- 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
- 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
- Mar/29/22 11:19:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the direction this debate has taken. Frankly, I was not expecting that there would be so much agreement on this motion. I listened to our Liberal colleague's passionate speech and I found myself wondering what, exactly, we disagree on. I took another look at the motion we are debating today.
It states, and I quote:
That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report the following to the House: We (a) condemn the unwarranted and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, which was ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a clear violation of international law....
Unless I am mistaken, we all appear to agree on this part, so that is clearly not where the issue is.
I will continue reading the motion, as follows:
(b) call on the Government of Canada to support Ukrainians and people residing in Ukraine who are impacted by this conflict and ensure that it is prepared to process immigration applications on an urgent basis without compromising needs in other areas....
It states, “on an urgent basis without compromising needs in other areas”. Perhaps this is where things start to become problematic, but it seems to me that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration set out an important parameter in this second point, so I do not think that should be the case. What then do the Liberals have a problem with?
In the next point, it states:
(c) implement visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada, including by the rapid issuance of an electronic travel authorization (eTA), and increase staffing resources so that the existing backlog for all immigration streams is not further impacted by this humanitarian crisis.
Before I comment on that, I would like to point out the extraordinary work that our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has done on this file. Unfortunately, he is unable to be with us today because he is being cautious, I would say.
I applaud his work. Point (c), which calls on the government to “implement visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada”, was the initial proposal. My colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean and our Liberal colleagues, among others, added “including by the rapid issuance of an electronic travel authorization”. Rather than eliminate visas entirely, this at least maintains the requirement for an electronic travel authorization. That does not seem to be good enough for our Liberal friends, who were the only committee members to vote against the motion despite the requirement introduced by our colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
Point (c) goes on to say: “increase staffing resources so that the existing backlog for all immigration streams is not further impacted by this humanitarian crisis”.
Are we to understand, based on our colleague's fiery speech, that the Liberals have no intention of increasing resources? Are they saying that they think we have enough staff to handle this kind of situation?
If so, that is worrisome, to put it mildly. The outcome of the federal government's efforts to welcome Afghan refugees is a clear indication that performance has been underwhelming so far.
The Liberals promised to welcome 40,000 Afghan refugees. Fewer than 10,000 have made it to Canada so far. This means that, despite the best intentions, if the means and resources are not there, those intentions will not translate into concrete results.
We do not need to wait another three months to reach this conclusion. We already know that. We only have to look at what happened with the Afghan refugees to realize that not deploying the necessary resources means that we will not achieve the objectives set. Exactly the same thing is likely to happen with Ukrainian refugees.
What, then, is the government's problem? Is it related to the call for visa-free travel, while maintaining the compromise and fallback proposal made by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, namely, maintaining the requirement for electronic travel authorization?
Is that the problem on the Liberal side, or do they have a problem with the second part of point (c), that is, the call to “increase staffing resources so that the existing backlog for all immigration streams is not further impacted by this humanitarian crisis”? Frankly, if that is really the sticking point, then that worries me, to say the least.
The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the parliamentary secretary quite rightly recognized that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is working very hard with them on this file. He is our citizenship and immigration critic, and from the outset, he was prepared to find solutions, collaborate and co-operate.
The Liberals are not really used to that. The Prime Minister stated that things have been very tense in Parliament and that it is paralyzed, unresponsive and dysfunctional. However, what the Prime Minister may not have understood is that since the election, the Bloc Québécois has constantly repeated that it is willing to work constructively with the government. That is what motivated our colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean to respond proactively to the significant humanitarian crisis under way in Ukraine. He came up with proposals.
His first proposal was a three-year extension of the work and student visas of Ukrainians already in Canada. The government acted quickly on that point. We commend and applaud it. That is wonderful. This was a Bloc Québécois proposal that quickly received a favourable response from the government. When this government is determined to act and takes its head out of the sand, it can do things quickly.
The second proposal put forward by my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean was to drop the visa requirement. This suggestion did not go anywhere and quickly faced obstacles. We then realized that the government did not really want to drop this requirement.
