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.
1:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Stéphane Bergeron
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
I'm being told that we have to suspend the meeting for a half-hour for a staff change. We will suspend until further notice, as determined by the discussions currently happening among the whips. I have Mr. Chong and Ms. Fry on the speaking list. We will resume the meeting as soon as possible.
The meeting is suspended.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Colleagues, good afternoon. We are resuming our session.
Just to reorient ourselves, before we suspended we were discussing the amendment by Mr. Genuis to delete a phrase in the motion, namely “that the committee hold no fewer than (5) five meetings”. Is that the understanding of members?
I don't see any objections.
With that, we have a speakers list right now that includes Mr. Chong and then Mr. Genuis. If colleagues are interested in being added to the speakers list, please raise your hand either virtually or in person, and we will give you the floor—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, I wanted to speak to the main motion after the amendment.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
After the amendment? Okay. You're going to go into standby mode for that. I'll going to mark that down. Thank you.
Mr. Genuis and Ms. Lantsman as well: On the amendment or on the main motion?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt the proceedings. I've realized you asked a question just a moment ago and I just wanted to clarify.
We did in fact vote on the proposed amendment, I believe, and we have voted that down. We are now back on the main motion.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
I'm advised that the committee had not voted on the amendment. If that's incorrect, let's please clarify that.
I was not there for the last portion of the meeting. The advice I got is that the committee had in fact not yet voted on the amendment by Mr. Genuis.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
This is an important question, so let's clarify.
We will suspend for a moment just to make sure that we're getting in the right starting blocks before we start the discussion.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Again, Mr. Chong, we'll stand by for a resumption of discussion on the main motion.
We have Mr. Genuis on the amendment and Ms. Lantsman on the amendment.
Does anybody else wish to intervene at this point? If not, just keep raising your hands when you do wish to intervene, and I'll keep an eye on the virtual list as well.
We'll go over to you, Mr. Genuis, please.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.
I've been thinking a lot about just the nature of the committee and the work we have to do in the context of some of the things going on around the world. I would like to propose a very specific adjournment motion right now.
That motion is: That the debate be adjourned on this motion until the committee has completed its work on Ukraine.
If that's understood, I will proceed to speak on that adjournment motion.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
Just to clarify, that's a non-dilatory motion because it has a condition attached to it.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know there have been different levels of passion by different members, and people asserting that there is no politics, allegedly, behind the sudden proposal that we prioritize, in the work of this committee, the question of abortion. However, I think the public will be well-advised to note what is going on around the precinct more broadly, and members of this committee probably know—they may not, but certainly the people behind the table probably know well—the fact that many motions are being moved on the subject of abortion at many different committees across the precinct.
It seems to have been the conclusion of the strategic minds of our friends across the way that having as much discussion about abortion at as many parliamentary committees as possible is a good idea. To pretend that that is not framed with politics in mind is a bit rich.
It's not for me to say what other committees should study. Of course, other committees also have competing considerations. Perhaps there is a case to say that there is a particular need at a committee. I can only speak to the issue in front of us, which is the question of the agenda of the foreign affairs committee.
My goal with this specific adjournment motion is to put into focus the question of whether we want this committee to prioritize a discussion of the issue of abortion, or whether we want this committee to prioritize a discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That is the choice. In a context where we have one foreign affairs committee, as well as many other committees in this place, there is the status of women committee, the justice committee, the public safety committee.... There is the international human rights subcommittee, and, in fact, one member already spoke about the fact that she had brought a motion to that other committee. In the past, when we have had issues specifically around human rights, the argument has been made by some members that that is what we have the subcommittee for, that is the goal of the subcommittee.
I think about the breadth of issues that we are dealing with in the world. There is, of course, the question of Taiwan; there is, of course, the question of vaccine equity. However, there is, in particular, the invasion of Ukraine that, I think it is fair to say, has really seized the attention and concern of Canadians from all walks of life. I know I'm hearing it significantly within my constituency. My riding is home to a large Ukrainian diaspora. People have, up to now, been following the very serious, the very non-partisan, and the very engaging work that had been done by this committee up till then.
On Ukraine, there have been some differences in terms of the recommended approach of the parties, that is, there have been times when we've been critical of the government, and there have been things back and forth, but, generally, our tone has been in the context of the foreign invasion to try to keep the discussion focused on the issues, and substantive. That is befitting the dignity and seriousness that we would expect from the Canadian foreign affairs committee
I'll say, as we contemplate this choice about what we prioritize, and whether we prioritize the Russian invasion of Ukraine as being a central issue of importance, that we shouldn't sell ourselves short as a foreign affairs committee either. Sometimes there is the tendency for members of Parliament to fail to fully appreciate just how important our role is.
