Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you for your support, Ms. Fry.

Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Genuis, those are very relevant points of debate. I can add you to the speaking list, if you wish, Mr. Oliphant.

Now, please continue, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to Mr. Oliphant for not calling him by his riding name—I'm not familiar with it—but I do not appreciate, Mr. Chair, being told how to feel when I feel deeply personally offended by a comment from the member from Edmonton—Strathcona.

Mr. Chair, again, I don't feel that there is any place for any man or woman on this committee to tell me how I've interpreted something said by another member when from my perspective she has deeply insulted Conservative men generally. I just want to put on the record how very proud I am of the Conservative men in my caucus and, frankly, how very proud I am of Mr. Genuis. There is no one in Parliament who has stood up for religious minorities across the world with the relentlessness and dedication of Mr. Genuis, and I'm very proud to call him my colleague.

On the motion to adjourn, Mr. Chair, I very much agree that Ukraine needs to be the focus—very much. I represent a riding in which at least one in four constituents, if not more, is of Ukrainian descent, and some are very first-generation Ukrainian. I also have in my riding the most folks of Polish descent out of any riding in Canada.

Also, the nephew of a very dear friend of mine was killed within the first couple of weeks of the war on Ukraine. He was 26. As well, a number of family members with relations in my riding have been killed in the war on Ukraine. I represent them when I am in Parliament.

I cannot see anything more important for the foreign affairs committee to be studying or to be focused on than the war on Ukraine right now, how Canada can play a greater role in supporting Ukraine, and further, how we can ensure that we can be reaching out to our allies so that they also provide more resources and more support to Ukraine.

I have to say that I receive a considerable number of comments from my Ukrainian constituents with concerns that the Liberal government is not providing enough defence supplies to Ukraine and that they were very late to the game. I think something that this committee—and the defence committee as well—should clearly be reviewing why it took so long to send military defence. That is consistently a piece of information and feedback that I have received from my Ukrainian constituents. Perhaps the committee would wish to discuss that in its study, or in a future study, so that this mistake is not made in the future and perhaps lives could be saved.

Something I found very personally alarming when the war on Ukraine broke out was from a young member of parliament there. She's my age and she is an opposition MP as well. Her name is Kira Rudik. She shared something on Twitter to the effect that “a few days ago I was a legislator and now I'm fighting for the freedom of my country”. She was photographed with a firearm, a very large firearm. I will never in my life, as long as I live, get that image from her tweet out of my head. It was the most relatable moment that I had felt concerning a war in a country that we call an ally, that we call a friend. To see a woman just like me, who is at her job just like we are right now, and to think that in just a few days you're taking up arms to defend your homeland, I think is possibly one of the most shocking, disturbing and scary things I could think of.

I very much support her and the efforts of women there to stand their ground and to defend their homeland and their sovereignty against an aggressor. Obviously President Zelenskyy and many male leaders in Ukraine are involved in this as well, but I would say that their women are really shining as well.

If we look to the Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, who was 34 years old when she was first elected as the Prime Minister of Finland and is now 37 or 38—very young—and one of the youngest world leaders in the world right now, she is very boldly and very bravely following many decades of neutrality with NATO by putting her country forward to join NATO. They share an extremely long border with Russia.

As a woman politician, to see a young woman who's similar in age to me with that sort of gumption and that bravery to stand up to one of the most intimidating authoritarian figures in modern times is also incredibly inspiring. I very much applaud the Prime Minister of Finland, as well as the Prime Minister of Sweden, for standing up to bullies, so to speak, and pursuing NATO membership.

I very much support the Canadian government in supporting those initiatives from the prime ministers of Finland and Sweden. Also, on our leader, I think she's been very eloquent in putting on the record in the House of Commons, in the chamber, how important it is that Canadians and members of Parliament understand the severity of what's going on.

She said something that I thought.... I remember that when she said it, it gave me goosebumps. She was talking to President Zelenskyy when he came virtually to the chamber. She said to him in her speech, “The kind of leadership that you are showing, sir, is very rare, and it serves as an inspiration to all of us who are elected. You are the leader of Ukraine for such a time as this, and we remain indebted to you.”

