SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 10:48:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to rise to address this issue, and to a certain extent it is, but I am somewhat disappointed with the Conservative Party because I believe it is using this issue as a way to frustrate the legislative process, and I do not say that lightly. All members of the House have been very supportive of the people of Ukraine. They understand the situation and want to do what Canadians as a whole want us to do, and that is to support the Ukrainian people in this time of need. We have seen that in the form of take-note debates. I believe we have had two take-note debates, although maybe one was an emergency debate. I am not 100% clear on that. Members from all sides of the House recognized what is taking place in Ukraine. It does not take very much to get an appreciation of what is happening. We can go to YouTube or check news channels and see the horrors of war taking place today in Ukraine. Cities are being completely demolished, and people are dying every day by the thousands. In Putin, we see a dictator who has seen fit to destroy the infrastructure of a country, but the people of Ukraine are resisting. That resistance and love for Ukrainian heritage are what are ultimately going to prevail. We know that and we see that. It was inspiring when President Zelenskyy addressed this chamber virtually and spoke to Canadians through the House of Commons. I believe, as I know my colleagues believe, that the Government of Canada needs to do whatever it can to support Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, and not use the political manoeuvres that I believe we are witnessing today to fit another agenda that is, really and truly, meant to frustrate the government. If the Conservative Party really wants to have a debate about what is happening in Ukraine today and wants to talk about visitor visas or visa requirements, there are other opportunities. The Conservatives could have approached the government about having another take-note debate. They could have had their own opposition day and a very specific motion to deal with the topic they want to talk about today. They could have done that. There are other ways that the official opposition could have raised this very important issue. There is not one member of the Liberal caucus who would deny the fact that the issue being debated is, indeed, of critical importance. It is the timing of it. Yesterday, for example, we were looking forward to Bill C-8 passing, but Conservative after Conservative stood and spoke. Bill C-8 is the fall economic statement that would provide pandemic relief and support for Canadians in all regions, but the Conservatives have made the determination that they do not want to see that bill pass. Today we all know we are supposed to be debating Bill C-11: the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. A great deal of effort has gone into that bill through input from Canadians, the work of the ministry and its department, and the work of the minister himself. It has been debated quite extensively thus far, and it was supposed to continue to be debated. Again, we see the Conservatives bringing forward a concurrence motion. To the best of my knowledge, they did not approach the government House leader and ask for a take-note debate. To the best of my knowledge, we did not get to the rest of the orders of the day. Conservatives could have brought in an emergency debate on the issue. If they had waited an extra two minutes during House proceedings, we could have had an emergency debate. I am sure members in the Conservative Party know that the type of debate they are encouraging right now is, in fact, limited to three hours. An emergency debate would have allowed more people to participate. A take-note debate would have allowed more people to participate. An opposition day motion would have not only allowed more people to participate, but it would have allowed the Conservative Party to frame a question to ultimately be put to the House and see whether that could have been supported. That is the reason I say to the Conservative Party, and those who might be following this debate, that it is shameful of the official opposition to try to take an issue that is important to all Canadians and politicize it. I say shame on the Conservative Party of Canada for doing what it is doing: using manipulation to try to twist something so it can score some political points, or limit or cause more frustration on another piece of legislation. For Conservatives to try to give the impression that Liberals do not want to contribute to the issue of refugees in Ukraine is absolutely ridiculous. As a government, we want to do whatever we can to support the people of Ukraine. Almost 3.9 million people have fled Ukraine to date. That is the most recent estimate I have heard. Almost four million people have fled Ukraine. I talked at the beginning about those horrors. Let us take a look at the track record of this government. I will compare it with the record of Stephen Harper. In 2015, we had the election along with what was taking place in Syria. We had about 25,000 refugees to settle, and the Conservative Party was balking back then and asking how we were going to do that. The Conservatives seemed to be in opposition to it, because I think their number was around 10,000. Do not quote me on it, but it was substantially less than what we said. Not only did we achieve 25,000, but from what I understand, we actually exceeded 50,000. That does not happen overnight. There is a process. To my friends across the way, I ask them to tell me another country, on a per capita basis in the western world, that had more refugees from Syria than Canada did. Then we have Afghanistan, where the former foreign affairs minister said we would resettle 20,000 refugees, but then that doubled to 40,000. The Conservatives are already critical of some of the processes regarding processing those refugees. We will eventually get there. We understand the important role that Canada has to play when it comes to refugees. When I was the critic for the Liberal Party of Canada dealing with immigration matters, we had Stephen Harper and the Conservative minister of immigration cutting back refugee settlement programs. We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party on providing humanitarian support to refugees. I saw it first-hand when I was sitting in opposition and the Conservative Party had no respect for refugees or had minimal respect for providing the supports they required in order to settle in a healthier way here in Canada. Now the Conservative Party members have the tenacity to say that we could be doing better from a government perspective. An hon. member: You could do something. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, we are doing something. Those who believe we are not are trying to espouse false information. The Prairies were built in good part because of—

