Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, on the timing of this motion, it's entirely appropriate, Mr. Chair, to debate this motion at this point. This is our last scheduled meeting on this study concerning the Gazprom turbines. I think it's entirely appropriate for us to conclude these hearings with debate and either adoption or rejection of the motion. The Ukraine study is separate from this particular study that brings us here today, and so I think it's entirely appropriate for us to debate this motion and to conclude this particular study on the Gazprom turbines with this motion.

In regard to eliminating the tariffs on fertilizer, the member opposite is wrong in her argument. The government applied the tariffs on fertilizer for Canadian farmers retroactively, Mr. Chair. Farmers who had contracted nitrogen last fall, before the war had begun in Ukraine on February 24, were suddenly dinged with a massive tariff that directly affected their ability to fertilize their crops this past spring. It has led to effects on yields for corn, wheat, soybeans and a range of other crops. To suggest that it was inappropriate for us to ask the government to not retroactively apply the tariff on nitrogen fertilizer is wrong. We simply asked that the government not apply the tariff to fertilizer that had been contracted for before the war began on February 24, an entirely reasonable position. Farmers shouldn't be penalized for making decisions last fall, a year ago, before the war began in Ukraine.

I heard from dozens and dozens of farmers in my riding of Wellington County in Halton Region who were quite upset about this tariff because they had made decisions on crops and on fertilizer use, whether they were going to use nitrogen or other types of fertilizers, based on the fact that there was no tariff on it at that time.

We support the tariff on fertilizer that was contracted after the war began on February 24. I think that's an entirely cogent and consistent position. In fact, I think it's the right position for the government to have taken, but it didn't take our advice, clearly, which is why farmers were negatively impacted, as they often are with this government, for decisions they made well before the war began in Ukraine.

By the way, Mr. Chair, we cannot neglect the fact that these farmers are often operating on razor-thin margins. It was an unfair retroactive application of a sanction that should never have been retroactively applied prior to the war beginning on February 24.

Regarding the meeting we just had with Mr. Egan from the Canadian Gas Association, it's entirely appropriate for this committee to talk about exporting LNG in the context of the Gazprom decision by the government. At the end of the day, what we are talking about is whether or not we should have any role as a country in replacing 40% of Russian gas in western Europe.

We clearly believe that Canada does have a role to play. In fact, Mr. Chair, I'll put to you that Canada, being a middle-sized power, can't impact many of the aspects of this security situation in Europe in a way that a larger superpower, such as the United States, or larger powers such as the United Kingdom, France or Germany, can by virtue of their size, but the one area in which we could have an outsized impact on countering Putin's aggressive war in Ukraine is in cutting off the source of some $100 billion that has flowed since February 24 into Russia from the sale and export of oil and gas. That is one area where Canada could cut the Putin regime off at the knees by replacing Russian gas in western Europe with Canadian natural gas. By doing that, we will cut off the 30% of the Russian economy that is based on oil and gas, large parts of which are exported.

If we do that, we can make an outsized contribution to the NATO alliance, and an outsized contribution to the defence of democracies both here and across the Atlantic, which is why this is not simply a natural resources issue for the natural resources committee. This is not simply an economic issue for the finance committee; this is a geopolitical issue, a foreign affairs issue for this committee.

In fact, we had a visit from a head of government of a G7 ally to this country in August. His number one request was for more Canadian gas, for any Canadian gas. He went away empty-handed. To suggest that this is just a narrow issue that should be restricted to some economic committee is simply false.

In fact, Mr. Chair, if it was simply an economic issue, then why did the Deputy Prime Minister go to Washington on October 11 to give a keynote foreign policy speech, a large part of which centred on expediting Canadian energy for our allies? In fact, many have dubbed it the “Freeland Doctrine” on foreign policy. She also indicated in that speech that this was a new policy of “friend-shoring”.