I just mentioned Prime Minister Marin and the Swedish prime minister, whose name escapes me at the moment. In looking at many of these leaders, including MP Rudyk, the opposition MP in Ukraine, I continue to think of Canada. Should Canada—God help us—ever face something like this, would I be brave enough to do what the Ukrainians are doing? Would you be brave enough, Mr. Chair? Would our Prime Minister or the leader of the Conservative Party be? I hope so. I think we all hope we would be, but as our leader said, it is extremely rare to see this. I think President Zelenskyy's leadership and bravery will stand the test of time, as he is one of the bravest leaders in the western world in the 21st century.

On the issue of Ukraine and the importance of this committee's ensuring that it focuses on Ukraine, everyone has seen the images. It's so strange to think that one day my constituents are visiting their families in Ukraine—their families are coming here to visit us and they are breaking bread—and then we see what's on Instagram. There are so many videos, and I actually had to stop watching them because of how alarming they were. You see families huddled in bomb shelters, ruined children's hospitals and maternity wards, dead bodies in the streets, women who were raped and people who were shot in the back of the head—absolutely barbaric war practices that I don't think any of us ever anticipated we would be seeing. To think the individuals in Ukraine are related to the constituents I represent.... When I was asked to join the foreign affairs committee today to talk about the importance of this committee's focusing on Ukraine, I willingly took up the opportunity, given how close to home this is for the people I represent.

Again, I think we're seeing the global order shift. That's why foreign affairs, more than almost any other committee, should be extensively studying Ukraine. I would hope to see it study Canada's position in the international order and how it has changed relative to the Russian aggression and that posture, as well as what we're seeing with Finland and Sweden. I think that would likely warrant a committee study, as would how Canada is looking at its Arctic.

At the national security and public safety committee, I put forward a motion of study, which we're addressing right now, to review Canada's ability to defend itself against Russian aggression should the worst happen. Of course, it's highly unlikely, but I think that regardless, our duty as legislators is to ensure that—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Once again, Mr. Chair, my point of order has to do with relevance.

We are listening to Ms. Dancho describe her very worthwhile work on another committee. I understand that Canada has to be ready for any eventuality, and I certainly agree with her, but that has nothing at all to do with the motion before us. The motion before the committee has to do with the reproductive rights of 51% of the population—women. The member's comments are not germane to the Conservatives' amendment either. The comments are off topic and irrelevant.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

My sense is that Ms. Dancho is trying to stick to the topic of Ukraine, which is one of the central elements of Mr. Genuis's adjournment motion.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Yes, I was with her on that, but then she started talking about the Arctic.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Your argument has more to do with viewpoints, and you will certainly have the chance to share yours, since you are on the speaking list.

Ms. Dancho, it would be greatly appreciated if you would concentrate on the substance of your fellow member's motion as much as possible.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, correct me I'm wrong, but I believe we are debating whether we should be adjourning because we should be focusing on Ukraine. I think it would be very odd not to be talking about the Canadian foreign affairs context and our ability to defend ourselves, given the war on Ukraine. I can't really think of anything more relevant, given that with the Russian aggression, all countries in the world, I would think, have had to review their own national security abilities.

The eye-roll I just saw from the members opposite is a bit disrespectful, and I would ask that if you don't agree—

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

I have a point of order.

What is disrespectful is coming to this committee as a substitute and insisting that what we are doing is talking about the agenda of the committee. We are not talking about the agenda of the committee. We are talking about a motion to be considered for the agenda of the committee. That is what is disrespectful.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

With all due respect, Mr. Oliphant, that isn't a point of order.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Again, on the national security and public safety committee, the reason we began the study to review the security posture concerning Russian aggression is that Canada shares a very long Arctic border with the Arctic Ocean and Russia, and they have numerous military bases, 19. They have over 40 icebreakers, most of them nuclear powered.

