SoVote

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/1/22 8:27:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on a question that I asked earlier this evening of the member's colleague. He talked about how the spending on ODA is lower now under the current administration than it had been under the previous administration. In fact, under the previous administration, it was 0.26% of GNI. Now, with COVID, we are still at the disgustingly low number of about 0.31%. Why are the Conservatives so eager to invest 2% in NATO and defence spending but are so unwilling to invest in international development, humanitarian aid and peace-building? Would the member agree that it would be useful to tie international development spending, ODA spending, to defence spending? It would be 2% on one side and 2% on the other side. Would he agree with that?

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

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

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/1/22 8:29:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Sweden's and Finland's membership in NATO. I will share my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Like my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I recently got back from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly session in Lithuania, where this issue got a lot of airtime. In addition to what my colleague shared about what we learned, certain remarks and comments really made an impression. Something that Viktorija Cmilyte-Nielsen, the speaker of the Seimas, Lithuania's parliament, said really stuck with me. She asked us if, given their proximity to Russia, the Baltic countries would have the resilient democracy and flourishing economy they enjoy today if they were not members of NATO. Lithuania, where the meeting took place, is sandwiched between Belarus and the increasingly militarized enclave of Kaliningrad. We have to wonder if it would be as secure as it currently is without its NATO membership. Similarly, granting NATO membership to Finland and Sweden really would afford them additional security in light of Russia's recent aggression in Ukraine. We know that Finland and Sweden already meet the basic criteria for NATO membership. They have healthy democracies, the ability to make a military contribution to the alliance and viable economies. These two countries would also bring a strategic military contribution in the Baltic Sea region, which we would not want to see fall into Russian hands for all intents and purposes, jeopardizing the Baltic states. These countries had decreased military investments in the past, but for obvious reasons they are starting to make renewed efforts in that area. Although Finland has only 12,000 professional soldiers, it trains 20,000 conscripts a year, giving it additional strike force and the ability to quickly build up an army of 280,000 people, plus 600,000 reservists. The country wants to increase its defence budget by 40% by 2026. Finland already has a fleet of 55 F-18 aircraft, which are supposed to be replaced by American F-35s soon, and it has 200 tanks and 1,700 artillery pieces. Sweden has an army of about 50,000 soldiers. Compulsory military service, which had been abolished in 2010, was brought back in 2017. Sweden had decreased its investments in defence in recent years but has reversed this trend, with defence spending now at 2.6% of its GDP. When we were in Vilnius, we also had the pleasure of meeting with Ukrainian parliamentarians. We asked them a few times how they felt knowing that Finland and Sweden's application to join would probably be dealt with quickly, while Ukraine, for its part, still has not managed to finalize its membership, despite the promise made to the country in 2008 at the Bucharest summit. They said that it obviously bothered them to be somewhat sidelined, but they hoped that Finland and Sweden could quickly join the alliance. Ukraine knows that eventually it will have to become a member too. It knows that membership is currently not within reach, since it is at war. The Ukrainian parliamentarians told us that time has always been a factor at any point in history, especially recently. In 2008, Ukraine was not admitted into the alliance. If the process had been quicker, things might not be where they are today. The same is true when it comes to the military equipment being sent to Ukraine: Every day that goes by is another day that costs a lot of money. Ukraine has a monthly budgetary deficit of $35 billion and the war could cost at least $100 billion. The longer it goes on, the worse it will be. Every time we want to help Ukraine, we must also consider the fact that we must train the people who will be using the military equipment provided. A bit of predictability will help them. For Ukraine to eventually join NATO, there also needs to be a long-term vision. Ukraine is telling us that it may need the equivalent of a Marshall plan to rebuild and get its infrastructure up and running again. It will need psychological support for the women and children assaulted by Russian soldiers. It will need a great deal of help to clear mines, because the Russians unfortunately left behind what they call “gifts”, booby-trapped toys and cars, and mines buried in fields. We know that Ukraine is a major grain producer. Ukraine will need our help quickly. In a way, what I hope will result from this evening's debate, is that we think about the urgency of the situation. In 2008, we collectively missed an opportunity. We promised Ukraine that it could join NATO, but it was not even offered a road map for joining, in other words, the action plan that must be put in place. Ukraine has unfortunately been forced to take a step back because of the war. It will have to rebuild in order to be able to meet the criteria of a vibrant democracy with the potential for military support. Unfortunately, it will have served as a practice ground of sorts for war for the west. Ukraine now has a great deal of knowledge about how Russia wages war. It will therefore need support to rebuild and then join NATO, and when it does, it will become an invaluable resource for that organization. The Ukrainian parliamentarians also told us that the end of this war, a war that hopefully Ukraine will have won, might not be the end of aggressions. We can expect another incursion from Russia, another attempt at aggression. Where will that happen? No one knows. However, it will be important to have as many actors as possible involved at that time. As I said earlier, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament wondered what would have happened to the Baltic states if they had not joined NATO. That is something we have to keep in mind if we want a strong west and resilient democracies. Part of NATO's mission is to ensure that democracy is healthy everywhere. This includes better protection of the Baltic Sea and NATO membership for Sweden and Finland. I hope that the message we all take away this evening is that there is absolutely no time to lose, generally speaking, whether we are talking about the military support that we are currently giving to Ukraine, support for future rebuilding efforts, or support for its future membership in NATO, as is now the case with Sweden and Finland. In that context, we must remember that this is also important for the entire western world and democracy. During one of the summit's video conferences, the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association reminded the Ukrainian defence minister that the war currently being fought in Ukraine is everyone's war. This is a war on democracy, and I think we need all the allies we can get. I hope that is the message we will retain tonight.

