SoVote

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/12/22 10:57:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the speech by the member for Kingston and the Islands there may be some disinformation when it comes to being measured, but the misinformation from the member for Timmins—James Bay is completely false. The situation that we are faced with today in defence around the world is probably one of the major reasons, as pointed out by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, that committees are already busy. This is an emergency. When there are references to interference in elections and a committee is not taking the time to look at that, does the member not think that would warrant having a committee to look into this special situation with China?

117 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/12/22 10:58:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I understood correctly, the member said that he is on the defence committee. No, he did not say that? Okay, I am sorry. He was talking about the defence committee. I would think that, if we had issues related to defence and with China specifically, the best place to discuss those would be at the national defence committee, not to establish a new committee. I do not really understand the logic of the member's argument of committees being cancelled as a result of the election, whether it is the China-Canada committee, the defence committee or the foreign affairs committee. Any committee would essentially be eliminated as a result of an election. Specifically concerning where to study this, I still have not heard the argument come forward as to why, given all the issues the member talked about that are going on in the world right now, namely the war in Ukraine, for example, we need a special committee to study this and why it could not be studied at the existing committees.

177 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

May/12/22 10:59:50 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this feels a bit like Back to the Future or Groundhog Day, as we keep reliving the same thing over and over again. Of course we have always been in favour of creating a committee to examine the relationship between the People's Republic of China and Canada. It is no different today; we have not changed our minds. We believe it is still relevant to have a committee to take a closer look specifically at this matter. There is no denying that the People's Republic of China is a military, political, and economic superpower. It was a real Eldorado for the Liberal government of the 1990s. Everyone said we should relocate all our businesses to China and take advantage of China's cheap labour. By doing business with China, we would eventually help raise the standard of living there, which would inevitably advance democracy and help it blossom like a flower in the spring. A few decades on, we have become a little disillusioned with the logic and narrative that the Liberal government of the day was trying to impose. Nevertheless, the fact remains that China is an undisputed economic power. We need to recognize that relations between the People's Republic of China and Canada were excellent for decades. We can think of the time when Canada provided wheat to contribute to famine relief in the People's Republic of China or the influence Dr. Bethune had during the Chinese revolution. There is also the fact that former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was among the first western heads of state to establish relations with the People's Republic of China. Relations between our countries were always extremely positive until they faltered significantly with the request to extradite Meng Wanzhou, followed by the illegal detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. I thought it was important at that point to take a look at what could have happened and how we might try to restore relations. Then something happened that had me completely shocked. I was floored. We came to realize that the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was not the least bit interested in finding solutions to improve relations with the People's Republic of China. It had become a partisan political tool to try to put the government in a tough spot. I will not get into details because we will probably have an opportunity to come back to it. The whole thing was abruptly interrupted when an entirely unnecessary election was called unexpectedly last fall. In the meantime, thanks to the election of a new government in Washington, a solution was found that, although somewhat questionable, made it possible to resolve the problem of the U.S. request to extradite Meng Wanzhou, which then led to the almost immediate release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. After the election results were announced, we came back to the House and, lo and behold, the Conservatives decided that they needed a new toy, a new tool with which to play partisan politics. All of a sudden, now that the two Michaels had been released, they felt there was no longer a need for the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Now, the Conservatives wanted a special committee to examine the disastrous Afghanistan evacuation. Our Conservative friends were convinced that this would win them political points. They no longer needed the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations at that time. We criticized the fact that the Conservatives were abandoning the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Obviously, we were not against creating the Special Committee on Afghanistan because, admittedly, some missteps and bad decisions were made, and we needed to try to identify any problems in advance just in case we should ever find ourselves in another such situation. Incidentally, the late premier Jacques Parizeau often said that we must never underestimate the federal government's ability to disappoint us. In this case, it seems as though the federal government never learns from past lessons. Although we have to hope that the federal government will learn from what happened in Afghanistan, I must admit that it may disappoint us again this time. In any event, we put pressure on the government to bring back the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. However, for their own reasons, the Conservatives were not ready for the committee to be reinstated at that time. I will let my colleagues speak to the reasons why they may not have wanted that committee to be re-established. Let us see where we are this morning. The Special Committee on Afghanistan is wrapping up its work. The Conservatives' new political toy or tool will soon be a thing of the past. What issue has become their new political football? They have suddenly proposed a special committee on the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China. That is rather extraordinary. Our Conservative friends did not think it would be useful to bring back the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations even though the world has changed profoundly in the months since the election, due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Now their priority is suddenly to reinstate the committee, so what made them change their minds? I want to make it clear to my colleagues that we agree. We have always believed that this committee served a purpose. However, I sincerely wonder about why our Conservative friends are bringing this proposal forward now. It was relevant after the election, but they were not at all interested. Suddenly, now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, they find it relevant again, with the Special Committee on Afghanistan a few weeks away from wrapping up. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I think that if someone suspected partisan motives were behind this proposal, they might be right. In any case, we must acknowledge that it certainly seems that way. However, as I have said from the beginning, even though I have serious doubts that our Conservative friends' motives are honourable, we will vote in favour of this motion because we believe and always have believed that this committee served a purpose. I would now like to take some time to talk about the wording of the motion moved by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, whom I salute. It is always a pleasure to work with him. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to one of the points early in the motion: “(iii) the distinction between the people of China and the Chinese state, as embodied by the Communist Party of China and the government of the People's Republic of China”. I think we can essentially all agree on that one. I think the next line is worthy of a little commentary. It states, “(iv) that authoritarian states, including the People's Republic of China, increasingly pose a threat to the rules-based international order”. The Conservatives seem to have discovered that there are authoritarian states in the world. It may come as a shock to some, but less than half of our fellow humans on this planet live in democracies. Given Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the People's Republic of China's threats against Taiwan, I understand this sudden desire to highlight the fact that “authoritarian states, including the People's Republic of China, increasingly pose a threat to the rules-based international order”, but I simply want to point out that this is not new. Authoritarian states are not new. Because of some kind of agreement or tacit alliance between the two countries, the authoritarian states of Russia and the People's Republic of China may constitute a threat to the international order established after the Second World War. I remind members that when the United Nations was created, we appointed the five largest powers at the time to maintain balance within the international system. The invasion of Ukraine, however, has highlighted the limits of this system, as one of the five powers meant to help maintain international order has gone out of control. We find ourselves in a situation where neither the People's Republic of China nor Russia are what one might call democratic states. It appears that they have decided to collaborate, and we fully understand the threat that poses to the world order as we knew it, until recently at least. Let me digress for a moment to share another fascinating point. By invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin thought he would discourage all states from wanting to eventually join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. However, the exact opposite has happened. Do not forget that under Donald Trump's administration, President Macron described NATO as being virtually brain dead. There were questions about the usefulness and relevance of NATO, but Vladimir Putin has made the organization relevant again—so much so that states that have traditionally been neutral for decades, such as Finland and Sweden, are now considering joining NATO. Vladimir Putin has pushed countries into NATO's arms by trying to prevent Ukraine from joining the organization. Moreover, after Brexit, some European countries, such as Poland and Hungary, started questioning the point of the European Union. After the invasion of Ukraine, people stopped questioning whether the European Union was relevant or useful. In response to the Russian threat, the European Union, like NATO, closed ranks like never before. We may agree with our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills that this kind of tacit alliance between Russia and the People's Republic of China represents a significant threat to the international order as we knew it until very recently. Even so, that does not take away from the problems we are seeing inside and outside the People's Republic of China as acknowledged in point (iv) of the motion. One example is the new silk road, China's move to establish itself as a force to be reckoned with in Africa and ultimately render former colonial powers, such as France, and even countries without a colonial past, such as Canada, irrelevant. Canada had a notable and noted presence in Africa for decades, but it literally missed the boat. While China was investing heavily in Africa, Canada withdrew from that continent, especially under the influence of Stephen Harper's Conservative government. This opened Africa's doors to the Chinese. We missed the boat, and the Chinese are emerging as the power to be reckoned with in Africa. Russia is doing the same thing in Mali now. As the French pull out, the Russians are moving in. As point (iv) indicates, this contributes to a possible destabilisation of the international order. I was talking a moment ago about the incredible and surprising solidarity shown by NATO and EU states in the face of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. We all thought about our friends in Taiwan, because we know that China is keeping a close eye on what is happening right now. Xi Jinping has made no secret of the fact that he would like to bring Taiwan back into the fold of mainland China. There have been concerns about the repercussions this would have. At a reception in Taiwan's honour last night, it was noted that Taiwan is Canada's 11th largest trading partner, the fifth largest in Asia. This is significant. Taiwan is inextricably intertwined with the global economic system. However, if the People's Republic of China were to invade Taiwan, given the influence of Chinese banks on assets in Europe, would Europe be able to show the same level of solidarity in imposing sanctions on China, which is even more inextricably intertwined in the international economic system than Russia is? What is happening right now is extremely concerning. It is not a matter of if the People's Republic of China will invade Taiwan but when, and the question is how the international community will be able to respond to this new transgression of international rules. It is important to create a new committee on Canada-China relations. We think it appropriate to support this motion even though, once again, I highly doubt the good intentions of our Conservative friends, who moved with this motion at such an odd time, after Russia invaded Ukraine and a few days after the Special Committee on Afghanistan wrapped up its work, which did not give the Conservatives the political dividends they were hoping for. Now they are turning their attention to something else, and it seems that the political panacea for the Conservatives today is to reactivate the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. We will step up. We will do what we can to ensure that this committee does not become another partisan circus, and that we can lay the foundation for a better understanding and, we hope, better relations with the People's Republic of China, given the country's significance in the international system.

