SoVote

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

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

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mar/20/24 8:02:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, in fact, it is even worse than that. Some 58% of the aid has not been delivered. I am not very good at math, but if my calculations are correct, that means that only 42% of aid has been delivered so far. My colleague has asked me a question I simply cannot answer. It is like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. He has asked me to explain the inexplicable. Why has Canada not kept its word? Why has the Canadian Armed Forces equipment we promised to Ukraine not been delivered? Is it because we no longer have it? Is it because, when we promised it, we thought we still had it? It has gotten to the point where we are asking ourselves these kinds of questions because it is so incomprehensible. It is one thing to have to buy equipment on international markets and wait for it to be ready. However, not even being able to deliver what we had in stock and had promised to deliver is completely incomprehensible. It raises other questions. Was the equipment not in good condition? Did we no longer have the equipment? In short, why was this equipment not delivered? I am answering my colleague's question with a question, because I do not have the answer to his question.

223 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/20/24 8:03:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I am a little concerned, so I would love some clarification from the member. He spoke about how supportive he was of the actions of Emmanuel Macron. In response to Macron calling for soldiers to enter into Ukraine's land, the temperature was raised by Putin, in terms of threats of further nuclear responses. I would love to hear the member's clarification on that. It seems to me that is not helping what we are trying to accomplish. We want to ensure that Ukrainians have a peaceful, fast resolution to this, as opposed to raising the temperature.

100 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mar/20/24 8:04:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would simply like to say that just because Putin says that things will escalate does not necessarily mean that things will escalate. From the start, Putin said that if we helped Ukraine, things would escalate. That is why we started by sending helmets and bulletproof vests. Then we tried sending ammunition. We checked for an escalation but there was none, so we decided to send machine guns. Again, we wondered if things would escalate, and when they did not, we decided we could send some artillery. No escalation followed, so we decided we could send some anti-aircraft systems. Again, there was no escalation, so we decided to repeat the process by sending tanks. I think that Russia was basically blackmailing and threatening us the whole time, but it was never really in a position to follow through on its threats. As I said earlier, the Russians already had their hands full with Ukraine. It would have been surprising if they had decided to engage NATO countries in combat too. I am not saying that we need to send troops. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the mistake in the beginning was to tell Putin that we would not intervene. That left things wide open. We gave him carte blanche. We allowed him to do anything he wanted. The goal was to go back to keeping things vague, create a situation where the Kremlin would be on the ropes again, not knowing what the NATO countries were going to do. However, on day one, we telegraphed the Kremlin what we were and were not planning to do, which was a mistake in my opinion.

282 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/20/24 8:06:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona. It has been more than two years since Putin began his full-scale, illegal invasion of Ukraine. Today, New Democrats want to reaffirm our solidarity with Ukraine and Ukrainians. Putin's genocide has killed and injured tens of thousands of Ukrainians and displaced hundreds of thousands more. However, through it all, Ukrainians have maintained their courage in fighting for Ukraine, for democracy, for international law and for an international order based on justice and accountability. Their spirit and resilience in the face of this war shines bright, and they do it for all of us. Since Parliament's last take-note debate on Ukraine, much has changed. The unanimous solidarity among democratic countries is beginning to crack. The long-awaited strategic security partnership package from the United States has been held hostage by far-right Republicans who seek to undermine Ukraine's fight. Hungary's Viktor Orbán has repeatedly blocked Ukraine's membership in NATO and the European Union. At a time when the far right is increasingly listening to Putin, Ukraine needs Canada to step up and support its fight. That is why it is so painful to see what is happening here in Canada. First, we have seen the government not meet the urgency of Ukraine's fight. Time after time, the government announces a new aid package to Ukraine, whether it is for air defence systems, light armoured vehicles, funding toward demining activities, or seized Russian assets, only to have the promise left unfilled. While the government delays its delivery of aid, Ukraine is being bombed and Putin's attacks continue. We must demand that the government quickly deliver on all promised aid packages and find new ways to deliver aid quickly. Second, what is truly painful to see is the erosion of our unanimous solidarity within this very chamber. I know the pride many members of the Conservative Party had when thinking they were champions for Ukraine. However, recently, I was shocked to see the shift in positioning from the official opposition, and Canadian Ukrainians have spoken to me in my riding about how they feel abandoned by this. Not only did the Conservatives vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, but they put up delay after delay on the bill. After President Zelenskyy specifically asked us to support the deal, Conservatives did everything they could to block it. Even last night, the Conservative Party senators teamed up for one last attempt to block the bill. Conservatives also voted against additional monetary supports for Ukraine, with millions of dollars in humanitarian aid and the monies required by Operation Unifier so Canadian Armed Forces members can continue to train Ukrainians. The Conservatives voted against those measures. Canada is not immune to American-style far-right politics. We know that the dog whistles we hear from the Conservatives about cutting foreign aid, refusing to commit to honour the security guarantee and calling Ukraine some “faraway” land are playing to a dark side of their base that we have to call out. As this war continues and we hear more and more escalatory rhetoric from Russia, Canada needs to take a leadership role on the world stage. Last week, Putin openly declared Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons. This was far from the first time the world has heard those threats, but we need to continue to take them seriously. The nuclear threat is the highest it has ever been. The tensions between NATO, Russia and China are constantly rising, and diplomacy between countries is at an all-time low. Canada has a role to play in restarting the necessary talks on nuclear disarmament. Canada could join the 93 other countries that have signed on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We can use our voice on the international stage to push for disarmament negotiations so that Ukraine and our allies are not faced with nuclear blackmail and bullying by nuclear superpowers. This is a moment for all of us to reiterate our commitment to supporting Ukraine and supporting the fight to create a peaceful, just world.

701 words

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

Mar/20/24 8:10:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I appreciate the member's emphasis on the importance of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, but my question is in regard to the amount of aid. Today, the Prime Minister of Ukraine indicated that close to an additional $2 billion arrived in Ukraine, which ultimately brings aid closer to the $7-billion mark. It is important that we provide all forms of support for Ukraine. I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on that issue. I am talking about everything from humanitarian aid to military aid to cash in hand. All of this is really important, and Canada does have a very strong and prominent role to play.

113 words