Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

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

I don't have a read on the situation. I'm asking you which of the two it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I think they're reconcilable unless Mr. Bergeron or Mr. Oliphant has something different to say.

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

In other words, what you're telling us right now is that if Monsieur Bergeron's motion is adopted unamended, we would have three more meetings on Armenia and Azerbaijan, no more than that, and that the tentatively scheduled meeting for January 31 would be part of those three meetings. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, subject, again, to the caveat that when those invitations were sent out to the Armenian ambassador and to the Azerbaijani chargé d'affaires, it was about Nagorno-Karabakh in general. It wasn't specifically about the issue of the Lachin road.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We have a bit of a procedural problem, then, because the committee has passed a motion to do a two-meeting study on Armenia. We have done one of the meetings. This motion does not refer to that study whatsoever. This is a completely separate study on the same area.

As Mr. Bergeron has said, actually his intention is to do something different. The first meeting was geopolitical and diplomatic and about the conflict that had begun in 2020. There have been skirmishes. We know the issue of that. We also have, in that intervening time, détente between Azerbaijan and Armenia, where the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan are in discussion with each other. That has not happened before.

There is a geopolitical reality that this committee should be apprised of. The conflict that happened in 2020 has significantly changed. We have now an area of Nagorno-Karabakh that was taken by force—“reclaimed”, as they say in Azerbaijan; an area that was diplomatically settled, with agreement by Armenia; and an area that was being controlled by the Russian military for five years, until 2025, so we have that area of Nagorno-Karabakh that is a very important discussion to have, because there's the Minsk process, there's the EU process and there are the Russian forces that are present.

Mr. Bergeron's motion does not have anything to do with that. It has to do with a situation that has to do with a mine that is in the Russian-occupied area and a road that links Nagorno-Karabakh with the main part of Armenia and goes through an uncontested area of Azerbaijan. I agree that both are important, but just following up from Mr. Chong, I think he's clarifying it, importantly, because they're two separate studies. I don't think we can simply say...unless there's a motion from this committee to not do the study we agreed to do on geopolitics or to put it aside. What we're asked to do is to have three special meetings on a new study tangentially related to the other study but not the same.

That's my dilemma—that we'd end up with five meetings on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh instead of two. I'm very agreeable to adding one. I would even agree to adding two. I don't want to be a jerk about this. I just don't think we need three meetings on the Lachin road situation.

If someone wants to entertain a discussion and we reach a consensus to do four meetings altogether, two on the geopolitical and two on the humanitarian issue, I can live with that. I just don't think, when we have so many other issues going on in the world, we should take all that time, five meetings, on this issue. Three meetings is my preference. If there's a consensus for four meetings, two on the geopolitical situation, I'm okay, but recognize that we'll have an overlap of the witnesses. We want to hear from the two diplomats, the chargé from Azerbaijan and the ambassador, who would be coming, probably, about both issues. For our good learning, we'd probably want to keep some separation of the two, even though they are intimately related to each other.

I don't know, Michael, whether that helps you or hurts you in trying to understand where we are. I think we have to rescind the other study or delay it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I see that, all in all, we are not very far from an agreement. May I refer again to Mr. Oliphant and the very wording of the motion that I proposed: “That, pursuant to [...] the committee undertakes to hold a maximum of three meetings [...]".

If the ideal for our Conservative friends and I is three meetings, but the Liberals and Ms. McPherson feel that two is sufficient and acceptable, let us seek to find a compromise. The motion as it stands, without Mr. Oliphant's amendment, already allows for that.

My only concern, again, is to ensure that we do not encroach on the work that was already planned for the next parliamentary session. That is why I would like, if possible, to have two meetings next week, and also the one that was already scheduled for the next parliamentary session.

I think this compromise suits everyone, unless I have missed something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We now go to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also think we're very close and should be able to come to a compromise here. Would it not make sense to...?

Mr. Bergeron's suggestion seems reasonable. If we had the two meetings for his study next week and then completed our study the following week, we could meet everybody's needs. It would be a productive use of time.

