Debates of Jan. 31st, 2022

Situation in Ukraine

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be able to answer this question because we fully acknowledge that Russian propaganda continues to try to deny the aggression in Crimea and the threats to Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Vladimir Putin is very familiar with our position on Ukraine very well because I have shared it with him many times over the years. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke directly with her Russian counterpart to reiterate our position and our unwavering support for Ukraine.

We are absolutely seeking a diplomatic solution, but we are also demonstrating that there will be serious consequences for Russia if it attacks Ukraine's territorial integrity and the people of Ukraine again.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, I would ask the Prime Minister what his government is doing to ensure that the feminist foreign policy is front and centre as we deal with this current crisis in Ukraine and what his government is doing to ensure that women are at all negotiating tables right now. The Canadian government is advocating for women to be present and to be at all of those tables at this time. If he could answer that, that would be great.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Chair, I am pleased to underline that it is a continued preoccupation of this government to have a feminist foreign policy, which is certainly something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is actively engaged in.

In terms of concretely on the ground, when I was last in Ukraine I engaged directly with members of civil society to talk about how Canada was supporting various actors to encourage full gender equality in their approach. We also have specific measures within Operation Unifier in training that address gender issues. We will continue to make sure that the path to peace includes women, because we know from countless examples around the world that women are key to solving long-term conflicts and making sure they stay solved.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Chair, is a pleasure to see you in that seat.

I am pleased to be in the House this evening to talk about an issue that is a priority for this administration, but also one that is rallying every foreign minister in the western world. The facts are simple. As we speak, there are 100,000 Russian troops on the borders of Ukraine, troops equipped with tanks and missiles, armed troops that are ready to go on the offensive. The threat is real.

Vladimir Putin is trying to pull Ukraine back into his fold by force, and that is completely unacceptable. Canada has no choice but to support the democratic will of the Ukrainian people. When a foreign power tries to forcefully take over another country, every democracy in the world must stand up and lend a hand.

What is at stake here is the very principle enshrined in article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the respect of sovereignty and independence. It states:

All Members shall refrain...from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.

The Russian government claims it values the UN Charter. It needs to show it and de-escalate.

Canada is resolute in supporting Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. We stand with Ukrainians and we are absolutely committed to a diplomatic solution. We are a country that has a long-standing diplomatic history. We are the one who can bridge different countries together, friends to the United States but also friends to Europe. We have more than 1.4 million Ukrainian Canadians here in Canada, and we understand Ukraine.

Since my appointment, working on a diplomatic solution has been my top priority. I have had extensive conversations on this matter with my counterparts around the world, in Washington, Riga, Stockholm, Liverpool, Kyiv, Paris, Brussels and, of course, right here in Ottawa, and with many members of the House.

In my recent trip, I had productive meetings with the leadership of Ukraine, the president, the prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs. With the leadership of the European Union, I met with the president of the council and the foreign affairs minister, and also with the secretary general of NATO. I also had good meetings with the foreign ministers of France and Belgium and constructive conversations with U.S. Secretary of State Blinken, as well as Germany's Minister Baerbock. Just today I spoke to my counterparts in Denmark, Netherlands and Latvia. We all agree, de-escalation is key, and it is urgent.

Russia's aggressive actions are threatening global stability. In that sense, Ukraine's security is not only Europe's security. It is the world's security, including ours, right here at home in Canada. Now is the time to be united. Now is the time to speak with one voice in support of Ukraine and its people.

We also need to invest in deterrence, sanctions and economic support for Ukraine. Extending and expanding Operation Unifier are our immediate actions. On sanctions, any further aggression will have serious consequences, including coordinated economic sanctions with allies. Canada is ready.

As for economic stability, as we know, the Russian threat is not only creating untenable regional tensions, but it is also destabilizing the economy of Ukraine, which is in great need.

During my meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky, there was one clear request: support Ukraine financially to ensure stability in the country. In the span of just a few days, thanks to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of International Development, we responded by offering a $120‑million loan to Ukraine. This support sparked a solidarity campaign among our allies. Shortly after our announcement, the European Union announced that it would provide 1.2 billion euros in loans and grants to Ukraine.

