Debates of June 1st, 2022

Public Safety and National Security

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

Could I ask for silence please. We had silence for the previous speeches. Could I ask that conversations be taken outside, please.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, Russia's war in Ukraine has actualized something that was once only theoretical. An authoritarian state led by an autocrat has attacked a democracy: It has demonstrated that it is willing and able to attack a democracy. It has made clear that democracies that stand alone and are not part of military alliances are most vulnerable. That is why it has become necessary to bring both Sweden and Finland into the NATO alliance.

This is an urgent matter. It is urgent because Sweden and Finland are now very vulnerable. They sit in between a period when they were neutral states and full NATO membership, which would guarantee their security and protection by other NATO members under article 5. That is why this debate is so important and why I hope the House will add its political support to the Government of Canada's decision to support Finland and Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

It is also an urgent matter because now that Sweden and Finland have indicated that they wish to join the NATO alliance, Russian disinformation will no doubt accelerate through media sympathetic to Russian disinformation and through political actors sympathetic to Russian disinformation. That is why it is important that we here in the House speak clearly and categorically about our support for both Finland and Sweden's entry into the NATO alliance.

It is also important that the Government of Canada puts pressure on NATO members that are resistant to Finland and Sweden joining the NATO alliance. Both Turkey and Croatia have indicated concerns, if not outright opposition, to Finland and Sweden joining NATO. The Government of Canada must make clear, through its ambassadors as well as through discussions between foreign ministers and heads of government, Canada's position.

Canada supported Turkey's accession to NATO in 1952, and Canada should now ask Turkey to clearly support Finland and Sweden's accession to NATO in 2022. Canada should note that it supplies military equipment to Turkey, particularly key technology for Bayraktar drones. Canada supported Croatia's entry to NATO in 2009, and now Canada should ask Croatia's President Milanovic for his support for Finland and Sweden's accession into the NATO alliance in 2022. The government should note that continued opposition could have negative repercussions for Canada-Croatia relations, which could impact everything from youth mobility arrangements to the promotion of two-way trade and investment.

The Government of Canada also needs to make clear to Finland and Sweden that both Canada and Turkey work together to combat terrorism, and it should indicate that there are groups that both Canada and Turkey consider terrorist entities as listed under the Canadian Criminal Code.

The Canadian government should do as the United Kingdom government recently did, and provide interim security guarantees to both Finland and Sweden in the interim period where they are the most vulnerable before their accession to the NATO alliance to counter any plans that Moscow may have to try to block and intimidate these two countries.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ann Linde, Sweden's foreign minister, on May 5. We discussed Sweden's application to join NATO, Russia's war in Ukraine and its implications for defence, energy and Arctic sovereignty. It was clear during our discussion that it was in Canada's interests as well for Finland and Sweden to join the NATO alliance. Their membership would help bolster Arctic defence and security in a region that Russia considers its most strategically important. It is a region in which Russia has invested considerable resources in recent years.

Finland and Sweden also have robust militaries that could bolster Canada's contributions to the military alliance. Finland demonstrated its fighting spirit during the Winter War of 1939 and 1940, when brave Finns fought back advancing Soviet tanks by running up to the tanks with tar-coated bombs and slapping those bombs onto the track treads of those Soviet tanks, disabling them.

They used nothing more than their bodies and simple, homemade, handmade bombs to stop the Soviet army in its tracks and they eventually repelled the invaders.

The Swedes have a robust domestic military industry. They produce the Gripen fighter jet. Therefore, it is in Canada's interests that both Sweden and Finland join the alliance, helping us to bolster our military capabilities both here and abroad.

Finland and Sweden and their desire to join NATO have demonstrated how much the world has changed since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24. For some 200 years, Sweden has had a policy of neutrality. This is longer than the confederation of Swiss cantons. It is longer than Switzerland's policy. Its position of neutrality dates back to 1812, when it lost territory to Russia as a result of the Napoleonic wars.

