SoVote

Mar/3/22 3:59:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have always appreciated the opportunity to talk about important issues in Canada with the member for Guelph. I suppose I would go back to the premise I mentioned before. This was in 2014 and 2016, when the Ukrainian people were talking about action. In the proceeding six years since then, we decided to cut off our ability to be able to help and be a major player in this particular area. That is the part that is so depressing to me, because by doing that, it is as though we, as Canadians, are not looking at the quality of the natural resource we have and our ability to make sure it gets to tidewater and that it is produced in an environmentally friendly way.

127 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/3/22 4:00:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. However, he used somewhat of a strong word, “activist”, as if all the people who are currently demanding that action be taken to reduce our carbon footprint were all activists. The UN Secretary-General said this week that it was important, if not essential, to accelerate the energy transition. Ukrainian and other European leaders are telling us that they do not need the oil, and that we should be moving away from fossil fuels and fighting climate change. Does my colleague think that all of these people are activists?

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Mar/3/22 4:01:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I think about the things I have heard, when I have been there in eastern Europe and had an opportunity to speak to those people who are looking at their own physical security, I think that is really the critical aspect of this. I know what has happened in order to stop pipelines going through Ukraine, which is the reason the Nord Stream projects were there and the reason that Germany decided it would be able to bypass the pipeline, but it would be $2 billion a year that Ukraine would not get. Those are the types of things I am talking about, when I say there are actors out there who are making this difficult for everyone. I do not blame those who are environmentalists for saying they want to have something better, because I 100% agree with that as a process. I just want it to be fair and balanced, and I do not want it come from foreign countries trying to protect their own interests.

171 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/3/22 4:02:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given the urgency of the crisis in Ukraine right now and the invasion of that country, we are seeing unprecedented numbers of folks fleeing the country. Would the member agree that the humanitarian aid that is required to ensure folks get to safety is the top priority of Canada?

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Mar/3/22 4:02:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely I do. It seems as though we are picking on the page and a half out of 12 that I spoke about energy, but I really have talked to people from the Albertan Ukrainian community. These are the things that are so important to them, and that is something we are also able to do. I think that is a critical part of where Canada can be in the future.

73 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Mar/3/22 4:03:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Courage has a home country, and that country is Ukraine. Courage has a people, and that people is the Ukrainian people. Ukrainians’ resilience is legendary and once again in full view today. Ukraine is the world’s inspiration and its strength, the strength to join forces against Vladimir Putin. The Ukrainian people survived Stalin, the Nazi occupation and the yoke of communism. They are invincible. Today, Vladimir Putin’s forces are meeting with the ferocious resistance of a deeply proud, intrepid people whose love for freedom and for their history, culture and democracy is unconditional. The collective response to this blatant, unprovoked and highly reprehensible offensive has so far been exemplary. Like all of us, I hope that it will be effective and decisive, that Putin and his friends will clearly fail, and that other dictators considering the same course of action will understand the risks and consequences of doing so. I must point out that this response is not a simple affair. It is complex, a daunting challenge. It is based on the unprecedented collaboration of a large number of countries that instantly saw in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a threat to democracy and freedom around the world, to international security. It is a multi-pronged response, namely diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, financial and even logistical, in terms of the procurement of military equipment. There is also the cybersecurity component to counteract cyber-attacks, the new weapons of war, as well as the other components taking place in real time, such as the growing refugee crisis the conflict has caused. We have seen a complex, coordinated response to the greatest threat to global security since World War II, a response designed to show a concrete and undisputable resolve against a dictator and to suffocate the Russian economy. That said, the greatest threat or challenge to effective decision-making is the oversimplification of the issues at hand. I wonder if today's motion does not fall into the trap of oversimplification. What do I mean when I say that this motion may fall prey to oversimplification? While clauses (a) and (b) are definitely worth repeating, they are well understood and supported by all in this House. In other words, we all condemn Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation in no uncertain terms for what it has done. We stand four square behind the Ukrainian people, an extraordinarily courageous people fighting for the universal values of democracy and freedom against a shameless tyrant who has joined the hall of infamy, a room he shares with the bloody dictators of the 20th and 21st centuries. Meanwhile section (c) of the motion is vague. What measures is the opposition talking about to ensure that new natural gas pipelines could be built to tidewater in the east? Are we talking about weakening the environmental assessment process that was recently modernized to obtain public and stakeholder buy-in to allow projects such as pipelines to be built across the diverse political landscape of this country and withstand the inevitable court challenges from opponents? Are we talking about creating a pipeline Crown corporation? Are we talking about the public financing of pipelines or about governments underwriting the private financial risks of pipeline builders? Are we suggesting suppressing provincial permitting processes? Also, I find that part (c) of the motion abstracts from context, both present and future contexts. The present context is necessarily focused on helping the Ukrainian people under attack today through military aid, humanitarian support and air tight sanctions that are bringing to bear the heaviest financial and economic consequences on Putin's Russia and its oligarchs. The present context is also necessarily focused on immediate energy needs. We know that natural gas accounts for 40% of the EU supply and Russian crude oil accounts for 25% of the EU's supply of crude oil. Fortunately, EU countries have a cushion in terms of oil reserves and 20 European Union countries are members of the International Energy Agency. They are thus obliged to hold at least 90 days of oil reserves. Fortunately, summer is coming and energy demand will fall. As we speak, governments are working together to direct new supply to the European Union. As President Biden said in his state of the union address, the U.S. will be making supplies from the strategic oil reserves it has available. In fact, 30 other countries, including Canada, are joining the U.S. to release 60 million barrels of oil to stabilize the global energy market. How else is the motion perhaps simplistic and therefore not immediately helpful? It gives the impression that building a pipeline is a fairly simple thing to do, but pipelines cannot be built in a day. They are not a tap we turn on and off. They are massive, financially and logistically complex, time-consuming enterprises. In addition to construction, there is, as I have mentioned, the environmental assessment process and the related efforts to obtain the agreement of communities along pipeline routes. We are past the days when projects could go ahead without environmental assessments, when the public, including indigenous peoples, could summarily be circumvented. Finally, the Conservative motion abstracts from the longer term context, which involves numerous other dimensions. These dimensions include the fight against climate change, which is well under way, especially in Europe where efforts have been ongoing for years. Kadri Simson, the European Union Energy Commissioner, is quoted as saying that the strategy is ultimately “boosting renewables and energy efficiency as fast as technically possible”. Like Canada, the EU's plan is to become carbon neutral by 2050. European countries intend to, like Canada, synchronize electricity grids, among other things. Germany's very recent apparent reversal on building nuclear power plants points to what the future of energy in Europe might look like, a mix of non-emitting sources of power.