To think that any member of Parliament doesn't believe that what is happening in Ukraine does not impact the security posture of Canada.... The member is perhaps not fully aware of the magnitude of the situation going on in Ukraine, how it impacts Canadians and the conversations parliamentarians should be having to ensure that we are not only supporting our Ukrainian allies, but also doing everything we can at home.

We can even talk about cybersecurity. Ukraine has experienced significant cybersecurity attacks and threats from Russia. Canada, which overall does quite well with cybersecurity compared to others, is lending support to Ukraine. That may be an issue that this committee would like to review as well, considering that the cybersecurity field is growing in importance in terms of its threat to critical infrastructure, hospitals and Canada's contacts to CRA and to Global Affairs. We're seeing considerable security threats to cybersecurity. I'm very glad and proud that Canada was able to provide expertise to Ukraine in this regard.

I would also say that the study at SECU, the national security and public safety committee, is relevant to this discussion to underline the importance of staying on the study of Ukraine because of the infrastructure we're looking at in the Canadian context if we want to talk about the threat that Russia poses to the rest of the Western world. We're also looking at our surveillance technology in Canada. We can talk about NORAD, which is four decades old and has not been updated in quite some time.

Again, when we're talking about the invasion of Ukraine, we also have to be reviewing, as parliamentarians, our ability to defend ourselves should the worst happen, however unlikely that may be.

We've had numerous leading academic and national security experts underline this position so clearly that it would be foolish for parliamentarians not to take this seriously in the Canadian context of what's happening in Ukraine. Not only do we need to focus, Mr. Chair, on supporting our Ukrainian allies, but also we need to focus on ensuring that Canada is prepared for a cyber-attack, for an attack on our critical infrastructure.

In fact, when I was briefed by the cybersecurity officials of Public Safety, they said that the worst, like the Pearl Harbor event.... I asked what would be the worst thing that could happen, and they said it was an attack on our critical pipeline infrastructure. These are the types of conversations we need to be having at both the foreign affairs and the national security and public safety committees. I've been very pleased but alarmed to hear the testimony from leading national security advisers. Again, I think that everyone recognizes that it is very important that we have these discussions.

I think what we're seeing as well, when we talk about Ukraine, is that a lot of our allies are leading the way in providing arms and support. The Americans, of course, have provided billions and billions of dollars. I heard one statistic that the amount—I want to say it's 21 billion dollars' worth—of arms they've committed and various defence technologies and tools is more than the entire Ukrainian federal budget, so it's considerable.

Perhaps it's something this committee would also like to look at, or perhaps the defence committee. What kinds of arms are being provided, why is Canada providing what it is, and are we providing everything that we can? Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to go into all the technology that Canada has in its arsenal and which ones should be provided that have not yet been.

I think that, overall, this committee should be focusing on Ukraine. I very much appreciate the efforts of my fellow Conservative committee members for making this point very clear, and I look forward to their testimony and what they have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

We now go to Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a pleasure to be here on a Thursday afternoon at the foreign affairs committee.

I'd like to start off by making an observation. Again, I am not familiar with Mr. Oliphant's riding, but I was a bit concerned about his commentary that we're nothing but substitutes, seat fillers. Quite frankly, given the international importance of the Russian aggression against this country, this is a humanitarian issue. This is a parliamentarian issue and we, as proud Conservatives, believe that this is serious business that this committee is undertaking.

When I was asked by Mr. Genuis to assist, I took it as a badge of honour. I took it as an opportunity on a grander scale to express my concerns as a proud parliamentarian in the 44th Parliament, a new parliamentarian, I might add. My riding is Brantford—Brant. It is the home of a significant Ukrainian population. I grew up with many Ukrainians in grade school and high school and have many Ukrainian friends to this day. I felt the impact on the local stage as to how this war has impacted.

When asked for the opportunity to come here and talk about my feelings, I didn't view it as simply a seat warmer or as a substitute. It gives me an opportunity beyond the restrictions of a 30-second QP question or an S.O. 31 to truly express my views. I wanted to put that on record, because I was offended by that.

