Debates of Jan. 31st, 2022

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that, from my perspective, coming from rural Alberta and rural Canada, I am well aware of the programs that are available.

However, many constituents in my riding say they do not qualify or that there is some other problem they face when trying to qualify. The programs do not go far enough. They miss the boat.

Regarding this drought, for example, with some of the programs that were put in place, I still get producers saying they are going under. These are cow-calf producers and cattle feeders. I had a gentleman last week call me in tears saying, “I have a couple thousand head in my feed lot. The plants are not taking them. The feed lots are not taking them. I am losing $400 an animal. How am I going to survive? I cannot survive. I am going to lose half to three-quarters of a million dollars this year alone. There is no program that the government has in place to help me, none. Zero.”

What we need to recognize, as parliamentarians, is that the government needs to be receptive to being flexible with the programs that exist and to make adjustments as needs arise.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and the previous member for his question. I got the sense that both of them care about agriculture, and I think that is great.

We could easily spend several hours talking about what various governments have done in the past. My colleague mentioned the slaughter backlog, a serious problem that is impacting Quebec in particular. Application processing times for foreign workers, especially in the poultry sector, are also horrendously slow. There is a backlog of hogs. It is appalling.

Unfortunately, a Conservative government set caps on the number of foreign workers in agri-food and processing, but that is not the point I want to make. We have since managed to raise that cap to 20%, but it took a very long time. The announcement was made in August, but it just recently came into effect. I am sure my colleague will agree that it took a long time to implement. Does he not think the hiring cap should be raised yet again? What can be done to recruit workers for this sector and facilitate immigration—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

I need to give the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner the opportunity to respond.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would agree. Canada's agricultural sector in different parts of our country relies on foreign workers and temporary foreign workers to come in and help. Not only is the whole immigration process seriously backlogged, but I think personally there are ways to fast-track certain streams for the SAWP and for the temporary foreign worker program, for example in agriculture, that would allow people coming in to work in those sectors to be fast-tracked through.

The employers and the businesses in this country go through a significant amount of effort and work to try to get these people in place, and sometimes they do not get them in time. There is a huge greenhouse industry in my riding and it relies on temporary foreign workers almost exclusively. It struggles. Rather than spend months to get an employee, sometimes employers spend—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to try to give another possible question, so the member gets three questions.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was really interested to hear about the member's issues around agriculture in his riding. I know in my riding there are a lot of farmers as well.

I live in a rainforest, and we are seeing drought like we have never seen before. It is very important that, as we are having these discussions, we make sure the solutions for funding from the federal government look at climate change and the impacts it is going to have on that sector.

People from one of the farms in my riding took me out and showed me they had dug a very deep hole. It had become its own little ecosystem. It filled with water from the winter months, and during the drought, the farm was able to use the water from that enormous hole to look after watering plants during temperatures over 40 degrees.

Would the member agree we need to have a regional approach that really recognizes the different ecosystems our farmers are farming in?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I grew up on a ranch in central Alberta. In the west, we dig holes all the time. They are called dugouts, and that is how we feed our livestock. That is how we gather more water, because over the years we have had varying degrees of moisture. Yes, there should be programs in place to allow opportunities for dugouts to be built and for farming practices to be changed. From my experience in the agriculture industry, there are no greater stewards of our land than those in the agricultural sector.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in the House for the first time since the election to provide a speech. It has been since last fall, so I want to thank the citizens of Brandon—Souris for allowing me the privilege of representing them here in the House of Commons again.

I want to speak to the throne speech today. It seems like a lifetime ago when the throne speech was tabled, only last November, and it has only given me more time to reflect on how disappointing it was to hear the lack of vision from the government for farmers, our agri-food sector and rural Canada, just as my colleague for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner indicated. The throne speech is not just a symbolic document wrapped up in pomp and circumstance. It is the government's first opportunity in a new Parliament to lay out its blueprint for the coming years.

I can assure members that the ministers, the deputy ministers, the Privy Council Office and the entire public service take this document quite seriously. Moving forward, they will use the throne speech, coupled with ministerial mandate letters, to set cabinet priorities and determine which government bills will be tabled and then debated. As someone who represents a vast rural constituency, where countless jobs and families' livelihoods are directly tied to the agriculture sector, I must inform these people that they do not exist, according to the Liberal throne speech. They are the invisible Canadians, out there in rural Canada. As someone who farmed for decades, I never thought I would see the day that the Government of Canada would so nonchalantly forget an industry that is so integral to our country.

