SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 292 - Mar/20/24

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Mar/20/24 7:14:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, like my colleague from the Conservatives, I was at the foreign affairs committee this afternoon as we met with Ukraine's ambassador to Canada. One of the questions I asked her, which I will ask the member as he is a member of the government, was around the loopholes we see within our arms export regime. One thing that I think we all learned in November 2023 was that detonators were going through Kyrgyzstan and being used in Russian mines against Ukrainian people. The last thing I think Canadians want to know is that Canadian parts and components are being used in the very weapons that are being used against Ukrainians. The New Democrats have long called for the closing of loopholes within our arms regime, and the government has not taken steps to do that. Is there any plan from the government to stop the loopholes that allow dual-use goods to be made into the weapons being used against our allies?

165 words

Mr. James Maloney

Mar/20/24 7:15:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her continued support for Ukraine in this awful situation. Again, I was not at the committee this afternoon. However, Canada works day in and day out. The Prime Minister, the defence minister and the foreign affairs minister are in regular, daily contact with their counterparts in Ukraine to make sure the measures that need to be taken are taken, including closing loopholes and preventing the types of activities the member is talking about. I can assure her that the federal government is taking every step and leaving no stone unturned.

97 words

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

Mar/20/24 7:16:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the member made reference to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, an agreement that no doubt sends a very strong and powerful message to the world regarding Ukraine's solidarity movement. One of the big asks was how we could help Ukraine into the future. That is why the President of Ukraine came to Canada to meet with the Prime Minister. This trade agreement is more than just a physical agreement. There is another aspect to it that I think speaks to our special relationship and being there for Ukraine. I wonder if the member could expand upon the importance of that agreement.

105 words

Mr. James Maloney

Mar/20/24 7:17:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, it is now, it is tomorrow and it is into the future. When this war comes to an end, Ukraine is going to have to be rebuilt. Canada is there with Ukraine now and will be with it then. The free trade agreement is a step in that direction so we will be ready when the time comes. I speak to community members in Etobicoke—Lakeshore and across the country regularly, and they were enthused and excited and wanted to get this deal passed. Unfortunately, I spent more time answering these questions: Why is the opposition not supporting the free trade agreement? Why is the House not unanimously supporting the free trade agreement? I cannot account for others. All I can account for is our side of the House, and we are there and we will be there after this is over.

145 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Mar/20/24 7:17:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, it is a real pleasure tonight to have a few minutes to stand and talk about the relationship between Canada and Ukraine. The fact that the free trade agreement was passed yesterday is one of the additional symbolic things we can be doing to show our support for Ukraine. Once the world witnessed the brutal unprovoked attack on democracy, freedom and the rules-based international order when Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale attack on Ukraine, not many people believed that Ukraine's capital would stand strong longer than two or three days. However, two years later, it is clear that their remarkable strength, resilience and love for their country made Ukrainians known around the world as members of a nation of the brave, and Ukraine has become a symbol of a steadfast force. I am proud that Canada and our government stand alongside international partners with unwavering support for Ukraine. On the second anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, our Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy signed a new, historic agreement on security co-operation between Canada and Ukraine to establish a strategic security partnership. This agreement is intended to shore up Ukraine's security and outlines key, long-term security commitments for Canada to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and territorial integrity, protects its people and rebuilds its economy for the future. As part of that commitment, Canada will provide over $3 billion in critical financial and military support to Ukraine in 2024. Our government has stood with Ukraine since day one of Russia's illegal invasion, and we will continue to do so until Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are free once again. The signing of the new security agreement is yet another testament to Canada's unwavering support for Ukraine. Canada will continue to support Ukraine's implementation of the deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into the EU and NATO, and we commend Ukraine for the significant reform that has been made to date. It is clear that defence and security are the number one priorities for Ukraine right now, and our prayers are with all of the people in Ukraine. The rebuilding and recovery of Ukraine are another highly important aspect to its agenda. To this end, I am thrilled to acknowledge the incredibly important milestone that Canada and Ukraine achieved last night, as I mentioned earlier: the royal assent of the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. As chair of the international trade committee, it was great to work with all members of the committee to examine it, process it and get it through committee and into the House. It is disappointing that the Conservatives turned their backs on Ukraine by voting against the free trade deal, but I need to emphasize that this side of the House will continue to stand with Ukraine in our words, in our actions and with our votes. A modernized CUFTA marks an important milestone in the Canadian-Ukrainian relationship, one that will support our people, our workers and our businesses for years to come. Sectors of strategic importance to Ukraine's recovery include infrastructure, renewable energy, financial services, and oil and gas, which are all areas where Canada has strengths. Even more so, CUFTA will help make the reconstruction process transparent and sustainable. This agreement is the first FTA addressing anti-corruption provisions. According to the latest estimates by the Ukrainian side, since February 2022, more than 37% of the total damage in Ukraine has fallen on residential buildings, another 24% on infrastructure and 8% on industrial assets. It is no surprise that Ukrainian and international analysts say that Ukraine will turn into the largest construction site in the world after the war ends. This free trade agreement sets the foundation on which Canadian and Ukrainian businesses can work together in the reconstruction of Ukraine and underpins the long-term economic relationship between our two countries. Our government will continue making sure Ukraine has Canada's back in times of need. Canada will stand with Ukraine, as I indicated earlier, with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak and to share time with the previous member.

