44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 25, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard the member say that Conservatives ran surpluses under Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. That statement could be no further from the truth. As a matter of fact, between Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, there were only two surpluses in the entire time both prime ministers were around. The first was on the heels of Paul Martin and the surplus he left for Brian Mulroney. The second came in 2015 at the expense of slashing veterans services and selling shares of GM at bargain prices.
Once again I am learning a new revisionist history given to us by the Conservatives. No Conservative prime minister in the last three decades ran a surplus, with the exception of the two I just mentioned. Perhaps the member can inform the House as to where he is getting his data from. It is clearly not based on the reality of what actually happened.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kingston and the Islands was not listening closely, as often happens. I said operating surpluses, not a surplus overall, which is true. That was articulated last Friday by my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets.
I would further note that the current government inherited a balanced budget from the previous government and has squandered it extraordinarily. We are all paying the price for that.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the fact that Canadian households have difficulty finding housing. That is a huge problem. He quoted the excellent study by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation showing that Canada needs to build 3.5 million units of all kinds in the next 10 years.
The Conservatives speak of fiscal virtue and reducing the deficit, but investments will have to be made in some areas. For example,Quebec needs 1.1 million housing units in the next 10 years. The private sector will build 500,000, but, one way or another, the government will have to participate in the construction of 600,000 more units in the next 10 years. We will have to spend on programs that work, which is not the case for the Liberals' programs at this time. The big national housing strategy provides $78 billion over 10 years. A little over 100,000 housing units have been built in five years. That is a disaster.
How will the Conservatives solve this problem?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course housing is a huge need. As I cited, the fact that nine out of 10 young people and new Canadians in particular have given up on the dream of home ownership is incredibly sad in a country as rich as Canada, where for the entirety of our history, people have come to build a better life.
My friend referenced statistics from the CMHC, particularly with respect to his province. I would note that our approach is to remove gatekeepers and red tape, which are adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of building homes. Thus, we can get those homes built to top up the supply for people and, obviously, increase the affordability of housing in Canada.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question about housing. The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook just squeaked in the word “affordability” at the end. The real problem with building more houses is that we are not building more affordable houses.
I just had a housing round table in Penticton, and the city representative talked about how the city is building more housing units every day than it has ever built in history, but it has fewer affordable houses every day. That is because, naturally, the housing units that are being built are bought up by the people who can afford them. That will not bring prices down; it will make prices go up. Therefore, I would echo what the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said, which is that we need to get the government involved in building hundreds of thousands of units of affordable housing.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when there is a shortage of 3.5 million houses, we need every type and size of house, whether a single, a semi-detached, a quad or the like. I know there have been investments into affordable housing under the previous government in my home community. My predecessor announced many of those in conjunction with the members of his party in their respective ridings. Obviously, that is something we will continue.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that is nothing less than miraculous, because it resurrects the woolly mammoth. This is not about an elephant, but about a woolly mammoth.
Like the mammoth, Bill C-47 is gigantic. Like the woolly mammoth, whose wool hides the dust, pollen and flowers to the great pleasure of scientists, Bill C‑47 hides many surprises within its lines, and they are not the best surprises.
There are a few interesting measures, especially for tourism. However, a few of these measures have serious flaws that create some unfairness. Exceptionally, I am going to let the government boast about what its budget accomplishes. I am going to focus my speech on the major omissions.
The list of the omissions is quite long. There are no new investments in housing—even though it is more than just necessary, it is urgent. There is no increase to old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74. There is complete silence on the tax injustice affecting surviving spouses whose children receive an orphan benefit. There is nothing about improving the EI program. There is nothing about implementing anti-scab legislation. There is nothing about health transfers to make up for the federal disinvestment over the last 30 years, despite Quebec and the Canadian provinces having made that demand.
Certain elements are included in the budget, but good luck combing through the mammoth's wool to figure out who they will really impact or benefit. For example, I am thinking about greenwashing, the fiscal imbalance and the confirmation of King Charles III as Canada's head of state.
I will focus on only some of the points. Each of the points I will raise has a connection to the slogan “Investing in People”.
