Stéphane Bergeron

[Canada-Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I would simply like to say that just because Putin says that things will escalate does not necessarily mean that things will escalate.

From the start, Putin said that if we helped Ukraine, things would escalate. That is why we started by sending helmets and bulletproof vests. Then we tried sending ammunition. We checked for an escalation but there was none, so we decided to send machine guns. Again, we wondered if things would escalate, and when they did not, we decided we could send some artillery. No escalation followed, so we decided we could send some anti-aircraft systems. Again, there was no escalation, so we decided to repeat the process by sending tanks. I think that Russia was basically blackmailing and threatening us the whole time, but it was never really in a position to follow through on its threats. As I said earlier, the Russians already had their hands full with Ukraine. It would have been surprising if they had decided to engage NATO countries in combat too.

I am not saying that we need to send troops. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the mistake in the beginning was to tell Putin that we would not intervene. That left things wide open. We gave him carte blanche. We allowed him to do anything he wanted. The goal was to go back to keeping things vague, create a situation where the Kremlin would be on the ropes again, not knowing what the NATO countries were going to do. However, on day one, we telegraphed the Kremlin what we were and were not planning to do, which was a mistake in my opinion.

[Canada-Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Madam Chair, in fact, it is even worse than that. Some 58% of the aid has not been delivered. I am not very good at math, but if my calculations are correct, that means that only 42% of aid has been delivered so far.

My colleague has asked me a question I simply cannot answer. It is like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. He has asked me to explain the inexplicable. Why has Canada not kept its word? Why has the Canadian Armed Forces equipment we promised to Ukraine not been delivered? Is it because we no longer have it? Is it because, when we promised it, we thought we still had it?

It has gotten to the point where we are asking ourselves these kinds of questions because it is so incomprehensible. It is one thing to have to buy equipment on international markets and wait for it to be ready. However, not even being able to deliver what we had in stock and had promised to deliver is completely incomprehensible. It raises other questions. Was the equipment not in good condition? Did we no longer have the equipment? In short, why was this equipment not delivered?

I am answering my colleague's question with a question, because I do not have the answer to his question.

[Canada-Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Madam Chair, what an interesting question. The idea is not to say that we are going to send troops. The idea is to remain artfully vague about our intentions, if I can put it that way. However, we telegraphed our intentions from the outset, making it clear to the Kremlin that we were not going to intervene. Russia was free to proceed, because we were not going to intervene.

I want to point out that, a few weeks back, after a meeting attended by representatives from a number of allied countries, President Macron said that sending troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out. Following the same pattern that western countries have been following from the start, several nations, including Canada, rushed to say that President Macron was totally out to lunch, that his suggestion was ridiculous and that naturally, no troops would be sent.

All of a sudden, the western nations had blown any chance they had left of creating doubt about their intentions when it comes to what is happening in Ukraine. I applaud the courage of President Macron, who was not afraid to stick his neck out. Obviously, everyone thought that, since they had been talking all day, this was no slip of the tongue. I agree that it was not a slip of the tongue, far from it, but once again, there was not much solidarity from the other western countries, which once again brings us back to how slow we have been to actually help Ukraine.

I want to come back to the fact that we started out by sending helmets and that Ukraine is still waiting for fighter jets. When will we deliver the fighter jets?

[Canada-Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I think this take-note debate is timely because it allows us to take stock of how Canada and Ukraine have been collaborating since Russia's large-scale invasion of that country in 2022.

What can I say, other than this agreement, the Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership, was signed on February 24, 2024, when the Prime Minister visited Kyiv with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. My hope is that this partnership will bear fruit. My fear is that it will be on par with what we have done so far, meaning that it will fall short.

Let me back up a bit. I think the fatal error that western countries made from the get-go was to suggest that, no matter what, we were not going to intervene. In my opinion, that gave Vladimir Putin license to do just about anything he wanted to do. I think we dropped the ball right from the get-go.