As the leader of the Bloc Québécois pointed out, thousands of people are entering via Roxham Road without presenting any travel document, visa or biometric test whatsoever. During the entire pandemic, it was proven that it is possible to close off that route. The government has now decided to reopen the floodgates and has no security concerns about doing it. People are streaming in, no problem. The Prime Minister is rolling out the welcome mat for them.
However, the same does not seem to apply to the poor Ukrainians who are fleeing their country, which has been unjustly invaded by Russia. The government said it would speed up the process, but it took weeks just to announce that accelerated process, which, by all accounts, is not that much faster anyway.
Let us put ourselves in the shoes of these poor Ukrainian women, who are the most likely to have taken refuge in Poland, Moldova or Romania. They would love to come to Canada and get as far away from the conflict as possible.
Canada is asking them to fill out an application for a temporary resident visa, which, according to experts, can take up to three hours for someone who is proficient in English or French. These people are unlikely to be proficient in English or French, but they are still required to fill out the form or else they will not be allowed in.
Then, these people need to set up a meeting at one of the visa application centres to submit their biometrics. I remind members that this is an emergency and we need to get a huge number of people here, but they are being asked to show up between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. or between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. if they want to be able to come over here.
On top of that, they are required to pay $185 in fees, even though some are destitute. They are still being asked to cough up the money. The government says that it will refund the fees, but these people still need to pay up front without knowing when or how the money will be refunded.
These are the documents that the government requires: bank statement, official ID, passport and travel insurance. However, I am not sure that people took the time, especially if their house was destroyed, to collect all their documents thinking that the Canadian government might ask for them. Will these people take the time to search through the rubble of their homes for their passports and bank statements? What the government is asking the Ukrainian refugees to produce so they can access the fast-track procedure is not necessarily possible.
I will point out that, to date, of the 40,000 Afghans we promised to take in, we have only welcomed 8,580 so far. There is therefore cause to worry about this fast-track procedure when it comes to visas because, in any case, it has not worked that well so far, whatever the measures implemented by the government.
As for visa-free travel, there seems to be a security concern eating away at the government: It is afraid that some nasty Russians could sneak in. I figure that those who sneak in will not be on site to fight the Ukrainians, but that is another story.
The government is very concerned about security. However, no fewer than 91 countries are allowing Ukrainians to cross their borders without a visa. I guess these 91 countries do not have the same security concerns as Canada.
Also, the government told us that it could not really lift the visa requirement because it would take 12 weeks to adapt the IRCC’s computer system. The IRCC minister said that himself. Perhaps if it had started earlier, it would be about ready to remove the visa requirement.
I would like to point out that, like Canada, Ireland normally does not authorize Ukrainian nationals to enter the country without a visa. However, Ireland was able to lift the requirement in a few hours, rather than a few days or weeks. How is it that Ireland can do in a few hours what Canada can only do in 12 weeks?
Rather than working on allowing visa-free travel, IRCC has worked very hard for weeks to implement the fast-track process I just described. Perhaps it should have gotten off its butt and worked on immediately lifting the visa requirement? I think that would have been the right thing to do.
The government seems to be paralyzed by the security issue, so we proposed another approach. Since the government thinks the biometrics are absolutely necessary for security reasons, we wondered whether we could avoid doing the biometric scans over there, quickly and safely bring the refugees to Canada, and then do the biometrics here. This still seems to be too complicated, though, since the government flatly opposed this other proposal from my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.
Since the Bloc is always in solution mode, we proposed a humanitarian airlift. We figured that we could ask Canadian airlines for help and they would be only too happy to oblige. For instance, Air Transat has already raised its hand and said it was prepared to send planes if the Government of Canada was interested.
The Minister of International Development told us that his government wants to charter flights for medical assistance, instead of using Canadian Armed Forces planes. Air Transat raised its hand and asked what it could do. We do not know what the holdup is, but we are still looking for the answer. There is no holdup anymore, since Air Transat is prepared to volunteer. It said so publicly. The government has not yet understood that Air Transat is prepared to do it, free of charge, believe it or not.
