Debates of June 1st, 2022

Public Safety and National Security

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

Madam Speaker, it is always the youth who pay the price for wars. Most of the generals are older and the people who are getting killed are frequently younger people. Boy, that was blindingly obvious in the prison in Vilnius, but also in the member's experience as well.

On peace, order and good government, I do not know where we are on that. It is a worthwhile initiative. One cannot separate diplomacy, aid and military abilities. It needs to be a team Canada approach in all matters. I would like to think we are making some progress on that, but I do not always know that we are.

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

Madam Speaker, we are debating something that I think and hope we can look to some consensus on. I will confess that it is a tough issue for Green Party members to talk about NATO.

For us, questions about NATO are difficult and complicated because of our deep commitment to peace and the principles of non-violence.

I am part of a global party. It does not come up very often in this place that I am a member of Parliament in Canada, within a family of global Greens. One of those global Greens is Pekka Haavisto, who is Finland's Minister for Foreign Affairs and a very germane part of the debate tonight. Up until December, a friend of mine, Per Bolund, co-leader of the Green Party of Sweden, was Sweden's deputy prime minister, but the Swedish Greens just left the Swedish coalition, for reasons I need not get into here.

As Greens, we have a profound commitment to peace and non-violence, which means, to say it just as clearly as I can, that I am no fan of NATO. Greens are not, generally, because it is a military. It is a defensive alliance, but it is not without issues for those of us who are committed to non-violence. It has been an issue for us to know that we absolutely, unequivocally believe that Vladimir Putin is solely responsible for Russia's attack on Ukraine and we are on the side of Ukraine and Ukrainians. We are supportive of every action our government has taken, but it is not without difficulty for us.

How do Greens feel about Canada being in NATO? In an ideal world, when the Warsaw Pact ended, NATO would have ended too. That is how we see it. NATO's continued involvement in the world does create tensions that we probably would not have needed if, and this is a big “if” and one of the main things I want to talk about tonight, we had had the former Soviet Union and the United States pursue nuclear disarmament. When Mikhail Gorbachev was championing perestroika and glasnost, he also picked up the phone and called former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. He asked, “Do you want to end nuclear weapons, because I do?” Ronald Reagan said, “I do too.” By the way, the reason I know this is that Mikhail Gorbachev told that story to a small group of people in a room in Rio de Janeiro at Rio+5. I was there because I was part of a committee that Mikhail Gorbachev co-chaired.

However, in the years that followed, the efforts toward nuclear disarmament faltered. I believe that Donald Trump was a puppet of Vladimir Putin and the two of them decided, or at least Putin decided, “Let's not get rid of nuclear weapons. Let's slow down the talks. Let's not have nuclear non-proliferation discussions anymore. Let's not have nuclear disarmament discussions anymore.” It has made the world less safe.

This is in the context of Vladimir Putin and Russia's completely illegal war. I mean, wars are generally illegal. It is hard to know when a war is exactly legal because many of them are founded on lies: the Vietnam War, the Iraq War. We can make up a story about why we need to attack this other country, but there are some wars that we know were morally justified, such as the allied forces confronting fascism in the Second World War. Many of our parents, my parents and many people in this room had family members engaged in that war. As the member for Scarborough—Guildwood just said, it is the young people who suffer in wars. It is the young people who die, but with some wars we can see the moral justification. In this case, supporting Ukraine really matters.

However, I question what Canada should be doing in NATO. I want to share that with all of my colleagues as I conclude my remarks. Spoiler alert, I will agree with the motion that Finland and Sweden should be supported in joining NATO, because that is what they ask for right now. As I said, my colleagues in the global Green Party, global Green parliamentarians, asked for that. We respect the decisions made within countries by our colleagues in the Green Party. There is no question from the Greens that we support that Finland and Sweden should be supported in joining NATO.

However, let me ask this question. The budget of 2022 said clearly that we are going to have a foreign policy review. In that foreign policy review, I hope we will ask this question: Should Canada stay in NATO?

Why is it an advantage for Canada to be a member of NATO?

It may be an advantage, but this century's greatest threat to our safety is not a military one. It is the threat of climate change. Climate change is a greater threat to our future than all the military powers of the world.

Why would we stay in NATO? I believe we should stay in NATO to advocate for nuclear disarmament. We would play an important role in saying to our NATO partners that the world is less safe because of nuclear weapons. If we had succeeded where Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan had hoped to go and where Lester B. Pearson would have hoped to go, and if we had moved to remove nuclear weapons, how much more effective would we be now to help Ukraine?

