- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- Bloc Québécois
- Montarville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 59%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,582.71
- Government Page
- Sep/19/23 7:25:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I will be brief.
Obviously, I have not been in touch with the foreign capitals that are allied with Canada to see how they feel about the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday. However, one thing is certain. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, the arbitrary detention of the two Michaels was a proven, indisputable fact.
In this case, although the allegation may be based on intelligence information, we are still talking about an allegation. As long as that allegation has not been proven, it is difficult for the foreign capitals to take a stand, even if the situation is extremely worrisome for all of the world's democracies.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:22:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to start by saying that I think Canadians and Quebeckers are in for a rude awakening. I think this stems in large part from the vision we have always had of ourselves. We see ourselves as rather friendly, open-minded people, people who seek dialogue and compromise and who seek to end conflicts on the world stage.
We must never forget that peacekeeping was a Canadian invention. We are doing far too little now, but it was still a Canadian invention. That is why the idea that foreign interference can happen here in Canada and Quebec is totally unexpected. People in Taiwan are much more accustomed to this kind of thing. They have even developed ways to protect themselves against foreign interference and disinformation.
This is all new to us, because we think everyone is nice and plays by the rules. We could not have imagined that this peaceful country seeking collaboration and compromise could be subjected to this kind of behaviour by foreign states. It is a rude awakening, to be sure, but we have to face the facts and take action to deal with this new reality.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:19:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I certainly agree that I have this freedom of speech as an elected member of this House even if my political views go against those of most political parties represented here.
However, that did not happen out of nowhere. In the 1800s, people shed their blood in Quebec and Ontario, or Lower Canada and Upper Canada, as they were called at the time. The Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada fought for a number of civil and political freedoms and for a truly democratic and responsible government. If the current sovereignist movement in Quebec can hope to achieve its goal in a completely democratic and peaceful manner—as we saw in 1995 when 94% of the population turned out to vote without any acts of violence whatsoever before, during or after the referendum—it is because these people made it so that we could enjoy the democratic institutions we have today that make it possible for us to have civilized debates without violence.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:17:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, certain legal, legislative provisions allow the possibility of designating certain organizations as terrorist organizations. Our colleague has raised very legitimate concerns. If, at the end of a serious assessment, we are confident that these concerns are warranted, I feel it would be appropriate to consider including this organization on the list of terrorist organizations. For the time being, however, the matter requires further clarification. Again, I think we need to get to the bottom of things before moving forward on this matter as well.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:05:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, yesterday, in a spectacular statement, the Prime Minister accused India of being behind, so to speak, the assassination last June of a Sikh separatist in Canada, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my party, to express my most sincere condolences to the members of his family, who must be going through an even more difficult time after hearing this news from the Prime Minister yesterday.
Like my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, I must say that we appreciated the transparency from the Prime Minister in this very worrisome affair.
Like the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, I am once again offering our party's co-operation in getting to the bottom of things. We must not overlook the importance of this revelation. If it turns out to be true, it would amount to an outright, extraterritorial and extrajudicial execution on Canadian soil, in violation of the rules of international law, which is an extremely serious act. If by chance the Prime Minister's allegations, which seem to be based on intelligence information, were to turn out to be false, we would have to conclude that the Prime Minister was very imprudent, not only because of the seriousness of the charges, but also because of the importance of India and the importance of the Indian and Sikh communities within Canada.
The tone has changed since yesterday. The Prime Minister is now calling for calm, and I think that is very wise. We need to avoid histrionics and speculation. We need to get to the bottom of things. Calling for calm will force us to consider what is happening. As we know, relations between Canada and India have already been strained for several years. Canada has accused India of this extrajudicial and extraterritorial killing, and India has been accusing Canada of harbouring Sikh separatists on its soil for several years now. India is even accusing Canada of having connections to the Khalistan separatist movement.
I must admit that, as a separatist, I think the idea that the Liberal government would have any connection whatsoever to any separatist movement in the world is a bit far-fetched. That being said, I still think that we need to take a close look at what could have happened, given the gravity of the events.
I want to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for drawing my attention to Sam Cooper's article in The Bureau, which refers to a confidential version of the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, on the Prime Minister's trip to India. I can talk about it more openly because I was not a member of NSICOP at the time and because that media outlet reported on it today.
According to the article, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, planned a major intervention in 2017 to shut down rapidly growing Indian intelligence networks in Vancouver that were monitoring and targeting the Sikh community. Again according to this article referring to the NSICOP report, Ottawa apparently blocked the CSIS operation because of “political sensitivity” and because Ottawa feared it would have an impact on the Prime Minister's upcoming trip to India.