1232 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/29/22 10:59:35 a.m.
Watch

Order. I want to remind all members that they will have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments not for five minutes but for 10 minutes. Therefore, I ask that all members wait their turn and not ask questions or make comments while the parliamentary secretary is giving his speech. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

55 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 11:00:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, someone made reference to the numbers. I think close to 1.4 million people who live in Canada today are of Ukrainian heritage. Taking a look at the prairie provinces, colleagues will find that many pioneers were of Ukrainian heritage. They helped build the Prairies to what they are today. Winnipeg North, the riding I represent, is an area of Canada with historical meaning. It has deep roots in Ukrainian heritage. Take a look at the beautiful Ukrainian churches that we have and much of the infrastructure. There are 50-plus blocks that I will visit to talk to many individuals who still speak Ukrainian, with very little English, some of them being lovely seniors who will share their concerns and passion for Ukraine. One can see its rich heritage in things such as Folklorama's Spirit of Ukraine and the Kyiv Pavilion. Both pavilions have virtually sold-out audiences on many occasions. We value the contributions made by people of Ukrainian heritage for generations here in Canada. There is no surprise that when something happens in Ukraine it matters, whether it was back in 2014 or today when we see the horrors of war. The expectation from not only the 1.4 million people of Ukrainian heritage but the population as a whole has been that the Government of Canada would step up. Not only the Government of Canada has stepped up, but we have had, I believe, three rallies at the Manitoba legislature with thousands of Manitobans of great diversity. They showed up at the front of the Manitoba legislature to show their support for the people of Ukraine. I had the opportunity to participate in a couple of those rallies. For people here in Canada, especially those of Ukrainian heritage, even though they may not be in Ukraine and may not even have been born in Ukraine, their caring attitude is there. It is real and it is tangible. We saw that in the tears and the flag-waving in front of the Manitoba legislature. That was not unique. That is something that is taking place all over Canada as Canadians have stepped up, whether through prayers or donations. The Government of Canada has given considerable amounts, going into hundreds of millions of dollars, but the program I like to highlight is the one through the Red Cross. The reason I like to highlight it is that initially it was for $10 million of matching donations, where the federal government would match up to $10 million of Canadian donations through the Red Cross. That was used up in days. We more than tripled that in terms of those matching dollars. I say that because not only did Canadians as a whole offer their prayers, but they offered money and donations of all kinds. My daughter, who is an MLA, opened her office to receive some non-monetary donations right in her office. People have responded. Part of that response has been to lobby members of Parliament, MLAs and others, to do what they can to help Ukraine at this time of need. What has the Government of Canada done? One of the most important things we can do is contribute lethal weapons to support the people of Ukraine. Canada works very closely with our allied countries. In some areas, we have played a leadership role, more than other countries, within the allied forces. In other areas, another country might play a leadership role, but from a financial point of view, even before the war got under way, we saw the Canadian government providing financial support to the people of Ukraine. Those lethal weapons, along with the lethal weapons from other allied countries and friends of Ukraine, are what have enabled the heroes of Ukraine, those individuals who are staying in Ukraine and fighting the Russian soldiers and Putin. That lethal aid has proven to be successful, as we have seen parts of Ukraine being taken back because of the efforts of those heroes. Canada is also there with humanitarian aid, going into the millions of dollars. I want to address, specifically, the issue of those who are being displaced, the 3.9 million people today. I believe it is around that number. Canada has sped up and set into place a special process that enables us to be able to receive an unlimited, and let me underline the word “unlimited”, number of people fleeing Ukraine. Yes, there is a process, a process that is, I believe, reasonable at this juncture and time. If we take a look at what Canada is ultimately providing and the way we are sourcing it, we will see tens of thousands of Ukrainians coming to Canada, whether on a three-year temporary basis or, in some cases, no doubt on a permanent basis. We have put into place an expedited system that will enable people not only to come to Canada but also to work in Canada and to study in Canada. We have people in our communities who are opening their homes. We have a federal government that is working with provincial governments and other stakeholders to ensure there are settlement packages wherever possible to support those who are fleeing Ukraine. We will continue to be there.

