44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 7, 2021 10:00AM
- Dec/7/21 10:41:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute, and recognizing the enormous value that our forces and those who supported our forces provided in Afghanistan at a time of need.
Beyond that, the first thing that comes to my mind is to ask where that advocacy was when I was in the opposition and asking for English translators in Afghanistan to be able to come to Canada in the first place? Stephen Harper and his regime resisted. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied here. It is important that we be consistent, as I have been, whether in opposition or in government.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 10:42:06 a.m.
- Watch
I have been consistent, whether in opposition or in government. I have been an advocate. I think of constituents such as Mr. Daoud, who was a translator.
The member seems to believe that what is taking place is all because of Canada. The chaos at the airport involved more than just one nation. Would he not recognize that a multitude of nations have a responsibility and that Canada—
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 12:14:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the member could expand on this. Parliament has a standing committee structure. It would seem to me that many of the issues or concerns the opposition wants to deal with could be dealt with by the foreign affairs committee. It has the ability to make those communicational links between the immigration committee and other committees that might warrant it.
Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to our standing committees and the potential role they could play in this issue?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 12:30:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member makes the appeal that we can do anything if the political will is there. There is a great deal of goodwill, I would suggest, that comes from all sides of the House in trying to resolve this in a co-operative manner.
I reflect on the motion, and at the very least one could say it might be somewhat premature. We have standing committees if we want to look at the refugee file. I know the member opposite has always been fairly keen on the refugee issue. Would she not agree that one of the best ways we could deal with that specifically is to not only discuss it in the foreign affairs committee, but also take it to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where many members have a very active interest in the refugee file and could possibly have a lot to contribute to the debate in terms of how to be of help to Afghanistan? Would she not agree that that is also a good thing to do?
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 12:47:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, within the motion, the opposition is suggesting that members should be limited in terms of their ability to pose questions, I believe it is four hours, and to share their thoughts with this special committee.
Does the member believe the government putting in motions to limit opposition's ability to speak in committees is any more right than the opposition doing it to the government?
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 1:02:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of others and would be interested in the member's response to it.
We have standing committees on foreign affairs, immigration and defence. They have been known to coordinate in the past. There would be more involvement by members of Parliament.
I am wondering if the member believes that our standing committees have a role to play in this. Should they be pushed to the side in favour of this motion?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 1:05:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting and important discussion we are having today. Earlier I posed a question to the leader of the official opposition, and prior to asking the question, I commented on what we share in common. The aspect both of us agree on is our appreciation and love for members of the Canadian Forces and, over and above them, service members who were engaged in what took place in Afghanistan.
The Afghanistan issue has been before the House of Commons at many different points in time over the last decade or more. In fact, it very much predates my first election to the House of Commons back in 2010. I want to approach the issue of process first and foremost as a parliamentarian and second as someone who has gone through the election and heard what the Leader of the Opposition and other members talked about regarding the election call, priorities and so forth.
Back in the day there was a war taking place in Iraq, and there was a great deal of pressure on then prime minister Jean Chrétien that we be engaged. We were being criticized, from what I can remember, by the Conservatives for not committing. I believe the NDP was opposed to it. The former prime minister, back in the day, made the decision that Canada would not get directly involved, even though the Americans wanted us to be.
We argued that we wanted to work with the United Nations and others in dealing with the issue of terrorism and the other issues that were taking place in that area of the world. The decision was made somewhere in the early 2000s, in 2001 or 2002, that Canada would have a presence with members of our forces. We should never take that lightly.
We have heard members indicate they have served. The former minister of defence is, from my perspective, a hero. I believe he has served two or three terms in Afghanistan or in that area of the world. There are a number of other members of Parliament who have served.
I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces, but that was in the early eighties so I was never deployed. However, on November 11, I would be walking with World War II veterans in parades, which was immediately followed by going to the legions and listening to the horror stories of World War II. The sacrifices made by members of the Canadian Forces are important to recognize, and we need to state very clearly that we will never forget and that where we can learn, we will learn.
At the end of the day, I believe that not one Liberal member of Parliament is saying there is nothing we can learn from what has taken place. There are already standing committees, and there is nothing that prevents standing committees from dealing with what is being proposed today by the official opposition.
I believe there is a bit of politics in the motion. Those who say there is no politics in it should read some of the speeches provided by the leader of the official opposition. Members cannot tell me there is no politics within the motion, because there is. If opposition members believe it is time we put politics to the side, at least at the onset of this, I suggest they are undermining the potential value of our standing committees.