When the conflict began, members will recall that we were quick to deliver humanitarian aid. Militarily, we delivered what we called non-lethal weapons to Ukraine at that time: helmets, bulletproof vests, night vision goggles. Imagine being Ukrainian, seeing Russian troops coming in, and Canada sending helmets, bulletproof vests and night vision goggles.

Obviously, we quickly realized—I think the goal was to avoid provoking Russia—that this was not exactly what Ukraine needed. We began sending them ammunition, and before long, we were sending machine guns. Then, after a while, we started sending artillery, and some time after that, anti-aircraft defence weapons. Then, after a while, we sent them tanks, and after that we started sending fighter jets.

A few weeks after the conflict began, I went to NATO headquarters in Brussels and I asked the military command what was happening with the fighter jets. I was told that it takes six months to train a pilot. I went back to NATO headquarters a few months later and asked the military command the same question, and I was once again told that it takes six months to train a pilot. That is when I took the liberty of telling NATO's commander-in-chief that, if we had started training pilots from the get-go, then maybe we would have been able to prevent the Russians from settling into and fortifying their positions to the point where it is now almost impossible to get them out and maybe we would not be in the situation that we are in now.

I think that we misjudged the threshold beyond which we would risk provoking the Russians. Honestly, just between us, Madam Chair, the Russians already had their hands full with the Ukrainians, and I do not think that they would have engaged in a large-scale conflict with NATO. I think that the NATO countries misjudged the situation from the beginning, which means that we basically allowed Russia to really gain a foothold in Ukraine. That is extremely unfortunate.

I want to come back to the Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership, which will apparently be in effect for 10 years. This agreement will increase information sharing, co-operation and military support, help Ukraine join NATO and help Ukraine rebuild. That is all well and good, but what is in the agreement that goes beyond appearances and image?

I remember that extremely striking image of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister going to Kyiv. It is a spectacular image. A flag was raised on the flagpole at the Canadian embassy, indicating that the embassy was open. However, that is no longer the case today. Of course, we have staff working within Ukraine's borders, at home and in hotels, but not at the embassy.

In addition, when it comes to visa applications, Ukrainians are still being asked to leave the country and go to other countries in Europe to apply for a visa, because the embassy in Kyiv is still unable to welcome Ukrainian citizens who would like to apply for a visa.

I am all in favour of having a joint declaration of support for Ukraine. I hope it will help Ukrainians. We know that all political parties in the House want to support Ukraine, if we exclude the minor episode where the Conservatives were perhaps not up to the task of supporting the free trade agreement. Support is unanimous on the matter before us. However, everyone needs to walk the talk. We need to put our words into action. Right now there is a lot of talk and no action.

The proof lies in the fact that the Ukrainian defence minister said, “At the moment...50% of [weapons] commitments are not delivered on time.” Because of these delays, he said, “we lose people, we lose territory”. It may seem awful that western nations are failing to deliver on 50% of their commitments. It is appalling that 50% of their commitments are not being met. In Canada's case, however, the figure is almost 60%.

On February 19, Le Devoir published an article on Canada's failure to meet its commitments to provide assistance to Ukraine. The article said, “almost 60% of the value of the military equipment that Canada promised Ukraine after the outbreak of Russia's war of invasion two years ago has still not been honoured.... Of the $2.4 billion in military aid promised by Ottawa since February 24, 2022, $1.4 billion has still not made it to the front lines”. That means that 58% of everything promised to Ukraine has not been delivered. I am sure someone is going to tell me that these are only numbers.

I will continue. “The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) and associated munitions, at a cost of $406 million”, has not been delivered. “The 35 high-resolution drone cameras valued at $76 million”, have yet to be delivered. “The promised winter clothing, worth $25 million”, which would supply 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers with “boots, thermal layers, winter sleeping bags and patterned military uniforms”, according to the announcement made at the time, have yet to be delivered.