880 words

All Topics

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Mar/29/22 11:09:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech full of pats on the back for his government for a job well failed. Look, he talked a lot about goals that are already in Canada, but he must appreciate the fact that the barriers and the delays by his government are the reason we cannot talk about those who are trying to come here. We see this, over and over again, whether it is Afghanistan and now Ukraine, or even refugees trying to flee. This is the actual problem. The backlog they have created is causing people to not be able to come here in time. I spoke to the Ukrainian ambassador last year who asked for visa-free travel. We agreed with it. The Conservative platform had it in the platform. Why did we need to do that? It is because of the backlogs. Why does the government go against all of the opposition parties, Ukrainians who are here in Canada and the then ambassador of Ukraine who was, last year, asking for visa-free travel? All of the immigration minister's reasoning has been proven wrong already. What is left? What is holding them back?

198 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 11:10:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a number of years ago, when I was the immigration critic, we had a member of Parliament from Ukraine come to Canada. He explained to the immigration committee that Canada should have visa-free entry for those coming into Canada. However, Stephen Harper at that time said no and so did the Conservative government through the Prime Minister of Canada. I believe the Conservative Party is playing politics on this issue and I find it shameful. I understand. Let us give the system we have in place the opportunity to demonstrate that we will bring in the thousands of people fleeing Ukraine who want to come to Canada. We have to give it the opportunity, and let us see what happens. I would like to think that a year from now we are going to see that tens of thousands of people have settled. When I say a year, it does not mean we have to wait a year—

162 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/29/22 11:11:15 a.m.
Watch

I have a lot of people who want to ask questions. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

21 words

Jonqui
Ask

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Mar/29/22 11:11:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I see a definite pattern in the government's actions. Every time we point out its lack of initiative, every time we point out its turpitude, it behaves like a child who gets caught and says no, it is not their fault. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean has been asking questions for two weeks. Will there be an airlift? Can the department keep its visa offices open beyond 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.? The government has not given answers, other than accusing the Bloc of picking fights and the Conservatives of using delay tactics. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can answer these two simple questions. Do you have a strategy for keeping visa offices open beyond 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.? This is a serious humanitarian crisis. Have you considered setting up an airlift—

151 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/29/22 11:12:14 a.m.
Watch

I would remind the member to address his questions and comments directly to the Chair and not to the government. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