As well, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians stated that, in about 2016, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, discovered, and I quote, “‘an increase in the volume’ of Indian intelligence activity in Canada, targeting the Indo-Canadian diaspora and government institutions.”
If this were true, it would also be extremely troubling. It would mean that the Liberal government deliberately interrupted a CSIS investigation to avoid impacting the success of the Prime Minister's trip to India, scheduled a few months or weeks later. We know that the trip, despite efforts by the Prime Minister and his family to dress up like our Indian friends, was not a major success.
One reason for the poor showing is that the government had inadvertently, although the RCMP was aware, invited a Sikh separatist named Jaspal Atwal to one or two receptions held in India, which had apparently angered the Indian government.
As we know, relations between Canada and India are extremely tense, so much so that it was with great interest and hope, I think, during the Prime Minister's trip to that country for the G20, that we watched the meeting that was planned between the Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister. We thought at the time that it would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild bridges and reopen lines of communication.
What we found out today and yesterday is that the Prime Minister instead admonished the Indian Prime Minister for this alleged killing of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil.
I want to reiterate that we very much appreciated the Prime Minister's transparency yesterday. We expected nothing less from him, having been accused these past few months of waiting far too long to disclose sensitive information about Chinese interference in Canada.
I think he learned his lesson. He decided to inform Parliament quickly, but it depends on what is meant by “quickly”. Maybe in the wake of his meeting with the Indian Prime Minister he should have informed Parliament of this information or informed the public of this strategic or sensitive information.
When asked about this issue yesterday, the new Minister of Public Safety said that, since information was starting to leak, they thought it was a good time to tell Parliament about it. Coincidence can be an amazing thing sometimes. The government got wind of leaks just as Parliament resumed, just as it needed to get back on track because it was lagging in the polls. It needed to make an impression as Parliament got back to work.
I am not suggesting anything about anyone's motives. I am just pointing out that coincidence can do very good things. That raises another question: Why did the government wait until there were leaks to disclose the information? Had there not been a leak resulting in yesterday's announcement, might the Prime Minister have waited much longer to inform the public, thereby risking further accusations of taking too long to inform the public and Parliament of possible foreign interference on Canadian soil, this time with extremely tragic results?
Obviously, there are a lot of questions and, unfortunately, not a lot of answers.
We asked some questions earlier. Why wait until yesterday to share this information? We did not get an answer. Why are so few of Canada's allies speaking up? We did not get an answer.
I want to reiterate that we need to work together, to the extent possible, in order to get to the bottom of this situation, because this story is extremely concerning. We need to give answers to Canadians and Quebeckers.
1160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 6:38:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, my colleague said during his speech that the Prime Minister had raised the issue with the Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit to India for the G20.
My question is quite simple. Why wait until yesterday, the first day that Parliament resumed, to share that information with parliamentarians?
We know that the Prime Minister had some trouble coming back. He ran into some technical problems, but he has been back for a number of days now.
Why wait until yesterday, when Parliament resumed, to make this dramatic statement?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:10:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, in 1994, Ukraine agreed to get rid of its nuclear weapons as part of one of the three Budapest memoranda. Three world powers, namely the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom, acted as guarantors. This memorandum also stipulated that the countries were to respect Ukraine's independence and sovereignty within its existing borders and refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Belarus is hinting that it could renounce its non-nuclear status, in violation of its commitment in the Budapest memorandum, and I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that Russia is violating the terms of the memorandum with respect to Ukraine through its present actions and that the United States and the United Kingdom have a responsibility to Ukraine under that same memorandum.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:34:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I completely agree with my colleague, and I mentioned this in my speech. The problem with Ukraine and Russia is that two philosophies and two world views are clashing. We must defend the side that prioritizes human rights and the rights of peoples.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:32:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I was speaking about cardinal values earlier. In a democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are cardinal values. We must always be extremely cautious and careful when we decide to circumscribe, regulate or limit freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
As the courts have ruled over the past few decades, there comes a time when reasonable limits must be imposed. When it is clear that there is a propaganda campaign, we must intervene.
I will end by reiterating that the main victims of this propaganda, this disinformation, are not Canadians, the French or the British, but Russians themselves. We must seek to provide information about what is really happening in Ukraine at present so that Russians can clearly see just how unjust and undemocratic their government is.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, once again, my colleague is quite right. It is rather amazing to see Switzerland, whose neutrality has always been a cardinal value, fall in line, take a position in a conflict and decide to impose the same sanctions as other democratic states. As neutral as Switzerland may be, it is also a democracy.
