should be spending its time on and hearing witnesses on.
I would offer up that perhaps there are other motivations behind this motion that only the government can answer to, as to why they want to all of a sudden study this issue, rather than the war in Ukraine and provide the government with the advice of all kinds of analysts, of all kinds of academics, of all kinds of Ukrainians who are experiencing this issue directly themselves, of the business community as to whether or not it believes the sanctions are effective, of the banking community as to how those sanctions could be made less leaky, and of the industries that are impacted and whether or not they can find other markets and whether or not, frankly, they feel unfair competition because they have lost the market and we have allowed other countries' businesses to go and fill in those markets—it's always hard to get a market back once you lose it—because the government hasn't chosen to use multilateral organizations, which is Canada's tradition, such as the Francophonie, the Commonwealth, the OAS and ASEAN as well as other Asian countries.
The Prime Minister was just at a meeting of the Americas, and I did not hear the Prime Minister propose that the western hemisphere impose western hemisphere sanctions on Russia and that they come in lockstep with us and the United States on imposing these issues. Why is it that the Prime Minister, once he left the country, didn't seem to think about the issues of Ukrainian Canadians, and the issues that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has raised about it being a good start on sanctions, and use his pulpit there in his bilateral meetings? The Prime Minister and the foreign minister have a lot of bilateral meetings on the side with their counterparts. Why is it that they didn't make a public statement saying that they want the western hemisphere to stop trading with Russia?
They didn't do that, and I think the government needs to come forward. I would venture that the Minister of Foreign Affairs needs to explain to this committee why the minister is not putting forward in the multilateral organizations what I would think is probably our most important foreign policy issue to discuss today, and explain why they are not taking that traditional Canadian role.
That all points to the subamendment issue and why we need to complete this study. There's still a lot of work to do here. There's still a lot of accountability here for the government, which I think has done a fairly timid job of putting pressure on Putin, his advisers, the Russian government and frankly the Russian people to put pressure on their own government that this is an unjust war and that they've been fed basically a propaganda set of lies. The only way that's going to happen, ultimately, given what's happened to the media and the fact that the world media has been thrown out of Russia, is through, in my view, is by putting a little more financial pressure around access to day-to-day goods on the Russian people beyond what they see.
Quite frankly, they're not seeing the impacts. When a Russian oligarch can come in and basically take over the Starbucks chain or take over the real estate where McDonald's was and do their knock-off burgers and knock-off coffee, the Russian people aren't feeling the same sort of pressure. Therefore, they aren't putting any pressure on their government. Why isn't this committee looking at why that happened and why we haven't gone on in the international forum to propose resolutions?
The government is willing to propose resolutions here at committee on various issues unrelated to Ukraine, but it is not willing to propose motions in multilateral organizations to try to increase the effectiveness of the global effort to reduce the economic viability of the wealth of the oligarchs and the access to western goods that Russia so clearly loves. The government isn't doing that. The government didn't propose it. I would love hear from the government members on why it hasn't proposed doing that in any of those multilateral organizations.
Even on the basic sanctions that we have now on the 344 people, the oligarchs, and the limited targeted industries that the government has chosen, why hasn't it promoted those same rules being put in place around the world? I've sat in those meetings. I've sat in the Organization of American States meetings where we've put those forward.
It took a lot of work and a lot of bilaterals. I experienced the fact that leaky sanctions cause others to fill in. I was in bilaterals with European countries of the day when we were dealing with Haiti that said, well, you know, there are no UN sanctions, so we can't impose sanctions—but they can impose sanctions if their regional multilateral organization imposes sanctions.
Those organizations—the Francophonie, the OAS—because we've heard from officials in the Ukrainian government—
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Maybe it could also be a point of interruption to give the speaker a break, because he needs a drink of water.
I am wondering whether the member is actually suggesting that we.... All of the sanctions, the incredible and record-breaking number of sanctions that we have imposed against Russia since their illegal invasion of Ukraine, are tabled in Parliament and then referred to this committee. They come as an order of reference to this committee. We are able to study any and all of them at any time. I'm wondering whether he is actually inferring or requesting that this committee should be taking a look at those referrals, because we have not done that.
I might take this opportunity in my moment of interruption to also tell the committee members that I have two guests with me today. They are interns from the Embassy of the Kingdom of Denmark. They are two graduate students who are learning about Parliament as they shadow me today, and they're having a good lesson.
The member might want to respond to my point of order on whether or not he is actually asking for us to deal with those references, which come from the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
Allow me to welcome our two Danish friends here.
Welcome to the committee.
