SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 112 - Oct/18/22

Oct/18/22 11:06:27 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would think, given we have another motion coming up to pass other legislation, if the member is quite prepared to support that motion, then we could maybe consider doing Bill S-5. Better yet, why does the member not—

49 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/18/22 11:06:45 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

We are getting into debate, and I would like to give the hon. member for Trois-Rivières the opportunity to make his speech. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

33 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Oct/18/22 11:06:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to send my regards to the people of Trois-Rivières, whom I talk to every day about Ukraine. I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his display of contempt. It is something we learn to live with over time. The people across the way often talk the talk but do not walk the walk, yet curiously enough, on this and other topics, they do not even want to talk at all. I was at yesterday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics about Roxham Road, and members there were anxious to avoid the issue. I think avoiding the issue is the new way of doing things. What is this morning's motion about? It condemns the continuing attack on Ukraine. It recognizes that a growing proportion of the Russian people are bravely resisting and opposing this attack. It calls on the Government of Canada to develop measures to support Russian dissidents and so on. What is it about? It is about war. From the Umma–Lagash war in the 16th century BC to Alexander the Great, from the Punic Wars to the war in Kosovo, war is as old as humanity itself. War is a show of the leaders' contempt for the people, pure and simple. No war could ever be justified when human life comes a distant second to commercial interests or the interests of a particular leader. That said, we may have talked a lot about Ukraine so far, but it is clear that nothing has changed despite all our talk. The situation remains the same in that sanctions have been put in place. Steps have been taken. There has been plenty of talk, but has there actually been any action? We are told that there has, but did that action have any result? I do not think so. There are Russian and Ukrainians dissidents who want this situation to end. If we break down the etymology of the word, a dissident is someone who wants to separate. Needless to say, we have a great affinity with those people. The dissidents in this case must be treated as heroes, because they are risking their lives to try to convince a leader that human life cannot come second to private or commercial interests. A dissident who wants to separate and do things differently will have certain values they want to promote. When we talk about values, we are talking about ethics. As a quick aside, as I was saying, certain values are promoted. They might say that human life, for instance, trumps commercial interests. They might talk about respecting human life. In the past, I often heard people say that they respect the environment, that they respect their colleagues and the trees. Such statements can be meaningless. They can just be empty words. Let us break down the word “respect” into two parts, the “re” and the “spect”. In language, “re” means “twice”, like “return”, “redo”, “restate” and “repeat”. It is the same thing. “Spect” refers to looking, as in “spectrum” and “spectral”. Respect means taking a second look to avoid needlessly hurting others. It is the very opposite of war. War is the pinnacle of disrespect. We currently have one party, the Russian party, that refuses to listen. It has turned a deaf ear to international appeals. It has turned a deaf ear to the appeals of its people as well. Clearly, this must be condemned. We must keep going because we are dealing with a Russian leader who is absolutely convinced that Ukraine must be taken. What does it mean to be convinced? It is to believe something absolutely, to hell with the consequences. “Let them all die” seems to be the motto here. As a country that claims to be a friend of human rights, we cannot sit on our hands and do nothing. Doing nothing is not an option. What can be done now? The support provided to date was necessary, but it is not enough. The dissidents must be supported. We might even have to come to their aid, perhaps by offering them asylum. We are good at offering asylum, by the way. They will be told to take Roxham Road. Things are moving well there. Just in case, diplomatic efforts must continue to allow for ongoing dialogue. I get the impression that there is no dialogue right now between the parties, whether by text message, tweets or any other means. The President of France tried to open a dialogue. That did not go over well. Because that dialogue was unsuccessful, does that mean that all dialogue will be unsuccessful? I do not believe that. Let us remember that, during the Second World War, Churchill came to Quebec so he could speak with the allies about his plans. Does Canada have a role to play in the type of dialogue that, beyond condemning the attack, would provide assistance and allow us to take steps to support the dissidents? Could that be a solution? We must certainly stop taking without action. The time for action is now and I would not want to debate it for 20 minutes because the situation is quite clear: We cannot not take action. What is the government's response to that question?

918 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/18/22 11:13:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question I have for members of the Bloc is about the agenda for this morning. I believe that most members were anticipating that we would, in fact, be talking about the environment. The Bloc in the past has talked quite extensively about the environment. Is there any disappointment, from the member's perspective, given that there were other opportunities for the Conservative Party to bring forward what we are debating right now?

