Evidence of meeting #24 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 germany.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
She's in the room. Thank you.
Okay, I'll go quickly to Ambassador Gabrič, and then to the Ukrainian ambassador.
Ambassador Gabrič, you're here on the ground in Canada. Can you please tell us how the relationship is between you, the European Union, and Canada with respect to working on the many issues facing Ukraine and the need for energy security for Europe and doing the right thing for the longer term.
Then to the Ukrainian ambassador, I'll turn it over to you for the last 20 seconds if you have any closing comments on what I've stated.
Please, Ambassador Gabrič.
Melita Gabrič
Thank you, MP Sorbara.
Very quickly, we have had excellent co-operation with Canada. We have been working together to support Ukraine, and also to coordinate and inform each other about the sanctions against Russia, and we have been looking and analyzing how Canada can help Europe with energy security among other things. We now have this working group on energy security that was established in March and that is looking at all of these potential sources of energy that could be exported to Europe from Canada, including LNG and hydrogen. We're also enhancing our co-operation on critical raw materials. All of this is in the context of our joint commitment to a green transition and to a net-zero economy by 2050.
As I said in my opening statement, we very much appreciate Canada's proactive investment in European security and in supporting Ukraine, and also everything else that Canada is doing—all its efforts to find ways to help Europe also with energy—
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Marty Morantz
My apologies, but we are quite a bit over time on Mr. Sorbara's round. I'm going to have to move on to Mr. Bergeron for two and a half minutes.
You have the floor, Mr. Bergeron.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for the Ukrainian ambassador.
Your Excellency, considering the dead end we are now facing, should Europe consider the Ukrainian pipeline option again?
Yuliia Kovaliv
Thank you.
Today we've been discussing much about the decision that was made, but I think it is also important to realize one more time where we are now with this decision. Where we are now with this decision is that not only is the first turbine stuck in Germany; with the decisions of the other five that will be waived to be maintained in Canada, it will actually allow for another at least four or five years for Gazprom to manipulate and terrorize Europe on the energy market.
Also, we need to be aware that they will definitely use it to tackle our climate change goals, because for them it is also a huge challenge while they are the biggest energy producer. We know that. We see it in Ukraine; Russian missiles have already hit 90% of all of the wind farms. They have stolen and destroyed solar farms. They are precisely attacking—we see it in our territory—all of the renewable energy, because this is a threat.
For many decades, they have also been supplying Ukraine with cheap gas so that all of the Ukrainian production dropped down significantly. Only since 2014 has Ukraine cut off the gas supply from Russia directly and increased our own production a lot. So it is a very dangerous move to leave these other turbines, because we leave the door open for Putin to further blackmail Europe.
I do agree with Ambassador Sparwasser that right now we all need to sit down together and rethink this, because the first attempt to please Putin failed, as is obvious to us. Now is the right time to revoke the permit.
Bloc
Yuliia Kovaliv
From the very first day, we proposed to use Ukrainian pipelines. Today Ukrainian pipelines are already supplying physically more gas to Europe than Nord Stream 1. The Ukrainian transmission system is the biggest in Europe. Ukraine has the biggest gas storage. Historically, with these pipelines, the flow of gas from Russia to Europe was done through the Ukrainian route.
It's also worse to know that Gazprom booked the capacity and paid for it, but are using even now 40% of what was booked. If today Gazprom wants to help Germany with the gas supply, Gazprom can do it, but we all realize, with all of the waivers, that Gazprom does not want it. But still we are ready to do it. We are also working with other partners, including Moldova, including our regional partners like Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, to find new instruments of the infrastructure, new corridors, so that the LNG flow that is coming to the countries who now physically have the LNG terminals in Europe can move this gas to the other countries of the region. We were quite open with this.
In addition—
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Marty Morantz
Unfortunately, these rounds are very tight.
Ms. McPherson, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ambassadors, I want to thank you all again for being here. I know that this is a very difficult conversation. I appreciate your honesty and candour and your sharing with us.
I didn't get an opportunity to say this to you, Ambassador Sparwasser, and I want to make sure I get it on the record. I want to congratulate you and the German government for your reduction in reliance on Russian gas. I think it's very, very important that we note that. To be at 26% in such a short period of time is really, really remarkable. Thank you for the efforts that have been done by the government, by yourselves and by the German people.
