So V ote

Nov/1/23 5:34:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that recommendation sort of became outdated when the Nord Stream pipeline became inoperable. However, a few weeks ago we found out that the Government of Canada went behind closed doors and granted more exemptions under the sanctions regime. I denounced that approach, which is nebulous to say the least. It seems that this government does not make anything public until it appears in the media or there is a threat of it appearing in the media. After the incident with the Nord Stream turbines, we were surprised to learn that the government allowed other exemptions under the sanctions regime. As in the case with the turbine, I think it is important for the government to explain why it granted these new exemptions. Unless it can be demonstrated, as I just did for the seeds, that the result goes against the desired objective, then we can expect the sanctions to have potentially adverse consequences here at home. We have to be able to endure this if we want to be able to effectively support our Ukrainian allies.

178 words

All Topics

Nov/1/23 5:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a connection between the question that I was just asked and the one that I was asked earlier. Sometimes, we feel as though the Conservatives support Ukraine as long as it is advantageous or profitable to do so. Sometimes, we have to wonder whether they support Ukraine because they actually support Ukraine or because they want to sell oil to Europe. I think it is very wrong to always be introducing the idea that we should be selling more oil to Europe into debates about support for Ukraine. It is as though the Conservatives just discovered a new, unexplored market that they want to tap into at all costs. As I said in my speech, this conflict has brought to light not only Europe's extreme dependence on Russian oil, but also the western economies' extreme dependence on oil in general. To sell more oil to Europe, we would first have to have all of the necessary infrastructure to be able to do that, and we do not. Rather than looking to set up that infrastructure, we must first and foremost help our European allies to make the necessary green transition. That will help them to reduce their dependency on Russian oil and reduce their dependency on oil in general.

216 words

All Topics

Nov/1/23 5:27:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I demonstrated in my speech that the Conservatives have not been good friends to Ukraine, as shown through their repeated actions. I would like to believe that they are sincere when they claim to support Ukraine. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives do not seem to walk the talk when they take action. As members know, I moved a motion in the House to condemn the kidnapping of Ukrainian children and their deportation to Russia. I do not want to reveal any behind-the-scenes secrets, but during the negotiations with the various parties that finally led to the unanimous adoption of this motion, there were reservations about using the term “genocide”, even though the House had already recognized the genocide. The motion was adopted with the support of the Conservatives, and I thank them for that. However, why the reservations? Obviously, when we pointed out that we had already voted to recognize this genocide, those reservations became a bit illogical, so we were able to move forward. I have the impression that, although the support may be sincere, their actions are pretty clumsy. What we are seeing here is clumsiness at best, and I do not even dare say what it would be at worst.