When it comes to military training, Ukraine can count on us with the extension and expansion of Operation Unifier. The Canadian Armed Forces have trained more than 30,000 soldiers and members of the national guard since 2014. There are 200 CAF members in Ukraine right now, mainly from the Valcartier base in Quebec. We will increase that number and continue to participate in the training and professionalization of the Ukrainian armed forces.

In addition to military development and financial assistance, Canada's diplomatic service continues to work around the clock.

To support the Canadian effort, we are increasing diplomatic resources both in Kyiv and in Ottawa. It is important to support the efforts of civil society as well in these difficult times.

My message is the following: I am calling on all members of the House. The situation is serious, and we must do everything we can to ease tensions for the sake of our national interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it has been incredibly disappointing to see the minister go over empty-handed on her trip to Ukraine. She did, after her return, announce $120 million of financial assistance, which I know is welcome, but we know for a fact that there have been demands from the Government of Ukraine for the last several years for more military help, including the provision of lethal weapons.

We know that one of the very first things that the Liberal government did when it came into power several years ago in 2015 and 2016 was stop the provision of RADARSAT images. The people of Ukraine and the Government of Ukraine could actually see what the Russian forces were doing in places like Crimea and Donbass, which is sovereign Ukrainian territory but is now illegally occupied by the Russian Federation.

When will the minister actually provide the kinetic energy and military might that is required for Ukraine to fend off this potential Russian invasion? When will the Liberals provide those lethal weapons? When will they restore the use of RADARSAT images, which are world-renowned and would really help with the security situation on the ground?

Will they actually stand with Ukraine rather than just offer empty rhetoric and half measures?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do not agree on everything. We agree on the fact that we need to make sure that there is no further invasion of Ukraine. However, right now the most important thing we need to do is make sure that we invest in diplomacy and deterrence, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Right now, we are really the country that is bridging all the other countries of the alliance together and making sure that there is strong unity, which is the case. We are also specialists in Ukraine because, just as my colleague himself is of Ukrainian descent, we have 1.4 million Ukrainian Canadians in Canada, and therefore we can make sure that people know about Ukraine even within the NATO alliance.

On the question of deterrence, Ukraine needed support financially. We were there within three days with a loan of $120 million. Ukraine wanted more support in terms of military training. We were there within a week. Ukraine also wanted more cyber support; we were there also within a week. For all that, President Zelensky himself said thanks to Prime Minister Trudeau and this government.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before moving on, I want to remind the hon. members that when we are speaking of someone, we use their title and not their name. I just want to make sure we remember that, as I know we have been away for a while.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Montarville.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister rightly pointed out that 100,000 Russian troops have been amassed on the Ukrainian border.

If that sounds familiar, it is because last winter and spring there were also some 100,000 Russian troops amassed at the Ukrainian border.

As members know, I am vice-chair of the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group, and the chair of this group is here today. On April 22, 2021, representatives from the foreign affairs and defence departments graciously briefed us on the situation.

Last week, these same departments gave us another briefing, and I must say that it was certainly similar to the first one. I asked if there had been any news since then, and the representative from foreign affairs candidly told me that, aside from troop movements at the Ukrainian border and in Belarus, he did not really know.

My question for the minister is the following. The government decided to join the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia in withdrawing non-essential personnel from the embassy, while our other NATO allies did not. Does this decision not stoke the fear of further aggression in Ukraine, which even the Ukrainian authorities have denounced?

Even the Ukrainians are calling for this to stop. They are struggling under the weight of these tensions.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is fundamental and what I want to reiterate to my colleague is that Russia is the aggressor right now.

There is no form of aggression on the part of Ukraine or any member of NATO at this time. I think we need to agree on this issue here in the House, because it is fundamental to our understanding of the conflict at the moment.

I would like to point out something else. My colleague asked the Prime Minister earlier about our relationship with Russia.

