Debates of Jan. 31st, 2022

Situation in Ukraine

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with my former seatmate, the member for Vancouver Centre.

It is getting late, and I note that at the end of this week is the beginning of the Olympics. There will be one nation out of all the nations in the world that will not be allowed to compete under its own flag, and that is the Russian nation. The Olympic committee finally got sick of all the corruption, doping, cheating and lying that was coming out of the Russian government and will not allow Russian athletes to compete under their own flag.

This is what we, meaning the family of nations, the universe of nations, including Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine, deal with on a daily basis, because nothing happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin's express permission. When he says there might be 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border or that they are just exercises and there is nothing to see, it is just nonsense and no one should really pay much attention because he does not speak the truth very often.

I was once privileged to spend some time with Senator Lisa Murkowski. She has available to her a map of the Arctic. I do not know if it is available publicly, but it is like looking at the Arctic from 50,000 feet above the North Pole. What it shows is the remilitarization of the Arctic by the Russian government, with all of the refurbished old bases and all of the new installations as well. While Canada, even from that map, is far away from the Russian bases, the U.S. is very close, at the Bering Strait, as are Finland, Sweden, Greenland, Denmark and Norway. The remilitarization of the Arctic, in my judgment, is what contributes to why it is in Canada's best interests to fully participate in the Ukrainian repulsion of this Russian aggression.

Henry Kissinger once said that nations do not have permanent friends or enemies; they only have interests. Regardless of whether one is Ukrainian or not, or whether one has diaspora in one's community or not, in my judgment it is in Canada's best interests to fully support Ukraine.

Russia routinely launches massive cyber-attacks on Canada, the last one being at a hospital in Newfoundland. It is nothing but a mafia shakedown: “If you pay us millions of dollars, we'll let you have your hospital back.” Russia routinely steals significant amounts of industrial and commercial intellectual property. Russian oligarchs have purchased significant pieces of industrial and commercial property in order to burrow deeply into Canadian society, and that money has been generated from very dubious sources. Russia is quite skilled at the game of misinformation and disinformation.

There are many, many more reasons why Ukraine's security is our security and our security is Ukraine's security. I would ask members to cast their minds along the eastern European flank to western Russia, because if Ukraine goes, the next place to go is Poland and the Baltics. When we get past Poland and the Baltics, we get to Finland. After Finland is Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and suddenly this is at our border.

I see my time is up, and I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for a great intervention in this House. I had the honour of serving with the member at the foreign affairs committee a few Parliaments ago. There is a lot of wisdom in the words he brings to the House, and that it is in our national interest to ensure that the Government of Ukraine remains independent, has territorial integrity, and is able to stand up to Russian aggression. I want to add a few things to what he said.

In 2015, when Russia attacked Ukraine, it used about a dozen battalion tactical groups. Today we are talking about up to 76 battalion tactical groups amassing on the border. The types of troops being amassed at the border of Ukraine are what indicate that Russia is serious about entering Ukrainian territory and staying in Ukrainian territory for whatever purpose, for whatever length of time.

I wonder if the member could expand on the comments he has made on what this would mean for our national interest, as well as for the national interest of NATO allies in the region.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Chair, the hon. member asks a very disturbing question. The reason it is disturbing is that this is a buildup like nothing else we have ever seen.

It has been appropriate that the family of nations, particularly the NATO nations, have reacted as swiftly as they have in a variety of ways. I, like him, share that concern. I would like to think that diplomacy would do the trick here. I would like to think that this is a feint or something of that nature, that this is is just to trick the NATO allies. I am not convinced.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to elaborate on the question that was just asked.

We are talking about higher numbers of troops on the Ukrainian border. We are somewhat concerned that Russia will use other tactics to ultimately annex Donbass, mainly by supporting the rebel troops in that area.

How can diplomacy have a role to play when things are being done in a clandestine way? I do not know if my colleague wants to comment on that possibility, which is nonetheless real.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Chair, the member is my favourite Bloc member on the defence committee, and I appreciate her question.

