44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Jan/31/22 6:55:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks.
The government keeps repeating that it favours a diplomatic approach to resolving this potential conflict, but apart from crying wolf, what is Canada actually doing?
In my view, diplomacy means dialogue, but there does not seem to be any dialogue with either side. Just last week, the Russian ambassador said that Canada-Russia relations are dysfunctional, to say the least. Apart from an exchange between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister Lavrov in Russia, which took place several months ago, the highest level of dialogue was with him, the ambassador.
The ambassador himself said that the Prime Minister should speak directly with President Vladimir Putin to discuss a solution to the problem, as did the French president, Emmanuel Macron. According to the ambassador, Russia would even be willing to lift the entry ban that has been placed on the Deputy Prime Minister if she travelled to Russia for this purpose.
What is the Government of Canada actually doing on the diplomatic front?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:08:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister rightly pointed out that 100,000 Russian troops have been amassed on the Ukrainian border.
If that sounds familiar, it is because last winter and spring there were also some 100,000 Russian troops amassed at the Ukrainian border.
As members know, I am vice-chair of the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group, and the chair of this group is here today. On April 22, 2021, representatives from the foreign affairs and defence departments graciously briefed us on the situation.
Last week, these same departments gave us another briefing, and I must say that it was certainly similar to the first one. I asked if there had been any news since then, and the representative from foreign affairs candidly told me that, aside from troop movements at the Ukrainian border and in Belarus, he did not really know.
My question for the minister is the following. The government decided to join the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia in withdrawing non-essential personnel from the embassy, while our other NATO allies did not. Does this decision not stoke the fear of further aggression in Ukraine, which even the Ukrainian authorities have denounced?
Even the Ukrainians are calling for this to stop. They are struggling under the weight of these tensions.
216 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:32:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was somewhat surprised by the minister's answer to my question a few moments ago. To use a mixed metaphor, I would say that my ears could not believe my eyes.
Is the minister suggesting that if we were to push for a diplomatic solution, if we were in favour of that, if we insisted on it, we would be playing into Russia's hands? Is the minister suggesting that President Macron is playing into Russia's hands and creating division among the allies by picking up the phone to speak to Vladimir Putin? I believe that the answer is obvious.
Had the minister paid the least bit of attention to some of my speeches, in particular the one I gave to the Parliamentary Assembly to the Council of Europe, she would know that I have been highly critical of Russia on several occasions.
If we want dialogue, we cannot have a unilateral monologue. If we want to be a credible mediator between Russia and Ukraine, we have to speak to Russia as President Macron did. As far as I can see, aside from crying wolf, the Canadian government has done nothing to lead us to a diplomatic solution.
That is all I wanted to say. Do I recognize that the aggression against Crimea and Russia's destabilizing actions in Donbass are unacceptable? Of course I do. I do not even see how the minister can call that into question. Not only am I surprised, but I am a little offended. What I said is that we must engage in dialogue.
269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:34:57 p.m.
- Watch
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the fact is that the build-up of 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is pretty much the same as it was a year ago. What has changed? We do not really know, as the minister's officials at Global Affairs have admitted.
Why then this talk of escalation, this fearmongering that is leading us to think that Russia is going to attack tomorrow morning, whereas both the Ukrainians and the Russians agree that that is not going to happen? Why take this alarmist tone rather than trying to calm things down? Again, why pull out non-essential staff from our embassy when basically only the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have done so? The other NATO allies have stayed behind to show their support for Ukraine in a concrete way. Why pull out and contribute to escalating ongoing tensions?
Earlier the minister told us that Russia is the aggressor. I do not disagree. I challenge anyone to disprove the unwavering support of the Bloc Québécois and its members for our ally, Ukraine. However, I would like to point out to the minister that Jocelyn Coulon, an expert in geopolitical issues and former advisor to her predecessor, former Liberal candidate Stéphane Dion, put himself in Russia's shoes for a minute. He explained that when Germany reunified, NATO promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the Atlantic alliance would never cross the border of East Germany.
What happened after that? Several Soviet bloc countries and even some former Soviet republics were admitted to NATO, a move that Russia perceived as an attack, aimed at bringing western troops closer to the Russian border. For whatever reason, Russia decided that the red line would be Ukraine and that it would not allow Ukraine to join NATO.
The minister was talking about unity among NATO alliance countries. That is great, but can the minister deny that at the Bucharest summit in 2008, France and Germany expressed reservations about the possibility of admitting Ukraine to NATO?
All I am saying is that we can maintain the illusion that all member countries of the NATO alliance are on the same page, but that is not the reality. This explains why the French president phoned Vladimir Putin while Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom continue with this rather belligerent rhetoric towards Russia.
There are very divergent views within NATO. It is not playing into Russia's hands to admit this; it is simply acknowledging the facts. Where do we go from here? Do we really want to be a useful mediator? If the answer is yes, we must act accordingly. We need to take consistent action to lower tensions.