Ukraine is still waiting for small arms and ammunition worth $60 million that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is trying to procure from an arms manufacturer in Ontario. The same goes for 10,000 rounds of 105mm ammunition, 76mm naval ammunition, 277 1,000-pound aircraft bombs and associated fuse assemblies, 955 rounds of 155mm artillery smoke and over 2,000 rounds of 81mm mortar smoke, and 2,260 gas masks, which were supposed to be sourced from the Canadian Armed Forces' inventory.

We know that our inventory is not especially well stocked, but what we do have, we could send right away. That has not been done. We are still fiddling around while the Ukrainians are in an absolutely terrible situation.

More tragic still is the fact that, for want of weaponry, Ukrainian soldiers are being subjected to wave upon wave of Russian attacks. The Russians have troops to spare, but the Ukrainians do not have the firepower to repel their attacks.

I support a strategic security partnership agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I am all for any measure that can really help Ukraine. Again, it is time to stop posturing, spouting good intentions, and paying lip service. It is time to make sure these promises are actually kept.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, if there was one thing I tried to show in my speech, it is that we have reached an impasse. If the parties are no longer able to find a way out of the crisis, the international community must step in and try to impose one. This means that certain states must find the courage to do what others have done. Some 140 states around the world have already recognized the state of Palestine, and Spain, the United Kingdom and Belgium are considering recognizing it.

I think that if Canada joined the movement, it would send a strong message to Israel, not that we are against the very existence of the State of Israel or its security, quite the contrary. We support the creation of two states living side by side in peace and security. This can only happen by recognizing of the state of Palestine.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question implies that there are aspects of the motion that he himself does not agree with.

I stated at the outset that the Bloc Québécois had already taken a position on most of the points in the motion. I went through these points one by one. For the sake of consistency, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion, which aligns with several of its previous positions. I do not know why the parliamentary secretary hopes to find things in this motion on which we might disagree. We have asked the NDP to make changes to some points, such as adding “Quebeckers” to the part in the motion referring to “Canadians”. However, in general, we are in full agreement with the points in this motion.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I hope not, far from it. That said, Israel launched its deadly assault on Gaza vowing to destroy and annihilate Hamas.

The fact is that even if Israel were able to find all of Hamas' hiding places, seize all of its weapons and take all of its leaders and fighters prisoner—we know very well that most of the leaders are probably in Qatar or Lebanon—even if Israel managed to capture all of Hamas' infrastructure, given the extent of the destruction and killings in Gaza, unfortunately I feel that Israel will only have ensured that the very concept of Hamas will endure.

Even it manages to destroy Hamas, it will have created so much resentment among Palestinians in the process that hatred could well overtake them again, and yet that is what should be avoided at all costs to finally secure a path to peace.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague, especially since the Netanyahu government is a hardline government. It wants the war to go on, so it needs weapons.

The reason the Netanyahu government wants the war to go on is very simple. It knows that its political survival depends on the war continuing, because once the war is over, then it will have things to answer for. It will have to explain to Israelis why it promoted the illusion that creating a cordon sanitaire around Israel would be enough to ensure peace. It will have to explain why security services failed to anticipate October's attack. It will have to explain why it encouraged the creation of Hamas in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority and prevent negotiations on the creation of a Palestinian state.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel has signed a number of treaties with several Arab states, claiming that this would lead to a calmer situation in the region. Obviously, with this brutal, barbaric offensive against Gaza, some negotiations are now on ice, and certain treaties are being undermined. The reason is simple: Israel needs to sign a treaty with the only people through whom lasting peace can be achieved in the region, and that is the Palestinian people. The Israeli government is refusing to do this, but it is the only possible solution, because it is the only way to put an end to the permanent state of war in which both Israelis and Palestinians have to live. No people can live for such a long time in a permanent state of war.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot express what a sad day this is. Never did I imagine I would have to rise in the House to condemn an attack as brutal and deadly as the one perpetrated by Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians on October 7. Never did I imagine I would have to rise in the House to condemn the inhumane bombing of defenceless populations, yet that is what we must do today.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion for one very simple reason. Most of the points in the NDP motion have already appeared in previous Bloc Québécois statements. We will remain consistent and vote in favour of the motion.