712 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Mar/20/24 7:22:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I know and respect the member's stance on Taiwan and some of the work she has done However, I have been so concerned that some of the actions that the Liberals take, purportedly in support of Ukraine, do not line up with the tangible action that Ukraine has asked for. Examples are sending turbines back to Russia to pump Russian gas for sale in Europe, funding Putin's war in Ukraine, sending detonators in that direction and sending missiles over, which could easily be done. There was a direct request. Certainly, we were disappointed that the Liberals put a carbon tax mechanism into the free trade agreement. This brought a domestic political issue into a debate that had a significant deal of cross-partisan support. It is very unfortunate that they would politicize that. What is also unfortunate is that, quite often, actions do not line up with the words that members of the Liberal Party speak when it comes to ensuring that they are truly supporting Ukraine. Could the member elaborate on how they take tangible action to support the people of Ukraine, which includes energy security?

191 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Mar/20/24 7:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his comment and his interest. Politics gets in the way of a lot of things. At the end of the day, I think every single person in this House wants to see Ukraine do well. As chair of the international trade committee, when we dealt with the Canada free trade agreement with Ukraine, it was an enormous pleasure to be able to talk with a variety of people who are already in Ukraine starting the rebuild that is happening. As far as moving forward, we talk about a carbon tax that my colleague could not resist throwing out there. Ukraine had a carbon tax way before we even talked about it. I think Canada is way behind. The United States and all the other areas have had a carbon tax for years. Canada is just catching up now, and Ukraine is an example of how it functions well.

156 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/20/24 7:25:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, as a member of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group, this week, I had the pleasure of speaking with French President Macron's special envoy for Ukraine. As part of those very interesting and meaningful discussions, we talked about how Canada and other countries have been somewhat lazy lately when it comes to providing help and support to Ukraine. We talked about the post-conflict recovery, obviously, but we also talked about the current situation. It seems to me that, when President Macron announced France's strong support for Ukraine a few days ago, he was sending a message to the international community. I think that we should consider that message, understand it and acknowledge the fact that we need to step up our efforts. We need to do more to help Ukraine get through this conflict and defeat Russia as quickly as possible, so that we can start rebuilding Ukraine and its economy. We need to allow our domestic investors to establish economic partnerships with Ukraine as quickly as possible. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

185 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Mar/20/24 7:26:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I have to say that, when this war started, I was so impressed by that countries all around the world that pledged their support and stood beside Ukraine. What has happened in the last six months, with the unexpected holdup in the U.S. with the House of Representatives, is that the funding Ukraine needs has still not been approved. If we really support it, as Canada has done, we need to put our money on the table and continue to be as supportive today as we were when this war broke out.