Russia knows our point of view. Not only does Russia know our point of view, but Russia is currently trying to divide NATO members. We are not going to fall for this misinformation, and I hope that my colleague will not either, because it is in our national interest.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House saying that we stand with Ukraine, an important friend and ally of Canada, important not just to the 1.4 million Canadians with Ukrainian ancestry but important to every single Canadian in this country, because Ukraine is our friend, our trading partner and our ally.

This is a debate not about hashtags or holding a sign up on Twitter, as the minister and the Liberal government have done; this is a debate about who Canadians are as a friend on the world stage. This is a debate about our values as a nation and the dependability of Canada as an ally. From Vimy Ridge to Kandahar to all points in between, to the Donbass today, is Canada that friend and ally that the world knows? Is Canada living up to its reputation as a founding member of NATO? Is Canada living up to the fact that NATO would not have been formed but for the role that Canada played in bridging the Atlantic nations in World War II, and as Winston Churchill described us, as the linchpin between the free peoples of Europe and of North America?

Ukrainian Canadians are demanding more from this government than hashtags. Canadians, and indeed our allies and friends around the world, are asking Canada for more than hollow words and empty gestures. We can send as many ministers to Kiev as we wish, but if they come with nothing but hollow words as we evacuate our people, that is letting our friends down. It is also letting our country down for its values.

An important principle of Canadian foreign policy should be that we must never turn our backs on our friends and allies. We should not hesitate to help them when they ask for it, as we have always done in Canada's history.

From Vimy Ridge to today, Canada has been known to be there for our friends, for our allies, but also for our values of liberty, freedom and dignity of person. These are values we have fought and died for.

Ukrainian Canadians have built this great country, and there are members on both sides of the House. There was the first Ukrainian-Canadian Governor General, the great Ray Hnatyshyn, former Conservative member of Parliament. I think of the first cabinet minister of Ukrainian extraction, whom I met because he is from my area, Michael Starr, the former MP from Oshawa. My first event as an aspiring politician was at the Lviv Hall with my Ukrainian-Canadian friends in Oshawa. My friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, my wingman of late, introduced the Holodomor commemoration in the House, one of the first western parliaments to talk about the horrific famine brought on the Ukrainian people by the Russian overlords at the time, by the Soviet Union, a neighbour that has always impinged on the freedoms of Ukrainians, and it is up to us as Canadians to be there now for them.

In fact, I had the honour in 2014 to be in this chamber for a speech from President Poroshenko, the President of Ukraine, who was invited to speak about that friendship between our two countries, and he said this:

Today thousands of brave Ukrainian men and women are sacrificing their lives for the right to live the way they choose, on their land, under the blue and gold colours of the Ukrainian flag, colours that are so dear to many Canadian Ukrainians. In these dark days, we feel your strong support. Thank you very much for that.

He went on to say:

It is in our time of need that we see our friends, and there is no other way to put it: Canada is a friend indeed.

Prime Minister Diefenbaker challenged Russia to allow free elections for Ukrainians. It was the Mulroney Conservative government that was the first ally to recognize the independence of Ukraine. It was Prime Minister Harper who famously, after the invasion of Crimea, said to Vladimir Putin, “Get out of Ukraine.” What do we have from the current Prime Minister? We have hashtags. We have ministers embarrassingly holding up a sign on Twitter. That is what Canada is known for now: Twitter diplomacy, but not standing with our NATO allies.

In fact, everything that has been done in the last decade for our allies and friends in Ukraine was initiated by Conservative governments: Operation Reassurance; Operation Unifier; the use of RADARSAT images, which the Liberals removed a few years ago; and military equipment. It was all of those measures. In fact, we had to push to get the government to extend Operation Unifier. Liberals waited until the very last minute.

The Ukrainian government, including its former ambassador just this weekend, has been asking for lethal defensive weapons. Why? Here is what they are facing. There are citizens in Ukraine today being trained on how to use a rifle, being trained on hand-to-hand combat. We are so fortunate as Canadians that this is something we do not have to worry about. There are 130,000 troops lining up. There are 60 battalions, tactical groups, that the Russians are lining up on the border. Russia outnumbers Ukraine four to one in military personnel, 22 to one in fighter planes, 15 to one in attack helicopters and five to one in battle tanks. They are asking for our help in their hour of need, and other allies have responded: the U.S., the U.K., Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic. Where is Canada? When our friend and ally is in need, where is Canada?