Since that was what started everything, I would like to go back to the brutal, barbaric attack by Hamas in Israel against innocent civilians on October 7. After the attack, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said that “the violent and terrorist provocation by Hamas must be unequivocally condemned. Aside from the Israeli victims and hostages, it exposes Palestinian civilians in all regions to horrific reprisals.” Tragically, the Bloc Québécois leader's prediction proved true. To date, there have been more than 30,000 casualties in the Gaza Strip, half of them women and children. Over 70,000 are said to be injured, while health and hospital services are completely overwhelmed and in disarray.

We are talking about a considerable population displacement; 1.5 million out of Gaza's 2.2 million people have been displaced and are currently living in extremely crowded conditions. Gaza's population density was already one of the highest in the world. Now, people are literally crammed into the Rafah region, where Israel is threatening to launch a ground strike. It would be nothing less than a massacre, if what is going on right now cannot already be described as one.

Some will point out that those numbers come from the Hamas ministry of health, so they must be taken with a grain of salt. However, the UN has been increasingly corroborating the number of deaths and the level of destruction in Gaza. Now famine is threatening the people of Gaza. The humanitarian situation is appalling, so much so that there are fears of outbreaks of diseases and epidemics in Gaza. The WHO has described the health situation in Gaza as inhumane, with only seven out of 23 medical centres remaining partially operational. That is totally unacceptable. Today we learned that Israel is bombing Gaza's largest hospital.

Allegations of war crimes committed by Israel, led by Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government, are mounting. South Africa has asked the International Court of Justice to look into the situation, arguing that genocide is taking place in Gaza. Although the court has not yet ruled, it has demanded that Israel take a series of measures to prevent genocide. Such measures include punishing members of the government who advocate genocide or war crimes. Instead, Israel has denounced the intervention of the International Court of Justice, which indicates that it has absolutely no intention of complying.

The Israeli government is also trying to obstruct humanitarian aid by waging a diplomatic offensive against UNRWA, the United Nations agency responsible for most of the humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. Because UNRWA hires employees locally, it is likely that some of them are Hamas sympathizers. That is most likely the case, but is it any reason to describe the UNRWA as a terrorist organization, like the Leader of the Opposition did?

If that were the case, we would have to consider the implications of the fact that some individuals who identify as Proud Boys are serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. Does that mean that the Canadian Armed Forces should be considered a terrorist organization? Obviously, that would be completely ridiculous. For the same reasons, I think that it is safe to say that the Leader of the Opposition's statement that the UNRWA is a terrorist organization is absolutely ridiculous.

As I was saying a few moments ago, in response to our Conservative colleague's intervention, Israel has rejected any plan that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state, and it has put forward a plan that would have the Israeli army occupy the Gaza Strip. Civil administration of the area would be handed over to officials chosen by Israel. Meanwhile, settlement expansion in the West Bank is ramping up, including with the authorization of 3,500 additional housing units. Settlers are receiving logistical support from the Israeli government and are stepping up attacks on Palestinians. Negotiations are currently under way for the release of the remaining hostages in exchange for a six-week truce, but Israel categorically refuses to establish a long-term ceasefire, while Hamas, for its part, refuses to release the hostages as long as Israeli troops remain in Gaza. It is a deadlock.

Since the parties on the ground clearly cannot see eye to eye, the international community needs to intervene. That is what the motion moved by the NDP today is calling for. Let us look at the items of this motion. It calls for “an immediate ceasefire and the release of all hostages”. On March 15, the CBC reported that Benjamin Netanyahu had approved the Rafah offensive. An offensive on Rafah would lead to an even greater humanitarian crisis than the one we have now, as Israel well knows. Minister Benny Gantz actually said, “to those saying the price is too high, I say this very clearly: Hamas has a choice — they can surrender, release the hostages, and the citizens of Gaza will be able to celebrate the holy holiday of Ramadan”. In other words, he is saying that either Hamas surrenders or there will be a massacre.