95 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Mar/20/24 7:27:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, we are here this evening to take part in a debate on the Canada-Ukraine relationship and the new strategic partnership between Canada and Ukraine. I want to say clearly, at the beginning of this take-note debate, that Conservatives support the newly agreed to Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership. We have long supported Ukraine. We did this well before the war in Ukraine began, started by President Putin's illegal invasion in 2014. On December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, under then Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. The late Brian Mulroney was recognized this week in the House for his great foreign policy accomplishments with then external affairs minister Joe Clark. It was under Prime Minister Harper's leadership that Conservatives first negotiated the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, the first free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. This deepened trade and investment relations between the two countries. The trade agreement removed tariffs from 86% of Canada's exports, with the remaining tariffs being phased out over the following seven years. This allowed for stronger exports of agricultural goods to and from Ukraine. It was under Prime Minister Harper that Operation Unifier was started. That was a significant operation that was done jointly with the United Kingdom, and it was critical in preparing the Armed Forces of Ukraine for Russia's illegal invasion. In fact, my hon. colleague who just spoke in the House referenced that many were surprised about how Ukraine stood up to Russia's second illegal invasion in February 2022; many expected Ukraine's armed forces to collapse in the face of the Russian invasion. In fact, they did not collapse, in large part because of Operation Unifier, which began in 2015. It was also Prime Minister Harper who led the charge at the G8, which no longer exists, to expel Russia as a member. This turned it into the G7. We all remember that famous video of Prime Minister Harper confronting President Putin on camera when they met in Australia, telling him he needed to “get out of Ukraine”. These are some things that Conservatives have done in the past to support Ukraine. In opposition, as we have been since 2015, we have continued that support. We have continually called on the government to support Ukraine and to provide more support, particularly military support. We have largely supported the government's initiatives with respect to Ukraine over the last two years. Long before Russia's war on Ukraine began in February 2022, we had called on the government to provide more lethal military equipment to Ukraine. It was not until February 14, 2022, a mere 10 days before the invasion began, that the government heeded our call. It then reversed its decision not to provide lethal military equipment and started to provide that equipment. Since February 2022, we have called on the government to provide surplus light armoured vehicles from the Canadian Armed Forces and role 3 mobile hospitals. Recently, we have also called on the government to provide the NASAMS air defence system, as well as the CRV7 rockets, of which there are 83,000 in surplus in the Canadian Armed Forces. Ukraine has indicated that it wants and could use them. The government could provide these four things immediately to support Ukraine: the surplus light armoured vehicles, the role 3 mobile hospitals, the 83,000 rockets and the NASAMS air defence system. We have been calling on the government to do these things because we believe Ukraine needs additional military support. We have also been calling on the government to increase arms production in Canada, and in particular, the production of munitions. The NATO alliance and Ukraine, beyond that, are in desperate need of 155-millimetre shells. It has been assessed that Russia has produced millions of similar types of shells and that the alliance is desperately underproducing these shells. The government recently announced that it has looked at increasing shell production in Canada. Conservatives believe the government needs to do that expeditiously to meet not only Ukraine's defence needs but also our own here in Canada. I will go back to the strategic security partnership that was just agreed to by the Government of Canada and the Government of Ukraine, formally titled “Agreement on security cooperation between Canada and Ukraine”. There are two clauses in that agreement, in particular, that Conservatives support. Section I is titled “Resilience of Energy and other Critical Infrastructure”. That part of the agreement reads: Acknowledging that energy supply security remains crucial for Ukraine’s resilience, and building upon existing support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure from the G7 and others, Canada will continue to seek to support Ukraine’s overall energy sector with a special focus on nuclear safety and security and clean energy transition. We support that; one thing we think Canada should be doing to support Ukraine and counter Russia is exporting clean liquefied natural gas, not only to displace Russian liquefied natural gas in western Europe and in Ukraine, as well as liquefied natural gas among other democratic allies, but also to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A kilowatt hour of electricity produced by coal-fired plants produces double the greenhouse gas emissions that a plant fired by natural gas does. We can meet our security and defence goals in co-operation with Ukraine and, at the same time, help reduce global emissions. About a fifth of all global emissions are produced from coal-fired electricity plants. If we could eliminate those in the next 10 years, we could cut global emissions, just on that alone, by 10%. The technology to replace coal-fired electricity plants with LNG or with natural gas plants is decades old. It is easy to do. Ontario did it when it closed down the Nanticoke coal plant some years ago and replaced it with natural gas-fired plants throughout the province of Ontario. The other section we like in this agreement is section N, titled “Compensation for Losses, Injuries and Damages Caused by Russian Aggression”. We like it because we have long called for Canada to lead an effort, which we have suggested should be at the G7, to repurpose some 300 billion U.S. dollars in Russian assets that have been seized by western democracies. When the war broke out two years ago, scores of Russian assets were seized by western governments in order to punish Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Those assets remain seized, but we need to take the next step and repurpose them for the reconstruction of the infrastructure in Ukraine, which has been much damaged by Russian aggression. About $200 billion of those assets rest in Europe. Canada has strong diplomatic ties to many countries in Europe; it has strong ties with the European Union, NATO member countries and individual member states. We should be using this diplomatic capacity to come to an understanding among the western alliance that we are going to repurpose the $300 billion in assets to create a Marshall-type recovery plan for Ukraine. Thus, when this war ends, the people of Ukraine can rebuild their infrastructure, join the community of democracies and rebuild their lives.