We have made commitments to Ukraine. We have to honour those commitments to Ukraine, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that Ukraine's admission to the NATO alliance does not require the unanimous approval of all the alliance members—but where is the unanimity of the NATO alliance on this issue?
I think we have to be honest with ourselves and with Ukrainians. However, we still have a responsibility towards Ukraine, because we have given our word.
There are therefore some things we need to do from the perspective of the partnership that should exist between Ukraine and the NATO alliance. There are things that must also be done to meet Ukraine's needs. Although we obviously favour the diplomatic option, we cannot deny that Ukraine is asking for Canada's support, which, admittedly, is relatively limited.
Although the Standing Committee on National Defence noted in 2017 that a number of experts would support Canada selling weapons to Ukraine, the reality is that Canada itself has few weapons that could help Ukraine, particularly in terms of anti‑tank and anti‑aircraft defence.
There are certainly things that can be done in terms of intelligence and cybersecurity, considering that Ukraine was recently the victim of a Russian cyber-attack seeking to destabilize its institutions. There is work to be done on that front, alongside diplomatic efforts, to get these parties talking and to try to find a peaceful resolution to the current conflict.
706 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:44:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim that we support Russia's forcible annexation of Ukrainian territory? Based on what speech, what intervention, what press release can she say that? What intervention by the Bloc Québécois can she refer to to claim today that we support Russian aggression?
If she had been listening a few moments ago, she would have heard me say that the attack against Crimea and Russia's destabilizing efforts in the Donbas region are absolutely and totally unacceptable. How can she now claim that we support these aggressions?
It insults everyone's intelligence to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs say such a thing here in the House today. It is totally unacceptable. I hope that the minister did not invoke the Normandy Format to avoid responsibility for the role Canada must play if it truly wants to play its past role, namely the role of helping resolve disputes between countries.
I hope the minister is not simply shrugging off responsibility by putting it on the shoulders of France and Germany. Thank goodness that France and Germany are not playing up the danger like the Anglo-Saxon bloc of countries, if I can put it that way. It is totally unacceptable to say such a thing.
When the minister tells us that there is communication between NATO and Russia, she should know that the partnership for peace between them is de facto non-existent, because not only is there no longer any collaboration on the civilian and military levels, but the respective missions of the two are over. How can the minister claim that there is a relationship between NATO and Russia when it has been almost completely severed?
As for relations between the United States and Russia, we cannot applaud the fact that President Biden is also crying wolf about a possible “re-invasion”—let us call it that, because the minister insists—or a new invasion into Ukrainian territory.
When the U.S. government cries wolf and says that if the intervention were limited, the reaction from western countries could be just as limited, I think that should give pause for thought.
I will say it again. It is a good thing that Germany and France are there to try to actually find a diplomatic solution, because this does not seem to be the path that Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to take.
409 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:48:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in my youth I visited Poland when it was under the communist regime. At the time, General Jaruzelski was in power in Warsaw.
I was also able to travel to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, which both had communist governments. I understand that these countries sought to get out from under the control, or at least the influence, of their powerful neighbour Russia, then the Soviet Union.
That is not the point I want to make. I am simply pointing out what Jocelyn Coulon, a former Liberal advisor, said about how NATO failed to keep its word. NATO promised Mikhail Gorbachev that it would never expand beyond East Germany.
That said, the countries in question were clearly acting in good faith by wanting to join NATO. That is not what this is about. This is about the promises that the west made to Russia, to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, that NATO would not expand beyond East Germany.
From the Russian perspective, we failed to keep our word, but does that undermine the legitimacy of the countries that wanted to join NATO? Absolutely not.
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:51:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada has already been supplying non-lethal gear to Ukraine since 2014. As I have already stated publicly, if we were to provide so-called lethal weapons, Russian soldiers would not be shaking in their boots. Canada is unfortunately not in a position to provide the anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons Ukraine would need to hold off Russian aggression.
The Conservatives like to say that we should sell weapons, but the truth of the matter is that we are not really in a position to provide military assistance to Ukraine. We must be mindful of that.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 9:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for his remarks, which I actually found very refreshing.
Throughout this evening's debate, our government colleagues have talked about diplomacy and deterrence. They have actually talked more about deterrence than diplomacy, but they have not been clear about what they mean by deterrence. In other words, what I am hearing is deeply acrimonious and aggressive messaging at a time when, from a diplomatic perspective, there should be more emphasis on calls for discussion and dialogue.
As I understand it, the minister is pledging more money to support people in difficult situations, such as those resulting from the pressures exerted by the massive Russian presence at the border and those Ukrainians face in their day-to-day lives. To pick up on what my NDP colleague said, what concrete action will the government take to move beyond words and really help people in need on the ground?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