Simply put, Israel categorically rejects any talk of a ceasefire until it has destroyed Hamas and taken control of the entire Gaza Strip. Even the option of a ceasefire in exchange for the hostages is being rejected by Israel. As if that were not enough, Hamas has also refused to release the hostages as long as Israeli troops remain in Gaza, as I was saying.

On November 6, 2023, the Bloc Québécois called for a ceasefire and the presence of an international force to ensure that the parties to the conflict were prepared to move. There is a consensus in the House when it comes to the release of the hostages. We all agree that the hostages must be released. However, we need to be realistic. A ceasefire is very unlikely at the moment, so the international community must intervene.

The motion also calls to “suspend all trade in military goods and technology with Israel and increase efforts to stop the illegal trade of arms, including to Hamas”.

The Bloc Québécois supported suspending arms sales to Israel because the Israeli attack is disproportionate and intended to inflict maximum damage in the Gaza Strip. The federal government actually confirmed that it suspended all military exports as of January 8. According to Global Affairs Canada, this particular NDP request was partially fulfilled over two months ago.

Alone, Canada has no clout. Its military exports are minimal, which significantly weakens the impact of such a measure. It should be noted, however, that military exports, especially in terms of technology, have gone up since October 7.

During the first two months of the conflict, Canada exported $28.5 million worth of arms to Israel, more than in any previous given year. In 2021, it exported approximately $26 million worth, a record at the time. That was $26 million in a whole year, compared to $28.5 million worth of military equipment sold to Israel over a two-month period. We have been told that, for the time being, Canada is selling only non-lethal weapons, such as night vision goggles and civilian drones, to Israel. The thing is, if these non-lethal weapons are being used to identify targets, are they really non-lethal?

Under its Export and Import Permits Act, Canada cannot issue military export permits if there is a substantial risk that the weapons would be used to commit a serious violation of international law.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the free trade agreement with Israel to explicitly exclude products originating from illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and possibly in the Gaza Strip, if it is annexed and settled. This measure would more strongly convey to Israel our disapproval of its conduct of the war. Other countries might be tempted to follow Canada's lead and stop funding settlements through trade agreements.

Today's motion also urges the government to “immediately reinstate funding and ensure long-term continued funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and support the independent investigation”. UNRWA says it has reached a breaking point in Gaza after major contributors froze its funding. Furthermore, Israel has never provided a shred of evidence that UNRWA members contributed to the October 7 massacre.

Canada and several other countries, including the United States, suspended funding to UNRWA, which thought it would have to shut down its operations by the end of February, but Canada, Sweden and others announced that they would restore funding on March 8. Australia followed suit on March 15. In actual fact, Canada had already paid for the first quarter of 2024. In other words, Canada never really stopped funding UNRWA. In fact, the only real impact that Canada's announcement had was that we did not respond to UNRWA's urgent funding requests.

The motion also seeks to have the government “support the prosecution of all crimes and violations of international law committed in the region, and support the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court”. The International Court of Justice is currently investigating whether there is a genocide occurring in Gaza.

It may be too soon to determine whether it is indeed genocide, but many influential members of the Netanyahu government literally support a plan of genocide. South Africa submitted many quotes from Netanyahu government ministers as evidence of the genocidal intentions of the Israeli government. Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets out the acts that could constitute genocide. One of those acts is “physical destruction”, including the expulsion of a group from a given territory.

That is exactly what we are witnessing right now. Israel's finance minister talked about voluntarily expelling almost the entire population of the Gaza Strip, saying, and I quote, “If there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza and not two million Arabs, the entire discussion on the day after will be totally different.” In other words, the Israeli government would like to see the Gazan population drastically reduced, so as to better manage the situation. Two million is too many for Israel, so the Palestinians are being encouraged to leave.