Who does the government think raises and grows the food we put on the tables? We are all aware that the issue of the day is who transports that food, as well.

Canada has the potential to become a food powerhouse on the world stage, yet there is not a mention of the agricultural industry's potential. With the global population growing and wealth growing, the need for trusted food sources will only get larger. To meet the targets laid out in the Barton Report, we need a vision and a plan to get there. In the coming months it will have been four years since that report, and we have yet to see an action plan to seize the tremendous potential of our agricultural sector. Some provinces have done a better job of that than the federal government has. It has a lot of people wondering, “Where is the beef?” How do they deliver? There are over two million Canadians whose jobs are connected to the agri-food sector. It is worth billions of dollars to our economy, and its potential for growth is as large as the prairie sky.

In Manitoba, we have thousands of farmers. We also have value-added processing for such things as vegetables, dairy, sunflowers, flax seed, canola, peas, potatoes, beef and pork. If we want to grow our agri-food sector, it starts at the farm. To support farm families, I took concrete action in the last Parliament by introducing my private member's bill, Bill C-208. Despite the Liberals' attempt to quash my bill, it is now the law of the land. Bill C-208 sends a message of hope to young farmers who want to carry on what their families started. No longer will parents be given a false choice between a larger retirement package after selling to a stranger or a massive tax bill after selling to a family member, their own child or grandchild.

I will remind my Liberal colleagues that their government is still sowing confusion, as it said it was going to amend Bill C-208 sometime in November, 2021. That date has come and gone, and we are now into a new tax year. That means the government will make retroactive tax changes back to November, 2021, but it will not tell us what it actually plans until some later date. That level of uncertainty is the last thing farm families and small businesses need right now in Canada.

I was looking for a clear commitment in the throne speech on what initiatives the Liberal government planned to introduce in this Parliament. I was looking for practical steps the government would take to grow our beef herd and to support our livestock producers, who are still struggling as the drought has depleted pastures and feed costs continue to rise. I wanted to see additional supports to assist farmers and producers impacted by the drought by expediting access to business risk management programs and making up any provincial funding shortfalls. I wanted to see a commitment to amend existing laws to allow livestock owners to use local abattoirs.

We need to make permanent the temporary measures that allowed provincial authorities to enable trade across the country, and to use their abattoirs for products that would move across provincial borders. These are common-sense policies the Liberals could have announced in the throne speech that could have been welcomed across the country.

It is also clear that we need to reform and improve business risk management programs, particularly AgriInvest and AgriRecovery, as my colleague just mentioned. The throne speech should have included a commitment to bring agricultural stakeholders together for a summit-like meeting with the Minister of Agriculture to develop a way forward on insurance programs such as AgriStability.

Instead of just fully exempting farmers from the carbon tax, the Liberals announced a complicated rebate system that has been widely panned as unfair. The Grain Growers of Canada reported that some farmers are only going to get back 20% to 30% of the taxes they paid. To fix this once and for all, the Liberals could have just exempted farmers from the carbon tax in its entirety. There would be no need for rebates, no need for paperwork and no need to create unnecessary red tape. Rising input costs, such as skyrocketing fuel and fertilizer prices, are already causing financial challenges. The one thing the government could do to help farmers overnight is just exempt them from that carbon tax.

The throne speech also did not contain any clarity about the government's plans to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30%. As many western farmers can attest, any time the Liberal government muses about making changes that will impact their operations or livelihoods, there is always a sense of apprehension. As a farmer, as a farm leader and then as an elected representative, I know the disconnect between those in Ottawa who think they know best and those who sow their fields.

It was not long ago that the Liberals called farmers tax cheats. Their 2017 proposed tax changes would have cost farm families thousands of dollars. Thanks to the farmers and entrepreneurs who loudly opposed those tax changes, and the fact that Bill Morneau is no longer the finance minister, those tax hikes are yesterday's news.

Whether the Liberals are attempting to eliminate the deferred grain tickets or doing everything in their power to delay the implementation of my private member's bill, there is enough evidence to suggest farmers' anxieties are well-founded. No details have been announced on the Liberals' plans to reduce fertilizer emissions, and this has caused all sorts of consternation within the farming community. Instead of working collaboratively with farmers, the Liberals have decided to stick out this arbitrary number with zero information on how they plan to implement it. This is not the right way to govern, nor does it inspire any confidence in the thousands of farm families across our country.

