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 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 4:42:04 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 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 5:39:30 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 5:47:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the member for Edmonton Manning.
I actually want to start my speech by answering the questions that NDP and Bloc members asked of the previous Liberal speaker: Why is it so important to debate this motion today? I have an article here from today's international news, titled “Female-Led Afghan Refugee Families Reluctant To Return To Afghanistan Amid Fresh UN Warning”. Another article from last week was titled “How the Taliban Enables Violence Against Women”.
As I mentioned in a previous intervention, there are a few key things coming up. It has been over a year since the all-party group formed to help former Afghan women MPs to get out of Afghanistan. I will get into that in a minute. There are huge concerns that I have been hearing from charities and NGOs that are continuing to try to help those Afghans fleeing the Taliban regime, in particular those who helped us. Finally, I want to get into the depth of just how terrible and oppressive the apartheid is against women and girls that is ongoing currently in Afghanistan. I think that makes it all relevant and, as was pointed out earlier, we are not slowing down government legislation or anything today, because it is time allocated. We will be voting on it soon enough.
Let us talk about the former Afghan women MPs. A group of us came together across all parties. There were a couple of Liberal MPs, myself from the Conservatives, somebody from the Bloc, the Greens and the NDP, all trying to work to get former Afghan women MPs safely out of Afghanistan. We started that group in October of last year, over a year ago. We did it behind the scenes. We did not go public. We really wanted to work with the government and the NGOs to get the help needed for these incredible women, who made a difference in Afghanistan before the Taliban took control again.
Unfortunately, what happened in January was the murder of Mursal Nabizada, which caused unbelievable grief for those of us tied to this behind the scenes. It was just terrible, because in two weeks, we can get somebody out of Afghanistan. It is not difficult to get somebody out of there if we have the political will. I am not going to elaborate in detail other than the bad news that we still do not have the vast majority of them out. I believe one of them has gotten to Canada, which is not even close. The good news is that there has been progress. The other part is that the government has been working with the group and with the NGOs, so we have been getting updates.
However, my biggest fear is that, if we lose another one of these former Afghan women MPs before they get safely to Canada, I am going to go from being one of the most non-partisan MPs in this chamber to quickly becoming one of the most partisan. It is unacceptable; this could have been solved in a matter of weeks, and it has been over a year now.
The other concern that I want to talk about is around the current support and the current programs that the government has for Afghans, in particular, the Canadian-Afghan special immigration program, which is apparently now closed. Right from day one, I raised concerns around this program that it was being focused on a quota rather than those most in need. I think 40,000 is the number that the government chose. Another big concern is that a lot of Afghans successfully fled Afghanistan for neighbouring countries, but they did not necessarily have that connection to Canada. However, there are tons of former Canadian contractors, Canadian cultural advisers and Canadian interpreters of Afghan background who were working for us. Many of them are still stuck there to this day.
I am not going to go into long details. I know other members asked questions during this debate about the failure of the Liberal government when Kabul, Afghanistan, fell. They talked about how we could have done a heck of a lot more to get Afghans to safety at that time. I am on the record talking at length about that, so I am not going to go into detail.
I do want to focus on getting some clarity. This is the question that I asked the parliamentary secretary and one of the other Liberal members. I am asking for help. All I am asking the Liberal government to do is come out publicly with some clarity around the program and tell us if all the Afghans' applications that are currently in the SIM program are going to get processed so they eventually get to Canada.
I am hearing lots of rumours from NGOs and from groups working behind the scenes in collaboration with the government to get these Afghans to safety that there are still thousands, and I am not talking one thousand but thousands, plural, of Afghan applicants who have not even received an invitation to apply through the program, despite having applied over two years ago. I am trying to get to the point here that we need greater clarity on this. There are a lot of Afghans and Canadian Afghans with family members who are stuck in this process, and we have concerns.
In the next part of my speech, I am going to paraphrase pretty extensively from a report that has been out in the media in the last week, so all Canadians can understand how the Taliban is enabling violence against women.
We just finished, this past week, the 16 days of activism to end gender-based violence. However, in the 28 months since the Taliban basically took control, it completely dismantled Afghan women and girls' rights. It has imposed draconian restrictions regarding their education, employment and freedom of movement, and any perceived violation of these oppressive policies is often met with harassment, intimidation, and verbal and physical abuse, all orchestrated by the Taliban's ministry of vice and virtue. When women are detained by the authorities, they have been subject to cruel treatment, including torture.
The Taliban's anti-women policies, combined with its patriarchal system, have made Afghanistan the lowest-ranked country in the 2023 women, peace and security index. They have basically rolled back over two decades' worth of gains that I and others helped try to establish in Afghanistan. The women there had achieved much in politics, governance, education, health and even the private sector.
However, within months of the Taliban taking over, it suspended the Afghan Constitution, which obligated the government to protect and promote human rights. It replaced the Ministry of Women's Affairs with the Ministry for Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It ordered professional and working women to stay home until further notice. It prevented women from travelling any long distances on road trips without a male supervisor, and it imposed a strict dress code on women.
As I have mentioned before in this chamber, I still have hope that those Afghans who did get a glimpse of what the future could hold will eventually be back to lead Afghanistan and be a beacon of hope, change and leadership. However, that is going to be achieved only if western democracies and countries like Canada continue to provide the necessary support and allow them to get out of there in the first place.