1226 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Mar/20/24 7:37:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, for the people watching this debate this evening and for the record, I want to respond to a question that came up earlier with respect to Canada's provision of artillery shells to Ukraine. From our own stocks and from other acquisitions, we have donated over 40,000 155-millimetre shells, but we are also currently involved in an effort sponsored by the Czech Republic to source 800,000 shells for Ukraine. Our contribution for that will be $40 million.

82 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Mar/20/24 7:38:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member opposite for highlighting the government's recent announcement on acquiring additional 155-millimetre shells. I believe that the government should also be building domestic capacity to produce shells here in Canada. It is clear in discussions I have had at NATO headquarters in Brussels last year and in talking to defence experts here in Canada that there is an undercapacity that has developed since, frankly, the fall of the Berlin Wall with respect to armament production. We have, through a series of decisions we made as a result of what was then called the peace dividend, decided to reduce the capacity of western democracies, NATO democracies in particular, to produce 155-millimetre munitions and other munitions, and we are in desperate need of rebuilding capacity. The Government of Canada should lead an effort, which could be part of our 2% contribution to the Wales declaration, to invest in the capacity here at home to increase armament production, munitions production, so we can meet not only our needs but also the needs of NATO members and the needs of democracies beyond the NATO alliance, such as Ukraine.

195 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/20/24 7:39:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I am pleased to hear a bit of criticism about Canada's weak collaboration on many levels with respect to aid for Ukraine. These days, Canada does not seem as motivated as it was in the early days when it wanted to declare itself one of the leaders in supporting Ukraine. That was appropriate considering that Canada has the largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. It is only normal that it position itself and declare itself in that way. We have seen the Liberals' ideology in some of the aid programs for Ukraine. We have seen the Conservatives choose to vote against the bill for the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement because of a mention or the appearance of the carbon tax in the requirements. Does my colleague think that Canada should find the same motivation it had at the beginning of the conflict? Should we not all set aside any form of ideology or politics in a context like this and roll up our sleeves and properly support Ukraine in a way that reflects our abilities, to bring this war to an end and quickly start rebuilding that country?