I quote a sentence from her speech. She said, “And crucially, we must then be prepared to spend some domestic political capital in the name of economic security for our democratic partners.” That is a foreign policy doctrine of the Deputy Prime Minister of this government that makes it clear that the government sees the export and expediting of natural gas not just as a narrow economic issue but as an essential geopolitical issue in support of our allies across the Atlantic.

Mr. Chair, I hope that members of this committee support the motion. It's done in good faith.

I'll finish by saying this: The government should immediately revoke the waiver. Nord Stream 1 has been blown up. There's a 50-metre hole in the pipeline. These turbines aren't going to be of any use to anyone. That pipeline is not coming back. It is broken and dead. As a point of principle, the government should acknowledge the mistake it made in granting the waiver in the first place and simply cancel the waiver so that we can get our foreign policy back on track, which is to say that we don't support Russian exports of natural gas to western Europe. We support the exports of Canadian liquefied natural gas to Europe. Adopting this motion will send a clear statement from this committee about its opinion on the matter, and hopefully sway the government to do the same.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

We have five more people on the list currently; however, I did want to inform everyone that we do have a hard stop at 5:30 p.m., because we don't have resources past that.

We next go to Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

A lot of questions have been asked about why. If they're going to use it, why should we use it? There's a simple answer to that: It sends a signal. It sends a hard signal back to Russia that it doesn't matter what you do; we're not going to supply things to you.

It's symbolism going to Europe to say that we're supporting you guys, and we're supporting Ukraine by making sure that the waiver was revoked, so there's no chance you're ever going to get that turbine. It sends a signal to the company doing the refurbishing that the turbine has no value, so they can take it apart and throw it away or do whatever they want with it. Just do something with it, because we're not going to ship it. That's the symbolism it's going to send.

When you looked at the motion, why now? It's been waiting long enough. This motion has been on notice for quite a while; it's nothing new. This notice of motion has been in the committee probably for two or three weeks, so there's no surprise here that this was going to come up. In fact, it was talked about before, but then we said, “No, let's wait until we have Mr. Egan testify and then do it”, which is what has happened here today, so there's no surprise to the Liberal party or any of the other parties that this was going to come up today. It was clearly laid out in front of people that this would be coming forward.

This is something that I think really needs to be done. It's just another example of where we need to step up and do what we say we're going to do and show that we're going to back our words with action. In the midst of the study, the parliamentary secretary said that we had a study going on. There are things that are changing, but one thing we know is the right thing to do. You don't need to wait to finish a study to know when you're doing the right thing, and the right thing is revoking this waiver.

He says that we're grandstanding; I addressed that. We're not grandstanding. I asked about Gazprom, and when I asked about Gazprom and the type of gas going in there, what did he say? He said environmentally, Canadian gas would displace a much less environmentally friendly gas. He talked about methane being released in the fields in Russia and the impact that has for the global environment.

I asked about ESG, environmental social governance. You can look at the Canadian companies and see what they've done in ESG compared to a Russian company. I don't think there is any comparison. When you look at their allies in Europe, when their companies are looking at our gas and saying that they have to meet what their bankers, insurance companies and shareholders want in regard to ESG requirements, we can help meet those requirements and fulfill that need, not just in the short term but in the long term, because we've gone through that process. We've put in the regulatory process to do that.

What's really frustrating is when they've done all this work to meet these requirements and are told they can't take advantage of them here in Canada. What do they have to do? They have to go to Mexico or the U.S. to take advantage of all technologies they've developed here in Canada, because this government won't let them fulfill the ability to take this technology into the world marketplace.

You've heard that 18 years of gas are still going to be used in Germany, and that's just Germany. We're not talking about third world countries that are going to be using gas for maybe another 40 or 50 years. Where would you want to see this gas come from? Where do you want to see the wealth created? Do you want to see the wealth created in Russia, where it funds the military machine for further aggression within Europe and in Ukraine, or do you want this to come back into Canada and go to our health care system or schools or a variety of social services that we have here in Canada that we want and dearly feel we require?