Very few people know about the reality I am about to describe, but it is heartbreaking. When a couple has children and one of the spouses unfortunately dies, the surviving spouse loses not only a life partner, but also the father or mother of the children and the person who helped financially. There were two people paying the bills, and now there is only one. What few people know is that the orphan's benefit that the children receive, if any, is considered income. If they are minors, this income is added to the surviving spouse's income. Thus, the surviving parent has to pay more taxes and receive fewer benefits because the government considers that the income of the orphans should be taxed to the surviving parents, which puts these people in a more financially difficult situation than they were already facing.
This is an injustice that has been known for years, and yet no federal government, Liberal or Conservative, has provided a concrete solution. The Liberal slogan about investing in people seems to imply, in this case, that the government has figured out how to take more money from people who are already in one of the most difficult situations life can throw at them.
Speaking of difficult situations, let us talk about lockouts imposed on workers by certain employers. This is the case for longshoremen at the Quebec City port. For the past six months, in Quebec City, longshoremen see scabs pass under their noses and do their jobs in their stead. It is frustrating and appalling for these workers for different reasons.
First, in Quebec, legislation prohibiting the use of scabs by companies dates back to 1977, the year of my birth. That was 46 years ago. We say that Quebec is visionary, progressive and ahead of Canada in many respects and our anti-scab legislation is one such example.
Currently, two bills have been tabled and we are waiting for them to be added to the agenda. The first was introduced by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville and the second by the member from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who will have to make a choice sooner or later between all the bills he has introduced, since he will only be able to debate one of them.
Despite repeated requests from unions and workers, the government is not budging. There is nothing in the budget to address this, not even cross-country consultations to ensure that everyone agrees. There is nothing.
What does this mean for the people of Beauport—Limoilou, for those who live in proximity to ports in Quebec and Canada and what does this have to do with the budget?
It is important to note that the scabs do not have the same training as the longshoremen. Because they do not have the appropriate training, they are sometimes putting their lives at risk. There are more dangers to their health and safety but also to the health and safety of the other port employees. Does someone need to die crushed between the dock and a boat before the government will take action?
That does not make any sense. We need to recognize our longshoremen's expertise. The fact that these scabs do not have the same training increases the risk of handling errors. Such errors could lead to the release of volatile products, such as nickel or the red dust that made the headlines for years in Beauport—Limoilou, during transhipment.
In short, the environment and air quality are at risk in this situation because the federal government is 46 years behind the Quebec government in banning companies from using scabs. We have a government that claims to be proactive on environmental issues and to be investing in people, but the reality is that it is doing nothing on either of those fronts. Once again, the Liberals' slogan of “investing in people” actually seems to mean that the government is refusing to invest in workers and their rights or in environmental protection for the people in my riding.
I want to come back to the mammoth I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I was saying that there were things hidden in its wool, and one of them is the fiscal imbalance. The government has announced a $41‑billion deficit, but what it is not saying is that it is making big announcements without being able to spend the money it announces. As a result, $38 billion went unspent in 2020‑21, and roughly the same amount went unspent in 2021‑22. These two amounts combined not only erase the current deficit, but result in a surplus of tens of billions of dollars.
Some will say that is good news, but it is not, because while the government is squirrelling away taxpayers' money into its coffers, taxpayers are not receiving the services they are entitled to. Seniors 65 to 74 are not seeing their pension go up so that they can afford decent housing, food, drugs and so on. Keeping these tens of billions of dollars in the coffers is preventing desperately needed social housing from being built. Keeping these tens of billions of dollars in the coffers is preventing Quebec and the Canadian provinces from getting the health transfers they have been calling for for decades.
This is what we call the fiscal imbalance. The federal government fills up its coffers with tax money from Quebeckers and Canadians, yet services that fall under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction suffer because their taxpayers' money is not being handed over. This imbalance is so great that Canada will have paid off all of the debt it has accumulated since 1867 in less than 30 years, while most Canadian provinces will be unable to balance their budgets. Canadian federalism is cannibalizing the very foundation of the country created in 1867.
In this case, the Liberal slogan “investing in people” actually seems to mean that the government is forgetting about workers who lose their jobs, seniors, people who need decent, affordable housing, and people who need health care.
