- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- May/8/24 11:04:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that response. It is notable, as it relates to sanctions in general involving the PRC, that there have been various calls for sanctions from parliamentary committees.
For instance, the member mentioned that he is involved in the special committee on Canada-China relations. In the last Parliament, we had a very detailed report on Hong Kong in which we called for sanctions against those involved in the human rights violations that are taking place in Hong Kong.
The government has not taken up that call, despite the fact that it came from a unanimous report of members of Parliament on that committee, including a parliamentary secretary. There has been a reluctance to apply these sanctions. I do wonder, also, if the issue of our not being informed and the issue of sanctions are related in this sense, that if members of Parliament had been informed they were being targeted by a foreign state, they would have expected the government to respond to hold those who were attacking them accountable.
However, if the government had decided, for whatever political reasons, that it did not want to impose consequences on those involved in hacking, that it did not want to impose sanctions on foreign actors involved in both human rights violations and foreign interference, it would then be easier for them to avoid taking those actions that it, for whatever reason, did not want to take if as few people knew about it as possible. I wonder if members—
255 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 11:02:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one issue I did not have a chance to talk about during my speech, and I am glad the member spoke about it, is the nature of APT31 itself. Part of this discussion needs to be the appropriate response to a foreign state attacking members of Parliament. Of course, we need to talk about what the government should have done, what we can do differently and processes within Canada.
However, we also need to talk about accountability for the people who perpetrated the attack. One call to action that the IPAC suggested is sanctions against those who target legislators in our country. This seems to me like a no-brainer. When a group controlled by a foreign state is targeting and attacking members of Parliament in our country based on their parliamentary activities, we should be sanctioning the individuals involved in the attack.
This is something that is within the jurisdiction of government, not within the jurisdiction of Parliament. Could the member comment on that call to action for the government, calling on the government to sanction those involved in this cyber-attack?
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-388, An Act to fast track energy and mining projects and to facilitate the provision of munitions to Ukraine and develop its munitions industry.
He said: Today I am tabling legislation to support our friend and ally Ukraine in its existential struggle against the ongoing illegal and genocidal Russian invasion.
The abduction of children, the systemic sexual assault, the attempted destruction of all Christian churches except ones subservient to the Putin regime, the indiscriminate killing of civilians and the crime of aggression itself all require a strong response. Moreover, they have received such a response from the brave Ukrainian people. However, for too long, people in western capitals have wrapped themselves in the language of solidarity, while they have failed to see the urgency of delivering vital support.
Bill C-388 would address two critical issues. The first is the need for more weapons. My bill would significantly streamline the process for delivering weapons to Ukraine by removing red tape. It would further require the government to send surplus military equipment to Ukraine, and it would require EDC and BDC to look for opportunities to support investment in Ukraine's domestic munitions industry. These measures address significant gaps in the Government of Canada's follow-through when it comes to delivering promised weapons.
The second issue the bill deals with is energy security and sanctions. While the government is granting yet another major sanctions waiver to support the Russian titanium industry, this bill would require the government to fast-track Canadian energy projects as part of an overall strategy to displace Russian exports and stop fuelling Russia's war machine. It is time to kick Putin's gas and kick Putin's titanium. Urgent energy development in Canada would allow us and our allies to tighten and consistently enforce our sanctions.
This bill focuses on core and urgent issues required for Ukrainian victory: weapons and sanctions. It is time to axe the attacks, rebuild the homes, fix the sanctions and stop the crime.
Finally, I have been so impressed by the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people that I would like to take this opportunity to wish one resident of Zaporizhzhia, Svetlana Ostrovska, a very happy birthday.
375 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 11:15:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the discussion that is happening, particularly what was raised by my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, is very important.
The global context we are in is one of a new global cold war where there are two different blocs. There is the bloc of democratic nations and a kind of anti-democratic bloc that is increasingly working together. I do not, of course, relish this reality. This is a tragic reality, but it is a reality and one that requires us to fortify our will, be strong and stand up to the opponents of democracy everywhere.
In particular, we see how the Burmese regime has been working with and assisting the Russian regime. The government has left a massive hole in our sanctions in the Burmese regime, an area where we are inconsistent with the Americans, and it is allowing the Burmese oil and gas sector to continue to fund the junta.
We have also seen failures of the government to hold the Iranian regime accountable. Drone technology from Iran is being used by Russia in the context of its invasion of Ukraine. We see these various other actors, such as North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Burma and Iran, that are engaged in supporting the Putin regime.
I would add my voice to those who are saying we need to strengthen our sanctions regime and hold anti-democratic actors accountable while fortifying our own strength to support the people of Ukraine.
