- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- Bloc Québécois
- Montarville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 59%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,582.71
- Government Page
- Mar/29/22 11:48:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would simply like to reiterate that this government claims that it has a mechanism in place to quickly take in a large number of refugees.
First off, the word “quickly” is inaccurate, since there is nothing quick about it. As for “large numbers”, we have only to look at what happened in Afghanistan, since history tends to repeat itself. The government promised to take in 40,000 Afghan refugees, but fewer than 10,000 have made it here so far.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 5:58:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague just asked me a really big question. I want to thank him for that.
We can see it with the Russian troops massing on the border with Ukraine. We can see that a number of countries that do not necessarily share our values may have interpreted the coalition's withdrawal from Afghanistan as a sign of weakness and may seek to take advantage of that supposed weakness to impose their views.
We certainly have to pay close attention to what is currently happening in Europe, but we also have to pay close attention to what is happening in Asia. I think one of the biggest challenges facing western countries in the relatively near future is the situation in Taiwan. I actually think the People's Republic of China, like Russia, sees the West as weak and a failure. They may believe they are in a position of strength vis-à-vis the western nations.
We will most certainly have to ask ourselves some serious questions sooner rather than later, perhaps some of the toughest questions we have had to ask ourselves in many years.
What happened and is happening in Afghanistan is bound to have consequences. It is linked to what is happening and likely to happen with the world order that is currently being established.
220 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 5:56:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. I think that when we must intervene or are called upon to intervene we must do so in a timely fashion.
I also agree with him that Afghanistan, which is currently under Taliban rule, is not the same Afghanistan that the Taliban controlled when the international coalition intervened. This intervention by the international coalition is likely the reason why the Afghanistan of today is not the same one that the Taliban controlled when we first intervened.
I agree that we should be optimistic, but we must also take a realistic look at which aspects of our intervention were successful and which aspects were more or less appropriate.
Yes, we must intervene, but we must also find the best way to do so.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 5:54:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is aware of the speech I gave to the Parliamentary Assembly to the Council of Europe a few days after the election this September, in which I spoke about the repercussions and implications of the conflict in Afghanistan. I spoke about how it is often very difficult to make fundamental changes through military intervention alone, especially when the countries working to drive out the Taliban are dealing with a cultural context that is so different from their own.
It was clearly a resounding failure, as I pointed out in my speech, when I spoke about how the Taliban that we chased out has now reclaimed power in Afghanistan. We did all of that work and people were killed and injured for virtually no reason. We must reflect on what kind intervention is possible and on how to intervene in other countries when we want to bring about fundamental social changes.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 5:51:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind wishes and his question.
I want to say two things in response to that question. First, I believe I said that the amendment we moved sought to remove any attempt to make the motion a partisan exercise.
Second, I also had the opportunity to say that we had a Standing Committee on National Defence, a Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship and a Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.
However, we must not take a compartmentalized approach to studying this multi-faceted issue. On the contrary, we need a comprehensive perspective to ensure we are not just studying bits and pieces without seeing the big picture. Seeing the tree is all well and good, but it is important to see the forest too, and I believe that is what this committee will enable us to do.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 5:50:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have no idea.
6 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 5:26:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since this is my first opportunity, I want to congratulate you on being appointed Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I also thank you for letting your name stand and running for Speaker, and, in doing so, contributing to this democratic exercise in the House.
Again, since this is my first opportunity to do so, I want to warmly thank the people of my riding of Montarville who put their trust in me once again and who solidified my majority with 1,500 votes more than I received in 2019. I am very honoured that the people of Montarville have put their trust in me.
That was my 12th election campaign and 11th victory overall. Six of those campaigns and wins were at the federal level. I am particularly proud to participate in this Parliament with all of the members here. I congratulate each and every one of you.
I would like to warmly thank the members of the Bloc Québécois in Montarville, especially the members of the election committee and the volunteers who worked hard to achieve the outcome that we did. Finally, I would, of course, like to thank my family, without whom I would not be able to do this extremely demanding job. I do not think I have to tell any of you that it is a huge challenge for our loved ones, our family members and our friends. I think we should be grateful for the sacrifices they make to allow us to be here and to represent the people of our respective ridings.
In fact, there is no better introduction to today's debate than to talk about the election campaign. During the election campaign and in the days that followed, all the immigration issues in our respective ridings were put on hold because the government was in the process of extricating itself after the gross mismanagement of the situation in Afghanistan, which is what we are talking about today.
The government delayed in taking action and then went into panic mode and dealt with the situation in a haphazard way in the middle of the election campaign. It imposed extremely bureaucratic measures on people who wanted to get out of Afghanistan and who were in the most dire straits. It was an absolute disaster. That is for sure.