1177 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 8:38:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this evening I have been asking questions relating to economic alliances versus military and other types of alliances. The member from the Bloc has given us a good intervention tonight. There were questions from the Bloc about Turkey's involvement in all of this, so maybe I could ask her about this. The trade between Russia and Turkey is significant. I think Turkey is the fourth-largest export market for Russia. Turkey also does a lot of work with Russia. Could the member comment on the need for economic ties between Turkey and western democracies to increase in order to bring Turkey back into the alliance militarily?

109 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/1/22 8:39:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would need a good 10 minutes to answer that question, but I will give it a shot. The situation with Turkey is unique. It is wavering for reasons that are understandable, in a way. Turkey may have lost some trust in its NATO allies. The United States, for example, used Kurdish soldiers in their war in Syria, which was an affront to Turkey. Since Turkey purchased weapons from Russia in 2019, the U.S. removed Turkey from the F-35 program. In response to Turkey's intervention in Syria, Finland and Sweden stopped selling it weapons. Turkey is therefore generally distrustful. It is also heading into an election soon, with inflation rates exceeding 70%, according to official figures, and the actual figures are likely much higher than that. Turkey is extremely distrustful. We probably need to take a hard line and threaten it with sanctions, while also providing motivation by rebuilding economic ties to help Turkey regain confidence and to secure its support for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. This needs to be done quickly. With respect to the ratification, we cannot forget that each country individually—

192 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/22 8:41:03 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would like to give her five minutes, but that would not be very fair. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

29 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/1/22 8:41:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I will not be speaking French because it is too difficult to talk about NATO in French. The member spoke about the initial invasion in 2008 and how we need to act to ensure that the escalation we have been seeing since February 24 does not continue. In the member's opinion, what are some of the other steps we can take to ensure that what we do now does not result in a further invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in another six years?

91 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/1/22 8:41:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I get the impression that there is absolutely nothing we can do to guard against a Russian invasion. These invasions are often irrational and are becoming increasingly illogical. Apparently some close to President Putin are starting to very much question the strategy. In a context where prevention is not possible, we must nevertheless be prepared for attacks, hence my point on the resilience we must restore in Ukraine when it comes to its infrastructure. That requires funding, but also support for countries that want to join NATO, such as Finland and Sweden, which could contribute to defence on the front lines with Russia.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Jun/1/22 8:42:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's quite forthright talk about the challenge that Ukraine had in joining NATO so many years ago. Our colleague asked a question on Turkey, and we now see challenges for Finland and Sweden and the steps that need to be taken along those lines. I am wondering if the member could talk a little more about that, because both of these countries are basically Arctic countries and are very much affiliated with and close to Canada. What steps can we as Canadians take to further encourage that and encourage Turkey to further support them?