213 words

All Topics

Nov/1/23 5:07:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, you are no doubt familiar with the expression, “with friends like that, who needs enemies”. I feel this expression is particularly appropriate today, and today is just a new episode in a series of actions taken by the Conservatives that I believe will prove extremely harmful to Ukraine. It takes a lot of gall for the Conservatives to launch this debate today on the motion to concur in the report on Ukraine. I will explain. It took months for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to concur in this report, which was supported nearly unanimously by the committee members. Indeed, the Conservatives decided to filibuster the work of the committee, which made it impossible for us to concur in this report. Not only did this filibuster unduly delay concurring in the report, it also prevented the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from travelling to Ukraine for a first time. I will come back to this, because our Conservative friends also prevented the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from going to Ukraine a second time. The first time was because of their filibuster, which lasted months. I think I can safely say it lasted three months. I will digress for a moment. I have said repeatedly that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development should be the least partisan House committee. Deep down, we are not so far apart in our values. Furthermore, it is to our benefit to present a united front abroad, especially concerning the war in Ukraine, and yet it took months for this report to finally see the light of day. The Conservatives decided to present a motion to concur in this report today. Please understand me: It is an excellent report. I will come back to that in a few moments. However, why are they choosing to debate it today? Why choose to do it this afternoon, at the very same time the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is sitting? I was supposed to speak in committee, but I had to ask my colleague from Shefford to take over on short notice because I had to come give a speech to the House for the concurrence of a report from this committee. Could the timing have been any worse? Even worse, the subject the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is debating is humanitarian aid for Ukraine. Who started this debate at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development? As members may have guessed, it was the Conservatives. The Conservatives are filibustering themselves, as it were. We are debating one of their motions at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, but at the same time, we must debate concurrence of this report on Ukraine in the House. What bad timing. Worse yet, the Conservatives chose to hold this concurrence debate when we were supposed to be discussing Bill C-57. My colleagues referred to it earlier. Bill C‑57 deals with implementing a free trade agreement with Ukraine. The Conservatives are delaying the passage of a bill that would ratify and implement a free trade agreement with Ukraine. It seems like the Conservatives are constantly trying to prevent us from getting Ukraine the help it needs. What did Ukraine need today? If we want to put ourselves in the shoes of our Ukrainian friends, our Ukrainian allies, we must ask ourselves what they needed today from the House of Commons. Did they need the House to make progress toward the passage of a bill on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, or did they need us to concur in this report on Ukraine today, rather than three weeks, three months or nine months ago? In other words, we could have concurred in this report some time ago. The Conservatives, however, chose to move concurrence on the very afternoon we should have been discussing the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Ukraine. I do not believe that Ukraine needed this report concurred in today. Ukrainians needed it months ago. They needed the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to finally come out with this report months back. However, the Conservatives decided to throw sand in the gears and delay everything. This just shows how constructive our Conservative colleagues are. They never miss an opportunity to throw sand in the gears. Our Liberal colleagues failed to get the message after the last election that they would have to govern as a minority government and take everyone's opinion into account, but I think our Conservative friends also failed to understand that their role is not to stop Parliament from functioning, but to ensure that Parliament moves forward. Every time that the discussion turned to Ukraine, the Conservatives put up roadblocks. They blocked the adoption of this report. It took months before we could adopt it. The Conservatives spent a long time filibustering on a completely different issue: the fact that we wanted to undertake a study on women's sexual health. Of course this topic bothers them, because the word “abortion” was mentioned. It means the intentional termination of a pregnancy, and they think that it is terrible. Instead of letting us proceed with the report on Ukraine, they spent months throwing sand in the gears. In the end, they did not prevent us from launching the study on women's sexual health. We even completed it. However, they did obstruct the work of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for months, which delayed the adoption of this report for months. Because of their obstruction, we were unable to complete the request for a mission to Ukraine. They decided that we would no longer travel, that parliamentarians should not travel anymore. Last summer, they once again refused to let the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development travel to Ukraine. As I said at the outset, with friends like these, who needs enemies? The Conservatives keep repeating that they love Ukraine and are determined to defend Ukraine. In reality, however, they are not walking the talk. They keep looking for ways to throw sand in the gears every chance they get. It is extremely unfortunate. Ukrainians need our support, which includes increased trade between the two countries. The implementation of this free trade agreement has been delayed because, once again, the Conservatives are using completely futile and unproductive parliamentary guerrilla tactics that only delay what must be done. That is what is the most detrimental. This report was delayed for months before it was finally adopted. The Conservatives delayed it to stop the committee from doing a study on women's reproductive health, which was finally able to take place. All the Conservatives are doing is delaying what needs to be done. This free trade agreement needs to be implemented, and it will be. However, once again, we are being forced to deal with the tactics of the Conservative Party, which is self-filibustering in that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is sitting right now to study the matter of providing humanitarian and food aid to Ukraine as a result of a Conservative Party motion. It makes no sense. When this report was made public, I said that I was very proud of the work that was done by the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, but I also said that I was very embarrassed. This report sets out 15 recommendatoins and contains some very worthwhile proposals to better support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, which have not yet all been implemented by the government. As I said earlier in my speech, it took months to release this report. At that time, I also had the opportunity to say that the war has showcased how extremely dependent western economies are on oil and gas. Our Conservative friends reacted by saying that we were going to sell more to our European allies, not realizing that the other observation coming out of this war is that we need to get away from oil and gas post-haste. We need to support Europe so that it can get moving on the green shift as quickly as possible and reduce its dependence not only on Russian oil, but on oil in general. I said at the time that this study is not finished. It will continue as long as the war continues. That is why the committee is meeting even as we speak. That is why I said that the committee will soon go to Ukraine, which, thanks to the Conservatives, has not been able to happen until now. I said that this is an interim report because other things are going to come up. The war is not over; it is ongoing. We have to pay attention to what is happening and adjust our recommendations as the situation evolves. That is what is being done at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development as I give this speech. Once again, our Conservative friends said that the Russian ambassador needed to be expelled. I mentioned the fact that we decided the time might not be right for such an action, although it is still an option. The lines of communication have to stay open. I am calling on our Liberal friends to show some consistency, because even though the Russian embassy remains open here, and the Canadian embassy is still open in Moscow, diplomatic communication has ended for all intents and purposes. There is no contact anymore. We obviously support the sanctions regime that has been put in place against Russia, Belarus, oligarchs and banks of all kinds. The fact is—and this was the subject of our observations—that we are not in a position to accurately determine the extent of the assets and the nature of the frozen assets. The government made a point of passing legislation allowing it to seize assets to help rebuild Ukraine, but it still does not seem to know how to proceed legally in that regard. We have been unable to determine the nature and extent of the assets seized. This has been hard to assess for the simple reason that the government decided to outsource this responsibility to the private sector and the banks, without giving them any specific information about what was expected of them. We understand that banks might be a little uneasy about having to sanction customers. The federal government has therefore shirked its responsibilities, which means that we are not really in a position to have a clear idea of what is happening with the sanctions. The monitoring process is difficult to follow. Of course, we have to coordinate with our allies, but we also have to take into account our own specific conditions. We talked about the fact that a certain number of Russian banks have been excluded from the SWIFT international system, which is very good news. The problem is that there are still some Russia banks on the SWIFT system. What do members think happened? Transactions simply moved from certain banking institutions to others, so now they are getting around the sanctions, often with help from third-party states, which is enabling Russia to continue waging war on Ukraine. All these measures need tightening up. Our agriculture critic noted that some sanctions even seem counterproductive. I am thinking of the ones targeting grains and seeds, which are punishing our own producers and making Russian products more competitive on international markets than Canadian products. In that case, the result goes against the desired objective. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development started studying our sanctions regime. We are currently finalizing a report on that. We see that there is still a lot of work to be done. I will close by saying that it is a good report and it is a good thing that it is being concurred in. However, I will reiterate the question I asked earlier: Was today the right day to move concurrence? I do not think so, and I think I have demonstrated that, for a whole host of reasons, the strategic and tactical choices that the Conservatives made turned out to be harmful for Ukraine. We are seeing yet another example of that today, which is extremely harmful.