The Liberals will be all over the Internet and social media talking about how they support Ukraine, but they will not give Ukraine what it needs to stop those who threaten its sovereignty.

The time for half-measures is past. Ukraine needs our help and support now, but all the Liberal Prime Minister does is post hashtags on Twitter. That is not good enough for our allies and friends, and it does not reflect our country's values.

The world is watching. This is not a time for Twitter. This is not a time for hollow words and rhetoric. There is a real chance that there could be an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Mr. Putin has shown his callous disregard for sovereign territory, as we have seen in Crimea, the phony war in the Donbass, the influence, the cyber-attacks, the shutting down of the hydro grid. The bad actor of the world needs to be called out, and NATO is doing that, but one of the founding countries of NATO, Canada, is missing in action.

On this issue, I am sure many in the Liberal government wish they were doing more than just brief trips over there to say hello. I am sure many are wishing they were responding to the request of our ally in its hour of need.

Canada may be a smaller nation. Having served in uniform myself, I know we do not have the standing armies and we do not have the fleets of fighter jets, but we have a passion in our glowing hearts. We were always there for our friends and values from the earliest days, before our American friends.

As Lester B. Pearson, a Liberal Prime Minister, once said, if a rifle is fired on the Korean Peninsula or in Europe, it is just as important to defend Canada as if it was done here on our own soil.

The government has a choice while there is time left. Step up and help our friends in Ukraine. Step up with the equipment they say they need to fight against overwhelming odds. Show the world Canada remains a friend and ally who is there through thick and thin.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is not because my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, states facts that they are necessarily true. In that sense, our actions have been clear. First, we gave $120 million in a sovereign loan. Second, we doubled the troops in Operation Unifier in Ukraine.

Does he know that we have the biggest foreign military training presence in Ukraine as of now? Does he know that Canadians right now are standing shoulder to shoulder in Kiev and in 13 different places around Ukraine? Does he know that the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said, “Canada is one of the leading countries in NATO when it comes to providing support for Ukraine”? He also added, “There are not many other countries at the equal level of efforts, doing as much as Canada.”

The member talks about the great glowing hearts of our CAF members, and I agree with him. However, the reality is they are the ones and we are the ones in Ukraine right now. What does he have to say about that?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her intervention, as she asked if I knew the facts. Yes, I do. In fact, Operation Reassurance; Operation Unifier; the sharing of military intelligence, including RADARSAT, and military equipment; and the training she talked about, the training we are both very proud of our men and women in uniform for, were all started by the Conservative government. Only reluctantly, as the minister knows, one of her predecessors, Mr. Dion, withdrew some of that support and wanted to normalize relations with Russia. That was their foreign policy out of the gate. However, whether it is the appeasement of Russia, a completely out-of-touch policy on the communist regime in China, letting down our NATO allies or not even getting phone calls from the United States anymore, Canada needs to stand up.

A loan is important, and I thank the minister for the loan, but once Ukrainians lose their liberty and freedom we cannot loan them the freedom they will need and we cannot loan them the military equipment when the attack is under way. I urge the minister to do the right thing and give Ukrainians the tools they need to defend themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition leader for his speech. To those of us in the Bloc, it is pretty clear that beneath the veil of humanitarianism lies the real reason for Canada's involvement: fossil fuels.

That said, here is my question for him: Would his hawkish, provocative stance not just strengthen Russia's ties with China?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we must stand with our allies. Defending our values internationally is not provocation, especially when Russia is poised to invade Ukraine. The time to defend our values as a country is now.

As I said, our men and women in uniform have always stepped up to defend freedom. They did so at Vimy Ridge, in Afghanistan, in France, in Europe and in Korea. Now we have to step up to provide military equipment to Ukraine.

