Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to meeting number 25 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a point of order regarding the scheduling for this committee. I will say at the outset that I'm very disappointed by what we're seeing. This is an important issue, and I hope we can proceed in a collaborative way.

The committee held a meeting on July 15 and agreed to summer hearings. The committee wished to hear from ministers before July 22. That didn't happen. The committee met once on August 4. It has now been over a month since the committee last met.

In the context of this meeting, we received a notice for a three-hour meeting to hear from witnesses, according to a schedule. Members made plans, prepared questions and provided your office with rounds of questions to be asked, and you, by all indication, unilaterally changed that agenda and shortened the meeting with less than an hour to go prior to the beginning of the meeting. If you proceed with this plan, it will significantly limit our ability to engage with important experts in accordance with the notice that was provided to the committee.

We also requested that there be some time for committee business, so that we could discuss the committee's agenda. You have shortened the committee's agenda, but you have provided no additional opportunity for committee business to talk about the forthcoming agenda and to try to reach some kind of consensus. Of course, in cases on which consensus had been reached in the past, such as having summer hearings, that consensus wasn't honoured by your office.

It's very frustrating and disappointing to see a chair operating in the manner that you have with respect to the schedule, Mr. Chair. I am disappointed and frustrated. This is not what the committee saw in the past from Mr. Spengemann or Mr. Levitt, other chairs who were able to set aside their partisan affiliation and deal respectfully with all members regarding the agenda.

Can you provide an explanation for your conduct, Mr. Chair? Why have you not allowed the committee to meet for over a month? Why did you suddenly shorten this meeting with less than an hour's notice to members? Why are you behaving in such a fashion? Do you think this is an appropriate or respectful way for a chair to operate?

If you would consider appeals from the committee to go back to the agenda that was originally proposed, which was a three-hour meeting, we could hear for three hours from witnesses. Perhaps we could also set aside some time for committee business in the near future, so that we can agree on an agenda and move forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, thank you for your comments.

First of all, you have raised a number of different issues. I can assure you that in consultation with the clerk and other members, we have tried our utmost to ensure that these committee hearings proceed.

The reason it was delayed initially was that, as you will recall, members indicated that they wanted to hear from nine witnesses over the course of three hours. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the clerk and other members, only three people made themselves available several weeks ago, so it was decided that it was best not to proceed at that time and to redouble our efforts to have the opportunity to hear from as many witnesses as possible. That was one reason.

Another reason is that Parliament had a network maintenance week—as you're fully aware, Mr. Genuis—which meant that no committee had access to virtual meetings. Despite that, as soon as it was over, we again endeavoured to invite as many witnesses as the committee members wanted to hear from, but again, as you know full well, unfortunately, quite a few of those witnesses indicated that they were not available.

Several hours ago, on advice of the clerk, who had spoken to various members, it was agreed, given that there were only four witnesses appearing before us today, that we have two panels. That is generally in the regular course of business, but if you'd like, after this meeting is over, I'd be more than happy to contact you and provide you with any information that may be of interest to you.

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

Mr. Chair, on the point of order.... Maybe Mr. Bergeron can go first.

I would like to clarify my point of order, because I don't think it's been addressed, but Mr. Bergeron is welcome to go ahead of me.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try to be brief.

While I consider Mr. Genius's concerns to be entirely legitimate, it would be inappropriate to assume bad faith on anyone's part in this matter from the outset.

Let me explain. The last meeting was indeed cancelled because, given the very short notice, unfortunately only three witnesses had been confirmed. Since we wanted to have three hours of debate with nine witnesses, more notice should have been given. Despite the advance notice, clearly it wasn't possible for us to welcome more than four witnesses today. It seemed to me that it would be altogether inappropriate to spend three hours asking questions to four witnesses when we had planned to spend three hours on nine witnesses. The chair respected the wishes of committee members to hear from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress again, spending one hour on that alone, then to hear from a second group of three witnesses.

Now, that leaves us with the matter of the third hour. Would it have been appropriate to use the hour to discuss the committee's future business, as the committee members have said? That's a legitimate question. However, perhaps it would also be worthwhile to let the dust settle once we've heard from the witnesses, so that we can make more timely interventions as to how we will proceed.