2168 words

All Topics

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

May/12/22 11:19:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I want to clarify one thing: I always intended to move this motion. I am moving it now because the House of Commons Administration did not have the resources to add another special committee until now. However, since the Special Committee on Afghanistan will be completing its work on June 8, there is now an opportunity to create a new committee on Canada-China relations. It was difficult to make the decision to move a motion on Afghanistan last fall, but now we have an opportunity to have a committee on Canada-China relations. That is why I moved this motion today.

113 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

May/12/22 11:20:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not doubt my colleague's intentions. However, I would like to point out that, without disclosing any caucus secrets, and setting aside this noble argument that another committee could not be created because the House of Commons just did not have enough resources, I know for a fact, from what some Conservative colleagues have confided to me, that there were internal disagreements about whether it was advisable to bring back the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. That is the truth. Now the Conservatives are dissatisfied, and I will admit that I am as well, with the negotiations between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party on the committee that will examine the situation that occurred at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Conservatives very clumsily presented a motion at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Because it was not adopted and they were not pleased with the committee that was created, they are proposing to create a special committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China relationship in the hope of again strong-arming the government on the issue of—

192 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 11:22:03 a.m.
Watch

Order. I must interrupt the member because there are others who want to ask questions. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

22 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/12/22 11:22:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague probably recalls, Canada signed the FIPA trade agreement under the Stephen Harper Conservatives, which locked Canadians into a trade agreement for over 31 years that cannot be cancelled. Under this agreement, Chinese companies can seek redress against any laws passed by any level of government that threaten their profits. There is a secret tribunal they can use if there is a lawsuit with respect to their rights around this. We saw Chinese state-owned companies get access to energy, and I will quote from a story by a reporter who wrote, “If Stephen Harper ever gets tired of being Canada’s Prime Minister, he might like to consider a second career in China—he’d fit right in.” I would ask my colleague this. Does he believe this committee should first look at what the agreement did with respect to opening up threats to our Canadian security? Has the former prime minister benefited at all from the trade agreement he signed?

171 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

May/12/22 11:23:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my simple answer to my colleague is yes. If we need to reconsider Canada's existing relations with the People's Republic of China, everything must be on the table and we will have to consider the positives and negatives of each issue. We have to acknowledge that Canada's economic relationship with the People's Republic of China is quite deep. This became clear during the pandemic when supply chains were completely disrupted. That led some companies to reconsider their decision to use Chinese suppliers, which is a far cry from the El Dorado the Liberals promised in the 1990s. Everything must be on the table, and that includes economic relations. If our friends in the New Democratic Party think it is worthwhile reviewing the agreement signed by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, that is fine, we will review it.

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/12/22 11:24:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montarville for his speech. My understanding is that he intends to support the motion. I am just curious as to why he thinks it is important to establish a committee on our relationship with China instead of having it studied at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

May/12/22 11:24:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is simple. Realistically, there are only so many resources, technically speaking, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development can devote to addressing these topics and issues. Right now, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is getting a lot of attention. There are plenty of people and conflicts elsewhere in the world that have suddenly been forgotten because this conflict in Ukraine is getting all the attention and sucking up all the oxygen. There are only so many issues that can be addressed by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The same is true of the Standing Committee on Health, where it was decided to create a special committee to conduct a special study on medical assistance in dying. In relation to the People's Republic of China, given its importance, we think that there must be—

146 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 11:25:59 a.m.
Watch

I am going to allow more questions, because I know there are several other members who wish to speak. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

28 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/12/22 11:26:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found the answer to that last question very interesting. The member was asked why this could not go to the foreign affairs committee, and the response was that the foreign affairs committee seems to be seized with one issue right now, which is the war in Ukraine, and does not have time for these other issues. Then the member also said there are a lot of issues going on around the world and that is why we need to establish this committee. Is the member then saying we should be establishing committees for every issue the foreign affairs committee cannot handle? That is what he basically just said in response to his last question. He said that we do not have enough resources so we need a special committee, but he also said there are a number of issues going on throughout the world. Do we establish a special committee for every issue?