192 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Mar/20/24 7:40:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, Canada has certainly given plenty of aid to Ukraine, but it has largely been humanitarian aid. That aid is obviously necessary, but right now, the issue is military assistance. Ukraine's security is seriously threatened by Russia. Ukraine needs more military aid, more ammunition and more military equipment. In my opinion, the Canadian government must take action now to give Ukraine help in this area. There are four things we currently have, as a country, in our Canadian forces. We have surplus equipment that we can give to Ukraine now. We have asked the government to send that now. The biggest crisis in Ukraine right now is a security crisis. In my opinion, it is bigger than the humanitarian crisis.

122 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/20/24 7:42:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who I believe is a good member of Parliament who often provides the chamber with good advice and, in this particular instance, a good history lesson. I am from the province of Alberta, the very same province from which the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney actually pledged recognition of the independence of Ukraine, which was a momentous moment for Alberta and one we are tremendously proud of. To lean in on the question of our Bloc colleague a bit more, I do think that Ukrainians, at least the Ukrainians I know from Alberta, have been a bit nervous and a bit scared of the partisanship throughout this 44th Parliament, particularly when it came to the free trade agreement and the votes by the Conservative Party related to the support for that agreement. I think it is important for the security of Ukraine that we have an all-party approach to actually find unity in the chamber in our support for Ukraine. However, one of the biggest ways to support Ukraine today is to actually ensure that the American security agreement, which would commit up to $60 billion in support, including military aid, is actually passed in the United States. Republicans are withholding support on that right now. Considering the member opposite is a member of the Conservative Party and likely knows many members of the Republican Party as well, would it not be important for us to actually reach out, as America's close ally, to find ways to close the gap, the unfortunate partisanship, that is affecting our allies in Ukraine?

272 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Mar/20/24 7:44:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member is right to note that Alberta has always been a proud part of our federation and home to millions of Ukrainian Canadians. In fact the deputy prime minister under Brian Mulroney, Don Mazankowski, whom I got to know a little bit, was a proud Ukrainian Canadian. I think many Ukrainians across the country burst with pride when he took on that role in the government of the late prime minister. With respect to our opposition to the free trade agreement, we indicated it was on a very narrow basis that had to do with the carbon pricing provisions in the agreement. We indicated at the time, in December 2023 when it was in front of the House, that while we were opposed to the agreement, we were not going to obstruct its passage through either the House or the Senate, and I think we have been true to our word. The bill has become law in Canada, so that is also evidence of our constructive approach to Ukraine. We in the House all support Ukraine, but that does not mean there is going to be unanimity on every single aspect of the government's policy with respect to Ukraine. However, I cannot think of many other areas in foreign policy where there has been such multipartisan support as there has been for Ukraine. With respect to the path forward, I think the immediate need is a military need. It is clear that Ukraine's offensive stalled. It is clear that the Russian offensive is counterattacking and that territory is being lost as we speak, which is why I think that, even more than humanitarian need, there is a need for military kit and equipment right now for Ukraine. If the U.S. Congress is mired in legislative gridlock on these sorts of issues, then other NATO members should be stepping up to the plate to provide the funds and the equipment that Ukraine needs. As I said earlier, there are four easy things we think the government could transfer immediately, and actually some of them are surplus in the Canadian Armed Forces. One is surplus Light Armoured Vehicles that Ukraine has indicated it could use. Another is the surplus 83,000 rockets that are to be decommissioned. The NASAMS air defence system that the government announced support for about a year ago is another thing that we believe could be provided to Ukraine. The fourth item is the excess Role 3 mobile hospitals that the Canadian Forces acquired, I believe, in response to the pandemic. These are things we could transfer right now that could provide additional support for Ukraine. Finally, in addition to all of those things, we really feel the need for the government to step up procurement and production of munitions here in Canada, which not only Ukraine needs but the western alliance also needs to recapitalize its stocks.

