44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/29/22 10:31:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak more to the issue of backlogs and how when there is a crisis in one part of the world, it seems the government actually pulls resources away from another crisis. We should be able to address all the things going on at the same time.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 10:32:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to participate in the debate on this Conservative motion for concurrence to take a number of measures related to immigration required to support the people of Ukraine, and, in particular, to implement visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada.
I will start by saying I recently joined the immigration committee. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues from all sides on the immigration committee, especially the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, our shadow minister, who has so much passion in this area. As he mentioned in his speech, he was privately sponsoring refugees as a private citizen before he was elected to the House of Commons or anywhere close to that. We need more members who take this area very seriously and are able, independently of the spotlight and outside of their elected lives, to actually be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
Before I get into the immigration measures, I want to speak to the situation unfolding in Ukraine overall. There has been a great deal of debate in the House on this previously. It is important that we do not let up and allow it to drift out of the headlines. We cannot stop really thinking about the ongoing situation and conflict.
When I spoke earlier on the situation in Ukraine, I said that I believe Ukraine will either be Putin's Afghanistan or Putin's Czechoslovakia. Of course, we know the sad history of Czechoslovakia at the beginning of the Second World War when the world kind of just let it happen. It negotiated the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and allowed Hitler to take over Czechoslovakia. That was a step to further aggression and violence.
On the other hand, we also know the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where, as a result of significant support from the west that allowed people within Afghanistan to fight back against the Soviet invasion and to have the equipment they needed, they were able to drive out the Soviet invaders. That ultimately played a critical role in changing the tide of history in the aggressive agenda that had been pursued by the Soviets up to that point.
It is up to us to look at this situation and ask if we are going to support the people of Ukraine, so Putin's experience in Ukraine will be like the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, or are we going to allow the invasion to happen in the way similar to how the world kind of accepted the takeover of Czechoslovakia? That is the choice, and it requires our active engagement, our significant support for Ukrainians and our persistence in that enterprise.
Of course, we know that there is a lot of discussion in the news about possible negotiations and a possible back-and-forth dialogue happening. What is critical for us, as external actors, is to say that, regardless of negotiations taking place, we will not let up in sanctions and in holding Putin accountable unless he withdraws from all sovereign Ukrainian territory, respects the sovereignty of Ukraine's government, and respects the ability of Ukrainians to express themselves through democratic elections and make political choices about their future. Our role is to continue to apply significant sanctions. That is what we on the Conservative side have been saying is required, including significant increased lethal aid and other forms of tactical support to Ukrainians, tougher sanctions and, as our leader has called for, very importantly, air support for humanitarian corridors.
Speaking of those humanitarian corridors is a good transition point to talking about some of the immigration issues. While many Ukrainians are staying and fighting, heroically standing in the way of the Russian invasion, there are many people, such as women, children, the elderly and those who are not able to fight, who are desperate to get to safety. The UNHCR estimates that the number of Ukrainians who have fled the country is approaching four million. It is a very large number.
I want to congratulate Ukraine's neighbours, such as Poland, Latvia and other countries in the region. They have done incredible work. Everyday citizens of those countries are welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and stepping up to support Ukrainians in their hour of need. However, other countries that are farther away could play a greater role as well. Those of us here in Canada, with our large Ukrainian community and our close cultural and other ties, can play a critical role in welcoming those who are coming from Ukraine, many of whom, of course, hope to go back after the conflict is over. There is urgency to act now.
With respect to government action, the frustrating thing is that sometimes it seems like the government is solving problems but with such a delay and such a long time scale that things are ending, or past the point when they could best be solved, when the government is talking about it.
For example, it was announced that the government originally said that people coming from Ukraine could stay for two years; now, it is saying they can stay for three years. Obviously, three years is better than two years, but all of us are hoping this will be long over within two years and that people will have been able to go back within two years. We do not know.
It is hard to predict the future of how these kinds of things will unfold, but the government is making a promise about the far end, a time horizon, when what is really needed is to say how we can get people to be able to come more quickly right now, because right now is when we have the problem. I think we can make comparisons to other issues, such as COVID programs, where the government missed the boat and then, after the fact, would say, for example, that it was going to do ventilation in schools two years after this thing started. This is, I think, a problem with the way the government operates, sadly. It is not on top of issues, but then promises to do the thing we should have already done.