Speaking of the Constitution, the mammoth budget bill is hiding something else under its woolly coat. It confirms that Charles III, King of England, is the head of state of Canada. There was not a word about that in the speech. Have the Liberals considered the fact that 56% want to abolish the monarchy? No, they have not. Is this what they mean by meeting needs and investing in people? I am not sure.
This budget will not go down in history as being the most effective for the people, particularly the people of Quebec. This budget once again opens the door for the federal government to interfere in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, while failing to properly look after those areas that are. It is like a neighbour who comes over to tell me how to clean my house, but who suffers from a compulsive hoarding disorder.
To sum up, there is an elephant behind this mammoth budget. The elephant in the room is that only Quebec independence will allow Quebeckers to manage their own taxes in order to truly meet their needs.
1520 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am sorry, but I will be asking my question in English.
It is late, and I am a little tired. The member spoke eloquently about issues facing workers and the need for anti-scab legislation. I know that our government is committed to delivering on that promise.
Will the member work with us to achieve those goals and vote for that legislation when it comes to fruition?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House since 2019. Since then, we have been saying that we will work together and collaborate on anything that is good for Quebec. If it is not good, it is not good; we will improve it, if possible.
That said, there is another mammoth in the room for workers. It is a blue whale. It is EI reform, which we are still waiting on, even though the program is over 50 years old.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her thoughtful intervention.
I do agree with some points about the budget. One part, where the budget does not spend enough, or early enough, is on indigenous housing. It allocates $4 billion, starting in 2024, but it would be over four years and spread across Canada.
Could the member share her thoughts on how we need to prioritize indigenous housing in Canada?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, for years we have known that the first nations housing situation is extremely difficult and that nothing is being done. Almost nothing is being done about clean drinking water. In northern Quebec and Canada, the permafrost is melting, but nothing is being done to stop homes from sinking into the ground, although we know how to prevent this. The saddest thing is that first nations cannot even decide to build their own homes. The Indian Act requires that they receive authorization from the patriarchal federal government.
There are some things that must be changed in the budget concerning the consideration that first nations and Inuit people deserve.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the budget, the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to increase because of the current government's choices. Part of the debt consists of a credit for Quebeckers' pensions. It is included in the calculation of the debt. It is a credit accruing to the government.
Does my colleague believe that it is fair to include Quebeckers' pensions in the calculation of the national debt?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, people in Quebec pay taxes just like those in the rest of Canada do. They also pay for the Canada pension plan. Why is that considered a debt? That is an excellent question, because the money adds up.
As I was saying in my speech, there is a difference of tens of billions of dollars between the announcements that are made and the money that is actually spent. It all adds up. In less than 30 years, the fiscal imbalance will have cannibalized the budgets of the provinces, especially that of Quebec, but also those of the nine others, while Canada will have paid off all of the debts it has accumulated since 1867. That is rather outrageous.
Everyone should be aware of that, and something should be done about it.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking at length about the importance of anti-scab legislation. Yes, Quebec was a leader in that regard. Thanks to an NDP government, British Columbia also has this type of legislation. We are pleased to force the Liberals to introduce a bill in that regard. They said that they would do it in 2023. I know that, in the past, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have both introduced federal anti-scab bills.
I am wondering why my colleague thinks the government is dragging its feet on this and why it has not already introduced such a bill. We have been waiting and waiting, but the longshoremen in her riding cannot wait any longer.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a bill has already been introduced by the Bloc Québécois. My colleague will have to make a choice, since there are two bills on this subject. That said, I have a single phrase to offer, and it is in English, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for my colleagues: follow the money.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if I were to give any advice to a Canadian who wanted to understand where our country is financially right now, and perhaps understand the credibility of the performance of the current Liberal government, I would tell them to not read the most recent budget. Instead, what I would encourage them to do, would be to just read the one from last year and perhaps some of the independent audits that have been done on the government's financial performance.
It was just last year that the Liberals said they were finally getting tough on spending and on the country's budget. They said they were going to balance the budget in five years. They said the deficit would go down, and they used some pretty big firm words about fiscal anchors and red lines. Here we are a year later, and they broke every single one of those metrics.