101 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/1/22 8:43:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that the debate we are having this evening is in some small way part of the solution. We have a consensus on the membership of Finland and Sweden. Given that Finland and Sweden meet NATO's admission criteria, I believe that we are sending Turkey the message that it will be accountable for its actions if it votes “no”. There is no reason to do so other than purely personal reasons. Turkey is trying to successfully navigate a situation that is difficult for the country, but it is not doing so for the right reasons. It is not doing so for reasons related to article 10 of the Washington Treaty on accession to NATO. It may have to answer for that.

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/1/22 8:44:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to speak after my colleague from Saint-Jean. We can see how knowledgeable she is about this file. Although it would be impossible for me to match her presentation, I will try my best. I just want to say that having this debate tonight is a good thing. It has been quite some time since we have had a debate where the five parties in the House, and I imagine that this is also the case for the Greens, all agree. We can really feel it. Yes, there are some details that will have to be worked out, but I believe that everyone here is ready to work together on that. It is fantastic, because this has not happened for a long time. Unfortunately, it took a war to get everyone to agree. That is not as pleasant, but I will get back to my speech. I think that the debate over allowing a new country to join NATO will be the hot topic of 2022. There was the west's dithering over Ukraine's future in NATO. Vladimir Putin may have used that as an excuse, but we are learning. I join all of my hon. colleagues in welcoming Sweden and Finland to our alliance. Based on what I have heard tonight, it is pretty clear that everyone agrees on this. A number of people expressed doubts about this alliance recently. Now it is hard to question why it exists. It is more relevant than ever, especially in the face of a rogue state that is disrupting the world order we have been working to build for the past 30 years. NATO now serves as an umbrella organization for our allies to guarantee the safety of Europe, the Atlantic and, as my Conservative colleague mentioned, soon enough the Arctic. The two membership applications that were submitted come from allies to Quebec and Canada. These countries are objective allies of NATO and of our interests in the Far North. Their application also serves as a powerful message against Putin's authoritarianism and the warmongering policies of his Kremlin. I say that it is his Kremlin, because it certainly does not reflect the people of Russia. Traditionally, Finland and Sweden have been non-aligned countries. For more than 75 years, they have held fast to their neutrality—all through the Cold War, the fall of the USSR and the realignment of world powers. Setting aside this policy of neutrality is not insignificant. It is evidence of how serious the situation is and how important it is for countries bordering the Russian behemoth to ensure their security and safety. Considering the recent history and geopolitics of the region, it is clear that this is a legitimate and well-founded concern. Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said it better than I can. She says that everything changed when Russia attacked Ukraine. She personally thinks that no one can assume a peaceful future on Russia's borders. In her opinion, joining NATO is an act of peace so that there will never be another war in Finland. The Swedish Prime Minister also sums it up well. To paraphrase her words, the best way to ensure the security and safety of the Swedish people is to join NATO with Finland. When I hear these women say they want to join us, to join NATO, I have no choice but to listen. We all have to listen. To the south of us, the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, also said that the United States supports Sweden's and Finland's applications. This is a strong endorsement that reaffirms my position and that of my political party. We must allow Sweden and Finland into our alliance. The truth is, they already have a foot in the door. There is no reason to oppose this, because it is what they want and they meet the conditions. More importantly, their troops have already been participating in NATO exercises for decades. If these two allies join, it would certainly be a historic event that will define the political dynamics of the region. Hopefully, this will be the case for a long time to come. Let us also hope that it will curb Vladimir Putin's madness. The strategy of accommodating Russia and pandering to its interests is well and truly over, and of course must never be repeated. Pressure on Russia is turning the tide in the war. The entire mobilization of the west for an independent, whole and sovereign Ukraine is our most powerful weapon. Dictators cannot imagine the power of unity. It is our duty to show them. Bringing more countries into NATO signals unity. Let us be a parliament that shows leadership on this front. There is a reason why I am talking about leadership. Too often, this government follows in other countries' footsteps. Consider my Conservative friends' 2021 motion on the Uighur genocide, which the Prime Minister and his cabinet abstained from voting on. I would actually like to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills once again for kindly allowing me to amend his motion in a gesture of solidarity with the Uighur people. Unfortunately, those on the other side of the House did not do likewise. When we requested an airlift for Ukrainian refugees, we were told it would happen soon, but it was not until April, a month after the war started, that an announcement was made. A month later, there were still no flights. The war has been going on for three months now, and there have been only three charter flights. This government has an international leadership problem. However, I have hope, because the government was quickly on board when Finland and Sweden asked to join NATO. We are here this evening because a motion was quickly moved by a government member. There is hope, then. Let us look at what was done in the past. It is not often that a sovereignist boasts about this country's former federalist prime ministers. There was Lester B. Pearson, a Liberal, who established peacekeeping. That is a fine example of leadership. I want to be fair towards my Conservative friends and so I will mention Brian Mulroney, who seized the opportunity after Montreal's mayor, Jean Doré, spoke out against the apartheid regime in South Africa. The mayor was the first person to declare that his city would boycott South Africa. Brian Mulroney followed suit as head of government and declared that Canadians would join the boycott. At first, Brian Mulroney had few allies, but he spoke to Great Britain and the United States. That is an example of international leadership. Now I am pleased to see that my friends in the government want to show leadership in the debate we are having this evening. I hope that this will continue, and I hope that it is not just lip service. I think that Canada does have a role to play in convincing Turkey not to stand in the way of Finland and Sweden joining NATO. It is vitally important for these two countries to become members of the alliance. Earlier, my colleague from Saint-Jean demonstrated the geopolitical importance of letting them join, given the message this would send to the rest of the planet, especially Russia. What goes for Russia goes for China as well. That too is important to note. By acting quickly, we are sending a message to Russia, China and the other dictatorships in the world that are currently violating the human rights of their own people. This would be a good way to show leadership, and I think that we are on the right track. That is why we are here in the House this evening and seeing some cohesion between all the parties. As I often say, when I get up in the morning, I see a little note on my bedside table that says, “Who do you work for?” I work for Quebeckers and for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. I know that my constituents value human rights, democracy and freedom. I will continue to work in support of these values for them, and I am pleased to see that everyone in the House is doing the same.