We have the potential, as the Canadian foreign affairs committee, to drive discussion at this critical time in global affairs, when, I believe for the first time since the Second World War, we have one sovereign state invading another in Europe, and there are implications of that for global security and for our own security. This has been re-emphasized regularly by government ministers, and of course by members of this committee and members of all parties.
The context of the study on Ukraine is one in which we said we'd begin looking at the issue of Ukraine, but in an open-ended way, without prescribing a certain number of meetings. We said we'd be open to scheduling additional meetings as new information comes online. I believe it was Ms. Bendayan who had initially proposed that. This was, I think, a very good idea. I shouldn't say it was prior to the invasion, because, of course, the invasion really started in 2014. It was prior to the escalation of the invasion that began in February of this year. We started holding hearings on this. We began hearing very compelling testimony from various officials who highlighted what we needed to do and the challenges in front of us. They spoke about Minister Joly's recent travel to Europe prior to the invasion, about issues around Operation Unifier—the commitment in January for the renewal of Operation Unifier—and significant investments that were being considered around humanitarian assistance.
I recall that prior to the invasion, our focus really had been on making the case for tougher sanctions and that targeted sanctions would play a critically important deterrent role. Also, we were making the case for energy security even then. Of course, the discussion around energy security has increased more. Again, I think this committee should take that up as part of its consideration around the issue of Ukraine.
The proposals around sanctions, lethal weapons support, ongoing training and other forms of assistance to Ukraine needed to be focused on this question of deterrence. The best way to defeat an invader is to deter them in the first place, obviously. It's to establish the conditions where the Putin regime would have made the calculation that it was better off not interfering. We need to take very serious stock of the fact that this was a failure of deterrence.
If you look at the times, historically, when we've been drawn into major wars, generally it has often been tied into some kind of failure of deterrence, when aggressors perceive that they will not be resisted in their gradual efforts to occupy more and more territory. Why did we allow the conditions to be established such that there was this failure of deterrence in the context of the invasion of Ukraine?
I think we have to look right back to 2015. Maybe we should have been studying the issue of Ukraine in this committee even then. I was not a permanent member of this committee as of 2015-16. I think there were some of the same members. I was subbing quite a bit at the time. We raised the issue around cutting off access to RADARSAT image sharing. Following the 2014 invasion, the government of Stephen Harper had put in place a system of image and information sharing coming out of RADARSAT. This provided important strategic resources to Ukraine, but it also provided an important expression of solidarity and of our commitment to doing all we could to support and enable Ukrainians.
I travelled to Ukraine in 2016. I saw the sense of hope that came out of the fact that they were getting weapons and acquiring resources. They felt that their army was much better prepared than it was two years before, and I know that that preparation, readiness and fighting continued and, of course, continues to this day. The RADARSAT technology played an important role, and it was never really explained why the new government, led by Prime Minister Trudeau, made the choice of no longer sharing that critical information.
It was also around that time when there was a context of obvious internal debate within the government caucus over the issue of the Magnitsky sanctions. The Magnitsky sanctions really are a top ask. They were and continue to be a top area of focus for the Ukrainian community and for the Russian dissident community, who are pushing this message of the need to have Magnitsky sanctions to be able to target those who are involved in gross violations of human rights. This was an important measure that was proposed.
At the time, then-foreign minister Stéphane Dion and the Liberal government gave every indication of not being keen on the Magnitsky sanctions regime, but in the end, the House of Commons unanimously adopted the Magnitsky act, which was an important step forward, but it was not used. There have been plenty of cases, I think right up to the end of February, when the further invasion took place, when Conservatives were asking about specific individuals who were involved in human rights abuses in Russia and who were involved in acts of aggression against Ukraine. Those individuals were not being sanctioned.
I think it underlines the importance of the Ukraine study and the importance of the work of this committee that in the context of the Ukraine issue, we were able to put forward specific names of individuals. One way that we framed it was around Navalny's list. Alexei Navalny, the important Russian opposition figure, had put forward a list of individuals who he thought should be sanctioned. We raised some of those names at this committee. Eventually, some of those individuals were sanctioned. In fact, when he sanctioned them, the Prime Minister specifically cited the fact that they were on Navalny's list. He didn't specifically cite the work of the foreign affairs committee, but it underlines how important it is that we put these things onto the agenda and put out there the fact that we have opinions as legislators who work on this committee and that, oftentimes, when we put those issues forward, they shape the response of government and the response of ministers.
Notwithstanding the fact that we were pleased to see some of that movement on some of the sanctioning of individuals who were brought up in this committee, that movement didn't happen until after February 23. I believe it was the 23rd. I might be off by a day or two, but it didn't happen until after February 23rd. The advice we received from Marcus Kolga, Bill Browder and others who appeared before this committee was about the importance of sanctions and, in particular, to help us understand the deterrent effect that could come about as a result of those sanctions.