After eight years of Liberal government, and after all those years of budgets, Canadians are fed up with the broken promises, and they are fed up with the doubling down by the Liberals and the NDP on the same failed approach that created the mess we are currently facing in this country with government spending, the cost of living and the inflationary pressures Canadians in every part of this country are facing in every aspect of their lives.
It is important that, when we talk about a budget, we understand and define why we are here in the first place. With many of the measures the government would try to take credit for, the reality is that they are forced to introduce them because of the problems they created. We have a 40-year high in inflation, and we still have food costs that are at double-digit increases year by year. Housing prices have doubled. What is absolutely painful for millions of Canadians on top of that is the fact that rent has doubled. Now, as interest rates have skyrocketed at a near unprecedented level, we are seeing mortgage payments doubled in this country.
If we add up the Liberals' budgets, their strategies and their plans, there is one clear conclusion: Every time the Liberals and NDP touch something, they spend record amounts, and they make the problem worse.
The interesting thing is that in the lead-up to the budget, there was a tiny part of me that was a little naive and thought maybe the Liberals finally and truly got it. It was the finance minister who went out in the days leading up to it, after years of our leader saying that, when the government drives up debt and deficits and prints half a trillion dollars over the course of a few years, it adds to and creates inflation. The Liberals denied it, and finally in the lead-up to the budget, they admitted it. They said they needed to rein in their spending and get their fiscal house in order to make sure they were not inflaming inflation further. This was a little ironic after two years of them denying it.
However, when the Liberals tabled the budget, the finance minister did not even listen to what she had said the week before while out on a tour previewing the budget. The deficit went up. There is over $40 billion in new spending, debt and deficit this year alone. It was supposed to go down, but it went up. There is new spending of $4,200 per family.
The Auditor General has said several times that the government will try to claim it had to add and double. The Prime Minister and the Liberals had to add more to our national debt in eight years than every other previous prime minister combined because of COVID, yet it was the independent Auditor General who called them out and said there were billions upon billions of dollars in increased spending because the Liberals cannot control their budgets. There was $15 billion found that was deemed fraudulent. The response from the government was that it was not worth going after.
If someone got a bill from CRA for $79.82, they had better make that payment by the end of the month, or the CRA is going to start coming after them and mailing them repeatedly until they pay, yet the Liberals let $15 billion out the door and tell Canadians that it is not even worth it. That is the reason the financial mess is happening here in Ottawa. After eight years, Canadians believe there is not a shred of fiscal responsibility left on that side of the aisle.
I want to talk tonight about interest rates. They are going up after the government, the finance minister, the Prime Minister and the governor of the Bank of Canada all said that they would not. They actually worried that, because they were spending so much, they were going to have deflation and not inflation. Not only were they wrong, but we have 40-year highs in inflation and some of the fastest increases in modern times.
Here is the thing that I want to let Canadians know when they understand what this budget is all about and how it is painful to our economy and to households in multiple ways. When interest rates go up, what many Canadians see is the pain of mortgage payments.
When the Liberals came into power in 2015, the average mortgage payment in this country was about $1,400 per month. Now, because of the mess they have created, interest rates have gone up and mortgage rates have gone up. The average right now for a mortgage in this country for a Canadian family or individual is $3,100 a month. Rent for a one-bedroom unit only a few years ago, when the Liberals came into power, was $973. Now, the average for a one-bedroom unit in this country is over $1,700 per month. At the same time, when the price of gas, the price of food and every other metric of a family budget is going up, families are now forced to find hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of dollars more per month to keep a roof over their heads.
However, the double whammy of interest rates that I want to highlight is that there is another part. The government has a mortgage debt of sorts, which is our national debt. It has now bloomed to $1.2 trillion. That is $81,000 in debt for every Canadian household in this country. Our debt, as I mentioned, has doubled in the last five years, but there is a problem where interest rates are a gut punch to taxpayers in two ways. I talked about people's family budget and how it is impacting them, but as a taxpayer, the cost to service our national debt is skyrocketing as well.