I also want to thank my colleague, Ms. Dancho, who stood up for her Conservative male colleagues in relation to the statement of the member for Edmonton Strathcona, because I viewed it in much the same light that Ms. Dancho did. It was offensive. It was uncalled for. I see a few members who know my background, but for many members who may not know my background, I left a 30-year law career to pursue politics, and in the last 18 years of those 30 years, Mr. Chair, I was a Crown attorney who took great pride as a specialist in dealing with the most serious, extreme, violent matters in my community, particularly in the realm of spousal abuse, sexual assault and children exploitation offences. I took great pride in being a strong advocate and a champion for women's issues.

I'm a proud, married individual. I too am going to be celebrating an important milestone this October—20 years with my spouse—and I'm raising two teenage daughters who turned 13 not too long ago. I don't call myself a feminist, but I certainly respect women's views, and I'm a champion of women's rights.

I say that because it's important to distinguish the importance of this study that you've already embarked on. I don't know how many meetings you've had prior to this intervention, but I know that it had been started some several weeks ago.

My point, Mr. Chair, is to Ms. Fry's motion: The most pressing issue that this world is facing right now is happening in Ukraine. It's not just impacting Ukrainians. It's not just impacting the citizens who are actually there fighting the resistance. It's not just impacting the residents who have been displaced and have fled the country looking for safe passage and refuge. It's quite frankly affecting all of Europe, and it's affecting the entire world.

Quite frankly, there isn't a day that goes by in the House—and even if I refer to some of my observations of politics down south there isn't a day that goes by—that you don't either read about it or hear about it or watch it on television, and where the leaders, leaders of this country and leaders of the United States, are all blaming inflation and the rise in everything—gas prices, housing issues...it's all Putin's fault.

To say that we should be looking at standing down, adjourning or deferring—whatever nomenclature you want to use—this important study to then embark on another study.... I'm not saying that it's not important. I'm talking about timing, Mr. Chair. The only reason this is being brought up.... I'll deal with the elephant in the room. The only reason this is being brought up is because of what's happening south of the border: the leak from the Supreme Court and the backlash and the fear and the worry.

It's not happening here in Canada. We have settled law. It's been settled law in this country for several decades. There's no urgency, Mr. Chair. There is no rush to suspend this most critical, important study, quite frankly, of my lifetime and the lifetime of my wife and my children, because we are on the brink of a third world war. We are on the brink; we're within a hair's breadth of Putin's invading a NATO country. We all know what article 5 says, so this is extremely important and ought not, in my view as a guest of this committee, to be derailed by another study.

I'd like to spend some time now talking about my personal connections to the Ukrainian people. I talked about my ties in my hometown. I was a very proud MP, Mr. Chair, when a constituent of mine reached out to me for the first time, introduced himself and came up with an idea, an idea that I believe I was the first member of Parliament to advance and speak about very proudly in the House on an S.O. 31.

He asked what I thought about the idea of having a twinning agreement between my hometown and a town in Ukraine. I said that I'd not thought about it, but what a wonderful gesture, what a wonderful idea. We talked about it. Literally within two weeks, with the able and most important assistance of my legislative assistant, Vladimir, who's also known as Walter and about whom I'll talk in a little more detail, we were able to consult with the mayor in Kamianets-Podilskyi in the Ukraine, and we were able, with the mayor of my hometown of Brantford, to sign a twinning agreement.

The town of Kamianets-Podilskyi, Mr. Chair, is located in southwest Ukraine near the borders with Moldova and Romania. Like Brantford, Kamianets-Podilskyi has a population of 100,000 people and centres on manufacturing and tourism, which are two key sectors of my riding of Brantford—Brant.

Now we are taking active steps with social agencies and Ukrainian churches, again with the assistance of both mayors and my legislative assistant, Walter, to welcome thousands of Ukrainian refugees into my community. We are looking at various homes and billeting. We are looking at cultural centres. We are looking at places that ordinarily would be open only for spring, summer and fall camping. We're looking at opportunities to make the lives of Ukrainians fleeing the persecution that much better.

