Foreign Affairs Committee on July 15th, 2022

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

There's no such thing as a friendly amendment to start with, but there are, as Ms. McPherson pointed out, a number of different changes to the original motion.

Should we be dealing with these three substantial changes to the motion amendment by amendment rather than all in one broad, sweeping amendment?

I ask for your guidance on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Bezan, I completely agree. In the event they are adopted, they would have to be debated amendment by amendment, absolutely. The point is well taken.

Now we go to Mr. Chong.

Mr. Chong, the floor is yours.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Before I begin, Mr. Chair, on a point of order, what amendment are we on, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I don't believe we're—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Personally, Mr. Chair, my advice is to treat all four changes that Mr. Oliphant has proposed as a single amendment, but if you want to break it down into four separate amendments, then please tell me what amendment we're on right now so I can speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm advised by the clerk that we have to go through this amendment by amendment, so we're going to have to break it down.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We're on the first amendment.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Okay. With respect to how many meetings we should have, we should have at least four meetings. I believe we could accomplish those over two days—a panel in the morning, a panel in the afternoon—and then a similar structure for the second day. That gives ample time for witnesses to be invited, to prepare, and for members to appear at the committee. I don't think any fewer than four meetings would work. The reason I think we need at least four meetings is that obviously, we're going to hear from Government of Canada officials. Obviously, we're going to hear from Ukrainian government officials, and then I think we need to hear from stakeholders.

Mr. Oliphant has suggested that we hear from the German and EU ambassadors, which I'm supportive of doing, but we also need to hear from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, and we need to hear from broader foreign policy experts who can put this into a broader context about natural gas supplies to Germany.

I'm fine with striking how many meetings we need to have, provided we are of the understanding that we have at least four meetings, and no fewer than that, and as many meetings as necessary to accommodate the witnesses we believe we need to be hearing from.

The final thing I'll say on the amendment in front of us is that I don't believe—and I know this is the fourth amendment—that if we do strike how many meetings we're going to have, it does not imply that the witness list is restricted to the six witnesses Mr. Oliphant has suggested.

Mr. Oliphant has suggested that we hear from only six witnesses, those being the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the ambassador of Ukraine to Canada, the ambassador of Germany to Canada and the ambassador of the European Union to Canada. I don't believe the witnesses should be restricted just to those six witnesses. I think we need to hear from witnesses beyond that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Now we'll go to Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am supportive of this motion. It's virtually identical to the motion that was put on notice by my colleague Mr. Chong.

I am concerned by what appears to be an effort by the government on the one hand to say yes to hearings, but on the other hand to effectively water down the ability of the committee to do the detailed work that is required.

We need to hear not just from government and from ambassadors but also from civil society, from experts and from people who can inform our work from a variety of different directions. If you add up three ambassadors, two ministers, plus the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and other civil society groups and experts, I don't know how we would end up at less than four or five meetings anyway.

We're happy to work with colleagues on refining the language of this motion, but the fundamental point is that we need to have enough meetings, summer or not, to deal with this critical issue. It might be our summer break, but there's no summer break for Ukrainians. There's no time off for people who are seeing their homes destroyed and who are seeing schools and hospitals targeted. This is a devastating war that we're seeing with the targeting of civilians and children. There is a total lack of regard for human life, for international law and for the rules of war that we're seeing from the Russian Federation.

Canada needs to do its part. I believe that means opposing the logic of appeasement or compromise with this violent aggressor.

My view, when I saw this announcement from the government, was that the government's decision to suspend their own sanctions is a slap in the face to the Ukrainian people in their darkest hour. It made we wonder what the point of sanctions is if the government is so casually willing to ignore or suspend their own rules every time somebody asks.

This is happening in a context where, and it's important to note, the German Chancellor told Bloomberg, “It would be good if they would be there, even though they are not necessary.” The German Chancellor has said that the return of the turbines is not necessary.

It's important that we be firm in our resolve. If we aren't, then Russia will simply continue to escalate their pressure.

I note as well that during his comments, the parliamentary secretary claimed that the return of these turbines will ensure European energy security. Nothing could be further from the truth. Returning turbines will not guarantee European energy security. It will only empower the Kremlin to control the energy supply to intimidate Europe further and to cut off energy supply at a time and in a way of their choosing.

I hope that through these hearings and through the deliberations that the committee will undertake we will be able to make the case to the government of the need to be resolute in standing with our Ukrainian allies and not to show weakness in the way they have done by proposing to return these turbines to suspend the sanction regime that they have trumpeted in the past

Again, we need to be standing with our Ukrainian friends and allies during their darkest hour, summer or not. That means taking the time to have the hearings that are required to get to the bottom of these issues and to hold the government accountable.

I'm certainly prepared to do that, and I hope that other members are as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We'll now go to Mr. McKay.

Mr. McKay, welcome to the committee. The floor is yours.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Personally, I prefer to arrive at my conclusions after I've heard the evidence. I can't imagine that this is a simple or easy decision. As chair of the defence committee, I think there are significant NATO implications in the decision-making process. If we are establishing a witness list, I would like to hear from our NATO ambassador.