The fact that after two centuries of neutrality Sweden has formally applied to join a military alliance reveals how much the world has changed in the past three months, and that should be a wake-up call for the government. The world has changed, but the government has been slow to react to that change. Russia's invasion of Ukraine makes it urgent that the Canadian government meet its commitment to spend 2% of Canada's gross domestic product on our military. This is something it committed to before the most recent budget. It is something the most recent budget fails to deliver on, and our allies are increasingly making note of our failure to uphold our defence spending commitments.

Just this past week, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen said, “In the public discourse leading up to the release of the budget, the rhetoric from senior Canadian government officials implied that there would be a significant increase in defence spending.” He added, “It’s fair to say that although $8 billion is more money, it was a little disappointing as matched against the rhetoric that we heard leading into the release of the budget.”

Finland and Sweden understand that the world has changed, and that is why they are urgently seeking to join NATO. Germany understands that the world has changed, which is why Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who heads a centre-left coalition, announced on February 27 a dramatic U-turn in decades of German foreign and defence policy by immediately committing to increase German defence spending to well beyond 2% of gross domestic product, with an immediate commitment to spend $140 billion Canadian on German defence spending. Other NATO allies understand that the world has changed, but the government has not and it has been slow to react.

Let me finish by stating clearly and categorically that we as Conservatives support Sweden and Finland’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I encourage all members of the House to do the same to ensure that the Parliament of Canada adds its clear voice of support to the Government of Canada's decision to support Finland and Sweden's accession into the NATO alliance.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way is also my geographic neighbour, with Guelph and Wellington—Halton Hills being so close together.

I was listening with interest to his discussion of the neutrality of Sweden and Finland. They have had a formal neutrality for many years, but in 1995 they joined the EU and I think in 1995 they clearly indicated that they were becoming part of an economic alliance that we already have. In fact, our government has signed a trade agreement with Europe: the CETA agreement. We have a formal economic tie with the EU members.

Could the hon. member comment on how having that economic tie can also benefit the alliance through NATO that we are looking at now?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that democracies need to work more closely together not just on diplomacy or the military, but also on economic issues. An example of that is precisely in Sweden and Finland. Finland is a global leader in telecommunications technologies.

The Scandinavian countries have long produced telecommunications giants, such as Nokia and others, that could help us develop 5G and 6G technologies that would help us build a secure national communications infrastructure to ensure that we were no longer threatened by authoritarian states, such as China, that have their own 5G systems through companies like Huawei, which the government has recently banned. I note that Sweden has a robust domestic defence industry. It produces the Gripen fighter jet.

There are many other economic strengths that Canada could take advantage of by working more closely with those two countries.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has once again demonstrated his thorough understanding of international geopolitical matters. It is a pleasure to hear him speak.

He talked about how Turkey is a problem in the context of the motion we are debating. Today, he said the government should take the lead on resolving this issue. My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills knows more about the government's leadership on international matters than most members of the House. In February 2021, when he moved his motion to denounce and condemn the Uighur genocide, all the ministers and the Prime Minister abstained from voting. That is not what I call leadership.

How confident is my colleague that the government will show leadership and deal with the problem with Turkey?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the government needs to manage Canada's relationship with Turkey better than it has been. This government has made a lot of mistakes in managing our relationship with Turkey. It made mistakes with export permits for drone technology, for example. I think it needs to improve its relationship with Turkey. It needs to make it clear to Turkey that we are interested in bringing Finland and Sweden into NATO.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, we know that NATO is in fact a security alliance of some countries. The member talks a lot about the investment in NATO, but what about investment in other multilateral institutions that would work toward a more peaceful future and not just peacekeeping but peace-building? Would he be as supportive of investment in those institutions as he is of NATO?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that I have been quite critical in recent years of the government's spending on official development assistance. I noted that in the period from 2016 to 2021, the Government of Canada actually reduced official development assistance by 10% compared with the previous government. Ambassador Bob Rae noted that in the report he did for the government that was posted in August 2020 on the Government of Canada's website. We are supportive of the government doing a better job in the areas of official development assistance, peacemaking and climate change, but we also believe the government needs to do a much better job in the area of military and defence commitments.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Chair, by happy coincidence, I recently returned from a four-day stay in Vilnius, Lithuania, where I attended a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that included discussions about whether or not to bring Finland and Sweden into NATO. My speech this evening could therefore not be more timely for me.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has tabled its fourth report. We are debating concurrence in that report and, specifically, two important points, the two recommendations in the report: expressing our strong support for Finland and Sweden's NATO membership, as Finland and Sweden are among NATO's closest partners; and calling on all NATO members to approve their application for NATO membership as quickly as possible.