999 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Mar/3/22 4:11:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Russia produces 10.4 million barrels of blood oil a day. Canada produces 4.6 million barrels of low-carbon, ethically produced oil a day. Since 2015, the government has been brainwashing the citizens of this country, trying to tell us that oil is a thing of the past. My province of Newfoundland and Labrador has an estimated 50 billion barrels of oil in reserve. Could my hon. colleague across the aisle please tell us why we should leave that in the ground and let non-ethical oil be produced in the world?

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/3/22 4:12:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said, there is an immediate energy need in Europe, and 31 countries are coming together to release strategic oil reserves to help the European Union get through this difficult period. Oil is part of the energy mix. It is central to the functioning of economies, but we are in a transition and the motion talks about a time far away from today. The energy mix is bound to change. In terms of individual projects, they are subject to environmental assessments and a whole process of decision-making. I cannot really comment on the particular reserves that the member is referring to.

105 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mar/3/22 4:13:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we hope and expect that this war will not last forever. Since the gas pipeline that could be built to help Ukraine will never be finished or operational in time to actually do any good, does the hon. member agree with me that the project would not only be useless, but could even cause harm? A number of Russian oligarchs have interests in Canadian oil companies and in some of the companies that produce materials that could be used to build the gas pipeline.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/3/22 4:14:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. It is difficult to know who is investing in what in the Canadian economy. However, there are other measures we can take if we find that some people, like Russian oligarchs, are profiting in a bad way from a project in Canada. The government also has other measures to deal with such dangers, such as the Sergei Magnitsky Law. The identity of business owners is a complex matter. I think we need to separate the two questions because, if we do not, it becomes far too complicated. However, we have laws at our disposal that could apply in such a situation.

108 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mar/3/22 4:15:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, clearly this motion is not really focused on the urgent needs of Ukrainians. Today the minister made some announcements about immigration measures for Ukrainians. I wonder whether the member would agree that extending those same measures, such as family sponsorship reunification, to Afghans as well as Ukrainians would be a step in the right direction. Similarly, it could be extended to those in Hong Kong suffering in the humanitarian crisis.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/3/22 4:15:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot comment on all of those examples. There are multiple examples in the world. Each situation can be different and each requires a different, sometimes only a slightly different, response. It is an interesting question. I have total confidence in the Minister of Immigration, the work that he is doing and the decisions he is making at the moment.