A report just released by Meyers Norris Penny outlined the potential impact of reducing fertilizer emissions by 30%, and the numbers are staggering. They have calculated that for corn, canola and spring wheat, there would be a total value of lost production of 10.4 billion bushels per year by 2030. As the report stated, this would have a dramatic impact on Canada's ability to fill domestic processing capacity. This would also reduce our ability to export, as well.

I would be remiss not to talk about the logistical challenges that farmers and agri-food processors have faced due to either the B.C. floods, the pandemic or the fact we need to vastly expand our infrastructure system. As the recent Auditor General's report stated, the Liberal government's investing in Canada plan was unable to provide meaningful public reporting on overall progress. If Canadian farmers and agri-food processors are going to continue to grow and export around the world, we need to make sure the roads, bridges, highways, railways and ports have the capacity for them to do so.

I raise these agricultural issues as I fear that farmers do not have a voice in the Liberal government. I worry their concerns fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, the Liberal throne speech was silent on these matters and it lacked any bold vision for the sector. There is life in rural Canada. There is hope, and there is a strong future. I implore the Liberal government not to forget about farmers. Do not take them for granted. Let us work together and implement many of the ideas our Conservative team has been advocating for. Farmers are not asking for the moon. They just want to be treated fairly and want a government that is willing to listen.

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

Madam Speaker, the member highlights infrastructure and the importance of trade as what he believes to be really important to our agricultural community. There is no government in the history of Canada that has signed more trade agreements than this government. In the last six years we have signed more trade agreements than any other government prior.

When we look at infrastructure dollars, we are talking about historic amounts of infrastructure dollars to be able to build the roads and do so much more for Canadians.

If the member believes that infrastructure and trade are so important, why does he not acknowledge the Liberals' accomplishments that are historic in their very nature? They will no doubt help our farmers and agriculture, as well as urban communities.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is déjà vu. I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his fine question, but I would have thought he was asking me that question on the years of the Harper government, which signed more trade agreements than any government in the history of Canada. He is absolutely wrong when he says that the Liberals have signed more than the Harper government did, and they still have not gotten them all implemented. They are still trying to enforce the CETA, and still trying to get more agreements that were signed in those days to actually be implemented into the world trade issues.

From the comments that I made here, it is very obvious that the government has failed to get the dollars out. It is fine to announce infrastructure dollars, but it has not gotten them out the door and the projects are not going. I have a fine case of a bridge that needs to be built in my own community. I authorized that bridge for that constituency under the Harper government in 2015, and it has not started to be built yet.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my valued colleague from Brandon-Souris for his speech. I will once again have the privilege of changing the dynamic in the House so that we stop focusing on who did what and who did it better and start focusing on constructive feedback and the content.

I would like my colleague from Brandon—Souris to tell me about the minister's mandate letter. He is right in saying that the throne speech contains absolutely nothing for the farming community; we agree on that. That is why I went back to the document, which contained a little bit of content. The minister's mandate letter talks about facilitating the transfer of family farms. We managed to work together to pass a historic law during the previous Parliament. I thank my colleague again for promoting and introducing this bill.

I would like to know if he is concerned about that note in the mandate letter. When the Liberals want to try to make changes to the great work we have done, what aspect of the law does he think we need to keep an eye on?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and his Bloc cohorts for the work they did with me on that particular bill, as well as Guy Caron, the previous interim New Democratic leader who brought the same bill forward, which the Liberals killed in 2017 and tried to kill again in the 2021 session.

However, my colleague is so right in that we need to make sure that we are vigilant. I mean, I hope that the Liberals have had an epiphany and are not going to change that bill or try to, because people have already made the investments in selling their operations to their own families, which I think is a credit to how much this bill was needed. I have had some indications from some of the largest accounting firms in Canada that that bill has, unbeknownst to me when I brought it forward, probably done more for small businesses than any bill in the House of Commons concerning the tax department for small businesses that qualify in the last 25 years.

I give my colleagues credit for the support that we got on that and for my Liberal colleagues who supported it too, because there were 19 of them in the House who did support it as well. I also thank the Senate for passing it as expeditiously as it did last June. I look forward to hopefully working with my colleagues again if there are any potential changes that may come down the road.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members for allowing me to finish my speech.

I will move to a part of the Speech from the Throne that speaks to our resilient economy. Our government has supported Canadians through the COVID-19 pandemic and introduced further investments in budget 2021 and the recovery plan to ensure an economic recovery that includes everyone.