75 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:13:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his very important question. We were supposed to discuss the environment this morning. It really is a very important topic, and we must deal with it as soon as possible. However, a motion on support for dissidents was moved this morning, and I do believe that human life should take priority for now. It is a matter of context. The environmental challenges themselves cannot and must not be ignored. To be frank, I think we are just putting them on the back burner this morning, which is something I would rather not be doing. That said, I still want to make it clear that we cannot remain idle with respect to the Ukrainian dissidents.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Oct/18/22 11:14:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, when this issue came before the immigration committee, the member's colleague was very supportive of it, and we had all-party support in moving it forward. It was a pleasure working with his colleague and with other members on the immigration committee on that. I wonder if the member could share more about specific things that he thinks Canada can do to support the Russian opposition. Obviously, this motion speaks to immigration measures, but what other steps can we take to empower, strengthen and support those voices inside Russia? To me, the only long-term solution is to have Russia join the community of free, democratic nations that respect the international rule of law and to have a government in Russia that is prepared to join that community of nations and enjoy the benefits of prosperity and community that come from that. What are the member's further suggestion for moving this agenda forward?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:15:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. He mentioned immigration. I will not say any more about that, because the committee discussed it at length and made some very useful recommendations. However, I would like to talk about the fact that it was said that the Canadian embassy in Ukraine was being opened. It was opened, and the diplomatic staff were taken out. I think the first thing we must do is open an embassy. What we need is genuine, meaningful diplomatic dialogue, not superficial diplomatic dialogue or diplomacy conducted via images and tweets. I think seasoned diplomats are needed to establish dialogue between the parties. We are not mediators, but we must have a presence in Ukraine and Russia. There has been quite a bit of talk about closing the embassies in Russia, but that is not a good idea. The dialogue must continue. A long-term diplomatic solution must be seriously considered. Superficial diplomacy is simply not an option. It must be seriously considered.

170 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Oct/18/22 11:16:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a very important discussion, but I find it disturbing that we are talking about supporting legitimate opposition in Russia when we have the Premier of Alberta spreading pro-Putin falsehoods and propaganda. She has claimed that Russia had a right to be upset with Ukraine, when we see mass murder, rape and killing, and the forcible annexation of Ukrainian territories. We have not heard a single Conservative in the House denounce this pro-Putin propaganda, so I would ask my colleague this. What does it say about our credibility of supporting opposition in Russia when we have pro-Putin propaganda right here in Canada? The silence from the Conservatives supporting Danielle Smith and her abhorrent comments is very concerning.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:17:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting point. I was not aware of Ms. Smith's comments, so I cannot speak to them. However, not every situation can be viewed through the same lens. There are two sides to every coin, and there are 360 degrees to consider in every situation. I think this situation must be examined as a whole. In a situation like this, there is probably no one who has not done something wrong once. It is more complex than that, and that is why I advocate for seasoned diplomats to take a hand, because they will be able to unravel this knotty problem.

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/18/22 11:18:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to pick up and follow the comments made by the member for Timmins—James Bay. The Conservative Party has been very clear in its support for Ukraine and in pushing the government to do more. Certainly, our focus is on federal politics and on Canada's need to engage internationally in a principled way when it comes to supplying the weapons that are required. I think the member for Timmins—James Bay should reflect on the failures of his own party in this respect. His party, from what I understand, continues to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament as a supposed solution to the international threats we have seen. Unilateral nuclear disarmament by NATO countries would leave us that much more vulnerable to threats and pressure from the Putin regime. We are having this discussion with the NDP through our colleague from the Bloc, which is a bit unfair to him in some ways, but I wonder if I could ask him to share his thoughts on the proposal of unilateral nuclear disarmament and what the impacts of that would be.