I am happy to speak to this topic in the House today and to express my support for the committee's recommendations. I will also talk about comments on the subject that were made during the meetings in Lithuania.

The admittance of Finland and Sweden to NATO has long been debated. We heard arguments from Matti Vanhanen, Speaker of the Eduskunta Riksdag, Finland's parliament, and Andreas Norlén, Speaker of the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament. First of all, it is important to note that Finland and Sweden formally submitted their application for NATO membership on May 18, 2022. During the speeches from the Speakers of the Finnish and Swedish parliaments, the message was very clear: Both countries are formally asking to become NATO members. In recent decades, they have not wanted to be militarily involved and have always chosen to maintain their independence. However, with Russia's sudden violent aggression towards Ukraine, both countries see that they really have no choice. They felt an urgent need to ask to join NATO.

As my colleagues know, Canada has been a member of NATO for 73 years. Canada is a founding member. The most important article of the North Atlantic Treaty is article 5. That article deals with collective defence and states that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against them all. Considering what is going on right now, Sweden and Finland realize this. They really understand the importance for their respective countries to be part of a group like NATO.

I feel compelled to point out that there have been times over the past few years when some have questioned NATO's relevance. The former U.S. president questioned it. In the end, what the former U.S. president was doing was more about rattling the organization. I know this from experience, having attended several NATO meetings over the past few years. It was a way of rattling the organization, telling everyone to wake up, to invest more in defence and to be prepared. Indeed, one never knows what might happen. This was proven on February 24 with Russia.

That is why Finland and Sweden are applying for membership. Finland is especially anxious to join, because it borders directly on Russia for just over 1,000 kilometres. The two countries could not be any closer together. Finland is a country that has always managed to preserve its sovereignty through military means by maintaining a strong military posture. However, having seen what is happening in Ukraine, the Finns realized that NATO membership would give their country a major strategic advantage. It would give them additional security guarantees.

It is sad for Ukraine, but this explains why we are here today: For many years, Ukraine has been asking to join NATO, but it has never been admitted. The decision has always been put off. The same goes for joining the European Union, although that is a European issue. When it comes to NATO, Ukraine never managed to get in, despite what happened with Crimea in 2014 and then what followed this year, despite Russia's microaggressions and the fact that Ukrainians were scared. NATO did not accept their application.

Everyone knows that it is impossible to admit Ukraine now because it is at war. This would automatically become a war for NATO. This is a complicated issue, but unfortunately, that is how things stand for Ukraine. That is why Finland and Sweden quickly held a vote in their respective parliaments. They demonstrated that they had the necessary capabilities, and they provided proof. That is why they are calling on NATO and the member countries to admit them.

The other advantage for NATO, and for Canada in particular, is the geographical location of Finland and Sweden. Norway is already a NATO member, but having Sweden and Finland as NATO partners in the Arctic region is extremely appealing and important to Canada. These two large Arctic countries could work with Canada, the United States and Norway for NATO-style mutual protection.

When it comes to admitting new members, consensus among the 30 existing members is a problem. Turkey has already expressed significant concerns about allowing Sweden and Finland to join. When I was in Vilnius on the weekend, I spoke to three colleagues who agreed that this was a problem. Allow me to explain why.