Just two years ago, the payments for the interest on the national debt were $24.5 billion dollars. That is just the interest payments and not paying it down in any way. It is a serious, major payment. This year, in the Liberals' own budget, because they have added so much to our debt and because they have allowed and caused interest rates to go through the roof with their inflationary spending, we will spend nearly $44 billion this year on just servicing the interest on our national debt. That is a major step in the wrong direction.
I will say this tonight, and not only to the government but, shamefully, to the NDP: Not only are they going along with the budget, but they are also are adding more deficit and more debt. They are increasing taxes. The carbon tax is going up. There is more money coming off of people's paycheques at the end of every month. They are making the problem worse, not better. The NDP continues to prop the Liberals up every single step of the way, and not just in financial policy that is bad for this country, but also in the cover-ups of the numerous ethical scandals the government is facing.
I am proud that, on this side of the aisle, we have a leader and a party proposing ideas about capping spending with dollar-for-dollar savings. For every dollar of proposed new spending, we would find a dollar of savings. When the number of housing starts in this country is the lowest of the G7, when it is costing so much and we are getting further behind, we need to remove gatekeepers and tie federal money to infrastructure funding and the amount of housing units being built. We need to scrap the carbon tax, which would make life more affordable and lower the cost of living in every part of this country for every Canadian.
Enough is enough. After eight years, it is time for a change, and I am anxious to get out there and let Canadians know what that alternative is.
1506 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/23 10:00:07 p.m.
- Watch
It being 10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the crisis in Sudan.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank your office for granting us the opportunity to have this emergency debate on the tragic situation unfolding in Sudan.
I also want to thank all the members who are here tonight. I know the hour is late and there are many issues competing for our attention, but I think we all understand how important it is to be engaged with global events in general and to recognize the nature of the crisis in Sudan in particular. Indifference to global events undermines our own security. Indeed, the best security for our freedom here at home is our investment in the cause of freedom everywhere and our willingness to stand in solidarity with those who are struggling, while also learning the lessons that we can from their experience.
I want to start my remarks this evening with a brief summary of the situation in Sudan, as well as share some reflections on key lessons that we can learn and the actions that we should be taking in response.
In December 2018, I connected with members of Edmonton's Sudanese community who wanted more support from parliamentarians for a nascent democratic revolution in their country of origin. Honestly, when I first heard from them I was surprised at the idea of a democratic revolution in Sudan. At the time, Sudan had been ruled for 30 years by the same dictator, Omar al-Bashir.
Notably, al-Bashir was indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court while he was still in office. Indeed, he was a terrible leader. Instead of helping Sudan realize its incredible potential, he divided the country, committed numerous unspeakable atrocities and sought to redirect any of the country's wealth towards himself and his family. The country is still dealing with the legacy of his horrific, divisive and violent rule.
However, in late 2018 and early 2019, the people of Sudan boldly took to the streets to demand change. The heroes of this revolution risked everything to demand the recognition of their inherent human dignity and human rights. Human rights do not come from government. They are inherent in human beings, which is why we call them “human” rights.
In many countries around the world, we have seen these kinds of heroic, civilian-led democratic revolutions where, incredibly, under conditions of unspeakable terror, a critical mass of people take to the streets in protest and succeed in overthrowing a dictator.
Many members are today following the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran, and I think there are many similarities between that movement in Iran today and what happened in Sudan in 2018 and 2019. There are many other parallels that we could speak about.
During the revolution in Sudan, I also had a chance to meet with members of the Sudanese community in St. Catharines, along with then Conservative candidate Krystina Waler. Krystina is Ukrainian and was involved in supporting the revolution of dignity, which ousted Yanukovych in Ukraine. I recall how we discussed the similarities between those democratic revolutions and how diaspora communities here in Canada can support those fighting for democracy in their countries of origin.
This kind of comparative political discussion that can happen in Canada among diaspora communities who are working to support justice and freedom in their countries of origin are indeed some of my favourite conversations to be a part of, with Canadians from different cultural backgrounds sharing insight about how to support these kinds of freedom movements in their countries of origin.
There are often other connections, speaking of the revolution in Sudan and efforts in Iran. One of the grievances that was involved in the revolution of Sudan was the fact that people from Sudan, child soldiers, were being sent to fight in the conflict in Yemen, which is the result of the negative influence in the region associated with Iranian regime.