It should come as no surprise that the neighbouring countries are very reluctant to welcome Gazans, partly because they want to avoid taking in potential terrorists, but also because they know full well that once Palestinians leave their homes, they can never return, as we have seen since 1948. The neighbouring countries are very aware of this. Twelve ministers in the Netanyahu government also took part in a rally calling for the resettlement of the Gaza Strip. It should be noted that these voluntary expulsions are being carried out by making life totally impossible for Gazans and by making their living conditions absolutely miserable, both through physical destruction and by hindering humanitarian aid. Making living conditions inhumane constitutes genocide according to the genocide convention, which makes “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” one of the criteria for determining whether genocide is occurring.

Several images have shown indiscriminate artillery bombardment of built-up areas in the Gaza Strip, which constitutes a war crime. Organizations helping Gazans, such as Doctors Without Borders, have also been targeted by Israel. It is too early to say that the Israeli government has indeed committed genocide, but the fact remains that several ministers have clearly stated that this is their intention. At the very least, Canada must support the efforts of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court to clarify the issue.

The NDP motion also suggests that Hamas, which committed a massacre on October 7, in addition to rape, kidnapping and hostage-taking, must also be tried for its crimes. While the October 7 attack is no longer top of mind for many people, we must not forget the atrocities committed by Hamas. The Bloc Québécois fully supports the idea that all Hamas leaders must be held accountable.

Another part of the motion asks the government to “demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza”. Canada's Minister of International Development believes that humanitarian aid to Gaza is “down to a trickle”, that more border crossings need to be opened, and that a ceasefire should help with the delivery and distribution of aid.

On Tuesday, the World Food Programme suspended its distribution of aid in northern Gaza. Since most convoys have to go through Rafah, they have to cross the entire Gazan territory, which has been completely destroyed and is still a battle zone, in order to deliver humanitarian aid. Israel has created safe zones in the south, but it is systematically preventing any humanitarian aid from reaching the northern part of the country.

From the start of the conflict, Israel asked everyone to move to the south, while many residences were bulldozed to create a buffer zone. Now, it is preparing to attack that zone, where the people of Gaza have gathered.

The motion also urges the government to “ensure Canadians trapped in Gaza can reach safety in Canada and lift the arbitrary cap of 1,000 temporary resident visa applications”. Here we can see the humanitarian concern underlying this request, but I do need to point out that, as I was just saying a moment ago, everyone is afraid of exactly the same thing, namely that the Palestinians who leave will never be able to return. We have to prioritize the repatriation of Canadian citizens and family reunification.

The motion also calls on the government to “ban extremist settlers from Canada, impose sanctions on Israeli officials who incite genocide, and maintain sanctions on Hamas leaders”. I think that speaks for itself.

Lastly, the motion calls on the government to “advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories...and...officially recognize the State of Palestine and maintain Canada's recognition of Israel's right to exist and to live in peace with its neighbours”.

The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of a two-state solution. The Netanyahu government categorically rejects this possibility, believing—as we have seen and as our Conservative colleagues have reiterated—that such an arrangement would reward Hamas. A number of Israeli government ministers dream of driving out the Palestinians.

The United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium are considering recognizing the state of Palestine, but the Israeli government wants to divide the Gaza Strip into areas of occupation, and some Israeli ministers are openly in favour of resettling Gaza following the Palestinians' voluntary departure. However, by maintaining the Gaza blockade and choking off humanitarian aid through UNRWA, the government will likely seek to render regions like northern Gaza uninhabitable for Palestinians, thereby forcing them to leave.

Other than these countries that are considering recognizing the Palestinian state, 78 others began to recognize Palestine as early as 1988. By 2023, 139 countries recognized Palestine, including nine G20 member states.

Therefore, we must also move forward with this motion to enable a breakthrough on the ground.