Together we have helped Canada maintain a strong fiscal position compared to international counterparts, preventing long-term increase in the federal debt-to-GDP ratio. This encouraged global markets to maintain confidence in Canadian bonds, bringing the cost of borrowing to record low levels and protecting millions of Canadian jobs.

Major credit rating agencies have also reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating and Moody's praised the budget for its focus on supporting growth, which will reinforce Canada's economic recovery and limit potential long-term scarring from the pandemic.

Inflation is still a challenge that countries around the world are facing. While we all know that Canada's economic performance is better than that of many of our partners, we have a challenge to keep tackling the rising cost of living. Housing and child care are top priorities for Canadians, and hence for our government.

The Canada child benefit has already helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and will continue to increase to keep up with the cost of living. As I mentioned before, our government's $10-a-day child care is available for families who so badly need it. Our government is still keen on working with Ontario to finalize agreements. Investing in affordable child care, just like housing, is not only good for families but also helps grow the entire economy for Ontario and Canada.

Though we have had a difficult start to this decade, the decade itself is still young. There is so much more that our government has to offer for all Canadians. My focus will always be on helping the amazing residents of Mississauga East—Cooksville succeed and representing their aspirations in this 44th Parliament of Canada.

I like the way the Speaker always talks about respect and listening, and now we, as parliamentarians, should be setting an example for our younger generations who are listening to us and learning from us. Let us keep this session more respectful—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will have to leave it at that.

Continuing with questions and comments, we have the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, who shared about his family's story of fleeing Portugal from fascism. I want to extend congratulations to the Prime Minister of Portugal, Antonio Costa, whose socialist party won a majority in Portugal's recent snap election. Indeed, the fight against fascism continues in his parents' homeland and the homeland of thousands of my Portuguese friends and neighbours here in Hamilton Centre.

Learning from the success of Portugal's progressive life-saving drug policies, which centre harm reduction for drug users as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, does the hon. member support our party's call by the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni for the decriminalization of drugs, safe supply and harm reduction, so we may work better to save the lives of vulnerable people here in Canada?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have many friends who live in the area of Hamilton Centre, and it is a wonderful riding. It is second best maybe to Mississauga East—Cooksville. Also, congratulations, yes, to the Costa government, which was re-elected in Portugal.

Portugal has taken steps to address many of its addiction and drug issues, and I know here in Canada opioids have been a crisis for our country. That is why our government has worked together with provinces, and especially with municipalities, to address what is happening, as the member mentioned, in B.C. or other jurisdictions. We look to work with jurisdictions on ways we can address this opioid crisis.

As well, we are putting a significant amount of funds into dealing with mental health issues and other issues that are afflicting many of our populations. The only way to do it, as the member knows full well, is to do it in partnership with our provincial counterparts, as well as with municipalities.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to be in on the debate because the hon. member was chairing the finance committee earlier today. There has been some banter back and forth in this place, and I hope he can help me correct the record. It was between the member for Calgary Centre and the member for Outremont.

The member for Calgary Centre claimed that earlier today a witness before the finance committee was unable to name a single fossil fuel subsidy. I think the hon. member for Calgary Centre misheard the witness, because she clearly said Export Development Canada. The witness was from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. They did a detailed report and found approximately $13 billion in subsidies to fossil fuels from Export Development Canada. The hon. member for Calgary Centre misheard, I think, because he stated that the program no longer existed. It is not a program. It is Export Development Canada, and it is providing subsidies to fossil fuels.

I do not know if the hon. member was there for the exchange between the member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Outremont, but perhaps he can recall that the witness this morning at the finance committee certainly had no trouble naming some subsidies to fossil fuels in this country.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government has stood steadfast on putting a price on pollution, understanding that polluters must pay. I believe that lens speaks for our entire country, that all Canadians believe that polluters must pay. If they are polluting, they should pay for the pollution that they produce. That is why we have a robust climate action change plan that puts a price on carbon and on pollution.

Advocates like those we had before us at the finance committee are so important. They bring the facts and information to committee, which informs our committee, and this House for that matter.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 5 under government business.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 5, Mrs. Alexandra Mendès in the chair)

Situation in Ukraine

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how proceedings will unfold.

Each member will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the time provided for debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each.

Members may divide their time with another member and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

moved:

That this committee take note of the situation in Ukraine.

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time this evening with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Canada has always been clear about our steadfast support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, from being the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence to the deep partnership we have developed in the years since and to the expanded support our government has announced in recent days. Ukrainians have the right to determine their future. Canada, alongside our allies, will always stand firm in defence of that right.