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/3/22 4:16:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition motion. I am sure nobody will be surprised by this, but I regret to inform the House so early on that I will not be supporting this opposition motion. This motion we have before us has nothing to do with Ukraine. This is a motion about pipelines. It is extremely unfortunate the Conservative Party of Canada would bring a motion to this House about pipelines under the guise of trying to be supportive of Ukraine. This is so glaringly obvious to me, because nobody would every disagree with the first two clauses of this motion. I do not think there is a Canadian out there who does not realize the vast majority of Canadians stand with Ukraine right now. There is no one who follows politics closely, or even remotely follows politics, who does not realize that every party in this House supports the Ukrainian people, supports what they are fighting for and condemns Vladimir Putin. The first two clauses in this motion are moot because we already passed unanimous consent motions of this support. We already talked about the different things we can be doing in Ukraine to make the situation there better and to properly support Ukraine as it is going through this extremely difficult time. It all comes down to the third clause in this motion, which is a clause about pipelines. It would have been much more genuine had the Conservatives just shown up here today and said that they had a motion about pipelines, presented their motion saying that they want more pipelines, like they do so often in this House, and just called it for what it was. Instead, Conservatives come in with this motion with these two additional clauses in it to somehow suggest that this has to do with Ukraine. This is just wedge politics they are doing right now. It is feeding to their base, which is so dead set on oil being the only solution. We listened to what the Conservatives said today about energy security. They talk about energy as though oil is the only option for energy. They use the terms energy and oil interchangeably because they see oil as being the only option when it comes to energy. I will talk about this motion in the context of it being a motion about pipelines. Let us just assume for a second that that was genuinely what the Conservatives wanted, that they came in here to talk about pipelines. It does not make any sense even from a pipeline perspective. The Conservatives keep talking about these new pipelines and the eastern European countries, and the other countries, that will supposedly be saved by them, but why is it that Conservatives think Europe wants to transfer its dependency from one third country to another third country? They do not want to do that. As a matter of fact, the European commissioner for energy, Kadri Simson, said that the Russian invasion made their vulnerability painfully clear. She stated, “We cannot let any third country destabilize our energy markets or influence our energy choices.” We have the energy commissioner for the European Union saying they do not want to be dependent on any third country for their energy sources, but then we have the Conservatives coming in here and saying that we need to build pipelines so we can make them dependent on us. The same commissioner for energy for the European Union said that they had to be “boosting renewables and energy efficiency as fast as technically possible.” Even if the European Union was looking to diversify and get some of this oil, even though the commissioner said it is not, it is not interested in oil as a source of energy. It is interested in renewables. That is what it is saying. Even if the Conservatives are coming from a well-intentioned place on this and really thought that these pipelines were about the security of Europe, those in Europe are telling us that they are not interested in them. They do not want to be dependent on another country and they are very much interested in looking for a very fast transition to renewables. That is not to mention the fact that building these pipelines will cost billions of dollars and will take years to complete. Europe has made it clear that it is comfortable with its current reserve situation for this winter, but has to start looking toward next winter. It has also made it clear that it is not interested in being dependent on another country, and that it is interested in renewables as a form of energy as quickly as possible. Most of the western world is on board with this and understands it, the European energy commissioner knows this, four parties in the House know this and I would say the vast majority of Canadians know this, yet somehow the Conservatives come in here and are completely unaware of it. I am left wondering why they are doing this. Why do they think they need to put this forward? Do they genuinely think this is plausible? Let us remember that the European Union has said it is not interested and this will take years to build and a lot of money. Why are they doing this? Is it just to shore up their base and prove to their base that they are fighting for oil and gas? That is the only thing I can conclude as the motivation for bringing forward such a motion today. In conclusion, I will say that I am more than willing to tell my Conservative colleagues across the way, all members of the House and all Canadians that I am not interested in pipelines. I am certainly not interested in the government subsidizing pipelines. I do not think there is a role anymore in this day and age for the Government of Canada to be subsidizing pipelines. Does that mean I am completely naive to the amount of oil we use? No, I am not. I am fully aware that to make the vast majority of the products in this room, if not all, we used oil, whether directly or indirectly. I am also aware that the technologies we need to be investing in and subsidizing are those that provide options to make these products differently so we can put different things into the various products we are currently making out of oil. This is the default reaction from the Conservatives all the time. They always say that we need oil and that we will not be getting off oil tomorrow. I get that, I agree with that, I understand that and I am not dismissing it at all. However, I am saying that my personal opinion is that oil is not the solution long term. When we talk about building pipelines, we are talking long term. We are interested in 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. There will always be a dependency on some form of oil or gas and I get that, but hopefully not the degree of dependency we have today. We need to move away from this. I surely do not support this motion, and I think it is shameful that the Conservatives are using a crisis on the other side of the world to promote their agenda.

