44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 11, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on Monday, June 5, be concurred in.
Today, I am seeking the agreement of the House on the 12th report of the justice committee, a report which condemns the violence of the Taliban regime, affirms that it is not the legitimate government of Afghanistan and expresses the belief that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization. This matter is particularly timely, for reasons that I will explain shortly.
As 2023 draws to a close, the world is seeing a proliferation of violent conflicts that merit our closer scrutiny. I will focus my remarks today mainly on Afghanistan, of course, but I do think the wider context is important to set out first.
The further invasion of Ukraine by Russia continues. We now see clear evidence that genocide and other war crimes have been perpetrated by the invading armies, at the direction and with the full support of the Putin regime. This regime practises the large-scale abduction of Ukrainian children, allows its soldiers to use sexual violence as a weapon of war and indiscriminately targets civilians for the purpose of inflicting maximal terror. For the residual “end of history” crowd, this war should have broken any remaining illusions about what kind of a world we are still living in.
This fall, the terrorist organization Hamas launched a horrific and unprecedented attack on Israel. Like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this attack by Hamas has included child stealing, sexual violence and the intentional targeting and terrorizing of civilians. Hamas did not act in isolation; it has received constant support from the terrorist IRGC, the Iranian regime's weapon of terror. The Iranian regime has long been recognized as a state sponsor of terror through its support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Syrian regime, Houthi rebels in Yemen, extremist militias in Iraq and others. The regime uses proxies in an attempt to shelter itself from direct retaliation, but we should be under no illusions about its responsibility.
When it comes to war and terrorism, at least in the Middle East, all roads lead back to Tehran, and this is a key reason Conservatives have long called for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, particularly since the House of Commons adopted my motion calling for that listing more than five years ago. The Iranian regime is committing grotesque atrocities in its attacks against Israelis and others that parallel the atrocities that the Russian regime is responsible for. These two regimes have been steadily increasing their co-operation, sharing technology and offering each other various other forms of strategic support.
Meanwhile, the people of Burma are fighting for their freedom. Following a military coup, the dissident democracy movement has established effective dissident institutions and strengthened itself through growing ethnic reconciliation efforts that include the long-persecuted Rohingya people. Burma's democratic forces are facing the illegitimate coup leaders in the Tatmadaw that occupies their capital, and the Tatmadaw is increasingly escalating its atrocities, also targeting women, children and civilians in general. The Tatmadaw, the military that claims but does not effectively control the territory or exercise legitimate sovereignty over Burma, is also collaborating with the Putin regime, sharing weapons and technology, and allowing it to avoid western sanctions.
I met recently with leaders from various communities in Central and South America to talk about human rights issues here in our hemisphere, and it was a strikingly familiar message: persistent abuse of human rights by authoritarian regimes, this time with roads leading back to Havana, including the targeting of civilians and escalating co-operation between the Cuban and Venezuelan regimes, on the one hand, and the governments of Russian and Iran, on the other. One demonstration of this growing association is that Cuba is actually sending soldiers to fight for Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. It is, I think, not nearly widely known enough that Cuba is effectively participating in sending its own soldiers into Russia's genocidal invasion. The Government of Venezuela is now threatening its neighbour Guyana, holding a sham referendum recently to justify potential aggression. The Maduro regime is further stepping up its pressure on its neighbour after the discovery of additional oil reserves in Guyanese territory.
There are Russia, Iran, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, and to this list we could add others, such as North Korea, Eritrea and, most critically, the Government of the PRC. The Communist regime in Beijing controls the world's most populous nation and second-largest economy, and this regime is working overtime to overturn the concept of a democratic rules-based order and replace it with a dynamic in which oppressed domestic populations and vulnerable neighbours can be threatened and dominated at will by regimes whose only necessary justification is power.
The free and democratic nations that uphold doctrines of universal human rights rooted in universal human dignity must struggle, and struggle successfully, against this emerging axis of revisionist imperialist authoritarian powers. We must struggle for the rule of law and for the greater recognition of universal human rights against these powers and principalities for whom the exercise of raw power requires no moral justification. This is the new cold war. The string of events that we see around the world are not random, unrelated occurrences. They are not simply a collection of bad coincidences. They are, rather, the result of strategic co-operation among nations that want a different future for the world than the free and democratic future that we desire for our children and grandchildren.
Struggling successfully in this new cold war requires us to invest in our military, to build up our munitions productions capacity, to support people who are fighting for their own freedom around the world, to decisively isolate terrorist organizations, to stand with our allies and to strategically engage the swing states of the 21st-century global conflict through strengthening trade and other forms of partnership with the global south. We must do these things, and we must do them persistently over time. Lifting the new iron curtain will require a renewed iron will.
In these challenging times, I believe we can prevail, but I do not believe we will prevail necessarily. We will prevail if and only if we make the smart decisions that are required to defend our security interests and our way of life. Fancy socks, photo ops and cuts to our military are not going to help us in the midst of this new cold war. Serious times require serious leaders. Our country needs true statesmanship. It needs a will to confront hard truths in the pursuit of a more just, human and democratic victory.
Afghanistan is one more front in this global struggle. In the fall of 2021, a little over two years ago and before many other aspects of this escalating cold war had taken place, Afghanistan was abandoned by the west and then overrun by the Taliban, an internationally recognized terrorist group. The western pullout from Afghanistan was not the result of battlefield defeats. Rather, it was the result of that pernicious virus in which foreign policy debates in the democratic world seem uniquely susceptible: fatigue. Many of us are too optimistic in wishing to believe that our struggles for freedom and justice will be quick and easy. We react to initial needs with eagerness, but our interest tapers off as the events in question are no longer in the news. Eventually, people start to ask themselves, “Why is that still going on? Is that thing over there still happening?” Fatigue in foreign policy explains the odd habit among free nations of sometimes abandoning a task when it is almost complete. While it may be psychologically understandable, this is strategically inexplicable, allowing the reversal of critical gains at the point at which most of the work has, in fact, already been done.