248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 9:56:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, tonight, we were actually supposed to have a take-note debate on the agreement on security co-operation between Canada and Ukraine, something that I think we all agree on.
This member is intent on sowing division and being hyperpartisan, so let me point something out to the member. He pointed out that President Zelenskyy may have disagreed with the position we took on a particular trade deal. Let us talk about a disagreement between President Zelenskyy and the current government. Early on in the conflict, the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was actually summoned by the Government of Ukraine, an extraordinary step. The ambassador was summoned as a sign of the Ukrainian government's displeasure with the Liberal government's action. What was that action?
It was the Liberal government's decision to grant a waiver of sanctions regarding those Siemens turbines. It was the Liberal government trying to facilitate the export of Russian gas that was fuelling Russia's economy and Russia's invasion. The Government of Ukraine was deeply concerned that Canada was undermining global sanctions unity and was pushing toward a reality of Swiss-cheese sanctions that would be ineffective. The government should be ashamed of what it did, and it was only the Conservatives pushing back that led to the change.
Will the member apologize for his shameful role in allowing that exemption in the sanctions?
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 9:49:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, Canada has a unique opportunity and responsibility among democratic nations. Many of our democratic partners are geographically small, densely populated nations endowed with few natural resources. Canada is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, which we could use to support our allies by improving their energy security.
Instead of developing Canadian resources and playing the role we need to play in the world in the midst of this intensifying global struggle, the Liberals chose to grant a sanctions waiver to export turbines to facilitate the export of Russian gas. They were facilitating the export of Russian gas when Canada should have instead been working to export our gas. We should have been providing an alternative to Russia. Instead, the Liberals were helping the Russians fund their war by exporting turbines.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 8:21:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the member is eager to politicize these issues, sadly, and cast aspersions on others. I want to point out that in February 2022, this member, on behalf of the NDP, spoke out against sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. I will read a quote from her in committee.
She said:
Some people in this committee and some members of our Parliament have been calling on the government to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. I have some concerns about that, obviously.
Do you believe there are risks to providing those lethal weapons to Ukraine? This applies in terms of keeping track of those weapons, but more importantly, I'd like some information on how Russia would perceive that. Would they perceive that as an escalation instead of a de-escalation?
These are unbelievable comments from the member, opposing sending lethal weapons to Ukraine for fear of how Russia would react. Conservatives stand with Ukraine. We have been in favour of sanctions and in favour of sending weapons to Ukraine from the earliest days. The NDP spoke out against sending Ukraine the weapons they needed to fight back against aggression.
Will that NDP member, instead of casting aspersions everywhere else, look at her own conscience and apologize for those pro-Russian sentiments she expressed two years ago?
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 8:14:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, Conservatives strongly support Ukraine. We supported sending lethal weapons to Ukraine even before the war, at a time when the NDP opposed it and spoke out against it. We supported consistent sanctions against Russia, even when the Liberals were granting sanctions exemptions to Russia.
I want to ask the member about the seizure of Russian assets. This is mentioned in the co-operation agreement, in section N. There is very important language there about seizing Russian assets and using them to support Ukraine.
One great way that we can continue to ensure Ukraine has the financial support it requires to fight the war and rebuild is to repurpose Russian assets, and, frankly, the government has been behind on this. I wonder if the member would support our call to repurpose confiscated Russian assets and use them to support Ukraine.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 5:32:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, of course, that Canada produces commodities that Russia also produces, so we are in a unique position to displace those commodities. We are in a relatively unique position to reduce the world's dependence on Russian oil and gas.
It is not just Russia. We could give many examples of dictator oil around the world. We could talk about the Burmese regime and how the government's failure to apply sanctions on the Burmese junta, consistent with what our American ally has done, is allowing investments in the Burmese energy sector, which are fuelling that country's campaign of aggression against its own population.
In many of these cases, we see how the Liberal government is willing to turn a blind eye to the advancement of dictator oil instead of supporting Canadian energy development. It makes no sense. Canadian energy development is good for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy, but, more importantly, it is good for the advancement of peace, justice and freedom around the world.
If we could do something that is good for Canadian workers and good for the advancement of peace, freedom and justice around the world, it is a no-brainer, yet the Liberals, because of their extreme green ideology, are opposing Canadian oil and gas development and are trying to insert carbon tax poison pills into trade deals. It makes no sense. We need a government that puts the Canadian national interest and the cause of freedom ahead of extreme green ideology.