When it comes to immigration support for Ukrainians who are seeking to find a place to live and be in safety during this time, we are calling on the government to focus on the urgent immediate action now to help people get to a situation of safety. From this came a committee motion that was designed to really move this issue forward and emphasize to the government what needed to be done. A key part of that was the call for visa-free travel.
I do want to say that, while working on the immigration committee, the spirit of collaboration that exists has been really strong. It was a Conservative motion, but I think it is fair to say to my friends in the NDP and the Bloc that they were enthusiastic and keen about getting visa-free travel as part of this motion as well, and I am very hopeful we will see the same level of support and enthusiasm from other opposition parties, in terms of getting this motion adopted by the House of Commons. I hope, notwithstanding the fact that the Liberals voted against this motion at committee, that the Prime Minister, the immigration minister and the government will take seriously the will of the House of Commons in this respect. If a majority of the House of Commons votes in favour of saying we need visa-free travel, there is not a formal legal obligation on the government to implement the will of the House in this case, but I think there is a moral obligation in a democracy for the government to take seriously what the House of Commons is saying in this respect.
I do expect, given the positions taken by other opposition parties, this motion to pass, and I think it is a reasonable norm of democracy that, when a government that got a third of the popular vote is told by all of the rest of the parties in the House of Commons that it should take a certain action, the government actually takes that seriously and responds to it.
My colleague who spoke previously mentioned the arguments the government has used against bringing in visa-free travel. We saw them make some of these arguments at committee. They have said there are security issues that require a visa, and I think my colleague has demonstrated well, and the immigration minister sort of acknowledged this, that to whatever extent there may be individuals who are not actually sympathetic to the Ukrainian side who would try to use this program to get in, it could happen anyway with the provisions the government has put in place.
Moreover, I think the minister has said that it takes too long to pull back the visa requirement, which does not make a lot of sense to me. If the government is so slow in its operations that removing a requirement takes weeks and weeks of delay, that seems like a problem we should try to solve at a more fundamental level, because what we are calling for is not to add additional requirements to complicate the process; we are just asking the government to remove existing requirements. That should be a fairly simple, straightforward thing to do, and for the government to say that the imposition of this whole new program it has developed would somehow take less time than simply removing the visa requirement, I do not think that makes a lot of sense.
In any event, and I have sort of come back to this a few times in different contexts here this morning, I think we should ask and expect the Government of Canada to move faster during critical situations like this. I think we see this across the board with immigration. It is useful to think about how in the last year we had the situation in Afghanistan and now we have the situation in Ukraine. In both cases the government did not plan enough in advance and then told us it cannot move fast enough. It will say that it has all these papers it has to move around and things to sign, and that it is just going to take too long. The effect of accepting that somehow it is okay for these processes to take as long as the government is saying they will take is that it has real costs in human life and security.
The cost of government delays and inaction in the context of Afghanistan was that there were many people we should have gotten out that we did not. The cost in the case of the situation in Ukraine is, again, further delays, and more people being in harm's way for longer than necessary and longer than they should be.
I want to point out as well some of the statements being made by representatives of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress on immigration measures. For one, I think their position was actually misstated in committee. There was a member of the Liberal caucus who implied that somehow the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was not pushing for visa-free travel. The same day the Ukrainian Canadian Congress issued a statement clarifying that it does want visa-free travel. It also presented some concerns about the program the government has put in place, and maybe I will get to that in questions and comments.
1936 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 10:44:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the additional contribution from my friends over here.
This is sort of the third excuse we have been given. We heard the first excuse from Liberal members saying why they would not do visa-free travel. The minister then said that was not exactly right, but he had a new excuse. Now we have a third excuse from the member for Winnipeg North with the implication that we should not be doing visa-free travel because we need to coordinate and we need to know how many people are coming.
Well, there is a great flow here of people coming in and out who are free to do so because they are Canadian citizens living abroad. There are many countries from which people can come now with visa-free travel. They can come from the United States, the U.K. and from other places. Therefore, for people coming from Ukraine, I think Canadians are ready to step up and help those who come, and we can reasonably estimate the numbers that are going to come. I do not think having a visa requirement to know the number of people who are coming makes any sense whatsoever.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 10:46:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question from the NDP. Unfortunately, I think it is a question more for the government to answer than for me.
However, I will speculate that with a lot of its immigration measures, it seems the government is obsessed with control. It is capping private sponsorship, and the member for Winnipeg North is saying that we need to know exactly how many people are coming. It is all about government controlling the process.