In Afghanistan, by the time of the pullout, the Afghan army was able to fight back against the Taliban with relatively limited western air support. Far from constituting a forever war, limited backup support at a relatively low cost was sustaining the Afghan army and the Afghan government. In a sense, the task was almost complete. The Afghans were fighting for their own future in circumstances that required some, but limited, western support. Arbitrarily pulling these last elements of western support created a hole in the dam, and the Taliban flooded in.
Free peoples must not allow themselves to be overcome by fatigue when steadfastness and strategic patience can instead finish the job. If we needed to learn that lesson again, I hope we apply it in today's ongoing struggles in other places. Our strategic foes in every part of the world, particularly in the Kremlin, hope that we will be overcome by fatigue and abandon our posts in more countries, opening the door to the further expansion of injustice and tyranny.
The invocation of fatigue is particularly striking to me when used to explain the behaviours of countries or individuals not actually involved in or doing the fighting, which was the position of many countries by 2021. Even countries that were involved were committing far fewer troops than many other theatres around the world. If some felt fatigue about the length of the conflict in Afghanistan, or if we feel fatigue today because of how long the war has gone on in Ukraine, then imagine how the people of Afghanistan and Ukraine felt and feel. If they, in the midst of the intensity and violence of their struggles, are prepared to persist in their own bloody fights for their freedom, then the least we can do is have their back. If we needed to learn again about the dangers of this so-called fatigue, then I hope Afghanistan has taught us well. Afghanistan was abandoned, so fell to the complete control of a terrorist organization. This terrorist organization, though having its own particular genesis and ideological orientation, has unsurprisingly fallen quickly into partnership with the world's authoritarian block.
The motion before us is timely because the Taliban's ambassador has just been accepted and received in Beijing, as both sides cultivate ties with each other based on shared antipathy toward the west, shared disdain for international human rights norms and a narrow calculation of immediate interests. Formally speaking, it does not make sense that an ostensibly Muslim organization would aggressively court a regime currently committing genocide and seeking to replace in their homeland the Muslim Uyghur people, but the new cold war reality is one in which authoritarian powers notionally conflicting ideologies co-operate against the west, not for ideology but for power.
The temporary loss of Afghanistan to this authoritarian block has been a significant setback, but on this side of the House, we believe the west must remain resolute in its support for the Afghan people and its recognition that they desire and deserve that their freedom and democracy be restored. If we accept Taliban control of Afghanistan, if we accede to this violent takeover, then we would be leaving the Afghan people to a fate we would never contemplate for ourselves. The Afghan people around the world are now mobilizing to challenge the Taliban in all domains. Democratic nations should be prepared to pursue strengthened dialogue and collaboration with democratic opposition and resistance groups, working to keep the dream alive.
Authoritarian regimes are often weaker than they appear. The nature of repressive regimes is that evident elements of weakness cannot be discussed directly by those who can see them most clearly, which is why predicting the moment of their fall is always very difficult.
Without popular legitimacy, these regimes are brittle and can disintegrate unexpectedly. Bringing about that disintegration requires supportive engagement with democratic opposition groups and unrelenting pressure on the regime.
At this time, the House must consider what we can meaningfully do to promote democratization in a place like Afghanistan. It seems that often in these sorts of situations, we perceive a binary choice that is in fact a false choice. In the aftermath of 9/11, democracy promotion was discussed particularly in terms of western military action. The sense was that if the west wanted to promote democracy, that involved directly pushing the advancement of democracy through military action. Of course, that approach was very costly.
Critics of this approach have posited as the primary alternative a complete “live and let live” approach, leaving in place anti-democratic regimes, tolerating them, engaging with them, and naively seeking the kind of close relations that make us vulnerable to strategic trade disruption and foreign interference.
Importantly, there are many other alternatives for dealing with regimes we do not like, besides the extremes of military intervention or complete tolerance. We can, instead, pursue policies of non-interventionist intolerance. That is, we can firmly oppose anti-democratic regimes at the diplomatic level, especially in international forums. We can use terrorist listing, sanctions and other tools to punish bad actors, and we can structure our trade relations to avoid situations of strategic vulnerability for us while seeking to deprive our adversaries of the material capacity to oppose us. We can also support opposition and civil society groups. This combination creates many points of pressure on anti-democratic regimes, pressure that makes them less sustainable over time.
The shock and awe of direct external military intervention produces quick, though not always durable, results. Sustained pressure, non-interventionist intolerance, takes time. It seeks to tip the scales as much as we can toward freedom and democracy, acknowledging that we in the west do not have limitless capacity to change the world, but we do have some capacity to change the world. This strategy seeks to use the capacity that we have in ways that are prudent and effective.
Strategic and financial pressure does not usually have a predictable timeline associated with it, but it produces results when the combination of external and internal pressure becomes too much for the regime to hold. This strategy has a good track record. It is, after all, what won us the last Cold War, when the free democratic world finally developed the necessary clarity and resolve to squeeze the Soviet empire and bring about its disintegration. Such success was possible, though it was never inevitable. It required investment, discipline and confidence over time. The same will be required to achieve victory in this cold war.
During the French Revolution, the great Admiral Horatio Nelson said, of England's relations with the revolutionary and violent French Republic, “although we might one day hope to be at peace with France, we must ever be at war with French principles.” He meant that, of course, in the context of the revolution.