I am certain that the Swiss authorities clearly understood what I said earlier, that what is happening at present is a challenge to all democracies around the world. Switzerland heard Russia's challenge, so Switzerland sided with democracies by condemning Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:27:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Hull—Aylmer for his question and especially for saying he wanted to give me some time to finish my speech. I am very touched, hon. colleague.
He is absolutely right. There are autocrats in this world who think that the west showed weakness in how it ended the operation in Afghanistan. I am convinced that autocrats around the world are watching what is happening in Ukraine very closely.
Democracy is being tested. Russia is testing the solidarity and determination of democratic states.
I do not want to make an inappropriate comparison, but another European autocrat tested the determination and will of democracies a few decades ago. He paid with his life.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:25:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would simply say that we have to do more. Even though what has been done so far is very impressive, we cannot be satisfied with that, because the conflict is still active. Men, women, the elderly and children continue to lose their lives.
We cannot tolerate that. It is human nature not to tolerate such a thing. We must make every effort and use every means at our disposal to end this conflict.
One thing I wanted to bring up in closing, is the courage of the Ukrainian people. We see them standing up to Russian tanks. The Ukrainian President is staying in the capital and eating with his soldiers. We owe it to Volodymyr Zelensky, to the defender, to the leader of the free world.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, God knows how much I wanted to believe in peace. I still believe in it today, because there is no other way out besides peace. We must remain hopeful that these rather strange negotiations currently taking place will bring an end to this conflict, and the suffering it is causing, as quickly as possible.
We must remember that during the previous take-note debate on the situation in Ukraine, our party and the government had some differences of opinion about the imminence of the conflict. Of course, those differences of opinion did nothing to prevent the conflict from breaking out. Ukraine has been unfairly attacked by Russia.
I told the Minister of Foreign Affairs that if conflict were to break out, the government could count on the full support of the Bloc and that we would stand in solidarity in terms of our desire to punish Russia and show our full support for the people of Ukraine. There is solidarity among us in the House, exemplary solidarity among the allies, and solidarity with the Ukrainian people, whose courage and resilience are truly admirable.
On Saturday, some colleagues and I met with Ukrainian colleagues. We spent a few minutes with some of them. One of our colleagues told us that the president and the deputies would stay in the capital. It would have been so easy for those parliamentarians to go back to their constituencies, to return to their families and the people they represent, but this is symbolic of how courageous Ukrainians are in the face of adversity, in the face of this unequal combat they are confronted with.
We simply have no choice but to support the Ukrainian people, first because this country is home to the world's third-largest Ukrainian community. These are people we connect with daily, who have family over there. We share and feel their anguish, their sadness, their concern.
We have no choice but to support the Ukrainian people because they have been subjected to an unfair attack that is also an attack against democracy, against freedom, against us.
Finally, we have no choice because the courage that the Ukrainian people are showing compels us to support them. We, by which I mean the Government of Canada and the west in general, have so far deployed a battery of measures to punish Russia, but also to punish Belarus, which has been complicit in the invasion of Ukraine. I mentioned today that we might want to take that a bit further.
As I said earlier, the Russians would not be at the gates of Kyiv if President Lukachenko had not allowed Russia to use his territory as a base to attack Ukraine from the north.
I have to say that I was, quite frankly, impressed by the speed and vigour of the response by western countries. I must admit that I had doubts. In the early hours of the invasion, we were hearing some reactions from Europe. Certain countries were saying that some of their companies should be excluded from sanctions, and that if Russian banks were banned from SWIFT they would have a hard time conducting transactions. It was starting to look like there might be a chink in the armour, which was worrying, but the west pulled itself together and the allies took action. We have to admire how quickly and strongly countries have responded, but there is still a lot to do.
I heard our Green Party colleague talk about certain oligarchs. Leonid Volkov, who is Alexei Navalny's chief of staff, appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and told us that we needed to take action. He gave us a list of oligarchs who should be sanctioned. Several of those on the list have still not been sanctioned.
I am pleased to hear my colleagues in government tell us that everything is on the table. If the government decides to move forward with this, it will continue to have our support, because we must do more. We cannot tolerate this unacceptable aggression towards Ukraine.
We must definitely provide all our support to the Ukrainian people, as we have started doing. This means providing military equipment, non-lethal as well as lethal. Ukrainians need it, as they are facing the second largest army on the planet. We are also talking about foodstuffs, drugs and medical equipment. We must rise to the challenge and give Ukrainians what they need.