156 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

May/12/22 11:27:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, taking that logic to ridiculous extremes, I wonder if it is even worth trying to answer that.

19 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/12/22 11:27:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Montarville on his speech. I have learned more about international politics and global issues from his speeches than I did during all my years at university. I would remind my colleague that, in 2020, the House of Commons adopted a motion calling on the federal government to develop a strategy to combat Chinese aggression and make a decision on Huawei. Nothing has been done since. As we all know, one of the Conservatives' new friends, Jean Charest, has returned to the fold and is trying to win the party leadership. He has a history of professional relations with Huawei and is a friend of the company. Should a special committee on the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China be formed, does my colleague think that the Conservatives' demands and intentions with respect to this committee could change, given their new relationship with Mr. Charest?

158 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

May/12/22 11:28:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a very interesting question, and he is absolutely right. There is reason to be concerned about Huawei's presence in the 5G sector in Canada, despite the company's good intentions. For example, when the Chinese offered to build an ultramodern building for the African Union, it turned out that the company and Chinese authorities were spying on the African Union. Given the danger, our other four Five Eyes allies, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, decided to remove Huawei from their 5G networks. Strongly influenced by our Conservative friends, the House of Commons asked the government to remove Huawei from the Canadian 5G network, but the government continues to drag its feet. This is hurting our businesses, because many of them have chosen Huawei technology. Our Conservative friends will therefore have to deal with an aspiring leader who is a close friend of Huawei. I look forward to seeing where they stand on this issue at the special committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China relationship.

178 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/12/22 11:29:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my honour, as always, to speak in this place and share my thoughts. I want to start today by saying that I appreciate very much the incredible insight of my colleague from London—Fanshawe, so I will be splitting my time with her today. This motion is very difficult for me, to be perfectly honest. I am going to spend the next few minutes talking about things that I am very supportive of with regard to this motion and things that I think are very problematic with it. I want to thank my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing this motion forward. I have great respect for the member. I think he is very knowledgeable and experienced. I have depended on his experience in the past. I appreciate the portion of this motion that notes: Canadians of Chinese descent have made immeasurable contributions to Canada I think that is an important note we need to make. It also says: the people of China are part of an ancient civilization that has contributed much to humanity That is also an extremely important piece to this. I support the idea of Parliament and members of this place spending more time looking at our relationship with China. We have seen very problematic things coming out of the China-Canada relationship. Many of them are very well known to all of the members of the House. I have been listening to the debate this morning, and I have been hearing people say that this can happen at the foreign affairs committee. I am going to touch on this a bit later on, but I have to say that the foreign affairs committee has not been particularly good at getting things through when either the Conservatives or the Liberals do not want them to get through. I am going to touch on that later. Just so members know, we have constraints within the foreign affairs committee because of the enormous amount of work we need to do, and also because there are tricks and whatnot being used within the foreign affairs committee to limit the amount of work we can do, by both the government and the opposition, to clarify. The Canada-China committee would be an opportunity for us to look at those myriad issues that affect Canadians with regard to our relationship with China. I have met with many stakeholders and many constituents who are deeply concerned about that relationship. It is a vital relationship. We have an incredibly strong economic relationship with China that should have parliamentary oversight. However, we have serious concerns about what is happening with regard to human rights in China and other areas of the world. As someone who has spoken many times to Hong Kongers who are deeply alarmed and devastated by what has happened in Hong Kong, and as someone who has spoken to people in Taiwan who are quite worried, I know a lot is happening. Consider the situation with the Uighurs. I was a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights that did the initial study on the genocide against the Uighur people. I heard the harrowing testimony from witnesses, experts and legal scholars on the genocide that is happening in China. That is very important as well. We were all seized by the hostage-taking of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, but they were not the only Canadians who have been held in detention. There are still Canadians being held in detention, and we need to find a way to work with China to have that situation resolved. Even just recently, I was deeply concerned about the news I heard that our previous ambassador, Ambassador Barton, was able to take a very lucrative job with a mining company after meeting with that company as an employee of the Crown. After holding that highest of positions, he was able to translate it into a lucrative opportunity for himself. I know, because I did check with the Ethics Commissioner, that laws were not broken in that situation, but it certainly did not pass the smell test for me and I am sure for many other Canadians around the world. There is a rationale for this committee. However, I have some serious concerns, and I think I share them with many members of the House. A lot of them stem from this question: Why should we single out China at this time? Knowing the scenario we are in and knowing there is a war after the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine, which is deeply troubling for all parliamentarians, the use of this motion to single out the issues we have with China is problematic for me. I want to go through a few of the areas where we could also have committees. I look at what is happening in Ethiopia. I look at what is happening to the Tigrayan people. It is devastating to see what is happening to the Tigrayan people. We have a Tigrayan diaspora, and it has reached out to me so many times to ask for help and ask for us to do more, so work needs to be done there as well. I look at Yemen. My goodness. The Conservatives and the Liberals have sold arms to Saudi Arabia, which is fuelling the violence in Yemen to the point that Canada has been called out by the United Nations. Canada has been called out and shamed at the United Nations for fuelling a conflict. David Beasley from the World Food Programme has said it is the “worst place on earth”. Maybe we need to have a conversation about that. Maybe we need to have a conversation or committee about arms sales and where we are selling arms in this country. We are also selling them to Israel. We have not, at the foreign affairs committee, looked at what is happening in the Middle East. Yesterday, we brought forward a motion in the House about a journalist who was murdered. He was shot and killed, and we condemn violence against journalists. However, the Conservatives did not allow that motion to go forward. If we are so concerned about human rights abuses around the world, which members know is something that I deeply believe in, then protecting human rights is protecting human rights. Why does it only count in some situations? Why does it not count when it is a journalist attacked in the Middle East? Why does that not count, yet something happening to the Uighur people does? It is of course something we need to look at and study, but I do not understand how the Conservatives pick and choose. How do they cherry-pick human rights? Human rights are human rights, whether they happen in Canada or any other country in the world. When I started, I talked about the foreign affairs committee. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc that the foreign affairs committee is extremely busy right now. Everyone in this House can appreciate the amount of work and effort that we are putting toward the conflict in Ukraine. It is seizing our attention and we are deeply engaged in that particular issue. I see the need to have other opportunities to look at other conflicts. Maybe we need two foreign affairs committees, to be perfectly honest, because the world has changed. The world is a very difficult place at the moment. However, I want to reiterate that the foreign affairs committee has made choices in the past not to study things that are important. Members of that committee have made choices to filibuster, to delay and to use stall tactics so that we do not always meaningfully look at Canada's role in the world and the important role Canada could, should and used to play in the world. There is something to be discussed in that place as well. I am going to spend the next several days really thinking about this motion. I am going to be talking to my constituents. I am going to be talking to stakeholders. I am going to be engaging with the community. I am going to be talking to my colleagues. We have to have a bigger conversation about how we want Canada's role in the world to be articulated and how we as parliamentarians want to move forward in this changing geopolitical climate. I will end my remarks there. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