I'd like to provide a bit of a historical account, because I don't know if it's ever been shared with this committee, but I was able in the time that I was asked to consider my participation today to do a little research. I've always been fond of history. I majored in political science and history in university. I found an article called “The 20th-Century History Behind Russia's Invasion of Ukraine”, which I'd love to share with the committee at this time.

Before Russian forces fired rockets at the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv; seized Chernobyl, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident; and attacked Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, Russian President Vladimir Putin shared some choice words.

In an essay published on the Kremlin's website in Russian, Ukrainian and English last July, Putin credited Soviet leaders with inventing a Ukrainian republic within the Soviet Union in 1922, forging a fictitious state unworthy of sovereignty out of historically Russian territory. After Ukraine declared its independence in 1991, the president argued, Ukrainian leaders “began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united [Russia and Ukraine], and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation.”

The “historical reality” of modern-day Ukraine is more complex than Putin's version of events, encompassing “a thousand-year history of changing religions, borders and peoples,” according to the New York Times. “[M]any conquests by warring factions and Ukraine's diverse geography...created a complex fabric of multiethnic states.”

Over the centuries, the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires, Poland, and Lithuania have all wielded jurisdiction over Ukraine, which first asserted its modern independence in 1917, with the formation of the Ukrainian People's Republic. Russia soon wrested back control of Ukraine, making it part of the newly established Soviet Union and retaining power in the region until World War II, when Germany invaded. The debate over how to remember this wartime history, as well as its implications for Ukrainian nationalism and independence, is key to understanding the current conflict.

In Putin's telling, the modern Ukrainian independence movement began not in 1917 but during World War II. Under the German occupation of Ukraine, between 1941 and 1944, some Ukrainian independence fighters aligned themselves with the Nazis, whom they viewed as saviors from Soviet oppression. Putin has drawn on this period in history to portray any Ukrainian push for sovereignty as a Nazi endeavor, says Markian Dobczansky, a historian at Harvard University's Ukrainian Research Institute. “It's really just a stunningly cynical attempt to fight an information war and influence people's opinions,” he adds.

Dobczansky is among a group of scholars who have publicly challenged Putin's version of the Nazi occupation of Ukraine and the years of Soviet rule it's sandwiched between. Almost all of these experts begin their accounts with the fall of the Russian Empire, when tens of thousands of Ukrainians fought against the Bolshevik Red Army to establish the Ukrainian People's Republic. Ukrainians continued to fight for independence until 1922, when they were defeated by the Soviets and became the Ukrainian Soviet Republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.).

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'd like some clarification, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Go ahead, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

As much as I'm enjoying this history lesson, it is now almost five o'clock. I wonder if I could ask the clerk for a clarification. I'm actually quite concerned that there may be witnesses on the Taiwan study who are somehow waiting for us to get to their testimony. It was my understanding that we were supposed to be studying the issue of Taiwan today.

Madam Clerk, do we have our witnesses on the Taiwan study waiting to hear from our committee?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Over to you, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

No, there are no witnesses waiting today.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Were they cancelled for this filibuster?

[The Clerk]

They were rescheduled.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On that point of order, I wonder if there might be unanimous consent to adjourn debate on this matter so we can proceed to those witnesses.

Is there unanimous consent to do that?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[An hon. member]

The witnesses aren't here.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Mr. Brock, please continue.

I see you are reading from a document to back up your argument, and it's fascinating, but do you plan to tell us how the information you're reading to us relates to your view on the matter in hand?

Please carry on, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you for the intervention, Mr. Chair.

I thought the title of the article was self-explanatory. It's “The 20th-Century History Behind Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine”. I thought it prudent, because I am a history buff, to share the historical conflict that Russia has had with Ukraine. In fact, I did further research on the history of Ukraine—I don't think you want me to talk about before-Christ days, but I was prepared to do that—as there is such a wonderful, fascinating history behind the country of Ukraine.

To the point of what we're talking about, it's important to talk and learn about the previous historical conflict in relation to the current conflict. This particular article starts off by talking about the historical end of things and then moves to the modern day. There is a connection and there is relevancy.

May I continue?