Debates of March 20th, 2024

Unparliamentary Language

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have asked you to retract it. Please retract it and apologize, or your evening is going to come to an end.

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will not apologize for speaking the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will make this easy. The hon. member will not be recognized until he apologizes.

We will go on to the next speaker, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would just like clarification, because this could set a regrettable precedent.

If any member of this Parliament told NDP members that they are pro-Palestinian, would that member be silenced and accused of using unparliamentary language? If any one of us told other members that they are pro-Israeli, would that be cause for expulsion?

We need to be careful about using ideologies. I certainly understand that, but sometimes we have to take controversial positions. Some members of the Conservative Party may have controversial views; indeed, one might say that some of them are pro-life and others are pro-choice.

We would be playing a very dangerous game if we were to expel MPs for saying things that align with ideological leanings expressed in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe the Speaker's ruling had to do with the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake saying that the New Democrats support Hamas. That is very close to what the hon. member said this evening. I would therefore like the hon. member to withdraw his remarks. If he declines to do so, I will go to the next person on the list of those who want to speak.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just want to illustrate that when the Conservatives accused members of the House of supporting Hamas, that was a very different thing, because Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization. We actually do not have that designation right now, and maybe we should, for the Russian Federation, and we certainly do not have it for the People's Party.

I think we can say that many members of the Conservative Party have shown they are much closer in values to the PPC than they are to perhaps a progressive conservative movement. I think it is fair for the member to say that. However, when there is a member who calls somebody out for being associated with an illegal terrorist organization, that is a very different thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Ultimately, it is this: When something is causing disorder in the House, we have to find a mechanism in which to put that disorder aside so that we can continue the debate that is scheduled for this evening. The statement was causing tremendous disorder, just like when the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake did something very similar.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is turning into a debate as interesting as it is worrisome. On the one hand, you referred to a member's remarks causing disorder in the House. Any statement, whether members agree with it or not, can cause disorder in the House. Is the Chair going to crack down on every statement that causes disorder in the House? That is my first point.

My second point is that there is currently a conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Russia launched a massive invasion of Ukraine, an action we vigorously condemn. We support Ukraine, and I believe the entire House of Commons supports Ukraine. That does not mean it is illegal, unthinkable or impossible to hold a different opinion. People could, quite legitimately, support Putin and be pro-Russian. That is not a crime. It is not an opinion I share or agree with. I can see why Conservative members would take offence at being associated with that. I can see why the member for Etobicoke Centre might consider a particular wing of the Conservative Party to be pro-Russian. That does not make saying so unparliamentary.

I think that, as my colleague from Jonquière pointed out earlier, we are walking a very thin line right now. I feel this could set a very dangerous precedent. Freedom of expression is at stake. Freedom of opinion is at stake. I think the Chair will have to consider that when ruling on this point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, let us be very clear about the precedent that was set by the Speaker's decision with respect to the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake. When there are regimes that are clearly deplored by all parliamentarians, by all Canadians, and that are subject in some way to sanctions by the Government of Canada, then casting those kinds of aspersions to say that members in the House are affiliated with or are supportive of those regimes has been deemed to be unparliamentary. Of course, it is the sort of the thing that someone has the freedom to say outside the House in the same way that someone has the freedom to call another member a “liar” outside the House. However, members do not have unlimited ability to say whatever they want while still being within the parameters of what is allowable under parliamentary procedure.

The Speaker ruled, and the Speaker has ruled in similar cases, that making the direct, clearly false claim that members of the House are affiliated with or supportive of regimes that are deplored by all parliamentarians and all Canadians, such as the Putin regime or Hamas, is deemed unparliamentary. The Chair is now applying the precedent that was set to the member for Etobicoke Centre, who claims to care about partisan unity on this issue but clearly does not. He is clearly trying to drive a partisan agenda for electoral purposes, not for principled reasons, which is unparliamentary. The member for Etobicoke Centre has rightly been called to order, and he should rethink the approach he is taking if he actually cares about advancing the cause of Ukraine.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Chair, I certainly do not want to repeat what has already been said, but I do want to raise my concern as well that there is a bit of a precedent here that we need to be worried about.

There are a lot of big feelings in the House, but the problem is that it should not be those who scream the loudest or light their hair on fire who get the most attention. When one is in a grocery store and a kid is on the floor kicking and screaming, one does not feed that fire. I would ask that we be more cautious, absolutely, with the words we use, but it should not be those who kick and scream the loudest who get their way all the time.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make one last comment. I understand that we all want to get to bed tonight. However, we have heard comments that I find worrisome, for example, when people say that if all parliamentarians are of one opinion or if all Canadians are of one opinion, other opinions should not be allowed. We nearly got to that point.