1420 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

May/12/22 11:39:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention. I always appreciate hearing her in the House. My colleague who brought this motion forward today talked about the need for this committee. He had many different, great reasons for that. One thing that has been mentioned today is the foreign affairs committee, which is dealing with the war on Ukraine. China has a big role in that and it has not condemned the war. When it comes to relations with Russia and China, they are very amicable, at a time when our Prime Minister, who was in Ukraine this week, is donating $50 million more in taxpayer dollars to it. Does that alone not warrant, notwithstanding the rest of the reasons, the establishment of this committee, apart from the foreign affairs committee?

132 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson

May/12/22 11:40:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the issues I am grappling with is the geopolitical situation we find ourselves in. Russia and Ukraine are, of course, front and centre in that, but the ripples and implications of it on a broader scale are very clear. One thing that I have been working on has me quite worried. When we look at China, it appears to me that it is determining whether it is going to side with Russia or against it. I am also looking at nuclear disarmament. Now, more than ever, we need to look at the fact that we have a megalomanic madman in Putin, who has a nuclear bomb. I do not think any of us wants to be held hostage by somebody with a nuclear bomb. What we also need to be looking at in the foreign affairs committee is how to disarm. I would love to have a committee, to be perfectly honest, on nuclear disarmament in this world. We could move that further so that countries like Russia cannot not hold us over a barrel and—

181 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 11:41:35 a.m.
Watch

Sorry, but I have to go to other questions. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

17 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/12/22 11:41:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion for defending human rights. I sit with her on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I completely agree with her. There are many problematic conflicts around the world that are not getting any media attention. In fact, when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees came to Ottawa a month ago, he said that this was a problem because all eyes are on Ukraine right now, but there are conflicts all over the place. I would like to talk to my colleague about the very specific case of one of my constituents. Lazhar Zouaïmia is a human rights advocate for Amnesty International. He went to Algeria and was imprisoned there. He had a hard time leaving that country, but has finally returned to Longueuil. This morning there was an article in Le Devoir about the huge number of Canadians who are still trapped over there, not necessarily in prison, but—

171 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 70