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?