A similar situation should prevail today as it relates to the Taliban. Although we are not at war with the Taliban, we are at war with Taliban principles. We oppose the things they stand for and we oppose normalization. In a world that is more interconnected than ever, normalization of relations with extremist terrorist groups obviously makes us more vulnerable. Normalization undermines the efforts of opposition groups and effectively provides terrorist organizations with more resources that they can use against us and against their own people.
A policy of sustained pressure on the Taliban and on other bad actors aligns with the aspirations of the Afghan people and of all people everywhere. The greatest strategic advantage that free democracies have is that they are offering a system that the people living in countries controlled by our strategic adversaries actually want. Sustained pressure is not going to impose change from outside. It will rather create the conditions that allow the Afghan people to eventually seize control of their own destiny once again.
In the meantime, we must also maintain and strengthen engagement with the Afghan people in other ways, including through looking for innovative tools to provide information and education to people living inside Afghanistan who are barred from attending school. I know all members are horrified by the policies of gender apartheid that are in place in Afghanistan and that prevent girls from going to school. We need to be thinking more creatively about unconventional tools for delivering education and other forms of information to people living in repressive contexts. There are many ways to deliver education outside of a traditional classroom context, ways that are harder for the Taliban or other repressive authorities to interrupt. This is how we must stand with and continue to support the Afghan people.
It is important to add that we are having this debate in a context where the government has been extremely weak on the listing of terrorist organizations in general. Up until now, the Liberal position has remained to support the continuing listing of the Taliban as a terrorist organization, which is good, but Liberals have refused to follow the direction of the House to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization and to list the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization.
These organizations, instruments of terror for the Iranian and Russian regimes respectively, belong on our terror list. The selective listing of terrorist organizations undermines the whole endeavour. All terrorist organizations should be listed as such. Listing these organizations as terrorist entities would shut down their operations in Canada. It would prevent them from operating, fundraising and recruiting here on Canadian soil.
The government has refused to shut down Iranian and Russian regime-backed terrorists by listing these entities. We will continue to push it to add these organizations to the terrorist list and shut down their operations here in Canada. I proposed Bill C-350, a bill that would list the IRGC and take additional measures to support victims of torture, terrorism and extrajudicial killing. We have tried to advance that bill, but the Liberals have twice blocked it from advancing. We will continue to fight to move it forward.
In the time I have remaining, I have one additional observation that I want to make about the current debates happening throughout North America in the context of this new cold war.
Sometimes in the face of authoritarian threats, we in the west have a strange habit of trying to identify authoritarian regimes as “right” or “left”. One dictatorship is deemed “rightist” and another is deemed “leftist”, even if the regimes in question are doing essentially the same things for essentially the same reasons. Efforts to code authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorships as representing either the left or the right, in terms of western democratic political understanding of these terms, miss the more essential point that these ideologies share the essential points in common and always stand far apart from the democratic values embraced by the west.
The coding of foreign dictatorial regimes as “left” or “right” generally reflects their own attempts at self-justification. Regimes that more frequently invoke the iconography of religion and tradition tend to be coded as “right”. Regimes that more frequently speak in terms of workers or equality tend to be coded as “left”. It is not entirely arbitrary how this coding emerges, but it still obscures the fact that these regimes do the same things to their people, work together on common anti-western projects and change the nature of their self-justification when it is convenient.
The Communist regime in Beijing is notionally a left-coded regime, because it calls itself Communist and it is increasingly reintroducing education and discussion about Marxism, but it also increasingly uses Confucian language and icons to justify its rule and promotes a kind of ethnonationalism alongside Marxism. The CCP acts through party committees at big corporations. All of these characteristics underline the problem of identifying it or trying to label it as being of the left or of the right.
Let us consider another example. The regime in Russia is frequently seen as “right” and the regime in Cuba is frequently seen as “left”. Canadian Liberals, who rightly oppose the regime in Moscow, preserve a soft spot for the regime in Havana. Our own Prime Minister shamefully described Castro as “larger than life leader who served his people”. Not only do the Russian and Cuban regimes deploy similar methods, but they are actively collaborating in the invasion of Ukraine. As mentioned, there are Cuban soldiers directly involved in the invasion of Ukraine. Calling one extreme “left” and the other extreme “right” just does not make much sense, given their common approach and collaboration. These are merely choices of the regime to justify itself in the terms it finds most convenient.
Our position, on this side of the House, is that we should, always and everywhere, condemn these extreme statist totalitarian regimes, whether they wear the clothes of the right or the clothes of the left, whether they wear a bit of each or whether they change their clothes from time to time. On this side of the House, we stand for freedom and democracy, always and everywhere, and we stand against authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships regardless of how they code their politics. We are uniquely consistent on this point.
To my friends in other democracies, it is important to underline that the Putin regime is an authoritarian dictatorship, strongly opposed to our values and our interests, working closely with the regimes in Havana and Tehran and backed up by the CCP. We cannot fight half the cold war. There is no sense in opposing our strategic foes in one theatre while ignoring their advances in another. These are not different fights; these are different parts of the same fight, and we must look squarely on that challenge and face it to preserve the future that we want for our children and grandchildren.
This is why Canadian Conservatives will always stand for freedom. We will stand for freedom here at home, and we will stand for freedom abroad. We will stand for freedom in Afghanistan, and we will stand for freedom in Ukraine. We stand for freedom, always and everywhere.
