Foreign Affairs Committee on July 15th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson.

I think there is consensus that the date remain, but that it be subject to the consideration that they would be available.

Is there a consensus amongst all members to—

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

I would also add “noting the urgency of the situation”. That would absolutely be appropriate as well. The three things are the date, the availability and noting the urgency of the situation.

I'm sorry for speaking out of turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

It seems like those are eminently reasonable. I think there is agreement among all the members on those three specifications.

Did we want to put that to a vote? Is it the will of the committee that we have a recorded division?

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much. That's the second issue we've dealt with. Thank you for the spirit of compromise amongst all the members.

Now, in the main, could we keep our comments reserved to the third issue, which is the witnesses we should be hearing from? There have been some suggestions of additions of individuals and stakeholders we should hear from, but if anyone would like to speak to that, please keep it limited to that specific issue.

Next up we have Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to amend Mr. Oliphant's amendment. He suggested the addition of two witnesses: the ambassador of Germany to Canada and the ambassador of the European Union to Canada. I would like to amend that to add more witnesses.

I'd like to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister. I find it odd that this announcement was made by the Minister of Natural Resources. Under his department, the permitting is not a responsibility. It is really a responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and, frankly, it rises to the level of the Prime Minister. Knowing that it's very difficult to get a Canadian prime minister to appear in front of a committee, I will settle for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

It's really important that Minister Freeland appear in front of our committee to explain this decision. This rises to that level because President Zelenskyy himself, as a head of government, issued a very strongly worded condemnation of this decision. This is not at the level of a minister-to-minister issue. This rises to the level of a deputy prime minister. We would really like to hear from Minister Freeland on this issue, so we would like to have her as a witness.

In addition, we would like to invite the Ukrainian foreign minister to appear. Recognizing that President Zelenskyy may not be available to appear, we would like to request and invite the Ukrainian foreign minister, whose government has been so affected by this decision, to appear. If that foreign minister is not available, then obviously we are more than happy to hear from Ukraine's ambassador to Canada. That's the second witness we'd like to invite to our committee.

Third, we would like to hear from the Ukrainian World Congress. This is particularly important, in addition to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, because the Ukrainian World Congress has filed an application with the Federal Court arguing that this decision may not be legal or it may be inconsistent with Canadian law. We would like to hear from them as to exactly why they believe this decision is not consistent with Canadian law, so the Ukrainian World Congress is a third witness we would like to hear from.

Finally, we'd like to hear from other witnesses, such as foreign policy experts who have spent their lifetimes studying the geopolitical dynamics of that part of the world and particularly how natural gas politics has an impact on that part of the world. This is not simply a decision about one, two or half a dozen gas turbines. This is a decision that is about where Germany and Europe are going to get their natural gas in the coming months and years.

Germany is constructing two new liquefied natural gas terminals off their northern coast in the Baltic Sea. When Russia attacked Ukraine on February 24, Germany quickly made a decision to approve and expedite the construction of two new LNG terminals in the Baltic Sea off the German coast. The German economic minister has said publicly in recent weeks that Germany expects those turbines to be operational early in 2023. Germany, within the space of 12 months, has been able to construct two new LNG facilities in order to import natural gas to replace Russian natural gas. They have been in discussions with governments around the world, pleading with them to provide those additional supplies.

We know they have been in discussions with the Norwegians as well as the Qataris. We need to understand where the Canadian government has been in those discussions because this is a critical piece of the puzzle. It's not simply about saying that the government should not have granted the export permits for turbines to Germany. It's also the corollary of that discussion: If Germany is not going to get its gas from Russia, where is it going to get its gas?

Surely Canada, as the world's fifth largest natural gas producer, is part of this solution. We need to hear from experts who can talk about the issue of Canada's providing natural gas for Germany. It's particularly appropriate in the lead-up to Chancellor Scholz's visit in the next month to Canada where, as I understand it from reading public reports, officials are saying the number one issue will be if Canada can provide more natural gas to Germany in order to get Germany weaned off Russian natural gas.

We need to hear from a group of witnesses, people like Marcus Kolga, who has written about this recently, Balkan Devlen and Thierry Bros, who is a professor of political science at Sciences Po in Paris, who have spent a lifetime studying this issue, not only of gas issues—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

A little while ago, Mr. Chong gave me a friendly reminder about sticking to the amendment.

Now, I'd like to do the same for him. I get the sense that he is jumping ahead to the next amendment, the one about the witness list. It sounds as though he is giving us his list of proposed witnesses when we haven't even agreed on the deadline for submitting our witness lists.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I would ask Mr. Chong to stick to the amendment before us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Now we go back to Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Now I will read my subamendment.