However, there seems to be some issue with the idea of arranging a humanitarian airlift by chartering planes to Poland and flying them back full of Ukrainian refugees who could quickly find refuge and safety in Canada and Quebec.
I guess some people are wondering whether the planes are going to fly there empty. It would be expensive for them to fly there empty and return to Canada with people aboard.
My colleague from Drummond had a brilliant idea. He said that we did not have to fly the planes empty because the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is working like mad to collect essential supplies. It has gathered tons of supplies from all over the place, and it is running out of room to store them. We are asking that it charter flights to ship the items to Poland and neighbouring countries.
We could organize a humanitarian airlift by filling the planes with the supplies gathered thanks to the generosity of Canadians and Quebeckers. We could fill these planes up, send them to Poland and bring them back full of people. We could fill them with Ukrainian refugees. However, apparently, that is still too complicated. This was another proposal made by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, and it got a flat no.
So far, the Canadian government has ignored the proposal to set up a humanitarian airlift, yet I find this proposal extremely reasonable.
The government is losing nothing by waiting, since my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is still looking for positive proposals. It can rest assured that he will continue to make proposals in the coming days and weeks. He will not give up in the face of the government's indolence. I had the opportunity to chat with him before coming here, and I know that he is looking for new solutions, that he is not done suggesting ideas.
I am having a hard time understanding our colleague's inflamed, even incensed, response to the Conservatives' proposal. All in all, it is a very reasonable proposal. Personally, I see it as the Conservatives making an effort to reach across the aisle. The Bloc Québécois is always reaching across the aisle.
How can there be a partisan debate on a motion like this one? It is just bad faith to play partisan politics with this issue and reproach the Conservatives for having dared to ask that the House concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
The Liberals see it as heresy, but it is no such thing. I read out the motion. Unless our colleague is saying that he does not want to condemn the unjustified attack or that he does not want to support the Ukrainians, we can only conclude that the problem is that we are asking the government to waive visas, while maintaining the requirement for an electronic travel authorization, which was a compromise, an alternative solution, proposed by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. The government is unwilling to add more staff to process applications. That is the government's real problem. That is why it reacted in such an inflamed and incensed manner to the Conservatives' perfectly reasonable motion. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.
2526 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:12:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Repentigny.
Today, we are being asked once again to participate in a very important debate on the situation unfolding in Ukraine. To present the Bloc Québécois's position on the Conservative motion, I would like to read it point by point.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is proposing “That the House: (a) condemn President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation for their unprovoked, illegal attack and invasion of Ukraine”.
We completely agree with point (a). However, we were expecting that, a little later, they would make suggestions about possible additional sanctions to punish Vladimir Putin and Russia for the unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. We were also expecting them to propose additional sanctions on the oligarchs.
The member then suggests that the House “(b) stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and Canadians in the Ukrainian community”.
Again, no one could be against that. We have said many times over that we stand with the people of Ukraine. We are not going to stop standing with them now. We would have liked to see some proposals, though. What more can we do on top of the humanitarian assistance we have already sent to support the people of Ukraine? Will the government increase the $10 million cap it set to match the donations Canadians make to the Red Cross? We are waiting to hear.
Will the government lift the visa requirements that are still in place for Ukrainian refugees? These people are fleeing with a small suitcase, can barely find a place to sleep, and yet they are being asked to fill in 14 copies of forms in a language that is probably not their first language. They also have to pay fees to be able to seek refuge in Canada. As the Bloc Québécois leader said, Canada is allowing people to cross the border at Roxham Road without a visa but cannot lift the visa requirement for Ukrainian refugees.
We were expecting the Conservative motion to propose ways to meaningfully demonstrate our solidarity with Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian Canadians. We then jumped to point (c) thinking that we would see proposals for sanctions to punish Russia, Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs who support him. We expected to see proposals in point (c) to help Ukrainians, Ukraine and our fellow Canadians of Ukrainian origin, but no. What then did we find in point (c)?