When there is an international conflict like the one between Ukraine and Russia or the one between Israel and Palestine, I think that all opinions should be heard in the House. The same thing goes for internal matters. All opinions should be heard. We are here to debate things. We might take offence. We can shout all we want, but no opinions on an international conflict should be considered unparliamentary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have to be very judicious in the words we are using and how we are talking, especially when we are talking about things that are so important to the world at the moment. I want to make sure we are giving respect to the debate we are having tonight. That is what I am really trying to accomplish this evening.

We will move on to the next speaker, who is the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canada-Ukraine Relations

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is great to follow my hon. colleague from the wonderful city of Etobicoke and the riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I know the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a proud Ukrainian Canadian. He represents the Ukrainian community, not only in Etobicoke but across Canada, with everything in his heart and everything in his soul, and he believes in the cause of defeating the Russian aggression we have seen over the last two years and the invasion of Crimea several years earlier.

I am proud to stand with my hon. colleague and to be his colleague. I have known him for many years. He is an esteemed and learned member, and not only here in this House. He also served in provincial parliament. He is a good person, he means well and he believes in what he says. I know he is also the chair of the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group and has done a lot of work there.

I rise tonight to speak as an individual who supports the Ukrainian Canadian community, all one million-plus of them, but also in my role for the last few years as the chair of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. In that role, I get to participate in the Council of Europe meetings at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, where we hold a number of bilateral meetings with delegations, including the Ukrainian delegation. I believe the current Ukrainian defence minister was actually a member of that delegation.

We had several meetings with them, and I wish Godspeed to Mariia, Ilyana and all members of the PACE delegation from Ukraine, whom I will see shortly in the month of April. I know how hard they are working to ensure the brave Ukrainian men and women fighting this unjustified barbaric invasion by Russia are going to prevail.

I was watching this debate earlier on this evening, and it was great to see the non-partisan nature of what was going on, but unfortunately, I think the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan decided to make it a little more partisan than it should be. There was some banter back and forth, but let us be serious: Everyone in this House, all 338 of us, know Russia needs to be defeated.

As Mario Draghi said, there is no Europe if Russia wins. Unfortunately, when the leader of the official opposition said that something was going on in a “faraway” land, it was an inappropriate remark to make, in my humble view. We are all held to account in what words we state, in our deeds in this House and as parliamentarians.

I see the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, whom I have spoken to before. Much like the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, he is a staunch, proud Ukrainian Canadian. He wants nothing more than to see the full sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine for the Ukrainian people and the freedom of the brave men and women in Ukraine.

Two years ago there were not many folks in this world who believed Ukraine would stand up to Russia the way it has, but it did for many reasons, including the participation of the Canadian Armed Forces through Operation Unifier, which has trained over 40,000 Ukrainian troops and continues to provide resources. There are 300 Canadian Armed Forces troops in Europe right now, in Poland, the U.K. and Latvia, helping out.

I was doing some note-taking, because I do not sit on the defence committee or foreign affairs committee as I have other responsibilities, and I was looking at Canada's participation. We are in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We are in the air force capability coalition. We are in the armour capability coalition. We are in the drone capability coalition. Since February 2022, Canada has committed over $13.3 billion in funding support to Ukraine, including in 2024, when we will commit another $3.02 billion in spending.

When I hear feedback from my constituents, it tends to be far-right individuals who do not believe in supporting Ukraine. It is a fact. Much like in the United States, there is an element on the political right that does not support aiding Ukraine. That is a fact. It is unfortunate, and I try to speak to them, calmly, to say that we need to stand up for Ukrainians.

I also want to give a big shout-out to the President of Czechia—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to interrupt, but we are out of time. Five minutes flies by pretty quickly. I will get someone to ask the hon. member a question, and maybe he could finish off his speech in his answer.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his kind words toward me. I do appreciate that.

This is an issue that has all-party support, this new strategic security agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

I was not going to ask a question, but he did raise the misinformation out there. Research has been done, both in the Ukraine by NATO itself, through its Estonia cybersecurity and misinformation centre of excellence, which I had the chance to visit this past summer, as well as here in Canada. Everybody always wants to talk about the far right, and there is no doubt. The Tucker Carlsons of the world, the PPC types out there, are actually out there promoting all the Kremlin propaganda.

There is also a growing mountain of evidence to show that the far left, the alt-left, the Antifa types, are also saying that Russia is justified in its attacks on Ukraine and that Ukraine does not actually exist. It is all the same revisionist history that is pushed out by Putin and his troll farm in St. Petersburg.