I would like to share the member's optimism about the utility of diplomacy, but if they are interacting with a person who has a delusional sense of what constitutes Russia's rightful territorial area of influence, they are starting in a pretty deep hole. It is difficult to arrive at an agreed upon statement of threat, or an agreed upon statement of fact. If there were those agreements or some basis for moving forward on diplomacy, I would be 100% enthusiastic. However, I do not think, at this time, this is going to work.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Chair, the troop buildup by Russia along the Ukrainian border is completely unacceptable as is its threatening posture towards Ukraine. Canada should absolutely be coming to Ukraine's assistance and using whatever tools it can, including the Magnitsky act sanctions, which is something the government has yet to do.

I am wondering if the member has thoughts about why Canada has yet to deploy Magnitsky act sanctions as a tool to deter Russia, and whether we could expect that the government will in the near future.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Chair, that is an excellent question, and I agree with the member completely.

Bill Browder, who is the father of Magnitsky sanctions, said last week that we, meaning all of the NATO nations, need to align the Magnitsky sanctions with each other, because the gaps are where the Russians win.

Insofar as Canada has not aligned with other nations, I would encourage alignment. I would also encourage other nations to align with the initiatives that Canada has taken on Magnitsky. As Browder rightly says, these people who are hiding money in Canada, in plain sight frequently, have gotten it from abuse of human rights, and we should, under no circumstances, tolerate those kinds of investments in our country.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Chair, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to all of the speakers and I think I want to speak to constituents out there. We all understand the issue. We know the regional—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. Does the hon. member have her headset on and her boom down? I cannot tell. That will be very helpful to us here in the House.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Chair, can you hear me now?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will check with the interpreters.

Go ahead.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Chair, I want to speak to Canadians out there and constituents, because I have noted that many of them have been asking why Canada is worrying about this country. It is so far away up there in Eastern Europe, why are we bothered?

We are bothered because this is not just about us. It is not just about Ukraine. It is not just about NATO. It is not just about Europe. It is about the fact that one has to have a rules-based order to keep global security moving. One has to have relationships with countries based on trust.

What is shown is that in 1991, when Ukraine became a sovereign nation and became independent, it still carried the third-largest arms supply in the world. An agreement was made in 1994 at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe called the Budapest agreement. Everyone wanted nuclear disarmament and there was an agreement between the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakstan that said that if Ukraine got rid of all of its nuclear storage, they would all agree that in exchange Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, would be protected and not have any aggression levelled against it. Its territorial integrity and its sovereignty would be accepted and realized.

Russia broke that. It broke that rule when it went into Crimea in 2014. It broke that rule again when it was amassing troops on the borders of Ukraine and along the Baltic states. It broke that rule, as the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, now that it is looking at arming the Baltic with warships.

Russia is giving us a message and the whole issue is about trust. We cannot trust its words, trust its agreements or trust its assurances. Global security is at risk when there is absolutely no trust, so we all need to be concerned about it. We have talked a lot about wanting peaceful solutions. We have talked a lot about not moving into war, but the way to prevent war is to have trust. The way to prevent war is to have a rules-based world order. The way to prevent war is to make sure that we can believe in each other and trust each other's word. Russia has proven itself not to be capable that, and not only in 2014, when it moved into Crimea. We know that it has moved into Transnistria. We know that the Baltic states are all very concerned.

I think this is something we need to think about. I do not know if members remember this in history, but I recall a time when a certain government said it would only move in to take over Czechoslovakia. We believed it and agreed. We thought it was all fine and wonderful. Then we saw it move to take over all of Europe, and then came the Second World War. We are on the brink of a global war. We need to think about that.

Obviously, we need to negotiate. Obviously, we need to try to find a peaceful resolution to conflict, but we also need to have an iron fist in a velvet glove. As we talk about the kinds of things we need to do with respect to negotiating, we need to have solidarity in our backpack, pardon my mixed metaphors, and things such as Magnitsky sanctions. We need to understand that money is being hidden in our countries by oligarchs and Putin himself. That money came from corruption. It came from the human rights denials of many people around the world. This is a government that we need to stop where it hurts, in the pocketbook and in the personal pocketbook. If that does not work, we need to think about the fact that we, as members of the OSCE and NATO, have to be prepared to take whatever steps we need.

Churchill said, “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war”, but sometimes, as he showed us, we have to do what is necessary to protect global security.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for her contribution to this debate.