Therefore, if we must have a meeting about the committee's future business, I'd like to see it happen as soon as possible. I'm not sure we have enough time to do it in the third hour today, since we will still need to digest the information the witnesses have provided. However, while Mr. Genuis's questions are entirely legitimate, I feel that, under the circumstances, the clerk and the chair acted in the best possible manner and with the best intentions. I therefore support the chair's decision to cut today's proceedings short in order to consolidate our panels and make the discussion even more illuminating. By the way, this was not a unilateral decision. Other members, including myself, were consulted.

That's what I wanted to add, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, on the point of order, first of all it's been said a number of times that you conducted consultations with other members. I don't doubt that you conducted consultations with some other members, but I think it would be useful if you told the committee which members from which parties you consulted. I certainly know that no Conservative members were consulted about the last-minute change made to the schedule this morning, for example.

[Sameer Zuberi, Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I'm raising a point of order.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

This is not a point of order; this is a debate. I have a precious two hours, which is now an hour and 45 minutes, in which to hear our witnesses. As a Liberal member, I would love to engage with the witnesses. We're all convened here to actually have testimony, to have questions and answers.

You're eating into the time for those witnesses to testify and for us to have a meaningful meeting right now. I hope this is not an attempt to filibuster the meeting on this very important issue, which we all want to get to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

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

May I raise my point of order, Mr. Chair? Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

As was indicated, Mr. Genuis, it's not a point of order. You have asked questions, and I have responded to those questions. Mr. Bergeron has kindly waited and clarified the issues that you raised as well. If you would like, after this meeting is over and after we have heard from all of the witnesses, I would be more than happy to make myself available, and I assure you that I did undertake consultations with members from all parties.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order to raise. I hope you'll respect my right as a committee member to raise these points. I will be brief. Since we have a three-hour time slot available, I think we can certainly accommodate the concerns of Mr. Zuberi.

My comments, briefly, are these. Mr. Chair, you said you consulted with other members. Which members did you consult with before making a last-minute change to the schedule? You said there was a one-week network outage, but we have had six weeks since the July 15 meeting, and compared to your predecessor, you seem to be uniquely unable to schedule witnesses or to find times when they are available. I don't want to presume bad faith, but that is concerning. Previous chairs didn't, on sensitive subjects, suddenly find themselves unable to schedule times that worked for the witnesses.

Again, I want to ask: Would you set aside time at the end of this meeting for committee business, given that we have a three-hour time slot?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, allow me to simply say this: You say that you're not presuming bad faith, but you actually are presuming bad faith.

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

I think you've shown a lot of bad faith, Mr. Chair. I honestly do, respectfully.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You're entitled to your opinion, but—

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

Your first act as chair was to rule out of order a motion that your predecessor had ruled in order and that we were already debating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, you're engaging in debate. I would ask that you extend some courtesy to the witnesses who are making themselves available today. We can discuss this later, and I can assure you that everything has been in order. The clerk has—

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

No, it hasn't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, this is debate at this point.

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

I'm happy to proceed, Mr. Chair. This is not helpful to you, but I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

If we may now resume the meeting, I'd like to welcome all the members to meeting number 25 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on July 15, 2022, the committee is meeting on its study of the export of Russian Gazprom turbines.

As always, interpretation is available by clicking on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

I would ask that before speaking you wait until I recognize you by name. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. I remind everyone that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Before I welcome our witnesses, I'd also like to welcome a new clerk who has been assigned to our committee. We are very fortunate to have with us today a new clerk who has indicated that she will be here as soon as Parliament resumes. She has made quite a few efforts to make today's committee hearing possible.

Thank you for that.

I'd like to welcome our first panel for the day.

We will be hearing from two witnesses who are from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. We are truly privileged to have with us today Mr. Ihor Michalchyshyn, executive director and chief executive officer of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Also, we have Mr. Orest Zakydalsky, senior policy adviser with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.

I would like to remind the witnesses that you each have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which the members will have the opportunity for the remainder of the hour to ask you questions.

