44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/1/22 2:49:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, Anie Samson, the former vice-chair of the City of Montreal's executive committee and now the head of public safety, said, “There is concern about the fate of our criminals in prison, when at the same time there are hundreds of families mourning the loss of a loved one.”
If the Liberals continue with their reckless strategy, even massive injections of money from the provinces to crack down on guns will be ineffective. If Bill C‑5 is passed, Canadian communities will no doubt see an increase in violence.
Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for that?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:51:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is trying to play both sides.
We are talking about Bill C-5 and he is talking about Bill C-21, but what is clear is that Quebecker Anie Samson told the committee that “a criminal who uses an illegal firearm, regardless of their [ethnic] origin, is still a criminal. It would be incomprehensible to let criminals use firearms to kill, rob or threaten people without worrying about having to face the same consequences as other criminals”.
The Prime Minister, with the complicity of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, would rather play petty politics than keep Canadian communities safe.
Does the Prime Minister realize the negative impact that Bill C-5 will have?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, by happy coincidence, I recently returned from a four-day stay in Vilnius, Lithuania, where I attended a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that included discussions about whether or not to bring Finland and Sweden into NATO. My speech this evening could therefore not be more timely for me.
The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has tabled its fourth report. We are debating concurrence in that report and, specifically, two important points, the two recommendations in the report: expressing our strong support for Finland and Sweden's NATO membership, as Finland and Sweden are among NATO's closest partners; and calling on all NATO members to approve their application for NATO membership as quickly as possible.
I am happy to speak to this topic in the House today and to express my support for the committee's recommendations. I will also talk about comments on the subject that were made during the meetings in Lithuania.
The admittance of Finland and Sweden to NATO has long been debated. We heard arguments from Matti Vanhanen, Speaker of the Eduskunta Riksdag, Finland's parliament, and Andreas Norlén, Speaker of the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament. First of all, it is important to note that Finland and Sweden formally submitted their application for NATO membership on May 18, 2022. During the speeches from the Speakers of the Finnish and Swedish parliaments, the message was very clear: Both countries are formally asking to become NATO members. In recent decades, they have not wanted to be militarily involved and have always chosen to maintain their independence. However, with Russia's sudden violent aggression towards Ukraine, both countries see that they really have no choice. They felt an urgent need to ask to join NATO.
As my colleagues know, Canada has been a member of NATO for 73 years. Canada is a founding member. The most important article of the North Atlantic Treaty is article 5. That article deals with collective defence and states that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against them all. Considering what is going on right now, Sweden and Finland realize this. They really understand the importance for their respective countries to be part of a group like NATO.
I feel compelled to point out that there have been times over the past few years when some have questioned NATO's relevance. The former U.S. president questioned it. In the end, what the former U.S. president was doing was more about rattling the organization. I know this from experience, having attended several NATO meetings over the past few years. It was a way of rattling the organization, telling everyone to wake up, to invest more in defence and to be prepared. Indeed, one never knows what might happen. This was proven on February 24 with Russia.
That is why Finland and Sweden are applying for membership. Finland is especially anxious to join, because it borders directly on Russia for just over 1,000 kilometres. The two countries could not be any closer together. Finland is a country that has always managed to preserve its sovereignty through military means by maintaining a strong military posture. However, having seen what is happening in Ukraine, the Finns realized that NATO membership would give their country a major strategic advantage. It would give them additional security guarantees.
It is sad for Ukraine, but this explains why we are here today: For many years, Ukraine has been asking to join NATO, but it has never been admitted. The decision has always been put off. The same goes for joining the European Union, although that is a European issue. When it comes to NATO, Ukraine never managed to get in, despite what happened with Crimea in 2014 and then what followed this year, despite Russia's microaggressions and the fact that Ukrainians were scared. NATO did not accept their application.
Everyone knows that it is impossible to admit Ukraine now because it is at war. This would automatically become a war for NATO. This is a complicated issue, but unfortunately, that is how things stand for Ukraine. That is why Finland and Sweden quickly held a vote in their respective parliaments. They demonstrated that they had the necessary capabilities, and they provided proof. That is why they are calling on NATO and the member countries to admit them.