I guess I am going to sound a softer tone, but I am always worried that when we do comparisons to World War II we are not getting it right. This is not the Soviet Union anymore, but it is still the same type of Russian leadership that we are seeing. Its default stance is to be hyper aggressive towards its neighbours. We saw it do this to Georgia. It feels like just a few years ago, but it has been over 15 years since that particular conflict happened. Since then, it has created two of these autonomous, separate kinds of republics that nobody else recognizes.

I wonder if the member would comment on what the possible interest would be for the Russian federation in trying to either dismember Ukraine or destabilize it, because we in Canada, as many cabinet ministers have been mentioning, have been contributing a lot to the humanitarian and civil institutions' strengthening effort in Ukraine.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Chair, I am talking about the word “trust” here. We trusted a government that told us it would be going into Czechoslovakia and it would not do anything else, and then it moved to take over Europe.

I do not know the bottom line of Putin's agenda, but I do know that he showed himself not to be trustworthy when he went into Crimea, when he armed his warships in the Baltic Sea, and when he threatened by his very presence a lot of the Baltic states and the Arctic Ocean. I think we need to remember that we have to be guarded. We should not be naive enough to believe whatever we are hearing from somebody who has shown that he is not to be trusted, and we need to be prepared. We need to start softly, but as with Georgia we also need to be prepared. I am not going to say we need to be prepared for war, but we need to be prepared to show our strength to come together as members of NATO or the OSCE.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Chair, as was said earlier, the buildup of troops by Russia along the Ukrainian border is not acceptable, and it is important that Canada work with our allies to send a very strong message about the fact that it is not acceptable. However, I have been troubled to see the extent to which it seems that some of our allies are not always inviting Canada to the table in some of the important discussions around a coordinated response.

I think of the fact that, for many years now and under many governments, Canada has failed to renew its military equipment, so we have very aged equipment in our case. Also, in terms of gross national income, Canada's foreign aid budget is actually quite low. I think it is important that if Canada wants to play a real role in these conversations and have a seat at the table, that it recognizes it has to be renewing its equipment on an ongoing basis for the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. It also has to be making sure that it is an active participant on the world stage when it comes to providing aid and support to other countries. That is part of the infrastructure that a country needs in order to be taken seriously around these tables, and something that Canada had developed throughout the course of the Second World War, which was a reference that the hon. member had made in her own remarks.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on how it is that Canada finds itself struggling to get the recognition at international tables that it used to. What can we actually do to make sure that the Canadian name has the same force, value and presence that it had historically throughout the 20th century?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Chair, Canada is at the table with NATO playing the role that it can and that it is asked to play around that table. Canada is at the table with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is made up of 57 nation-states. Canada is well respected and trusted at that table. These are the people who are talking about the steps to deal with Russia. These are the people who live close to Russia, and they know what to do. Canada is also a close friend and ally of the United States. We are at the table. We have been at the table ever since we have been dealing with OSCE agreements that included Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

We are playing the role that we can play. When one is on a team, one is asked to play a certain role, and we are doing that. At the moment, this is a role that we feel, and that everyone has felt, is a good role for us to play. We are prepared, I am sure, to move forward if we are asked to play other roles, but Canada is definitely at the table, and I know because I am very involved in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank all my colleagues for staying so late. We are starting things off with a bang today. The fact that there was unanimous consent to have this debate may indicate how important the Ukraine file is, as many have pointed out.

I would like to come at the issue from a different angle. I do not want to talk about what can be done now. This evening's debate in the House may change very little with respect to what needs to be done right away, but perhaps we should give some thought to the future, because current events are exposing some issues with the government's response.

Government members talked about the importance of diplomacy and deterrence. However, when diplomacy is not properly coordinated or not assertive enough, it is hard to then send an unequivocal message of deterrence. That is clear from the fact that the Prime Minister is still refusing to have a leader-to-leader discussion with Russia.

Canada is advocating for strong diplomacy as the primary weapon for resolving the crisis, but its diplomatic efforts still seem to lack a common thread. Many observers have criticized Canada for flying blind and lacking a clear strategy. Others have also recently criticized the revolving door at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a problem that has been highlighted by the crisis. The department has had five different ministers in six years, with everything that goes along with that in terms of different entourages, approaches and personalities.

