44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Jan/31/22 8:29:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, we heard members from the governing party mention several times that the crucial thing, the thing that matters most in this case, is diplomacy and deterrence.
Many have criticized the government's diplomatic efforts, saying that it was focusing a bit too much on soft power in circumstances that did not call for it. The actions taken may also be causing some confusion. The Ukrainians are complaining that we are not responding to their request for weapons and that we are responding too late, while Russia is accusing Canada of being too alarmist by recalling its diplomatic corps.
I have a simple question. Can my colleague suggest what could have been done better in terms of diplomacy, since that is what is at the heart of this issue for the government?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 9:35:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, all evening in this debate, the Conservatives have been going on and on about Ukraine's requests for weapons.
I would like my colleague to comment on whether she believes that what Canada can bring to the table in terms of weapons would have much of an impact on the ground. In that context, does she agree with me that we should use diplomacy instead of weapons? Does she recognize that the diplomatic route is really more important than weapons and the latter must come second?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 9:45:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the importance of diplomacy in resolving the conflict has come up a lot in tonight's debate. Some people put it second, some put it first, but everyone has talked about it.
This crisis may have exposed certain shortcomings in Canada's ability to engage in credible diplomacy. Several ambassadors have complained in the press about the very rapid turnover in certain embassies and the loss of institutional knowledge. Is tonight's debate not the right time to say that we need to reinvest in diplomacy and set a clearer, more assertive foreign policy?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:06:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to expand on the question posed by my NDP colleague, who serves with us in committee.
As we can see, cybersecurity is very important, especially with respect to enemies such as Russia.
Does my colleague share my opinion that it is important to have better cybersecurity for ourselves and so that it can be better shared with our allies when the need arises?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:24:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I want to elaborate on the question that was just asked.
We are talking about higher numbers of troops on the Ukrainian border. We are somewhat concerned that Russia will use other tactics to ultimately annex Donbass, mainly by supporting the rebel troops in that area.
How can diplomacy have a role to play when things are being done in a clandestine way? I do not know if my colleague wants to comment on that possibility, which is nonetheless real.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:38:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank all my colleagues for staying so late. We are starting things off with a bang today. The fact that there was unanimous consent to have this debate may indicate how important the Ukraine file is, as many have pointed out.
I would like to come at the issue from a different angle. I do not want to talk about what can be done now. This evening's debate in the House may change very little with respect to what needs to be done right away, but perhaps we should give some thought to the future, because current events are exposing some issues with the government's response.
Government members talked about the importance of diplomacy and deterrence. However, when diplomacy is not properly coordinated or not assertive enough, it is hard to then send an unequivocal message of deterrence. That is clear from the fact that the Prime Minister is still refusing to have a leader-to-leader discussion with Russia.
Canada is advocating for strong diplomacy as the primary weapon for resolving the crisis, but its diplomatic efforts still seem to lack a common thread. Many observers have criticized Canada for flying blind and lacking a clear strategy. Others have also recently criticized the revolving door at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a problem that has been highlighted by the crisis. The department has had five different ministers in six years, with everything that goes along with that in terms of different entourages, approaches and personalities.
One thing is for sure: Canada cannot stand by doing nothing in the context of the crisis with Ukraine. It was called upon to take action. It had to do something. It could not stand idly by. However, it seems that Canada was not necessarily ready to take the action that was needed, or to do so in a consistent manner. As we like to say back home, it is time to walk the talk. In this case, however, maybe that saying needs to be flipped around, because it seems that the government's words and actions do not line up, which is a bit frightening.
The problem with taking action is that it can be misinterpreted. Another problem is that even if the action is clear, it may contradict other actions. I feel like raising some of the actions that were taken in the context of the crisis that seem to be contradictory.
There has been talk of extending and expanding Operation Unifier. It may seem like a good thing to send more troops to Ukraine to help train the army that is already in place. However, in the context of the crisis, that may send an overly optimistic message. We are sending troops for purposes other than combat, who will help with medical and security training for local troops. If the crisis boils over, we can expect that operation to be suspended and our troops to be withdrawn since they are not combat troops, whereas the troops that we are training in Ukraine may be mobilized if a conflict erupts. By taking that action, we are acting as though we expect the Russians not to take any military action, yet we are presenting this action as a response to a potential Russian invasion.