189 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:19:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would never presume to speak for the NDP member. I am unable to say such a thing. Nuclear disarmament must be considered. I think the nuclear threat is very real. It is vital to pay attention to the scope of the threats being made. We can see that as a deterrent, it is working, but there should be a dialogue between adults about this issue.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Oct/18/22 11:19:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. His speeches are always interesting and teach us something. The tone of his speech differs from some others we may hear in the House when there is disagreement. My colleague mentioned respect and dialogue. He also talked about the fact that the government primarily relies on communication and posts on various platforms to show that it is trying to do something about the war in Ukraine. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this. What constructive actions could the government take to show leadership as a G7 country, to resolve the conflict and end the war in Ukraine?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:20:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises an important point. There is a difference between communicating, that is, transmitting a message, and the language. The language helps add meaning to the story. I think there has been a lot of superficial diplomacy, just for show. Most countries do this, not just Canada. We need to engage in meaningful action and determine which direction we want to take so we can put it into words that actually mean something. Things are a bit blurry right now. The messages are often contradictory and incomplete. I feel that our diplomatic efforts are purely superficial and have no real impact. That is my opinion. I would therefore like us to distinguish between the communication tools we use every day and the language that would enable us to settle an impasse.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/18/22 11:21:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a follow-up question for my colleague on something he was discussing earlier. He was speaking about diplomacy and dialogue. At the same time, we know there are security threats to Canada that are associated with the presence of the Russian embassy here in Ottawa. There was an incident, for instance, where a bike painted with Ukrainian colours was in front of the Russian embassy and was destroyed by what appeared to be people with links to the Russian embassy. There are concerns about cybersecurity issues. There are concerns about other kinds of foreign influence operations that are likely being run out of that embassy. There is always a tension that I think we have to navigate: Are we open for potential discussion, or are we, at the same time, opening ourselves up to potential security threats when there is the presence of hostile actors in this country? I wonder what the hon. member's reaction—

161 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/18/22 11:22:35 a.m.
Watch

I need to give the hon. member time to answer. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has 20 seconds.

21 words

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:22:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a great country is known for its ability to take risks. This is a very real risk, but one that must be taken if we want to keep the lines of communication open. Right now, on Charlotte Street, the street signs near the Russian embassy read “Free-Libre Ukraine”, not the street names. This is clearly a provocation. However, I think a great country, a G7 country, must act and take these risks.

