44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 1:49:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that there were no questions and comments. My colleague gave an excellent speech, after all.
I happen to have the best speaking time, right before question period. I am pretty happy to have this time slot.
Since the war in Ukraine began, more than 7 million Ukrainians have had to leave their country, often leaving everything behind in the hopes of finding refuge elsewhere. In the host countries, most of the newly arrived refugees come from areas that have been seriously affected by the conflict. They often arrive in a state of distress and anxiety, worried about what lies ahead for their family members, whom they reluctantly left behind.
To help these families, Canada set up the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel. This program allows refugees to obtain a visitor's visa to come to Canada temporarily. Applicants can then obtain a work or study visa if they wish to remain in the country. However, the administrative delays seemed endless for families. I have often mentioned this in the House when asking questions of the hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. These delays were preventing Ukrainian refugees from entering the country. The minister and I had some pretty heated exchanges in the House, despite the fact that he ultimately intended to be collaborative.
More than a month after the war began, thousands of Ukrainians were still waiting for authorization for emergency travel to Canada. Once again, Canadian bureaucracy was slowing down the process. As I have often said, in my opinion, it was not because the minister lacked the will. I think the minister's will was definitely there.
Unfortunately, the problem at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is not the captain. The issue is with the boat, the vehicle. There is water in the gas tank and sand in the gears. We have all had to deal with cases like this in our constituencies. It is never the minister's will that is lacking, it is the actual structure of IRCC that needs to be reviewed on a number of levels.
Since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the Bloc Québécois has made many suggestions to quickly improve the plight of claimants, given the state of emergency. Fortunately, the government implemented some of them to more quickly welcome Ukrainian families to Canada. For example, the government lifted the requirement to collect biometric data for some population groups and it chartered flights. Unfortunately, it only chartered three flights. The provinces chartered more flights than the federal government. Once again, we can see the disconnect between the minister's will and the action that his department is taking.
It would have taken too long, because, let us be honest, when such a large military invasion occurs, it is not the time to fool around with paperwork. People need to get here as quickly as possible, without compromising their safety. Even if good measures were put in place, this once again shows that the government's response time is still much too slow in times of crisis.
The Bloc Québécois has suggested many times that the government create an emergency division at Citizenship and Immigration, a permanent emergency mechanism that would be triggered in the event of an international crisis, whether an armed conflict or a natural disaster. Having such an emergency mechanism would allow the government to intervene quickly as soon as a crisis leads to a flood of refugees, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan or the earthquake in Haiti. This mechanism would allow refugees to get help as soon as possible.
The Bloc Québécois's emergency division proposal included the implementation of a special emergency visa, the expansion of the sponsorship program and the partial lifting of biometric data collection requirements. Depending on the nature of the crisis, some levers would be automatically triggered. Depending on the context, others would not be used.
Again, it is too little, too late. The minister told me in committee that, after we made our proposal, he asked his officials to implement such a mechanism. That was in the fall and I have not heard any more about it since. I am quite curious to know where things stand.
What I notice about the government's management of humanitarian crises is how painfully slow it is. I am not alone in making this observation. Most of the people directly concerned, by which I mean the victims of this crisis, also think it is too slow.
However, Quebeckers, like Canadians, want Quebec and Canada to remain a land of refuge for people fleeing war, corruption—
797 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said, the best time to speak is just before oral question period.
What I was saying is that Quebeckers and Canadians want our country to continue welcoming people fleeing repression or intolerable humanitarian crises. I would like to think that this is the context for Bill S‑8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations.
Bill S‑8 is currently at third reading and has been studied and amended by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I had the opportunity to replace my Bloc Québécois colleague from Montarville on that committee and to work with my colleagues from other parties.
Members know that I am among those who believe that, despite differing ideas and political visions, most of the time collaboration helps parliamentary work. We witnessed that recently once again with Bill C‑41. It also demonstrates that despite sometimes having different, and even diametrically opposed, positions, we can work together and get things done. Our work is to find common ground. Everyone knows that politics is the art of compromise.
In short, it is this teamwork that will have helped improve the bill currently before us. I must recognize the remarkable work done by the committee and all the parties that came together to amend Bill S‑8 so that it would not undermine attempts by people who want to escape the war. That was the main objective. Let us not forget that one of the concerns of the organizations was that some people from a sanctioned country might not be able to seek refuge because of the new provisions in this bill.
Bill S‑8 also ensures that Canada meets its international obligations when it comes to welcoming refugees. This means that individuals targeted by a sanctions regime could claim asylum. However, they would not be able to receive permanent resident status as long as they remain targeted by a sanctions regime. Bill S‑8 therefore fixes the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. It also allows border officers to turn away individuals who would be targeted by a sanctions regime as soon as they arrive.
That correction is in line with the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which states that only convictions “by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime [or a crime which] constitutes a danger to the community of that country” are sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. I sense that people are interested in what I am saying.