2078 words

All Topics

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

Mar/29/22 11:46:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know how to answer my colleague. He appears to think that if he just keeps repeating his claim that Canada is wide open, we will end up believing him. However, sincerity cannot be judged based on words, but rather on actions. I am sorry to say that the federal government does not walk the talk. It says one thing but does not follow through when it comes time to put words into action. I am sorry to say it, but you are not offering Ukrainians a safe haven from the conflict, because you have not implemented the necessary measures or conditions for Ukrainian refugees to come here.

112 words

All Topics

Mar/29/22 11:44:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I had the privilege of being a member of Quebec's National Assembly, in addition to having the opportunity, the pleasure and the honour of being a member of this House for several years. One of the things I soon learned is that it appears to be part of the general culture of the House that an idea is necessarily bad if it comes from the opposition. Even if the opposition's idea is good, the government will reject it and then do a little cut and paste so it can propose the exact same thing. The government is unable to admit that the opposition can come up with a good idea, because it thinks all good ideas come from the government. At the National Assembly, we begin with the premise that a government is rarely elected by the majority of the population and that good ideas can come from all sides. As a result, anyone can make a positive contribution. This point of view appears to be totally foreign to the political culture of this House, and I am very disappointed about that.

191 words

All Topics

Mar/29/22 11:42:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I touched on that a little in the answer I just gave my Liberal colleague. It is obvious to us that the federal government cannot hide behind the intake mechanisms of Quebec and the provinces to explain its own indolence in this matter. If, as my colleague so aptly suggested, the federal government feels that it cannot bring in Ukrainian refugees if they do not have the necessary support to come here, then it should give them that support. After all, the government spent two years loosening the purse strings for anything and everything. Why is the government being so stingy when it comes to Ukrainian refugees? Rather than loosening the purse strings again, why is the government asking the provinces and Quebec to cover the cost of welcoming these refugees? If the federal government will not do it, then, as I said before, Quebec will.