77 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Oct/18/22 11:23:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the great honour of splitting my time today with the member for Vancouver East. Today we have a concurrence debate, and we are talking about Ukraine, we are talking about Russia and we are talking about what more Canada can do to support the people of Ukraine and support the brave people in Russia who are valiantly trying to hold the line on the principles of democracy, the principles of human rights and the principles of international law in their country, which has very clearly been taken over by Vladimir Putin, who is of course not interested in any of those things. I want to start by telling members a bit about what I did last night. Last night, I had the great honour of joining my leader, the member for Burnaby South, in meeting with three remarkable individuals. One of those individuals was Irwin Cotler, who I know everybody in this House is well acquainted with. Another was Mr. Bill Browder, who many will know as the architect of the Magnitsky sanctions. He is a really remarkable human being who has done so much to protect those who have been illegally detained around the world. We also heard from Ms. Kara-Murza. Ms. Kara-Murza is the wife of detained political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza. She spoke of the pain she felt. She spoke of the challenges that she, her family and her three sons face. She spoke of her husband. One of the things she said to me was that he is a man of integrity and a man of brutal honesty and that his ethics are so strong. She made a little joke that it is not always easy to live with people like that, people who are so clear in their stance and their ethics. Ms. Kara-Murza told us about how hard it has been since he was imprisoned in Russia in April. This is a man who has been poisoned twice by the Russian Federation. It has attempted to murder him twice. He has undergone two assassination attempts while imprisoned in a Russian prison since April, because he condemned the illegal war and illegal genocidal invasion in Ukraine. I want to say his name in this place. One of the things that Ms. Kara-Murza, Professor Irwin Cotler and Mr. Bill Browder said to us is that we need to say his name because that protects him and makes it harder for the Russian Federation to murder him. I will take a moment in this House to say that name, and I hope everybody hears as I say it: Vladimir Kara-Murza. This is somebody who is fighting for democracy in this world. He has taken on risks. He has taken on incredible pain and suffering for himself and for his family as a fight for democracy. I do not know if any one of us in this room would be brave enough or strong enough to do what Vladimir Kara-Murza has done. I certainly hope we would be. We need to take a moment to honour him and honour what he has done for democracy, for the Russian people, for human rights and for the rule of law. While the motion deals a lot with protecting Russians, I think we can all agree that what is at the heart of this is the war in Ukraine. Similar to Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ukrainians are not just fighting for themselves. They are not just fighting for their own country. They are fighting for all of us. In the Journal of Democracy, David J. Kramer wrote, “The best hope for democracy in Russia—and all of Eurasia—is for the international community to support Ukraine in its efforts to defeat Vladimir Putin.” He went on: “Putin's fear of a successful, vibrant, democratic Ukraine on Russia's border is the real reason for the invasion. Nothing scares Putin more than for Ukraine to become a successful alternative model to the rotten, authoritarian system he oversees in Russia.” Mr. Putin's war is a proxy war. The real goal is not territory; the real goal is hegemony. It should be obvious to everyone now that Putin is waging war to stop democracy from advancing, and he threatens not only Ukraine, but all of Europe and all of us in the West as well. It is important to remember, and I think sometimes Canadians forget this, that Russia is, in fact, our neighbour. Of course, we live on a globe. I do not mean to trigger any of the flat-earthers out there, but Russia is our neighbour. We know Putin's war on democracy did not start with Ukraine and we know it will not end with Ukraine. Ukraine is one piece in this puzzle. We should not forget that Putin's first tactic has been to try to destabilize democracies across the world through disinformation to weaken our democratic institutions and systems first. His cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns in the U.S. are now coming to light. He has tried to attack Canada's elections, just as he did the U.S. election, and he continues to use these tactics in Europe and elsewhere. It is very important that all of us in Canada think about this. Last week, I met with progressive parliamentarians from around the world. I met with an MP, who has her home seven kilometres from the Russian border. While we often feel insulated in Canada and feel that this is not attacking us right now, the reality for that Finnish progressive member of Parliament is very different, and it is important that we keep that all in our minds. It is also important to recognize that we are not just talking about a war between armies. Putin's strategy has been, and continues to be, to attack civilians. His atrocious war crimes are on civilian targets, like theatres, hospitals and playgrounds. I know I have brought this up in the House before. I carry with me a piece of the shrapnel that a Ukrainian member of Parliament gave me, so I can remember what rips through the communities in Ukraine. This is not army to army. This is ripping through the community in which that MP and her eight year old. She travels around the world to ensure there is support for Ukraine. She has an app on her phone that tells her when that shrapnel is ripping through her community. When that happens, she phones to find out if her eight year old is all right. This is important for us to consider. It is important that everybody in the House and in our country stay firm in our support for Ukraine. That is not the case right now. I brought this up in the House yesterday, and I spoke to the media about this yesterday as well. Danielle Smith, the Conservative premier in my province, has said that Ukraine does not deserve to win this war, that it should bow down and that it should stop being supported. I have a big problem with that: I have not heard the leader of the official opposition condemn those comments. The Conservative premier is making these horrific and horrible comments, and I have not heard a single Conservative member condemn them. It would be very welcoming to hear that. I want to talk about the one thing that came up previously, and that is nuclear war. Unbelievably, a member of the Conservative Party just suggested that we should not be against nuclear war, that we, as a world, should not be against nuclear weapons. I, as a New Democrat, will always be against nuclear weapons, because when we do not prohibit nuclear weapons, the western world can be held over a barrel by any madman or genocidal maniac at any time. Very clearly, nuclear weapons need to be prohibited. I will stand by—

1335 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/18/22 11:33:17 a.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

12 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/18/22 11:33:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the manner in which the member has raised the issue of Vladimir Kara-Murza as a noteworthy individual. We should be stating his name, perhaps even in a wonderful unanimous consent motion. Maybe the member could possibly give that some consideration. I know how sensitive the NDP is on the environmental file. We were supposed to be debating Bill S-5 today. There were other opportunities in which this debate could have been facilitated. Could she comment on whether we are losing out because we are not debating this important legislation today?

97 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson

Oct/18/22 11:34:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There is just too little time in this place. What I have found, particularly during this session of Parliament, is that so many people are trying to obstruct us going forward, obstruct us in our work. For example, the foreign affairs committee has not been as effective and as transparent as it should be. The House of Commons cannot get important bills through, because there is so much obstruction. There needs to be a really concerted effort to actually get the important work that parliamentarians need to get done. I agree with my colleague that it is very important that we debate bills that are so vital to Canadians.

116 words

All Topics