Would it work for everyone if we did that?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Are we to understand that Mr. Oliphant is withdrawing his amendment?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Yes. If I had unanimous consent, I could withdraw the amendment, but I think we need an understanding of the way we are going to do this.

I know that when the clerk starts to schedule witnesses, it's not our lives.... We could do two meetings and then one the next week. We have it all perfectly planned in our heads, but when she talks to the witnesses, it's sometimes the reality that they're not available when we want them, or there's overlap, or we're trying to make sure we don't have conflicting diaspora groups in the room at the same time. It's all of those kinds of things. I understand that.

I just want to get it nailed down to exactly what we're asking the chair to schedule for meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Would the clerk like to speak to that?

[The Clerk]

Yes, please.

We have Mr. Bergeron up first and then Mr. Genuis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Okay, but with respect to the issue raised by Mr. Oliphant....

We will go to Mr. Bergeron first.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Genuis will obviously be able to give his own views on the matter in a few moments, but I think the concern of our Conservative friends was that they could not, in two meetings, receive all the witnesses included in the motion, given the problems that Mr. Oliphant referred to earlier about not receiving representatives of both communities at the same time.

However, I am asking a question which I think I am answering by the same token. I think that to ask the question is to answer it.

If we receive the ambassador of Armenia and the representative of Azerbaijan during the first week of the session, they will, of course, want to speak about the general geopolitical situation, but I imagine they will also want to speak about the problems related to the Lachin corridor.

So, in the unanimous agreement that could be reached, we could for now exclude the ambassador of Armenia and the representative of Azerbaijan, who would be heard during the first week of the session and who will certainly want to speak on the blockage of the Lachin corridor. We could try to arrange the next two meetings with the other witnesses who are proposed in the motion.

Does this compromise proposal find favour with all my colleagues? If so, perhaps we have a solution. Mr. Genuis is going to speak just now, I presume, so we will have a little more precise idea in a few seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

We now go to Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would underline briefly that I think the flexibility members are looking for in whether there are two or three meetings, exactly when those meetings happen and how the clerk will schedule them...all of that is well captured in the original motion that Mr. Bergeron put forward. It entails a maximum of three meetings, but not necessarily three meetings. It includes the flexibility already. I would suggest that the committee simply pass the motion and let the clerk do her work from there.

Given that the committee is planning on hearing from the diplomatic representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan under the rubric of the pre-existing study, I think the compromise Mr. Bergeron has proposed is reasonable as well.

In any event, what the motion says is that we're going to do this quickly and we're going to get the hearings done before the end of the first sitting week, with however many within that framework it makes sense to have. The motion establishes that flexibility, so I'm in support of what Mr. Bergeron said.

I think we're probably ready.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We now go to Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am glad to see that we are almost there. However, before we proceed to the vote on Mr. Bergeron's motion, I would like him to clarify what he said earlier today, which was that he did not want to disrupt the committee's agenda.

As our chair pointed out, the committee was conducting its study on women's reproductive rights when we received Mr. Bergeron's motion. I would like to make sure that, immediately following that study, we continue on that path.

Would it be possible for Mr. Bergeron to confirm that?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, the only thing I can say is that Ms. Bendayan can count on my full co‑operation so that we continue the work as originally planned.

That said, I obviously cannot speak for the other political parties. However, what I can say, without revealing any inside secrets, is that we might like to say things to each other in camera. Perhaps the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure will allow us to say these things to each other behind closed doors so that we can break the impasse and get back to a pace of work that is commensurate with what Canadians and Quebeckers expect of us, and commensurate with our responsibility in foreign affairs.

I hope that the work of this committee will resume and that the paralysis of the work of this committee will end. I therefore hope that we can resume the timetable as we had established it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

It does appear that we have the possibility of a compromise here.

I understand that Mr. Oliphant had a question for the clerk as to what some of the practical considerations would be insofar as inviting additional witnesses. There were several witnesses named in the motion itself, but we would require to hear from more people.

Also, if the clerk could say in terms of practical experience when we could possibly have the two sessions next week—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, my hand was back up to propose a subamendment to Mr. Oliphant's amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm sorry. Okay. I apologize.