We can learn so much, and we can learn from listening to and working with diaspora communities. Those communities also engage and learn from each other's experience. In Ukraine, Iran, Georgia and Sudan, we have seen citizen-led democratic movements that have led to dramatic, earth-shattering change. These movements have happened because unarmed women and men have been willing to stand in front of tanks and say no.
Of course, the success of such movements is not inevitable, and there are often setbacks, such as the brutal massacre of civilians in Tiananmen Square and the failure of the Syrian revolution to deliver democratic change. These and other examples show that those who take to the streets for democratic change cannot know what the outcome will be. There was no inevitability in the course of history. People can only do their part to try to steer the future of their country towards freedom and justice.
These movements show us that, while there is no inevitable trajectory to history, there is a universal aspiration for justice and freedom that reflects the universal nature of the human creature. We as human beings are meaning-seeking, justice-seeking and freedom-seeking creatures, whether in Canada, Sudan or anywhere else.
I was inspired by the stories I heard in 2018 and 2019. I was inspired by the interim success achieved by Sudan's democracy movement at ousting Omar al-Bashir. However, the struggle has continued. Following his removal, the people have not yet been able to realize their desire for truly civilian-led government, justice for past atrocities and effective democratic rule-of-law-oriented institutions.
The challenges Sudan continues to face demonstrate two universal truths. One is that people, regardless of history or cultural context, aspire to live in genuine freedom. The second is that history matters and that a people cannot make a perfect, complete break with their past. There is no good way to wipe the slate completely clear. There will always be transitional struggles to build new institutions out of the shells of old.
In this case, one of the defining challenges is that the Sudanese military had created a kind of parallel military force during the period of al-Bashir's rule, called the RSF. The RSF was a kind of organizational successor to the Janjaweed militia, associated with horrific atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere. Both the Sudanese military and the RSF have been responsible for horrific violence. There are no so-called good guys between these two military factions, but the legacy of the creation of this parallel military structure is that rivalry has grown up between them and between those who lead them.
At the hands of both the RSF and the Sudanese military, the people of Sudan have been the victims. At times these violent groups have joined forces to suppress the Sudanese people, but today they are violently opposing each other, and the people of Sudan are caught in the crossfire. Either way, the Sudanese people are the heroes of this story, and they have also been the victims as a result of violence from both of these competing rival military factions.
Just to back up a bit again, in 2019, the Sudanese community that I met with here in Canada wanted us to be more actively engaged with events in Sudan by expressing our support for their movement, calling for freedom and democracy and indeed emphasizing the universality of those ideas, or at least the aspiration for them. I have found universally that those involved in these movements feel that expressions of support from parliamentarians and governments make a real difference. Of course, there are other tools we can use, such as the use of sanctions to punish human rights abusers and deter future abuses. However, at a minimum, paying attention to and expressing support for these movements matters. It matters to the people who are involved in them, and it matters to their supporters throughout the country and around the world. Our governments and those of us here in Parliament must always be willing to have the courage to express our support for these democratic movements.
In the spring of 2019, in the midst of protests, al-Bashir was ousted from power and a transitional military council was created. When protesters demanded a complete transition to civilian rule, the military, along with the RSF, undertook a horrific massacre known as the “Khartoum massacre”, during which over 100 protesters were killed. This was followed by a renewed negotiation between the democracy movement and the military, which eventually led to a temporary power-sharing agreement.
I think the challenge has always been, though, that it is hard to have a functioning power-sharing transitional mechanism when the military refuses to change and refuses to be accountable for its crimes and to recognize the inherent right of people to choose their own leaders. The military seized power again in 2021 and has not stopped refusing accountability or hurting the Sudanese people. Sudanese democratic leaders want to see the creation of one normal military under civilian direction and accountable for its actions, not two militaries that are accountable to no one and that are fighting each other.
Sudan's civilian leaders need to continue the work of transition, but they need our support. We need to respond to the current crisis of seeming civil war between the country's two militaries, but in the long run we need to support the Sudanese people in every way we can as they seek to finish the work they started in December 2018. I am calling on the government, as it responds to the current crisis, to not forget about the long term and to engage with the Sudanese people and the Sudanese diaspora here in Canada to find and use the tools available to indeed help the people of this country complete the work they have started.
