SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

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

Dec/11/23 3:37:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just this past week, President Zelenskyy tried to get support in Washington, and the right wing there tried to stop support for a military fight against the illegal invasion by Putin. It was the same week that the Conservatives decided that their leader, their foreign affairs critic and their defence critic would make sure they were seen standing in the House multiple times voting against Operation Unifier. I was looking at Operation Unifier and thinking, what is it that could be so offensive to the Conservatives that they had to make such a clear statement? The fact is that we have Canadian soldiers on the ground, Canadian soldiers doing military training and Canadian soldiers doing medic training, and yet the Conservatives are out to undermine that support for Ukraine. I would refer to the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, who wrote, “For the second time this month, Conservative MPs undermine support for Ukraine by voting against funding for Operation Unifier.... Canada's support for Ukraine should be unanimous and beyond political games.” That is what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has said. Why is it that the Conservatives stood up with their leader to vote against some fundamental military support for Ukraine? The message they are sending is very clear: They are undermining—

218 words

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Mr. Alex Ruff

Dec/11/23 6:00:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his commitment to trying to help make a difference in the world. There are so many countries Canada could help. The government of the day, way back when, chose to get us involved in Afghanistan. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talked about the challenges around fatigue, and that is the biggest challenge I always had in talking to Canadians about why we are there. At the time, I was a soldier. Soldiers go where they are told to go and serve whatever political stripe of government is in power here in Canada. However, Canada can help. I believed in that mission, and I think my speech highlighted that. However, one of the concerns I had, which I tried to explain as I moved up the ranks, was that Canada needs to understand that when we commit ourselves to these international missions to try to make peace and security in other countries, this is not a world war where we are fighting a uniformed combatant or enemy. This is stuff where we are trying to promote democracy. That takes a generation. Unfortunately, the west sometimes does not understand this and does not have the political will to support things for the two or three decades it takes to provide this necessary support. That is why it is important that we work together as coalitions of the willing or in international organizations like NATO or the UN.

247 words

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

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

Dec/11/23 6:04:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was here when we voted for Operation Enduring Freedom. The understanding was that we were going to put our young people in harm's way to build a democracy. Many really fine people from my region went and put their lives on the line. There was an understanding that that commitment was going to be followed through, to our soldiers, to the NGOs and to the people of Afghanistan. We can look at what ended up happening. The Americans pulled out. The Brits are deporting people who kept them alive in the field. Canada left so many people who were on the front lines, left them there. I want to ask my hon. colleague, because of his military experience, what does that say to the next country to which we say, “We will be there for you”, when we left so many people behind? I know we worked, in my office, for midwives to get out. We worked to get interpreters out. They were failed, right across the board, by NATO and the west. How do we then go to the next country and say, “We have your back”?

196 words