When President Zelenskyy asked us, in this space, on Zoom, for a no-fly zone, we knew we could not do it because we are NATO partners and Vladimir Putin has threatened the use of nuclear weapons. If we had been a non-aligned, neutral nation, could we have done more? NATO itself is, in a sense, muscle-bound. It has so many armies and it has nuclear weapons. It cannot confront Russia without threatening what we always heard about in the Cold War, the strategy of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. There is no future or hope in that.

In this instance tonight, for the first time that I have ever had a chance to speak in this place about NATO, I would say to all of my colleagues here, let us look at what makes the world safer. The world will be safer when nuclear weapons are eliminated. We have now before us, and it has taken legal effect, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Enough countries around the world, nation-states, have signed on, but none of the nuclear powers have signed on and Canada has not even signed on to be an observer to the conversation.

At the end of this month, June 20-22 in Vienna, will be the first state-party gathering under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I know that my colleague here from Edmonton Strathcona and I, as well as a senator from the other place, plan to go to Vienna. We hope our government will be there as a delegation. We hope we sign on.

In the meantime, as we examine this question, Finland and Sweden have been made less secure by Russia's assault on Ukraine. We have to do two things at all times: We have to defend Ukraine and do everything we can to put pressure on Russia to get to a peace talk and to get to a ceasefire; and we have to look beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine and say, “How do we make the world safer?” We make the world safer when nuclear weapons are abolished.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to share an experience with the hon. member about NATO. I was travelling with John Manley, the then foreign affairs minister. Our itinerary was London, Paris, Riga and Berlin. When we were in Riga, the President of Latvia came into the room and she harangued John and me for 20 minutes about getting into NATO. This was in September 2001. She did not want anything else. She just wanted into NATO, because she saw NATO as her best security guarantee against the Russians. We went to Germany and, to John's credit, he put the Latvian question to the Germans. They had the same question: “What about the Russians?”

Is the hon. member prepared to assert her judgment about the utility of NATO against the President of Latvia's judgment about the utility of NATO?

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

Madam Speaker, in the context of a nuclear armed Russia and Latvia, that is a concern, and I cannot second-guess what the President of Latvia said, but would her response had been different if we had done the right thing?

When the U.S.S.R. broke down and capitalism decided to declare capitalism had won and communism had lost, why did we not do a Marshall plan for Russia? Why did we not build the democratic institutions? Why did we leave the people of Russia to reduced life expectancy, to reduced economic opportunities and to the crony capitalism of Putin's friends? We let them down. We could have changed that, so I cannot answer the question because the context could have been so different if we had done more for the people of Russia.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the speeches given by my dear colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I am not the only one, as my father also adores my hon. colleague, and I think they have a lovely friendship. That is one of the reasons I want to ask her the following question.

My father, who was also an MP, always told me that we are free to take whatever position we want on a motion or a bill, but it must be for the right reasons.

I really like my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands because she is always very honest and genuine when she answers questions. From what I have understood, she will support this motion because the Swedish and Finnish Greens support it. Had they not taken a position on this motion, would she still have supported it?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the question. I thank him for his comments, especially those regarding the friendship between his father and me. It is so true.

If the greens in Finland and Sweden had not taken a position, our response may have been different. However, our foreign colleagues are clear: They are now under threat from Russia and Mr. Putin's regime, and they need NATO protection. That is why the Greens will of course vote in favour of this motion.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo some of my colleagues in this place and thank the member for her genuine honesty in her intervention today.

Two former prime ministers of Canada, three former foreign ministers, two former defence ministers and all members of the Liberal Party have endorsed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In fact, they wrote a letter on September 21, 2019, rebuking NATO for its opposition to the treaty.

I am wondering if the member could tell us why she thinks the previous members of the Liberal Party could support that but the current government cannot?

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

Madam Speaker, our government appears to be slavishly and unthinkingly willing to do whatever the U.S. administration wants.

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to join everyone tonight virtually to talk about NATO and the application for membership to NATO by Finland and Sweden. It is something I hope we can strongly support unanimously in this chamber to send a strong message to all allies in the NATO alliance and hopefully convince those who are somewhat hesitant to accept the membership applications from Finland and Sweden.

We know that Sweden and Finland have been closely co-operating with NATO and the European Union's collective defence agreement for quite some time. They have modern militaries, modern economies and very progressive societies that we all appreciate and admire. There is no reason to reject their applications to NATO.