1388 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 8:53:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's comments on leadership had me reflecting on the notion of collaborative leadership and how Canada plays a role and has always played a role by collaborating and bringing countries together. I thought it might be interesting to have the Bloc's perspective on how leaders do not go it alone. Leaders do work with others and build on the strengths of the people around them in order to combine goals, such as we are doing in this discussion on NATO.

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/1/22 8:54:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Leaders cannot go it alone. What we need is multilateral action, which involves several countries working together at the same time. Leaders set an example, take the lead and inspire others to join in multilateral action. Based on what we are seeing this evening, I think Canada can be a leader and inspire others to join in. I only wish it had reacted the same way to the Uighur genocide that the current Chinese regime is committing.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Jun/1/22 8:55:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to both thank and congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Jean once again for the quality of his speech. He talked a lot about leadership. I would be remiss if I did not point out the leadership he showed some time ago in pushing for an airlift to bring refugees here. I say that with all the pride and honesty that comes with being a member of Parliament. We are all very pleased that three planes have arrived. As the saying goes, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We hope it is just the beginning. The member highlighted the fact that Canada has distinguished itself over the years by always being on the right side of history and in fact by leading the charge on the right side. One example that comes to mind is Mr. Pearson and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's efforts to fight apartheid, even though it upset our main allies, namely England and the U.S. The member spoke about leadership. What urgent action does he think the government should be taking to help the Ukrainian people?

190 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/1/22 8:56:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, and I sincerely thank him for his question. I am sad that he is not a member of my party, but perhaps that will happen one day. It is an important question. What should the government do for Ukraine? We must be realistic. Canada is not a military power. What can we do to get things moving, play a role and influence what is currently going on in Ukraine? First, we must help the refugees. Canada is a welcoming country, so we must make every effort to help them. At present, 200,000 Ukrainian refugees have applied for authorization to come to Canada. To date, about 100,000 applications have been approved, but the people are not arriving. Ukrainian mothers and their children have been authorized to come here. Unfortunately, these women have been living on their meagre savings for the past three months. They cannot afford the airfare. It is one thing to authorize people to come, but now they must get here one way or another. That is one thing we could do. In addition, through diplomacy, Canada should obviously gather as many allies as possible to ensure that Sweden and Finland join the NATO alliance.

