SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/15/24 4:18:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the problems with the motion to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity is the implementation of this measure. We know that the government generally has a hard time implementing its own proposals. Look at the sanctions. Sanctions against Iran were announced as early as 2022-23. As we have seen with sanctions relating to Ukraine, the government is completely incapable of following through with what is happening. When the government announces something, would it not be a good first step for it to at least implement it? Maybe we would not always want to bring more things forward if the government followed through every time. Would it not be the first thing for the government to do, on its own, when it decides to impose sanctions against a regime, for example, to ensure that those sanctions are truly implemented?

147 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/15/24 4:41:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the debate that we are having right now is a follow-up to a debate that took place at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December, where a motion calling for various things was adopted. I would like to read that list of things. The motion called for the government to create “an Anti-Hate Crime Task Force to coordinate the protection of faith communities”, to remove “red tape and speed up access to the Security Infrastructure Program to protect communities at risk” and to evaluate “Canada's threat assessment in light of [the U.K.] travel advisory”, which is something that was in the news more at the time. The motion also called for the government to establish “a Foreign Influence Registry”. From what I understand, that task is being carried out under the guidance of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. Let us hope that we will finally see, perhaps before the House recesses, the end of the tunnel on this issue, which is, unfortunately, long overdue. This would not just apply to the situation in Iran that we are discussing today, but to many other situations where, for example, foreign agents are conducting legitimate activities on our soil. Finally, and this is what we are primarily debating today, the motion called for the government to designate “the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and expel the estimated 700 Iranian agents operating in Canada”. Similar motions have been moved in various committees, including the committee on which I sit. The motion was brought back to the floor at the Standing Committee on National Defence and debated many times. It is still being debated today, but perhaps in a context dictated more by current events. I understand that the Conservatives' decision to bring this motion to the floor today has to do with the attack that happened this past weekend, on the night of April 13 to 14, when several ballistic missiles and drones were fired at Israel. In this context, I would like to quote what our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, said. Coming on the heels of the attack, I think his tone was very measured. That is the tone I will use to address the House today. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said: The Bloc Québécois and I join those in the United States, France, the entire international community and among Israel's usual allies in calling on the State of Israel to refrain from launching a counteroffensive in retaliation for Iran's attack on its territory and its facilities. Insofar as there is a troubling risk of escalation that could involve the entire region and, above all, Iran's attack was a failure, suggesting that Israel remains capable of defending its civilian population, and while reiterating that Israel has the right to defend itself and that Iran must be denounced, we believe that it is appropriate for Israel to remain on alert, but not to provoke an escalation that will only hinder the peace process. I think that is the appropriate tone we should be using. I hope that we use the same tone in this debate as well. It breaks my heart that Israel's General Halevi said only an hour or two ago that Israel would retaliate for what happened the night of April 13 to 14. As the saying goes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. The idea behind the Conservatives' proposal to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group is well meaning. However, as is often the case with other issues, the problem lies in the implementation, in the execution of what is being proposed. That brings to mind what my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith pointed out in her question to the member for Winnipeg North and subsequent remarks. If this is applied across the board, there is a risk that people who should not be on the list may sadly end up on it. Think of the conscripts, for example. In response to that, it was pointed out that most people currently in the IRGC volunteered to be in it. However, we do not know how this will be implemented in practice. We can think of situations in the past where Iranians were denied visas to come here simply because they had served in the military some 20 years earlier. That could happen again. There is a possibility that we might end up targeting people who should not be targeted. Even people who should be protected could probably be caught in the net of an overly broad and insufficiently specific measure. This raises a question that needs to be studied, and that is the capacity to effectively implement this measure. So much the better if it is studied in committee in a few weeks' time. That will allow us to understand the full implications of the request, which is legitimate in substance, but potentially problematic to enforce. It also raises a question about the resources needed to enforce these measures. Enforcement under the Criminal Code would take place on Canadian territory. We would not be targeting members of the IRGC who are still on Iranian soil. We would be targeting people who are here in Canada. The motion talks about approximately 700 people. However, considering that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has lost track of some 1.5 million refugee claimants and does not know their whereabouts or whether they are still here or have left, I wonder whether the government is actually capable of successfully implementing this measure, or whether it will ultimately be just another purely symbolic threat that does not scare anyone, since it is never enforced. The question is worth asking, given the context. Would it not it be better to ensure that sanctions are properly implemented? The question of sanctions against Iran has also been discussed on numerous occasions in committee. Once again, I can think of two problems with sanctions. First, do sanctions not do more harm to the civilian population than to the people they are intended to target, in this case, the IRGC? There is essential work to be done in terms of the approach that is taken. For example, we might consider sanctions that will be aimed more at the media, those that deliberately spread disinformation abroad or that use satellites to rebroadcast certain television channels. As far as economic sanctions are concerned, should we be able to target specific individuals, rather than imposing sanctions that hurt the general population? Second, as I mentioned a little earlier in a question to the member for Winnipeg North, once the decision has been made to introduce sanctions, is there any way to really prove that they are effective? Unfortunately, based on what happened with the sanctions against Russian oligarchs after Ukraine was invaded, for example, I get the impression that the government cannot walk the talk. It wants to impose sanctions, but it is unable to ensure that the right people have been targeted, that their bank accounts have been seized and their money frozen. Again, sanctions are probably a good idea, but the problem is enforcing them. Perhaps we should start by focusing on more effective sanctions in the immediate term, even though this issue has been dragging on for a long time. Back in 2018, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously adopted a motion to put the IRGC on the list of terrorist entities. Should we not be taking advantage of the fact that, shortly, there will be substantive work done to ensure that such a measure does not cause collateral damage? On the substance, I understand the idea. I agree with adding the IRGC to the list of terrorist entities. However, it would have to be done in a precise enough way to ensure that there are no people suffering as a result, when they certainly should not have to. It could end up targeting people we may have some obligation to protect. Again, the devil is in the details. Is this currently the right forum to hastily discuss that? Unfortunately, I do not think so, especially when concurrence motions are being moved in the House at the last minute. However, I trust the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to do more substantive work after hearing from experts on the issue, so that we can come up with a measured and, above all, effective position. That is the most important thing when dealing with the kind of issue that is before us today.