254 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 12:15:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course, different sovereign states disagree from time to time about policy. Last summer, the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was actually summoned, and the President of Ukraine publicly and repeatedly expressed his extreme displeasure over the fact that this government granted a sanctions waiver for a turbine that was to facilitate the export of Russian gas. This was a very serious issue for the Government of Ukraine. One does not summon an ambassador lightly, but that is what the Ukrainian government did.
The member is sort of on his high horse about how, somehow, we should never disagree with a country that we are friends with. Of course, Canada supports Ukraine; Conservatives support Ukraine. However, this member is now saying that we should do exactly what the government wants.
I want to ask the member: Where was he last summer? Did he make any statements about the sanctions waiver? What, if anything, did he have to say when the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was summoned by President Zelenskyy to express his displeasure?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/23 5:35:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Conservatives believe we should be doing much more for Ukraine, including being consistent on sanctions and not sending turbines back. That is why we want a recorded division.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:19:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of some clear misunderstandings in question period, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to table the special permit given by the Liberal government to Siemens to get around sanctions, that the government gave the permit to facilitate Russia selling energy to Germany instead of supporting Canadian oil and gas. That was in support of Ukraine. I would like to table the document.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this member's excuse for not listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization is that they have put in place other sanctions and also their security experts are giving them advice in private which we cannot share, but they will not take action.
Let me just point out that successive administrations of the American government have recognized the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I know the government has shown us in recent days that it has more skepticism about American intelligence than one might have expected, but our allies are recognizing that the IRGC is a terrorist organization and that it is the source of much terror and violence in the Middle East and throughout the world; that it is bringing Hamas, Hezbollah, the Assad regime and other terrorist actors under its control; and that Iran, through its proxy, is responsible for the violence we are seeing today against Israel and impacting Palestinian people.
It is for those reasons, as well as for the threat it poses to Canada and Canadians that the Iranian community here is speaking out about, that it must be recognized as a terrorist organization.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to address the House this afternoon and to speak about one of the critical challenges facing the world today. That is the ongoing illegal, genocidal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the important work that Canadians need to do in order to continue to support Ukraine in this struggle. This is an existential struggle for Ukraine, as well as a critical battle for the defence of the free and democratic world.
A critical part of this emerging new cold war is the struggle between free democratic nations on the one hand and the neo-revisionist powers that are increasingly working together to combat the idea of universal human dignity, human rights and democracy on the other. With this broader frame in mind, it is critical for our security and for the values that we share as Canadians that Ukraine be able to prevail in this struggle and that we do all we can to support Ukraine to achieve as quick a victory as possible under the circumstances.
Today, we are of course debating a proposal for a next step with respect to free trade between Canada and Ukraine. It is important to recall that this process of pursuing Canada-Ukraine free trade started under the previous Conservative government. In many cases, we have seen trade deals that were begun and negotiated, and even had the negotiation process completed, under the previous Conservative government, and the current government has accepted that process. In one famous case, the current government fought to rename the treaty that had been negotiated by Conservatives and, of course, now it is eagerly taking credit for those steps. However, it is important to underline the work that has been done and the ongoing work that needs to be done to support a strengthened free trade framework, especially between Canada and like-minded nations. That partnership with Ukraine in the midst of this ongoing struggle and invasion is so important.
It is important to acknowledge that the invasion of Ukraine is not in the news or in public discussion as much at the moment. It is the nature of news to comment on things that are new; to some extent, other world events and challenges are capturing public attention right now. Those situations obviously need to be addressed as well. However, the fact that it is maybe not being discussed as much or is not in the news as much does not mean that the struggle is not going on and is not more critical than ever.
In fact, we are seeing escalating abuses and horrifying atrocities as part of this illegal Russian invasion. We are seeing, for instance, multiplying instances of the abduction of children; children are being stolen from Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine, taken away from their parents and sent to Russia. This is a horrific crime, and I cannot imagine the pain that those families are going through to be living in occupied territories and then to have their children taken away from them.
We are seeing sexual violence as a weapon of war on a massive scale not seen in Europe since at least the Second World War. There are horrifying volumes of sexual violence that are being systematically perpetrated by the Russian regime.
These instances of abduction of children, systemic sexual violence and indiscriminate bombing and targeting of civilians led the House to recognize in the early days of this invasion that it constituted an act of genocide. We stand as this House, I hope, united in continuing to recognize that. We need to recognize that, as people follow this now, a year and a half since the further invasion, we hope that this war comes to an end quickly. We want this war to end in a quick Ukrainian victory. Do we want this war to go on for much longer? No, we do not. We want it to end in a clear, decisive Ukrainian victory where Ukrainians can exercise sovereignty over all their territory, as well as democratic self-determination.