When people elect a government, collectively choose a path forward and want to make progress, these democratic choices have to be respected, but right now that is not what Russia is doing. Russia is seeking confrontation.

Russia is trying to destabilize and provoke a sovereign democratic state.

This direct threat to the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination should be of concern not just to Ukraine and eastern Europe, but to all of us.

Russian actions are once again standing in direct opposition to democratic principles. These actions are calling into question the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in the UN charter. That is why we must show unity and resolve in standing with Ukraine. That is why Canada and its allies have been clear that any further incursion into Ukraine will provoke severe costs and serious consequences, including the imposition of coordinated sanctions. We will continue to be there to provide support to Ukraine.

In 2015, Canada launched Operation Unifier, a military training mission that has helped train about 33,000 members of the Ukrainian security forces. Last week, I authorized the extension and expansion of Operation Unifier. As part of this commitment, the Canadian Armed Forces is deploying 60 personnel to join the approximately 200 women and men already on the ground, with further capacity to increase the number of people up to 400. We are also sending additional support in the form of non-lethal equipment, intelligence sharing and help to combat cyber-attacks.

As previously announced, we are also providing a loan of up to $120 million to support Ukraine's economic resilience. We will provide up to $50 million to deliver development and humanitarian aid.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of our teams who are working hard on these files. I would like to emphasize that our Minister of National Defence is currently in Ukraine, working with her counterparts, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs was recently there as well. Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister remains very involved in this file.

I also want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces participating in Operation Unifier. I had the chance to meet them a few years ago when I was in Ukraine. They are doing an exemplary job.

Canada has a long history of standing up to bullies, but standing up to bullies does not mean that we want conflict. Let us be clear about the facts. NATO is no threat to Russia. It is a defensive alliance built on the free choice of its members to support each other in collective security. Ukraine is not provoking Russia or threatening its security.

In the days and weeks to come, we will continue coordinating closely with Ukraine, NATO allies and our other international partners to stand firm in support of Ukraine and to deter further Russian aggression. The fate of Ukraine matters to the world and to Canadians. I have made this very clear, including directly to President Zelensky. I have defended the rights of Ukrainians to choose their own future with organizations like the G7 and NATO in the past, and I will continue to do so. We are always stronger together, and we will not be intimidated.

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

Madam Chair, I am honoured to be able to stand tonight in this debate on the future of Ukraine's ability to protect itself. I appreciate the comments made by the Prime Minister, but at the same time, we know that it was Ukraine's biggest demand of NATO allies, including Canada, for the last four or five years, to beef up its lethal defensive weapons, knowing that at any moment Russia may want to invade Ukraine.

Now we have over 100,000 Russian troops standing on Ukraine's borders on the north, on the east and down in the south. It has Ukraine surrounded. I know that President Zelensky and the embassy here have been asking the Government of Canada to provide lethal weapons. The Prime Minister has been completely mute on this. Why has he not supplied lethal weapons to Ukraine? Is he going to wait until Russia invades Ukraine? By then, it is too late.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Chair, I will point out that Canada has been steadfast in its support of Ukraine, and that is why we have engaged directly with Ukraine and Ukraine's leadership to hear what they need. The number one ask from President Zelensky was economic support, which we delivered in a $120-million sovereign loan to help the Ukrainians counter the economic destabilization in which Russia is engaging.

Their other ask, indeed, is a preoccupation with their ability to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity. On that, we have responded. We have responded by extending and enlarging Canada's extraordinarily successful mission, which has directly trained up 33,000 members of the Ukrainian defence forces and continues to be one of the most impactful and positive elements of NATO's support for Ukraine.

Canada will always be there for Ukraine, but we will respond to the Ukrainians' asks in a way that responds to their priorities. That is what friends do.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks.

The government keeps repeating that it favours a diplomatic approach to resolving this potential conflict, but apart from crying wolf, what is Canada actually doing?

In my view, diplomacy means dialogue, but there does not seem to be any dialogue with either side. Just last week, the Russian ambassador said that Canada-Russia relations are dysfunctional, to say the least. Apart from an exchange between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister Lavrov in Russia, which took place several months ago, the highest level of dialogue was with him, the ambassador.

The ambassador himself said that the Prime Minister should speak directly with President Vladimir Putin to discuss a solution to the problem, as did the French president, Emmanuel Macron. According to the ambassador, Russia would even be willing to lift the entry ban that has been placed on the Deputy Prime Minister if she travelled to Russia for this purpose.

What is the Government of Canada actually doing on the diplomatic front?