Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 21st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Good evening, colleagues. It's good to see you all. Welcome to meeting number 26 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is being held in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order adopted on Thursday, June 23. However, it's good to see that everyone is here in person.

As you're all well aware, the proceedings will be published on the House of Commons website. For your information, the camera will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee, but of course that does not apply today.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on Wednesday, September 7, the committee is meeting today to discuss committee business and future plans in relation to 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. Moreover, when speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be muted.

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

As I understand, many of you wish to speak. We have a lot of work to do today, so without further ado, I will open the floor to the members.

Ms. Bendayan, the floor is yours.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues. I'd like to introduce the motion I sent around last week—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to go on at length about this, but I do want to note that the motion we adopted two weeks ago asked that this committee meet within 14 days. We are outside of the 14-day period. That committee adjourned more than 14 days before this committee started. We would have had opportunities to meet previously. When the committee passes a motion asking you to convene a meeting in 14 days, we should meet within 14 days.

I'll leave it at that, but I do think that's an important point to put on the record in terms of following the direction of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that, Mr. Genuis.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. We should always endeavour to follow the time stipulations that are made in motions, but as you are well aware, there were some intervening factors that did complicate that. We truly did try to get together at the first available opportunity.

Go ahead, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the motion I sent out on September 14. As I'm sure you all have, I've been very concerned about and closely following the escalating crisis at the Armenia–Azerbaijan border, including Azerbaijan's strikes and incursions along Armenia's internationally recognized borders, which have already resulted in at least several hundred deaths.

Canada is highly supportive of the cease-fire and diplomatic peacekeeping efforts thus far, but I feel it's our duty and responsibility to discuss this further in committee.

I would also like to note that this motion and the discussion around a possible study are extremely apt today. It is the 31st anniversary of the independence of Armenia from the Soviet Union, and only a few months after Canada announced the opening of its embassy in Yerevan. I believe that we as the foreign affairs committee must study the situation and the conflict now occurring between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Certainly it goes without saying that the implications direct and indirect involving Russia also complicate the situation. I would invite all members of this committee to vote in favour of the study.

I am happy to read it into the record if you would like, Mr. Chair.

That the committee undertake a study on the escalating hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, including military strikes inside Armenia's internationally recognized borders, recognizing the threat this confrontation poses to local civilian populations as well as to regional stability and security; that the committee hold a minimum of two meetings on this study, including one meeting to hear from witnesses and one meeting to receive a briefing from officials concerning the situation.

Given the important ongoing study involving Ukraine, I am suggesting in the motion a short study but I am certainly open to colleagues' suggestions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

Would anyone like to speak to this particular motion at hand? No? Okay.

Should we go to Mr. Genuis now?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I would like to vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Okay, that's on division, if everyone agrees?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, can you confirm that that's a unanimous vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It's adopted. Everyone is okay with that.

Next on the list we have Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm expecting my motion will pass with similar ease. I hope the goodwill will be reciprocated.

The motion I want to bring forward is seeking to define the parameters of our study. It was distributed in advance.

That, in relation to the study of the export of Russian Gazprom turbines, the committee (a) hold two additional meetings to invite witnesses from the existing lists; (b) at a separate hearing, bring representatives of Siemens and of Canadian Gas Association to testify for two hours; (c) at a separate hearing, invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs to appear for two hours to provide an update on the turbine issue and other Ukraine-related developments; (d) instruct staff to prepare a draft report which includes a recommendation to immediately revoke the permit; and, (e) conduct a study of the Canadian sanctions regime in general, with details to be defined later.

Maybe I'll just go through these points. I think we've undertaken part of the turbine study. Now we need to define how we're going to finish it and what kinds of products we're going to produce coming out of it. I'm not wedded to any of these particular details, but I think it makes sense to put a proposal on the table and start the conversation.

I think it's important that we hear the perspective on this of Siemens as well as the Canadian Gas Association. Many new facts have emerged since we last heard from the minister. I think there's new information on events, which we would like to hear from the minister on with respect to a decision, but there have also been a lot of new developments in the situation in Ukraine, most recently nuclear threats, the fake referendums, Ukraine's glorious counteroffensive, and the continuing energy-related blackmail by the Russian Federation.

I think there are many issues on which we would like to hear from the minister again to provide updates and further conversation with us.

Those are my suggestions for the next steps in terms of hearings. I think this is important work that should lead to a draft report. Let's give our analysts clear direction, if that is in fact the will of the committee, that the committee build towards it in part and include a recommendation for the revocation of the permit. Let's give clear direction on that point to the analysts. I think that reflects the view of the majority of the committee members.