Al Jazeera reported that Turkey's foreign minister is demanding that Finland and Sweden amend their laws, if needed, to win Ankara's backing in their historic bid to join NATO, threatening to veto an expansion of the alliance. Echoing recent comments by President Erdogan, minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said on Tuesday that Turkey, which has been a NATO member for seven decades, would not lift its opposition to the two Nordic countries' accession unless its demands were met.

The reason is that Ankara, Turkey's capital, is accusing both countries of harbouring people linked to groups it deems to be terrorists, including the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK for short, and takes issue with their decision to halt arms exports to Turkey in 2019. Turkey is demanding that Finland and Sweden end their support for the PKK and other groups, bar them from organizing events on their territory, extradite individuals sought by Turkey on terrorism charges, support Turkey's counterterrorism military operations and resume arms exports.

Clearly, geopolitics has always been complex, and the current NATO situation is no exception. The vast majority of NATO members want to bring Finland and Sweden into the fold, but for its own reasons, which are largely related to domestic terrorism, one member has issues with that.

That is why the Conservatives are very much in favour of these two countries joining NATO, but we also have to understand where Turkey is coming from, so the government needs to make an effort to find a diplomatic solution that will satisfy the Turks and expedite the process of bringing these two countries into our great organization.

It is complicated. At the end of the day, I would not like what is currently happening in Ukraine to happen in Finland, for example, because there is no telling what Vladimir Putin might do. He might suddenly decide to send some tanks into Finland for fun because that country is not a member of NATO. It would be easy because the two countries share a 1,000‑kilometre border.

What happened in Ukraine must not happen anywhere else. We must work on getting the Turks to soften their stance and find a way to get along. That is a role our government can play.

Based on my experience at the meetings with my colleagues, I realize that it is easy for us, as Canadians, to form an opinion on what is happening in Europe and to tell other countries that they should do this or that. However, while I was over there, colleagues from every European country told me that the dynamics are different and that we need to understand that.

The role Canada can play is the one it has always played: using diplomacy to find a way to help the different European countries get along in a Canadian way.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was picturing the Nordic alliance that Sweden tried to form after the Second World War. Denmark and Norway instead went into NATO. There was an economic isolation with Finland and Sweden.

Now, with their economic ties with the EU and the EU's economic ties with Canada, could the hon. member comment on the coverage that we are giving for this economically so that militarily they can join the military alliance?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, this membership will strengthen our collective ability to address threats, for example in the Arctic. By having Finland and Sweden as NATO partners, we will be politically and militarily united under the NATO umbrella. They are two major partners. In addition, Sweden and Finland are countries with very efficient and well-equipped armies. These partners will also be able to participate in NATO missions, as we are currently doing in Latvia or as our other partners are doing in Lithuania. The Swedes and the Finns will be able to participate with us as members of NATO.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, for Sweden and Finland to join NATO there must be consensus among the current 30 members, and their membership must be ratified. I think that Canada has been quite proactive so far. As soon as Sweden and Finland raised their hands, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that she wanted quick support for this decision. A motion was tabled in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Everyone here also seems to be acting in good faith and in agreement. I do not know about the other member countries. What is the status of the process?

We are talking about Canada's leadership role. What should that role be?

We know that Turkey has expressed its opposition to Sweden and Finland joining NATO. I think Canada has a role to play in this. The member mentioned this in his speech, but I would like to know how this diplomacy should take shape.

Should we get together with the European countries to discuss this? Do we have any idea what positions other member countries are taking at this time? Is the same process taking place within their democratic institutions? What is Canada's role in facilitating this process and what should that role look like?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague for her good and long question.

As I mentioned in my speech, from what I and my other NATO colleagues can tell, at present, there is virtually unanimous support for the principle of admitting Finland and Sweden. The only exception is Turkey, for the reasons that I mentioned.