210 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/1/22 8:57:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague cares deeply about people around the world. We have worked together on many files looking at human rights around the world. In fact, today we were on a panel looking at the atrocious war crimes that are being committed in Ethiopia in the Tigray region, and I am delighted to hear at least the words of the government, if not the actions, in support of Ukraine. However, I wonder if the member could comment on how he feels the government has sent a message, and what that message is, to other places around the world where dire humanitarian crises are happening and the government has not responded at all.

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/1/22 8:58:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, that is such an important question. Why was our response to the present conflict in Ukraine so rapid compared to other natural disasters and armed conflicts around the world? Right now, people are experiencing actual genocide. As a signatory to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, there are two things we must do when we know that genocide is occurring. We must either prevent it or punish those perpetrating it. What is happening right now in the Tigray is genocide. What is happening with the Uighurs is genocide. Many of us here voted in favour of the motion moved by my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona on the genocide in Ukraine, but when I wanted to move a motion barely three weeks ago calling on the House to unanimously condemn the Uighur genocide, the party in power rejected my motion. I am still upset about that.

154 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/1/22 8:59:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for North Island—Powell River. I want to begin my remarks tonight by stating unequivocally that the New Democratic Party supports Sweden and Finland in their bid for membership in NATO, and that New Democrats call on all NATO members to approve the application as quickly as possible to address the urgent situation that is facing both countries, including the very real threats made against both Sweden and Finland by the Russian Federation. New Democrats strongly believe in the legal right of self-determination and the right that all people must have to decide their own destiny within the international order. Self-determination is a core principle of international law. It is enshrined in the United Nations charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All countries must have the opportunity and independence to determine their own fates, and all democratically elected governments must decide what is in the best interests of their citizens. Clearly, the people of Sweden and Finland have decided that, as a result of the illegal war of aggression by the Russian Federation in Ukraine and the very clear indication that Vladimir Putin has no respect for national sovereignty, for multilateral institutions or for international law and order, the people of Sweden and Finland must do what they can to prevent their countries from being threatened further by the Russian Federation. Everyone in the House agrees that Sweden and Finland should be allowed to join NATO and that we should do what we can as parliamentarians to expedite that accession. I want to take some time today because, of course, since we all agree on this basic principle, we really have an obligation to look at how we got to this position. The illegal invasion and criminal war of aggression that Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation have inflicted upon the people of Ukraine since 2014, with obvious massive escalation of aggression since February 24 of this year, is why we are here today. Prior to the further invasion of Ukraine, support for NATO membership was around 20% to 30% in Sweden and Finland. Now, 76% of Finnish people support joining NATO. Very simply, Vladimir Putin and the aggression of the Russian Federation are responsible for escalating tensions in the region and leading Sweden and Finland to seek NATO membership. The war in Ukraine is horrifying and will have massive implications for all countries. The reports of Putin's war crimes against Ukrainians are appalling. We are hearing stories of children's toys being mined. We are hearing stories of such gross and horrific crimes against women and children that it makes my skin crawl. I welcomed yesterday's announcement by the government to inflict further sanctions on the Russian Federation. However, currently, we do not know how these decisions are being made, if these sanctions are being enforced or why they are taking so long to implement. I asked an Order Paper question recently on this exact issue, and the government response from the parliamentary secretary on foreign affairs was to say that the government could not share any information because it could not confirm that the information would be correct. As a parliamentarian, I cannot get the information I need to do my job because the current government cannot guarantee that it will be correct, so it will not give us any information. While properties, business assets and yachts are being seized by other countries, we have almost no information about what is happening in Canada. We know that the sanctions have been too slow and we know that they have been implemented too late. For example, why was Igor Makarov permitted to move $120 million out of Canada before he was added to the sanctions list? That $120 million was money that should have gone back to Ukraine to help build Ukraine. That was $120 million that should have gone to Ukrainians in Canada to help them settle in this country. We need a full review of Canada's