However, we must also countenance the possibility that things will not end quickly. Wars do not always follow the timelines that we hope for. It is an obligation for us to stand firm in supporting Ukrainians in the midst of these circumstances. This is why Conservatives have been there from the beginning. In fact, Conservatives have been calling for more support earlier, at every stage. It was Conservatives who led the G7, after the initial invasion in 2014, in having a strengthened international response. We pushed back when the current government, upon taking office, stopped sharing RADARSAT images with the Government of Ukraine. We fought back against that.
We called for tough sanctions to be imposed on the Putin regime prior to the further invasion beginning last February. Much of the world community anticipated this invasion. We called for pre-emptive sanctions beforehand, to try to deter it. The comment is on the record of the House and committee. The international community failed to really recognize the threat that was coming from the Putin regime and to impose measures in advance that might have stood a chance of deterring this horrific invasion. We called for those sanctions earlier.
We called on the government to do more to support Ukrainian energy security and to supply the needed equipment and weapons. Of course, the government has taken some steps to support Ukraine, but our criticism has been that, in order to bring about a Ukrainian victory, it is vitally necessary not just to make the announcements, but to supply the equipment and support required and get the delivery of that equipment as quickly and as early on in the process as possible. This is what we need in order to have Ukrainian victory, for Ukraine to have the tools and equipment it needs to secure victory; this is very important.
I hear from time to time from people who are skeptical or critical of our support of Ukraine. To them, I would say a number of things. First of all, I welcome conversations with people, regardless of their opinion on this issue. They should not hesitate to call me or my office. There are many good reasons we should be supporting Ukraine, and I am happy to make that case to anybody who is interested in having the conversation and listening.
Some people ask about how much this is costing us. I would point to the costs of inaction. What are the costs of failing to stand up to the bully in the Kremlin? We can look historically at the growing appetite for aggressive action of the Putin regime: where it started and where it has continued. There has been the action in Chechnya, the invasion of Georgia, the continuing Russian presence in Moldova and the invasion of Crimea in 2014. If, at each of those points, there had been a stronger response from the international community, we might not have seen the aggression move on to the next step. It was much more costly at every next stage, in terms of human life and the response that has been required.
We can now look back and ask, “What if we had done more at some of these earlier points?” There was the continuing strategy by Germany, for example, to be heavily reliant on Russian gas, which continued after Ukraine was already invaded in 2014. Germany continued to pursue Nord Stream 2 even after Russia, illegally, had already annexed Crimea and was continuing to be present in other parts of Ukraine.
What are the costs of inaction? If we did not support Ukraine, then this aggression would continue. It would proceed, I believe, to threaten NATO countries. It could threaten Canada's north. The cost of inaction is very high, because this aggression would continue.
Canada has a unique obligation in the midst of this challenge. Most of the world's democracies are small, densely populated nations. Canada, as a geographically vast energy-producing country, needs to be fulfilling our responsibility within the community of democratic nations to supply the democratic world with the energy security it needs. We need to step up and produce more energy, export more energy and relieve our partners and allies of their dependence on Russian energy. Purchases of energy from Russia are fuelling its war machine and the ongoing slaughter, the systemic sexual violence and the abduction of children. These things are being fuelled financially by those energy exports.
As such, recognizing the unique opportunities and responsibilities we have, Canada needs to expand our energy production. Yes, that would benefit our economy and Canadian workers, but even more importantly, we would be fulfilling our responsibility in the world to provide the energy security that all countries need. It is for such a time and such a responsibility that Canada is here, yet the government has its ideological head in the sand and is missing the opportunity and the responsibility we have to do more on the energy front.
I support expanding our trading relationships with Ukraine and other countries, but we need to do more in the energy security area. We need to make sure that, when announcements are made, we are delivering the goods as quickly as possible to ensure the vitally necessary victory for Ukraine and the forces of freedom everywhere.
1567 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague did an excellent job of highlighting the Liberal failure to support Ukraine in the area of energy security. European countries vitally need the natural resources that Canada is ready to produce and sell.
Last summer, we had emergency hearings at the foreign affairs committee because, instead of supporting the sale of Canadian energy to Europe, the Liberal government gave a sanctions exemption to allow a turbine to be sent to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Germany. We were more interested in facilitating the sale of Russian gas to Germany than in helping to relieve European dependence on Russian natural resources by providing Canadian resources as an alternative.
Could the member share more about the Conservative vision for Canada to be a leader in supporting global energy security by enabling our European allies to no longer be dependent on imports from Russia?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 8:54:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I want to ask my hon. friend about his views on the Iranian regime's role behind this attack. It is clear, I think, that the Iranian regime is seeking to support terrorist organizations throughout the region. If we look at Israel's borders, we see Iranian regime engagement with Hamas, with Hezbollah and with the Assad regime in Syria. We have called for the government to take additional steps to hold the Iranian regime accountable, listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, for example, and taking additional steps in terms of sanctions. This attack is another data point in terms of the horrors we have seen over the years with regard to the actions of this regime.