We know that both Finland and Sweden have been non-aligned, neutral nations since the end of World War II, but that has dramatically changed with Putin's illegal invasion, Russia's war, and the war crimes and atrocities being committed in Ukraine. Of course, our thoughts, prayers and efforts are to help Ukraine win this war. We know that the entire NATO alliance is doing everything it can and is nervous about how this is going to play out.

This means countries that do not have the ability to be part of the strong alliance we have through NATO want to join. Although there may be some naysayers out there who are going to say this is NATO enlargement pushing farther toward Russia's border, nothing could be further from the truth. These are independent countries that want to make sure they can take advantage of what we enjoy and take for granted here in Canada, which is deterrence through our collective defence.

Article 5 almost guarantees that no NATO member will ever be invaded by a foreign nation such as the Russian Federation. Vladimir Putin is at the helm of the Russian Federation and has control of the criminal organization within the Kremlin and the kleptocrats. He has been running a mafia-styled organization with a very disturbing philosophy and revisionist history that he is trying to force upon the world.

His demented reasoning for invading Ukraine cannot go unchecked, but that means the Baltic nations and Arctic nations that share space with Russia are increasingly concerned. That is why there has been a change of heart so quickly. In a matter of three months, we have seen Sweden and Finland make this historic application for membership 73 years after the beginning of the NATO alliance.

I want to thank the foreign affairs committee for doing this work, putting together this report and giving us this opportunity to express, as parliamentarians and ultimately as the Government of Canada, our support for their membership applications.

Let us look at why they are so nervous and why they made this decision to join with other Baltic nations that already enjoy this alliance, such at Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland. We know that these nations have all joined over the last 25 years. We also know that Canada has been playing a major role in Latvia as part of NATO's enhanced forward presence, and increasing military deterrence activities within Latvia, leading several other nations in a battle group there.

The more we can do to bolster the defences of eastern Europe, the safer we are here at home. We are an Arctic nation; we share territory with Russia. It is good to know the United States, Canada and Norway, which are already NATO members, will now be joined by two more Arctic nations, Finland and Sweden, in this alliance. We can hopefully bring Russia back into a reasonable conversation, after it leaves Ukrainian sovereign territory, about how best to move forward to protect the Arctic, do search and rescue and make other investments in the Arctic area.

Canada needs to do more for Ukraine. We are watching this war on a daily basis, and it continues to pull at all our heartstrings. We know this is more than a tragedy: An atrocity has been committed.

We have been talking about Bucha and what has happened in Mariupol. Hospitals, schools, seniors homes and maternity wards have been intentionally targeted. We know that Putin and his henchmen within the Russian army have been committing these crimes against humanity, and they have been ordered from the top down. Everyone who is responsible for those atrocities must be held to account. I am glad to see that Ukraine's public prosecutor is putting together all the evidence to take to the Hague in front of the International Criminal Court. Canada needs to assist in that every step of the way.

For quite a while, the Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to do more to help Ukraine. The humanitarian corridors need to be implemented by giving Ukraine anti-air and air defence systems so that it can ensure its airspace is protected and so that those fleeing war zones can get to safety and humanitarian assistance and relief can get into besieged cities such as Kharkiv.

We know that Ukraine has been asking for more armoured vehicles. We have asked many times in the House, and I asked it again just a couple of weeks ago, why Canada is not sending its about-to-be-retired light armoured vehicles: our Bisons, Coyotes, Kodiaks and M113 Tracked LAVs. All of those are going to be decommissioned over the next year, and the replacement vehicles are already built and sitting in London, Ontario, waiting to be accredited. In that tranche of light armoured vehicles, there are 32 armoured ambulances as part of the LAV II configuration that could be sent to Ukraine, which desperately needs them right now.

The government knows those light armoured vehicles would save lives, but for whatever reason, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have not moved on sending these LAVs, which could easily be donated by Canada as they are in good working order.

We have also asked the government to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague might have forgotten to mention that he is splitting his time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure if I caught it.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Then the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has one minute and 30 seconds remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe I did mention that I was splitting my time. I am sorry about that.

One of the other things we have been asking the government to do is supply our harpoon maritime and coastal missiles. They would really strengthen Ukraine's ability to protect Odessa and other coastal cities. We asked for that and Canada did not do it; the U.K. did. We asked to send over our LAVs, like our M113s. Canada did not send them, but the United States and Australia sent M113s.

