SoVote

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Jan/31/22 10:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock for her views on the debate. With that, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to a matter that I know Canadians are watching. It is not only those who have Ukrainian roots, but all those who believe in moral clarity and a principled approach to our country's foreign policy and our place in the world, and Canadians like me who have pieced together a first-hand history from the family dinner table of stories from the past that make today's threats so clear and obvious. If there was ever an instance where Canada, where the Prime Minister and where the foreign affairs minister had the opportunity to do the right thing, it was last week. The government could have lent its support to Ukraine against Russian aggression by providing Ukraine with the lethal defensive weapons it needs, but Canada did not. The governments of the U.S., the U.K., Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and others have already provided that support. Some have leaned on our past refusal to arm Ukraine as an excuse not to do it today. However, the difference now is that almost nine years have passed since Putin's continued occupation began and his constant escalation of aggression. Of course, we have all of our NATO allies. We now know the situation has changed rapidly in the last week, so it becomes very difficult to understand why Canada has not joined our allies. In fact, the government has recognized this themselves by operational changes we heard about yesterday. It is important for the House to understand the history of our relationship and the history that many members of the House will remember first-hand, because it was not that long ago that Canada was unafraid of principles and was Ukraine's most vocal ally in the G7. Today that is a not-so-distant in memory, but it will be replaced in our history that we are an observer to an imminent threat that we know to be true. We have two clear options: We treat Ukraine as the allies that they are, as defenders of democracy and freedom who we would lend our full military support to on the path to European integration, or we excuse ourselves from the conversation to appease Putin's violence and walk away. I know the answer was once clear. Our past action on this issue unfortunately does not seem like the right indicator for our future action. In the past, Canada's actions included targeted sanctions against Kremlin supporters, political and economic support to Kyiv's government, the redeployment of military assets as part of NATO's reassurance package in eastern Europe and the contribution of observers to Ukraine's election. Today, they need more, and our action would have been clear. The steadfast support of our former prime minister was clear. He spoke directly and unambiguously about his views on Putin's occupation and the destabilizing force that Russia is in the world today. It is important to understand the context of Russia's aggression and the very nature of its renegade ruler. He is a dangerous dictator uninterested in looking forward, but malevolently looks backward to the eventual expansion of a Russian empire. He is a violent aggressor to which diplomacy has always been answered with hostility. Further to the obvious truth, which I think the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance understands better than almost anybody in this place, there was a valiant effort on the part of two American presidents to try to make Putin a constructive partner with some version of diplomacy, but here is the problem: He does not want to be. The response from the government is a truly curious one. First, a loan that might suggest there was more hope of bringing back the special relationship that we once had, followed by an announcement of an extended training mission that would have been extended anyway. They are now on the brink of war without the equipment needed. Over the course of the debate, we have heard about Canada's unwavering support, but as some of my colleagues have stated, I invite the government to go beyond the words of support. We have two very clear options for how we respond. We can immediately provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, restore RADARSAT imaging and use the Magnitsky sanctions against those responsible for Russia's aggression against the Ukraine, or we can stand idly by. I believe the government truly understands the threat, but I do not believe they act as though they do. Maybe it is time.

789 words

All Topics

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Jan/31/22 10:12:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it was interesting to hear the member speak about former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The member said that he spoke unambiguously. I do not disagree; I think he spoke unambiguously. I think the current Prime Minister has spoken unambiguously. I think our Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken unambiguously. One of the things that our Prime Minister has done, preceding my time in office but during my time in office as well, is that he has also acted unambiguously: unambiguously imposing sanctions, unambiguously extending and expanding the training mission, unambiguously providing additional foreign aid, unambiguously moving those trainers into eastern Ukraine where they were not originally, unambiguously helping Ukraine to reform so that it could be stronger and therefore better withstand the Russian invasion, and unambiguously signing a free trade agreement. When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he refused to send those lethal weapons that are now being asked for. My question is, why?

156 words

All Topics

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Jan/31/22 10:14:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I know that the member for Etobicoke Centre is an advocate for the community and I know that table would be better off for having his advocacy there because I know that he does not agree with the actions that the government has taken. I know that he believes that the government can do more. I do want to address one of the things that the member said, which is Canada's not arming Ukraine in 2014. He is probably referring to that. It is because Ukraine did not ask and it is because a lot of things have changed in almost nine years. That is the reason. There was an ask and there is a need, and things have become quite dangerous. I know this member knows that and I know this member would believe that and I know this member would advocate if he had a seat at the table.