As I said earlier, there are a number of key lessons. We can see that there is a universal aspiration for freedom and democracy that exists regardless of place, time and cultural context. We also see that history matters, because the past shapes the kinds of interests and institutions that have to be managed as part of any transition. It will be up to the people of Sudan to figure out how to walk that road, how to struggle forward in the midst of all these challenges, to try to realize their just and right aspirations. However, those of us here in Canada have both an interest in that and a moral obligation to do what we can to help them along that path.
In the current situation, as violence has broken out between these two rival military organizations and as civilians are caught in the crossfire, Canada has taken steps to evacuate Canadian diplomatic staff and other Canadians who are present in this country. I look forward to hearing updates from the government during tonight's emergency debate about those efforts. This debate is important because it gives parliamentarians the opportunity to speak about these issues, but it also provides the government with the opportunity to give a necessary update to the House about the efforts that are under way. We will expect continuing updates from the government as these efforts unfold. We must continue to be engaged with the events in Sudan, but our staff obviously must be able to do so from a place of safety.
I want to clearly highlight for the government as well that we believe it has an obligation to support any locally engaged staff, to the greatest extent possible. Media reports last summer suggested that the Government of Canada did not properly inform locally engaged staff in Ukraine about the risks to them, even though those staff were likely at a much greater risk because of their work for Canada. In Afghanistan, Canada failed to effectively assist all of those who worked with Canadian troops, even though we should have had enough time to plan and prepare. In this case, of course, we acknowledge that Canada has had much less in the way of lead time, but we want to clearly underline that from our perspective, there is a critical importance for Canada to live up to its obligations to support and assist locally engaged staff.
In the time I have left, I want to highlight a number of related issues that I think are important for the attention of the House as well.
The first is the role of the Wagner Group. The Wagner Group is officially a Russian private military organization, but in effect, it is a tool of foreign policy for the Putin regime. We have seen how the Wagner Group has been used and involved in horrific atrocities in Ukraine, but perhaps less known is the Wagner Group's role in various contexts in Africa. The Wagner Group has been hired by various states in Africa to be involved in internal conflicts or suppression of militant groups or terrorist groups in those countries. However, in the process, the Wagner Group has itself been complicit in horrific atrocities in various African countries. This has, at the same time, involved the extension of the Russian government's influence in those contexts.
I am deeply concerned about the Wagner Group and the way it is responsible for not only horrific violence but also extending the geostrategic influence of the Russian government and broadening its reach in certain contexts.
It is important to note, therefore, that while the rest of the world is talking about how to support the Sudanese people and address the violence that is undermining the democratic aspirations of the Sudanese people, the Russian foreign minister is effectively trying to sell the services of the Wagner Group to various interests in these conflicts. He has come out with a statement saying that authorities have a right to use the services of the Wagner Group. This underlines, again, the horrific mentality we see from the Russian regime, but it should also underline for us the risks of the Wagner Group and the way it is both responsible for atrocities and involved in the potential extension of the Putin regime's influence in Africa and elsewhere.
Recognizing some of these risks, I am glad the foreign affairs committee is proceeding with a study on the actions of the Wagner Group. I also think it is important for the government to act on a unanimous motion that was passed in this House calling for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. All parties supported that. It was unanimous. Our party has also, directly in statements, called for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization, recognizing its involvement in the genocide in Ukraine and the role it is playing in various other contexts. We should be firm about recognizing that this is a terrorist group involved in terrorist activity. Part of what we can do to contribute to the movement toward peace and security not only in Sudan but also in other troubled contexts in the region is to list the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization.
Therefore, I want to use this opportunity as well, recognizing the statement of the Russian foreign minister, to say that the government should act swiftly to list the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. These will certainly be questions we will be emphasizing during the foreign affairs committee's study on the role of the Wagner Group.