1460 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Ms. Christine Normandin

Apr/15/24 4:52:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really love that question. I am a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, which today heard from the minister about the defence policy update. I asked questions specifically about the rapid reaction forces that are there to keep the peace around the world. I asked when this rapid reaction force would be set up. It was promised in 2017, when Canada wanted a seat on the United Nations Security Council. They said it would take five years to set it up. In 2022, the government said that finally it would set it up in 2026. Cuts were made to the defence budget in September. For the next two years at least, those cuts will not even be offset by the new announcements on military spending. In this context, I get the impression that, once again, those are great words, but they are a far cry from what Canada was once able to do in terms of response forces for peacekeeping. Money is the sinews of war. Unfortunately, it feels like the government is not on board here.

183 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Ms. Christine Normandin

Apr/15/24 4:54:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raises a perfectly legitimate question, but why not debate it in the appropriate forum instead of raising it in the House at the last minute? We are debating it today without knowing all the ins and outs of it and without having had the opportunity to hear testimony from experts, for example, before speaking on the issue. It is the method, not the substance, that I find somewhat disappointing about today's debate. The substance is important. No one in the Bloc Québécois would argue the opposite. We cannot really vote against this type of motion, but perhaps we do not have all the tools we need to vote for the motion and then hammer home the point that we need to implement all the measures we just voted for. The problem lies in how to proceed. We understand that there is work to be done in committee. We can debate the bill once the experts have pointed out its flaws, with a view to improving it. Today, however, we are proceeding at the last minute with a motion for concurrence in a report, and that is not the right way to approach such a complex problem.