What is Canada's role? Given the war in Ukraine and the supply of gas, which could become problematic for those cutting ties with Russia, I noticed that several European countries have their own problems. Countries are nervous about the issue of supply. For example, Hungary told the European Union yesterday that it did not agree with imposing new sanctions because it wants to protect itself. I believe that Europe is currently under stress.

As Canada is somewhat removed, it has a diplomatic role to play. It is up to our government to intervene with the best possible diplomacy, which I hope it can do, by talking with Turkey and finding ways to calm the waters and ensure the consensus of NATO countries.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on a question that I asked earlier this evening of the member's colleague. He talked about how the spending on ODA is lower now under the current administration than it had been under the previous administration. In fact, under the previous administration, it was 0.26% of GNI. Now, with COVID, we are still at the disgustingly low number of about 0.31%.

Why are the Conservatives so eager to invest 2% in NATO and defence spending but are so unwilling to invest in international development, humanitarian aid and peace-building? Would the member agree that it would be useful to tie international development spending, ODA spending, to defence spending? It would be 2% on one side and 2% on the other side. Would he agree with that?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not in government then, but to my knowledge, the Conservative government at the time spent more on international aid.

That 2% target is part of what NATO expects of its members. Of that 2%, 20% is used to purchase military equipment. I think we can make a pretty good case right now for why we need to be ready. With guys like Putin invading Ukraine, we need to make sure our armed forces are ready and supplied with state-of-the-art equipment. At the moment, Ukraine is able to fight Putin and the Russian army because it has been supplied with cutting-edge equipment, which is taking a toll on the Russian invaders.

If we want peace, we must prepare for war.

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

Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Sweden's and Finland's membership in NATO. I will share my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

Like my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I recently got back from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly session in Lithuania, where this issue got a lot of airtime. In addition to what my colleague shared about what we learned, certain remarks and comments really made an impression.

Something that Viktorija Cmilyte-Nielsen, the speaker of the Seimas, Lithuania's parliament, said really stuck with me. She asked us if, given their proximity to Russia, the Baltic countries would have the resilient democracy and flourishing economy they enjoy today if they were not members of NATO.

Lithuania, where the meeting took place, is sandwiched between Belarus and the increasingly militarized enclave of Kaliningrad. We have to wonder if it would be as secure as it currently is without its NATO membership. Similarly, granting NATO membership to Finland and Sweden really would afford them additional security in light of Russia's recent aggression in Ukraine.

We know that Finland and Sweden already meet the basic criteria for NATO membership. They have healthy democracies, the ability to make a military contribution to the alliance and viable economies. These two countries would also bring a strategic military contribution in the Baltic Sea region, which we would not want to see fall into Russian hands for all intents and purposes, jeopardizing the Baltic states.

These countries had decreased military investments in the past, but for obvious reasons they are starting to make renewed efforts in that area.

Although Finland has only 12,000 professional soldiers, it trains 20,000 conscripts a year, giving it additional strike force and the ability to quickly build up an army of 280,000 people, plus 600,000 reservists. The country wants to increase its defence budget by 40% by 2026. Finland already has a fleet of 55 F-18 aircraft, which are supposed to be replaced by American F-35s soon, and it has 200 tanks and 1,700 artillery pieces.

Sweden has an army of about 50,000 soldiers. Compulsory military service, which had been abolished in 2010, was brought back in 2017. Sweden had decreased its investments in defence in recent years but has reversed this trend, with defence spending now at 2.6% of its GDP.

When we were in Vilnius, we also had the pleasure of meeting with Ukrainian parliamentarians. We asked them a few times how they felt knowing that Finland and Sweden's application to join would probably be dealt with quickly, while Ukraine, for its part, still has not managed to finalize its membership, despite the promise made to the country in 2008 at the Bucharest summit. They said that it obviously bothered them to be somewhat sidelined, but they hoped that Finland and Sweden could quickly join the alliance.

Ukraine knows that eventually it will have to become a member too. It knows that membership is currently not within reach, since it is at war. The Ukrainian parliamentarians told us that time has always been a factor at any point in history, especially recently.