We will revert back to Mr. Perkins.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant. I did appreciate the chance to have a sip of a glass of water.
That's an interesting idea. It wasn't exactly what I was proposing. What I was proposing was looking at the inability or the lack of—in certain countries that we work with in multilateral organizations—implementation of those critical sanctions that Canada has.
I think these sanctions should be expanded. Certainly, if the subcommittee on agenda, which is, I assume, where such a thing would go, and Mr. Oliphant wanted to look at that, that would be of value, but I don't think it's necessary in the context of something separate. We already have an ongoing study on Ukraine where those things could be presumably incorporated by the committee into that study and the witnesses could incorporate a discussion on that.
I think it would make a very interesting part of this to analyze that, both the effectiveness of the existing sanctions and whether or not those sanctions should be broadened to include other areas that aren't included now for Canada, such as, as I said, some of the things that some might consider more as luxury foods and that perhaps are not things that Russia needs to survive day to day in terms of foodstuffs. Personally, coming from the south shore of Nova Scotia, I believe that lobster is a critical day-to-day foodstuff. I'm not sure everybody else would agree with me, but I certainly do. At the end of the day, what we're missing, I think, for the effectiveness of the sanctions is that broader question, Mr. Oliphant. Why are other countries not coming to the table the same way that Canada is, and what should Canada be doing to push forward an agenda that gets more effectiveness into those existing sanctions by bringing in our partners from around the world?
Going and having meetings with the western hemisphere, and the recent meeting in California, without actually coming forward with pressure on those allies to be part of our team, to be part of the team that is opposing the sanctions.... If anybody knows the effect of imperialism, it's countries in Central and Latin America. I would think that, more than most, those countries would be more sensitive to what's going on between Russia and Ukraine and would want to be partners in what we're doing, more than perhaps even other countries around the world. They are very sensitive to that in the OAS.
In 1991 they passed a declaration at the OAS declaring, for the first time—when 34 of the 35 countries were for the first time democratic and we first joined—a NATO type of solution, which is that any failing of democracy in the western hemisphere would be met with immediate action by the Organization of American States. That was a revolutionary thing. You have to remember that the meeting was held in Chile, in Santiago. I was at that meeting. Augusto Pinochet had given up the presidency only in the last year but was still heading the army in Chile when that declaration happened, so it was quite remarkable that this declaration happened.
Given that this is the declaration, it's all the more surprising when the Prime Minister gets together with the western hemispheric and foreign ministers, with the western hemispheric countries, as he did recently, that he wouldn't be using that important turning point in the OAS as a reason, as a sensitivity barometer for them, as to why they need to join with us and not be trading with Russia, not providing financial services to Russia and not providing them with technology, military or other goods so that they can continue their illegal war machine.
This happened at a time when the U.S. had some history in central America, in Nicaragua and other places, and there is a deep sensitivity in Latin America to any country that interferes in the sovereign borders and the sovereign issues of other countries. It's why, in the past—although, for the most part, they have gotten together multiple times since then in the western hemisphere—they were initially reluctant to impose sanctions. They saw it as interference. Mexico and other countries saw it as interference in the domestic politics of a country.
I think most of the western hemisphere has grown since then in terms of joining the global nations. In their view, if you're going to protect democracy, you have to protect it with the use of all the tools you have. Some of the most effective tools, as we saw in South Africa and Haiti....
In fact, the Government of Canada currently has 21 countries it has economic sanctions against. Some of these go back to the 1990s, including Indonesia, Myanmar and others. Another great area for this committee to study at some point is why is it that we have sanctions—
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I simply cannot listen to this anymore. It is disgraceful how irrelevant this member is when speaking about a subamendment on a motion to study women's reproductive rights.
I cannot believe that this committee is entertaining the wilful discussion by this man of what he thinks to be important future studies for our committee. Not only is he not a member of this committee, but his discussion about previous attendance at conferences in Latin America is so beside the point that I would ask the chair to rule on relevance immediately.
Thank you.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Could I speak to that point of order before you rule?
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Firstly, for the member to make any personal judgments about me or my reasoning for talking about why the completion of these studies is more important.... I think it is abhorrent that she would cast aspersions on me personally, and I would like her to apologize for that.
Secondly, she used the term “this man”. If I were to do that to the opposite gender, of course, I would be vilified in public opinion. It's another example of Liberal double standards, where a government member thinks they can bully the opposition into shutting up—
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Are you chairing the committee?
Does she have the floor? Does the member from Vancouver—
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I'm sorry. This is so irrelevant. This is so personal. This is—