Welcome.

[Ihor Michalchyshyn, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Ukrainian Canadian Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be providing opening remarks and then we'll be happy to move to questions. On behalf of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, it's a pleasure to be here and to have had the invitation to appear before you today. Alexandra Chyczij, our president, spoke with you several weeks ago. We're here to continue to share the views of the Congress.

I hope that members of the committee had a good summer. We've been in touch with many of you and appreciate the work you've been doing over the summer.

Since it's September 7, I want to wish you a happy Ukrainian Canadian Heritage Day. Ukrainian Canadians have been here in Canada for 130 years. It's a day that's recognized in several provinces, and we're working to recognize it nationally. I wanted to note that for the record.

On today's topic, on June 15, the UCC wrote to foreign minister Joly, expressing our concern that the Canadian government was considering waiving the sanctions. On July 6, we wrote to Prime Minister Trudeau. We said about this turbine matter that it would be “a test of the resolve of the Government of Canada to maintain sanctions and to continue to isolate Russia.” Our feeling was that any waiver of Canadian sanctions would be viewed as “a capitulation to Russian blackmail [demands] and energy terrorism,” serving to “embolden the Russian terrorist state, with far-reaching and negative consequences not only for Ukraine or the European Union, but for Canadian security as well.”

Unfortunately, the Canadian government neither heard nor heeded our concerns, which were shared by the Ukrainian government, and the waiver was granted.

We see that the Russian government has predictably been very emboldened in demanding further concessions. Despite Canada’s and Germany’s capitulation to the Russian demands, Russia has, in fact, shut off the Nord Stream 1 pipeline entirely. No gas is currently flowing. There's a continuing escalation of stories about the reasons the Russian gas supply isn't working this particular week, or that particular week.

Kremlin spokesperson Peskov said on September 5 that Russian gas supplies will not resume until western sanctions are lifted, using the false pretext that sanctions are preventing the servicing of Russian pipelines. This, of course, is not factual, but that is not the point. The Kremlin lies brazenly and as a matter of regular policy. What matters, as we've said many times, is that the turbine issue here has never been about the turbines. It was about the sanctions.

Now, Canada and Germany continue to have a choice: whether to continue to play this game with Russian blackmail demands or simply to cancel the sanctions exemption and show Russia that we will not be intimidated in the face of its threats.

We understand that the Russian regime responds to strength. The UCC believes it's past time for Canada and their allies to show this strength in the face of increasing Russian aggression and pressure.

We call on the committee to do the following. First, urge the Government of Canada to revoke the permits issued on July 9, 2022, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which allow for the repair and transport of six Siemens Nord Stream 1 turbines over a period of two years to the Russian state gas monopoly, Gazprom.

Second, support the designation of the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Third, support the expulsion from Canada of the ambassador of the Russian Federation and the Russian diplomatic mission.

Fourth, support the suspension of the issuing of travel visas by Canada to all citizens of the Russian Federation.

Finally, and most importantly, we believe the tide of Russia’s genocidal war against Ukraine is being turned on the battlefield by the Ukrainian people's heroic defence of their country. We know that the Government of Canada can continue to play a leadership role in ensuring that the Ukrainian people have the equipment, weapons and means with which to finish the fight and ensure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

There was $500 million allocated in budget 2022 for military and security support to Ukraine. Those funds have been spent and exhausted, so we urge this committee to support us in reviewing the ways that Canada can substantially increase its military assistance to Ukraine going forward.

We look forward to your questions and to discussing Canada’s support for Ukraine. I would also note that the committee may wish to consider in the future a working visit to Ukraine, as we've seen legislatures from many countries visit Kyiv and Ukraine to talk to their Ukrainian counterparts and get a sense of the matters on the ground.

With that, I will close my remarks. We're open to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Michalchyshyn.

We will now hear from Mr. Zakydalsky for five minutes. Please go ahead, sir.

[Orest Zakydalsky, Senior Policy Advisor, Ukrainian Canadian Congress]

I don't have opening remarks. We're more than ready and we welcome any questions from the members of the committee.