SoVote

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jan/31/22 10:38:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank all my colleagues for staying so late. We are starting things off with a bang today. The fact that there was unanimous consent to have this debate may indicate how important the Ukraine file is, as many have pointed out. I would like to come at the issue from a different angle. I do not want to talk about what can be done now. This evening's debate in the House may change very little with respect to what needs to be done right away, but perhaps we should give some thought to the future, because current events are exposing some issues with the government's response. Government members talked about the importance of diplomacy and deterrence. However, when diplomacy is not properly coordinated or not assertive enough, it is hard to then send an unequivocal message of deterrence. That is clear from the fact that the Prime Minister is still refusing to have a leader-to-leader discussion with Russia. Canada is advocating for strong diplomacy as the primary weapon for resolving the crisis, but its diplomatic efforts still seem to lack a common thread. Many observers have criticized Canada for flying blind and lacking a clear strategy. Others have also recently criticized the revolving door at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a problem that has been highlighted by the crisis. The department has had five different ministers in six years, with everything that goes along with that in terms of different entourages, approaches and personalities. One thing is for sure: Canada cannot stand by doing nothing in the context of the crisis with Ukraine. It was called upon to take action. It had to do something. It could not stand idly by. However, it seems that Canada was not necessarily ready to take the action that was needed, or to do so in a consistent manner. As we like to say back home, it is time to walk the talk. In this case, however, maybe that saying needs to be flipped around, because it seems that the government's words and actions do not line up, which is a bit frightening. The problem with taking action is that it can be misinterpreted. Another problem is that even if the action is clear, it may contradict other actions. I feel like raising some of the actions that were taken in the context of the crisis that seem to be contradictory. There has been talk of extending and expanding Operation Unifier. It may seem like a good thing to send more troops to Ukraine to help train the army that is already in place. However, in the context of the crisis, that may send an overly optimistic message. We are sending troops for purposes other than combat, who will help with medical and security training for local troops. If the crisis boils over, we can expect that operation to be suspended and our troops to be withdrawn since they are not combat troops, whereas the troops that we are training in Ukraine may be mobilized if a conflict erupts. By taking that action, we are acting as though we expect the Russians not to take any military action, yet we are presenting this action as a response to a potential Russian invasion. Another action the government has taken is to provide a $120‑million loan, but no one has mentioned the fact that there is a clause prohibiting the money from being used to procure military equipment, such as lethal equipment. Without getting into a debate about this equipment, it seems to me that this provision is somewhat of a slap in the face to Ukraine, which is specifically asking for military support. Again, we seem to be sending the message that we will help Ukraine but also hope there will be no crisis. The money will be used to support the economy, because Russia is threatening to destabilize the country, but this money will not be used to counter the Russian threat if the crisis comes to a head. These actions seem unduly optimistic in contrast with the government's stated positions, such as recalling non-essential embassy staff, which even caused Russia to say that we must stop our alarmist rhetoric on the development of the crisis. We seem to be sending mixed messages with the $120‑million loan, not to mention that the message itself is rather problematic. We are not responding to Ukraine's request for military equipment. Once again, without getting into a debate about the crux of the matter, it begs the question. A democratic nation, and an ally at that, is asking for support in the form of military equipment to respond to a threat from an authoritarian regime, and Canada is dithering. Meanwhile, Canada continues to send arms to Saudi Arabia. What message does that send? The question is, why are we sending arms to Saudi Arabia while refusing to send any to Ukraine? I am not here to debate the merits of the actions that have been taken, but it is worth remembering that these measures will not have any real consequences on the ground. Canada is not in a position to stand up to Russia, which is heavily armed and ready to go. The actions we take are about sending a message, but it seems as though, once again, the message is not clear. This crisis has underscored a number of problems with our diplomacy. Many observers have pointed out that Canada may be doing itself a disservice by taking a soft power approach out of keeping with such a serious crisis. I want to share a long excerpt from an article published today, in which Joël‑Denis Bellavance spoke about the state of Canadian diplomacy: Mr. Trudeau does not give the impression that foreign policy is a priority for him. That's too bad, because he has raised expectations around the world since coming to power. He missed a perfect opportunity to make it clear that “Canada is back!” He does not have any strong personalities on his team, with the exception of Chrystia Freeland, who can lead the charge in asserting—

1035 words

All Topics

The Deputy Chair

Jan/31/22 10:46:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is reading out the article as written, but she cannot mention ministers or the Prime Minister by name in the House.

24 words

Designation of Members by the name of their constituency or title

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jan/31/22 10:46:14 p.m.
Watch

I am so sorry. I will keep reading: “...a more active and visible Canadian presence internationally”, said a former diplomat who represented Canada in Africa and also wishes to remain anonymous. Also coming under fire is the Prime Minister's bad habit of appointing deputy foreign affairs ministers who have never served in an embassy abroad. “The fact that the vast majority of top officials at the Pearson building have never set foot in an embassy is an outrage”, said an internal source. Former diplomat Ferry de Kerckhove [who makes frequent media appearances] feels it is time Canada's diplomatic corps found its bearings. The best way to do that is to produce a white paper on Canada's foreign policy. The last comprehensive review dates back to 2005; that is 17 years ago. I hope this evening's debate will prove to be useful, an opportunity for us to acknowledge the importance of diplomacy and of funding it appropriately, investing in it to ensure it has a clear, overarching mission. We also need a clearer foreign policy because we never know when we will need to use diplomacy. Credibility is not established in a day; I believe that goes double in times of crisis. I think what we need to acknowledge this evening is that we still have work to do. I hope that is the takeaway from today's debate.

