44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 20, 2024 02:00PM
- Mar/20/24 10:48:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to make one last comment. I understand that we all want to get to bed tonight. However, we have heard comments that I find worrisome, for example, when people say that if all parliamentarians are of one opinion or if all Canadians are of one opinion, other opinions should not be allowed. We nearly got to that point.
When there is an international conflict like the one between Ukraine and Russia or the one between Israel and Palestine, I think that all opinions should be heard in the House. The same thing goes for internal matters. All opinions should be heard. We are here to debate things. We might take offence. We can shout all we want, but no opinions on an international conflict should be considered unparliamentary.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 11:00:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I have the unenviable task, or should I say the privilege, of wrapping up this discussion. I believe I am the last speaker this evening, so I will try to keep it relatively brief.
We are here this evening to talk about the partnership between Canada and Ukraine, an agreement that seeks to reflect the values of solidarity, democracy and freedom. By signing the Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership, Ottawa is committing to supporting Ukraine in its fight to preserve its territorial integrity and its sovereignty.
Russia's attack on Ukraine, for which we recently marked the second anniversary, is indeed a war, despite the fact that Moscow calls it a “special military operation”. This attack is unacceptable and unjustifiable. Regardless of the reasons given by Moscow, which may or may not be legitimate, this war is unquestionably a tragedy. Is it an inevitable tragedy? One day we will have to take stock of the whole affair and ensure that history does not repeat itself.
The Japanese Zen Buddhist master Shunryu Suzuki once said that the cause of conflict is some fixed idea or one-sided idea. War is a clear sign that dialogue and diplomacy have failed. However, even when dialogue and diplomacy initially fail, they are exactly what can bring about an end to war. Let us hope that a lasting peace will emerge following a proper negotiation process.
This unjust war is even more tragic because Russia was born in Ukraine, when we think about it. Historically, Russia was born in Ukraine. Its rich culture, fascinating heritage and grandiose history owe an enormous debt to Ukraine. Let us hope that Moscow heeds the principles of Lao-tzu, the father of Taoism: “a large state, lowering itself, can win over a small one.... Large states want no more than to unite and nurture people. Small states want no more than to join with and serve people. To give both what they wish, therefore, the large state should lie low.”
This war has dramatically deepened the rift between Russia and the west, much to the delight of China, which has literally pounced on the Russian economy and geopolitics.
This war is also speeding up Ukraine's integration with the west. Afterwards, we will need to move forward cautiously, to avoid creating a world where new blocs exist in a state of latent, but permanent, confrontation. Such a world would be extremely dangerous. We need to stay cautious. Arrogance will lead nowhere in politics, either domestically or internationally.
As we understand it, the agreement before us aspires to establish greater co-operation and mutual support. It is meant to demonstrate a commitment to a safer and fairer future for everyone and to strengthen Canada's resolve in defending the fundamental principles that guide democratic societies.
In dealing with this conflict for two years, Ukraine, a courageous, resilient country, has risen to immense challenges. Since the conflict began in 2014, the people of Ukraine have shown an unwavering determination to protect their freedom and their right to self-determination.
This agreement seeks to go beyond mere military co-operation. It includes measures intended to strengthen Ukraine's security, stability and prosperity.
Under the agreement, Ottawa commits to supporting Ukraine, helping to rebuild the country and reinforcing Ukraine's defence capabilities. There is specific language about post-war commitments, which gives us an opportunity to dream of a not-so-distant future when combatants will have laid down their arms and taken up writing instead.
Industrial co-operation is important and the agreement contains a section on that. Still, most of the problems are known, but Canada is always slow to respond. Canada's lack of munitions production capacity is a known problem that is criticized by the defence staff, but Canada still has not increased its production of 155-millimetre artillery shells after two years of war. National Defence is also concerned about the cuts announced by the Liberals. Canada cannot always rely on the United States to have its back, especially when it has been so undisciplined on a host of geopolitical issues.
This agreement also deals with the fight against corruption, the promotion of the rule of law and the defence of human rights. We firmly believe that these values are essential to guarantee a better future for everyone, for all Ukrainians. This shows that Ukraine is serious about addressing the very real problems that have been plaguing the country for far too long.