Another action the government has taken is to provide a $120‑million loan, but no one has mentioned the fact that there is a clause prohibiting the money from being used to procure military equipment, such as lethal equipment. Without getting into a debate about this equipment, it seems to me that this provision is somewhat of a slap in the face to Ukraine, which is specifically asking for military support. Again, we seem to be sending the message that we will help Ukraine but also hope there will be no crisis. The money will be used to support the economy, because Russia is threatening to destabilize the country, but this money will not be used to counter the Russian threat if the crisis comes to a head.
These actions seem unduly optimistic in contrast with the government's stated positions, such as recalling non-essential embassy staff, which even caused Russia to say that we must stop our alarmist rhetoric on the development of the crisis.
We seem to be sending mixed messages with the $120‑million loan, not to mention that the message itself is rather problematic. We are not responding to Ukraine's request for military equipment. Once again, without getting into a debate about the crux of the matter, it begs the question. A democratic nation, and an ally at that, is asking for support in the form of military equipment to respond to a threat from an authoritarian regime, and Canada is dithering. Meanwhile, Canada continues to send arms to Saudi Arabia. What message does that send?
The question is, why are we sending arms to Saudi Arabia while refusing to send any to Ukraine?
I am not here to debate the merits of the actions that have been taken, but it is worth remembering that these measures will not have any real consequences on the ground. Canada is not in a position to stand up to Russia, which is heavily armed and ready to go. The actions we take are about sending a message, but it seems as though, once again, the message is not clear.
This crisis has underscored a number of problems with our diplomacy. Many observers have pointed out that Canada may be doing itself a disservice by taking a soft power approach out of keeping with such a serious crisis.
I want to share a long excerpt from an article published today, in which Joël‑Denis Bellavance spoke about the state of Canadian diplomacy:
Mr. Trudeau does not give the impression that foreign policy is a priority for him. That's too bad, because he has raised expectations around the world since coming to power. He missed a perfect opportunity to make it clear that “Canada is back!” He does not have any strong personalities on his team, with the exception of Chrystia Freeland, who can lead the charge in asserting—
1035 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:46:14 p.m.
- Watch
I am so sorry. I will keep reading:
“...a more active and visible Canadian presence internationally”, said a former diplomat who represented Canada in Africa and also wishes to remain anonymous.
Also coming under fire is the Prime Minister's bad habit of appointing deputy foreign affairs ministers who have never served in an embassy abroad. “The fact that the vast majority of top officials at the Pearson building have never set foot in an embassy is an outrage”, said an internal source.
Former diplomat Ferry de Kerckhove [who makes frequent media appearances] feels it is time Canada's diplomatic corps found its bearings. The best way to do that is to produce a white paper on Canada's foreign policy. The last comprehensive review dates back to 2005; that is 17 years ago.
I hope this evening's debate will prove to be useful, an opportunity for us to acknowledge the importance of diplomacy and of funding it appropriately, investing in it to ensure it has a clear, overarching mission. We also need a clearer foreign policy because we never know when we will need to use diplomacy.
Credibility is not established in a day; I believe that goes double in times of crisis. I think what we need to acknowledge this evening is that we still have work to do. I hope that is the takeaway from today's debate.
236 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:49:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his very good question.
As my esteemed colleague from Montarville already mentioned, we do not think that sending arms to support Ukraine will make Russia shake in its boots. That is not going to have a tangible impact on the ground.
I will refer back to my speech, specifically to the idea that sending arms does more than just send a message. In that context, we must ensure that the message is properly perceived and received. That is more the role of diplomacy.
At present, I believe that mixed messages are being sent. I do not believe that sending arms alone will have a tangible impact. It is more about the message this sends, and we must ensure that it is clear.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:52:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, in fact, the Bloc Québécois's position is to not close the door entirely on the use of weapons.
Nor did I say that that should follow diplomatic efforts. Both things can actually be done in parallel. They have to be done in parallel, because if there is a shipment of weapons, the message needs to be properly received.
We can send weapons and maybe irritate Russia more than anything else. However, if we do this and say we are prepared for the consequences, then there are things that can be done on their side so that we can talk. Both approaches have to be taken at the same time.
I am not trying to prioritize which of these things needs to be done first. I believe they can and should be done at the same time.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:55:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for the question.
I will take this opportunity to mention that we work really well together at the Standing Committee on National Defence.
That is part of what all members want to work on, in other words, recruitment and retention within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about improving the image of the forces, which has been tarnished over the past few years. It is important for the protection of Canadians and Quebeckers here at home, but also for our ability to respond internationally when required, especially in a context of climate change. There is a risk of increasing pressure on many levels. Is it not the role of the forces to intervene in those cases? It is worth discussing.
However, we will not be able to intervene if there is no one in the forces, and we see that is currently a challenge.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
