- 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
Madam Speaker, you may have noticed that, as my hon. colleague from Mirabel will definitely appreciate, I am proudly wearing the traditional Ukrainian embroidered shirt known as the vyshyvanka today, on international Vyshyvanka Day. Of course, I am wearing it in support of the very courageous Ukrainian nation, which was invaded by Russia illegally and without justification. I am beginning my speech by talking about the vyshyvanka for a reason, as my remarks will show.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑281. I think the motivations underlying the bill are really very noble. However, as the saying goes, “do not bite off more than you can chew”.
This is a bill that has very different scopes and, as a result, it contains a number of flaws. We tried to fix these flaws through amendments at committee stage. Some of them were even introduced at report stage. In spite of these amendments, we still get the impression that this is like a patchwork quilt that—unlike those made by our valiant farm women in their farm women's groups—is not very pleasant to look at. Despite our efforts to try to correct these flaws, there are still a number of them in the bill. I want to say a few words about that.
First, this bill is intended to increase government transparency, as it will have to report to the House on international human rights issues. For starters, we had a problem with the definition of prisoner of conscience, because the notion of a prisoner of conscience can involve a value judgment. What is a prisoner of conscience?
We wrestled with a few definitions, one of which was proposed to us by Alex Neve, the former head of Amnesty International Canada. I think we came up with an arrangement that, on the whole, enabled us to correct the bill's vague initial concept of a prisoner of conscience. The focus is more on people who are victims of human rights violations under international law. We were able to rectify that little issue in the original wording of the bill.
There was also a proposed amendment that was ruled out of order, but the committee nevertheless adopted it. We overruled the chair. What a surprise it was yesterday to see our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, intervene to ask the chair to rule the amendment out of order, which the chair actually did.
I will explain what was so surprising about the request by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
This is the amendment in question: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.”
The deputy House leader rose in the House to ask that the amendment be withdrawn, even though it simply requires the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. This same government, which is currently making a bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, asked for the following to be removed from the bill: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” I could not make this stuff up. The government claims it wants to become the best human rights advocate in the world, but at the first opportunity, it eliminates the minister's obligation to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.
I have to say that it is very astonishing. If not for the intervention from the government's parliamentary secretary, perhaps the Chair would have had the indulgence to allow this amendment. However, it was ruled out of order because of the magnificent intervention from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Another element of this bill concerns the fact that new sanctions will be imposed on corrupt foreign officials, in particular by requiring the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days to any committee report recommending sanctions against a foreign national under the Magnitsky Law. I have nothing particular to say about this provision.
We can see that this bill is trying to cover a lot of bases, because another provision prohibits the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a foreign propaganda broadcasting undertaking when the foreign country is recognized by the House of Commons or the Senate as having committed genocide or being subject to sanctions under either the Magnitsky Law or the Special Economic Measures Act.
As far as the Magnitsky act is concerned, although the government got it passed, it has never enforced it in any way so far. I must say that this amendment to the act bothers the government a bit because it means that when a House or Senate committee or when the House or Senate identifies a state as having committed genocide, it would be binding on the government.
Members will recall that the House nearly unanimously acknowledged the Uyghur genocide. The government is ignoring the democratic will of members elected by the people of Canada and Quebec; it is doing what it wants. This provision would make it so that from now on, the government would have to consider the opinions of the House and its committees or the Senate and its committees. I must say that caused much gnashing of teeth across the way.
The last amendment, and this is another attempt to cover all the bases, is about prohibiting any investment in an entity that violates the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.
To be clear, Canada signed the international Convention on Cluster Munitions. Once again, as I was saying, one cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. In theory, therefore, everyone should agree with this provision, except that it has indirect consequences that are potentially harmful.
For example, the Government of Canada plans to purchase a number of F‑35 aircraft from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin makes cluster munitions, though. Is the Canadian government breaking its own law by doing business with a company that manufactures cluster munitions?
We therefore came up with an amendment to correct that little legislative oversight as well as we were able. There is another one too, because the bill would also crack down on direct or indirect investments in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. We tried to introduce that amendment, but we were unable to do so in committee.