148 words

All Topics

Mar/29/22 11:39:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am insulted that the federal government is using whataboutism and refusing to answer questions or explain its own failings in this matter. Instead, it is passing the buck to the Quebec and provincial governments by saying that it has no problem taking in refugees, but that it needs to know whether the provinces will be able to accommodate them. The federal government says that it would not want refugees to get here only to find out that no one can take them in. Until it gets assurances that the provinces can take them in, the federal government prefers to leave the refugees where they are. Such rhetoric is frankly indecent. I would like to remind the federal government that, at the very outset, the Quebec government said that it was prepared to take in Ukrainian refugees. It set up a system to welcome Ukrainian refugees. We are ready and waiting. With respect to providing them with health care, I would like to remind my colleagues that the provinces have long been giving health care to refugees the federal government took in without consulting the provinces at all.

190 words

All Topics

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

Mar/3/22 11:26:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam President, that is an excellent question. We saw the Liberal government force B.C.'s government to agree to let a pipeline cross its province. Quebec is fundamentally and irrevocably opposed to a new pipeline going through. I hope that our Liberal colleagues are not suggesting that they are prepared to force a pipeline down Quebeckers' throats.

58 words

All Topics

Mar/3/22 11:25:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am seeing that the Liberal government is going to vote for the Conservative motion. The mask is coming off. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Conservatives are courting a Liberal to be their leader, given that the Liberals seem to be in exactly the same camp as the Conservatives on the energy issue. I do not know how to respond to my colleague's comments. Even if it were true that the Germans, who want to switch to other types of energy, needed Canadian oil and gas, we would not be able to supply them in a reasonable period of time. By the time we got it done, winter and the war would already be over. We need to stop lying to ourselves, and we need to stop trying to help western Canada's oil and gas industry.

142 words

All Topics

Mar/3/22 11:23:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, it does not take a pipeline to send fertilizer to Ukraine. Second, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz himself says that Germany should reduce its dependence on oil and start transitioning to green energy as soon as possible. The Conservatives are offering to sell him more oil. However, that is not what is needed. The Germans themselves are saying this is not the direction they should take. Why would we not heed the advice of our European allies in the context of this crisis and provide them what they need to begin the green transition? Quebec is especially well placed to help in that regard.

106 words

All Topics

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

Feb/28/22 11:10:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, in 1994, Ukraine agreed to get rid of its nuclear weapons as part of one of the three Budapest memoranda. Three world powers, namely the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom, acted as guarantors. This memorandum also stipulated that the countries were to respect Ukraine's independence and sovereignty within its existing borders and refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine. Belarus is hinting that it could renounce its non-nuclear status, in violation of its commitment in the Budapest memorandum, and I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that Russia is violating the terms of the memorandum with respect to Ukraine through its present actions and that the United States and the United Kingdom have a responsibility to Ukraine under that same memorandum.

132 words

All Topics

Feb/28/22 10:34:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I completely agree with my colleague, and I mentioned this in my speech. The problem with Ukraine and Russia is that two philosophies and two world views are clashing. We must defend the side that prioritizes human rights and the rights of peoples.

45 words

All Topics

Feb/28/22 10:32:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I was speaking about cardinal values earlier. In a democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are cardinal values. We must always be extremely cautious and careful when we decide to circumscribe, regulate or limit freedom of expression and freedom of the press. As the courts have ruled over the past few decades, there comes a time when reasonable limits must be imposed. When it is clear that there is a propaganda campaign, we must intervene. I will end by reiterating that the main victims of this propaganda, this disinformation, are not Canadians, the French or the British, but Russians themselves. We must seek to provide information about what is really happening in Ukraine at present so that Russians can clearly see just how unjust and undemocratic their government is.

134 words

All Topics

Feb/28/22 10:29:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, once again, my colleague is quite right. It is rather amazing to see Switzerland, whose neutrality has always been a cardinal value, fall in line, take a position in a conflict and decide to impose the same sanctions as other democratic states. As neutral as Switzerland may be, it is also a democracy. I am certain that the Swiss authorities clearly understood what I said earlier, that what is happening at present is a challenge to all democracies around the world. Switzerland heard Russia's challenge, so Switzerland sided with democracies by condemning Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

100 words

All Topics