They are proposing a committee that would have, I believe, 12 members. Standing committees such as foreign affairs should absolutely be dealing with it. In fact, it could even be coordinating with our other two standing committees on immigration and defence.
More resources and more members of Parliament would all be able to contribute, if in fact what the official opposition said was true: that it is not on a political witch hunt, but is trying to get a better understanding of what has taken place. Let us see what happens in the standing committees. Depending on what takes place, there might need to be a follow-up motion of this nature. Anything before that, I would argue, is somewhat premature and possibly politically motivated.
This is not the first time Afghanistan has been the type of issue it is today. In 2009, when we were in a minority and the Conservatives were in government, the production of papers was always an important issue. We recognize and understand that. That is why the government House leader, the other day, stood in this place and provided an option to deal with what was happening with the Winnipeg lab and the records that were being demanded by members of the opposition. He put something on the table that would alleviate the concerns parliamentarians had with regard to the release of documents.
When we were in official opposition and the Conservatives were in government and there was a need for documents that could potentially be of interest in terms of national security and beyond, an agreement was signed by Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and the leader of the Bloc. They understood that a blanket motion, such as the motion that we have seen today, was not in our best interests.
Let me go back. I said earlier that as a parliamentarian, I was very interested in one aspect of the motion. I will read that part. It is really interesting. When I was in opposition, there is no way I would have supported a motion of this nature. The Conservatives are saying:
[A]ny proceedings before the committee, when hybrid committee meetings are authorized, in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved....
The Conservatives talk about parliamentary tradition, but there seems to be a bit of a double standard here on the standing committees, or at least the standing committees that I have participated in. I would ask my colleagues from the opposition, if they are going to vote in favour of this, to tell me that this is another standing committee, especially if the Conservatives are in government. They are saying that whether a member is in the government or the opposition, members will not be able to continue to have dialogue and ask questions.
It was interesting to listen to the leader of the official opposition when he was giving his comments. He said that maybe if the New Democrats did not work with the Liberals, they would be able to get this thing passed. It is kind of a bit of a rub with the NDP.
We all recognize that, yes, the NDP play a very important role in this and, yes, the Conservatives can maybe shame the NDP into supporting what they are trying to do here, but from a parliamentarian's perspective, I do not believe that it is a healthy motion that deserves the support of the House of Commons. It needs to be amended, at the very least.
The Conservatives would never advocate for that for opposition members in other standing committees, because they understand the importance of a member's right to be able to say something in the standing committees. At times there is a need to get things through, and unfortunately there are limits that are put into place from time to time, but I do not believe, given the subject matter we are talking about and the makeup of the committee, that this aspect of the motion is good.
The motion states that:
(vi) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in both official languages within one month of the adoption of this order, with any proposed redaction which, in the government's opinion, could reasonably be expected (A) to compromise national security, military tactics or strategy of the armed forces of Canada or an allied country
It goes on to talk about the need for national security, so within the motion itself it is realized that there are very sensitive documents that one has to have a higher security clearance level to deal with.
We already have a standing committee that can deal with the issues that are being proposed. We are a part of the Five Eyes, which as of today has an all-party agreement and the security clearance to deal with this. We already have a motion on the floor from the government House leader, as I pointed out, to deal with the lab and the release of documents that have security concerns through the Department of Health. There is an arbitration mechanism. There is a wonderful opportunity for all parties. It is a very apolitical mechanism.
Where is the official opposition, in particular, in terms of wanting to genuinely come to the table and say “Okay, let's work this thing through”? It can be done if the opposition has the political will to make it happen.
Where we agree is on the need to look into these matters and to pose these questions. It is not just members of the opposition who have questions. There are many government members who have questions and they, too, want to hear answers.
We are not trying to hide anything. That is not the intent of the government, but much like when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and another issue regarding Afghanistan was before the House, an agreement was put in place that involved the three larger parties in the House: the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. What has changed, other than that the Liberals are on the government benches and the Conservatives are on the opposition benches? Does the Conservative Party have no interest now in trying to resolve this? When passing this motion, which is yet to be determined, I would hope that members of the House would take a look at what is being asked of them.
In 2001, there was participation in some form or other from the Canadian Forces. I do not know the details of what it was. In 2002, the Canadian Forces really began to be deployed. In 2006 or 2007, the forces were deployed in a much larger number, and in 2014 the then government pulled the Canadian Forces out.