I would say that individual Canadians who want to sponsor vulnerable refugees, who want to welcome Ukrainians who are fleeing, can step up, and they will do that. It is not for the government to try to control the precise number. In cases of a crisis like this, it should listen to and respond to Canadians' willingness to welcome those who are in a crisis situation.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 10:48:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.
I think it is necessary to take this step now, and I think it is reasonable and easy to simply lift the visa requirement. However, if it is so difficult to do something so simple, that means there is a bigger problem in the functioning of this government.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 11:41:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member's speech was very much on point. The Liberals always claim that other people are being partisan when they do not want to support an obviously good idea that has the support of the rest of the House and the support of Canadians. It is important that we being forward a substantive issue at a critical time and it is too bad that it sounds like the government is not going to support it.
I was struck by the last question from the member for Winnipeg North, in that he implied that more support should be offered by provinces and by universities when in fact the federal government has been criticized for not stepping up to provide basic assistance for those coming from Ukraine. Those who are coming are not technically considered refugees under the refugee category, which means they do not have access to federal programs that normally exist for people in that situation.
I wonder if the member from the Bloc wants to comment on the fact that the government has been heavily criticized by the Canadian Ukrainian Congress and others for not offering support to those who come from Ukraine, and then the member is using the needs for support as an excuse for not allowing visa-free travel. The government should be offering that support, but why not let people come through the visa-free travel channel since the government is not currently offering that support as it is?
247 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:14:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague brought up an important point about operational excellence and the ability of the government to deliver on its functions. We see, on the one hand, the government trying to extend the powers of the federal government and get involved in provincial jurisdiction, people's private lives and all kinds of areas that are not its core responsibilities. On the other side, on things such as immigration, which is a core function of the federal government, we see a failure to be able to get critically important things done.
We heard the Minister of Immigration at committee admit that the reason the Liberals do not want to lift the visa-free travel is not about security. It is that it would take too long to lift the requirement. How long should it take to lift an existing requirement? We are not talking about putting in place a new requirement: we are talking about lifting a requirement.
Could the member talk more about how we get the federal government to focus on its core-area functions, and do those things well and efficiently?
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the very challenging situation facing the Hazara community in Afghanistan. The petitioners note that human rights abuses against the Hazara community predate the Taliban takeover, but have become significantly worse since. There have been various instances of genocide against the Hazara people that go back a very long time. The petitioners want to see the House recognize the genocides the Hazaras have faced and designate September 25 as Hazara genocide memorial day.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition highlights concerns about ongoing tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In particular, the petitioners are concerned about the continuing detention of Armenian prisoners of war following the end of the conflict and note that this is a violation of international law. They call on the Government of Canada to condemn the continuing detention of Armenian prisoners of war, to use all diplomatic tools available to advocate for their release, to condemn state-sponsored hatred in the context of the conflict, and to denounce aggressive rhetoric. The petitioners are also concerned about ongoing issues with respect to the conflict and the violations of the ceasefire we have seen in recent days.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been waiting for this moment. I thank you for the opportunity to table a number of petitions today.
The first petition is on the very serious issue of Canadians struggling with mental health challenges. It notes that the Canadian Mental Health Association states that, as a recovery-oriented organization, it does not believe that mental illnesses are irremediable, and the petitioners are concerned about the government's decision to open up facilitated suicide within the medical system for those struggling with mental health challenges. The petitioners call on the government to repeal euthanasia for those for whom mental illness is the sole condition, and to protect Canadians struggling with mental illness by facilitating treatment and recovery; not death.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the next petition that I am tabling is in support of Bill S-223, which would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ that had been taken without consent. It would also create a mechanism by which the Minister of Immigration could designate people as inadmissible to Canada as a result of their involvement in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. Currently, there is no law against somebody being involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking abroad. This legislation would remedy that. The petitioners are hoping that this Parliament, after 15 years of efforts to pass legislation on forced organ harvesting and trafficking, is the one that finally gets it done.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition highlights concern about a Liberal Party election platform commitment that would effectively politicize charitable status determinations. Existing charities law already prohibits dishonest conduct, but the Liberals' commitment, highlighted here, is particularly to target the alleged dishonest behaviour of those with political views that differ from theirs.