I just want to ask the member if he recognized the fact that there are extremes on both sides of the political equation that are squeezing all of us who are supporters of Ukraine, and it requires us to fight back even harder on the misinformation and disinformation and to unite Canada and the world, including our American cousins, in their support for Ukraine.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will say that I do agree that there is an element of the far left, and we do see it in some of the European political parties, that are not as supportive as they should be. It is quite unfortunate. I see that in my heritage country of Italy. There are some far-right parties and some far-left parties that are not supportive.

On Canada's free trade agreement with Ukraine, which I believe was originally negotiated by the official opposition, I understand their dislike of carbon pricing and of taking action on climate change. However, I really believed that was one measure, one policy, and I know it received royal assent last night, that all parties should have come together to support. I really do believe that.

I was very disappointed that official opposition did not support that. At the end of the day, it was something that the Ukrainian people, Ukrainian Canadians and President Zelenskyy asked for and wanted. We should have come together, as 338 parliamentarians, to support Ukraine. Our Canadian Armed Forces are doing it. We should have done it as well. As parliamentarians, we should continue to do that going forward.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are talking about rebuilding Ukraine. We are talking about the support Canada should be providing.

After listening to everything that was said this evening, especially by my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and my colleague from Montarville, who gave an excellent speech with a lot of detail on the percentage of the aid Canada promised that has been delivered to Ukraine and on the delays in delivering that aid, is my colleague satisfied with the Government of Canada's response and support with respect to Ukraine? Does he, like me, think that we should get going and do more?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his very important question. I want to support Ukraine.

We want to do that as much as humanly possible. Even with this innovative agreement with Czechia, we need to do everything we can to support Ukraine. We will always try to do more, as much as possible, whether it is munitions or sanctions. I believe that most, if not all of us in the House are actually sanctioned by the Russia government. We need to keep sanctioning Russian officials.

On that $300 billion U.S. in foreign assets out there that are frozen, we need to make sure that we reconstruct Ukraine with that, that Canada is at the forefront of that and that we will rebuild that country, because it is a beautiful place and the breadbasket of Europe. They are an innovative, hard-working people. We are going to be with them, today, tomorrow and in the future.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have the unenviable task, or should I say the privilege, of wrapping up this discussion. I believe I am the last speaker this evening, so I will try to keep it relatively brief.

We are here this evening to talk about the partnership between Canada and Ukraine, an agreement that seeks to reflect the values of solidarity, democracy and freedom. By signing the Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership, Ottawa is committing to supporting Ukraine in its fight to preserve its territorial integrity and its sovereignty.

Russia's attack on Ukraine, for which we recently marked the second anniversary, is indeed a war, despite the fact that Moscow calls it a “special military operation”. This attack is unacceptable and unjustifiable. Regardless of the reasons given by Moscow, which may or may not be legitimate, this war is unquestionably a tragedy. Is it an inevitable tragedy? One day we will have to take stock of the whole affair and ensure that history does not repeat itself.

The Japanese Zen Buddhist master Shunryu Suzuki once said that the cause of conflict is some fixed idea or one-sided idea. War is a clear sign that dialogue and diplomacy have failed. However, even when dialogue and diplomacy initially fail, they are exactly what can bring about an end to war. Let us hope that a lasting peace will emerge following a proper negotiation process.

This unjust war is even more tragic because Russia was born in Ukraine, when we think about it. Historically, Russia was born in Ukraine. Its rich culture, fascinating heritage and grandiose history owe an enormous debt to Ukraine. Let us hope that Moscow heeds the principles of Lao-tzu, the father of Taoism: “a large state, lowering itself, can win over a small one.... Large states want no more than to unite and nurture people. Small states want no more than to join with and serve people. To give both what they wish, therefore, the large state should lie low.”

This war has dramatically deepened the rift between Russia and the west, much to the delight of China, which has literally pounced on the Russian economy and geopolitics.

This war is also speeding up Ukraine's integration with the west. Afterwards, we will need to move forward cautiously, to avoid creating a world where new blocs exist in a state of latent, but permanent, confrontation. Such a world would be extremely dangerous. We need to stay cautious. Arrogance will lead nowhere in politics, either domestically or internationally.

As we understand it, the agreement before us aspires to establish greater co-operation and mutual support. It is meant to demonstrate a commitment to a safer and fairer future for everyone and to strengthen Canada's resolve in defending the fundamental principles that guide democratic societies.

In dealing with this conflict for two years, Ukraine, a courageous, resilient country, has risen to immense challenges. Since the conflict began in 2014, the people of Ukraine have shown an unwavering determination to protect their freedom and their right to self-determination.

