Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, there is no reference to the U.S. Supreme Court or to anything related to the United States in this motion. Dr. Fry's motion, which was initially presented last year, I believe, in December, is—

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, do you have a point of order?

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

Yes, sir, I do have a point of order. It's just to say that this is not a matter for what Ms. Bendayan is raising. She can get on the speakers list, of course.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, again, this is a point of order on relevance, because the matter that the member opposite is discussing is not related to the amendment. I would also point out that just today there were further news releases and media reports discussing the plight of Ukrainian women and their reproductive rights, so I fail to see why it is that we cannot vote on the motion discussing the international state of reproductive rights for women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan. I understand that was based on the issue of relevance, so again, let me remind all the members to attempt to the best of their abilities to keep their comments focused on the amendment at hand.

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

I have a further point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that you maybe make a ruling and provide some feedback to the government with respect to these repeated and I think frankly disruptive points of order on relevance, because I think they know, and as you've said previously, that the interpretation of relevance is generally fairly broad in this place.

Frankly, my colleague has been speaking very precisely to the issue of Ukraine, which is directly in the amendment. Our amendment says that we should finish the work on Ukraine before we get to the matter envisioned by the study proposed by Dr. Fry, and my colleague is speaking about the situation in Ukraine and making specific arguments along those lines.

It's obvious that those comments are relevant. I mean, he's not talking about what he had for breakfast or something. I wonder if you could maybe just provide some direction to the government so that we don't have these repeated interruptions, because they're clearly not in any way in line with the history of the way these provisions around relevance have been interpreted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, on the point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

—simply to respond, my point of order on relevance was based on the invocation of the United States, which is not mentioned at all in the motion that Dr. Fry put forward, nor is it mentioned in the amendment that Mr. Genuis put forward, and therefore it's not relevant to this debate.

I think what my colleague is trying to do is point out the numerous interruptions and seek some clarity from you, Mr. Chair. I'm certainly open to hearing your views on relevance, but after 16 hours of filibustering, the Conservatives have lost the moral high ground to claim that we are interrupting them.

We would like to get on to the business of this committee. We would like to get on to the studies that are before us. I certainly hope that the witnesses on the Taiwan study are not waiting in the wings again for this fourth or fifth meeting where we we are being denied our witnesses on the Taiwan study and, certainly, we have a lot of important work to get to on the matter of Ukraine.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if you would like to rule on relevance more broadly, but I will continue to interrupt when this filibuster gets out of hand.

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

I'd like to speak on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, effectively, the parliamentary secretary has just conceded the point insofar as she said that she's bringing up regular points of order to interrupt our interventions because she doesn't like aspects of the broader context. Very clearly, these points of order are not about relevance; they're about the fact that Liberal members are—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, can I raise a point of order, please?

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

I don't mind, after I'm done. It's up to the chair.

I'll finish my point of order.

In response to Ms. Bendayan, since maybe there is a new appetite to adjourn debate, I'd be happy to seek unanimous consent to adjourn debate on this motion. I can't move a motion because I don't have the floor, but is there unanimous consent to do that? I can seek unanimous consent on a point of order.

It sounds like there isn't unanimous consent to adjourn debate, but we' be happy to adjourn debate on this at any time, for the record.

I apologize that maybe isn't a point of order, but the previous part was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'll now go to Ms. McPherson on a point of order before allowing Mr. Morantz to once again resume debate.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, thanks for recognizing me.

I want to make the point that Mr. Genuis is claiming that he can determine what is a point of order and what is not. That is actually the right of the chair. I would like to remind this committee that it is in fact the chair who determines whether something is a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I think the chair probably knows what a point of order is and doesn't need to be told by Ms. McPherson what it is, so I don't think that was actually a point of order. It was trying to give instruction to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We had been listening earlier to Mr. Morantz talk about moral leadership, so let me take that as the point of departure here. Let me ask every member here to remain relevant to the issue at hand. At times like this, it behooves us to consider what our responsibilities are here and to attempt to the best of our abilities to remain focused on the issue at hand.

Mr. Morantz, the floor is yours once again.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your Solomon-esque wisdom when it comes to these types of matters.

I apologize if I misinterpreted the motion to mean the United States when I read the words “given recent reports of international backsliding related to women's sexual and reproductive health and rights”. I presume it was not referring to the leak of the decision in the United States, and that, based on the comments made, it won't be a topic of the debate when the motion actually comes up. That's very reassuring, Mr. Chair.

To go back to my main point, this is not the time to let up the pressure on Mr. Putin. It's not the time to take our foot off the gas. It's not the time to let down Ambassador Kovaliv, President Zelenskyy, Ukrainian Canadians or allies. It's just not the time. This is not the time to abandon principle for political attacks.