3716 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:39:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this very important debate, considering the travesty that is going on in Afghanistan, in particular against women and girls. Reports are coming out, as recently as today, talking about the 1.7 million foreigners in Pakistan they are looking to push back to where they came from. This in particular has a huge impact on women and girls who are from Afghanistan, including those who were the breadwinners in their families, such as widows who lost their husbands during the conflict and who worked when they were allowed to work during the west's intervention. Now, to quote their words, they are saying, “We will be eliminated if we return to Afghanistan.”
What can the member add about the importance of the west's continued participation in standing up against these autocratic regimes around the world? At the same time, can he address the fatigue he talked about and how it requires that long-term sort of thinking in order for us to continue to support those who need our support around the globe?
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:43:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the House of Commons standing orders provide various opportunities for the government to put forward its legislative agenda, and they also provide various opportunities for opposition members to put forward ideas for debate that are priorities for them and their constituents.
The way the schedule works on Mondays is that we have an hour for Private Members' Business, the government has available two hours for Government Orders and then we have Routine Proceedings, which is a time when members can move motions and table petitions. I could go through all the mechanics of that, but the hon. member knows them well. He knows that concurrence motions and debates are part of the process.
Fundamentally, this is an extremely important issue. There are Afghan Canadians and people of goodwill around the world who I know are watching this debate and are interested in the outcome of this debate, because they are concerned with the cause of freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Afghanistan. This is not about raising that issue only but about raising the broader issues of this new cold war we are in and the lessons we can learn from what happened in Afghanistan for other situations.
I think this is an extremely important issue to be raised in the House of Commons. It is the right place to debate it. It is the right time to debate it. I certainly will make no apologies for putting that idea forward at this time.
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:09:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the member is prepared to give me leave, I would be more than happy to ensure the balance is as relevant as can be.
I want to finish up on my point about the leader of the official opposition's office and the way in which, in looking at this particular motion of concurrence today, it determined that this was more important. Afghanistan, the harms that have taken place and Canada's role in Afghanistan are the things the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to talk about today, as opposed to the government legislation that dealt specifically with the issues of the day.
If I were to provide comment on Afghanistan, I could go from 2001 to 2014, when Canada pulled out its troops. The year 2014 was a pivotal time, as was 2001, when the decision was made by Jean Chrétien to stay out of Iraq and to contribute to Afghanistan and what was taking place there. We have many individuals in our caucus who are accepting of issues such as women's rights and education for children. I would suggest they are universally accepted. Many Canadian values that we fought for in Afghanistan are things the Taliban is absolutely opposed to; there is no doubt that we are very serious about Afghanistan. Canada has a strong leadership role to play, not only in Afghanistan but around the world, and there is a time and place.
I would suggest that this is not the time for this debate. We should be debating the issues Canadians are wanting to see debated—
268 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:20:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to answer the member's question, and then I am going to ask him a favour.
The reason we are debating this and why it is so important for this to be debated today, as I read in my previous intervention, is that women who are stuck in Pakistan and are being forced to return to Afghanistan will be eliminated. Those are their words, not mine.
There are a number of Afghans who are supposed to come to Canada as part of the programs that were put in place along with the SIM program. We are now hearing rumours that the program is frozen and people's application processes are not being moved forward. Canada said it was going to help these people. There are lots of Afghans, whom I know personally and through my connections, who are still stuck in Afghanistan, and now they are in limbo.
We are also coming up on the one-year anniversary of one of the former Afghan women MPs being murdered by the Taliban regime. We have had an all-party team working for over a year, and how many of those women MPs are here?
I ask the member to use his influence as a parliamentary secretary to ensure these Afghans, especially these Afghan women and children, are given the opportunity to get to Canada and are not frozen in limbo where they face certain death if they get sent back to Afghanistan.
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:21:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate member's mentioning the contributions to the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, and all those who have served. There are about 40,000 Canadian soldiers that were there, from what I understand.
If the Conservative Party really felt this was the type of debate that should be taking place, it could do it through a take-note debate or an emergency debate. There are different forms that would have enabled the debate to take place. The member himself could have been speaking to this and introducing it. That might have given it a bit more credibility.
There is absolutely no doubt that we, as a government, had no idea the opposition was going to be bringing forward this concurrence debate. That is why I believe this is another example of the Conservatives using concurrence motions as a way to frustrate government legislation.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here debating an important motion about human rights in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover. A couple of members have said we should not be debating this. We do not need to be debating this for the full three hours. Those members have proceeded to give lengthy speeches on the subject. Of course, those members know the process is if they think it should maybe collapse on an item, then the most effective way they bring about that result is by not speaking to it. I am referring in particular to my friend across the way from Winnipeg North.
My friend from the Bloc, of course, found ways of connecting all kinds of other issues into the discussion, as sometimes happens in this place, but I do want to ask him a question about Afghanistan. I would like to hear his views on what we in Canada can do to concretely promote democratic development in Afghanistan. I think some people look at the situation and they feel a certain kind of fatalism. I believe there are still things we can do and we need to do to stand with the people of Afghanistan, that we cannot give up on the cause of freedom and democracy.
What does he think that Canada can concretely do to support the people of Afghanistan in their desire to realize democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law?
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
I think a lot more needs to be done. One of the things we could do, and this has already been proposed at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which I am a part of, is not put a cap on the number of Afghan immigrants we welcome. The special measures program for Afghan refugees currently plans to welcome 40,000 Afghans.
Everyone agreed in committee. At least, the opposition parties did. The motion was moved by the NDP, and the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois supported it. The Liberals were somewhat receptive.
Earlier, my colleague talked about female members of Afghanistan's parliament whom we have been trying to evacuate from that country for a year. We have worked very hard together on that file, but it is still not resolved. We think that the government is too slow to bring these people to safety on Canadian or Quebec soil.
