SoVote

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

Mar/20/24 11:13:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, just as an aside, I want to give credit where credit it due. My colleague explained his point to me and now I understand him better. I misunderstood. I do not think that he will be drafting my speech after all, so that is settled. To answer my colleague's question, it goes without saying that this is a complicated geopolitical game. For example, we saw that the European Union decided to stop buying Russian oil and gas, but it was buying oil and gas from India, which was reselling Russian oil and gas at a higher price, so India was making a profit on the same oil and gas. That gets rather complicated. In this global trade game, whether in this case or any other, determining provenance can be complicated. Do we need to improve the mechanisms? Yes, but let us be careful not end up with a new world with blocs in constant rivalry. That could be a powder keg and a rather complicated situation. I value dialogue. In this case, obviously, a war broke out. Sides have been chosen. We must put an end to it as quickly as possible, and the peaceful path is the best option. Diplomacy will undoubtedly be the only way out. In due course, however, we must take the time to reflect on a vision of the world that does not include rivalries resurfacing long after we thought we had left them behind.

243 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

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

The Chair

Mar/20/24 11:17:55 p.m.
Watch

I just wanted to say to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre that I will not be reporting this back, so the hon. member, even though he became invisible to me for a few moments, will be fully seen tomorrow during the session of the House.

46 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/20/24 11:18:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. What you just said is not consistent with what you had previously said, nor is it consistent with the precedent set by the previous Speaker regarding the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake. I am not sure why you are saying now that you are reversing your previous decision in defiance of precedents set by the Speaker. I would ask you to apply the precedent and hold the member for Etobicoke Centre accountable for his unparliamentary language and insist that he apologize before being recognized. That was what you said, and that was the ruling of the Speaker in regard to a Conservative member. I would expect you, or any Chair occupant, to treat all parties equally in this place, and to not give special allowances to the government on matters of amendment or on matters of the statements they make in the House. I ask you to apply the rules and the precedents of the House and to defend the privileges of all members equally and fairly.

177 words

The Chair

Mar/20/24 11:19:24 p.m.
Watch

It being 11:20 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, March 18, the committee will now rise. The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 11:20 p.m.)

48 words

The Chair

Mar/20/24 11:19:24 p.m.
Watch

I will be bringing this to the attention of the Speaker tomorrow morning.

13 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/20/24 11:16:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would basically say that the position that we in the west, in democratic nations, have chosen to take is not necessarily shared by every country in the world. Diplomacy still has its rights. If a country does not share our position, I do not think that is a reason to suspend diplomatic channels with that country. We have to continue to do business. We have to continue to engage in dialogue. We have to continue to have cultural, intellectual, political and various other exchanges. We have to continue to have relations with countries that do not share our position on this conflict. That goes without saying. That strategy could well help us convince them over time, and it could be much more effective than a hostile approach.

130 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/20/24 9:39:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, Conservatives support a strong, free, independent Ukraine. We always have and we always will. This is Ukraine as defined by the borders agreed upon in the Budapest memorandum, which was signed by, among others, Russia. It is critically important, as we reflect on our support for Ukraine, that we not just speak of seeking victory eventually but speak of the urgency of victory, a victory as soon as possible. The Ukrainian people have shown incredible resilience, and democratic populations throughout the western world have been supportive of Ukraine. However, history teaches us that there is a time horizon after which support becomes more and more difficult to sustain. That is why we as leaders need to push for the continuation of that support, but we also need to push for victory as quickly as possible. That means not just expressing aspirations about things to be done eventually, but recognizing the real urgency in delivering to Ukraine the weapons and other things it needs urgently to defeat the Russian aggressors. As we talk about that support, I want to highlight in particular the issue of urgency. For too long, we have seen announcements made without follow-through. We have seen significant delays in Canada from the government, but in other cases as well, in delivering promised support. We, as the official opposition, have been continually pushing the government to get from announcement to results much faster. Earlier in this debate, I challenged NDP members over the comments they made before the further invasion, which were about delivering lethal weapons. They said that, of course, they took that position at the time because they wanted to pursue peace. I want to underline the critical importance of peace through strength. Peace through strength is something we need now more than ever in our more dangerous world, with more threats and with our new cold war adversaries working together to threaten our security. We need to have a strong military. We need to acquire the military equipment to give to our allies in need. We need to strengthen ourselves and our allies because it is through strength that we achieve peace. The doctrine of peace through weakness has always failed. Brian Mulroney, who we honoured in a particular way this week, understood that. He, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, working, in a different sense, with spiritual strength, with Pope John Paul II, stood up to the Soviet regime. They stood up through strength, not through weakness and compromise and not through failing to hand over the weapons that were required. They achieved peace through strength, and justice through strength. This is what we need. We need to strengthen ourselves and our allies and deliver the weapons that are required urgently. Since people are asking about the costs of this support, I want to say that the costs of inaction are much greater. I also want to highlight section N of the security agreement. We support the entire security agreement, and section N is about the seizure of Russian assets. One critical way that we can support Ukraine with its current needs and its future needs is by doing more to seize Russian assets and repurpose those assets to support Ukraine. This is a just and necessary way to support Ukraine in its time of need. Repurposing property from the Russian side can support the Ukrainian people. At this critical time in the world, a critical time in the struggle in Ukraine and a critical time in global security, it is time for us to recognize the urgency of action, the urgency of getting support to the front lines and the urgency of establishing the munitions manufacturing systems, moving forward with manufacturing the munitions here in Canada and getting them to the front lines as quickly as possible. We must recommit ourselves to peace through strength, recognizing that peace is never achieved through weakness, that we will only achieve peace through strength.

659 words