The questions I have now are for Ambassador Kovaliv.
Ambassador, it's lovely to see you. I wish I could see you in person. That pin on your jacket looks beautiful.
What I'm worried about here is what it means when we have allowed Putin to blackmail us and when we've allowed him to act with impunity with regard to this turbine. I wonder if you could comment on whether or not you are worried, and on whether or not you think it is possible that other countries will take this waiver as an excuse for them to not live up to the sanctions they have put in place. Is that a risk that you have...particularly around energy but also around food? We do know as well that Russia is using food as a weapon of war.
Yuliia Kovaliv
Thank you for that question.
Yes, this was the very first argument—that Russia is testing our unity and testing and pushing for concessions. Each and every concession actually allows Russia to move further. Even with this particular case, there's other blackmail coming from Russia. If we look at their statements, one of which was issued yesterday, now they're blaming not only Canada's sanctions but also the EU's and U.K.'s sanctions. Does it mean that everybody will also follow the example of Canada and make their own waivers? That was a very dangerous precedent.
I think it's important now to realize that these concessions do not have any real impact, as we saw with this turbine. It is important to fix the situation, to revoke this permit and to show Putin that we are all united and strong. Show him that we will not make such further mistakes.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Marty Morantz
Thank you, Ambassador.
I'm the next round, so I'm going to pass the chair to Mr. Bergeron. You have the chair, Mr. Bergeron.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you very much.
Ambassador Sparwasser, I just want to seek some clarity on how this came about. When you decided that you wanted the return of the turbine, you came to the Canadian government. As concisely as you can, what were the specific reasons you gave to Minister Joly and Minister Wilkinson and others in the Liberal government for the return of the turbines?
H.E. Sabine Sparwasser
Thank you.
The government—and that means, in this case, mainly Minister Habeck—wrote a letter to Minister Wilkinson, in which he explained that the turbine was a contractual obligation of Siemens to provide service and maintenance to Nord Stream 1. This was a crucial part of maintaining Nord Stream 1's functioning, or at least the Russian government was saying that this was a crucial part and that the turbine was very important to continue to provide the functioning of Nord Stream 1 for European countries that wanted to fill their gas reservoirs.
We didn't say that we totally believed this to be the reason. We always were quite aware that this might be a pretext, but it was the reason given.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you.
You never made the argument, then, that Canada should return the turbine to call Mr. Putin's bluff during those discussions. Is that correct?
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I guess what I'm struggling with is that when the news first broke that Canada was going to break the sanctions and return the turbine, that wasn't the explanation that was given—that Mr. Putin's bluff needed to be called. The explanation that was given by your government and our government was that national gas supplies needed to be restored to Germany.
If that's the case, if that argument was made, why weren't your government and our government transparent about the actual reasons, not just the flow of natural gas? You've made it clear in your statement that you didn't believe Mr. Putin then and you don't believe him now, so you never believed that Mr. Putin would increase the flow of natural gas. That leads me to believe that the real reason was that you wanted to call Mr. Putin's bluff, so why not, in early July, publicly say that? Why wait until Gazprom refused to accept delivery of the turbine to say it? It seems very odd to me.
Sabine Sparwasser
Mr. Morantz, what we didn't believe was that the delivery of the turbine was absolutely crucial to the technical ability of Nord Stream 1 to continue to function. We doubted from the very beginning that this was the case, but we thought, or we argued, that it was important to fulfill that obligation to make it quite clear that there is a political will to deliver the gas or not to deliver gas.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Very quickly, it really is a very simple answer. Why didn't you advise the public when the announcement was made that it was to call Putin's bluff? That's what you're saying now.
Why didn't you say it a month ago, when the Canadian government did it? Why didn't you give that information to your public?
Sabine Sparwasser
We thought that the turbine was a potential way of continuing more gas supplies and we wanted to test it. It doesn't—
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
You said in your opening statement, “We did not believe him then and we do not believe him now”, so you never believed that the gas flow would improve. It was always about the bluff, according to you today, so why not—