Once they are here, these people could use their voice because they are the best people to restore democracy in Afghanistan. We must help them come here so that they can be safe and deliver their speeches and be heard internationally. That is how they could help their country.
That is one way to help rebuild democracy in Afghanistan and ensure that the Taliban leaves the region for once and for all. I think that is one possible solution.
251 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague and hear his thoughts. We are in this place right now having this debate. We were not told that this was coming. This has been a bit of a surprise for us. We are trying to think of ways that we could help the people of Afghanistan. I do not think there is a single person in this place who does not think that we should do everything we possibly can, particularly for the women and girls of Afghanistan.
I have to say, though, that I have the list here of the votes that we had over the 30-some hours that we stayed in the House voting because the Conservative Party thought that was a useful thing to do. While they are here telling us that it is vitally important that we support Afghanistan, three times for millions of dollars they voted against supporting international development and foreign affairs efforts. On one hand they are taking away the money that people in Afghanistan need. In Afghanistan right now, we have people who are severely food insecure, who need help, yet we have the Liberals with Bill C-41 making it very difficult to deliver that aid, and we have the Conservatives literally voting to stop it. In fact, they ran in the last election on cutting foreign aid by 25%. How do—
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place and represent the good people of Edmonton Strathcona.
This is a concurrence debate. We were unaware that this was coming, and so I am going to talk a little bit from the heart and tell members a few of the things that I have been thinking about, now knowing that we are to debate this motion.
As we all know in this place, in 2021, Kabul fell and the Taliban took over Afghanistan. I do not think that any one of us can really understand the horrific consequences that had on women and girls in Afghanistan and what that shift, that change, means to women and girls in Afghanistan who had been given hope for so many years, because there was the possibility for them to go to school, and for them to be teachers, doctors, lawyers or members of Parliament. The women were able to participate in their culture and their country, but in 2021, that was all taken away from them.
I have been working with members across the floor. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound mentioned earlier that we have a cross-party group that is trying desperately to help some of those women MPs get to safety. It is unbearable how slow it is. One of the worst days I have had as a parliamentarian was waking up and finding out that one of those members of Parliament had been murdered. I know that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound feels the same as me. I know that all of us in this place are absolutely horrified that these people have not been able to be brought to safety, and so we are continuing to work with civil society, and we are continuing to work across aisles to make sure that we can bring these women to safety.
I also want to tell a bit of a positive story as well, because we often talk about women and girls in Afghanistan and the burden, trauma and absolute horror that they are facing. It has literally been described as one of the worst places on earth to be female. When I am in my riding I like to talk to classes. I think talking to students about democracy and how to be involved in democracy is very important. I think it is a big part of my job. I was a teacher before I was a politician. I was talking to a grade 6 class about how devastating it is that education had been taken away from women and girls in Afghanistan, and a little girl in the front row put up her hand and told me that she was from Afghanistan. She had gotten out of Afghanistan and come to Canada. She was in the front row, and she was studying. She was in school, and she was learning. It is stuff like this that makes me think that we have to fight so much harder.
I have a dear driver, a lovely guy, and his daughter is from Afghanistan. She came to the House last week and spent some time with us here. She sat and watched question period. I hope we were all behaving, although I must say I doubt it. However, it is a pretty important thing to know that there are girls and women from Afghanistan who are getting that education. It means a lot to me.
I do think that it is important that this place be seized with what we can do to help women and girls in Afghanistan. I do think that it is important that we talk about foreign issues and that we talk about humanitarian support. Canada is not playing the meaningful role it needs to play. We have not lived up to our obligations. We have not lived up to our reputation. We have not lived up to what we should do. Our ODA is extraordinarily low.
We are really good at saying things like “We have a feminist international assistance policy”, but we are not very good at actually implementing it. This government loves to tap its chest and say that it is a feminist government. In fact, government members keep telling us that there is a feminist foreign policy, although nobody has ever seen it.
The fact of the matter is, if we are going to be a country with a feminist international assistance policy, which I fully support and in fact I helped write the policy before I was elected, then we need to stand up for women and girls, and that does not just mean in concurrence debates. It does not just mean that when the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan decides he wants to mess with what is going on in the House he can call a concurrence debate and cry crocodile tears for Afghan women and girls.
He did not vote last week to support international development spending; he voted three times to not support international development spending. The Conservative members voted three times to not provide support for women and girls around the world. Folks have been talking to us today about the reproductive rights of women and girls. We know that, under Stephen Harper, the Conservatives cut that completely out of international development funding. I can tell the House something right now: When support for abortion is cut, it does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion, and people die.
When I asked to do a study on women's rights in the international human rights subcommittee, the Conservative member from Peace River who sits on the committee said he was not interested in doing a study on the rights of women but would be more than happy to do a study on the rights of the preborn, not women who have been born, not women who are in our world who are struggling, but the preborn.
We all know what this is about; it is about the Conservatives' trying to change the channel from their appalling voting record. It is all about the fact that they are trying to change the channel from the fact that they voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, voted against Operation Unifier and voted against support for Ukraine. My goodness, Conservatives voted against the human rights museum. Honestly, who does that?
I was at home this weekend. It was my son's 16th birthday, and I would like to have the indulgence of the House to wish my son a very happy 16th birthday. I was sitting with my family, and members may be surprised to learn that my family is very non-political. None of them can really understand why they have a member of Parliament in the family. We are not one of those families. They all asked me about the nonsense in the House. They wanted to know what that nonsense was, when members had to sit here for 30 hours. I told them they would not believe it, but it cost $2 million for the Conservatives to do the little fundraising kerfuffle that they thought was so important. They asked me whether the Conservatives thought it was a good use of time and whether they thought it was what Canadians want from their politicians. Today is a great day for me, because New Democrats got dental care for Canadians. The Conservatives got a concurrence debate on an issue that their voting record shows they do not even care about. There is where we are at, folks.