This is not the time for rhetoric on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, nor is it the time for Twitter hashtags. It is time to take concrete action for our allies, who are presently in danger in Ukraine.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that bothers me the most about the member's comments today is that he speaks about lethal force and action, but I do not hear him talking about diplomacy. I do not hear him talking about using what we can to de-escalate the situation right now. What I want him to understand is that it is the Ukrainian people who will die if there is a war in Ukraine. It is the women and children in Ukraine who will die if we continue to escalate the situation.

Now, his party, when it was in power, was the one that decimated foreign aid. It was the one that decimated our diplomatic corps. Perhaps he does not believe in diplomacy. Perhaps he does not believe in sanctions and the power of the international community to find a peaceful resolution.

I am wondering why he thinks, as someone who will not have to go to war in Ukraine, that war is such a wonderful idea for the Ukrainian people right now.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member was misstating the fact that I am suggesting war is a good thing. I am fortunate to be a veteran who never had to serve in Afghanistan, but I have seen, not only in my time in the military but in my time as the veterans affairs minister, the incredible toll that war and conflict take on our military and on civilian populations. It is those very Ukrainians that she says are at risk who are now in legion halls and church basements being trained on how to defend themselves. All they want is for their friends in Canada to give them some equipment so they do not have to call senior citizens to the front lines.

If we do not have appropriate military counterbalance, which is why NATO was created, we cannot engage strategically and effectively in diplomacy. We support diplomacy. It was Raynell Andreychuk, a senator, who brought Magnitsky sanctions to Canada, sponsored in the House by my friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

We should be using sanctions. We should be using pressure. We should be using diplomacy. However, hollow commitments through social media empower a dictator like Vladimir Putin. We need to stand by our allies and stand up for Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, our leader spoke briefly at the end about Magnitsky sanctions and I want him to follow up on that point. What I have been hearing from many experts is the importance of using the Magnitsky act to specifically target kleptocrats who are investing Vladimir Putin's money overseas. I wonder if the opposition leader has a comment on specifically targeting those kleptocrats as a way of getting at and having real accountability from the Putin regime.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my learned friend for his advocacy. He is absolutely right. Not only is the Putin regime putting Ukrainians at risk and putting stability in Europe and indeed around the globe at risk, but it is also leading a kleptocracy that is robbing Russians of their ability to actually build up their lives. Putin is doing this through some oligarchs and through a system of money laundering throughout the world. We need to work with our allies, through FINTRAC and other agencies, to root this out using sanctions and pressure, and call these regimes what they are.

It should trouble the minister that one of her mentors, Mr. Dion, was actually advocating rapprochement with Mr. Putin after he invaded and occupied Crimea. It was her government that withdrew RADARSAT imaging, which allowed Ukrainians to track Russian movements in the Donbass. For years, Vladimir Putin has been plotting what he is doing now.

Now is the moment for us to give our ally what it needs. We need to continue, as my friend said, to apply Magnitsky sanctions and work diplomatically. However, we have to make sure we have a real stick to have diplomacy. Right now our friends in Ukraine are asking Canada to stand alongside the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland and other allies, and be there for Ukraine when it needs us most.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition accused the minister of returning from Ukraine having made empty promises and using empty words. I am looking at a tweet from none other than the defence minister of Ukraine talking about the centuries-old friendship between Canada and Ukraine, and thanking her, our Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister for delivering on upping the campaign in Operation Unifier.

Are you saying that he is using empty words and engaging in Twitter diplomacy?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition will respond in 30 seconds or less. I want to remind hon. members to speak through the Chair and not directly across.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that a Liberal MP will stand and criticize my critique of Twitter diplomacy by quoting a tweet about diplomacy.

What does Ukraine want? We all know this. The minister knows this from the closed-door meetings. We saw the former Ukrainian diplomat to Canada talking this weekend about the requests, for many years now, for lethal military aid. Our friends are in need, and while loan guarantees and a range of other things are positive, we have to help Ukraine now. I ask the minister to finally deliver on this military equipment.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was somewhat surprised by the minister's answer to my question a few moments ago. To use a mixed metaphor, I would say that my ears could not believe my eyes.