154 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Jan/31/22 10:15:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I travelled to Kyiv months after Russia's invasion into Crimea and I met seriously injured soldiers being treated by Canadian surgeons assisting Ukrainian doctors. I met with officials there, and since then in Canada, through meetings arranged by Ambassador Shevchenko. They all asked repeatedly that our government reinstate our radar satellite systems that could have made a significant impact in improving their realization of what Russia was up to back then, and even now what Ukrainians are facing because of a lack of that oversight. I would like the member to speak to the fact that our government truly failed them in that moment.

107 words

All Topics

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Jan/31/22 10:15:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would like to speak about it a bit more. There are a number of issues that have changed on the ground since the time the hon. member visited and the last time that we truly had a debate in this House about the situation in Ukraine. There are a lot of things that we can still do and there are a lot of things that the Ukrainians have asked for that Canada has not provided. There is an opportunity for the government to do the right thing and provide those three things that I spoke about in my remarks. Believe me, on this side of the House we would absolutely welcome that, and I would be the first to applaud the government if it did the right thing.

131 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Jan/31/22 10:16:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with my former seatmate, the member for Vancouver Centre. It is getting late, and I note that at the end of this week is the beginning of the Olympics. There will be one nation out of all the nations in the world that will not be allowed to compete under its own flag, and that is the Russian nation. The Olympic committee finally got sick of all the corruption, doping, cheating and lying that was coming out of the Russian government and will not allow Russian athletes to compete under their own flag. This is what we, meaning the family of nations, the universe of nations, including Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine, deal with on a daily basis, because nothing happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin's express permission. When he says there might be 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border or that they are just exercises and there is nothing to see, it is just nonsense and no one should really pay much attention because he does not speak the truth very often. I was once privileged to spend some time with Senator Lisa Murkowski. She has available to her a map of the Arctic. I do not know if it is available publicly, but it is like looking at the Arctic from 50,000 feet above the North Pole. What it shows is the remilitarization of the Arctic by the Russian government, with all of the refurbished old bases and all of the new installations as well. While Canada, even from that map, is far away from the Russian bases, the U.S. is very close, at the Bering Strait, as are Finland, Sweden, Greenland, Denmark and Norway. The remilitarization of the Arctic, in my judgment, is what contributes to why it is in Canada's best interests to fully participate in the Ukrainian repulsion of this Russian aggression. Henry Kissinger once said that nations do not have permanent friends or enemies; they only have interests. Regardless of whether one is Ukrainian or not, or whether one has diaspora in one's community or not, in my judgment it is in Canada's best interests to fully support Ukraine. Russia routinely launches massive cyber-attacks on Canada, the last one being at a hospital in Newfoundland. It is nothing but a mafia shakedown: “If you pay us millions of dollars, we'll let you have your hospital back.” Russia routinely steals significant amounts of industrial and commercial intellectual property. Russian oligarchs have purchased significant pieces of industrial and commercial property in order to burrow deeply into Canadian society, and that money has been generated from very dubious sources. Russia is quite skilled at the game of misinformation and disinformation. There are many, many more reasons why Ukraine's security is our security and our security is Ukraine's security. I would ask members to cast their minds along the eastern European flank to western Russia, because if Ukraine goes, the next place to go is Poland and the Baltics. When we get past Poland and the Baltics, we get to Finland. After Finland is Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and suddenly this is at our border. I see my time is up, and I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

556 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jan/31/22 10:22:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for a great intervention in this House. I had the honour of serving with the member at the foreign affairs committee a few Parliaments ago. There is a lot of wisdom in the words he brings to the House, and that it is in our national interest to ensure that the Government of Ukraine remains independent, has territorial integrity, and is able to stand up to Russian aggression. I want to add a few things to what he said. In 2015, when Russia attacked Ukraine, it used about a dozen battalion tactical groups. Today we are talking about up to 76 battalion tactical groups amassing on the border. The types of troops being amassed at the border of Ukraine are what indicate that Russia is serious about entering Ukrainian territory and staying in Ukrainian territory for whatever purpose, for whatever length of time. I wonder if the member could expand on the comments he has made on what this would mean for our national interest, as well as for the national interest of NATO allies in the region.