The bill also now includes a provision that requires it to be reviewed after three years to determine its effectiveness, which is excellent news. That is a fine amendment that will enable us to make changes to the bill, if ever it were to have undesirable effects on certain refugee groups.
In short, it is a good bill that was improved by my colleagues from all parties in order to remedy the situation for certain asylum seekers. This bill will assure those who are fleeing war, corruption and oppression that it is indeed they that we intend to protect from armed conflicts, not those who instigate such conflicts. Those who violate human rights are not welcome in Quebec and Canada. In solidarity with our allies and out of aversion for warmongering regimes and organizations, the Bloc Québécois invites all parties to unanimously vote in favour of this bill so that Quebec and Canada are and remain welcoming nations for asylum seekers, and not safe havens for criminals.
In closing, I will repeat that we are here to do a job. When parties collaborate and move a bill in the right direction by working together, we, the parliamentarians, are judged by the people we represent. Our constituents must be thinking that, for once, parliamentarians are getting along and working together to improve bills for the well-being of the people of Canada, but also for the well-being of people coming from other countries who would like Canada and Quebec to become their new home.
I congratulate my colleagues once again. I want to highlight their work, and I believe that it should become a good example for other committees. It was a pleasure to rise today just before oral question period.
768 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:56:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He seemed quite calm when talking about this evening's debate. It is good to tone down the debate a little.
Before being elected, I worked in a pulp and paper mill. I followed the three-two-two-three model. I will explain. I worked three day shifts, had two days off, worked two night shifts, had three days off, worked three night shifts, had two days off, worked two day shifts and then had three days off. I worked weekends, nights and days. I worked at least 12 hours a day and sometimes 16.
Before that I worked on film sets. I worked all summer, 20 hours a day, on American sets. It never stopped. I am probably one of the few politicians here who sees more of his family after being elected. I must be one of the few, because I go home every weekend.
This motion is poorly drafted. The government did not come to see us. When considering changing the way Parliament works, the government must discuss it with all elected members. We are not necessarily against the hybrid model, but we were not consulted.
Here is my question: Why is it that, when they want to make such a big change to the way we do things and how Parliament works, they do not come to all the elected members of the House to discuss it and come up with proposals everyone can be okay with?
249 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:37:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we just witnessed an unfortunate exchange. There was a good question, but things took a turn and sank into partisanship. That would have just as easily happened in a hybrid Parliament as a normal Parliament but, unfortunately, my colleague's question did not get answered.
No one in the Bloc Québécois is opposed to a new form of hybrid Parliament. We have never said that. I repeat. Voting with the app makes things move faster. If someone is on Parliament Hill, they do not have to be in the House. Therefore, we can speed up the process since committees start earlier. There are advantages to a hybrid Parliament, but the format of this hybrid Parliament has not been discussed with all the opposition parties.
My colleague talked about democracy, the importance of democracy and the respect we must have for democracy, specifically in relation to a hybrid Parliament. Meanwhile, the other opposition parties have no say. I find that unfortunate.
There are people who will have to travel to their riding because of forest fires, for example. I know about that because that is relevant to me in my riding. My colleague is also affected in his riding. Of course we need to be there. There are people who will get sick. We have the technology so, of course, they can rely on the hybrid Parliament. All of that is true.
Now, the government's proposed changes to the rules require an opposition party to have 25 members rise in person to block a motion, under Standing Order 56.1(3). That is the entire NDP caucus. We know that the NDP already got a taste of this standing order when Thomas Mulcair was called to testify in committee on the use of satellite offices. The opposition has to give everything and the government does not even have to require its ministers to be in the House.
I am asking my colleague why we would accept such a motion without any discussion, when we could all provide our two cents' worth and come up with something quite a bit better than this motion.
It is important. It is about the work of Parliament. Parliament is the ultimate representation of Canadian democracy—and that is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. That is not nothing.
I am just asking my colleague if we can take the time to discuss this between us and come up with something much better than what is on the table today.
422 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:10:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we need to have healthy debate in the House. This evening, we are having a healthy debate. Since we are parliamentarians who respect our democracy, we will continue to have this type of calm, healthy debate.
Now, I am looking at what is happening today. This debate should have been held before the motion was moved. The member across the way gave us several examples to illustrate why we should adopt the motion on hybrid Parliament. In that case, why did the Liberals not explain, in the parameters of the motion, the situations where it would be appropriate to use the hybrid Parliament? For example, it could be for health reasons or family reasons.
Before being elected to the House, I worked at a pulp and paper mill. I also worked crazy hours on set. I was paid a quarter of what we get paid here. The people watching us on television are telling us to do our work the way we used to. Those who have health problems or family problems can use the virtual model, but we need to do our job.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on August 4, 2020, an explosion devastated the city of Beirut in a country already grappling with economic insecurity and a refugee crisis.
The explosion was caused by ammonium nitrate that was improperly stored. The blast rocked the entire city and destroyed the largest port in Lebanon, the country's main entry point for food imports.