I want to remind my colleagues about some of the things they said, on the record, about Ukraine. I'm hoping they still mean what they said. For example, on March 2, the member for Milton said:

Canada is...home to the largest Ukrainian diaspora outside of the region.... Ukrainian Canadians have helped build this country that we all love and call home, and Canada stands with Ukraine. Militarily, financially, diplomatically and from a humanitarian perspective, we will continue to heed the call and support Ukraine's right to thrive as a peace-loving and independent sovereign nation. The Russian attack is not only an attack on Ukraine. It is a grave threat to global peace, democracy and all that ensures our collective safety and security. The world is witnessing some of the bravest and most heart-wrenching acts of Ukrainian patriotism, from regular citizens to President...Zelenskyy, fighting for their lives and their nation. They are not only fighting for Ukraine. They fight for all of us.

Those are very profound words from the member for Milton.

On March 25, the member for Willowdale said, “At times like this, we must all resolve to ensure that our country continues to prove steadfast in supporting the Government of Ukraine and that we do all we can to assist individual Ukrainians in their hour of need. Let it never be said that our country shirked from its responsibilities.” He also said, on May 13, “Proud Ukrainians will never relent, and neither should we in our assistance.”

I agree with the member's comments 100%, Mr. Chair.

On February 28, the Minister of National Defence said:

Canada is not alone in this mission to help Ukraine. NATO allies are more united than ever. The world has become a dangerous place, and while these dangers can feel far away to Canadians, these are tumultuous times. We must unite as a country and redouble our efforts to support our allies. We stand with the people of Ukraine. We will continue to support them in the face of unwarranted Russian aggression.

The member for Ottawa West—Nepean and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development said on March 21, “Canada's commitment to stand united with those affected by the conflict in Ukraine is clear. We are continuing to work in close collaboration with our allies and our humanitarian partners on the ground to monitor the development of this rapidly evolving crisis.”

I must admit, Mr. Chair, that this quote left me confounded and wondering how the parliamentary secretary can keep that commitment without being timely informed by this committee.

On January 31, the member for Outremont, a member of this committee, said:

I think that it is very important for us to have this meeting today as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We are at a turning point, a crucial moment for rules-based...order. Quite frankly, it is possible that we are on the eve of a new invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a military confrontation that could have vast and devastating consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe and NATO, including Canada. I think that it is important for this committee to study the issue and make it a priority.

On January 31, as well, the member for said, “I think the most pressing issue internationally for foreign affairs is the situation in Ukraine, and I think we must treat it as being of paramount importance and deal with it as quickly and as efficiently as possible.”

This should be the first study that this committee deals with in this Parliament. I could go on and on quoting Liberal members on this issue. I wonder, though, in the recent context of this attempt to limit the study in favour of another, if they still feel this way.

When we first started talking about this issue on January 31, there were roughly 100,000 Russian troops on Ukraine's borders. Three weeks later on February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Thankfully, it appears they have failed in their attempt to unseat President Zelenskyy, but the risk is still very high, and we must keep up the pressure. We must plan for deeper and harsher sanctions. We must plan for more financial and military aid. We simply can't do this if we take our eyes off the ball. We can't be studying something else.

Russia has violated international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. We don't know what Mr. Putin might do next. Article 5 of NATO could force us into a broader European conflict that we need to be discussing. In fact, I just had a meeting with Latvia's ambassador to Canada, Mr. Kaspars Ozoliņš, during his visit to Winnipeg last week. He was there to wish 500 of our troops well and to thank them before their six-month deployment to Latvia as part of NATO's Operation Reassurance. He told me he grew up during the Cold War and he worries about what might become of his country if Russia were to invade.

These issues are unfolding in real time. That's my point, Mr. Chair. This committee must stay focused.

Ambassador Kovaliv told us that Ukrainian children have been forcibly taken deep into Russian territory. I remember she told us to not rest until they are returned home. We should be helping her. She also told us of Russian soldiers committing sexual violence against women and children.

I recently returned from a trip to Berlin where I was paired with the Minister of International Development. While I was there, I had the opportunity to visit the Sachsenhausen concentration camp where some of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust were perpetrated. I couldn't help but think about the refrain of “never again” as I walked through the gates and saw moulded in iron in the bars of the gates, “Arbeit Macht Frei”, which means “Work sets one free”.

We cannot allow this to go on in this century. The stakes are simply too high. I was honoured to lay a wreath alongside the minister at the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe and tour the Holocaust museum. While I was there, I also had the opportunity to meet with three members of the Bundestag. One of them was my counterpart, the vice-chair of this committee in Germany.

Do you know what their top priority is, Mr. Chair? The top priority is their concern about Russian brutality. They're concerned about helping the 600,000 refugees who have come to their country. They are concerned about energy security. I think if I told them about this motion to study something completely different, they wouldn't understand.

We need to be studying and talking about Ukraine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Morantz.

We'll now go to Mr. Bergeron.