It suggests that the House “(c) call on the Government of Canada to undertake measures to ensure new natural gas pipelines can be approved and built to Atlantic tidewater, recognizing energy as vital to Canadian and European defence and security, allowing Canadian natural gas to displace Russian natural gas in Europe, and being consistent with environmental goals in the transition to non-emitting sources of energy”.
If that is not a basely self-serving argument, I do not know what is. Honestly, even if we decided to go that route and build pipelines, despite the fact that it would first of all go against the idea that we need to phase out fossil fuels, the conflict would, hopefully, be long over by then.
What would be the purpose then, other than to export the dirty oil produced in western Canada? It would have no other purpose, because our German friends cannot rely on Canadian oil and gas to replace Russian oil. That is a bogus argument. What we find in point (c) is a bad idea masquerading as a solution.
More than that, it is an idea that would hurt Ukrainians. Why?
This morning, our friend Paul Journet, in La Presse, reported that some oil companies in western Canada are owned by Russian oligarchs who are still free from Canadian government sanctions.
I would have expected the Conservatives to tell us that they are also going to impose sanctions on the oligarchs who hold shares in western Canadian gas companies. No, they are not proposing sanctions against these oligarchs.
However, if we help these oligarchs, we are helping Russia and therefore hurting Ukraine. This contradicts points (a) and (b) in the motion that the House “condemn President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation for their unprovoked, illegal attack and invasion of Ukraine” and that we “stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and Canadians in the Ukrainian community”.
What the Conservatives are proposing means giving more cash to Russian oligarchs who have shares in western Canadian oil companies. Is that how we want to help Ukrainians? Is that the great idea of our Conservative friends to help Ukrainians?
All the Conservatives want to do is help their oil industry, period. There is no other explanation.
I can name names. How about Roman Abramovitch, who owns 28% of Evraz, which supplies steel for pipelines? That is interesting. How about Igor Makarov, Coastal GasLink's primary shareholder? These are oligarchs who are still dodging sanctions, and we would sure like to know why the Government of Canada has not yet imposed sanctions on them.
If only the Conservatives had put forward the idea of punishing these oligarchs too. Let me reiterate: The chief of staff for Alexei Navalny gave the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development a list of oligarchs who should be sanctioned, and that was long before the invasion of Ukraine. We had that list. The Government of Canada had that list. When will it impose sanctions on all those oligarchs?
Today, the Conservatives actually want us to send more cash their way and help them help Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine. We wholeheartedly agree with parts (a) and (b) of the motion, but how could we possibly support the part (c) the Conservatives have put forward in this motion? Never in a million years would we support that kind of thing because supporting the Conservatives' proposal would hurt Ukraine.
If the Conservatives had been the slightest bit reasonable and honest in their desire to help, given the climate crisis as well, they would have said that this proposal will need to be accompanied by energetic measures, no pun intended, to undertake the green transition and significantly reduce the amount of oil and gas in our economy. Once again, they come up with no such proposal. They are simply proposing that we consume even more oil and gas and export it to other countries so they can continue consuming it, which runs completely counter to the idea that we need to start the transition immediately.
Allow me to reiterate: The Bloc Québécois is voting against this motion. We take no pleasure in doing so, but we have no choice. My colleague from Repentigny will most certainly provide even more reasons why, from an environmental perspective, the Bloc Québécois cannot subscribe to a motion like this one.
1171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 9:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for his remarks, which I actually found very refreshing.
Throughout this evening's debate, our government colleagues have talked about diplomacy and deterrence. They have actually talked more about deterrence than diplomacy, but they have not been clear about what they mean by deterrence. In other words, what I am hearing is deeply acrimonious and aggressive messaging at a time when, from a diplomatic perspective, there should be more emphasis on calls for discussion and dialogue.
As I understand it, the minister is pledging more money to support people in difficult situations, such as those resulting from the pressures exerted by the massive Russian presence at the border and those Ukrainians face in their day-to-day lives. To pick up on what my NDP colleague said, what concrete action will the government take to move beyond words and really help people in need on the ground?
156 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
- 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
