Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

I understand that the next person with their hand up is Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair. I have just a brief procedural point and then a substantive point as well.

Procedurally we had a motion on the floor, and then Mr. Oliphant made what he termed an amendment but what sounded more like a suggestion. He didn't say, “remove this word” or “remove this section”. He described what he would like to do.

I'm a bit confused as to whether we're discussing the suggestion of Mr. Oliphant as it relates to the motion of Mr. Bergeron or if there's a specific amendment on the table. If there is, I wonder if that specific amendment could be defeated. If there's a specific amendment on the table, we'll need to vote up or down on that amendment and then on the motion.

With respect to the larger issue—and I want to thank Mr. Bergeron for putting this forward—I was pleased to join him and my Conservative colleagues, as well as Ms. McPherson, in signing that letter. I think the horrors of what we're seeing, the significant humanitarian challenges of people in Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh certainly have been moving for me to see and read about. We are seeing a blockade that is in clear violation of international law and that undermines efforts to pursue peace and security.

We want to hear from both sides in the tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but in particular I would like to hear the voices of those who are directly affected, those who are in Artsakh who are experiencing this situation. I'm glad Mr. Bergeron included some of those names in his motion.

One other issue for the committee to think about as we turn our attention to this issue is the issue of Russian influence in the Transcaucasian region. Historically Russia has had a fair bit of influence there, but the failure of the ostensible peacekeeping force from Russia to do its job, to facilitate the development of peace is, I think, an important strategic development. It speaks, maybe, to the need for greater engagement by other countries, countries that have been historically less engaged in that region, to offer to play a greater role in promoting peace and stability. It's, of course, part of this larger story of what is happening with Russia and its effort to project influence.

First and foremost for me it's the humanitarian situation, but I think also there are a variety of different considerations that should really motivate the committee to want to look at that. I want to underline my support for Mr. Bergeron's motion and initiative here.

Also, Chair, if you could provide some clarity on the procedural point, that would be great.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Before we go to Dr. Fry, I understand that Mr. Oliphant has his hand up as well.

I would be grateful, Mr. Oliphant, if you could clarify whether that was an amendment or simply a suggestion.

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

It's probably both. It was not able to be a formal amendment, because I didn't have the text of Mr. Bergeron's motion. I have it now. It's hard to make an amendment to something when you don't have the text in front of you.

Right now the motion that has been presented calls for the committee to undertake to hold a maximum of three meetings to study the present situation of the blockade of the Lachin corridor. I would amend those words to say that the committee would undertake to hold one additional meeting to the already agreed-to two meetings with respect to Nagorno-Karabakh, with the third meeting focusing particularly on the Lachin road.

I will try to do that again, but I'm not writing this down. It's that the committee undertake to hold a meeting in addition to the two meetings already agreed to on Nagorno-Karabakh. It's that we hold an additional meeting, so it's for a total of three meetings, on the Lachin road. I'm sorry, but the clerk may have to help me with this.

What I'm trying to do is simply say that instead of three more meetings, which would make five meetings on Nagorno-Karabakh—which I think is too many, given Iran and the other topics we are concerned with talking about at these meetings—I think a total of three meetings, including one dedicated to the Lachin road, would be appropriate for this study.

I'm not getting into the timing of that. I'll leave that to the chair and the subcommittee. That has been raised as well.

The intent of my amendment is that instead of five meetings on the topic we would have three meetings on the topic, including one dedicated to the Lachin road issue. One meeting has already been held, just for information. We've had one meeting. We are already scheduled to have one meeting when we first come back. This adds a third meeting, which I think would be useful and important, but I don't want five meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Oliphant. I'm pretty sure that's now an amendment through and through.

Dr. Fry, we now go to you. The floor is yours.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm sure Mr. Bergeron did not mean to misunderstand what I said. I at no time said this was unimportant. I personally met with members of Parliament from both sides in Poland about this issue just before. I continue to correspond with these members of Parliament on this issue because of the OSCE being very involved in part of the Minsk agreement. It is something I am involved in and it is something I am aware of on an ongoing basis.

All I was saying, and I think I was agreeing with Mr. Oliphant, was that we could do it with fewer meetings. The chair will obviously decide when we do it, but I thought we were going to start at the first meeting on January 31. I thought we would be able to move on to the other meeting that Mr. Oliphant was referring to.

I did not in any way suggest that it was not important. I was suggesting that meeting more, and meeting before January 31, wasn't going to resolve anything in such a hurry. I was continuing to say let the status quo stand, plus one new meeting dedicated to the Lachin road.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Dr. Fry.

Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, it's important to make it clear that I never meant to imply that Ms. Fry was telling us that she didn't think this situation was important.