Is the minister suggesting that if we were to push for a diplomatic solution, if we were in favour of that, if we insisted on it, we would be playing into Russia's hands? Is the minister suggesting that President Macron is playing into Russia's hands and creating division among the allies by picking up the phone to speak to Vladimir Putin? I believe that the answer is obvious.

Had the minister paid the least bit of attention to some of my speeches, in particular the one I gave to the Parliamentary Assembly to the Council of Europe, she would know that I have been highly critical of Russia on several occasions.

If we want dialogue, we cannot have a unilateral monologue. If we want to be a credible mediator between Russia and Ukraine, we have to speak to Russia as President Macron did. As far as I can see, aside from crying wolf, the Canadian government has done nothing to lead us to a diplomatic solution.

That is all I wanted to say. Do I recognize that the aggression against Crimea and Russia's destabilizing actions in Donbass are unacceptable? Of course I do. I do not even see how the minister can call that into question. Not only am I surprised, but I am a little offended. What I said is that we must engage in dialogue.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the fact is that the build-up of 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is pretty much the same as it was a year ago. What has changed? We do not really know, as the minister's officials at Global Affairs have admitted.

Why then this talk of escalation, this fearmongering that is leading us to think that Russia is going to attack tomorrow morning, whereas both the Ukrainians and the Russians agree that that is not going to happen? Why take this alarmist tone rather than trying to calm things down? Again, why pull out non-essential staff from our embassy when basically only the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have done so? The other NATO allies have stayed behind to show their support for Ukraine in a concrete way. Why pull out and contribute to escalating ongoing tensions?

Earlier the minister told us that Russia is the aggressor. I do not disagree. I challenge anyone to disprove the unwavering support of the Bloc Québécois and its members for our ally, Ukraine. However, I would like to point out to the minister that Jocelyn Coulon, an expert in geopolitical issues and former advisor to her predecessor, former Liberal candidate Stéphane Dion, put himself in Russia's shoes for a minute. He explained that when Germany reunified, NATO promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the Atlantic alliance would never cross the border of East Germany.

What happened after that? Several Soviet bloc countries and even some former Soviet republics were admitted to NATO, a move that Russia perceived as an attack, aimed at bringing western troops closer to the Russian border. For whatever reason, Russia decided that the red line would be Ukraine and that it would not allow Ukraine to join NATO.

The minister was talking about unity among NATO alliance countries. That is great, but can the minister deny that at the Bucharest summit in 2008, France and Germany expressed reservations about the possibility of admitting Ukraine to NATO?

All I am saying is that we can maintain the illusion that all member countries of the NATO alliance are on the same page, but that is not the reality. This explains why the French president phoned Vladimir Putin while Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom continue with this rather belligerent rhetoric towards Russia.

There are very divergent views within NATO. It is not playing into Russia's hands to admit this; it is simply acknowledging the facts. Where do we go from here? Do we really want to be a useful mediator? If the answer is yes, we must act accordingly. We need to take consistent action to lower tensions.

We have made commitments to Ukraine. We have to honour those commitments to Ukraine, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that Ukraine's admission to the NATO alliance does not require the unanimous approval of all the alliance members—but where is the unanimity of the NATO alliance on this issue?

I think we have to be honest with ourselves and with Ukrainians. However, we still have a responsibility towards Ukraine, because we have given our word.

There are therefore some things we need to do from the perspective of the partnership that should exist between Ukraine and the NATO alliance. There are things that must also be done to meet Ukraine's needs. Although we obviously favour the diplomatic option, we cannot deny that Ukraine is asking for Canada's support, which, admittedly, is relatively limited.

Although the Standing Committee on National Defence noted in 2017 that a number of experts would support Canada selling weapons to Ukraine, the reality is that Canada itself has few weapons that could help Ukraine, particularly in terms of anti‑tank and anti‑aircraft defence.