I think it's rather unprecedented that some of the most significant members of NATO have come out and supported the decision. Everyone would agree it was a very difficult decision by the Government of Canada to return the turbines.

I think that would be useful to the committee, so all the evidence could be on the table.

I don't have any firm views other than a general support of the notion of the amendments. I think they're helpful. I much prefer a committee that works constructively in the best interest of Canadians. I think the motions put forward by Mr. Oliphant, along with the main motion from Ms. McPherson, are actually strong steps in the right direction. I support Mr. Genuis's argument that we can certainly deal with these kinds of things in the summertime because this is an important issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

We next go to Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe we need to keep this rather open-ended because, as we dive into this, it is another opportunity for Parliament to raise public awareness over the war in Ukraine. I think we need to have a briefing on the current situation in Ukraine to make sure we understand the ramifications of this rather embarrassing decision that the government made in returning the gas turbines to Gazprom.

When you look at what happened yesterday with an attack on civilians in downtown Vinnytsia, where 23 more people were killed including three or four children in that cruise missile attack, we need to have some understanding around how gas sales to Germany and other European nations fuel Putin's war machine. We need to understand that those revenues generated by Gazprom ultimately go back to the Russian military, which buys things like cruise missiles and other artillery, as well as the overall illegal invasion in Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

We want to make sure that we cover all these bases. I don't believe that restricting timelines, restricting the number of meetings or restricting the witness list through a motion is in our best interests or in the interest of Canada's foreign policy in Ukraine...allowing the Government of Ukraine to express its concerns, as well as those of the diaspora here in Canada.

We've all seen the response from President Zelenskyy on this decision. To say that he's disappointed is an understatement. I think there's anger. I think Ukraine feels betrayed, regardless of the sanctions Mr. Oliphant talked about and the unprecedented number of people and organizations they've been placed on. If we're going to suspend those sanctions on a temporary basis, then they mean nothing.

Mr. Chair, I'd encourage all committee members to look at the bigger picture and ensure that we get everyone out there—experts in the field—to give us full briefings, so we can make proper decisions, and so that Canadians who have taken an interest in this, as well as the media, will be able to report on those facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Next we go to Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll simply start by saying that this was an untenable situation, impossible. It was very difficult for the Canadian government, which was between a rock and a hard place, having to make an impossible choice. Obviously, this is a very sensitive issue.

If there's anyone who's delighted by all this, it's Vladimir Putin, in the Kremlin. These turbines were a way for him to drive a wedge in the NATO alliance, to create a rift between allies and to arouse dissension, when the alliance has shown unwavering unity on the matter thus far. Playing into the hands of Vladimir Putin is what outrages me the most.

The Ukrainians have said over and over again that energy can be supplied to Europe via the pipeline on their territory. That is why they can't understand the decision to allow the return of the turbine. Actually, it's not just one turbine; it's at least six turbines over a two-year period. For a temporary sanctions exemption, two years is a pretty long time, in my view.

We know that Russia is quite capable of supplying energy to Germany and the other European countries without necessarily needing these turbines. What, then, is the reason for all this?

To constantly have to kowtow to the Kremlin on the issue of will Russia supply Europe with oil and gas or not. On the face of it, returning these turbines isn't going to keep Vladimir Putin from turning off the taps according to his mood that day.

The alliance's solidarity is a high price to pay just to end up at the mercy of Vladimir Putin, in any case. I think we definitely need to understand what's going on.

As I said at the outset, I readily acknowledge that this isn't an easy situation for the Government of Canada; it must have been a tough decision to make. Far be it from me to lay blame or heap criticism on—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

It doesn't really matter if this amendment in front of us—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

What are you saying?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm not on mute.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

No problem.

As I was saying, far be it from me to heap criticism on the government, but we do need to understand the reasons why it made this tough decision. Germany won't be any less vulnerable to the Kremlin's whims because of this decision, meaning that Germany's long-term energy supply won't be any more secure.

Now, to satisfy Mr. Chong, I'll turn to the specific matter of the amendments. Since we have to go through each of the proposed amendments and since Ms. McPherson said that she supported the first amendment, I'm inclined to accept Mr. Oliphant's amendment. I nevertheless appreciate Mr. Chong's reservations, and if it's okay with Ms. McPherson, I propose a subamendment to Mr. Oliphant's long amendment.

My subamendment is as follows:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “that this study consist of no fewer than five meetings” with the following “that the committee determine the number of meetings required to carry out this study”.

That's all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Next we'll go to Mr. Oliphant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank Mr. Bergeron.

I think Mr. Bergeron appreciates the diplomatic considerations involved in the decision-making process.

This was a very hard decision for the government given both sides of the argument.

In saying that, I just want to clarify your subamendment. I heard two things. I heard that we would determine how many meetings we'd have later, but I also heard six meetings. That was in the interpretation.

Mr. Chair, perhaps we could have a bit of liberty in the general rules of order to allow Mr. Bergeron to clarify the subamendment.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

What I said was six turbines, not six meetings. I proposed “that the committee determine the number of meetings required to carry out this study”.