187 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Jan/31/22 10:23:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the hon. member asks a very disturbing question. The reason it is disturbing is that this is a buildup like nothing else we have ever seen. It has been appropriate that the family of nations, particularly the NATO nations, have reacted as swiftly as they have in a variety of ways. I, like him, share that concern. I would like to think that diplomacy would do the trick here. I would like to think that this is a feint or something of that nature, that this is is just to trick the NATO allies. I am not convinced.

100 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jan/31/22 10:24:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to elaborate on the question that was just asked. We are talking about higher numbers of troops on the Ukrainian border. We are somewhat concerned that Russia will use other tactics to ultimately annex Donbass, mainly by supporting the rebel troops in that area. How can diplomacy have a role to play when things are being done in a clandestine way? I do not know if my colleague wants to comment on that possibility, which is nonetheless real.

82 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Jan/31/22 10:24:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member is my favourite Bloc member on the defence committee, and I appreciate her question. I would like to share the member's optimism about the utility of diplomacy, but if they are interacting with a person who has a delusional sense of what constitutes Russia's rightful territorial area of influence, they are starting in a pretty deep hole. It is difficult to arrive at an agreed upon statement of threat, or an agreed upon statement of fact. If there were those agreements or some basis for moving forward on diplomacy, I would be 100% enthusiastic. However, I do not think, at this time, this is going to work.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jan/31/22 10:25:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the troop buildup by Russia along the Ukrainian border is completely unacceptable as is its threatening posture towards Ukraine. Canada should absolutely be coming to Ukraine's assistance and using whatever tools it can, including the Magnitsky act sanctions, which is something the government has yet to do. I am wondering if the member has thoughts about why Canada has yet to deploy Magnitsky act sanctions as a tool to deter Russia, and whether we could expect that the government will in the near future.

87 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Jan/31/22 10:26:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, that is an excellent question, and I agree with the member completely. Bill Browder, who is the father of Magnitsky sanctions, said last week that we, meaning all of the NATO nations, need to align the Magnitsky sanctions with each other, because the gaps are where the Russians win. Insofar as Canada has not aligned with other nations, I would encourage alignment. I would also encourage other nations to align with the initiatives that Canada has taken on Magnitsky. As Browder rightly says, these people who are hiding money in Canada, in plain sight frequently, have gotten it from abuse of human rights, and we should, under no circumstances, tolerate those kinds of investments in our country.

119 words

All Topics

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Jan/31/22 10:27:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to all of the speakers and I think I want to speak to constituents out there. We all understand the issue. We know the regional—

38 words

All Topics

The Deputy Chair

Jan/31/22 10:27:50 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. Does the hon. member have her headset on and her boom down? I cannot tell. That will be very helpful to us here in the House.

29 words

Hon. Hedy Fry

Jan/31/22 10:28:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, can you hear me now?