You know those are things paid for by long projects such as natural gas, and energy security around the globe is one of the bargaining chips that Canada has on the international stage. We have gas, we have uranium and we have critical elements. We have things that the world wants. It's a strong bargaining chip and it allows us to influence Canada's agenda on the global stage, but when you tie the hands behind the backs of the people who are doing this, you're taking away those bargaining tools, those chips. You're not allowing Canada to fulfill its destiny or requirements within the world.

It sounds kind of silly that a simple motion like this would not go through relatively quickly. I think it should have just been bang, yes, let's get her done and move on. I don't even understand why we're debating it for another five minutes. It's just a no-brainer; it should happen.

If you tell me you're going to ship a turbine to Russia next week to a pipeline that's blown up, really, what do you care? You're not doing that, and you know that, so what do you care about the waiver? Just get rid of it, and let's move on to doing something else in this committee. We've eaten up committee time debating something that doesn't need to be debated.

I'll leave it there, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

We now go to Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, first, I must say that I'm a bit uncomfortable. We were supposed to hear from other witnesses on Bill S‑223. If we are planning to do that, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off thanking these witnesses and letting them go because the discussion on our colleague Mr. Genuis's motion seems to be dragging on.

With respect to the motion, and in response to Mr. Oliphant's remarks, with which I largely agree, I would say that it was appropriate for this committee to address the decision made by the Government of Canada. The decision did put us at odds with the Ukrainians, as well as the Germans and many other Europeans.

From the outset, I thought that it must not have been an easy decision for the government to allow this turbine to be returned to Europe. We wanted an opportunity to let the government explain its decision, which it did. For quite some time now, we've felt we should end this turbine study because there's no need to debate the issue any longer, for a number of reasons.

First, we've called Mr. Putin's bluff. Whether or not we return the turbine, we realized that the Kremlin had no intention of continuing to supply Germany or any other European nation via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which the Russians likely bombed themselves.

When she appeared before this committee, the German ambassador herself alluded to Canada suspending the permit given that the bluff had been called. The turbine was no longer relevant, and leaving the permit open when the government had planned to be able to revoke it is not only inappropriate, it's bordering on laughable, absurd, ridiculous.

For the sake of credibility, the committee must end its work on the turbine issue. If it were up to us, we would have stopped working on this a long time ago. It was our Conservative friends who insisted that we add witnesses. However, as Mr. Oliphant pointed out, the additional hearings did nothing to further fuel the debate.

It's very clear from our perspective. While controversial, the government's reasons for allowing the turbine to go back to Europe seemed to us to be justified in the circumstances. They are no longer justified, they haven't been for some time, and we should have come to an agreement on that long ago.

That's why, despite Mr. Oliphant's reservations, which I mostly agree with, we have to conclude that the government needs to suspend and revoke the permit, and we need to move on.

Again, I regret that this debate has somewhat dragged on and kept our witnesses waiting.

Because you momentarily refrained from speaking when I was talking about this, Mr. Chair, I would again suggest that we thank the witnesses, let them go and call them to appear at a later date.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Allow me, just before ceding the floor to Mr. Genuis, to apologize to the two witnesses who made themselves available. When a motion is tabled, the rules and procedures here are that it has to be debated. We're terribly sorry that this has happened.

That said, I now go to—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Are they excused?

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

I'll strike.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Okay.

Perhaps I should also tell the two witnesses—I understand there's one witness online and another in the room here today—that they are dismissed. It does not appear, given the number of people who have asked to speak to this motion, that we will have any time left. We only have until 5:30, and there are currently three other members on the list.

Thank you very much for having made yourselves available. Again, our apologies for this development. We're very grateful for your kind appearance here today.

We now go to—

Go ahead, Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

My hand has been up for quite awhile. I don't know if you've seen it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, there's one person ahead of you, Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

As the list currently stands, it is Mr. Zuberi, Dr. Fry and then Ms. Bendayan.