We must also welcome Ukrainian refugees. There are currently half a million of them gathered in neighbouring countries, and they are asking for help. The leader of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that if we can accept people at Roxham Road without a visa, why should we continue to enforce entrance formalities for Ukrainian refugees and make them complete all the formalities for receiving a visa? We must remove these requirements and make it easier for Ukrainians who wish to find refuge in Canada, temporarily or permanently, to enter our country.
We have to cut Russian propaganda off at the knees by removing Russia Today from Canadian airwaves. Speaking of Russian propaganda, the Russian people need to be informed. I cannot help but be amazed at the thousands of people in the streets of Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities risking arrest the moment they hit the streets to protest this war against a people that did nothing to deserve it, a people whose destiny they have shared for over 75 years.
Many Russians do not understand, and many of those who do not understand are speaking out against what they feel is unacceptable. How many Russian families will be bereaved? How many soldiers' bodies will be returned to their families as casualties of an unjust conflict?
As I said today, there may be hope in the Russia that is making itself heard today despite pressure from the powers that be.
In addition, as we heard from—
999 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 7:27:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was starting to feel like I was too small for you to notice me.
Anyway, earlier today I asked the government whether the same sanctions that have so far been imposed on Russia should also be imposed on Belarus, which has been complicit in this invasion. The Russians would not be at Kyiv's doorstep today if Belarus had not given them access to invade Ukraine from the north.
My question for the Bloc Québécois leader is the following. Should we not impose the same sanctions on Belarus as have so far been imposed on Russia?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 9:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for his remarks, which I actually found very refreshing.
Throughout this evening's debate, our government colleagues have talked about diplomacy and deterrence. They have actually talked more about deterrence than diplomacy, but they have not been clear about what they mean by deterrence. In other words, what I am hearing is deeply acrimonious and aggressive messaging at a time when, from a diplomatic perspective, there should be more emphasis on calls for discussion and dialogue.
As I understand it, the minister is pledging more money to support people in difficult situations, such as those resulting from the pressures exerted by the massive Russian presence at the border and those Ukrainians face in their day-to-day lives. To pick up on what my NDP colleague said, what concrete action will the government take to move beyond words and really help people in need on the ground?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:51:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada has already been supplying non-lethal gear to Ukraine since 2014. As I have already stated publicly, if we were to provide so-called lethal weapons, Russian soldiers would not be shaking in their boots. Canada is unfortunately not in a position to provide the anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons Ukraine would need to hold off Russian aggression.
The Conservatives like to say that we should sell weapons, but the truth of the matter is that we are not really in a position to provide military assistance to Ukraine. We must be mindful of that.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:48:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in my youth I visited Poland when it was under the communist regime. At the time, General Jaruzelski was in power in Warsaw.
I was also able to travel to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, which both had communist governments. I understand that these countries sought to get out from under the control, or at least the influence, of their powerful neighbour Russia, then the Soviet Union.
That is not the point I want to make. I am simply pointing out what Jocelyn Coulon, a former Liberal advisor, said about how NATO failed to keep its word. NATO promised Mikhail Gorbachev that it would never expand beyond East Germany.
That said, the countries in question were clearly acting in good faith by wanting to join NATO. That is not what this is about. This is about the promises that the west made to Russia, to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, that NATO would not expand beyond East Germany.
From the Russian perspective, we failed to keep our word, but does that undermine the legitimacy of the countries that wanted to join NATO? Absolutely not.
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:44:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim that we support Russia's forcible annexation of Ukrainian territory? Based on what speech, what intervention, what press release can she say that? What intervention by the Bloc Québécois can she refer to to claim today that we support Russian aggression?
If she had been listening a few moments ago, she would have heard me say that the attack against Crimea and Russia's destabilizing efforts in the Donbas region are absolutely and totally unacceptable. How can she now claim that we support these aggressions?
It insults everyone's intelligence to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs say such a thing here in the House today. It is totally unacceptable. I hope that the minister did not invoke the Normandy Format to avoid responsibility for the role Canada must play if it truly wants to play its past role, namely the role of helping resolve disputes between countries.
I hope the minister is not simply shrugging off responsibility by putting it on the shoulders of France and Germany. Thank goodness that France and Germany are not playing up the danger like the Anglo-Saxon bloc of countries, if I can put it that way. It is totally unacceptable to say such a thing.
When the minister tells us that there is communication between NATO and Russia, she should know that the partnership for peace between them is de facto non-existent, because not only is there no longer any collaboration on the civilian and military levels, but the respective missions of the two are over. How can the minister claim that there is a relationship between NATO and Russia when it has been almost completely severed?
As for relations between the United States and Russia, we cannot applaud the fact that President Biden is also crying wolf about a possible “re-invasion”—let us call it that, because the minister insists—or a new invasion into Ukrainian territory.