I also want to say that, as the government thinks about various aspects of our foreign policy, I am hopeful to see the swift passage of Bill C-281, which is currently being debated at the foreign affairs committee. This bill would significantly strengthen the Government of Canada's obligations around responding to human rights issues. It would create, for instance, a parliamentary trigger whereby a committee could recommend that certain individuals be sanctioned, and the government would be obliged to respond to those recommendations. It also requires the government to provide an annual report to Parliament on its work advancing human rights. Tools like these, which strengthen accountability to Parliament around human rights issues, would be very useful for us as parliamentarians, as we would be able to drive the government to make a stronger response to human rights challenges around the world, in Sudan and elsewhere.
Finally, I want to use this opportunity to make the point that Canada should be strengthening its engagement with Africa. I see Africa, in general, as being critical to our future. If we look at this demographically, there is dramatic population growth in Africa while we are seeing population declines in other parts of the world. Africa has immense potential and a young population, and we should be engaging the various peoples of Africa to a greater extent. It seems to me that sometimes when we see these kinds of freedom and democracy movements happening in one continent versus another, they get less or more attention. I want to see all of us, not only parliamentarians but Canadian society in general, recognize the importance and potential of Africa and the universality of its aspirations to live in peace, freedom and democracy. We should strengthen our engagement with it.
The government recently released an Indo-Pacific strategy, and shortly thereafter a colleague and I wrote an op-ed emphasizing the need for the government to develop a strong Africa strategy that responds to its potential, recognizes the need for greater engagement and recognizes the efforts of hostile regimes to strengthen their engagement and influence in Africa, which underlines the importance of our engagement and presence there.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to thank you again for granting this emergency debate and for giving us the opportunity to talk about this important situation in Sudan and underline the fact that all of us should be deeply inspired by the heroic courage we have seen from people in countries like Sudan who are standing up and risking their lives to fight for their fundamental human rights, things that we in Canada often take for granted. The people in Sudan, Iran and other such contexts are risking their lives to fight for the recognition of their basic human dignity, their fundamental human rights. The least we can do is pay attention, engage and support them, in the short and long term, in that journey.
We need to hear from the government on what it is doing to respond to the immediate crisis and assist Canadians and others with connections to Canada, like locally engaged staff, in the midst of this crisis, and also, in a more long-term way, what it is doing to support the democratic aspirations, freedom movement and realization of the full aims of the revolution that was started in 2018. It may be a long road ahead, but we need to be there to stand with and support the people of Sudan.
3168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/23 10:20:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a keen scholar of human rights and geopolitics, and I always enjoy his speeches on those issues. I am also quite interested in progress in Africa and, like the member and all Canadians, am very dismayed by the crisis in Sudan and the great setbacks that country and the people of Sudan are experiencing right now.
I am proud our government has taken a keen interest in the economy, peace and humanitarian efforts in Africa. Our Prime Minister has been to Africa more times than any previous prime minister, I believe. I have been to Africa a number of times as well, on humanitarian trips, and it really does put a keen focus on why we do international development in this country. The main reason is that we can.
I ask the member what it is that is unique about the crisis in Sudan. We have seen crises similar to this one in other geopolitically unstable nations over the years. How is this one different? What are experts saying and what, from his perspective, is Canada's role in the coming days and weeks?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/23 10:21:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in a way, the member's question could open many different avenues for me to go down in response.
We need to think about what is particular to Sudan and we also need to think about the geopolitical context. We need to think about both of those things at the same time. What is particular to Sudan is, of course, the specific circumstances I outlined. There is the fact that there are two rival military organizations fighting each other at the same time as there are the aspirations of the democracy movement in Sudan wanting peace, freedom and democracy. The particular dynamic of the two militaries is particular to that context.
The wider situation is that there is Lavrov, and there are other hostile actors, looking at Sudan and trying to take advantage of the situation instead of trying to help and stand with the Sudanese people.
The great advantage we have as free democracies, when we are prepared to use it, is that we can always be on the side of the people. That is what we should be focused on, not fomenting conflicts or picking sides between leaders. What does it mean to be on the side of people whose aspirations are the same? They want to live in peace. They want to live in freedom. They want to see their fundamental dignity recognized.
Canada needs to be a player with a full spectrum of foreign policy tools: international development, human rights advocacy and a strong military as well. All these things are part of our capacity to be ready to respond when crises emerge.
269 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