486 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

Mar/20/24 7:47:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I think this take-note debate is timely because it allows us to take stock of how Canada and Ukraine have been collaborating since Russia's large-scale invasion of that country in 2022. What can I say, other than this agreement, the Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership, was signed on February 24, 2024, when the Prime Minister visited Kyiv with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. My hope is that this partnership will bear fruit. My fear is that it will be on par with what we have done so far, meaning that it will fall short. Let me back up a bit. I think the fatal error that western countries made from the get-go was to suggest that, no matter what, we were not going to intervene. In my opinion, that gave Vladimir Putin license to do just about anything he wanted to do. I think we dropped the ball right from the get-go. When the conflict began, members will recall that we were quick to deliver humanitarian aid. Militarily, we delivered what we called non-lethal weapons to Ukraine at that time: helmets, bulletproof vests, night vision goggles. Imagine being Ukrainian, seeing Russian troops coming in, and Canada sending helmets, bulletproof vests and night vision goggles. Obviously, we quickly realized—I think the goal was to avoid provoking Russia—that this was not exactly what Ukraine needed. We began sending them ammunition, and before long, we were sending machine guns. Then, after a while, we started sending artillery, and some time after that, anti-aircraft defence weapons. Then, after a while, we sent them tanks, and after that we started sending fighter jets. A few weeks after the conflict began, I went to NATO headquarters in Brussels and I asked the military command what was happening with the fighter jets. I was told that it takes six months to train a pilot. I went back to NATO headquarters a few months later and asked the military command the same question, and I was once again told that it takes six months to train a pilot. That is when I took the liberty of telling NATO's commander-in-chief that, if we had started training pilots from the get-go, then maybe we would have been able to prevent the Russians from settling into and fortifying their positions to the point where it is now almost impossible to get them out and maybe we would not be in the situation that we are in now. I think that we misjudged the threshold beyond which we would risk provoking the Russians. Honestly, just between us, Madam Chair, the Russians already had their hands full with the Ukrainians, and I do not think that they would have engaged in a large-scale conflict with NATO. I think that the NATO countries misjudged the situation from the beginning, which means that we basically allowed Russia to really gain a foothold in Ukraine. That is extremely unfortunate. I want to come back to the Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership, which will apparently be in effect for 10 years. This agreement will increase information sharing, co-operation and military support, help Ukraine join NATO and help Ukraine rebuild. That is all well and good, but what is in the agreement that goes beyond appearances and image? I remember that extremely striking image of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister going to Kyiv. It is a spectacular image. A flag was raised on the flagpole at the Canadian embassy, indicating that the embassy was open. However, that is no longer the case today. Of course, we have staff working within Ukraine's borders, at home and in hotels, but not at the embassy. In addition, when it comes to visa applications, Ukrainians are still being asked to leave the country and go to other countries in Europe to apply for a visa, because the embassy in Kyiv is still unable to welcome Ukrainian citizens who would like to apply for a visa. I am all in favour of having a joint declaration of support for Ukraine. I hope it will help Ukrainians. We know that all political parties in the House want to support Ukraine, if we exclude the minor episode where the Conservatives were perhaps not up to the task of supporting the free trade agreement. Support is unanimous on the matter before us. However, everyone needs to walk the talk. We need to put our words into action. Right now there is a lot of talk and no action. The proof lies in the fact that the Ukrainian defence minister said, “At the moment...50% of [weapons] commitments are not delivered on time.” Because of these delays, he said, “we lose people, we lose territory”. It may seem awful that western nations are failing to deliver on 50% of their commitments. It is appalling that 50% of their commitments are not being met. In Canada's case, however, the figure is almost 60%. On February 19, Le Devoir published an article on Canada's failure to meet its commitments to provide assistance to Ukraine. The article said, “almost 60% of the value of the military equipment that Canada promised Ukraine after the outbreak of Russia's war of invasion two years ago has still not been honoured.... Of the $2.4 billion in military aid promised by Ottawa since February 24, 2022, $1.4 billion has still not made it to the front lines”. That means that 58% of everything promised to Ukraine has not been delivered. I am sure someone is going to tell me that these are only numbers. I will continue. “The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) and associated munitions, at a cost of $406 million”, has not been delivered. “The 35 high-resolution drone cameras valued at $76 million”, have yet to be delivered. “The promised winter clothing, worth $25 million”, which would supply 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers with “boots, thermal layers, winter sleeping bags and patterned military uniforms”, according to the announcement made at the time, have yet to be delivered. Ukraine is still waiting for small arms and ammunition worth $60 million that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is trying to procure from an arms manufacturer in Ontario. The same goes for 10,000 rounds of 105mm ammunition, 76mm naval ammunition, 277 1,000-pound aircraft bombs and associated fuse assemblies, 955 rounds of 155mm artillery smoke and over 2,000 rounds of 81mm mortar smoke, and 2,260 gas masks, which were supposed to be sourced from the Canadian Armed Forces' inventory. We know that our inventory is not especially well stocked, but what we do have, we could send right away. That has not been done. We are still fiddling around while the Ukrainians are in an absolutely terrible situation. More tragic still is the fact that, for want of weaponry, Ukrainian soldiers are being subjected to wave upon wave of Russian attacks. The Russians have troops to spare, but the Ukrainians do not have the firepower to repel their attacks. I support a strategic security partnership agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I am all for any measure that can really help Ukraine. Again, it is time to stop posturing, spouting good intentions, and paying lip service. It is time to make sure these promises are actually kept.