We need to step up and do more, not less. I again want to reiterate that having Sweden and Finland join our NATO alliance speaks volumes, and I know we all welcome their applications.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that Canada has actually been very supportive of Ukraine in every way.

Having said that, my question is more in regard to the importance of NATO and how NATO's role in the world has been amplified. I believe that going forward NATO is going to become a much healthier, stronger world factor. I am interested in hearing my colleague's thoughts in regard to how what has taken place in Europe has really amplified the importance of NATO to the world, and how as a Canadian government we need to support and work with our allies, and in particular with NATO.

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

Madam Speaker, we all know that NATO is by far not only the strongest defence alliance, it is also one of the most active political alliances in the world. Much can be done through deterrence measures because of the military strength that NATO possesses, and because of that it is able to come to the table as an organization and as a group of allies to talk about political realities, and it is able to bring about peace much more quickly than other international organizations.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about supplying weapons. We know that these days weapons are more and more technologically complex and people need training to use them properly.

I would like to comment on the need to provide as much predictability as possible when we send weapons, so that we can also link that to training for the people who will use them.

Can my colleague provide clarification on this?

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

Madam Speaker, I know we are sending sniper rifles that were bought by the Ukrainian military from Canada that are very advanced and require training. I agree that if we are going to send more technologically advanced weapons, it means we have to be able to move personnel who built the equipment to train individuals on it.

Not all of the equipment takes weeks and months to train on. It is not like selling them new fighter jets that they have not flown before, which would take years to master. A lot of this stuff only takes a matter of days or weeks before it is in operation.

That is why I would encourage the government, which has $500 million earmarked in the budget to go toward military equipment for Ukraine, to buy the equipment that Ukraine already uses from the world market and get it there as soon as possible, so that we do not have to train the troops and they can actually put it into use immediately.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that while we do not agree on everything on the response to Ukraine, my colleague and I both strongly believe that Canada needs to do everything it can for the people of Ukraine.

As a co-vice-chair of the Ukraine Canada friendship association, I admire his commitment to the people of Ukraine. I would like to ask him a question. We know that there has been about $600 billion worth of damage done to infrastructure in Ukraine. What would the member like to see the Canadian government commit to, as a long-term strategy, to help Ukraine rebuild after this war?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's strong support for Ukraine as well.

Canada needs to start planning ahead for a Marshall Plan to help rebuild all the infrastructure that has been destroyed by the Russian military in Ukraine. We know that there are a number of assets that have already been seized from Russian oligarchs and corrupt kleptocrats who have been hiding their wealth in businesses owned here in Canada. Those assets need to be liquidated, and those are the first dollars that should be going into the rebuilding of Ukraine's hospitals, schools, roads and bridges.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to enter into debate in this place, especially when it comes to important issues such as the motion we are discussing tonight.

Before I get into the substance of my defence for this motion, I would like to highlight a couple of things. The fact is that over the past number of months, we have seen the security situation of our world evolve dramatically. In the circumstances that I and many of the younger individuals in this place grew up in, I do not remember a time, other than on maps that maybe were not quite up to date that we had in our social studies classrooms, when there was a Soviet Union. I know from those who may have a little more grey hair than I do the stories and the geopolitical reality that existed prior to the dramatic changes that took place at the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties.

Over the past number of months, we have seen a dramatic change. The peace and security of our world and the rules-based international order have truly been put at risk. When Russia invaded the sovereign country of Ukraine, I would suggest it sent a shock wave across the world that a red line had been crossed.

Debate has taken place in this place, and in parliaments and legislatures around the world, including, I would note, the Parliament of Ukraine. It has continued to function under what are circumstances that I am sure many of us within Canada's House of Commons, Canada's Parliament and many western democracies could hardly imagine. It has continued to function and ensure that, in the midst of what seem like insurmountable odds, democracy matters. It has continued to show that the rules-based international order matters. As we are specifically discussing tonight a motion that supports the entrance of Finland and Sweden into NATO, the treaty alliance that has demonstrated over its history that it has played a key and pivotal role in ensuring peace and security around the world, that peace and security, as I mentioned before, have been threatened.

I would note that my great uncle Ted gave something to me when I was 10 or 11 years old. He was a professor at the University of Toronto, who is now retired. He would visit us back home in east central Alberta. I would have a million questions when he would come during the summer, often spending a number of weeks. I would ask him questions about anything and everything. He happened to be a professor of Hebrew history, but was a very knowledgeable man on many subjects. In particular, one summer he brought a piece of the Berlin Wall and explained to me the significance of that piece of concrete, crumbling as it was.