sanctions regime. The last time the Parliament of Canada reviewed Canada's sanctions regime was five years ago, when the foreign affairs committee found it lacking in transparency and accountability. Why is it that Canadians do not know how sanctions are decided, how they are enforced or why the enforcement of the sanctions is so poor? I will be calling on the foreign affairs committee to review the government's implementation of the recommendations in the 2017 report on Canadian sanctions and assess the need for changes since then. We need this review. The government must do better when it comes to sanctions. I want to make another point about NATO. I want to reiterate that I support Sweden and Finland's bid to join NATO, but I want to talk about the bigger picture of how the global community must work together and how we must increase support for our multilateral institutions. Multilateralism is the most effective way we have to ensure peaceful global order. Ultimately, what is NATO? NATO is a defence and security alliance, and its purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means. As we have seen since February 24, there is a role for NATO to play. In fact, as Canada's Arctic becomes more accessible, we need greater protection in the north and we need to be a part of NATO, but we need to do more than invest in just security. We need to invest in peace. I have learned a great deal from my mentor, the honourable Douglas Roche. If he has taught me anything, it is that war is a failure to build peace in this world. War is never a solution that we can depend on. We always have to be pushing for peace. I have spoken to Doug about the need to develop a declaration on the right to peace. In 2012, the UN Human Rights Council began a study to draft a human right to peace. This is vital work that we need to be doing. As a species, we should be promoting peace as a basic human right, and I will continue to work with any member in the House who is interested in working towards that goal. What we need right now is dialogue, diplomacy and pluralism that puts the common global good at the forefront. Climate change, global health pandemics, food shortages and nuclear war are global challenges that will require global solutions. We need multilateralism to solve the biggest challenges facing humanity right now. We need United Nations reform. I know many people are working very hard on United Nations reform. We need to make sure the UN has a strong set of institutions that can protect all people and all countries. We need to look at the Security Council. The Russian Federation invaded Ukraine while they were chairing a Security Council meeting. What is the obligation of the United Nations General Assembly when the Security Council is no longer able to meet its mandate? What is the obligation of all the other countries in the world to stand up and say that it is not okay? We need to work to reform our multilateral institutions. We need to work to make sure that the investment we put into foreign security and into defence is echoed in our investment into diplomacy, our investment into peace and our investment into making sure that the world is fair and equitable for all people, regardless of which country they come from. We want to see stronger support from Canada for the International Criminal Court. We were glad to see Canada's decision to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court. We support the government's decision to send resources. I was proud to see the support going to prove that what is happening in Ukraine is genocide. Every member in the House supported my resolution on that. However, I have to say that Canada has a long history of picking and choosing when human rights matter, and a long history of deciding when the International Criminal Court is applicable and when it is not. I am shocked that Canada does not support the investigation into Israel and Palestine and what is happening there. This would look at crimes being committed by Israelis and Palestinians. Canada has to start playing a better role by being universal in its approach to human rights. This is a great place to start.

1434 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 9:09:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I think of Canadians, there is no doubt in my mind that the concept of world peace is a wonderful thing. There is no doubt that anything we can do to move in that direction is a positive thing. When we think of the NATO alliance and its important role, which has really been amplified because of what is taking place in Europe today, one of the greatest demands that came from Ukraine was getting lethal weapons. Over the years, Canada has been challenged to say that we need to increase our contribution to things such as lethal weapons by, it was suggested, 2%. I am very much interested in the member's thoughts regarding Canada's potential leadership role in investing that 2% of GDP.

129 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/1/22 9:10:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have many thoughts and I will not have time to get to them all, but here are a couple of them. Let us tie our defence spending to our humanitarian spending. As soon as the government is ready to spend 2% on humanitarian diplomacy and overseas development, I would be happy to see that spending go into our defence budget. The other thing we could do, at the very low bar, is send a delegation to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in Vienna, which is happening in June and which we still have not heard from the government on. There is so much we could be doing on peace. Trying to get a gotcha on the NDP on the 2% is a little gross, to be honest.

134 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 79