In 2008, Ukraine was not admitted into the alliance. If the process had been quicker, things might not be where they are today. The same is true when it comes to the military equipment being sent to Ukraine: Every day that goes by is another day that costs a lot of money. Ukraine has a monthly budgetary deficit of $35 billion and the war could cost at least $100 billion. The longer it goes on, the worse it will be.

Every time we want to help Ukraine, we must also consider the fact that we must train the people who will be using the military equipment provided. A bit of predictability will help them.

For Ukraine to eventually join NATO, there also needs to be a long-term vision. Ukraine is telling us that it may need the equivalent of a Marshall plan to rebuild and get its infrastructure up and running again. It will need psychological support for the women and children assaulted by Russian soldiers. It will need a great deal of help to clear mines, because the Russians unfortunately left behind what they call “gifts”, booby-trapped toys and cars, and mines buried in fields. We know that Ukraine is a major grain producer.

Ukraine will need our help quickly. In a way, what I hope will result from this evening's debate, is that we think about the urgency of the situation.

In 2008, we collectively missed an opportunity. We promised Ukraine that it could join NATO, but it was not even offered a road map for joining, in other words, the action plan that must be put in place.

Ukraine has unfortunately been forced to take a step back because of the war. It will have to rebuild in order to be able to meet the criteria of a vibrant democracy with the potential for military support. Unfortunately, it will have served as a practice ground of sorts for war for the west. Ukraine now has a great deal of knowledge about how Russia wages war. It will therefore need support to rebuild and then join NATO, and when it does, it will become an invaluable resource for that organization.

The Ukrainian parliamentarians also told us that the end of this war, a war that hopefully Ukraine will have won, might not be the end of aggressions. We can expect another incursion from Russia, another attempt at aggression. Where will that happen? No one knows. However, it will be important to have as many actors as possible involved at that time.

As I said earlier, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament wondered what would have happened to the Baltic states if they had not joined NATO. That is something we have to keep in mind if we want a strong west and resilient democracies. Part of NATO's mission is to ensure that democracy is healthy everywhere. This includes better protection of the Baltic Sea and NATO membership for Sweden and Finland.

I hope that the message we all take away this evening is that there is absolutely no time to lose, generally speaking, whether we are talking about the military support that we are currently giving to Ukraine, support for future rebuilding efforts, or support for its future membership in NATO, as is now the case with Sweden and Finland.

In that context, we must remember that this is also important for the entire western world and democracy. During one of the summit's video conferences, the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association reminded the Ukrainian defence minister that the war currently being fought in Ukraine is everyone's war. This is a war on democracy, and I think we need all the allies we can get. I hope that is the message we will retain tonight.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, this evening I have been asking questions relating to economic alliances versus military and other types of alliances. The member from the Bloc has given us a good intervention tonight. There were questions from the Bloc about Turkey's involvement in all of this, so maybe I could ask her about this.

The trade between Russia and Turkey is significant. I think Turkey is the fourth-largest export market for Russia. Turkey also does a lot of work with Russia.

Could the member comment on the need for economic ties between Turkey and western democracies to increase in order to bring Turkey back into the alliance militarily?

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

Madam Speaker, I would need a good 10 minutes to answer that question, but I will give it a shot.

The situation with Turkey is unique. It is wavering for reasons that are understandable, in a way. Turkey may have lost some trust in its NATO allies.

The United States, for example, used Kurdish soldiers in their war in Syria, which was an affront to Turkey. Since Turkey purchased weapons from Russia in 2019, the U.S. removed Turkey from the F-35 program. In response to Turkey's intervention in Syria, Finland and Sweden stopped selling it weapons. Turkey is therefore generally distrustful. It is also heading into an election soon, with inflation rates exceeding 70%, according to official figures, and the actual figures are likely much higher than that.

Turkey is extremely distrustful. We probably need to take a hard line and threaten it with sanctions, while also providing motivation by rebuilding economic ties to help Turkey regain confidence and to secure its support for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. This needs to be done quickly.