When the U.S. government cries wolf and says that if the intervention were limited, the reaction from western countries could be just as limited, I think that should give pause for thought.
I will say it again. It is a good thing that Germany and France are there to try to actually find a diplomatic solution, because this does not seem to be the path that Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to take.
409 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:34:57 p.m.
- Watch
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the fact is that the build-up of 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is pretty much the same as it was a year ago. What has changed? We do not really know, as the minister's officials at Global Affairs have admitted.
Why then this talk of escalation, this fearmongering that is leading us to think that Russia is going to attack tomorrow morning, whereas both the Ukrainians and the Russians agree that that is not going to happen? Why take this alarmist tone rather than trying to calm things down? Again, why pull out non-essential staff from our embassy when basically only the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have done so? The other NATO allies have stayed behind to show their support for Ukraine in a concrete way. Why pull out and contribute to escalating ongoing tensions?
Earlier the minister told us that Russia is the aggressor. I do not disagree. I challenge anyone to disprove the unwavering support of the Bloc Québécois and its members for our ally, Ukraine. However, I would like to point out to the minister that Jocelyn Coulon, an expert in geopolitical issues and former advisor to her predecessor, former Liberal candidate Stéphane Dion, put himself in Russia's shoes for a minute. He explained that when Germany reunified, NATO promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the Atlantic alliance would never cross the border of East Germany.
What happened after that? Several Soviet bloc countries and even some former Soviet republics were admitted to NATO, a move that Russia perceived as an attack, aimed at bringing western troops closer to the Russian border. For whatever reason, Russia decided that the red line would be Ukraine and that it would not allow Ukraine to join NATO.
The minister was talking about unity among NATO alliance countries. That is great, but can the minister deny that at the Bucharest summit in 2008, France and Germany expressed reservations about the possibility of admitting Ukraine to NATO?
All I am saying is that we can maintain the illusion that all member countries of the NATO alliance are on the same page, but that is not the reality. This explains why the French president phoned Vladimir Putin while Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom continue with this rather belligerent rhetoric towards Russia.
There are very divergent views within NATO. It is not playing into Russia's hands to admit this; it is simply acknowledging the facts. Where do we go from here? Do we really want to be a useful mediator? If the answer is yes, we must act accordingly. We need to take consistent action to lower tensions.
We have made commitments to Ukraine. We have to honour those commitments to Ukraine, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that Ukraine's admission to the NATO alliance does not require the unanimous approval of all the alliance members—but where is the unanimity of the NATO alliance on this issue?
I think we have to be honest with ourselves and with Ukrainians. However, we still have a responsibility towards Ukraine, because we have given our word.
There are therefore some things we need to do from the perspective of the partnership that should exist between Ukraine and the NATO alliance. There are things that must also be done to meet Ukraine's needs. Although we obviously favour the diplomatic option, we cannot deny that Ukraine is asking for Canada's support, which, admittedly, is relatively limited.
Although the Standing Committee on National Defence noted in 2017 that a number of experts would support Canada selling weapons to Ukraine, the reality is that Canada itself has few weapons that could help Ukraine, particularly in terms of anti‑tank and anti‑aircraft defence.
There are certainly things that can be done in terms of intelligence and cybersecurity, considering that Ukraine was recently the victim of a Russian cyber-attack seeking to destabilize its institutions. There is work to be done on that front, alongside diplomatic efforts, to get these parties talking and to try to find a peaceful resolution to the current conflict.
706 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 7:32:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was somewhat surprised by the minister's answer to my question a few moments ago. To use a mixed metaphor, I would say that my ears could not believe my eyes.
Is the minister suggesting that if we were to push for a diplomatic solution, if we were in favour of that, if we insisted on it, we would be playing into Russia's hands? Is the minister suggesting that President Macron is playing into Russia's hands and creating division among the allies by picking up the phone to speak to Vladimir Putin? I believe that the answer is obvious.
Had the minister paid the least bit of attention to some of my speeches, in particular the one I gave to the Parliamentary Assembly to the Council of Europe, she would know that I have been highly critical of Russia on several occasions.
If we want dialogue, we cannot have a unilateral monologue. If we want to be a credible mediator between Russia and Ukraine, we have to speak to Russia as President Macron did. As far as I can see, aside from crying wolf, the Canadian government has done nothing to lead us to a diplomatic solution.
That is all I wanted to say. Do I recognize that the aggression against Crimea and Russia's destabilizing actions in Donbass are unacceptable? Of course I do. I do not even see how the minister can call that into question. Not only am I surprised, but I am a little offended. What I said is that we must engage in dialogue.
269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
