Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 7th, 2022

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you. I'll be very, very quick, then.

I believe all of our witnesses today spoke about the weaponization of energy, but we also have some deep concerns, of course, about the weaponization of food and the impacts that will have around the world; the weaponization of climate; and the weaponization of nuclear power. I am somebody who is very deeply afraid of what we're seeing happening in the nuclear plant in Ukraine. I'm deeply concerned about what we're hearing from the UN observers who are there.

I'm wondering if I could just very quickly ask all three of our witnesses—perhaps, Mr. Kolga, I can start with you—what Canada can be doing more to help with regard to the grain weaponization and with regard to other aspects like the weaponization of nuclear.

[Marcus Kolga]

Thank you for that very important question. You may not like this answer, but I think we need to send more weapons to the Ukrainians, certainly Harpoon missiles, to deter Russian attacks on vessels leaving Odessa with that grain, the grain that is so desperately needed in so many parts of north Africa and Asia.

Vladimir Putin stated very clearly again this morning that Ukraine is somehow reneging on its deal to export that grain and that the western sanctions are preventing grain from being exported. This is nonsense. Those shipments are being made from Odessa. We need to simply assume, quite frankly, that Vladimir Putin will renege on that deal. He may consider attacking some of those ships or causing some sort of problems. He's already attacked agricultural infrastructure in Odessa after signing that agreement.

That's one concern. As far as the nuclear blackmail is concerned, which he may very well be engaging in very soon, I think we need to insist that those International Atomic Energy Agency officials remain in Zaporizhzhia and that those numbers are increased to keep an eye on what's going on there, and demand that they have access to areas of that plant where Russia has placed its weapons system.

That's another thing that Canada could be doing immediately.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Kolga.

Would either of our guests from the chamber also be interested in answering that?

[Balkan Devlen]

One of the other things that Canada can and should do as a food superpower is to make sure that Canadian agricultural products get to world markets. Given the distances and so forth, they may not necessarily go to one of the most affected regions, but they can easily replace other grain that can then go to countries in North Africa, the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.

We need to be able to provide our farmers with the ability and the resources to rapidly and radically increase food production and get those products to world markets when we are clearly facing and will face food shortages.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Schmitt.

[Benjamin Schmitt]

I would say that Canada should continue to lead the charge on increasing sanctions. I will come back to energy and say that other areas that need to increase are ship-to-ship transfer technology sanctions. There is a significant amount of oil transfer that's going on several hundred miles off the coast of Portugal. That needs to end through technology sanctions on firms, which will allow that to happen.

Of course, coming back to what we're here about today, there is reversing the turbine waiver decision. I have pages of examples from officials, experts and Siemens itself, pointing out that there is no technical rationale. There wasn't before the decision was made and there certainly isn't now. I'll be submitting that to this parliamentary committee for the record.

This shows exactly that we need to have a technology-guided approach for our foreign policy decision-making, and that's why this decision needs to be reversed as quickly as possible.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's an excellent place to end. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

You'll be happy to know that your two minutes were stretched to over four minutes, so you're effectively in the same position as Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. McLean, you have four minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Schmitt, you talked about the energy delivery from Russia to Germany. Let's talk about fund flow and the choking back of natural gas delivery. There is one pool of natural gas delivery to foreign entities in the world, and it gets balanced back and forth.

The pricing of natural gas in Europe now is about 11 times higher than North American benchmark pricing. Russia can afford to cut back summarily its natural gas production and its supply to the world and still benefit economically and use that money to continue the war machine.

Do you have any comment on the algorithms they must be using in order to maximize their own fund flow here?

[Benjamin Schmitt]

We have to look back at the broader sanctions regime on both oil and gas. When you look at gas, in particular, one of the arguments is that, just like oil, they could just sell this elsewhere, right? Well, no. Gas is not as fungible globally as oil, at least not yet, although there is LNG, which increases its fungibility.