With respect to the ratification, we cannot forget that each country individually—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would like to give her five minutes, but that would not be very fair.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I will not be speaking French because it is too difficult to talk about NATO in French.

The member spoke about the initial invasion in 2008 and how we need to act to ensure that the escalation we have been seeing since February 24 does not continue. In the member's opinion, what are some of the other steps we can take to ensure that what we do now does not result in a further invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in another six years?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I get the impression that there is absolutely nothing we can do to guard against a Russian invasion. These invasions are often irrational and are becoming increasingly illogical. Apparently some close to President Putin are starting to very much question the strategy.

In a context where prevention is not possible, we must nevertheless be prepared for attacks, hence my point on the resilience we must restore in Ukraine when it comes to its infrastructure. That requires funding, but also support for countries that want to join NATO, such as Finland and Sweden, which could contribute to defence on the front lines with Russia.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's quite forthright talk about the challenge that Ukraine had in joining NATO so many years ago.

Our colleague asked a question on Turkey, and we now see challenges for Finland and Sweden and the steps that need to be taken along those lines.

I am wondering if the member could talk a little more about that, because both of these countries are basically Arctic countries and are very much affiliated with and close to Canada. What steps can we as Canadians take to further encourage that and encourage Turkey to further support them?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the debate we are having this evening is in some small way part of the solution. We have a consensus on the membership of Finland and Sweden.

Given that Finland and Sweden meet NATO's admission criteria, I believe that we are sending Turkey the message that it will be accountable for its actions if it votes “no”. There is no reason to do so other than purely personal reasons.

Turkey is trying to successfully navigate a situation that is difficult for the country, but it is not doing so for the right reasons. It is not doing so for reasons related to article 10 of the Washington Treaty on accession to NATO. It may have to answer for that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to speak after my colleague from Saint-Jean. We can see how knowledgeable she is about this file. Although it would be impossible for me to match her presentation, I will try my best.

I just want to say that having this debate tonight is a good thing. It has been quite some time since we have had a debate where the five parties in the House, and I imagine that this is also the case for the Greens, all agree. We can really feel it. Yes, there are some details that will have to be worked out, but I believe that everyone here is ready to work together on that. It is fantastic, because this has not happened for a long time.

Unfortunately, it took a war to get everyone to agree. That is not as pleasant, but I will get back to my speech.

I think that the debate over allowing a new country to join NATO will be the hot topic of 2022. There was the west's dithering over Ukraine's future in NATO. Vladimir Putin may have used that as an excuse, but we are learning. I join all of my hon. colleagues in welcoming Sweden and Finland to our alliance. Based on what I have heard tonight, it is pretty clear that everyone agrees on this.

A number of people expressed doubts about this alliance recently. Now it is hard to question why it exists. It is more relevant than ever, especially in the face of a rogue state that is disrupting the world order we have been working to build for the past 30 years. NATO now serves as an umbrella organization for our allies to guarantee the safety of Europe, the Atlantic and, as my Conservative colleague mentioned, soon enough the Arctic.

The two membership applications that were submitted come from allies to Quebec and Canada. These countries are objective allies of NATO and of our interests in the Far North. Their application also serves as a powerful message against Putin's authoritarianism and the warmongering policies of his Kremlin. I say that it is his Kremlin, because it certainly does not reflect the people of Russia.

Traditionally, Finland and Sweden have been non-aligned countries. For more than 75 years, they have held fast to their neutrality—all through the Cold War, the fall of the USSR and the realignment of world powers. Setting aside this policy of neutrality is not insignificant. It is evidence of how serious the situation is and how important it is for countries bordering the Russian behemoth to ensure their security and safety. Considering the recent history and geopolitics of the region, it is clear that this is a legitimate and well-founded concern.

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said it better than I can. She says that everything changed when Russia attacked Ukraine. She personally thinks that no one can assume a peaceful future on Russia's borders. In her opinion, joining NATO is an act of peace so that there will never be another war in Finland.