1258 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Mar/20/24 7:57:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech. We were both members of the committee that must not be named. It was very interesting. What struck me was how we, as Canadians, take our safety here in Canada for granted. We have welcomed more than 100 Ukrainian families to Châteauguay—Lacolle, and they are fitting right in. These wonderful people work in our communities, and we are happy to have them. In his speech, my colleague said that NATO should maybe have intervened sooner following the Russian invasion. I would like him to expand on that. Does he think Canada was ready to send troops to Ukraine?

111 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mar/20/24 7:58:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, what an interesting question. The idea is not to say that we are going to send troops. The idea is to remain artfully vague about our intentions, if I can put it that way. However, we telegraphed our intentions from the outset, making it clear to the Kremlin that we were not going to intervene. Russia was free to proceed, because we were not going to intervene. I want to point out that, a few weeks back, after a meeting attended by representatives from a number of allied countries, President Macron said that sending troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out. Following the same pattern that western countries have been following from the start, several nations, including Canada, rushed to say that President Macron was totally out to lunch, that his suggestion was ridiculous and that naturally, no troops would be sent. All of a sudden, the western nations had blown any chance they had left of creating doubt about their intentions when it comes to what is happening in Ukraine. I applaud the courage of President Macron, who was not afraid to stick his neck out. Obviously, everyone thought that, since they had been talking all day, this was no slip of the tongue. I agree that it was not a slip of the tongue, far from it, but once again, there was not much solidarity from the other western countries, which once again brings us back to how slow we have been to actually help Ukraine. I want to come back to the fact that we started out by sending helmets and that Ukraine is still waiting for fighter jets. When will we deliver the fighter jets?

284 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Mar/20/24 8:01:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I have a comment and a question for my hon. colleague. First, I said something earlier that I want to correct. I said earlier that Don Mazankowski was a Ukrainian Canadian. What I should have said is that he was married to a Ukrainian Canadian and that he represented the most Ukrainian Canadian riding in Canada, which at the time was Vegreville. I just wanted to make sure the record was corrected on that. That being said, I have a question for my colleague. He said that half of the aid that the government announced was not delivered to Ukraine. Can he explain why that is the case? What is the holdup? He said that the government announced a lot of aid for Ukraine but that only 50% or 60% of it was actually provided to Ukraine. What is the holdup?

143 words