When I got elected in 2019, I went, as I am sure many of us do, to the box where many things from my childhood and my past were stored and I got that old piece of concrete that was wrapped in plastic. I took it out and was able to get it put into a display. On that, I got a plaque with President Reagan's famous words asking Mr. Gorbachev to bring down that wall. That piece of the Berlin Wall sits in my office today as a constant reminder that this rules-based international order is not something that we can take for granted and that we have to continually and earnestly defend the peace and security that makes up our national democratic institutions. However, it is also a reminder that the world has enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace over the past seven decades or so, and of the significance of the disruption that is possible in light of what the developing circumstances are with Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

I certainly did not imagine, when I was elected to Parliament in 2019, that within a number of years we would be debating a war in Europe. The dynamics have certainly changed when it comes to where we find ourselves today. That is why it is so fitting to be able to debate and discuss what I hope will be an expedient admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO.

Only three months or so ago, even the talk of these two countries joining NATO would have been something that would have garnered international headlines and would have been called a provocation. We see how, in light of the circumstances our world finds itself in, that it appears to be, and I would suggest is, a necessity for the security of those two countries and the western world.

To provide context, although Finland and Sweden are not currently NATO members, I would like to note in the House this evening that they are active participants in the upholding of, as I have referred to, the international rules-based order. They have been collaborators with NATO and many of our objectives throughout the course of NATO's history. It is those things that I would suggest build a perfect resumé for what should be a speedy admission. For other countries that are now tasked with evaluating whether or not they should support these two countries' admission, if we look at their history I would suggest that their record speaks very strongly in favour of their expedient admission.

My speech up to this point has talked a lot about the impacts of this motion and the results it would have on the world, but it has specific relevance here at home as well. When it comes to domestic impacts, we think about northern sovereignty and how we share thousands of kilometres of our north, although not a land border, with our next-closest neighbour, Russia. Certainly since I have been elected, and as someone who has followed closely the situation in our north, there is without a shadow of a doubt threats that are current and present that we need to take as a country in terms of bolstering our military.

The previous speaker from Manitoba spoke very eloquently about ensuring that we have the military requirements, about meeting our 2% target and about those sorts of things. However, we have to be able to respond in a way that will ensure our national sovereignty: not just the thousands of kilometres of Arctic tundra in our north, but the fact that our sovereign borders do border, although by sea, a nation that has shown itself unwilling to abide by the common precepts of what national sovereignty should look like.

I would call as a challenge to all parties in the House, and especially the government and members of the cabinet, that I have heard a lot of tough talk over the course of the past number of months regarding the situation in Ukraine, but that has to be followed up by equally significant and tough action. Tough talk without action makes good headlines, but does not actually help the people of our nation, the people of Ukraine, the people of Finland or Sweden and it does not keep them any safer.

As I come to the conclusion of my speech, I would simply appeal to this place and to members of NATO that we look toward an expedient admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO for the peace and security of both our nation and the alliance that has helped provide peace and security over the past seven decades in our world.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague was speaking, I was reflecting on the different views that we have in the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada providing a voice to this discussion on what is happening in the world and the value of the Parliament of Canada in this discussion to say that we need to have peace, order and good government in other countries.

Even though we might not agree with each other within these walls, I think that outside these walls our voice can be heard. It is being heard among ourselves, but now it will go forward from here.

Could the hon. member comment on the value of our combined voice on this issue?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly significant that we are debating this motion and the opportunity for Canada's Parliament, the epicentre of Canadian democracy, in what I hope will be a strong, unified voice, to share with the world that this situation matters, that Finland's and Sweden's admission into NATO matters, and to continue to speak with a strong voice, united, and to share that although there are many political differences, we stand united with the people of Ukraine and for the rules-based international order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting.

He talked about unity with the Ukrainians. I think everyone in the House agrees on that. He talked about territorial sovereignty and national sovereignty. I am always moved when I hear people talk about sovereignty. I dream of the day when Quebec will also be part of NATO, just like Canada. However I do not want to go there tonight, because I am on my last question of the day.

As we know, Turkey is proving to be problematic. It is one thing to say we support Sweden and Finland joining NATO. However, how does my hon. colleague think the problem with Turkey should be addressed when the time comes to do so? I think it will have to be done fairly quickly.

How should this be done?