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.