Mr. Zuberi, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an important debate and conversation we're having right now.

I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here and I hope that we will have them in our next meeting, where we can ask some questions and get into their testimony. I was very much looking forward to that and I'm sorry that we'll have to postpone it to next time. I do hope that they come again in person, if possible. I know one's online and another is in person, but I'm hoping to see them again here in person if possible. I'm very grateful to them for taking the time to be here.

So much attention has been given to Ukraine. So much of our country's attention has been focused on it, in our hearts and minds and discussions as parliamentarians, and so much ink has been spilled in the papers about Ukraine. We, all of us as a country, clearly support the territorial integrity and political integrity of Ukraine. Obviously, we take extreme offence with the fact that Russia has betrayed article 2(4) of the UN charter, which speaks directly to the territorial integrity and political integrity of nation states. What is happening is a great affront, which is exactly the reason that we as a country have been fully in solidarity with Ukrainians, why we with our allies—including the United Kingdom, the U.S., EU, Australia and many others—have been checking President Putin and have been ensuring that this aggression comes to a halt.

We have done so much already as a country to shore up and restore Ukraine, Ukrainians and the independence of the country. We know, just to remind us here around the table, that as of February 22, we have imposed sanctions on the Russian Duma, the State Duma, which was an important act. That was followed up with other acts, including on February 24, when we sanctioned President Putin's inner circle and close contacts. Then on February 25, we moved against President Putin himself as an individual and sanctioned not only him but also his chief of staff, and we continued on to his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and the ministers of justice, finance and defence. We have acted clearly and swiftly.

Speaking of swift, we've also seen that Russia was removed from the whole SWIFT system, which sent a signal that we are not just sanctioning individuals—those who are leading this war machine—but also making it hurt so that they cannot profit from this, the country cannot profit from this, and people respond to this. Thankfully, we know there have been many brave individuals within Russia itself, including key journalists, including civil society actors and protesters, who have come forth and spoken against their own government. This is extremely brave. We know this. It's easy for us in Canada to do this and it's easy for those in Australia or the EU to do this, but it's extremely difficult for those in Russia to stand up and speak to their own government in speaking truth to power. This is something we have to remind ourselves of and support those sorts of actions.

On March 1, we said that we intend to ban Russian-registered ships from entering our waters, our ports and our internal waters, which is an important move. On March 2, we additionally announced that we would impose restrictions on an additional 10 key individuals from two important companies in Russia's energy sector, including Gazprom.

Today, at a G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that $500 million in additional military assistance would be given to Ukraine.

This is on top of the $500 million already allocated in budget 2022 towards military surveillance and communications equipment. We have thus far sanctioned 1,400 individuals and entities. This is all in an effort to halt what's happening. All of this that I just mentioned is on top of the $3.4 billion in assistance that we have given to Ukraine.

We are steadfast in our support of Ukraine, and we have done so much already, but I think the key issue here is the motion. I'll read it again. It says:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Government of Canada to immediately revoke the waiver to Russian sanctions granted for the export of Gazprom turbines.

As my colleague Mr. Oliphant said, the challenge around this particular motion is that it is putting forth what should be a potential recommendation and putting it forth in terms of a motion from this committee that we vote upon.

I'm fairly new here—three years. Most of the others have been here many more years than I have. What I've learned in my three years here is that this type of statement might be very valid and it might be where we land as a committee; but the rightful place for it is within a recommendation. To fast-forward and fast-track that through a motion isn't ideal. It is far from appropriate, I would suggest, although it's within the rules. However, I would suggest that it be put forth as a recommendation, and that's where it belongs.

To make a long story short, we've done so much for Ukraine. We stand by Ukraine. We have stood by Ukraine not only in words but also in concrete actions since the beginning. We will continue to do so. With respect to this particular motion, it's best placed in a potential recommendation.