While the UN Security Council was calling an emergency meeting to consider what was happening in Afghanistan and while Prime Minister Boris Johnson was recalling the British Parliament, what was the Prime Minister of Canada doing? He was calling an election on the very day Kabul fell. That is how seriously the Canadian Prime Minister took what was happening. As the international community was mobilizing, the best thing the Canadian Prime Minister could come up with was to call an election.
Of course, that led to a number of problems. We have been talking about it since this morning, we are still talking about it, and I imagine we are going to be talking about it for quite some time. Again today, the Prime Minister is saying, “We will be there”. However, think about he Canadians still stuck in Afghanistan in full violation of their constitutional right to return to Canada and our Afghan allies, without whom our armed forces could not have done their work and whose lives are being threatened. What good does it do them to hear the Prime Minister say “We will be there”? Where was the Canadian government when these individuals needed it this summer?
What is rather fascinating is that the government seemed to be taken by surprise by what was happening even though the withdrawal had been announced a year earlier. The Taliban did move quickly, perhaps more quickly than anticipated by the West, but the withdrawal had been scheduled for August 31. It was no surprise because everyone knew that western forces would withdraw on August 31. Why was there such chaos when the withdrawal had been announced in advance?
The confusing communications by the government in the first hours after the fall of Kabul clearly demonstrated that the government had made absolutely no plans for August 31.
As is often the case when political crises or natural disasters occur, the Canadian government moved quickly to close its embassy after the fall of Kabul, literally leaving Canadian citizens still in the country in the lurch and in the dark.
The Canadian evacuation ended on August 26, or a few days before the August 31 deadline. We wonder why the government was in such a hurry to end an evacuation operation when some countries, such as Mexico, were still there after Canada left. Why was Mexico able to maintain a presence in the country while Canada decided it was time to decamp?
We heard today from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we need to learn from what happened so that we can do better. This brings us to the heart of the motion we have before us today. How can we learn from what happened so that we can do better in the future?
The Conservative Party, the official opposition, is proposing a way to do that through the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, without any prior discussion. That is in keeping with how the Conservatives tend to do things and what they did with the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, or CACN, right after the 2019 election. I guess the Conservatives have done all they thought they could do with CACN because, oddly enough, they are not interested in that committee at all anymore.
However, the threat regarding the unlawful detention of the two Michaels and Meng Wanzhou's situation in Canada has now been removed. We are at a crossroads. We now have an opportunity to realign Canada's policy on China, and this is when the Conservatives choose not to continue CACN's work. I was very surprised by that because my Conservative colleagues told me informally that they wanted to do so. Now the Conservatives have come to us with a new gimmick, or what I would venture to call, to quote myself, a “convoluted hare-brained scheme”, with this much-vaunted committee on the situation in Afghanistan.
I read the motion very carefully and I would say that the only quasi good thing I can say about the Conservative proposal is that it prevents us from working in silos.
Since this morning, the Liberals have been asking us whether the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration could not address this. Yes, they could, but the problem is that only one of those three committees will do it and some important aspects of the problem could fall through the cracks if we leave this to just one committee.
Perhaps one of the only merits of the Conservative motion is that it ensures that we do not work in a vacuum or in silos and that we have a special committee to address this situation and allow us to get to the bottom of things, but what are we trying to get to the bottom of? This is about picking at a scab that the Liberal government caused. As we know, the situation was a fiasco.
Now, we can try to understand why in order to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
What we want to know is how we can get the more than 1,000 Canadian nationals who are stuck in Afghanistan out of there. How can we help our Afghan allies who are still stuck in Afghanistan and whose lives are at risk every day? How can we support the Afghan people who are threatened with starvation? What can we do for the women and girls who are once again under the control of the Taliban fundamentalist government? This is what we want to know, but there is no mention of any of that in the Conservatives' motion.
I want to go through the details of the motion's introduction. Several aspects of the introduction seem to indicate that the intent is to discuss the government's so-called lack of “contingency planning” and “subsequent efforts to evacuate”, but it makes no mention of the humanitarian crisis that is developing in Afghanistan, which is something that we should be considering.
In point (b), the motion gives the whips of each party 24 hours to submit a list of members, which is not a problem. Points (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are acceptable. We do not have a problem there. The same goes for points (h), (i) and (j).
However, in paragraph (k) they draw up a list of ministers they would like to call before the committee, probably to put them on the hot seat and score some political points. The Conservatives got us accustomed to that during the last Parliament. Next are paragraphs (l) and (m).