1242 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Mar/3/22 4:26:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the NATO group will be meeting this summer in Madrid to update its strategic concept. A decade ago, the Europeans tried to have energy security incorporated into the strategic concept then. Would the member be willing to ask the defence minister to push to have energy security included as part of the new strategic concept that is going to be discussed and adopted in Madrid in June this year?

71 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/3/22 4:26:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was not aware that NATO was going to do that, but if, as the member is saying, NATO is going to talk about energy security as it relates to each individual NATO country, I think it is an incredibly important conversation to have. We know that what has motivated so much of the invasion that is going on right now is oil: the consumption of oil and the need for it. That has also limited, in many regards, the response from certain countries, because they do not have full autonomy. If NATO is going to go down the lane of having those discussions about energy security for independent nations or NATO nations, I think it is an incredibly important conversation to have, and if the minister was seeking my input on it, I would certainly encourage her to have those conversations.

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Mar/3/22 4:27:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will take several years to build gas and oil pipelines to Europe. Also, in any case, oil and gas are energies of the past. Hydroelectricity, solar power, wind power and other clean energies are the future. Can we not agree that, if we really want to help people in Ukraine and our European friends, we should send them energies of the future and not the old stuff, which is already not working and will work even less in four, five or ten years?

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/3/22 4:28:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree 100% that this is what we should be doing. Do members know where some of the real leadership is in Canada with respect to renewable energies? It is in Alberta. Alberta's renewable energy sector has outpaced the fossil fuel industry for almost a decade now, or at least seven or eight years, but some people do not want that to happen. I totally agree with the member from the Bloc that this is the way of the future. If we really want to help Europe, we will need to help contribute to that energy security conversation that the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke brought up, because at the end of the day, I think that is where we are going to go with this. We can be leaders in renewable energy. We can be leaders in developing and building the technology. We can export that knowledge and can export that leadership if we seize it now. Otherwise, we will just be taking it from other countries as they develop it.

177 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mar/3/22 4:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that this is a fairly cynical debate. We should be focused on humanitarian aid. I want to point out that it is time for us to make a global shift, as he mentioned, to green and renewable energy. Russia is a petrostate where oil and gas make up 60% of exports. This gives Putin great leverage and allows him to make heating costs for people in Europe much more expensive by restricting the flow of exports. This causes gas prices to rise and hurts consumers. Not only is decarbonization crucial in the fight against climate change, but it robs autocrats like Putin and rulers of places like Saudi Arabia of their power and leverage. Does my hon. colleague agree that we have no time to waste in making this shift and that the planet, world peace and our security depend on it?

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/3/22 4:30:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I totally agree that we have no time to waste and that we need to do this as quickly as possible. To the member's other comment, I think Vladimir Putin knows that too, and I think he realizes that every day, every week and every year that goes by, as we get closer and closer to a permanent shift away, he loses that power. I think he has seized his opportunity now because he still retains some of that power. In 10, 15 or 20 years from now, that might not exist and he will be a lot less powerful.