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

Thank you. I think we lost that in interpretation, so thank you.

I think we're agreed with that. I would be okay to amend that, even to Monsieur Bergeron's.... Rather than striking the phrase, we could accept that subamendment that indeed the committee will determine—I think it needs to say “at a later date”—the full number of meetings. We would have that first meeting, or it could even be two meetings. I think the clerk and the chair will decide, with that number of witnesses, how many meetings we will need to accomplish that. I just wanted to leave it open. I thought five was arbitrary and may not be necessary. If necessary, we'll have five meetings. We're not against more meetings on this; I just didn't want to restrict that. We would be supportive of that subamendment to give the committee the opportunity to add as many meetings as we need after we have those first one or two meetings to get the witnesses done.

The second thing is that, with respect to Mr. Bezan's comments, yes, we need to continually keep Ukraine on the agenda. I do need to remind him he was not at the committee meetings that we had. We underwent several months of a filibuster by his colleagues from the Conservative opposition party during our attempt to study Ukraine. We endured endless hours of filibustering by his colleagues as we tried to deal with Ukraine. That just needs to be stated in this meeting. Ukraine is top of mind with our committee members, but we were stuck in endless conversation from members who refused to talk about women's reproductive rights at a future meeting after we finished the study on Ukraine.

I forget how many meetings it was we lost, but it was a dozen or 15 meetings, something like that, due to the Conservative filibuster, when we wanted to talk about Ukraine and we wanted to finish COVAX and our vaccine equity study. It's very important to say there is no hesitation whatsoever from the government side to keep Ukraine at the top level.

Despite the rhetoric coming from the Conservatives, I would also remind them that out of 200 countries in the world, Canada is ranked as number five or six in our support for Ukraine, and that does not go unnoticed. I was just at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Lugano, Switzerland. Canada was recognized by Ukrainian ministers, by Ukrainian civil society, by the prime minister, by the president regularly as one of the top contributors humanitarian-wise, military-wise, financial guarantee-wise. Our convening of power where we are bringing together countries from around the world regularly with our leadership was recognized.

This decision with respect to the turbine is nothing compared to what we have been doing and will continue to do for Ukraine. So, the rhetoric that comes from opposition members is simply not true and it's not fair. Canada stands with Ukraine and will always stand with Ukraine. We are recognized by the world as doing this.

I think Monsieur Bergeron had an extremely important point with respect to allowing this issue to cause a rift in the alliance. We have had, as NATO allies, plus others who are not in NATO, a unified approach to Ukraine that has been spectacular. We can't allow Mr. Putin to use this as a divisive thing. What we need to do is stay together as an alliance. That's why we added hearing from the German and EU ambassadors. We think it's extremely important that we continue to keep that alliance absolutely firm, absolutely true to what we need to be doing. Any kind of rhetoric that comes from some members that attempts to divide us as nations is simply irresponsible and inappropriate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron, for pointing that out. I think it was an extremely important point. We will navigate this very difficult moment. No one chose to have turbines sent to Canada to be refurbished on a regular maintenance schedule. That is a reality.

We are trying to find the best way possible to do two things: to ensure that our allies and partners have the energy they need and to ensure that Ukraine has the tools it needs to defend itself against the illegal invasion.

In closing, I did not get a subamendment from either Mr. Chong or Mr. Genuis, who were suggesting changes to what I had proposed. There is a subamendment on the floor now, which I think is very acceptable, that says we would not have an arbitrary number of four or five meetings. We would allow the committee chair, with the clerk's help, to strike the number of meetings. We need to get that first list done.

I agree as well with Mr. Bezan that we can keep a list open. I have no trouble with having more witnesses, but I want to be careful in our choice of witnesses to make sure that we hear appropriate and important information for the committee to understand this decision and its ramifications.

We think the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is the most important civil society group to hear from. If there are others, yes, that's fine. We think the ministers are important to hear from. We think the ambassadors from Ukraine, Germany and the EU are also important to hear from.

After we've heard from those initial witnesses, if we want to have more witnesses, we're very open to that. If we think there are gaps in our knowledge and our understanding, we're very open to hearing from more. We're just trying to be responsible with our time and also with our witnesses' time.

With that, I will close by saying that yes, we're in favour of Mr. Bergeron's subamendment to the amendment. It seems to me there may be general agreement that we take out the deadline of July 22, in the second part of my amendment and just say “as soon as possible”.

We're open to having more witnesses. There may be a way to subamend that one, very similar to Mr. Bergeron's comments about allowing the committee to have more meetings, to allow the committee to ask for more witnesses once we've heard from some.

It's difficult to be painted into a corner by those in opposition who want to somehow say the government is not open to a discussion on this. We're very open to a discussion on this. We're just trying to find the best way to have a discussion that keeps our lines together, that promotes the well-being of Ukraine in its fight for its life and that is responsive to Canadians' concerns, particularly the diaspora here. That's what we're about today and we'd like to try to keep that focus.