The other advantage for NATO, and for Canada in particular, is the geographical location of Finland and Sweden. Norway is already a NATO member, but having Sweden and Finland as NATO partners in the Arctic region is extremely appealing and important to Canada. These two large Arctic countries could work with Canada, the United States and Norway for NATO-style mutual protection.
When it comes to admitting new members, consensus among the 30 existing members is a problem. Turkey has already expressed significant concerns about allowing Sweden and Finland to join. When I was in Vilnius on the weekend, I spoke to three colleagues who agreed that this was a problem. Allow me to explain why.
Al Jazeera reported that Turkey's foreign minister is demanding that Finland and Sweden amend their laws, if needed, to win Ankara's backing in their historic bid to join NATO, threatening to veto an expansion of the alliance. Echoing recent comments by President Erdogan, minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said on Tuesday that Turkey, which has been a NATO member for seven decades, would not lift its opposition to the two Nordic countries' accession unless its demands were met.
The reason is that Ankara, Turkey's capital, is accusing both countries of harbouring people linked to groups it deems to be terrorists, including the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK for short, and takes issue with their decision to halt arms exports to Turkey in 2019. Turkey is demanding that Finland and Sweden end their support for the PKK and other groups, bar them from organizing events on their territory, extradite individuals sought by Turkey on terrorism charges, support Turkey's counterterrorism military operations and resume arms exports.
Clearly, geopolitics has always been complex, and the current NATO situation is no exception. The vast majority of NATO members want to bring Finland and Sweden into the fold, but for its own reasons, which are largely related to domestic terrorism, one member has issues with that.
That is why the Conservatives are very much in favour of these two countries joining NATO, but we also have to understand where Turkey is coming from, so the government needs to make an effort to find a diplomatic solution that will satisfy the Turks and expedite the process of bringing these two countries into our great organization.
It is complicated. At the end of the day, I would not like what is currently happening in Ukraine to happen in Finland, for example, because there is no telling what Vladimir Putin might do. He might suddenly decide to send some tanks into Finland for fun because that country is not a member of NATO. It would be easy because the two countries share a 1,000‑kilometre border.
What happened in Ukraine must not happen anywhere else. We must work on getting the Turks to soften their stance and find a way to get along. That is a role our government can play.
Based on my experience at the meetings with my colleagues, I realize that it is easy for us, as Canadians, to form an opinion on what is happening in Europe and to tell other countries that they should do this or that. However, while I was over there, colleagues from every European country told me that the dynamics are different and that we need to understand that.
The role Canada can play is the one it has always played: using diplomacy to find a way to help the different European countries get along in a Canadian way.
1332 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:23:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, this membership will strengthen our collective ability to address threats, for example in the Arctic. By having Finland and Sweden as NATO partners, we will be politically and militarily united under the NATO umbrella. They are two major partners. In addition, Sweden and Finland are countries with very efficient and well-equipped armies. These partners will also be able to participate in NATO missions, as we are currently doing in Latvia or as our other partners are doing in Lithuania. The Swedes and the Finns will be able to participate with us as members of NATO.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:26:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague for her good and long question.
As I mentioned in my speech, from what I and my other NATO colleagues can tell, at present, there is virtually unanimous support for the principle of admitting Finland and Sweden. The only exception is Turkey, for the reasons that I mentioned.
What is Canada's role? Given the war in Ukraine and the supply of gas, which could become problematic for those cutting ties with Russia, I noticed that several European countries have their own problems. Countries are nervous about the issue of supply. For example, Hungary told the European Union yesterday that it did not agree with imposing new sanctions because it wants to protect itself. I believe that Europe is currently under stress.
As Canada is somewhat removed, it has a diplomatic role to play. It is up to our government to intervene with the best possible diplomacy, which I hope it can do, by talking with Turkey and finding ways to calm the waters and ensure the consensus of NATO countries.
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:28:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was not in government then, but to my knowledge, the Conservative government at the time spent more on international aid.
That 2% target is part of what NATO expects of its members. Of that 2%, 20% is used to purchase military equipment. I think we can make a pretty good case right now for why we need to be ready. With guys like Putin invading Ukraine, we need to make sure our armed forces are ready and supplied with state-of-the-art equipment. At the moment, Ukraine is able to fight Putin and the Russian army because it has been supplied with cutting-edge equipment, which is taking a toll on the Russian invaders.
If we want peace, we must prepare for war.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
