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.