24 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 11:12:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a strategy, and that is to facilitate an unlimited number of people who are fleeing Ukraine to come to Canada, which is a safe haven, and allow them to work, to study and to be here while we go through this very difficult time. It is an unlimited number. If we want to base this on a record, take a look at what took place in Syria. There was an initial commitment of 25,000 refugees and we had over 50,000. I believe the Government of Canada has demonstrated that it can and will have a process that will enable those who are fleeing and looking for a safe haven to come to Canada in a timely fashion.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mar/29/22 11:13:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. I have stood with people from my riding, like Sviatoslav and Stefan, who organized the Comox Valley Stands With Ukraine event, where hundreds of people showed up to stand in solidarity, ready to provide whatever supports they could. The sad part for me, as a person who before this worked in a settlement agency for eight years, is that I have never seen immigration as backlogged as it is today. We are dealing with so many files. I am wondering if the member could talk about how the government is going to take action with such a big backlog. We are not seeing any clear commitments. Are there going to be clear pathways for government-sponsored refugees? Are there going to be more provisions for people who are coming here maybe for a shorter term but who cannot work? Those things have to be here so people can be received. We are still waiting.

161 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 11:14:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for the Ukraine file, a special stream has been created to help facilitate, in a very timely fashion, people who are fleeing Ukraine. As to the bigger picture, many different streams are there. With more time, Madam Speaker would allow me to provide fulsome answers to that, but I can assure the member that whether it is marriages, sponsors or family reunification—

65 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/29/22 11:14:35 a.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

16 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Mar/29/22 11:14:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is inappropriate for a member to suggest that the Speaker will not allow fulsome answers to questions. I see no evidence that this is true of this Speaker or any other occupant of the chair. I am sure that my colleague will want to reconsider that use of language.

54 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/29/22 11:14:59 a.m.
Watch

I understood that he was looking more at the time frame, but I do appreciate the hon. member's point of order. If the parliamentary secretary can, he should wrap it up so I can get a couple more questions in.

41 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 11:15:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I meant no disrespect to you; it is more that I have a 20-minute answer for the question. Suffice it to say that we are making progress. That is one of the reasons we have invested tens of millions of dollars in additional resources for immigration to speed up our processes.

54 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/29/22 11:15:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we rarely have the opportunity to draw attention to certain things, and I would like to do that now. Earlier, my colleague from Jonquière asked two simple questions to my colleague from Winnipeg North, the same questions that our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has been asking for two weeks: Will the government commit to airlifting people and extending the operating hours of its office in Warsaw, Poland, which, at last report, has only been open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.? As my colleague from Jonquière pointed out earlier, my colleague from Winnipeg North continued to boast about a whole lot of vague actions his government has taken, instead of answering the questions. Can he answer these two simple questions?

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 11:16:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whether it is the Minister of Immigration, his department, the cabinet or caucus discussions, I would like to think that all things are on the table. We are looking to explore ways to ensure that Canada is able to maximize the number of people who are seeking a safe haven by opening our doors and putting into place policies that will support those who are coming to Canada, whether through settlement programs or through enabling them to have a job, to study or to be among friends. As we all know, there are hundreds of people, and ideally, if I could just wave a wand, we would have thousands of people coming into Canada every day. However, I do not have that wand to wave. I have faith in our minister and our system to ensure that we are able to maximize the numbers coming into Canada, because I know that providing a safe haven is important not only to me personally, but to all of my colleagues in the government.

173 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/29/22 11:17:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing that has been brought to my attention is the issue around biometrics and the fact that the government has not released that restriction or requirement for people coming into Canada. Is it not possible that they could do the biometric scan and tracking here in Canada once they are here and safe, as opposed to making them do that in problematic areas and places they have to travel to for quite some time? It is really quite impossible for them to get an appointment at an embassy, so would it not be better if they had that requirement here in Canada?

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 11:18:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing I know is that the government, through the Minister of Immigration, has put into place a team of individuals to ensure that we are able to maximize the number of people able to come to Canada, which is a safe haven. A number of things have been established to accommodate that. Part of the current requirement is the biometrics. I do not know, at the ground level, if or to what degree that is posing a serious problem in preventing individuals from being able to come to Canada. I am sure if it is, the Minister of Immigration will be looking at it.

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 48