Let us talk a little about some of the issues with regard to Afghanistan. I can talk about international development, foreign affairs and international humanitarian law all day, and I am happy to do it. At the initial time when we heard we were doing a concurrence debate, it was going to be about Bill C-41, or the aid to Afghanistan bill. Of course, the Conservatives must have made a mistake, because they do not actually care what they are bringing forward to the House. They are just trying to come up with something they could throw up as a shield. They got the wrong bill and the wrong concurrence motion. Then we had to sort of change direction a little. However, since they had initially wanted us to talk about Bill C-41, I am game. I am keen to talk about Bill C-41, which the the NDP could not support. We were the only party in the House that did not vote for the bill, because it was such a flawed piece of legislation.
Let me explain a little. International humanitarian law exists in the world, and it is very clear that organizations working on international humanitarian efforts have certain protections so they can do that work. These are the people we ask to go into the world, into the most dangerous, most heartbreaking situations that we have on the globe. They do that so they can bring food, shelter and life-saving humanitarian aid. There are international humanitarian law standards in place. Instead of using those standards the way that Australia, Europe, the U.S. and all sorts of countries did, the Liberal government found a weird convoluted route whereby it was kind of like one had to opt out. One is a terrorist until one opts out; this is basically how it works. One has to get a special pass to give humanitarian assistance.
We were able to get some carve-outs through the legislation. We were able to get some of that to work, but I sat in the committee meetings and can tell members that the people who wrote the legislation, and the members of those committees, do not understand how international development works. It does not happen in a sterile environment. It does not start on day one and end on day 12. It is not as definable as that.
The legislation that was put in place is very problematic. In fact, an article that came out on the CBC says that aid groups still say that Ottawa is hampering work in Afghanistan. We started asking for the legislation in 2021. It took years for flawed legislation to come forward. I do not know how many times I stood in the House and asked questions about it. The legislation is still not working; it is still not acting properly. Organizations are still not able to deliver the aid. Realistically, if the Conservatives actually cared about the people of Afghanistan and about getting support to Afghans, they would be more concerned about making sure that the legislation is fixed. World Vision's policy director Martin Fischer says that he is “frustrated and bewildered” that the process is taking so long. He says, “It's hard to understand why the machinery of government is having a hard time putting in place what should be a pretty straightforward...process.” The legislation is still not working. The aid is still not getting to Afghanistan.
As I mentioned it earlier, the Liberals, who have the lowest ODA, or official development assistance, that we have ever had in this country and who are abdicating their responsibility under a feminist foreign policy and a feminist international assistance policy, have brought forward legislation that is overly bureaucratic, is overly problematic and does not work. On the other side, we have the Conservatives, who, frankly, if one were to listen to them, probably do not like women very much.
This is where we are at with that. When I talk about—
1948 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:12:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, it is pretty baffling that Conservatives would have voted against international development and foreign affairs. They voted against the support for gender equity work that was being proposed. All of these things are a clear indication to me that this is simply an attempt to weaponize debate in the House. As a tool to do that, they are using the pain and suffering of women and girls in Afghanistan. It is absolutely appalling.
I hope anyone watching recognizes that this is not about helping people in Afghanistan, but about preventing the Government of Canada and Parliament from getting supports to Canadians. The reason for that is the Conservative Party is more interested in power than it is in getting supports for Canadians.
Today, the NDP got dental care for Canadians, and I am so utterly proud. The Conservatives cannot tell me one single thing that they have gotten for Canadians.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:15:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the agenda today. The bill that was to be debated is one that all parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Liberals, already voted in favour of at second reading. It is also time allocated, so this concurrence debate is not slowing down the passage of that bill.
However, this concurrence debate does give members, including the member for Edmonton Strathcona, a chance to talk about the horrific circumstances of women and girls in Afghanistan and the government's lack of response, the government's failing of those women and girls in Afghanistan and the specifics of this report, which calls for the continued criminalization of the Taliban and non-recognition of it as a government. I wonder if she could spend some of the time left to talk about those failings of the government to protect women and girls in Afghanistan.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:18:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was a little aghast at some of my colleague's comments, but she must realize we are actually in the opposition here. Our job is to oppose, and we did oppose many measures that were brought forward in the estimates. We went for a full night of voting against those because Canadians want the government to change. Canadians know the government has no concept of the affordability challenges they are facing, so I will defend us voting against all of those measures.
I will ask her, because she is not opposing the government at this point in any way whatsoever, how in the current debate she can support a government that opportunistically went into an election in 2021, at the very point when Afghanistan was falling. We could have saved so many of our people who helped us in Afghanistan, including women and girls who are no longer getting an education because of the government's actions. How does she continue that support?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:21:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after the marathon 30 hours of voting in this House on Friday and taking a break for just over 14 hours, I was at an event organized by Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan and University Women Helping Afghan Women to commemorate Human Rights Day. The event was also part of the 16 days of activism against gender violence. At this event, four accomplished Afghan women, all newcomers to Ottawa, talked about their experiences throughout both Taliban regimes.
A few weeks back, I hosted a meeting of over 60 Afghan Canadian community leaders in Ottawa and listened to their issues here and back in Afghanistan. I am regularly in touch with Shahr Hazara of One Afghan Woman Foundation, Tahir Shaaran of Canadian Hazara Advocacy Group, community leaders like Amin Karimi and many others who have been highlighting the challenges faced by the Hazara community in Afghanistan. I was also at a fundraising event organized by Madina Mashkoori and her team at Afghan Student Association raising money for the earthquake victims in Afghanistan.