103 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Mar/3/22 4:31:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Slava Ukraini. Heroyam slava. This translates to “Glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes.” As Canadians, we are united in our disgust and opposition to Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war in Ukraine and the mounting loss of innocent life. We are deeply sympathetic to the struggle of Ukraine’s people for we understand Russia’s military assault is an attack on our own freedoms. This war threatens Europe’s stability. It could be ruinous to the rules-based multilateral system that has existed since 1945, which Canada helped create, and is the basis for our shared prosperity. We support President Zelensky’s courageous leadership, as well as the heroic counterpunch of the Ukrainian army and civilians who have taken up arms to defend their way of life, a way of life that is similar to our own here in Canada. We are awestruck by the defiance of Ukrainians in the face of Russia’s military might and their willingness to fight, whatever the cost. Canada must continue to stand with Ukraine. Indeed, the Government of Canada has responded quickly, in conjunction with our allies the United States and Europe, to Putin’s aggression in eastern Europe. Humanitarian and military aid has been promised and provided to Ukraine, punishing economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia and soldiers have been positioned along NATO’s eastern front. As well, the federal government has responded to calls for more action. I, along with many others Conservatives on Saturday, called for the closing of Canadian airspace to Russian air carriers, as our European allies had done. Ottawa soon did, and on Tuesday night Washington closed U.S. airspace to Russian air carriers. We also insisted that Kremlin-controlled Russia Today television, which broadcasts Russian state propaganda, be removed from Canada’s airwaves. That too happened after Canada’s telecoms acted. After pressure mounted to end Russian oil imports to Canada, the federal government also decided it would ban crude oil imports to our country. This was a symbolic first step since Canadian refineries had not purchased Russian crude since 2019. However, last year’s petroleum imports from Russia totalled approximately $350 million. The Liberals corrected their omission mid-week by including refined petroleum products to the oil ban. This is all necessary work, but it is not enough. Putin continues to push westward without fear of the consequences. Thus, it is necessary to realize that sanctions do not win wars. Soldiers and citizens with weapons do. What we are witnessing in Ukraine is the attempted overthrow and brutal destruction of an independent nation state. As we engage in this debate, I know that in churches, train stations and home basements across Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are praying for peace as the sounds of sirens ring out warning of more Russian air strikes. Hospitals, playgrounds and even Babyn Yar, the Holocaust memorial site, have been hit by indiscriminate missile attacks. It is all sickening. Canada must do more to help our Ukrainian friends and allies. It was in this vein that after Crimea was illegally seized by Putin, the previous Conservative government took military steps in 2015 to better arm and train our allies in Ukraine through Operation Unifier. Today, Ukraine should be provided arms and the financial resources to purchase weapons, especially to destroy tanks and aircraft. As well, Canada should move quickly to grant asylum to Ukrainian refugees fleeing Russian aggression just as we did in 1956 when Hungary was occupied by the Soviets, but we must also recognize that what Ukrainians want foremost is arms, not sanctuary. Indeed, when the U.S. government asked President Zelensky if he wanted to be evacuated from his country to avoid being captured or, worse, killed by Russian soldiers, he replied, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” Ukrainians are asking for help to fight Russians and Canada should not hesitate a moment to provide them with whatever weapons they need to protect their home and fight the Russian military. Here at home, there are more ways for Canada to help. Canada’s natural resources, our abundant gas and oil reserves, as well as minerals, should be mobilized to help Europe escape its dependence on Russia and China. This dependence weakens Europe in the face of Moscow’s aggression and ensures Russia a large market for its resources controlled by its oligarchs. The west must not continue Angela Merkel’s failed legacy a moment longer. Building Canada’s energy east pipeline to Saint John could have helped offset Europe’s dependence on Russian oil. The Alberta-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline could have ended U.S. dependence on Russian oil. This would have made Russia poorer and weaker. Scuttling these pipelines were policy choices made in Ottawa and Washington, with significant geopolitical consequences. They should be reversed. Canada also is not able to ship our country’s abundant natural resources overseas. We are a trading nation. We have oil and gas to export, but we lack the means to do so. It is past time to build pipeline infrastructure to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and commit to being a reliable energy partner with Europe. The federal government must do whatever it can to advance Newfoundland and Labrador’s LNG export plans. This is because Putin’s ability to cut off Europe from natural gas has strengthened Russia and weakened Europe. Canada can contribute mightily to this strategic challenge with our abundant natural resources, but this will mean ending our federal government’s assault on Canada’s hydrocarbons. Off the coast of Atlantic Canada, we can also do more. Canada and its partners must eject Russia from the executive management of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Russia should not be allowed to oversee the management of waters on the Grand Banks. No country should expect to benefit from or set economic agreements around the world, like lucrative fishing grounds, when it is smashing a nation elsewhere. Canada is not at war with Russia, but lessons from Ukraine must be applied to our own sovereignty. It is increasingly clear that unfriendly nations do not recognize borders and are willing to act without fear of consequence. Putin has already moved to claim wide swaths of our Arctic territory as his own, including parts of the seabed in Canada’s north. The vast Arctic Archipelago and surrounding waters, along with its many natural resources, are part of Canada’s sovereign territory. To be ready, we must fix our military procurement strategy. Russia has 40 icebreaking vessels that can operate year round. Russia is building an Arctic navy. Meanwhile, Canada can barely patrol our vast Arctic waters year round with a single vessel. We must also quickly modernize NORAD’s early northern warning system and purchase F-35 jets to patrol ours and allies' skies. President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and illegal war against Ukraine is a wake-up call for Canada. We must assist Ukraine. We must aid Europe. We must be ready to defend our north. We must be capable of asserting our sovereignty. I stand with Ukraine and believe Canada must help with every resource at our disposal. Slava Ukraini. Heroyam slava.

1243 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 40