That's why what Mr. Kolga said is so important. Again, it's another technical driver that's showing proof of what's going on at Portovaya, which is gas flaring. A significant amount of the resource that Russia would be sending through Nord Stream 1 is instead going up and being burned. It is creating all sorts of problems, not only for the localized environment, but for the climate, especially in the Arctic region, where increasing the amount of soot that's going onto the Arctic tundra is changing the albedo of the surface of the Arctic region. It is only increasing—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

If I can interrupt, Mr. Schmitt, that's exactly the case.

The issue is that Canada, at the same point in time, is not supplying its energy to the world because we've been constrained in production to the point where we're actually getting negative numbers for our natural gas in North American delivery, versus the 11 times the U.S. benchmark that we were receiving.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Genuis, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair; thank you, Mr. McLean, and thank you to the witnesses again.

Just to avoid further shenanigans and delays, I think it's important to move the following motion. My motion is as follows:

That the committee meet in public within seven days of the adoption of this motion for a discussion of committee business related to the study of the export of Russian Gazprom turbines.

That motion has been moved; the clerk has it in both official languages and can distribute it to members.

In light of the fact that it's been a month since the committee met, in light of the last-minute changes we've seen to the agenda, and in light of some of the issues we've had, I think it is important that the committee provide clear direction to the chair, in the form of a discussion on committee business, that programs our path forward. That is why I am moving this motion. It's very reasonable that we would, within seven days, meet, do committee business, and be able to define an agenda so that we don't have some of the things that have happened from the chair's office happening again, and so that we can establish some clarity going forward.

That's the motion. It's been distributed. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

If I could just clarify for the members, as is routinely the case with this committee, at the start of the parliamentary session, the subcommittee on agenda, which is composed of members from all parties, actually does have the first meeting, to provide the chair with direction as to where the committee would like to go, and that, of course, would have been the case in this instance as well. I just want to—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. Are you engaging in debate on my motion or...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

No. I'm providing clarification.

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

Thank you for the clarification. I guess my motion to be debated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It seems, Mr. Genuis, you're not familiar with the fundamentals of how this committee has run in the past, and so I thought I would—

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

Certainly how it's being run under you, Mr. Chair, I'm not familiar with at all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I just thought I would share that for the benefit of all members.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this?

Mr. Sidhu.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you have a very valid point there. I believe that ministers and relevant ambassadors have appeared before our committee and have made it clear that while it was a difficult decision, it was one that was necessary to take. As our minister stated, they discussed the matter with all parties, including Ukraine, in advance of the decision being taken. The decision was supported not just by the Germans but also by our allies in the European Union and our allies to the south, the United States, and it in no way reduces our support for Ukraine and, of course, its people.

I also find it very difficult to believe that had another party been in government and been faced with the clear and urgent request from a close ally such as Germany, it would have decided any other way. Given the circumstances, it was a necessary decision, and I cannot support a motion that would suggest otherwise.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Would anyone else...?

Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I am very surprised to see Mr. Sidhu repeat the government's lines as if we haven't had any hearings and we haven't heard from witnesses, and as if the committee has already made a decision on these hearings. I find that not only astonishing, but concerning at the very least.

In addition, the motion before us from Mr. Genuis seems quite reasonable to me, and it's consistent with the discussions we have had with the chair about having a meeting on future business at the end of this meeting. When we've had that discussion, we will decide together if we are to continue this study. As members of this committee, let's give ourselves the opportunity to discuss what we have heard. Have we heard enough to propose anything to the government? The purpose is not simply to repeat what the ministers told us, as Mr. Sidhu has just done, but to report on what we've heard as part of this study, or, if appropriate, go further in terms of the hearings.

I therefore find what Mr. Genuis is proposing to be entirely reasonable, and I see no reason why we shouldn't have the opportunity to meet to discuss this committee's future business, as we had discussed with the two vice-chairs and the chair.

So I am announcing that I will be voting in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering whether or not it would be appropriate to let our guests leave while the committee has this discussion. It seems that we asked them to come, they [Technical difficulty—Editor] their schedules and we've made them sit through longer testimony than we had originally planned for.

Perhaps the next step would be to allow them to depart and thank them very much for their testimony today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I think that's a very prudent observation, Ms. McPherson.

Allow me, on behalf of all of the members of this committee, to thank—