I wonder if the member could share what his views are on listing the IRGC, on the role of Iran in this particular attack and on what Canada can do to hold the Iranian regime accountable.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 10:21:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition that I am presenting contains a number of different asks related to the ongoing violence that we are seeing in Burma.
The petitioners note the horrific campaign of violence against civilians that is happening in Burma and the need for communications infrastructure that would allow early warning and would allow civilians to protect themselves. They also note the role of state-owned Myanmar oil and gas enterprises in providing funding to the military and Canadian obligations for the responsibility to protect.
The petitioners call on the government to take more action on this; to call on the military junta to immediately cease executions, atrocities and human rights abuses against civilians; and to increase humanitarian aid to Burma. In particular, aid should not be delivered centrally; rather, it should be delivered by working cross-border from neighbouring countries to provide support directly to minority-controlled areas.
The petitioners call on the government to provide technological and logistical support for communications to establish early warning systems and air defences to warn and protect civilians from aerial attacks; to call on insurance companies to stop providing insurance cover for deliveries of aviation fuel to Burma; to impose sanctions against Myanmar oil and gas enterprises, including blocking direct and indirect oil and gas purchases that support the Burmese regime; to swiftly implement the objectives set out in the aforementioned strategy, upholding our obligations under responsibility to protect; to refuse to engage or recognize the junta's state administrative council in any regional or international fora and to recognize the National Unity Government instead; to promote open dialogue among pro-democracy and diaspora groups with a view to helping the Burmese people to establish an inclusive democracy with full representation and recognition of the rights of all ethnic minorities, including Rohingya; and to provide assistance to Burma's politicians and citizens, supporting the development of a federal democratic system and power-sharing that would provide a solution for the country of multi-ethnic people who have been living together for a very long time.
344 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:39:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my concern around this legislation is not so much with the text of the bill as with the way that the government uses the sanctions tools that are available to it. Parliament gives the government sanctions tools, and then it is up to the government to determine how to use them. The government has been relatively limited and ineffective in its use of sanctions tools. There are also, I think, significant gaps in enforcement.
I want to ask the government a particular question about their sanctions regime and I hope we will hear an answer. Why has the government stopped using the Magnitsky act to sanction human rights abusers? It has been a number of years since that particular legislative tool has been used.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 1:38:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, everything that I said in my previous response is on the public record and is easily verifiable as accurate.
The member asked if there are instances of other countries that have imposed sanctions that Canada should have imposed. Yes, absolutely, and I will pick one present topical example.
Five years ago, the House listed the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, as a terrorist organization. The House voted five years ago. That member, if he was present, voted for it. I know the Prime Minister was present but he did not vote for that listing.
In five years, they have done nothing. It has been five years of inaction in terms of recognizing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The United States has recognized the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
We just had hearings at the foreign affairs committee on the Wagner Group. We have been calling for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. The United States has listed it as a transnational criminal organization, which is slightly different, but they have applied tough sanctions against the Wagner Group that we have not applied at an equivalent level.
There have been various instances. For instance, there are officials associated with the Sri Lankan military to whom we did eventually apply some sanctions this year, but we were way behind the Americans, who had applied those sanctions years before. There are many examples, actually, of allies being far ahead of us on sanctions.
We need to do better. We should be leading, by the way, not just catching up. We should be leading in terms of taking a stand against violations of fundamental human rights.
282 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 1:36:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think I have been very clear about that already, but I do want to pick up on the first comment he made about the Harper government and sanctions.
What he said is obviously nonsense. In fact, under the Conservative government, Canada led the world following the invasion of Ukraine and we were able to drive a consensus in the G7 that led to a tough response. It was likely not tough enough, but we were able to bring our allies along for a response that removed Russia from what was then the G8 and sanction Russia for the invasion of Ukraine that began at that time in 2014.
Of course, there have been changes in the world. There have been further developments since then, and I am very pleased about the passage of the Magnitsky act. It was a Conservative private member's bill that was passed following the 2015 election. I will also mention boycotting the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka.
After the Liberal government took office, the Liberals actually wanted to warm things up with Russia. They wanted to have good, warm, cozy relations with Russia again. That was what the then foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion was pursuing, and the Liberals cut off sharing radar satellite images with Ukraine.
Conservatives have been steadfast with Ukraine, opposing the Putin regime from the beginning.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