There are certainly things that can be done in terms of intelligence and cybersecurity, considering that Ukraine was recently the victim of a Russian cyber-attack seeking to destabilize its institutions. There is work to be done on that front, alongside diplomatic efforts, to get these parties talking and to try to find a peaceful resolution to the current conflict.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned dialogue, and I agree. I would like to remind him of the three diplomatic channels all allies are currently using.

The first is direct dialogue between the U.S. and Russia, and we are, of course, in touch with the Americans on this.

The second is between NATO and Russia. As a NATO member, we are actively participating in NATO's dialogue with Russia.

The third is the Normandy format, which developed out of the Minsk treaty and which states that four countries must engage in diplomatic discussions on security in Europe, in particular with respect to Ukraine. The four countries include Ukraine and Russia, along with France and Germany.

This is why President Macron spoke with President Putin. This is why I had the opportunity to dine at the Quai d'Orsay with my French counterpart, Jean‑Yves Le Drian. I was there to speak directly with France, and I also had the opportunity to speak with the German foreign affairs minister. That is why France and Germany's position on this matter is extremely important.

I hear my colleague's concern about being able to talk to the Russian government given that we strongly disagree with it. That is why I took the opportunity to speak with my Russian counterpart while I was at the OSCE meeting in Sweden just the other month. I raised the subject of Ukraine. I told him I was extremely concerned, and his reaction was a very strong one.

We will continue to raise those concerns. I want to point out to my colleague that this is actually not a potential invasion of Ukraine, but rather another potential invasion of Ukraine, because Crimea has already been invaded and the Donbass is currently occupied as well.

What we need to keep in mind at this point is the fact that one country has decided to use force to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another country.

My question to my colleague, whose political allegiance I am obviously aware of, is this: How can he condone one country violating the sovereignty of another by use of force?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim that we support Russia's forcible annexation of Ukrainian territory? Based on what speech, what intervention, what press release can she say that? What intervention by the Bloc Québécois can she refer to to claim today that we support Russian aggression?

If she had been listening a few moments ago, she would have heard me say that the attack against Crimea and Russia's destabilizing efforts in the Donbas region are absolutely and totally unacceptable. How can she now claim that we support these aggressions?

It insults everyone's intelligence to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs say such a thing here in the House today. It is totally unacceptable. I hope that the minister did not invoke the Normandy Format to avoid responsibility for the role Canada must play if it truly wants to play its past role, namely the role of helping resolve disputes between countries.

I hope the minister is not simply shrugging off responsibility by putting it on the shoulders of France and Germany. Thank goodness that France and Germany are not playing up the danger like the Anglo-Saxon bloc of countries, if I can put it that way. It is totally unacceptable to say such a thing.

When the minister tells us that there is communication between NATO and Russia, she should know that the partnership for peace between them is de facto non-existent, because not only is there no longer any collaboration on the civilian and military levels, but the respective missions of the two are over. How can the minister claim that there is a relationship between NATO and Russia when it has been almost completely severed?

As for relations between the United States and Russia, we cannot applaud the fact that President Biden is also crying wolf about a possible “re-invasion”—let us call it that, because the minister insists—or a new invasion into Ukrainian territory.

When the U.S. government cries wolf and says that if the intervention were limited, the reaction from western countries could be just as limited, I think that should give pause for thought.

I will say it again. It is a good thing that Germany and France are there to try to actually find a diplomatic solution, because this does not seem to be the path that Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to take.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to make a comment rather than ask the member a question. He explained his position very clearly as well as that of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore prefer to comment on the narrative.

I am a Canadian MP and I am of Polish descent. I was born in Poland and lived the history of eastern Europe. I would say that when we talk about NATO moving its borders closer to Russia, it means that countries like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and others asked of their own accord to become members of NATO to escape the oppression from Moscow and the Russian federation.

It was a choice, not just in terms of foreign policy, but a choice made by these peoples to escape from those who occupied their countries and who were part of the Warsaw Pact. When we talk about the history, we can say that NATO is not the aggressor, but rather the one who accepted new members that wanted to be part of an alliance that would defend them.

I think it is important to point that out. It is not the Russian interests that should prevail, but the interests of these Eastern European peoples and countries.