The Swedish Prime Minister also sums it up well. To paraphrase her words, the best way to ensure the security and safety of the Swedish people is to join NATO with Finland.

When I hear these women say they want to join us, to join NATO, I have no choice but to listen. We all have to listen. To the south of us, the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, also said that the United States supports Sweden's and Finland's applications. This is a strong endorsement that reaffirms my position and that of my political party. We must allow Sweden and Finland into our alliance.

The truth is, they already have a foot in the door. There is no reason to oppose this, because it is what they want and they meet the conditions. More importantly, their troops have already been participating in NATO exercises for decades. If these two allies join, it would certainly be a historic event that will define the political dynamics of the region. Hopefully, this will be the case for a long time to come. Let us also hope that it will curb Vladimir Putin's madness.

The strategy of accommodating Russia and pandering to its interests is well and truly over, and of course must never be repeated. Pressure on Russia is turning the tide in the war. The entire mobilization of the west for an independent, whole and sovereign Ukraine is our most powerful weapon. Dictators cannot imagine the power of unity. It is our duty to show them.

Bringing more countries into NATO signals unity. Let us be a parliament that shows leadership on this front.

There is a reason why I am talking about leadership. Too often, this government follows in other countries' footsteps. Consider my Conservative friends' 2021 motion on the Uighur genocide, which the Prime Minister and his cabinet abstained from voting on. I would actually like to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills once again for kindly allowing me to amend his motion in a gesture of solidarity with the Uighur people. Unfortunately, those on the other side of the House did not do likewise.

When we requested an airlift for Ukrainian refugees, we were told it would happen soon, but it was not until April, a month after the war started, that an announcement was made. A month later, there were still no flights. The war has been going on for three months now, and there have been only three charter flights. This government has an international leadership problem.

However, I have hope, because the government was quickly on board when Finland and Sweden asked to join NATO. We are here this evening because a motion was quickly moved by a government member. There is hope, then.

Let us look at what was done in the past. It is not often that a sovereignist boasts about this country's former federalist prime ministers. There was Lester B. Pearson, a Liberal, who established peacekeeping. That is a fine example of leadership. I want to be fair towards my Conservative friends and so I will mention Brian Mulroney, who seized the opportunity after Montreal's mayor, Jean Doré, spoke out against the apartheid regime in South Africa. The mayor was the first person to declare that his city would boycott South Africa. Brian Mulroney followed suit as head of government and declared that Canadians would join the boycott. At first, Brian Mulroney had few allies, but he spoke to Great Britain and the United States. That is an example of international leadership.

Now I am pleased to see that my friends in the government want to show leadership in the debate we are having this evening. I hope that this will continue, and I hope that it is not just lip service. I think that Canada does have a role to play in convincing Turkey not to stand in the way of Finland and Sweden joining NATO.

It is vitally important for these two countries to become members of the alliance. Earlier, my colleague from Saint-Jean demonstrated the geopolitical importance of letting them join, given the message this would send to the rest of the planet, especially Russia.

What goes for Russia goes for China as well. That too is important to note. By acting quickly, we are sending a message to Russia, China and the other dictatorships in the world that are currently violating the human rights of their own people.

This would be a good way to show leadership, and I think that we are on the right track. That is why we are here in the House this evening and seeing some cohesion between all the parties.

As I often say, when I get up in the morning, I see a little note on my bedside table that says, “Who do you work for?” I work for Quebeckers and for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean.

I know that my constituents value human rights, democracy and freedom. I will continue to work in support of these values for them, and I am pleased to see that everyone in the House is doing the same.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's comments on leadership had me reflecting on the notion of collaborative leadership and how Canada plays a role and has always played a role by collaborating and bringing countries together. I thought it might be interesting to have the Bloc's perspective on how leaders do not go it alone. Leaders do work with others and build on the strengths of the people around them in order to combine goals, such as we are doing in this discussion on NATO.