Next, with regard to Mr. Oliphant's amendment, I am sorry, but I will have to vote against it. The reason is quite simple: we are faced with a unique situation which is part of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, of course, but which leads us to look at the situation not from a geopolitical angle, but from a humanitarian angle.

I don't think we can wait for the resumption of parliamentary work, because every hour that passes has important humanitarian implications, on the one hand. On the other hand, I don't think we can simply put what is happening now in the Lachin corridor in the overall context of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Firstly, in one case, as I said, it is more about the geopolitical aspect, while in the other it is more about the humanitarian aspect. Secondly, technically or officially, at least, there is no intervention by either Armenia or Azerbaijan. This is a so‑called spontaneous demonstration by Azeris who have decided, all of a sudden, for seemingly environmental reasons, to block the Lachin corridor, and thus the free movement of goods and people. This means that Armenians from Quebec and Canada can no longer leave the corridor and return to our country and that basic goods cannot cross the Lachin corridor.

I see Mr. Oliphant nodding. If he has information that I don't have, I would like to have it. So we need to be properly informed of the situation that is going on at the moment. At the moment, we rely solely on the information that the media or interest groups want to give us. That is why it is important that we meet, not when the House returns, but as early as next week, and look at this particular aspect of the issue which essentially involves our values on a humanitarian basis.

We will have ample opportunity later to discuss the geopolitical aspect of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. However, for now, what interests us is that there is a so‑called group of protesters blocking a corridor connecting a landlocked territory and Armenia, all of which has humanitarian implications.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that, Mr. Bergeron.

Go ahead, Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I hate to belabour this, but I think the assumption that we're all getting this information only from the media is not true. I just spoke, and I don't know if my English is as flawed as my French, but what I said was that I'm in contact regularly with parliamentarians who are in the thick of this at the OSCE.

I met with the Armenian delegation and with the Azerbaijan delegation in November. I continue to speak with them on text and email to see whether and how the situation is moving. I'm not just getting my information from the media.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Ms. McPherson, the floor is yours.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just one quick thing I want to throw into this mix is that I think it is important that we are respectful to our witnesses and ensure that we don't have witnesses from either side testifying at the same time at the same meeting. I think that would be completely inappropriate.

I just wanted to make sure. I'm sure you've already thought of that, Mr. Chair, but I wanted to make sure that was articulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Absolutely, and I remember this issue being raised in December. We will ensure that we proceed in a fashion such that we will hear from proponents and opponents.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak to Mr. Oliphant's amendment?

Ms. Bendayan is next.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, perhaps just as a question of clarification, does either Mr. Bergeron's motion or Mr. Oliphant's amendment specify the exact date or timing of these meetings? I don't believe so, and this issue of when these meetings would be held is not actually before the committee at this time.

Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes. I can only presume that Mr. Oliphant did not provide any specifics as to—

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

I did not, but the motion itself as presented by Mr. Bergeron says that this would happen by Friday, February 3. It is in the original motion. I didn't change that. I still think that would be possible to accomplish by February 3, meaning we'd have two meetings by February 3. If the amendment fails, then we'll have to find a way to have, I guess, four meetings by February 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that precise response, Mr. Oliphant.

We now go to Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I just want to clarify, for Mr. Oliphant's benefit, that the motion also states that “the committee undertakes to hold a maximum of three meetings to study the present situation of the blockade of the Lachin corridor”. If Mr. Oliphant adds to these three meetings the one that was already scheduled on the general situation between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, then, of course, we would have four.

With regard to the issue of the Lachin corridor, we would have only three. In fact, there might only be two, as we are talking about a maximum of three meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Would anyone else like to speak to this issue?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chong has his hand up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Chong, the floor is yours.

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

Just to clarify, if Monsieur Bergeron's motion passes unamended, we would have three meetings by the end of the first week that the House of Commons resumes sitting, at the end of this month. That presumably would mean we would have one meeting next week and then two meetings in our regularly scheduled slots during the first week that the House resumes sitting.

Is that, Mr. Chair, a safe assumption of how the planning would take place?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

As far as I understand, yes, that is an accurate read of it. However, technically speaking, when the invitation was sent out to the two witnesses for the first session we will have upon our return, it wasn't specifically on the issue of the Lachin road. I query whether that poses any challenges insofar as the members are concerned.

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

Okay, but as a second question of clarification on this motion in front of us right now, if the motion is adopted, do those three meetings subsume the second of the two meetings that we had previously agreed to, which is tentatively scheduled for January 31? In other words, would we have, simply, three more meetings on Armenia and Azerbaijan in total, period, or would we have the three meetings specified by Mr. Bergeron's motion by the end of February 3, and then another, a fourth meeting, which was previously scheduled for January 31? I'd like clarification on which of the two would be the case if Monsieur Bergeron's motion is adopted, unamended, by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

As far as I understand, Mr. Chong, I think your read of it is accurate, but just to clarify—