Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2022

[Bob Rae]

I hope it didn't seem as though I was avoiding your question. That is never my intention. Having spent a lot of time in the House of Commons, I never appreciated when people would dodge a question, so I don't want to be one of them.

As I said in response to Ms. Bendayan's question, some banks, institutions and individuals have yet to be named.

The effectiveness of the sanctions will depend to a great extent on consensus. When I'm asked whether additional sanctions could be imposed, my answer is that it's certainly possible. Many others have said the same.

However, I can't provide a more specific answer because we haven't yet reached the consensus needed to take things further, but I think we'll get there.

The news out of Russia and Belarus is clearly showing the economic and financial consequences on the situation in Russia.

Will we see repercussions tomorrow? Yes, we will. Will they be enough? We don't know yet, but we will keep up our efforts, I have no doubt.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much.

In answering this next question, could you explain what would have to happen on the ground in order for Canada to decide to go further with the sanctions and build the consensus needed?

I want to follow up on the question Mr. Chong asked a little while ago.

Even before the invasion, Canada had reservations about supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons, so as not to give Russia an excuse to attack Ukraine.

However, Russia did attack, so why is Canada still reluctant to send lethal weapons to Ukraine?

[Bob Rae]

There isn't any reluctance. I didn't hear any reservations expressed when I spoke with Ms. Anand, the Minister of National Defence. I think the most important thing to do is identify what Ukraine needs and what our partner countries are doing to deal with the problem. We are in the process of examining everything we can do to heighten the impact of our assistance to Ukraine. Two weeks ago, we decided to take the necessary measures to help Ukraine, and we will continue to do so.

I want to make two things clear. First, the sanctions we imposed on Russia are unprecedented in modern history. Second, the military and financial assistance we have provided to Ukraine is also unprecedented.

Will it be enough for Ukraine to confront the invasion from Russia, one of the world's biggest military powers? We don't know, but the incredible courage, resilience and leadership shown by President Zelenskyy are undeniable, and we will continue to support him however we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Rae.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

It's now my pleasure to give the floor to Don Davies.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Davies. Go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

It's great to see you, Ambassador Rae. It was always a privilege to serve with you in the House of Commons.

Ambassador, I think the whole world is deeply concerned about the nuclear threat. I have a two-part question for you. First, what is your analysis of Mr. Putin's nuclear statement? Second, given that Canada has refused to join the nuclear ban treaty, might this be an opportune time for Canada to rethink that position, in your view?

[Bob Rae]

On the first question, Mr. Chair, I would say that in January, Russia joined the four other nuclear powers— the United States, China, France and the U.K.—to indicate that a nuclear war could never be won, and that there was no justification for the use of nuclear weapons. It was a statement made on the eve of a UN conference that didn't happen because of COVID, but it was still a very important statement.

This took place in January 2022. We're not talking about five years ago; we're talking about six or seven weeks ago, so when President Putin turns around and makes the announcement that he made yesterday, what are we to make of it?

I think it's deeply irrational, and I think that at a moment of greater rationality, this is what Russia said, and now we have Russia saying something completely different. It's a complete turnaround from what they said before.

I also think it's important for us not to be scared off by this tactic, though, because I think it is a tactic. I saw great big headlines in many newspapers. The Washington Post this morning had an enormous headline saying that Russia threatens nuclear...etc., but I think it's really important not to give in to what it's intended to do. It's intended to make us all back off. Everything I have seen, in any conversation I've had with members of cabinet or any of my colleagues here at the United Nations, no one is getting turned away by this. It's important for us to stay resolute, to stay strong and to stay determined.

On your second point, the question for Canada is that we are a member of a military alliance called NATO. NATO remains an alliance that includes certain countries that have nuclear weapons. The government has taken the position that this circumstance somewhat limits what we can say.

However, I think that since 1945 Canada's position on nuclear weaponry has been very clear, with perhaps the most important aspect, which I would stress because it's often not stressed, being that Canada unilaterally made a decision at the end of the Second World War that it would not become a nuclear power. Now, you might ask how likely that would have been anyway. It actually would have been quite possible. We could have been. We had the means; we had the technology and we had the science. Many of the nuclear scientists trained at Chalk River. We were in a position to do so, and we decided unilaterally that we would not do that.

Certain other countries—South Africa and others—made a similar decision. I'm glad we made that decision, and I think it should be clear that we have no intention of engaging in that kind of activity.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Rae.

I want to turn to humanitarian assistance.

We're pleased to see the $10 million in funding to match funds raised by the Red Cross, but I think it's fair to say that it's a drop in the bucket in terms of the need. The UNHCR this morning said that over 500,000 people have fled Ukraine and many more are displaced internally. Can you tell us if additional humanitarian funds to Ukraine will be provided?

As importantly, can you confirm that those funds will not be diverted from the existing humanitarian envelope, given that we have so many other crises—Afghanistan, Syria and the Rohingya crisis, which I know you're very familiar with—that continue to necessitate Canada's attention?

[Bob Rae]

On the first point, Mr. Chair, I can give Mr. Davies my assurance that there will be more forthcoming. That's guaranteed.

The UN humanitarian agency, OCHA, which is the coordinating body for all the humanitarian work we do, is putting out a call for a large contribution. There will be a resolution in the General Assembly this week, which is being prepared by Mexico and France, that will do the same, and it will clearly call for a very substantial donation by member countries. Canada is always in the top 10 of humanitarian donors, always, and we will continue to do that.