We were given this sense that.... This is where Navalny's list comes in as well. There were people around Vladimir Putin who are responsible for taking and investing the regime's money. In particular, Mr. Putin is focused on his own interests, his own financial interests, and his own preservation and enhancement of power. Striking hard in advance, not militarily of course, but with sanctioning, would have been totally justified on the basis of past acts of aggression and human rights abuses. Striking in advance would have, I think, played that important role in sending a deterrent message.
We can look back at some of these actions ahead of February of last year: the cutting off of the sharing of RADARSAT images; the failure to make better use of the Magnitsky act; and the failure to sanction individuals who were responsible for investing in the regime's personal wealth. Had we taken those steps, I think we could have played a stronger role in deterrence.
We can be proud of the role Canada played in the immediate aftermath of the initial invasion of Crimea in 2014. As a key player and member of various international organizations, Canada was able to pull countries towards a stronger position. That was when Russia was expelled from the G8. That was really the first time Russia felt consequences of that significance. We'd seen human rights abuses in Chechnya, of course, and aggressive action in Georgia.
We've seen other instances of this, but it was really Canadian leadership that played a big role in pushing for that strengthened, sharpened global response that followed the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. That was the point at which we have to understand the violation of Russia's commitments under the Budapest memorandum, a clear promise on committing to Ukraine's territorial integrity.
I think part of the value of studying this and of going back to look at it, looking at the present and looking forward but also looking back at where we've been since Ukrainian independence, is to counter some of that misinformation that we often see out there in the context of this invasion. It is important to acknowledge right out of the gate that whatever some people may try to say—i.e., “whose territory, and what and when”—the Russian Federation had committed to defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine based on its boundaries prior to 2014, which are still its internationally recognized boundaries.
I think Canada after 2015, certainly in the initial phase at least, was not as aggressive or as pointed. There are certain obvious instances, such as the ones I've mentioned, where we eased off the kind of pressure that had been there. I think that informed the failure of deterrence that got us to the point where we are now, where the trajectory post-2014 was a strong response from the rest of the world and then a gradual easing off.
That happened differently in some countries as opposed to others, but there is a sense that even though the conflict was ongoing, and even though Russia continued to be occupying sovereign Ukrainian territory and continued during that period to be committing gross violations of human rights against the Ukrainian people, there was in some countries this kind of easing off of the pressure, this kind of forgetting that things were actually continuing to go on.
In the few months leading up to this invasion itself, I think it was very clear to members of Parliament that this was coming. I believe that obviously the government was aware of the risks. They spoke directly about it when we had officials come before the committee. Officials told us the following:
The mobilization of Russian military forces in and around Ukraine continues, with no sign of de‑escalation. The situation remains unpredictable and President Putin's military intentions remain unclear.
We're working closely with our allies and partners to find a diplomatic solution to the military conflict, by developing multiple strong deterrents.
This was the stated policy commitment from Global Affairs Canada. That was the testimony we heard at this committee prior to the invasion.
Many of the questions were specifically building off that commitment around deterrence. How do we strengthen our deterrence? How do we strengthen our position in relation to the need for deterring that aggression?
That was where we were at that time. We heard from other witnesses, again calling for sanctions specifically targeting those around the regime.
I should note as well that one issue we've dealt with at the committee is misinformation in the form of RT and some of the efforts of the Russian Federation to project disinformation here about what was happening before, what was happening in the context of the invasion and since.
This is notable in that there are inconsistencies in the approach we've taken—
May 16th, 2022 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Genuis, let me pause you for one moment. We have a point of order.
Mr. Oliphant, please.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm just wondering if there is a speakers list, which would be a point of order. If there is, it might alleviate the member's gymnastics of trying to extend this conversation to what some might consider to be a filibuster, going on to issues of RT when we are talking about another “r”, which is reproductive technologies and our capacity in that regard. If there is a speakers list, it might give him a little break and he won't have to keep going through that list.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Oliphant, thank you. We'll treat that as a point of order. Just to refresh the committee as to who's currently on that list, it is Mr. Genuis who has the floor. Then it is you, and Madame Bendayan and Mr. Duncan at the moment. If anybody else wishes to be added—Ms. Lantsman I see—use the “raise hand” feature online or signal the clerk or me if you're in the room.
With that, it's back to Mr. Genuis, please.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we need to be clear about the topic that's in front of us. We're debating the agenda of the committee.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we are actually not debating the agenda of the committee. That is not what we're doing. We're actually debating a motion with respect to an amendment of another motion. We are not in any way debating the agenda of this committee. That is work that should be done in the future, once some of the intentions are known. It is simply not a debate about the agenda of the committee. That seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
I'll treat that as a point. That straddles a point of order and point of debate because it's partially about what the committee will do, but it isn't about the plenary set of issues before the committee.
Mr. Genuis, if you could, just stick to what is relevant as much as you can.