The Taliban's actions have inflicted untold suffering upon the people of Afghanistan, undermining fundamental human rights and perpetuating a reign of terror. Let me first address the Taliban's abhorrent system of gender discrimination. Under its rule, women have been subjected to unspeakable oppression and denied the most basic rights that every human being deserves. They have been deprived of education, employment and the freedom to make choices about their own lives.
The Taliban's draconian interpretation of sharia law has systematically relegated women to second-class citizens, stifling their potential and relegating them to a life of subservience. This blatant gender discrimination is a gross violation of human rights and an affront to the principles of equality and dignity.
Moreover, the Taliban's systemic violence targeting minority communities is reprehensible. Ethnic and religious minorities in Afghanistan have faced targeted persecution, discrimination and brutal attacks at the hands of the Taliban. Their fundamental rights have been trampled upon and their very existence threatened by the Taliban's agenda of oppression and marginalization. This flagrant disregard for the rights of minorities is utterly unacceptable and must be vehemently condemned.
I will talk about the Hazara community in a moment. The reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces further highlight the Taliban's disregard for human rights and the rule of law. Individuals who dedicated themselves to the protection of their country and its people are now facing retaliation and violence simply for their service. This betrayal of those who stood to defend their nation is a despicable act that must not go unnoticed or unchallenged.
Equally concerning is the Taliban's assault on freedom of the press. Journalists and media personnel have been targeted and silenced, their voices stifled to prevent the dissemination of truth and information. A free press is the cornerstone of democracy and the Taliban's efforts to muzzle it represent a direct attack on the principles of transparency, accountability and the right to information.
In the face of these egregious violations of human rights and the rule of law, I firmly believe that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization. Its history of brutality, repression and violence against innocent civilians cannot be overlooked or forgiven. To legitimize or normalize its control would be a betrayal of our commitment to upholding universal human rights and would send a dangerous message to oppressive regimes worldwide.
It is imperative that the international community stand in solidarity against the Taliban's oppressive regime. We must use all diplomatic, economic and humanitarian means at our disposal to support the people of Afghanistan, especially women, minorities and those who have risked their lives for the cause of peace and stability. We must continue to pressure the Taliban to respect human rights, uphold the rule of law and engage in meaningful dialogue to achieve a peaceful and inclusive Afghanistan.
The persecution of the Hazara community in Afghanistan is a tragic and ongoing chapter in the country's tumultuous history. The Hazaras, an ethnic minority, have faced relentless discrimination, violence and persecution for decades. Their distinct features and Shia Muslim beliefs have made them a target for extremist groups like the Taliban. Tragically, the Hazara community has borne the brunt of targeted attacks, including bombings, abductions and massacres. These atrocities have claimed countless innocent lives, causing immeasurable suffering and fear among the Hazara population. Despite their resilience and contributions to Afghan society, they continue to be marginalized and subjected to systemic discrimination. Their plight demands urgent attention from the international community to safeguard their rights, ensure their protection and hold perpetrators of violence against the Hazaras accountable. Upholding the dignity and safety of the Hazara community is not just an Afghan issue but a universal call for justice and human rights for all vulnerable minorities.
The Hazara-Canadian community has highlighted ongoing persecution and violent attacks by the Taliban, ISKP and local groups in Afghanistan. Between 2016 and mid-2021, there were 12 major attacks resulting in 1,868 victims. Since the Taliban takeover, there have been 19 major attacks leading to 1,225 victims. Religious sites, public transport, educational centres and sports clubs belonging to the Hazara community have been targeted. Indiscriminate attacks have caused a climate of fear and insecurity, with zero investigation and no accountability. Over 100 individuals, including women and girls, have been the victims of targeted assassinations. Taliban courts have ruled directing Hazara community members to relinquish lands and properties. Hence, the Hazara community is displaced, dispossessed and impoverished from its ancestral lands.
Hazaras are purged and excluded from all sorts of business and market structures. There has been a systematic ousting of Hazaras from government roles at provincial levels. Hazara judges, prosecutors and civil servants have been removed from key positions. Hazara representation in local governance leadership plummeted from 68% to near zero.
Under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the status of girls and women has drastically regressed, plunging into a state of profound oppression and limitation of basic rights. The progress achieved over the years in terms of education, work opportunities and societal participation has been forcefully reversed. Girls' education, once a beacon of hope and progress, has been severely curtailed. Most girls are now barred from attending school beyond a certain age, denying them the chance to pursue knowledge and fulfill their potential. Women's access to work and public life has been dramatically restricted, with severe limitations on employment, movement and engagement in society.
Their voices, once gaining traction, have been stifled as they face extreme constraints on their freedom of expression and participation. The Taliban's interpretation of sharia law has imposed a regressive and patriarchal system that confines women and girls to traditional roles, stripping them of autonomy and agency.
It is imperative to shed light on these violations of human rights, and advocate for the restoration of fundamental freedoms and opportunities for Afghan women and girls. Their plight calls for global attention and concerted efforts to ensure their rights and dignity are reinstated.
The international community must rally together to safeguard the human rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. This involves prioritizing humanitarian aid to ensure access to education, health care and protection services. Diplomatic pressure should be exerted to hold the Taliban accountable for upholding women's rights, demanding their inclusion in decision-making processes. Collaborative efforts with local organizations and activists are vital to provide support and amplify voices advocating for gender equality. Additionally, offering asylum and resettlement opportunities for at-risk women and girls is crucial, ensuring their safety and a chance for a life free from oppression.