236 words

All Topics

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Jan/31/22 10:48:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. She talked at length about diplomacy. She pointed out some aspects of our diplomacy where she sees contradictions. I just wanted to say that on the issue of our Prime Minister meeting with Vladimir Putin, I think the decision to meet with someone or to not meet with someone is also part of a diplomatic strategy. It might be worthwhile. In my view, I think the allies are united, and that is why certain individuals like President Biden, for example, are assigned the role of meeting with Mr. Putin. That is just my opinion, but I think it is a good strategy. It is important that we remain united. As for the $120 million loaned to the Ukrainians, I think it was more to stabilize their financial system, which is important. There was a strategy there. As for the weapons sent to Saudi Arabia, we could have a long discussion on that, but my question has to do with weapons. Does the member think that Canada should be sending weapons? Since we are sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, is the member suggesting that we should also send them to Ukraine?

203 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jan/31/22 10:49:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his very good question. As my esteemed colleague from Montarville already mentioned, we do not think that sending arms to support Ukraine will make Russia shake in its boots. That is not going to have a tangible impact on the ground. I will refer back to my speech, specifically to the idea that sending arms does more than just send a message. In that context, we must ensure that the message is properly perceived and received. That is more the role of diplomacy. At present, I believe that mixed messages are being sent. I do not believe that sending arms alone will have a tangible impact. It is more about the message this sends, and we must ensure that it is clear.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jan/31/22 10:50:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will speak in French as a sign of respect for our country's languages. I want to comment on the debate over whether Ukraine's allies could supply weapons to Ukraine in an attempt to make Russia think twice before deciding to invade. I believe that this would make a difference in diplomacy. Just look at President Trump's meeting with President Putin in recent years. I think that did a lot of damage to diplomacy in Europe and America. It was a huge victory for Russia, which broadcast propaganda around the world, including here in Canada, via Russia Today, a 24-hour propaganda channel. We cannot forget that Russia has already fought two wars in Chechnya, sending 50,000 troops to fight each of those wars. Now, there are nearly 130,000 troops on the Ukraine-Russia and Belarus-Ukraine borders, and those soldiers are not normally there. These are tactical combat units deployed from all across the Russian Federation. I think we need to be cautious in our diplomacy and avoid playing into the hands of Mr. Putin and the Russian Federation, which is preparing for a larger war while we spend our time talking. Dialogue can have a diplomatic role in a war that might happen later, in a few weeks or months. We do not know. That is up to them. We must remain vigilant so we can recognize when an adversary is using our time and our focus on diplomacy against us.

250 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jan/31/22 10:52:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, in fact, the Bloc Québécois's position is to not close the door entirely on the use of weapons. Nor did I say that that should follow diplomatic efforts. Both things can actually be done in parallel. They have to be done in parallel, because if there is a shipment of weapons, the message needs to be properly received. We can send weapons and maybe irritate Russia more than anything else. However, if we do this and say we are prepared for the consequences, then there are things that can be done on their side so that we can talk. Both approaches have to be taken at the same time. I am not trying to prioritize which of these things needs to be done first. I believe they can and should be done at the same time.

143 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jan/31/22 10:53:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would also like to ask the question in French, but I do not know if I would communicate as effectively, especially at this late hour, so I am going to stick to English. Forgive me; I will work on it. One of the questions that I asked my Conservative colleague on the defence committee earlier in the debate is one I would like to ask my hon. colleague in the Bloc, and I do appreciate her work on the defence committee as well. Working together has been good so far. Ultimately, there has been a huge lack of Liberal leadership when it comes to the men and women who are serving in the armed forces. There is a lot of doubt about whether it is safe. Women who have served are giving up their entire careers because they cannot go forward. We have talked about that retention and recruitment problem. An additional stress is put on the women as we expand and amplify the Operation Unifier mission. I would like to hear her comments and her thoughts on what we need to do from our end to better support the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and to ensure that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government do the same.

215 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jan/31/22 10:55:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for the question. I will take this opportunity to mention that we work really well together at the Standing Committee on National Defence. That is part of what all members want to work on, in other words, recruitment and retention within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about improving the image of the forces, which has been tarnished over the past few years. It is important for the protection of Canadians and Quebeckers here at home, but also for our ability to respond internationally when required, especially in a context of climate change. There is a risk of increasing pressure on many levels. Is it not the role of the forces to intervene in those cases? It is worth discussing. However, we will not be able to intervene if there is no one in the forces, and we see that is currently a challenge.

150 words

All Topics

The Deputy Chair

Jan/31/22 10:55:51 p.m.
Watch

It being 10:55 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 53(1), the committee will rise.

16 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/31/22 10:57:00 p.m.
Watch

Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.)

25 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 20