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “the Ambassador of Germany to Canada and the Ambassador of the European Union to Canada” the following: “That other witnesses be invited, including the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the Ukrainian foreign minister, the Ukrainian World Congress, Balkan Devlen, Thierry Bros, and Marcus Kolga”.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Chong, for your subamendment.

Now we go to Mr. Oliphant.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm in that moment where I'm agreeing with everything that Mr. Bergeron says, so I'm trying to sit on the edge of my seat to hear what he says next.

I didn't raise a point of order, but had a concern for two reasons. One, we weren't on the topic of the motion. There's also what I would call “scope creep”—I don't know how we would translate that—about this motion.

I think this motion is about a decision the government made with respect to a permit to allow turbines to be sent, after refurbishing, to Germany. That is our topic. We have had an opposition day already on the topics that Mr. Chong is raising. The House has spoken on it. I would leave that for a later study. I would like us to be fairly focused on this set of meetings with respect to this critical decision the government made. I think the committee has the right to give advice to the government on it and to opine on it.

I have some concerns about the subamendment. The first would be with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister. There's no more effective and better spokesperson for Canada with respect to Ukraine than our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. There's no doubt about that. However, this was not her decision. The decision that was made...the permit is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the negotiation was done under the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources.

While it's always wonderful to listen to Minister Freeland, I don't think that's relevant to the question at stake here. Again, I think the opposition would be unwise to unleash her to speak on this issue. I think she's passionate and informed and a world expert on it; however, I don't think her contribution on this particular issue is appropriate or timely. I think we want the other two ministers.

Also, I think it would slow down the process. Trying to find one minister's availability is always tough. Two is tougher and three is worse. I would suggest that is not appropriate.

I think we rarely would ever call a foreign minister from another country. We have an ambassador, and that's what an ambassador's job is. I would keep it to the ambassador of Ukraine to Canada as the most appropriate spokesperson for Ukraine at this forum. So, I would not agree with that.

I have a concern. I have great respect for the Ukrainian World Congress, but Mr. Chong raises the issue of their going before a court. As soon as we get into an issue that is before a court, as with one of the protagonists in that court action, it changes the nature of what ministers are able to contribute at this committee. I think we're on very thin ice, because that opens the door to ministers simply not being able to comment because it is sub judice, before the courts. I think it's not wise for us to invite someone who has brought an action to the Federal Court on this. I think that would actually thwart the committee's ability to hear from the ministers the way I think we want to hear from them.

I would say that's unwise, so I would not be voting for this subamendment for those reasons. I think the Deputy Prime Minister is not the appropriate person on this issue. It's the two ministers named, and they're easier to get than getting three. They signed the permit and they gave the advice to the government on the issue. It is not appropriate to bring the Deputy Prime Minister, nor the foreign minister from Ukraine. We have the ambassador listed. That is the spokesperson for that country in this country.

While I have great respect for Marcus Kolga, and I don't know the other two people the member mentioned, I would say again I would hold this until we get to the fourth item, and look at other witnesses once we have the key witnesses done, to find out what to do. Marcus Kolga does some great work on Russian disinformation. I don't know of him as an expert on natural gas and the topics that Mr. Chong has raised.

I would like us to do some thinking about future witnesses, but hear from the key witnesses we've named and added to the list, and try to contain the study and not get into a study about pipelines going across Canada or LNG capacity in Canada to feed Europe. We had a whole day on that with an opposition motion in the House. I think that was fine. We can look later at Europe's need to change its dependency on energy sources from Russia. They're well aware of it; believe me. I don't think it is necessarily our job to preach to other countries about something they're already well aware of, which is being held hostage by Russia on energy. We also know it takes time for them to do that. I would speak against that subamendment.

There may be other possibilities to change it, but I think right now all we need to do is add the ambassadors from Germany and the EU, and then a later amendment could look at additional witnesses as required.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I should chime in and say one thing to the members, given that Mr. Oliphant has spoken to the substance of the individuals that Mr. Chong has proposed.

It is highly unlikely, as all members are fully aware, that we need to provide a specific list of individuals to be invited. The reason I say that is we all will have the opportunity to actually submit the names of witnesses at a later date. From a procedural standpoint, I would just ask that all members bear that in mind as well.

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

Mr. Chair, on that point of order, I spoke about specific witnesses as part of this subamendment in front of the committee precisely because the fourth amendment would strike the last phrase in the motion and preclude members of the committee from submitting additional witnesses.