Delegitimizing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan necessitates diplomatic isolation, refusing recognition and imposing targeted sanctions. Highlighting their human rights abuses globally and supporting grassroots movements amplifies opposition. Providing aid directly to Afghan communities, bypassing Taliban control, demonstrates solidarity while discrediting their governance.
Empowering Afghan voices through international platforms and fostering alliances with regional neighbours to collectively condemn Taliban actions are crucial steps. By emphasizing the disparity between their promises and their oppressive reality, the international community can erode the legitimacy of the Taliban regime.
We find ourselves at a pivotal moment in history, witnessing a transformation in the geopolitical landscape, a shift towards a multipolar world where the global south is emerging as a significant force, altering the dynamics of global power. This evolution has profound implications for international relations, with Afghanistan standing as a pertinent example within this shifting paradigm.
The traditional power structures that once defined the global order are undergoing a seismic shift. The dominance of western powers, particularly in shaping economic, political and security narratives, is being challenged. Countries across the global south are rising as influential actors, contributing to a more balanced and multipolar world.
The rise of the global south is driven by several factors. Economic growth and technological advancements in nations such as China, India, Brazil and others have significantly contributed to their increasing influence on the global stage. Moreover, collective efforts within the global south to strengthen regional co-operation and assert their interests in international forums have bolstered their presence in shaping global agendas.
Amidst this geopolitical transformation, Afghanistan holds a pivotal position. It has been a focal point of global attention due to its strategic location at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East and South Asia. Afghanistan's historical significance as a battleground for competing interests, coupled with its natural resources, has made it a geopolitical chessboard for global powers.
The recent events in Afghanistan, especially the withdrawal of western forces and the subsequent Taliban takeover, have added a new dimension to this shifting geopolitical landscape. The situation in Afghanistan serves as a microcosm of evolving power dynamics, showcasing the complexities and challenges of multipolarity.
The Taliban's resurgence and assumption of power have raised concerns globally, not only about the rights and well-being of the Afghan people but also about regional stability. The manner in which the international community engages with the Taliban and addresses Afghanistan's future will significantly impact the trajectory of this multipolar world. Moreover, Afghanistan's place in this evolving geopolitical order brings to the forefront the role of regional actors. Countries in the vicinity, including Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia, have vested interests in Afghanistan's stability and security. Their engagement and co-operation in shaping Afghanistan's future will influence the broader geopolitical dynamics of the region and beyond.
The Global South's assertiveness in shaping global narratives demands a more inclusive and diversified approach to international relations. It calls for recognizing the voices and interests of diverse nations, prioritizing co-operation over unilateralism and fostering mutual understanding and respect among nations with varying cultural, political and economic backgrounds.
In conclusion, the evolving geopolitical situation leading to a multipolar world is a reality that requires thoughtful consideration and strategic engagement. Afghanistan's position in this global transformation highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in this shift. As we navigate this new era, it is imperative for the international community to embrace diversity, foster inclusive dialogue and work collaboratively to address global challenges while respecting the sovereignty and aspirations of all nations.
1871 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:39:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing up the changing dynamics. We saw that first-hand in Afghanistan with the west's pulling out. I would like to ask the member the same question I asked the parliamentary secretary, and it is really a favour: to use his voice with the Liberal government, as a member of that party, to get some clarity around the current programs that exist for helping those Afghans who helped us. They put a cap on the number, as a quota, versus really focusing on the number. I am getting reports back from all sorts of NGOs, charities and organizations that have been working, saying that there are literally thousands of applicants who are stuck in the system in limbo. They do not know whether they are going to get here to Canada.
Can the member lend his voice to try to get some clarity, so that the Canadian public, the charities, the NGOs and members of Parliament all know exactly what is going on with the Afghan SIM program?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:40:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have delivered what we initially promised to the people of Afghanistan. However, more needs to be done. We have done it for the people of Ukraine. We are doing it for oppressed people and people in very tense situations in different parts of the world; we will continue doing so. Canada has a great record of being one of the countries with the highest per capita acceptance of refugees from across the world. We are proud of that, and we will continue in the same vein.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:41:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it was refreshing, after some of the earlier speeches, to actually get back to a discussion of Afghanistan. I thank the member for that.
I want to ask specifically about the view of the government as it relates to engagement with opposition groups. It is my view and our view that engaging and working with the anti-Taliban, pro-democracy opposition groups is very important and something the government should be doing more of. Is the member aware of whether that engagement is happening right now under his government? Does he believe, as we do, that more engagement should be taking place?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:41:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Canada engage with opposition groups, and not only political opposition groups but also humanitarian groups, various ethnic community groups and the various groups that represent the oppressed people in Afghanistan. It should do so in the same way it engages with groups, say, in Myanmar and other parts of the world. It is also very important that we engage with other international partners, because Canada alone cannot make a major difference in Afghanistan. However, working collaboratively with like-minded countries, especially countries in western democracies, and taking a joint, organized approach in dealing with the Taliban and the issues faced by lots of people in Afghanistan, women and girls particularly, will yield a better result.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:42:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the question that I think perplexes many of us, which is this: Why, having debated this concurrence motion in June, do we have it back before the House again today? Does he know of any situation in Afghanistan that has changed significantly or of any reason we would be debating this for a second time when apparently everyone in the House agrees on this motion?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:44:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member the same question I asked the NDP member earlier today.
Given the crisis that happened in Afghanistan and the necessity of actually delivering some diplomatic services to get some of our allies back here in the summer of 2021, does the member think it was a wise move for the government to ignore all that complexity and that emergency to call an opportunistic election at that point in time, which was not necessary and cost the Canadian population over $600 million? Does he think that was a good diversion of resources by the government from an international emergency to a national opportunity to continue this minority government?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