Lebanese authorities rejected multiple judicial requests to lift parliamentary immunity and allow questioning of security officials. The government also failed to execute arrest warrants against a former minister. In February 2021, Judge Tarek Bitar was appointed to lead the investigation. According to a UN special rapporteur, he faced increasing obstacles and threats to carry out his work. Up until that point, no one had been tried for the August 2020 explosion, which 215 people dead, 6,000 injured and 300,000 displaced.
Earlier this year, to everyone's surprise, the lead judge decided to resume his investigation into the explosion despite enormous political pressure. Victims of the explosion and their families have been demanding justice for more than two years. In late January 2023, the judge in charge of the investigation defied the authorities by laying charges against Lebanon's top public prosecutor, a decision that was unprecedented in the country's history. Two senior security officials were also charged with homicide with probable intent.
Today, a large part of the population associates this tragedy with the corruption and negligence of the ruling class, which tried to put an end to the investigation to avoid charges. Since 2019, Lebanon has been plunged into an unprecedented socio-economic crisis largely associated with corruption and negligence on the part of the ruling class. Earlier this year, demonstrators blocked streets in Beirut and other cities to protest against deteriorating living conditions and the weakening of the Lebanese currency. The situation has only gotten worse.
Eighty-five kilometres north of Beirut, an ambitious architectural project is also falling into disrepair, a sign of the various governments' failure to properly manage the country for years, even decades. That does not inspire much hope. Fortunately, however, UNESCO urgently added the 70-hectare site between the historic centre of Tripoli and the Al Mina port to the List of Word Heritage in Danger.
To give a bit of history, in 1962, renowned Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer was mandated by the Lebanese government to design an international fair in Tripoli. The goal of the project was to put Lebanon on the world map and attract investors. Lebanon and Tripoli were confident in their future knowing that they had an inspirational heritage. The work began in 1964.
I know that people are wondering where I am going with this, but a connection will soon become apparent. The site for the international fair is gigantic. This complex was supposed to have an exhibition hall, three museums, an experimental theatre and an open air theatre. It was a massive undertaking. The purpose of this incomparably large site was to promote Lebanese culture and traditions to the world. In the end, the project was abandoned because of the civil war in Lebanon, which started in 1975. Since then, the buildings are no longer maintained.
Despite many efforts by architects and artists to draw the attention of the Lebanese authorities and the world to the importance of preserving this exceptional complex, today to some it has become a symbol of the failure of past government decisions and, of course, the unfulfilled dream of its architect, the Brazilian we were talking about earlier.
The place is huge, but mostly deserted. It is like stepping into a dream, far from the hustle and bustle of Tripoli, Lebanon's second-largest city. It is a grandiose place with a futuristic flair, yet little known outside its borders. Despite the lack of financial resources, despite the negligence of the Lebanese authorities, it remains standing, proud, a reflection of the people and of the MPs of Lebanese origin who sit here in the House. I want to mention the member for Edmonton Manning, who will speak after me, the member for Halifax West, who spoke earlier, and my great friend from Laval—Les Îles, whom I adore.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention my dear friend from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who has Lebanese roots. Despite all our differences of opinion and our political approaches, I can still tell when someone is proud. He stands up for his constituents, the people he represents. I want to recognize that tonight. He is even in the House tonight. I am pleased to say that.
Our colleague from Halifax West said it best when she pointed out the strength and resilience of the Lebanese community in the preamble of Bill C-268. The purpose of Bill S-246, which is before us this evening, is to encourage Canadians and Quebeckers of Lebanese origin “to promote their traditions and culture and share them”. If passed, this bill designates the month of November as Lebanese heritage month.
Of course I support this initiative. The Bloc Québécois will support it wholeheartedly. I hope that my colleagues from the other parties will do the same. I fail to see how anyone would not do the same. The month of November is very important to the culture of that country, particularly because it celebrates independence, which was recognized on November 22, 1936, and became effective in 1945, after the Second World War. Independence is important.
A nation's desire to protect and pass on its culture, traditions and characteristics alone is often the strongest incentive to achieving sovereignty. Like a flame, culture warms people's hearts in uncertain times like the ones people in Lebanon are currently facing. Culture gives a glimmer of hope to those who are suffering.
That is why, in this period of uncertainty that has been going on for far too long, I want to assure the people of Lebanon and citizens of Canada and Quebec—because one day Quebec will be independent—of Lebanese descent that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill and supports them in their desire to make their unique traditions and culture known in Quebec and Canada, the traditions and culture that they were able to protect by becoming independent.
I will close by saying this. Every time a people becomes independent, they become a model for nations that are also trying to protect their traditions and culture. The road to independence is long and often fraught with challenges. To quote one of the greatest actors that Quebec has ever known and who just happened to be my grandfather, despite everything, “Independence will always hold a place in our hearts, with luminous clarity. It is self-evident”.
I would say that Quebec is my only country, but the Lebanese can say that Lebanon is their only country.
1162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