One thing is for sure: Canada cannot stand by doing nothing in the context of the crisis with Ukraine. It was called upon to take action. It had to do something. It could not stand idly by. However, it seems that Canada was not necessarily ready to take the action that was needed, or to do so in a consistent manner. As we like to say back home, it is time to walk the talk. In this case, however, maybe that saying needs to be flipped around, because it seems that the government's words and actions do not line up, which is a bit frightening.

The problem with taking action is that it can be misinterpreted. Another problem is that even if the action is clear, it may contradict other actions. I feel like raising some of the actions that were taken in the context of the crisis that seem to be contradictory.

There has been talk of extending and expanding Operation Unifier. It may seem like a good thing to send more troops to Ukraine to help train the army that is already in place. However, in the context of the crisis, that may send an overly optimistic message. We are sending troops for purposes other than combat, who will help with medical and security training for local troops. If the crisis boils over, we can expect that operation to be suspended and our troops to be withdrawn since they are not combat troops, whereas the troops that we are training in Ukraine may be mobilized if a conflict erupts. By taking that action, we are acting as though we expect the Russians not to take any military action, yet we are presenting this action as a response to a potential Russian invasion.

Another action the government has taken is to provide a $120‑million loan, but no one has mentioned the fact that there is a clause prohibiting the money from being used to procure military equipment, such as lethal equipment. Without getting into a debate about this equipment, it seems to me that this provision is somewhat of a slap in the face to Ukraine, which is specifically asking for military support. Again, we seem to be sending the message that we will help Ukraine but also hope there will be no crisis. The money will be used to support the economy, because Russia is threatening to destabilize the country, but this money will not be used to counter the Russian threat if the crisis comes to a head.

These actions seem unduly optimistic in contrast with the government's stated positions, such as recalling non-essential embassy staff, which even caused Russia to say that we must stop our alarmist rhetoric on the development of the crisis.

We seem to be sending mixed messages with the $120‑million loan, not to mention that the message itself is rather problematic. We are not responding to Ukraine's request for military equipment. Once again, without getting into a debate about the crux of the matter, it begs the question. A democratic nation, and an ally at that, is asking for support in the form of military equipment to respond to a threat from an authoritarian regime, and Canada is dithering. Meanwhile, Canada continues to send arms to Saudi Arabia. What message does that send?

The question is, why are we sending arms to Saudi Arabia while refusing to send any to Ukraine?

I am not here to debate the merits of the actions that have been taken, but it is worth remembering that these measures will not have any real consequences on the ground. Canada is not in a position to stand up to Russia, which is heavily armed and ready to go. The actions we take are about sending a message, but it seems as though, once again, the message is not clear.

This crisis has underscored a number of problems with our diplomacy. Many observers have pointed out that Canada may be doing itself a disservice by taking a soft power approach out of keeping with such a serious crisis.

I want to share a long excerpt from an article published today, in which Joël‑Denis Bellavance spoke about the state of Canadian diplomacy:

Mr. Trudeau does not give the impression that foreign policy is a priority for him. That's too bad, because he has raised expectations around the world since coming to power. He missed a perfect opportunity to make it clear that “Canada is back!” He does not have any strong personalities on his team, with the exception of Chrystia Freeland, who can lead the charge in asserting—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is reading out the article as written, but she cannot mention ministers or the Prime Minister by name in the House.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am so sorry. I will keep reading:

“...a more active and visible Canadian presence internationally”, said a former diplomat who represented Canada in Africa and also wishes to remain anonymous.

Also coming under fire is the Prime Minister's bad habit of appointing deputy foreign affairs ministers who have never served in an embassy abroad. “The fact that the vast majority of top officials at the Pearson building have never set foot in an embassy is an outrage”, said an internal source.

Former diplomat Ferry de Kerckhove [who makes frequent media appearances] feels it is time Canada's diplomatic corps found its bearings. The best way to do that is to produce a white paper on Canada's foreign policy. The last comprehensive review dates back to 2005; that is 17 years ago.

I hope this evening's debate will prove to be useful, an opportunity for us to acknowledge the importance of diplomacy and of funding it appropriately, investing in it to ensure it has a clear, overarching mission. We also need a clearer foreign policy because we never know when we will need to use diplomacy.

Credibility is not established in a day; I believe that goes double in times of crisis. I think what we need to acknowledge this evening is that we still have work to do. I hope that is the takeaway from today's debate.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.