In that period of time, 159 members of the Canadian Armed Forces died as a result of being engaged in Afghanistan, not to mention the injuries and the psychological issues that have followed, and not including the non-military personnel. I believe that we owe it to those people to make sure that we do this correctly and appropriately. At least at the very beginning, let us take the politics out of it. There is a need to show compassion.
Members have mentioned that during the election we said 20,000 refugees. In 2015, when there was a crisis in Syria, we committed to 25,000 refugees. The Conservatives seemed to indicate that we would not be able to do it: that it was just an election gimmick. We more than surpassed that, by huge numbers.
We take very seriously the commitments that we have made. We talk now about 40,000. The member makes reference to those who supported the Canadian Forces. I remember talking to the media when I was in opposition about English translators supporting our Canadian Forces, and the need to accommodate them. It was in 2013 or 2014 that we first raised the issue and challenged the government to respond to that need.
We do not need to be told. We understand. We know what Canadians expect of the government. We will hit our targets that the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about, and the commitments coming from the Ministry of Defence. I really believe that the opportunity to provide humanitarian aid is there today. Our global diplomats have a focus on the refugee situation. I applaud those civil servants and diplomats who are going through some very difficult files seven days a week. I believe that the government is open to ideas, whether from members of the Liberal caucus or members of the opposition caucuses.
At the end of the day, I believe there are things we can learn from this. I am just not convinced that the motion before the House is really in our best interests. I understand why the official opposition has moved the motion, and I suspect that other opposition parties might be following suit. Maybe there could be some potential amendments. If the opposition came to the government and talked about it, maybe we could resolve this in a positive way, just like the positive resolution in 2010 that Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper and the leader of the Bloc signed off on. They did so because they recognized the importance of national security and the interests of Canada and of all the thousands of people who were directly affected by the release of information.
That is why I would have much rather preferred to see negotiations before getting to this point. My challenge to opposition members is to never give up on the negotiations. Bringing forward motions of this nature is an easy way out.
2234 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 1:27:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when I sat in opposition, I stood up for translators and argued that they should be able to come to Canada, given the service they had provided our nation. I believe most, if not all, parliamentarians recognize the valuable contributions locals in Afghanistan performed, endangering their lives in many different ways. We are all concerned. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister and this government have made the solid commitment of 40,000 refugees. We will hit that target, and if anyone needs to be convinced of that, one needs only to look at the commitment we made to Syrian refugees, when we more than hit the target of 25,000 we set back then.
That sense of commitment is there. The passion and compassion are on all sides of this House, as we all want to resolve this in a positive fashion.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 1:29:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would turn to the agreement signed by Gilles Duceppe, the member's former leader, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper. They recognized that there was very sensitive information, yet an agreement was achieved and documents were shared. We are not saying we should not be studying this issue. The government is not saying that.
There are questions on how to best do that. The government House leader made a recommendation on Health Canada and the lab issue, which would allow for it. Given the political desire to deal with this issue in an apolitical fashion, why not allow for negotiation to draw this to a conclusion? Instead, the opposition party is trying to force the government or the Speaker to make a ruling. This can be negotiated; it should be negotiated.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 1:32:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member knows Mr. Christopherson from Hamilton. I would sit in committee with Mr. Christopherson, on such topics as on the Elections Act, and he would talk endlessly. As much as I would get a bit bored of what the member was saying, I respected what he was attempting to do. I believe that, through standing committees, we can negotiate compromises that will improve upon things.
Whether it is in provincial legislatures, here in Ottawa or in parliaments around the world, filibusters do, at times, improve situations. I would appeal to members to consider what should be done here. This motion is, in fact, premature. There is an obligation in this House to attempt to negotiate the best interests prior to bringing forward a motion of this nature. I wish that is what had happened.
If Gilles Duceppe, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper could negotiate on an Afghanistan issue back in 2010, why can we not do it here? Why is there this confrontation? I do not think the confrontation is necessary because we all agree that we want to look into it, study it and learn from it.
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 1:34:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is the core of the problem, from my perspective. That is not accurate because, if there is an attempt to redact anything, the committee can say no and reverse it. This is one of the reasons.
I would recommend the members take a look at the government House leader's response to the issue on the health labs, getting information and the mechanism that is set up. I believe that we need to have a mechanism to deal with national security and the best interests of the Canadian Forces, as well as the best interests of the public as a whole. That is what we need, and that is not within the motion.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 1:36:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot we can learn from the agreement achieved between the Bloc, the Liberals and the Conservatives back when Stephen Harper was prime minister.