Obviously, we have condemned the Russian attack from the start, but that must not make us lose sight of the magnitude of the challenge facing Ukraine when it comes to corruption and the treatment of significant minority groups within the country. We must not be blind to that. The situation in Ukraine and the country's track record are far from rosy in that regard. It was important to be serious and require real guarantees. By specifically mentioning these issues in the agreement, Kyiv is showing that it is not neglecting them, and that is a good thing.
In his monumental novel War and Peace, which was published serially between 1865 and 1869, the Russian literary giant Leo Tolstoy expounded a fatalistic vision of history. He attached little importance to free will, instead emphasizing the inevitable historical determinism that governs all events. He believed that human will ultimately matters very little. He was probably right, but we have a duty to at least do what we must.
In closing, I want to thank the people of Ukraine for their resilience and courage in the face of adversity. Together, we can build a better future for everyone, a peaceful future. Together, we can stand for freedom and peace.
958 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 11:09:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, it goes without saying that a dialogue might have been an option when the U.S.S.R. imploded, when several republics imploded, and the communist regime came to an end. Perhaps that would have been the time for those involved to reach out to one another properly and come up with a solution. Those were catastrophic years, during which the most aggressive and violent form of neo-liberalism was rammed down Russia's throat, bringing the country close to extinction. Production plummeted. The mafia took control; so did the oligarchs. Perhaps that is when the anti-western sentiment took root.
I think we will have to take a clear-eyed look at the situation and also accept that the west may have played a part in these divisions. Historically, Russia has always been a country marked by tension between western and Asian cultures, even though three-quarters of its territory is in Asia. There was Tsar Peter I, Peter the Great, who wanted to westernize Russia very quickly. As a country, it has seen a number of movements, with a wealth of literature and intellectuals associated with the Enlightenment. I think this dialogue will have to be rebuilt in due course. Let us also have the courage to look inward, at ourselves. We probably made mistakes, at crucial moments in history, and now Russia is extremely upset with us.
233 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 11:11:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I have to admit that the member's speech took some interesting turns. I am not exactly sure what to make of it. The member began his speech by saying that he was disappointed in the ending of my speech, in what I had not mentioned. It reminds of the expression “whataboutism”.
He said he was disappointed that I had not mentioned the war heroes. Okay, I will. I honour the heroes of the war and the people who served on the front lines. That said, I write my own speeches. If the member wants to write my speeches for me, great, it will save me some time. I have a speech to give tomorrow morning. He can write it for me, although I might have to rewrite some parts because we may not always agree. If he wants to write me a rough draft, I have no objections. My speech is at 11 o'clock in the morning; I look forward to getting his rough draft.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 11:13:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, just as an aside, I want to give credit where credit it due. My colleague explained his point to me and now I understand him better. I misunderstood. I do not think that he will be drafting my speech after all, so that is settled.
To answer my colleague's question, it goes without saying that this is a complicated geopolitical game. For example, we saw that the European Union decided to stop buying Russian oil and gas, but it was buying oil and gas from India, which was reselling Russian oil and gas at a higher price, so India was making a profit on the same oil and gas. That gets rather complicated. In this global trade game, whether in this case or any other, determining provenance can be complicated. Do we need to improve the mechanisms? Yes, but let us be careful not end up with a new world with blocs in constant rivalry. That could be a powder keg and a rather complicated situation.
I value dialogue. In this case, obviously, a war broke out. Sides have been chosen. We must put an end to it as quickly as possible, and the peaceful path is the best option. Diplomacy will undoubtedly be the only way out. In due course, however, we must take the time to reflect on a vision of the world that does not include rivalries resurfacing long after we thought we had left them behind.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 11:16:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would basically say that the position that we in the west, in democratic nations, have chosen to take is not necessarily shared by every country in the world.
Diplomacy still has its rights. If a country does not share our position, I do not think that is a reason to suspend diplomatic channels with that country. We have to continue to do business. We have to continue to engage in dialogue. We have to continue to have cultural, intellectual, political and various other exchanges. We have to continue to have relations with countries that do not share our position on this conflict. That goes without saying.
That strategy could well help us convince them over time, and it could be much more effective than a hostile approach.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