She talked at length about diplomacy. She pointed out some aspects of our diplomacy where she sees contradictions. I just wanted to say that on the issue of our Prime Minister meeting with Vladimir Putin, I think the decision to meet with someone or to not meet with someone is also part of a diplomatic strategy. It might be worthwhile.

In my view, I think the allies are united, and that is why certain individuals like President Biden, for example, are assigned the role of meeting with Mr. Putin. That is just my opinion, but I think it is a good strategy. It is important that we remain united.

As for the $120 million loaned to the Ukrainians, I think it was more to stabilize their financial system, which is important. There was a strategy there.

As for the weapons sent to Saudi Arabia, we could have a long discussion on that, but my question has to do with weapons. Does the member think that Canada should be sending weapons?

Since we are sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, is the member suggesting that we should also send them to Ukraine?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his very good question.

As my esteemed colleague from Montarville already mentioned, we do not think that sending arms to support Ukraine will make Russia shake in its boots. That is not going to have a tangible impact on the ground.

I will refer back to my speech, specifically to the idea that sending arms does more than just send a message. In that context, we must ensure that the message is properly perceived and received. That is more the role of diplomacy.

At present, I believe that mixed messages are being sent. I do not believe that sending arms alone will have a tangible impact. It is more about the message this sends, and we must ensure that it is clear.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, I will speak in French as a sign of respect for our country's languages.

I want to comment on the debate over whether Ukraine's allies could supply weapons to Ukraine in an attempt to make Russia think twice before deciding to invade.

I believe that this would make a difference in diplomacy. Just look at President Trump's meeting with President Putin in recent years. I think that did a lot of damage to diplomacy in Europe and America. It was a huge victory for Russia, which broadcast propaganda around the world, including here in Canada, via Russia Today, a 24-hour propaganda channel.

We cannot forget that Russia has already fought two wars in Chechnya, sending 50,000 troops to fight each of those wars. Now, there are nearly 130,000 troops on the Ukraine-Russia and Belarus-Ukraine borders, and those soldiers are not normally there. These are tactical combat units deployed from all across the Russian Federation.

I think we need to be cautious in our diplomacy and avoid playing into the hands of Mr. Putin and the Russian Federation, which is preparing for a larger war while we spend our time talking.

Dialogue can have a diplomatic role in a war that might happen later, in a few weeks or months. We do not know. That is up to them.

We must remain vigilant so we can recognize when an adversary is using our time and our focus on diplomacy against us.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, in fact, the Bloc Québécois's position is to not close the door entirely on the use of weapons.

Nor did I say that that should follow diplomatic efforts. Both things can actually be done in parallel. They have to be done in parallel, because if there is a shipment of weapons, the message needs to be properly received.

We can send weapons and maybe irritate Russia more than anything else. However, if we do this and say we are prepared for the consequences, then there are things that can be done on their side so that we can talk. Both approaches have to be taken at the same time.

I am not trying to prioritize which of these things needs to be done first. I believe they can and should be done at the same time.

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

Madam Chair, I would also like to ask the question in French, but I do not know if I would communicate as effectively, especially at this late hour, so I am going to stick to English. Forgive me; I will work on it.

One of the questions that I asked my Conservative colleague on the defence committee earlier in the debate is one I would like to ask my hon. colleague in the Bloc, and I do appreciate her work on the defence committee as well. Working together has been good so far.

Ultimately, there has been a huge lack of Liberal leadership when it comes to the men and women who are serving in the armed forces. There is a lot of doubt about whether it is safe. Women who have served are giving up their entire careers because they cannot go forward. We have talked about that retention and recruitment problem. An additional stress is put on the women as we expand and amplify the Operation Unifier mission.

I would like to hear her comments and her thoughts on what we need to do from our end to better support the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and to ensure that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government do the same.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for the question.

I will take this opportunity to mention that we work really well together at the Standing Committee on National Defence.

That is part of what all members want to work on, in other words, recruitment and retention within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about improving the image of the forces, which has been tarnished over the past few years. It is important for the protection of Canadians and Quebeckers here at home, but also for our ability to respond internationally when required, especially in a context of climate change. There is a risk of increasing pressure on many levels. Is it not the role of the forces to intervene in those cases? It is worth discussing.

However, we will not be able to intervene if there is no one in the forces, and we see that is currently a challenge.