I wanted to make sure that, as part of the discussion on this third amendment and our subamendment currently in front of the committee, we got the witnesses who we would like to invite in the third amendment. The fourth amendment, if it's adopted, precludes members of this committee from submitting additional witnesses.

That's the whole reason I've been proposing this subamendment, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify that and whether that's the case or not.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I do believe that part will come into the fourth amendment and we will be open to some change in wording on that, but it's not on the third amendment. It would be on the fourth, I would argue.

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

Yes, I agree.

Anyway, I just wanted to explain why we are being explicit about the kinds of witnesses—the individuals and organizations—that we want to invite as part of this third amendment and subamendment, because if the fourth amendment is adopted, it precludes us from adding to that list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Chong, for that clarification.

Now we go to Mr. Bezan.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm speaking in favour of the subamendment by my colleague Mr. Chong, and I'll reply to and rebut some of the comments that were just made.

When it comes to the Ukrainian World Congress having to file an application to a Canadian court, I think this is something we need to look at. First of all, the convention of sub judice is not in play because they haven't been accepted yet as an intervenor, as their application hasn't been at all, at this point in time, accepted by the courts. We need to keep an open mind here. We should hear from them as to what motivated them and why they would have to take this step to try to take the Government of Canada to court over a very embarrassing decision.

Second, Marcus Kolga is a subject matter expert on all things Russia, and I really do believe that he and others from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and other academic voices, need to be heard. We should be putting them on our witness list.

I would also say that we have to look at how Russia has weaponized energy. This is, again, to Mr. Chong's comments. We need to have those experts and the people involved in this speak to how this is impacting Europe, how it will ultimately be used against Ukraine and how Canada has a bigger role to play in offsetting the overall impact of Russian energy on the European Union and other allies.

Let's make sure we keep an open mind here. Let's make sure we have all those experts come before us, as well as the other organizations and stakeholders that have something to say. One of the organizations I want to add as a witness down the road is the League of Ukrainian Canadians. They were the first ones to come out and denounce the government's decision to return the gas turbines to Gazprom. Let's make sure they're available.

I'll also say this. Minister Freeland is by and large the expert on Ukrainian issues within the Liberal caucus and at the cabinet table, and it almost sounds like Mr. Oliphant doesn't want her to appear because maybe she's not in favour of what both Minister Joly and Minister Wilkinson did in making this announcement. We should, in my opinion, have her appear before committee to voice either her support or her displeasure for the decisions that were made.

When we're inviting representatives of the government, we should always go to the highest ranking officer possible. In Canada, in this case, we're asking for the Deputy Prime Minister, and we'd like to hear from the foreign minister of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, who is definitely the person we should have at committee before the ambassador. If he's not available, then yes, let's have the ambassador, but we should be hearing specifically from Ukraine's foreign minister about the concerns of the government in Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy was unreserved in his criticisms of the Government of Canada on this decision, and I think it is in the interests of our foreign affairs committee, in the interests of our Parliament and in the interests of Canadians that we hear from all those witnesses, as well as the highest ranking government officials we can get, both in Canada and in Ukraine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

We'll now go to Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, I am speaking in support of my colleague's amendment as well.

With respect to Minister Freeland's appearance, let's make note of the elephant in the room here. Minister Freeland has been the most visible and most vocal in terms of the government's approach to Ukraine and she has been completely silent and invisible with respect to the government's decision around these turbines.

Minister Wilkinson, who is not the minister of foreign affairs and who's not responsible for issuing these permits, has been made the designated fall guy for this bad decision. Minister Freeland is in hiding.

If the government is willing to defend this decision and if the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada is fine with this decision and thinks this decision is consistent with the values she's articulated in the past, then she should come before this committee as the government's prime spokesperson on their approach to Ukraine. She should come before this committee and defend that decision.

She is the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. This issue has been addressed by the Prime Minister of Ukraine and by the Prime Minister of Canada. It is totally appropriate for her to come. In terms of this canard about it being really complicated for scheduling to get three ministers, there's no date attached to Minister Freeland. The amendment asking Minister Freeland to come is part of the second section of the motion, which does not have a specific timeline or date attached to it. While I think we want to hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular within the tighter prescribed timeline, Minister Freeland can take her time and reflect on what she does or doesn't want to say on this.

It is ridiculous that the government says the Deputy Prime Minister is passionate and is the expert on this subject, but then somehow she isn't the appropriate person to speak to this absolutely critical issue in terms of Canada's support, or lack thereof, for Ukraine during their critical time of need.