I'll share with you that I was in Europe just last week. I went to Belgium and saw so many Remembrance Day ceremonies over there, on the night of the 10th and on November 11. What I saw and appreciated was how much the society over there still remembers conflicts from the past 105 years up through World War II until today.

We have to be very grateful that we thankfully do not have these sorts of problems and challenges here in Canada and that we have a beautiful society where people come together from all backgrounds and have built a project. This is something we should cherish and guard and actually share with the rest of the world.

I was touched by how much people remember and also how they remember the presence of Canada and Canadians. I spent the eve of November 10 in Passchendaele, where approximately 450,000 soldiers, young souls, died during World War I, over 105 years ago. This city, a space of over a few kilometres, was liberated by Canada.

One thing I'd like to share with this committee is the affection that the city of Passchendaele has for us as Canadians. I encourage those who are here watching this and those who are in this committee room—staff and others—to just go to this city, if ever they're in that region on November 11, and see the celebrations.

On this motion, I've said what I need to say. Maybe I'll have more to say on it in a bit, but for the moment I'd like to see this in a recommendation to be debated and discussed, as opposed to here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

We now go to Dr. Fry.

Dr. Fry, the floor is yours.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I have some empathy with what Mr. Bergeron said, but I also want to agree with Rob Oliphant. We have spent some time doing this study and we have listened to witnesses. We need to put forward a report and recommendations.

To have a motion that actually presumes it is the major report in many ways and that kicks aside the report doesn't seem to me to be wise, nor is it in keeping with good committee procedure. I think it should not have happened.

At the same time, I know that Mr. Chong talked about the fact that the Ukraine study is separate. It's not. This is about Ukraine. This is about the very complex issue we're dealing with. This is about the fact that there is no right or wrong, black or white, in terms of how we deal with some of the complex problems of energy needs in Europe right now and how that butts up against sanctions that we are willing to make. Those are not easy answers. They are not black or white. They are not simple answers. We need to have listened to people, which we did, and we need to come up with a report that reflects what we heard. Then we can talk about recommendations.

I think I agree with Mr. Zuberi. This motion should not have been made, because it suddenly makes everything we have done and the time we have spent listening to witnesses into wasted time. It presumes that the rest of this committee does not have an opinion, that the rest of this committee did not hear witnesses and that the rest of this committee doesn't have anything to say in a report. For me, that is a little bit disrespectful of this committee and what we have been doing. It makes our time wasted, so to speak.

We have come to the end of the hearings on this. Let us do what committees always do. Let's have our analysts present us with their report. Let them go about listing what we heard from witnesses. Let them put some recommendations forward for us. Let us put some recommendations forward from us. Let us do it the way we always do, with a report.

For me, what is bothersome about this motion is it is back to everyone saying that we all agree that Ukraine is important, that Canada stands firmly, that all the political parties stand with it, and then we take these little cheap partisan political tricks and throw them on the table. Why, for once, can't we act with some kind of integrity about the way that these hearings, these discussions, of Gazprom went on? We heard a lot of things from witnesses.

I also agree with Rob Oliphant when he said the discussion about how Canada sends energy to Europe is not for this committee. It is for trade and it is for natural resources. It's both a domestic issue and an export issue. It's not our issue.

What we want to talk about is how we stop the money going to Russia that in fact feeds its war effort. How do we stop that? How do we stand firm on the things we want to do? Canada has been one of the strongest supporters—we have heard everybody saying it—of Ukraine and we have moved forward. We, in fact, are even talking now of adding sanctions to those who are responsible for what is happening to Vladimir Kara-Murza. We're adding things all the time. We're still there and we should all be moving forward in that direction.

As for the issue about whether the turbine is now moot, the issue about whether the government should have done it when it did, we're second- guessing everything. When people make decisions at certain times—governments and people—they do it based on the environment in which they are sitting at the time, or what is there, what they see and the choices they have to make. This is exactly what the government did then.