211 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Ms. Christine Normandin

Apr/15/24 4:56:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I feel like taking my colleague's intervention, putting it in the present tense, removing the question mark and making it the answer. Every aspect of the answer was in the question as well as in my speech. Indeed, this is not the right forum. This is an important issue and it deserves to be addressed properly in committee. With a bit of luck, we will stop having 72 motions moved by the Conservatives in committee and we will be able to do the work in this place like we should. Instead of filibustering in the House, they should allow the committee to study this issue properly so that we can come up with real solutions.

118 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/15/24 7:16:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to inform you that I may not use all of my time to speak to this bill because it has been a while since it was introduced. The bill is landing here about three years later and, as I like to say in speeches where I am not the first to speak, I feel that everything has already been said, although I would not repeat what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said. On the contrary, I will offer my colleagues a much more conciliatory tone that is far more focused on those who have suffered as a result of the pandemic. The purpose of Bill S‑209, which we are currently studying, is to commemorate the pandemic and remind everyone that many people suffered during that period. This bill was introduced by Quebec senator Dr. Marie-Françoise Mégie, and it seeks to make March 11 a day of observance but not a statutory holiday. Perhaps it is a way to remember a time that took the entire world by surprise. It was the first time in history that such a surprising event took place, and it was something that everyone experienced both together and on their own. I think that the important thing about this bill is that we remember the people who suffered and the people who helped us during the pandemic. We remember the good things taken away from us during the pandemic, which we too often took for granted. I like to compare it to the ice storm. I grew up in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. In 1998, we got caught in the triangle of darkness. Someone commented on the strong sense of unity that took hold at the time, which unfortunately vanished as soon as the power came back and the lights were turned on. If March 11 can serve as an occasional reminder of the sacrifices made by many, or keep alive a few reminders of that sense of unity, then it will have not have been for nothing, at least in that regard. Among those we wish to remember are, of course, all those who died from COVID-19. Sadly, I imagine everyone in the House knows someone who has succumbed to COVID-19, either directly or as a result of a comorbidity. One person in particular comes to mind, someone I have already paid tribute to in the House and who passed away as a result of COVID-19. This individual was really well liked among Bloc, PQ and separatist supporters across Quebec. Just think of seniors, for example, who were the first to be confined and the last to come out of lockdown. These individuals, who unfortunately often struggle with isolation, were even more isolated during the pandemic. Just think of women, especially those who were self-employed in areas that were rapidly closing down. Think of women who worked as aestheticians, for example, and in other rather precarious jobs usually done by women. They lost significant sources of income and suffered disproportionately from the pandemic. Take, for example, the guardian angels, all the people who saved our skins during the pandemic. If they had not been there, the situation would have been even worse in many health care facilities, such as hospitals, long-term care homes and so on. I am also thinking about frontline workers in general, all those who could not work from home during the pandemic because the nature of their job would not allow it and who had to go to work day after day in difficult conditions. We needed them and they were there for us. We can think of the young people, a generation sacrificed at a pivotal moment in their lives. We can think of all those who had to attend their prom remotely or who simply did not have one. That may seem a bit childish, but it is certainly a milestone in a person's life. High school prom is often a turning point before post-secondary studies. We can also think of the scientific community, the scientists who were unfortunately treated badly by disinformation agents, but who nevertheless tried to some insight and information to support our collective well-being during this rather dark chapter in history. March 11 will be the day we remember the sacrifices made by some, the work accomplished by others, everything we lost during this period that we had taken for granted and that this period helped us realize was important. March 11 will be the day we reflect on how lucky we are to finally have gotten through it and, for the most part, to have regained the same quality of life we had before the pandemic but have only now learned to appreciate. If it can serve that purpose, then it will be worth celebrating, in spite of everything. I hope we can celebrate it with a positive attitude, contrary to what I heard in some speeches earlier. With that, I will conclude my remarks. As I said at the beginning, I do not intend to use all of my time, because others have spoken more eloquently than I have.

871 words