On the question about Ukraine's foreign minister coming before this committee, nobody is proposing summoning or requiring a minister of another country or even an ambassador to come before the committee. It's simply a question of an invitation. As far as an invitation is concerned, I suspect that, given how critically important this issue is for the Ukrainian government, given that President Zelenskyy has addressed this issue directly and given that a Canadian diplomat has been summoned in connection with this issue, this is a high priority issue. I suspect it will be a priority for the foreign minister to appear and the foreign minister would welcome the invitation.

Nobody is going to think any less of the foreign minister or Ukrainian government officials if the circumstances in which they receive the invitation are such that they're simply not able to respond to it. Of course we would be understanding of that, but absolutely let's issue the invitation and extend the offer. I think it makes eminent sense.

Why is this such an important issue for Ukraine? They've articulated it clearly. We know, and the German chancellor has said, that these turbines are not necessary for European energy security and that they won't guarantee European energy security going forward. This is part of the Kremlin's game to expose their ability to weaken sanctions at will. We have to stand against that. We have to say that we will not grant exceptions to sanctions and we will defend our sanctions regime. We have to take that strong and principled position or else the Kremlin will continue to look for opportunities to whittle away at that sanctions regime and render it meaningless.

It's an important enough issue that we should ask the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada to appear and we should invite Ukraine's foreign minister to appear. We've shown in these discussions a willingness to try to work collaboratively around aspects of this motion, but the direction the government is trying to take us in with these amendments is clear. It's fewer witnesses and fewer hearings. It's not extending invitations to certain key, high-profile people.

I'm strongly in support of my colleague's subamendment, which I think establishes firmly the importance of this issue and establishes that we do not just want to hold hearings, but we want to hold the kind of substantive, detailed hearings with high-profile people such that we can get to the bottom of this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We now go to Mr. Oliphant.

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

Mr. Chair, I will simply reiterate that I will be opposed to this subamendment for the reasons given. I also think there are aspersions being cast and veiled comments that I think are inappropriate for parliamentarians to be casting around about ministers of the Crown. I hope every member of Parliament is aware, and some—at least one—in this room will be more aware than others that when you disagree with a cabinet or government decision, you resign from cabinet.

We have a principle on cabinet solidarity in this country that Minister Freeland adheres to. The reality is it is simply inappropriate to go on a fishing expedition as such. I think everyone in this room knows that Minister Freeland is the Minister of Finance and also the Deputy Prime Minister. She has a keen interest in the Ukraine issue and the war and is a passionate supporter of Canada's engagement on this, and this sort of questioning or wonderings are just inappropriate.

I will continue to say that the position we would have is to bring to committee the ministers who have the responsibility for the decision that was made. It's been very clear that the permit was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that the engagement with respect to the refurbishment of the turbine was part of the mandate of the Minister of Natural Resources. Clearly, those two ministers are the ministers responsible. That is about government accountability.

That is why I'd like to suggest that we bring this to a vote fairly soon so that we are able to make sure we have the appropriate meeting with the appropriate people at the appropriate time. This does not preclude adding witnesses. What we've done is add some key witnesses to the list who we think are important to get the basis of this done. Once we've added, we'll go back to the amendment after the subamendment is dealt with.

Once we have done those initial meetings with the ambassadors, the ministers and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, we can reassess the need for more witnesses. It would be absolutely appropriate, and we should do that. I think it would be very good.

The Minister of Finance has work to do, and all of us are concerned about the work that she is doing. It's important and big work for Canadians. We should let her do that work, which is what we will continue to do.

I'm speaking against it partly on the principle of making ministers who have made the decision accountable, and we will continue to do that.

I'm trying to remember if there are any other points I was trying to make. At a certain age, you need to write notes, and I wasn't writing notes.

Again, I would stress that when we get to the fourth part of the amendment I made, we can add a list of other witnesses to be determined by the committee, very similar to what Mr. Bergeron suggested with respect to additional meetings. We're not closing any doors; we're keeping doors open and trying to make them appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak to Mr. Chong's subamendment?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I had my hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

My apologies, I did not see that.

Ms. McPherson, the floor is yours.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

As we go back and forth on whether or not it's appropriate to list all our witnesses and which witnesses should be included, wouldn't it make sense to submit a list of additional witnesses by July 19 or set a date?

The initial motion that I put forward gave us the opportunity to put witnesses forward. We've now talked about taking it out. We've talked about putting more witnesses on the list and a whole bunch of other things. What we could do is say to submit names of additional witnesses by July 19, 2022. Then we could all submit our lists and go from there.

I'm not 100% sure why that wouldn't meet the needs of all members of the committee.