Whether or not our report will tell us, as we heard, that it may be time to move forward, to move on, not to continue with going around with Gazprom, is another story, but that will have to wait for us to table a report and to table recommendations. Jumping the gun, second-guessing this committee, making this committee seem as if its work is not important after all the time we spent listening to witnesses would be exactly that: wasted time.

I know that Rob talked about disrespect. I think that's disrespectful of all of us in the room. We're all here on the committee. I think we all care about the issues. I understand the intent behind the motion, but I think that it's too soon for that kind of motion to come forward.

I think, as Mr. Zuberi said, this should actually be a recommendation. As we discuss it and we discuss a report, we can deal with it that way. If we continue to subvert the committee process for all parties, coming up with how the processes work, what we do, what a report is, how we have recommendations on a report, then why bother to have committees at all? Why bother to waste the time of witnesses and the time of this committee to actually listen to those witnesses?

We have moved forward since this committee began this study. Lots of things have happened. We've heard from a lot of people. I think we know very clearly that while Europe is in immediate need of energy right now, they have energy for the next year. The big question, then, is what do our Canadian natural resources and Canadian trade do about that?

We've heard about that. We heard about what our Deputy Prime Minister had to say. We have a report to table and we have recommendations on that report to move forward. To subvert this process by throwing in some motion at the end of the day—and, I might add, by taking away the ability to ask a question from the last questioner, who would have been a Liberal—is disrespectful.

It's clever. It's a clever ploy. We all know that we do that. Everybody says, “I know when I'm going to move my motion so I can stop anybody else from asking questions.” Is that what we really are about as a committee, or are we really, as a committee, looking at finding good answers? In this instance, when we're talking about an illegal war waged by a man who is bent on being sociopathic, or whatever you want to say about him, that is what we should all be focusing on. What do we do? How do we do it? How do we cut the legs out from under Vladimir Putin and his war effort?

There are a lot of other countries that can supply immediate resources to Europe. There's Kazakhstan, which is not siding with Russia in this war. We have Norway. We have Scandinavian countries that have oil and gas. If what we're really thinking about is just an opportunity for Canada to make hay and for Canada to go out there and set up a new industry of fossil fuels and build infrastructure to do that, that's not what we're meant to be discussing. We're meant to be discussing whether Europe can have energy to heat itself and to run its factories over this period of time, and how we develop a long-term strategy through which Canada can take a part, but that's not for us to discuss. That's for trade and natural resources to discuss.

I think what we need to do is talk about whether we should continue with the turbine thing or, as many people have asked, is it moot? I don't know. Let's have that report tell us what we should be saying and what we should be doing.

We know that Germany is interested in Canadian energy. We heard that at this committee, but Germany came and met with our Minister of Natural Resources and talked about hydrogen. They talked about low-fossil fuels. They talked about bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I'm sorry. I have the floor and I'm speaking. Unless your point of order is that I do not have the right to speak—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Dr. Fry, sorry; there's a point of order.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Fine; go ahead, but I'm not ceding the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

One second.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's clear we're into a Liberal filibuster, which is their right to do.

I wanted to get the advice of the chair with respect to the procedures around what happens at 5:30. I understand that we don't have resources available after 5:30.

The rules of committee are also that you need the consent of the committee to adjourn, so my understanding would be that if we can't adjourn but we can't continue, then the appropriate thing to do at 5:30 would be to suspend. That's been our practice in the past when we've run out of resources but there isn't a consensus to adjourn. We would suspend.

I wanted to clarify that your intention would be to suspend at 5:30, unless there's a motion to adjourn. If there's a majority that wishes to adjourn, so be it, but if not, I think we should suspend at 5:30, given the resource issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

As I understand it, we can adjourn, but allow me to check.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I move to adjourn, Mr. Chair. It being 17:28, I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Sorry, Dr. Fry.

Yes, as I indicated, there is nothing to stop us from adjourning at 5:30, so that is obviously something we could do. We could also suspend. Both those options are available, Mr. Genuis.