There is a lot for us to learn. My suggestion to the opposition parties and, in fact, to all members, is to take a look at the advantages of negotiations. I know the government House leader is very open to talking this thing through and getting it resolved. Every member of Parliament, including Liberal members of Parliament, want to see a study on this take place.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 4:03:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the many issues to come out of Afghanistan, including its refugees, are of a great, serious nature. We recognize the value of having committees. I stood up to speak to our standing committees. The official opposition is spearheading this through this particular motion, yet I would have rather have seen a negotiation take place among the different parties to ensure that it was depoliticized, that the politics were taken out of it. I think we owe that to members of the forces and those who have been engaged in what has been taking place virtually since 2001.
I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts, at least at the onset going into this, on whether we should be trying to depoliticize this so we can get right to the facts and have the necessary dialogue. Maybe at some other time in the future, if the opposition wants to make it political, they can do so. What are his thoughts?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 4:19:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, no one in the Conservative opposition cares more or has more compassion for what is taking place in Afghanistan, whether we mean today, yesterday or back in 2001. No one owns a monopoly on the issue. We all care about the types of stories the member just finished raising in the House.
Where we seem to differ is that the government is concerned about the confidentiality of secret documents, which is apparently something the Conservative Party does not care about. We do care about certain things that cannot become public information. The opposition knows that. That is why there was an agreement between Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and the Bloc party back in 2010.
Whatever happened to the principle of ensuring secrecy? Why will the Conservatives not negotiate with the government so we can protect Canadian—
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 5:06:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am someone who advocated many years ago, when I was in opposition, that we get Afghan translators to Canada, and I do to this very day. I am joined by my Liberal caucus colleagues and all members of this House in recognizing how critically important it is that we open our doors and accept refugees from Afghanistan. There is no doubt about that. We also believe it is absolutely essential that our committees on defence, immigration and foreign affairs deal with this.
Within the motion there are serious concerns about security. There is information that could potentially be harmful for Canada's future and the best interests of real people today. Does the member not have confidence in our standing committees? Why does he feel the Conservatives were unable to negotiate something? It seems to me to be a bit of an easy way out. Can he explain?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 6:10:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the member's service and that of other members who have contributed to the debate. I thank them for that.
We hear of so many heart-wrenching examples and the types of things that are happening there that are so horrific. I would not want members to give an impression that there are some members of the House who care less than other members. We all want to make a positive difference in what is happening in Afghanistan.
Back in 2010, Stephen Harper was the prime minister; Michael Ignatieff was the leader of the Liberal Party and Gilles Duceppe was the leader of the Bloc party. The three of them came together to deal with the concerns that we are trying to deal with: the issue of security and confidentiality. An agreement was actually signed off on by those three leaders. Stephen Harper was the prime minister. Does the member believe there should have been some responsibility from the current opposition at least to achieve an agreement or, at the very least, let the standing committee—
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 6:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the basis of the discussion I just had with members of the official opposition, I suggest that if you were to canvass the House at this point in time, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m., with the understanding that we will wait for the appropriate minister to come before us.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 6:25:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, we are ready, and as soon as you get the mechanism that you are waiting for, we can move forward. Hopefully that will appease the member for Elmwood—Transcona.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 6:55:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I know the minister and the Prime Minister have been very strong advocates for indigenous communities, and that building and establishing a more positive relationship has been a priority for this government since 2015. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report is very important, and we committed to all 94 of its recommendations.
The minister made reference to the millions of dollars being spent to support things in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts on the importance of truth and reconciliation, or more importantly, her thoughts on the indigenous initiatives the government is taking.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:42:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Mr. Speaker, my friend the minister has been a very strong advocate for tourism since long before he was appointed Minister of Tourism. I
In Winnipeg, we have this wonderful thing called Folklorama. It is a two-week extravaganza of Canada's diversity. We can visit the Philippines, the Punjab, India, Ukraine and all over the world during those two weeks. The cultural diversity is simply amazing. We can participate in things such as dance, food and phenomenal entertainment.
The Prime Minister had the opportunity to meet with the Folk Arts Council. The Folk Arts Council said that the wage subsidy program enabled them to keep their doors open. This is not a new organization. It has been there for over 50 years. The point is that through programs, the government has been able to keep our arts and cultural communities, among others within our tourism industry, active and around to be able to survive the pandemic, in many ways.
The NDP and Conservative coalition voted against Bill C-2. This was going to extend the benefits for many of those businesses, communities and arts and cultural organizations. I am wondering if the minister can express why he believes Bill C-2 is so important for businesses and Canadians as a whole.
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