As for your second question, my answer—and I know you're not going to be satisfied with this—is that it's above my pay grade. I can't guarantee what the budget of the Government of Canada will be, but I can guarantee that Canada will be a contributor, and I can express a hope from the trenches that we don't rob Peter to pay Paul. I think that would be a bad precedent.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

The U.K. announced a registry of foreign entities that would require the true owners of real estate to be revealed. I think you retweeted that announcement. Is that something you think we should be doing in Canada, Mr. Rae?

[Bob Rae]

If you look at my tweets, you'll see that it says very carefully that these are my personal views. It occasionally gets me into trouble.

Mr. Bergeron knows that quite well.

I hope we do, though. A lot of things have happened in the last several weeks that I hope are making it easier for things that need to be done to get done. I think we have to know where property is registered. I think we have to know who it belongs to. For our own security and for own interests, this is valuable information. I think we should have it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Chair, can I squeeze in one more quick question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, very quick. I gave some indulgence to your colleagues, so yes, if it's very quick—30 seconds or less.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you. I'll make it a really quick one.

Ukrainians don't require visas to travel to 141 countries, including most of Europe. The NDP has been calling for visa-free travel for Ukrainians for some years. Is Canada considering doing this? Why are we so hesitant to offer visa-free travel to Ukrainians?

[Bob Rae]

I'm going to put Monsieur Gionet on the spot. He's the representative from IRCC. I know that the minister is looking at whatever means he can to facilitate.

I don't know.... Is Mr. Gionet there?

[Jean-Marc Gionet, Director General, Immigration Program Guidance, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Yes. We are indeed taking a number of steps to support Ukrainians and people residing in Ukraine, to make it easier and faster for them to come to Canada. We announced on the 24th a number of steps to facilitate access to and prioritization of their immigration applications, and we're going to continue to look for ways to facilitate it as the situation evolves, but the Ukrainian visa requirements are currently not under review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Ambassador Rae, it's my understanding that you may have to leave us prior to the end of our full session. We're hoping that we can have you for at least part of our next round. Without further ado, we will go right into that.

Leading us off for five minutes is Mr. Morantz, please.

Go ahead.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador and GAC officials, for being here. It has been a very informative meeting.

Mr. Ambassador, a few minutes ago, when asked about Mr. Putin's announcement about his nuclear options, you characterized it as being “deeply irrational”. I have to agree. I and many people think this whole situation is deeply irrational.

I realize that you can't get inside Mr. Putin's head, but I wonder if you have an opinion on his mental state. Also, when someone is behaving this way within any organization, there are often cracks within the organization itself. I'm wondering if you have any knowledge of—or if you might even want to speculate about—what might be going on in Putin's inner circle around this odd behaviour.

[Bob Rae]

I would prefer not to get into that, Mr. Chair, not because I'm avoiding the question, but because, as we say in court, I think it asks for speculation on my part.

I would say this, however. I have been following Mr. Putin for a long time—what he says and what he does—and I've found that, particularly with respect to this issue of Ukraine, his attitude is terrible. He keeps saying that Ukraine and Russia are one people. He keeps saying that Ukraine is not a real place, not a real state. He denies the existence of a separate Ukrainian people, a separate identity, a separate language. That is what I find most offensive and most dangerous.

He also says things like, “You're making us do this.” He puts his finger on the nuclear button and says, “You're making me do this.” Well, that is the language of an abuser. It is like somebody who is an abuser saying, “I'm only hitting you because you're making me hit you.” It is dangerous talk. It is irrational talk.

Most importantly, though, with respect to the politics of this situation, the denial of the existence of the Ukrainian nation is a precedent to hate speech. Obviously, it precedes all these actions he's taken, and I think it leads to the awful situation in which the world finds itself and in which the people of Ukraine find themselves.

It's also fair to say, Mr. Chair, that the purpose of the sanctions and the purpose of what I've called our unprecedented level of overall NATO assistance to Ukraine is an attempt to convince the Russian people and the people around Mr. Putin that what he is doing is wrong and is not going to work. It's self-destructive. That's the message we're trying to send over and over again.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

It may be that one of the GAC officials could answer this question with regard to sanctions. I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been saying all along that Canada needs to be in lockstep with our allies. I have to say at the outset that I am commending the incredible efforts of our allies to bring in very strong sanctions, but there are a couple of issues where there's a bit of daylight. I'm wondering if I could get an explanation for that.

For example, Vladimir Putin's son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov, a wealthy Russian oligarch in his own right, was sanctioned by the U.K., Australia and the United States, but not by Canada. Alena Georgieva, the chairwoman of a bank owned by a Russian arms manufacturer, was also on allied lists but not ours. I'm wondering if you could give an explanation as to why.

[Bob Rae]

I can't, but maybe Heidi Hulan can, so I'll leave it to her.

[Heidi Hulan, Assistant Deputy Minister and Political Director, International Security and Political Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Ambassador.

Good morning to the members of the committee.

In fact, it's my colleague Sandra McCardell who will answer this in detail, but I can say that I participate in very regular consultations among G7 political directors. We talk about co-operation on sanctions, but we all have slightly different systems and slightly different research teams. Just because things are not fully aligned to the name today doesn't mean that they will not be aligned and that they're not grosso modo aligned at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Morantz, that's five minutes. If you have a very quick follow-up, I'll let you get that in.

[Bob Rae]

Sandra, do you have an additional point that you want to make there?