This agreement seeks to go beyond mere military co-operation. It includes measures intended to strengthen Ukraine's security, stability and prosperity.

Under the agreement, Ottawa commits to supporting Ukraine, helping to rebuild the country and reinforcing Ukraine's defence capabilities. There is specific language about post-war commitments, which gives us an opportunity to dream of a not-so-distant future when combatants will have laid down their arms and taken up writing instead.

Industrial co-operation is important and the agreement contains a section on that. Still, most of the problems are known, but Canada is always slow to respond. Canada's lack of munitions production capacity is a known problem that is criticized by the defence staff, but Canada still has not increased its production of 155-millimetre artillery shells after two years of war. National Defence is also concerned about the cuts announced by the Liberals. Canada cannot always rely on the United States to have its back, especially when it has been so undisciplined on a host of geopolitical issues.

This agreement also deals with the fight against corruption, the promotion of the rule of law and the defence of human rights. We firmly believe that these values are essential to guarantee a better future for everyone, for all Ukrainians. This shows that Ukraine is serious about addressing the very real problems that have been plaguing the country for far too long.

Obviously, we have condemned the Russian attack from the start, but that must not make us lose sight of the magnitude of the challenge facing Ukraine when it comes to corruption and the treatment of significant minority groups within the country. We must not be blind to that. The situation in Ukraine and the country's track record are far from rosy in that regard. It was important to be serious and require real guarantees. By specifically mentioning these issues in the agreement, Kyiv is showing that it is not neglecting them, and that is a good thing.

In his monumental novel War and Peace, which was published serially between 1865 and 1869, the Russian literary giant Leo Tolstoy expounded a fatalistic vision of history. He attached little importance to free will, instead emphasizing the inevitable historical determinism that governs all events. He believed that human will ultimately matters very little. He was probably right, but we have a duty to at least do what we must.

In closing, I want to thank the people of Ukraine for their resilience and courage in the face of adversity. Together, we can build a better future for everyone, a peaceful future. Together, we can stand for freedom and peace.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I enjoyed listening to my hon. colleague's speech. He began his remarks with a comment on Russia's civilization and rich culture. Canada is a western country, a country that, like all democracies, is founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. I believe that the three most important principles of the Enlightenment are democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

Can my colleague comment on these principles, which are the founding principles of all democracies, and on the fact that Russia now does not follow the three principles of the Enlightenment?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chair, it goes without saying that a dialogue might have been an option when the U.S.S.R. imploded, when several republics imploded, and the communist regime came to an end. Perhaps that would have been the time for those involved to reach out to one another properly and come up with a solution. Those were catastrophic years, during which the most aggressive and violent form of neo-liberalism was rammed down Russia's throat, bringing the country close to extinction. Production plummeted. The mafia took control; so did the oligarchs. Perhaps that is when the anti-western sentiment took root.

I think we will have to take a clear-eyed look at the situation and also accept that the west may have played a part in these divisions. Historically, Russia has always been a country marked by tension between western and Asian cultures, even though three-quarters of its territory is in Asia. There was Tsar Peter I, Peter the Great, who wanted to westernize Russia very quickly. As a country, it has seen a number of movements, with a wealth of literature and intellectuals associated with the Enlightenment. I think this dialogue will have to be rebuilt in due course. Let us also have the courage to look inward, at ourselves. We probably made mistakes, at crucial moments in history, and now Russia is extremely upset with us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Chair, I liked the tail end of the member's speech. He did something I wish I would have done, and that was to acknowledge the Ukrainian heroes, those on the front lines fighting not only for Ukraine but also for allied forces in democratic countries that believe in the rule of law and freedom. I acknowledge that. That is what this strategy is really all about. As one of many countries that recognizes the need to be there, not only in the short term but also in the long term, we owe it to the Ukrainian heroes.

As a last thought, I would acknowledge the Ukrainian heritage community and Ukrainian people around the world who have come together in solidarity to ensure that parliaments around the world respond positively and provide the needed supports, such as the $30-million commitment to enhance artillery shells for those frontline heroes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have to admit that the member's speech took some interesting turns. I am not exactly sure what to make of it. The member began his speech by saying that he was disappointed in the ending of my speech, in what I had not mentioned. It reminds of the expression “whataboutism”.

He said he was disappointed that I had not mentioned the war heroes. Okay, I will. I honour the heroes of the war and the people who served on the front lines. That said, I write my own speeches. If the member wants to write my speeches for me, great, it will save me some time. I have a speech to give tomorrow morning. He can write it for me, although I might have to rewrite some parts because we may not always agree. If he wants to write me a rough draft, I have no objections. My speech is at 11 o'clock in the morning; I look forward to getting his rough draft.