Paragraph (m) is quite fascinating because it asks for a whole series of documents without knowing if they are the least bit relevant. Then it goes on to say that the government has one month to produce these documents. What is the date today? It is December 7. It says one month, which means that the government would have to provide all these documents by January 7. Our Conservative friends figure that the people at Foreign Affairs are going to spend December 24, 25, 26 and 31, as well as January 1 and 2, working on this to satisfy them, otherwise there would be a scandal, contempt of Parliament and then a question of privilege.
We would be hard-pressed to find a better example of political theatre by the Conservative Party. I think our Conservative friends may have had good intentions, but in reality, the motion is riddled with very clear indications that they wanted to make this an extremely partisan exercise.
As I said, what we are interested in is finding out what is going to happen to Afghans facing famine, to the women and girls who are once again being controlled by an Islamist government, to our Afghan allies who risk death every day they remain in that country and to Canadian nationals who are still stuck in Afghanistan. That is what we are interested in.
That is why we asked ourselves how we could amend this motion to make it acceptable, not just a Conservative smoke and mirrors show. As it stands, it would create a committee focused solely on making political hay by picking at the wounds of the past. How can we change it to create a committee that will really do useful work by looking at future-focused solutions, making recommendations to the government and learning from what happened so we can do better, which was the hope the minister shared this afternoon.
Canadian nationals and allies are still stuck in Afghanistan. The people there are facing one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent years. We must take rapid, constructive action. We have to work together.
While some members of the House have yet to understand the message sent by the voters of Canada and Quebec, they need only look at the results of the last election. The House of Commons ended up with more or less the same composition as the previous Parliament, which was dissolved on August 15. In other words, the voters were reminding us of the mandate they gave us in 2019 to work together. It is possible for us to do what voters asked, what they elected us to do, which is to work together?
It is therefore a little surprising that the Conservatives would move such a motion at the beginning of this new Parliament, when the people have told us they want us to work together to come up with solutions, not to try to find every possible and unimaginable opportunity to score political points.
In that spirit of collaboration, we proposed an amendment to the Conservatives, one that we also submitted to our friends in the other political parties. The Conservatives have considered our proposed amendment, and I believe we are close to a solution that will allow us to embark on a very productive process. At least that is my hope.
If we want to talk about the past, I respectfully submit to our Conservative friends that they should not throw stones because they are living in a glass house in some respects. When the Conservative government ended the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, it was also asked at that time to evacuate Afghan interpreters, and it did not.
Had the evacuation gone ahead at that time, when our hands were not tied and we could have taken action, we probably would not be in the situation we find ourselves in today. If the Conservatives decide to pick at the wounds of the past, they could be seen in an equally bad light. The Conservatives and the Liberals must stop doing this and try to find positive solutions to move forward.
I heard my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman say how proud he was of the Canadian troops in Afghanistan. I agree with him. Having been a member of the armed forces in the past, I can say that we can all be very proud of the work of the Canadian military in Afghanistan.
That said, it is absolutely tragic that 158 of our own lost their lives and many more returned with permanent physical and psychological injuries only to see those they tried to overthrow by intervening in that country return to power.
I would like to move an amendment to the Conservative motion. I move:
That the motion be amended as follows:
(a) by adding, after the words “other Canadian organizations”, the following: “, and that the special committee conduct its work with the primary objective of assessing the humanitarian assistance to be put in place by Canada to assist the Afghan people”; and
(b) by replacing paragraph (m) with the following: “the committee shall determine which documents are necessary to complete its study and issue its recommendations, provided that,
(i) these documents shall be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within such time as the committee deems reasonable in the course of its study,
(ii) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in both official languages, in accordance with the committee’s instructions for the production of the requested documents, with any proposed redaction which, in the government’s opinion, could reasonably be expected (A) to compromise national security, military tactics or strategy of the armed forces of Canada or an allied country, or intelligence sources or methods, or (B) to reveal the identity or location of any Canadian citizen in Afghanistan or of any interpreter, contractor or other Afghan individual who had assisted the Canadian Armed Forces or other Canadian organizations,
(iii) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall notify the Speaker, who shall forthwith inform the House whether he is satisfied the requested documents were produced as the committee ordered,
(iv) the Speaker shall cause the documents, as redacted pursuant to the committee’s instructions, to be laid upon the table and, after being tabled, they shall stand referred to the committee,
(v) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall discuss with the committee, at an in camera meeting, to be held within two weeks of the documents being tabled, whether he agrees with the redactions proposed by the government pursuant to subparagraph (ii),
(vi) the committee may, after hearing from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, pursuant to subparagraph (v), accept the proposed redactions or, reject some or all the proposed redactions and request the production of those unredacted documents in the manner to be determined by the committee”.
2700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