My final point is that I think there were many questions about Canada's sanctions regime more broadly that came out of the study. Ms. McPherson has spoken about a proposal she's been working on in terms of a study on the sanctions regime in general, and that's something we support. This motion doesn't seek to define the details. We'd certainly welcome her motion in terms of doing that, but we're signalling the fact that we want to build on the work done on this study through that further sanctions study.

I'll just note on the further sanctions study issue that we are required at some point to do a statutory review of the Magnitsky sanctions. It's been almost five years. Doing that statutory review of the Magnitsky Act would be worth incorporating into our broader look at the effectiveness of our sanctions regime.

This is a proposal for how to continue and bring to completion the turbine study. I think it's a good proposal. Let's put it on the table and see what people want to do and make amendments and then give clear direction to our chair about going forward.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Ms. McPherson, did you want to speak to this particular motion?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No. I was going to discuss the general list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Monsieur Bergeron, I understand you wanted to speak to Mr. Genuis's motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, first I'd like to talk about Mr. Genuis's motion.

It's important to note that we had submitted Mr. Desjardins‑Siciliano, CEO of Siemens Mobility Canada, as a potential witness, and he declined. I've been wondering these past few days if we should call him again or just leave it be. I must say I'm on the fence about it. Personally, I feel that we've heard enough to hopefully reach a conclusion. Mr. Genuis's motion suggests that we come to the same conclusion. If we've reached a conclusion, I'm not sure we need to hear new witnesses. If the committee is going to recommend that the permit be suspended or revoked, why do we need to continue the study and hear new witnesses?

Perhaps we should consider that first—the German ambassador even brought it up when she appeared before this committee. Now that we know Mr. Putin was bluffing and he clearly doesn't need the turbines, I feel the permit should just be cancelled or revoked to get us out of the awkward situation we're in. If we all agree on that, I don't see the point of inviting new witnesses to look into it any further.

However, as Mr. Genuis said, given that Russia is calling up 500,000 reservists and putting its nuclear forces on alert, we need to get back to our wider study on the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible. I should mention that that study got caught up in procedural wrangling, something I regret to this day. We must get back to work as soon as we can.

Once again, unless we can agree on a conclusion and the recommendation we'd like to make when the turbine study is done—in which case I don't feel there's any point pursuing that particular study—I believe it's best that we go back to our wider study on the conflict in Ukraine right away.

I know I may be jumping the gun a bit here, but Mr. Genuis put forward another motion that we could easily pass right now, the one condemning the “referendums” in Russian‑occupied parts of Ukraine. I feel we can move fairly quickly on this and reach consensus or some semblance of it among committee members.

In another round, I'll get a chance to bring up some motions we've already passed. I'm thinking specifically of one involving Haiti. Mr. Chair, I know the situation in Haiti has worsened considerably these past few days, and the action taken by this committee is likely somewhat out of step with recent events, so it would probably be a good idea for us to review it.

If I may, I'd also like to come back to a motion we have yet to act on, to at long last invite Canada's ambassador to the United Nations to appear. I concur with Mr. Genuis that this committee must be able to implement the motions it adopts. Immediately following his appointment, I had moved that we hear from him so we could endorse him, and we were never able to do it. So much has happened since then. Many committee members have requested that we hear from him. We haven't yet, and I feel it's just as relevant as ever, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron. You touched on a number of issues.

First of all, the other motion by Mr. Genuis has yet to be moved, so we can't speak to that.

In addition to that, as you can imagine, insofar as witnesses for Siemens are concerned, it is a pretty large entity, so one could ask whether the invitations were sent to possibly the right entity within Canada. There were all sorts of complications insofar as that specific issue is concerned.

Your point that we do have an ongoing study on Ukraine is well taken. That is an ongoing study that members may consider returning to.

Of course, with respect to your motion on the issue of Haiti, it is something that you had tabled many months ago. I have heard at least one member say that in their opinion it was a timely issue to revisit and examine.

We now go to Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'd like to build on what my colleague Mr. Bergeron said.

I know how important this is, but this committee has already held four meetings on the turbine study. That's quite a few meetings. Let's face it: Ukraine has moved on from the turbines. It's now undertaken a counter‑offensive. It needs weapons and support. Things have changed considerably since the summer. As Mr. Genuis said this morning, 300,000 Russian reservists are going to be deployed and there's now reference to nuclear weapons. This requires our attention. I therefore move that we go back to our Ukraine study. It's unfortunate that we still haven't produced a report after several months spent working on it. We need to put some flesh on the bones for that study.

I'd also like to tell my Conservative colleagues that I respect their position. They clearly don't support our government's decision. We don't need another four meetings to talk about it. They have quite clearly stated their position. They can put it in writing if they wish, but our committee needs to address the problems we're seeing around the world right now, not only in Ukraine, but also in Haiti and along the Armenia‑Azerbaijan border, as we've just heard. We have a great deal of work to do, and I feel this motion is being used to play politics.