The Chair ruled against the amendment I had proposed on the grounds that it should have been moved in committee, and that is true. However, we were unable to move it in committee because there was no consensus. That is why we moved it at report stage.
Here is the problem. Any one of us, any of my fellow MPs, may hold investment funds that make us unwilling investors in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. In theory, we could all be held responsible for violating this provision that says that we cannot directly or indirectly invest in companies that manufacture cluster munitions.
We tried to correct that, but were unable to do so, so if the bill were to be passed as it is currently worded, anyone here in the House could, along with our fellow citizens, find themselves to be in violation of the act.
Despite the flaws I mentioned at the outset and discussed throughout my speech, we will have to vote in favour of this bill because—I am sorry to have to say this again—we cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. Still, we have to recognize that this bill has issues.
Despite people's efforts during the committee's study and even during the debate at report stage, I believe we will have to conclude that, unfortunately, the bill's provisions are still flawed. We may eventually have to introduce another bill to fix it all.
1329 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 3:40:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 511 people, which reads as follows, and I quote:
WHEREAS: The war on the Tigray region of Ethiopia has led to more than 63,000 refugees fleeing to camps in neighboring Sudan, 2.2 million civilians internally displaced, and over 91% of the 6 million people in need of assistance; The forces of Ethiopia and invading forces of Eritrea and Amhara region have jointly waged another round of atrocities, war crimes, and crimes against humanity on civilians in Tigray; The war on Tigray has resulted in a man-made famine. The World Food Program estimates that 5.2 million people, 91% of Tigray's population, need emergency food assistance. Due to the siege and blockade, the people of Tigray are denied access to humanitarian aid and basic services; Sexual Gender-Based Violence has been systematically used as a weapon of war in Tigray by Eritrean troops, Ethiopian forces, and Amhara regional forces; and Since November 2020, Canada has provided $54.5 million in humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia for the crisis in Tigray. It is more likely that this assistance will be used by the Government of Ethiopia to purchase military armaments, including drones, instead of addressing the humanitarian needs in Tigray and other parts of Ethiopia. We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to: Immediately call on the Eritrean government to stop invading the Tigray region of Ethiopia and withdraw its forces from Tigray; Immediately call for unfettered humanitarian access to Tigray. Call for humanitarian discussion under Resolution 2417 (2018); Immediately withhold all non-life-saving funding from Canada to Ethiopia until the cessation of violence is achieved; Provide an update on how funds for humanitarian assistance Canada has been given to Ethiopia in support of the people affected in the Tigray region; and Immediately call to allow the UN-led inquiry commission to enter the Tigray region to conduct its investigation on crimes against humanity, war crimes, and humanitarian and human rights violations committed in Tigray.
351 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:49:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question.
As I said in my speech, I have had discussions with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the issue and I am convinced that the Conservatives have things to say. Aside from their desire to prevent debate from taking place, they have things to say on the issue of women's reproductive health.
The more they filibuster, the more they give the impression that they are not interested in the issue or that they have no solutions to offer concerning women's reproductive health. Let us, then, move on quickly to this study and hear the Conservative Party's proposals; I am sure they have some. It cannot simply be that they do not want to talk about it. It is an extremely important problem around the world and Canada supposedly has a feminist foreign policy, so we have to move forward.
However, when the Liberals decide to take the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs hostage and thus not complete the study of the flooding in Pakistan and not complete the study of the situation in Ukraine, which would have taken barely 15 minutes, simply to box in our Conservative friends, that is the type of situation we are in. It is extremely unfortunate for everyone.
220 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 9:24:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank the minister for her answer. Once again, I reiterate my appeal for the specific cases of Taiwan, Palestine and Haiti, and I hope the minister will be receptive to my appeal.
Now I want to talk about the $69 million or so earmarked for the Rohingya crisis. Obviously, no one could be against virtue and apple pie. We see this as a very necessary investment, given the serious situation facing the Rohingya population in Myanmar.
This government has even stated that no population, group or community should be persecuted because of its identity.
With that in mind, can the minister talk to us about the situation of the people who are currently being subjected to a veritable genocide in Tigray, while Ethiopia is the main recipient of Canada's international aid, and could she also talk about Palestine?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