In particular, it seeks to deny charitable status to organizations that have a pro-life viewpoint and that support women in a crisis pregnancy situation. Their proposal would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on this issue as a matter of conviction. This is very similar to what we saw with respect to the values test that was associated with the Canada summer jobs program the Liberals tried to put in place previously.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of the charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values, and without the imposition of a values test. They also call on the government to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the ongoing challenges, conflict and humanitarian crisis in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. The petition dates back to a very acute phase of conflict. There continue to be significant concerns about hunger, limited access to food and challenges regarding access to vital health care and other needs. The petitioners are calling on the government to be actively engaged with the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments, to conduct proper investigations into the human rights abuses that have taken place, to defend fundamental human rights in Ethiopia and to address ongoing humanitarian challenges.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:24:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the final petition that I am tabling today is also about the human rights situation in Afghanistan. This particular petition highlights the condition of the Sikh and Hindu minority community. Petitioners highlight the persecution that the Sikh and Hindu minority community has faced in Afghanistan. They call on the Minister of Immigration, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to take action to support this minority community.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 2:59:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the House will vote today on a Conservative motion to allow visa-free travel for Ukrainians who are fleeing Putin's war crimes. Visa-free travel is the compassionate thing and the right thing to do. Opening the door to visa-free travel should be simple and efficient, yet the government keeps making different excuses.
If this motion passes, will the government respect the will of Parliament?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 6:52:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from some Canadians who are considering or have made the decision to join Ukraine's foreign legion. That is obviously a very difficult decision. What those Canadians are not looking for from government is a repeat of travel advice. Those who are choosing to go and fight in defence of Ukraine are already aware there are significant risks associated with doing so and they do so in full knowledge of those risks.
What those Canadians are looking for is legal clarity from the government. My question, in the first instance, was never about if the government can give those people life advice. It was about whether the government could help those people have the clarity of knowing how the law applies to them, specifically with respect to the Foreign Enlistment Act that was passed in 1937, which I think has an important area of ambiguity that the government would do well to clarify. The Foreign Enlistment Act makes it an offence for a Canadian to join or engage in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with a “friendly foreign state”. That is the operative phrase. If someone is going abroad to fight against a friendly foreign state, then that person is committing an offence in Canada.
The act does not contain a definition of what constitutes a friendly foreign state. In fact, in the entire history of this act, from what I was able to discern, there have not been any prosecutions under it, which might suggest that the risk of prosecution for a Canadian who is going to fight abroad is low. However, people are still looking for that legal clarity and they do not have the benefit of legal precedent to look at. A friendly foreign state could mean a state that Canada is not at war with. A friendly foreign state could mean an ally or partner of Canada or a like-minded state in some ways, but the problem is that we just do not know.
My original question to the government was if it could clarify whether, for the purposes of the act, not in colloquial usage of the term but for the purposes of the act, is the Russian Federation considered a friendly foreign state.
However, I think more broadly it is important for the government to consider the need for clarity around this legislation, because there are many other cases where Canadians choose to participate in conflicts, feel very deeply on behalf of one side or the other, and there may be national interests that are impacted in Canada by those actions. We do not have clarity in the law with respect to when that would or would not be allowed at all.
I asked the government then, and I am asking the government now, to provide Canadians with legal clarity with respect to the application of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and in particular, the provisions around what constitutes a friendly foreign state. Could the government clearly state that, for the purposes of this act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state?
Could the government also consider regulations or modifications that would provide greater meaning to that section, so that Canadians who are taking this risk to fight in the defence of Ukraine do not have to worry about the possible, what I would argue, misapplication of this statute?
The law also gives the government an opportunity, through Governor in Council regulations, to, “by order or regulation,” provide for “the application of this Act, with necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict”. Therefore, the government does have the ability, under this act, to put forward regulations that would provide that clarity.
I have an Order Paper question as well that asks the government specifically to respond, to provide a list and to provide information on what it considers a friendly foreign state, because Canadians should know whether or not this law applies to them.
676 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 7:00:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been working on a private member's bill initiative for the past six years. People were working on the same initiative for 10 years before that, and it has not passed yet. It is something everyone agrees on. That just shows that, when the government has the regulatory power to solve a problem, saying one should wait 15 years for a private member's bill is not very helpful.
I think members could reasonably draw the conclusion, from the statement of the parliamentary secretary and from the statements of ministers, that the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state, and I think some Canadians will take some comfort in that. However, it is a little frustrating that the parliamentary secretary could not provide a clear response to a clear question, and it is not a partisan question at all. It is simply saying that it is up to the government, in a sense, to define in the context of its foreign policy what states it considers friendly and not friendly, for the purposes of the act. Presumably, courts would refer to statements and opinions of the government, when considering what is a friendly foreign state.
Why will the parliamentary secretary not simply and clearly state that, for the purposes of the act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state?
228 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