Therefore, I'm asking my colleagues to consider going back to the wider study on Ukraine so that we can finish it, produce a report and continue our work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bendayan. I would add to that only that it could very well be, should the members decide, that we could also use a briefing given some of the most recent developments that have been unfolding with respect to Russia.

We now go to Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I just wanted to echo Ms. Bendayan's comments. With regard to the Gazprom turbine issue, I think we still have some meetings left. I think we should table a report. We should flesh out some of the issues that Mr. Genuis brought up in the remaining part of that study. I think there's room to add those and refresh those. We should get that report out. Rather than multiple studies, I think it can be incorporated into that and get into it in a timely manner.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sarai.

Now we go to Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important at the outset to say that I very much disagree with the implication that the turbine issue is no longer being discussed in Ukraine or is no longer a key priority for the Ukrainian government. Of course, there's a great deal of concern about the partial mobilization announced. We should ask ourselves what's funding that mobilization. So much of the Russian economy and the Russian genocidal invasion is being economically sustained through Russian energy exports, so we have to follow the money here. Ukrainians understand that. That's why we have sanctions in place. That's why we recognize the importance of defunding the Russian war machine as a key part of supporting Ukraine.

This is very much a live issue. The Ukrainian ambassador here in Canada has repeatedly reiterated the Government of Ukraine's position. This is an issue on which President Zelenskyy has spoken directly and publicly repeatedly and has spoken to our Prime Minister about. It's not as if Ukraine's government or people have forgotten about this issue. I think Mr. Bergeron made some very reasonable points, and I don't want to imply that this motion is sort of “must be this way or nothing”. I would just encourage him to propose an amendment that reflects his suggested changes to this.

I get the impression that some members don't want to see us report on the turbine issue specifically. I think it is very important, regardless of how many more hearings we have, that the committee report on this issue. We investigated an important public policy question. Now it's our job, at whatever point we're finished with the hearings, to answer that question. For me and I think for all the members in the opposition, which constitute a majority of the committee, it's clear for us that the permit should be revoked. At the same time, I wanted to allow an opportunity for additional witnesses, but if somebody wants to propose an amendment to strike point (a), and if we want to go straight to that report, that's fine with me.

I think it's worth having the minister back, not just on the Gazprom issue, but on other issues to do with Ukraine, and I think we do want to hear from Siemens. We know that Siemens has lobbied the government. We don't know on what issue specifically, and I would be supportive of requiring Siemens to testify. I don't know that they have said they won't testify at all; just their president has declined.

If nothing else, I think, I would suggest that we keep the proposed conversations with Siemens, the Gas Association and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that we proceed with the report. If Mr. Bergeron thinks we've heard from enough witnesses and wants to propose removing section (a), I don't have a problem with that. I think we can certainly do that in the pursuit of consensus.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

We now go to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe there is a solution to this, because I know everybody on this committee does want to continue the work we are doing with regard to Ukraine. When we talk about studying Ukraine, that is a very big topic, perhaps too big to call this just a study on Ukraine.

Maybe what we could do is look at the motion Mr. Genuis has brought forward and say that perhaps we could have one more meeting that would include testimony from some of the witnesses he's recommending, and that perhaps a report could be issued, not a report that includes a recommendation to revoke the permit but rather a larger report that illustrates some of our findings from testimony throughout our study on Ukraine. As Ms. Bendayan has mentioned, we have not had a report, so perhaps it could be a larger report that also includes the findings from our testimony on the turbines and the waiver.

Then I think it would be very useful to include in our study on Ukraine some of those areas that we think are most pressing. In Mr. Genuis's motion, he does mention the sanctions regime. I've read into the record my motion from May for us to look more closely at the sanctions regime. I think that would be part of it, to be able to look at some of the things that are changing right now—the nuclear threats we're seeing out of Russia, the increase in troops, all of these things that are so important.

I think there is a way for us to go forward such that we meet the needs of all members of the committee to continue to focus and continue to study all aspects of what's happening in Ukraine. What I would suggest is that instead of a draft report that includes a recommendation to immediately revoke the permit, we would instruct staff to prepare a draft report that covers the findings of all testimony we've heard, including that with regard to the sanctions waiver, and not have it be quite so specific. Then it would include “conduct a study of the Canadian sanctions regime in general with details to be defined later”. I don't know the wording. I'm not very good at this. You all can manage it. Our analysts are much better

The other piece I want to highlight on that is that perhaps we should add here the desire of the committee to travel. We did talk about the idea of being able to go to Ukraine. The UCC has asked that this committee go to Ukraine. I also think that it would be vital that we include the minister and Global Affairs Canada to get an update because things have changed so much.

I would be supportive of that portion as well.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'd like to clarify whether she is formally proposing an amendment, because she talked about some specific changes, or whether she was raising issues for discussion.