I actually believe this debate is very timely and important today. The Liberal government must continue to provide support and provide clarity to all those Afghans still stuck in Afghanistan who helped us or are fleeing persecution, and provide clarity to the many charities and NGOs working to get these Afghans to safety. This is especially important when it comes to the former Afghan women MPs and their families. I also want to make it crystal clear that the Taliban are terrorists. They must remain listed as such. They are some of the most oppressive, terrible people in the world, and I have zero sympathy.
Afghanistan will someday in the future return to being a democracy that will respect human rights, but only if we continue to help those who will eventually return and lead this necessary change.
1400 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 6:06:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we are all well aware, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is catastrophic. Millions of people face major challenges due to decades of conflict, political instability and, in the past few years, the resurgence of the Taliban.
Canada took part in an international coalition to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, a campaign that saw more than 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces serve in that country. As such, 158 lost their lives and more than 2,000 were injured. For the families of those men and women still dealing with the after-effects of the long period of conflict, the seizing of the country once more by the Taliban in 2021 was saddening. It seems like their sacrifices had been in vain.
The Taliban was, for good reason, listed by Canada as a terrorist group in 2013. Its rule is marked by limited rights for women and minorities, and a history of human rights abuses. The Taliban's return to power triggered a mass exodus of Afghans inside and outside the country, sparking a refugee crisis. Many had to flee for fear of reprisals, persecution and restrictions on individual freedoms. The Liberal government made a lot of promises, especially to aid those Afghans who had worked with Canadian troops during our combat mission there, but, sadly, many of those promises turned out to be words and not actions.
It is not only those who worked with Canada’s military who have suffered as a result of Canada’s response to the latest takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. Internally displaced persons are also in urgent need of help. They lack access to basic needs such as food, clean water, health care and education. I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has seen fit to firmly denounce the Taliban and reject any recognition or legitimization of its control over Afghan territory. A terrorist organization that achieves by force what it cannot achieve at the ballot box is not a legitimate government.
It makes sense for the committee to denounce the Taliban system of gender discrimination, systemic violence targeting minority communities, reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, attacks on freedom of the press and other violations of fundamental human rights. The more than two years since the Taliban seized power have been two years of broken promises. In 2021 a Taliban spokesman promised that his government was going to allow women to work and study, and that women would be very active in society. The reality is that not only were women banned from attending university, education for girls is banned beyond the sixth grade. The Taliban has also banned women from working in all non-governmental organizations. According to the International Labour Organization, women's participation in the labour force dropped by 25 per cent between August 2021 and March 2023.
Conservatives have long been calling for action to hold those in power in Afghanistan accountable for their actions against the Afghan populace, the international community and, most importantly, Afghan women and children.
The Taliban have neglected the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, leaving the population suffering from a malnutrition crisis and a rapid increase in acute hunger. The number of people suffering has increased exponentially, from 14 million in 2021 to approximately 20 million this year.
From 2001 to 2014, our Canadian troops heard first-hand the stories from Afghan citizens of repression under the Taliban. Our troops fought, not only for Canada but also for the good, innocent people they grew to love in their time there. Canadian troops put their lives on the line, not only for their country but to help Afghan women and children have hope of a better life. Years of conflict and violence led to a humanitarian crisis that shattered the innocence of these people. Life under the Taliban is so much worse than before.
We owe it to our veterans and our fallen soldiers to continue the effort towards a better humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. That means not even considering that Taliban rule, by force and fear, is somehow legitimate. To consider recognizing the Taliban government, as some have suggested, would be wrong. It would be rewarding an organization that knows nothing but force and fear and rejects the values Canadians hold in common. To recognize what the Taliban calls a government would be to reward the actions of a terrorist group. Conservatives believe Canada must continue to stand with the Afghan people, oppose the Taliban and engage with civil society and pro-democracy groups who want to restore Afghan freedom and democracy.
I have at times wondered if the Liberal commitment to freedom and human rights is as strong as the Conservative one. As Kabul was falling to the Taliban, the Liberal Prime Minister responded immediately by calling an election. While the Americans were airlifting more than 100,000 desperate people out of Kabul, the Canadian Prime Minister decided to call an unnecessary election instead of providing the leadership Canadians expected and Afghans hoped for.
The Prime Minister promised to provide a safe haven for 40,000 refugees from Afghanistan. When Canadians heard that promise, they did not dream that it would take more than two years for him to keep that promise. One would think that, faced with a humanitarian crisis, the resettlement process would have been a priority for the government. One would think that, but the Liberals did not. At least Canadians hope they can fulfill the promise by the end of this year.
No wonder so many Afghans felt let down by Canada as the Taliban seized power and began persecuting those they saw as opponents. In Afghanistan’s time of need, the Liberals decided to have an election. It seems like ever since, they have fallen further and further behind in their promise to the humanitarian crisis, both in Afghanistan and in the surrounding countries from which refugees have fled. It is a sorry track record, one they hope Canadians will not notice.
Having failed the people of Afghanistan in so many ways, it is important that, at the very least, Canada continues to stand up for the values that we share. Those include religious freedom and gender equality, two things the Taliban denies to those under its rule. More than just denying rights, the Taliban looks to export its agenda as it continues to coordinate and facilitate attacks with other terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, the IRGC and ISIS.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization. I think all hon. members will agree.
1116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