7 words

Hon. Hedy Fry

Jan/31/22 10:28:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to speak to Canadians out there and constituents, because I have noted that many of them have been asking why Canada is worrying about this country. It is so far away up there in Eastern Europe, why are we bothered? We are bothered because this is not just about us. It is not just about Ukraine. It is not just about NATO. It is not just about Europe. It is about the fact that one has to have a rules-based order to keep global security moving. One has to have relationships with countries based on trust. What is shown is that in 1991, when Ukraine became a sovereign nation and became independent, it still carried the third-largest arms supply in the world. An agreement was made in 1994 at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe called the Budapest agreement. Everyone wanted nuclear disarmament and there was an agreement between the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakstan that said that if Ukraine got rid of all of its nuclear storage, they would all agree that in exchange Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, would be protected and not have any aggression levelled against it. Its territorial integrity and its sovereignty would be accepted and realized. Russia broke that. It broke that rule when it went into Crimea in 2014. It broke that rule again when it was amassing troops on the borders of Ukraine and along the Baltic states. It broke that rule, as the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, now that it is looking at arming the Baltic with warships. Russia is giving us a message and the whole issue is about trust. We cannot trust its words, trust its agreements or trust its assurances. Global security is at risk when there is absolutely no trust, so we all need to be concerned about it. We have talked a lot about wanting peaceful solutions. We have talked a lot about not moving into war, but the way to prevent war is to have trust. The way to prevent war is to have a rules-based world order. The way to prevent war is to make sure that we can believe in each other and trust each other's word. Russia has proven itself not to be capable that, and not only in 2014, when it moved into Crimea. We know that it has moved into Transnistria. We know that the Baltic states are all very concerned. I think this is something we need to think about. I do not know if members remember this in history, but I recall a time when a certain government said it would only move in to take over Czechoslovakia. We believed it and agreed. We thought it was all fine and wonderful. Then we saw it move to take over all of Europe, and then came the Second World War. We are on the brink of a global war. We need to think about that. Obviously, we need to negotiate. Obviously, we need to try to find a peaceful resolution to conflict, but we also need to have an iron fist in a velvet glove. As we talk about the kinds of things we need to do with respect to negotiating, we need to have solidarity in our backpack, pardon my mixed metaphors, and things such as Magnitsky sanctions. We need to understand that money is being hidden in our countries by oligarchs and Putin himself. That money came from corruption. It came from the human rights denials of many people around the world. This is a government that we need to stop where it hurts, in the pocketbook and in the personal pocketbook. If that does not work, we need to think about the fact that we, as members of the OSCE and NATO, have to be prepared to take whatever steps we need. Churchill said, “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war”, but sometimes, as he showed us, we have to do what is necessary to protect global security.

683 words

All Topics

The Deputy Chair

Jan/31/22 10:28:46 p.m.
Watch

I will check with the interpreters. Go ahead.

8 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jan/31/22 10:33:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for her contribution to this debate. I guess I am going to sound a softer tone, but I am always worried that when we do comparisons to World War II we are not getting it right. This is not the Soviet Union anymore, but it is still the same type of Russian leadership that we are seeing. Its default stance is to be hyper aggressive towards its neighbours. We saw it do this to Georgia. It feels like just a few years ago, but it has been over 15 years since that particular conflict happened. Since then, it has created two of these autonomous, separate kinds of republics that nobody else recognizes. I wonder if the member would comment on what the possible interest would be for the Russian federation in trying to either dismember Ukraine or destabilize it, because we in Canada, as many cabinet ministers have been mentioning, have been contributing a lot to the humanitarian and civil institutions' strengthening effort in Ukraine.

174 words

All Topics

Hon. Hedy Fry

Jan/31/22 10:34:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I am talking about the word “trust” here. We trusted a government that told us it would be going into Czechoslovakia and it would not do anything else, and then it moved to take over Europe. I do not know the bottom line of Putin's agenda, but I do know that he showed himself not to be trustworthy when he went into Crimea, when he armed his warships in the Baltic Sea, and when he threatened by his very presence a lot of the Baltic states and the Arctic Ocean. I think we need to remember that we have to be guarded. We should not be naive enough to believe whatever we are hearing from somebody who has shown that he is not to be trusted, and we need to be prepared. We need to start softly, but as with Georgia we also need to be prepared. I am not going to say we need to be prepared for war, but we need to be prepared to show our strength to come together as members of NATO or the OSCE.

185 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jan/31/22 10:35:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, as was said earlier, the buildup of troops by Russia along the Ukrainian border is not acceptable, and it is important that Canada work with our allies to send a very strong message about the fact that it is not acceptable. However, I have been troubled to see the extent to which it seems that some of our allies are not always inviting Canada to the table in some of the important discussions around a coordinated response. I think of the fact that, for many years now and under many governments, Canada has failed to renew its military equipment, so we have very aged equipment in our case. Also, in terms of gross national income, Canada's foreign aid budget is actually quite low. I think it is important that if Canada wants to play a real role in these conversations and have a seat at the table, that it recognizes it has to be renewing its equipment on an ongoing basis for the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. It also has to be making sure that it is an active participant on the world stage when it comes to providing aid and support to other countries. That is part of the infrastructure that a country needs in order to be taken seriously around these tables, and something that Canada had developed throughout the course of the Second World War, which was a reference that the hon. member had made in her own remarks. I wonder if the member would like to comment on how it is that Canada finds itself struggling to get the recognition at international tables that it used to. What can we actually do to make sure that the Canadian name has the same force, value and presence that it had historically throughout the 20th century?

305 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 20