SoVote

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/16/22 4:42:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although we were supposed to be debating Bill C‑14 today, we nevertheless had to consider the tabling of the committee report. Last week I attended Taiwan Night with some colleagues, where we were able to discuss the Taiwanese government's concerns on this matter. After the event I invited our Taiwanese friends to come observe this afternoon, but I am disappointed, because I have been hearing members over the past hour asking why we are not talking about something else. I obviously care a lot about Bill C‑14, but it is also important that this report be tabled. We must examine its findings and how it calls on us, as parliamentarians, to do something about this situation. We have all witnessed the situation in Ukraine and Russia over the past few months, and the expression that comes to mind when I think of that situation is “the thorn in the lion's paw”. NATO has said that it is no one's fault but, at the same time, it is everyone's fault. That same expression comes to mind when I think of relations between Taiwan and China. I think we need a little flexibility in order to make an informed decision under the circumstances. That is what we need to discuss this afternoon: What can we do to speed up Taiwan's admission to the World Health Organization, or WHO, and the World Health Assembly? In a community or a group, the first thing to do if we want to be in society is to appreciate the true value of the “other”. The failure to contribute to the admission of entities—or, in this case, independent countries—to associations such as the WHO or the World Health Assembly amounts in some way to denying their existence. Why do we do this? Generally, we do it strictly on the basis of conviction. We all have convictions, whether it is the Speaker, myself or even the member for Winnipeg North. That is what keeps us standing, what we value, and it is often an imperative. However, societies also have convictions. Unfortunately, a conviction is something that we hold very dear, but with little regard for its predictable consequences. Following a conviction is often done at all costs, which is evident in the delay of Taiwan's admission to the bodies I mentioned. However, when it comes to a conviction, we cannot deny that there are no consequences to our actions. Every action has its consequences. In fact, the consequences are part of the action. For Russia and Ukraine, the consequences are dire. We had good intentions, but good intentions do not count if they are not carried through. We can hope, but if we do not act on that hope, it does not count. We must justify our conviction about whether we are for or against admitting Taiwan into these organizations. This is what I personally call the ethics of responsibility, the ethics of a form of decision-making that involves considering the foreseeable consequences of a given action. What are the foreseeable consequences of admitting or not admitting Taiwan to these organizations? We can predict that, if Taiwan is denied admittance, the decision will be postponed, and there will be petitions, more lobbying and, most importantly, people who will not be able to contribute to or benefit from science. I believe we are heading for the inevitable and that admittance is the best way to go. If we agree to admit Taiwan, I think we will reduce the risk of confrontation in a part of the world that, frankly, is prone to confrontation. I do not have a crystal ball, but when I look at Russia, Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, I see Taiwan on the other side of the crystal ball. The consequences of denying Taiwan admittance should not be underestimated. We all have our own convictions, and that is fine. When we look at the consequences of having or not having convictions on this issue, we reach the stage that I call the ethics of discussion. I mention this because it is what we do here in Parliament. The ethics of discussion is the ability to discuss objectively in order to reconcile what we want to do with what we end up doing. This is about reconciling what we want to do with what we end up doing. It is about aligning word with deed. I believe that we should be able make a decision without having unnecessary barriers thrown up, without getting bogged down. We may decide to take action or we may decide not to. Yes, we might make a mistake, but we are not God. The worst mistake is not deciding. The biggest mistake is looking the other way. I often say that the greatest lack of ethics is turning a blind eye. Certainly, in this case, we are not being asked to make a decision. We are not the WHO. We are being asked to receive the conclusions of a committee that is established under the rules of the House of Commons, one that operates independently and has tabled its report. Too often in the past, we have seen reports that were not received by the House of Commons, which comes back to haunt us after a while. It makes for even more procedures than necessary. This afternoon, what are my Taiwanese friends seeing when they are watching us? In the last hour, they have seen people disagreeing about how to move forward. No one has been stubborn about moving forward, but we disagree about the method. Meanwhile, time is passing and people are waiting, yet no decisions are being made. I believe the report should be presented because I believe Taiwan should be part of the WHO. Why do I believe that? I think it is about social values. Values are things that we find to be good, noble or desirable, but the value we are talking about here is solidarity. Solidarity means unity for common cause. In this case, that common cause is health. Taiwan made a significant contribution with respect to COVID‑19. Taiwan is willing and able to contribute. What may be preventing this report from being presented today is fear, misplaced fear of the Chinese bear. We are a legally constituted Parliament. I believe we should make this decision. This is not a life or death decision; this is about concurring in a report. We should concur in it so we can move forward. This is about solidarity. This is no time to pretend the problem does not exist. This is no time to be stubborn about our convictions just for the sake of being stubborn. In answer to the concerns raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I would like us to adopt this motion quickly so we can move on to Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 is extremely important to me. What I would suggest today is an entente cordiale among the parties so we can move forward and do our parliamentary work without obstacles of our own making.

1201 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 72 - May/16/22

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/16/22 4:52:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was a very thoughtful speech by the member for Trois-Rivières. I think he touched on some of the important reasons we need to take this seriously. My question is similar to a question I asked the parliamentary secretary and that another Conservative colleague asked earlier in this debate. On the substance of what we are discussing, we can see that Taiwan, for geopolitical reasons, I suggest, is being excluded from some of these international organizations. That certainly is problematic in terms of Taiwan's being a democracy. Further to that, I would suggest in this place today that it is to the detriment of the ability of the world, in the case of the WHO and the WHA, to combat COVID-19. I would ask for the member's further thoughts on that, as well as on Taiwan's being excluded from ICAO and Interpol, among a number of other international agencies. It has a significant voice that should be heard. What does the member think about the tactics being used by certain regimes around the world to try to exclude Taiwan, for geopolitical gain, from what are very meaningful and important organizations, whether it be about COVID-19 or other issues that our world faces?

212 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 72 - May/16/22

Mr. René Villemure

May/16/22 4:54:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. Taiwan is a democracy and a free country, just as Quebec will be one day. At that time, I hope that we will also be recognized, and that we will become formal participants in international organizations. Now, my colleagues know full well where the red light on the decision to include Taiwan came from. I think we need to be very careful. Denying an established democracy's right to exist is a bad idea. Whether we are talking about Interpol or the international aviation organization, in all cases, this seems to needlessly kick the legs out from under an established democracy and, once again, as a member of a party that supports the creation of a country, our failure to show our support would concern me deeply.

139 words

All Topics